Woo vs. Harmon - Witness Debra Wong Yang

David C. Farmer, Successor-Trustee vs. Harmon

(Formerly Woo vs. Harmon & Nicholson vs. Harmon)

CV05-00030 DAE KSC

U.S. District Court For the District of Hawaii

Judges: David A. Ezra; Kevin S. Chang

—

DEFENDANT’S WITNESS

DEBRA WONG YANG

Address to be determined.

Debra Wong Yang is a former U.S. Attorney who resigned under suspicious circumstances.

~ ~ ~

May 4, 2007

The U.S. Attorney, the G.O.P. Congressman
and the Timely Job Offer

By ADAM COHEN, The New York Times

There is yet another United States attorney whose abrupt departure from office is raising questions: Debra Wong Yang of Los Angeles. Ms. Yang was not fired, as eight other prosecutors were, but she resigned under circumstances that raise serious questions, starting with whether she was pushed out to disrupt her investigation of one of the most powerful Republicans in Congress.

If the United States attorney scandal has made one thing clear, it is that the riskiest job in the Bush administration is being a prosecutor investigating a Republican member of Congress. Carol Lam, the United States attorney in San Diego, was fired after she put Randy Cunningham, known as Duke, in prison. Paul Charlton, in Arizona, was dismissed while he was investigating Rick Renzi. Dan Bogden, in Nevada, was fired while he was reportedly investigating Jim Gibbons, a congressman who was elected governor last year.

Ms. Yang was investigating Jerry Lewis, who was chairman of the powerful House Appropriations Committee. Ms. Lam and most of the other purged prosecutors were fired on Dec. 7. Ms. Yang, in a fortuitously timed exit, resigned in mid-October.

Ms. Yang says she left for personal reasons, but there is growing evidence that the White House was intent on removing her. Kyle Sampson, the Justice Department staff member in charge of the firings, told investigators last month in still-secret testimony that Harriet Miers, the White House counsel at the time, had asked him more than once about Ms. Yang. He testified, according to Congressional sources, that as late as mid-September, Ms. Miers wanted to know whether Ms. Yang could be made to resign. Mr. Sampson reportedly recalled that Ms. Miers was focused on just two United States attorneys: Ms. Yang and Bud Cummins, the Arkansas prosecutor who was later fired to make room for Tim Griffin, a Republican political operative and Karl Rove protégé.

It is hard to see what put Ms. Yang on the White House list other than her investigation of Mr. Lewis, which threatened to pull in well-connected lobbyists, military contractors and Republican contributors. Ms. Yang, by all accounts, had a strong record. Alberto Gonzales hailed her as “one of the most respected U.S. attorneys in the country.”

The new job that Ms. Yang landed raised more red flags. Press reports say she got a $1.5 million signing bonus to become a partner in Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, a firm with strong Republican ties. She was hired to be co-leader of the Crisis Management Practice Group with Theodore Olson, who was President Bush’s solicitor general and his Supreme Court lawyer in Bush v. Gore. Gibson, Dunn was defending Mr. Lewis in Ms. Yang’s investigation.

Several issues bear investigating. First, did Ms. Yang know or suspect that she might lose her job, and jump ship to avoid being fired? That is not hard to believe because Ms. Miers and Mr. Sampson were exchanging e-mail about dismissing her in mid-September, and she announced her departure in October. Ms. Yang served on the Attorney General’s Advisory Committee, which Mr. Gonzales has called “a small group of U.S. attorneys that I consult on policy matters.” That may have put her in a position to be tipped off in advance.

A second possibility is that Gibson, Dunn dangled a rich financial package before Ms. Yang to get her out, and to disrupt the investigation of Mr. Lewis. Ms. Yang, who says she left her job purely for personal reasons, may not have known she was being lured away by people with close ties to Mr. Lewis and the White House, who were hoping to replace her with a more partisan prosecutor.

Another possibility is that the timing of her departure was coincidental. That would make her lucky indeed: after more than 15 years of working for government, she decided to take a private sector job precisely when the White House counsel was apparently trying to fire her.

It is impossible to know how much of a setback Ms. Yang’s departure was to the investigation of Mr. Lewis. It could be that it slowed down after she left. It could also be that it is going forward just as it would have had she stayed. If it has not been affected, that could be because the close attention Congress and the press are paying to United States attorneys has prevented the White House from installing a “loyal Bushie,” in Mr. Sampson’s famous phrase.

United States attorneys serve, as the White House likes to point out, at the pleasure of the president. But if Ms. Yang, or any of the others, was pushed out to prevent justice from being done in a pending criminal matter, it would be a serious misuse of executive authority. It could also be obstruction of justice.

Congress is conducting closed-door interviews with Justice Department officials. That is important, but hardly enough. It is looking more and more as if the United States attorney dismissals were managed out of the White House. The way to put to rest the questions about Ms. Yang’s suspicious departure, and the firings of the other prosecutors, is to require that Ms. Miers, Mr. Rove and other White House officials tell what they know, in public and under oath.

~ ~ ~

July 9, 2007

Bush uses privilege to deny ex-aides’ testimony

White House-Congress showdown escalates
over attorney firing subpoenas

Associated Press, MSNBC

WASHINGTON - President Bush invoked executive privilege Monday to deny requests by Congress for testimony from two former aides about the firings of federal prosecutors.

The White House, however, did offer again to make former counsel Harriet Miers and one-time political director Sara Taylor available for private, off-the-record interviews.

In a letter to the heads of the House and Senate Judiciary panels, White House counsel Fred Fielding insisted that Bush was acting in good faith and refused lawmakers’ demand that the president explain the basis for invoking the privilege.

“You may be assured that the president’s assertion here comports with prior practices in similar contexts, and that it has been appropriately documented,” the letter said.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers offered a stinging response. “Contrary what the White House may believe, it is the Congress and the courts that will decide whether an invocation of executive privilege is valid, not the White House unilaterally,” the Michigan Democrat said in a statement.

The exchange Monday was the latest step in a slow-motion legal waltz between the White House and lawmakers toward eventual contempt-of-Congress citations. If neither side yields, the matter could land in federal court.

'Prejudged the question'

Fielding was responding to a 10 a.m. EDT deadline set by the Democratic chairmen, Conyers and Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, for the White House to explain it’s privilege claim, prove that the president personally invoked it and provide logs of which documents were being withheld.

As expected, Fielding refused to comply. He said he was acting at Bush’s direction, and he complained that the committees had decided to enforce the subpoenas whether or not the White House complied.

“The committees have already prejudged the question, regardless of the production of any privilege log,” Fielding wrote. “In such circumstances, we will not be undertaking such a project, even as a further accommodation.”

Leahy also questioned the explanation.

“I have to wonder if the White House’s refusal to provide a detailed basis for this executive privilege claim has more to do with its inability to craft an effective one,” he said in a statement.

The privilege claim on testimony by former aides won’t necessarily prevent them from appearing under oath this week, as scheduled.

Leahy said that Taylor, Bush’s former political director, may testify as scheduled before the Senate panel on Wednesday. The House Judiciary Committee scheduled Miers’ testimony for Thursday, but it was unclear whether she would appear, according to congressional aides speaking on condition of anonymity because negotiations were under way.

One of many investigations

The probe into the U.S. attorney firings was only one of several Democratic-led investigations of the White House and its use of executive power spanning the war in Iraq, Bush’s secretive wiretapping program and his commutation last week of I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby’s prison sentence.

Fielding’s letter welcomed lawmakers back to town with a clear indication that relations between Congress and the White House had soured during the break.

Bush’s counsel cloaked his tough rejoinder to the Democratic committee chairmen in gentlemanly language, but his message was unequivocal: the White House won’t back down, and believes the congressional legal argument to be far weaker than its own and its attitude less appealing.

Fielding dismissed the chairmen’s attempt to “direct” the White House to provide the legal underpinning of Bush’s executive privilege claims and a detailed listing of the documents he is withholding. He said the White House already has provided its legal argument and so does not need to do so again — and won’t.

“We are aware of no authority by which a congressional committee may ‘direct’ the Executive to undertake the task of creating and providing an extensive description of every document covered by an assertion of Executive Privilege,” he wrote. Fielding suggested that asserting executive privilege on the testimony comes as a result of this impasse and the lack of good faith it demonstrates on the part of Congress.

'Good faith' assertion?

More broadly, Fielding suggested that the congressional inquiry into the entire matter of the U.S. attorneys’ dismissals has no constitutional basis, in large part because the president has sole authority to hire and fire federal prosecutors.

“Although we each speak on behalf of different branches of government, and perhaps for that reason cannot help having different perspectives on the matter, it is hoped you will agree, upon further reflection, that it is incorrect to say that the President’s assertion of executive privilege was performed without ‘good faith,’ “ Fielding’s letter said.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19675580/

~ ~ ~

From the United States Department of Justice Website: www.usdoj.gov:

MISSION STATEMENT

To enforce the law and defend the interests of the United States according to the law; to ensure public safety against threats foreign and domestic; to provide federal leadership in preventing and controlling crime; to seek just punishment for those guilty of unlawful behavior; and to ensure fair and impartial administration of justice for all Americans.

~ ~ ~

Debra Wong Yang is expected to testify regarding his business, professional, and personal relationships with Alberto Gonzales, Linda Lingle, Mark Bennett, Earl Anzai, Hugh Jones, Ralph Boyd, Jim Nicholson, James Nicholson, Jack Abramoff, Karl Rove, Henry Paulson, Tom DeLay, Richard Rainwater, James Ahloy, Aloha Petroleum, Harken Energy, Chevron-Texaco, Gale Norton, The Nature Conservancy, Faye Kurren, Judge Barry Kurren, Tesoro Petroleum, Quintana Petroleum, Helen Cullen, Michael McKenzie, Dennis Hastert, Mark Foley, Duke Cunningham, Leonard Millman, Stewart Webb, Norman Brownstein, Larry Mizel, Dan Inouye, Daniel Akaka, Mitch McConnell, Elaine Chao, John Peyton, Dubai Ports World, American International Group (AIG), John O’Neill, Scooter Libby, Bill Frist, John Ashcroft, Donald Hodel, Carol Muranaka, Curtis Ching, Gayle Lau, John Marshall, Roger Stillwell, Steven Griles, David Farmer, James Duca, Fred Black, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, Mitch Gilbert, William Simon, HonFed Savings & Loan, Bank of America, Investors Equity Insurance Co., SOCAL Holdings, Inc.; Donna Tanoue; Bank of Hawaii; Walter Dods; First Hawaiian Bank; Constance Lau; Robert Kihune; Gilbert Tam, and others to be named upon discovery.