Politics

And Now, In This Week's Installment Of AttorneyGate

MayorBob.

Posted to Politics on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 09:40:27 AM EST (promoted by port1080). RSS.

There are two ways of looking at the postponement of US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' testimony before Congress about the AttorneyGate affair.  One is that it gives Gonzales an opportunity to get his ducks in a row so he can give the performance which saves his job.  The other is that it gives the bloodhounds in Congress some extra time to issue enough hunting licenses to have those aligned ducks shot out of the water.  Taking everything into consideration it looks like the smart money is being placed on the latter perspective.

It was bad enough that Kyle Sampson, former aide to Gonzales, told Senate staffers that not only had Gonzales discussed the firings of the eight US Attorneys with him, Gonzales had discussed one in particular -- David Iglesias -- with President Bush back in October.  Sensing that they might be onto something really big the Senate began making moves to offer immunity to former Gonzales aide Monica Goodling, a person who previously had taken the Fifth rather than testify at a committee hearing.  Gonzales says he has a "foggy memory" of the discussion with Bush about Iglesias and White House deputy press secretary Dana Perino says the memory banks at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue are likewise clogged about this issue.

Gonzales is scheduled to testify on April 19th and the smart money ought to be on a lot of the questions arising from things Sampson told Senate staffers over the weekend.  With Goodling's testimony being almost a certainty, the Attorney General faces the possibility of whatever he says on the 19th being rebutted by what Goodling says later.

Added to this is the still unanswered questions of how many of some 5 million missing emails on Republican Party servers contained information regarding the fate of the fired US Attorneys.  According to Perino, the only reason people are upset is because Karl Rove is involved, "any time Karl Rove's name is mentioned, it adds to the ammunition, regardless of merit."  That may be, but Senate staffers would still like some forensic work to be done to try to recover them.  Recent public opinion of the matter reveals dissatisfaction with the way the White House and Gonzales have handled things, a growing consensus that Gonzales should go, and great satisfaction with the way Congress has handled the matter.

Tags: edited by Port1080, written by MayorBob, Alberto Gonzales, AttorneyGate, US Attorney firings, Karl Rove, White House emails (all tags)

This story: 8 comments (0 from subqueue)
Post a Comment
1

Gonzales is in deep political doodoo.

MayorBob.

Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 06:12:31 PM EST

none

I heard a bit of the hearings today and he took a pounding.  Well, he didn't help his case any by alternating claims he played "a minor role" in the whole thing with assertions he had no recollection of reports, meetings, and decisions that were made.  In short, he didn't convince any of the Democrats on the panel and if he was expecting cover from Republicans he didn't get any.  Senator (and presidential aspirant) Brownback from Kansas was probably as close to a friend as he had all day.  But when Brownback had Gonzales slowly recite his recollection of events, the AG admitted he didn't have a clue why two of the attorneys got the ax.

The thing that tells me Gonzales' days are soon to be over as AG came when NPR was interviewing Senator Jeff Sessions from Alabama.  Sessions, who is nothing if not a rockribbed Republican and a defender of just about every shitty thing Bush has done was amazingly lukewarm, if not ice cold, in his appraisal of where Gonzales stood.  Sessions said he was troubled that Gonzales told him he had no recollection of the meeting last November when the final decision was made to fire the eight attorneys.  Sessions was asked if he thought Gonzales should stay on.  Sessions said something to the effect that Gonzales should go back to the Justice Department and "take a long time thinking what he should do."  Not what you would call a vote in favor of him staying on.

Illegitimi non carborundum.

2

^ 1

Re: Gonzales is in deep political doodoo.

joshv.

Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 08:53:09 AM EST

none

I was singularly unimpressed with his performance - though it was about what I had expected.  He couldn't perjure himself, and he didn't appear willing to take the 5th -- that left only one option - an exceptionally foggy memory.  

It's clear that A.G A.G has become a massive political liability.  I know Bush has a reputation for standing by his (wo)men, but things can only get worse for Gonzales as more evidence comes to light - for Bush, there is no possible upside.  It's time to let Gonzales go.

3

I don't get it

nmiguy.

Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 11:14:01 AM EST

none

Why all the hoopla over the fired attorneys anyway?  I mean, if it was political or not, presidents and AG's have fired attorneys fro whatever reason for as long as anyone can remember.  

I mean, THIS is the big scandal?  WTF?  What a waste of energy and indignant outrage.  A waste of resources trying to run the AG out of his job.  Is the Justice department so mismanaged that the Democrats will oust the AG and force a new guy to step in for what a few months before the next president steps in and appoints another new guy?  It makes so little sense.  And the ousted attorneys in question, yeah they may feel slighted, but lets not confuse them with being allies to the Democrats.  

There are things that we the people should be concerned about.  Lost emails, and abuses of power.  But it just seems blatantly clear that "attorneygate" is really just to rake up muck for the upcoming presidential election, trying to add another factor in the election next year.  Really, who should care about Gonzalez?  He'll be gone next year one way or another, can't Congress use this time better working out a compromise with Bush on the spending bill?  

4

^ 3

Re: I don't get it

jwb.

Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 04:43:26 PM EST

5.00 (astute)

If you ask me, this is the big scandal of the Bush administration.  They use the apparatus of justice to prosecute their opponents in the Democratic Party and intentionally suppress voter turnout in black communities.  How can you get a bigger scandal than that?

7

^ 3

It's not the crime, it's the cover up

logan.

Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 01:09:59 PM EST

5.00 (astute, astute, astute)

The issue isn't the firing of the attorneys. No one disputes that the President has the right to fire any US Attorney for any reason or for no reason at all. The issue is that several Bush Administration officials lied about the reasons why. All of the attorneys were willing to go quietly until their reputations were attacked in a series of lame poorly-executed attempts to retroactively justify the firings. Remember, all 93 attorneys were appointed by George W. Bush. None of them were holdovers from the Clinton administration.

New Mexico's David Iglesias, for instance, had a sterling reputation. He's a Captain in the US Naval Reserve, he was an adviser to former AG John Ashcroft on Homeland Secrity, he trained other federal prosecutors, and has received glowing performance reviews throughout his career. Even after he was fired he was given the go-ahead to use AG Alberto Gonzalas as a reference. Suddenly, Iglesias got a phone call out of the blue from a Republican Senator asking him to push an investigation of a Democrat in order to get an indictment before the November election. He refused, as he should. He didn't report the call, which was wrong, but understandable. A man looking to have a career in government sometimes has to let things go.

One week later, David Iglesias was fired. He was content to go. It sucked, but these things happen. With a resume like his there was no question that he'd be able to find a new position in short order. After all, he'd run for New Mexico Attorney General in 1998 and almost won. A guy like that isn't going to have to start running personal injury commercials on channel 149 at 3 am to pay the rent.

This is where things get sleazy. In an effort to justify the firings, a wide range of reasons were cited by the Justice Department. It was claimed that he was an absentee landlord who was never in the office, failing to note that the 6 weeks a year he took off were to serve in the US Naval Reserve. It was claimed that he wasn't sufficiently aggressive in prosecuting voter fraud, the reality being that of over 100 complaints he found only one case worth pursuing.

Bush Administration officials just couldn't get their story straight on the firings, leaving journalists to uncover the real reasons. What they found was a long string of memos and conversations between various officials trying to come up with a reason retroactively. When pressed, US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, the highest-ranking law enforcement official in America just plain lied. He claimed he wasn't involved in the process, he claimed the attorneys simply lost his confidence but couldn't say why or when, he claimed that loyalty to the Bush Administration was never considered a factor. All these things, some claimed under oath, are provable false, the documentation archived here.

The issue isn't the firings themselves, but the Bush administration's willingness to impose politics on the cases prosecuted by the Justice Department and to lie to the American people about it. Remember, this is the administration that promised "to restore honor and dignity to the White House".  It sounds like a bad joke now, especially with the Attorney General openly committing perjury. It's if the Bush administration was so used to Congress simply rolling over for them that it never occurred to them that they'd need a cover story. Considering that AG Alberto Gonzales first started work on the plan in January 2005 (right after Bush's re-election) that may have been the case.

In these cynical times it's easy to forget that it wasn't so long ago that we assumed that the President would be straight with the American people. It was assumed that the Attorney General would not lie under oath. There was a time when an President's staff members went before Congress to set the record straight and victory was a matter of proven their innocence. With the Bush administration the bar is set so low that escaping indictment through technicalities and destroying evidence is considered victory.

Ask yourself this: do you honestly believe that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales was honest and forthcoming in his testimony? If so, Josh Marshall over at Talking Points Memo (the one who we can credit with starting the investigation) has a lovely archive of video of Gonzo's testimony. If you don't believe that Gonzales was honest in his sworn testimony, then explain to me why the American people should continue to employ him as a law enforcement official. The Attorney General is supposed to enforce the law, not evade the law. If we can't trust him, why should we trust anyone?

-=Logan
Research, facts, a Republican needs not these things.

8

^ 7

Re: It's not the crime, it's the cover up

nmiguy.

Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 09:25:17 AM EST

none

Thanks Logan.  Your explanation sums it up for me well.  With the many questionable tactics by the Bush administration, it was puzzling to me that THIS is the big scandal, attorneys being fired at the whim of the president is entirely legal, and common.  But it is th back story of why, that has led to the real scandal.  Rather than being truthful and admit that the attorneys were fired for not prosecuting Democrats, Gonzalez lied.  The cover up is worse than the crime.  The political pressure on the attorneys was wrong too.  They should be enforcing the law without looking to see if the accused is a democrat or republican.  The pressure to indict democrats is entirely counter to teh concept of Justice in America.  Justice does NOT play politics.  

5

^ 3

I know. Such a smorgasbord, and they chose rolls!

permazorch.

Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 04:59:14 PM EST

none

With all the scandalous behavior to choose from during these two terms of #43, you'd there'd be a gun more smoking, wouldn't you?

But you see, this is the straw finale, where politics was traditionally played second to justice (at least in the eyes or mouths of all who have gone before, Democrat & Republican). This particular abuse of power is just gross enough, and hot enough, to give growlers like Ted Kennedy a corner of a towel to bite on (and shake), like playfully angry dogs enjoy doing every time.

----- I, for one, renounce our insect overlords!

6

^ 3

Re: I don't get it

thefadd.

Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 07:06:14 PM EST

none

Well, the Dept of Justice misled Congress and I think that where their outrage comes from. It's one thing to be misled by a theoretical equal in the President, it's another to be misled by a minister.

It's also the first scandal that has hit with the Dems actually in power.

make it rain you nappy headed ho's

This story: 8 comments (0 from subqueue)
Post a Comment