« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Gonzales: I'm "Dismayed"
We just watched Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' press conference here. The gist: Gonzales said that he accepts responsibility for the "mistakes" made at the Justice Department... but argued that he is not "aware" of "all decisions" at the Justice Department.
He said that his chief of staff Kyle Sampson, now resigned, headed up the process for replacing the U.S. attorneys, and that Gonzales himself was "not involved in seeing any memos" or "any discussion of what was going on."
He professed to be "dismayed" that Justice Department officials had given false information to Congress, but blamed the problem on information not being "adquately shared within the Justice Department."
But no worry --- he'll get to the bottom of it all. Like any CEO would, he said, he'll make every effort to "assess accountability."
We'll put up a clip from the conference soon.
Update: An earlier version of this post incorrectly read, "was 'involved in seeing any memos" or "any discussion of what was going on.'"
Update: Some video:
Update: And a full transcript is below.
Official transcript:
ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: Let me give you some core principles, some things that I believe in. One, I believe in the independence of our U.S. Attorneys. They are the face of the Department. They are my representative in the community. I acknowledge their sacrifice. I acknowledge their courage to step into the arena on behalf of the American people.Secondly, the Attorney General, all political appointees, such as U.S. Attorneys, serve at the pleasure of the President of the United States.
Third, I believe fundamentally in the constitutional role of the Senate in advice and consent with respect to U.S. Attorneys and would, in no way, support an effort to circumvent that constitutional role.
I believe in accountability. Like every CEO of every major organization, I am responsible for what happens at the Department of Justice. I acknowledge that mistakes were made here. I accept that responsibility and my pledge to the American people is to find out what went wrong here, to assess accountability, and to make improvements so that the mistakes in this instance do not occur again in the future.
Finally, let me just say one thing: I've overcome a lot of obstacles in my life to become Attorney General. I am here not because I give up. I am here because I've learned from my mistakes, because I accept responsibility, and because I am committed to doing my job. And that is what I intend to do here on behalf of the American people.
With that I'll take your questions.
QUESTION: Mr. Attorney General, can you explain what the White House role is specifically when your successor, Harriet Miers, suggested that perhaps all U.S. attorneys should be changed over. Is that the seed that started all of this? How does that connect to the actual termination of --
ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: As we can all imagine in an organization of 110,000 people, I am not aware of every bit of information that passes through the halls of the Department of Justice, nor am I aware of all decisions. As a general matter, some two years ago, I was made aware of a request from the White House as to the possibility of replacing all the United States Attorneys. That was immediately rejected by me. I felt that that was a bad idea and it was disruptive.
QUESTION: (Off mic.)
ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: What I know is that there began a process of evaluating strong performers, not-as-strong performers, and weak performers. And so far as I knew my chief of staff was involved in the process of determining who were the weak performers. Where were the districts around the country where we could do better for the people in that district, and that's what I knew. But again, with respect to this whole process, like every CEO, I am ultimately accountable and responsible for what happens within the department. But that is in essence what I knew about the process; was not involved in seeing any memos, was not involved in any discussions about what was going on. That's basically what I knew as the Attorney General.
QUESTION: Were there any discussions between you and the White House regarding you stepping down or Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty stepping down, and with regard to the Chief of Staff Kyle Sampson, is he still here at the Justice Department working?
ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: Kyle Sampson has resigned. I accepted his resignation yesterday as chief of staff. As a technical matter he is still at the department as he transitions out and looks for other employment.
With respect to the first part of your question, I work for the American people. I serve with the pleasure of the President of the United States. I will say in doing my job it is easier to have the confidence of members of the Congress and I will continue to do the very best that I can to maintain that confidence and that's what I intend to do: continue to do my job on behalf of the American people, ascertain what happened here, and assess accountability and take corrective actions.
Obviously I am concerned about the fact that information, incomplete information, was communicated or may have been communicated to the Congress. I believe very strongly in our obligation to ensure that when we provide information to the Congress, it is accurate and that it is complete and I am very dismayed that that may not have occurred here.
QUESTION: How could your chief of staff be working closely with the President on which U.S. attorneys to be let go and you not know the specifics?
ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: Well, again, as -- I accept responsibility for everything that happens here within this department. But when you have 110,000 people working in the department obviously there are going to be decisions that I'm not aware of in real time. Many decisions are delegated. We have people who were confirmed by the Senate who, by statute, have been delegated authority to make decisions.
Mr. Sampson was charged with directing the process to ascertain who were weak performers, where we could do better in districts around the country. That is a responsibility that he had during the transition. We worked with respect to U.S. attorneys and presidential personnel at the White House. That was the role that he had when he was in the counsel's office. That was the role that he had when he was at the Department of Justice under General Ashcroft and so naturally when questions came up with respect to the evaluation of performances of U.S. Attorneys it would be Kyle Sampson who would drive that effort.
Yes, ma'am?
QUESTION: With all due respect, your -- the sense of being a CEO sounds a little bit like Ken Lay, that he was so detached from the day to day operations. How can you make that statement given the fact that you spend an enormous time at the White House and your chief of staff reports to you and spends, you know, all day with you?
ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: Again, I accept responsibility for what happened here and I regret the fact that information was inadequately shared with individuals within the department of Justice and that consequently information was shared with the Congress that was incomplete. But the charge for the chief of staff here was to drive this process and the mistake that occurred here was that information that he had was not shared with individuals within the department who was then going to be providing testimony and information to the Congress.
QUESTION: (Off mic.)
ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: I just described for Pete the extent of my -- of the knowledge that I had about the process. I never saw documents. We never had a discussion about where things stood. What I knew was that there was ongoing effort that was led by Mr. Sampson, vetted through the Department of Justice, to ascertain where we could make improvements in U.S. attorney performances around the country.
Yes?
QUESTION: -- information. What mistakes were made at the Department of Justice and specifically was there a mistake made in in considering the political performance of U.S. attorneys in evaluating them:
ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: Well let me just say that one of the things that we discovered that we do not have, in my judgment, an adequate system of communication with our U.S. Attorneys around the country. When these U.S. Attorneys were advised that changes were going to be made, quite frankly they should have been told why those changes were being made, and I regret that that didn't happen. That should have happened in this particular case.
Yes?
QUESTION: -- Mr. Sampson drew up his list and are you now feeling like maybe they were removed without cause and that maybe it was an unfair removal since you were not aware of -- you're saying now you were not aware of the details of why he drew up this list?
ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: I stand by the decision. Again, all political appointees can be removed by the President of the United States for any reason. I stand by the decision and I think it was the right decision. Thank you very much.
Comments (107)
NCProsecutor wrote on March 13, 2007 2:48 PM:The idea that this was simply mishandled by his COS is preposterous. Congress needs to be on this like white on rice.
mitch wrote on March 13, 2007 2:48 PM:(He professed to be "dismayed" that Justice Department officials had given false information to Congress, but blamed the problem on information not being "adquately shared within the Justice Department)
Uh, isn't he in charge of the justice deparment?
Peter Principle wrote on March 13, 2007 2:49 PM:I think we should call him "Scooter" Sampson.
Arkansan wrote on March 13, 2007 2:49 PM:Why did he bother? By sticking to the “firings were performance related” line, he’ll only infuriate congress more. It’s not likely, but it is possible, that if he makes them angry enough they’ll do something more then hold hearings.
He would have been better off just remaining silent.
Can someone please explain what advantage he hoped to derive from that spectacle?
john Akin wrote on March 13, 2007 2:49 PM:He said that his chief of staff Kyle Sampson, now resigned, headed up the process for replacing the U.S. attorneys, and that Gonzales himself was "involved in seeing any memos" or "any discussion of what was going on."
As much as I would like to believe otherwise, I'm pretty sure the word 'not' should be in there somewhere.
carsick wrote on March 13, 2007 2:49 PM:Does anyone in this administration still deserve "Trust us Justice"? Their credibility is past flagging. It's
ts wrote on March 13, 2007 2:50 PM:He said that his chief of staff Kyle Sampson, now resigned, headed up the process for replacing the U.S. attorneys, and that Gonzales himself was "involved in seeing any memos" or "any discussion of what was going on."
Shouldn't that be "wasn't involved"?
lestatdelc wrote on March 13, 2007 2:51 PM:Edwards Becomes First Prez Candidate To Call On Gonzales To Resign
"Today's news is only the latest and most disturbing sign of the politicization of justice under President Bush. From the abuse of investigative authority under the Patriot Act to the unconstitutional imprisonment of the Guantanamo Bay detainees and illegal torture of prisoners at Abu Ghraib and Bagram Air Force Base, this president has consistently shown contempt for the rule of law.
"Attorney General Alberto Gonzales betrayed his public trust by playing politics when his job is to enforce and uphold the law. By violating that trust, he's done a great disservice to his office. If White House officials ordered this purge, he should have refused them. If they insisted, he should have resigned in protest. Attorney General Gonzales should certainly resign now."
Security code: nail
varney wrote on March 13, 2007 2:51 PM:Do you mean:
owenz wrote on March 13, 2007 2:51 PM:...and that Gonzales himself was NOT "involved in seeing any memos" or "any discussion of what was going on."
instead of:
...and that Gonzales himself was "involved in seeing any memos" or "any discussion of what was going on."
Fascinating. I could almost here the sound of the bus rumbling over Sampson's limp, lifeless body.
The sole purpose of this press conference was for Gonzales to establish that he did not perjure himself in front of Congress. He claims that he did not see any documents, participate in any discussions. Ok, that's his story. It's the job of the press and Congress to check it out.
He seemed scared and nervous up there.
oppositionradio wrote on March 13, 2007 2:52 PM:is anyone going to unearth Duncan Hunters role in the firing of Kimberly Lam?
EH wrote on March 13, 2007 2:52 PM:Talking points and firewalling. He left when it became apparent that he had used all the points up twice and was going to look silly(er).
And what's up with the CEO crack? Is that a code word for something?
john o. wrote on March 13, 2007 2:53 PM:It's like W's father claiming he was out of the loop on the Iran/contra debacle. It's complete nonsense, but if you give him the benefit of the doubt, he's grossly uninformed about what is going on in his own department at the request of the white house. Most likely it's all a pack of lies and yet more evidence of the complete contempt with which the administration regards the press and public. For shame!
Merlin wrote on March 13, 2007 2:53 PM:Don't worry he can explain it all in an exclusive interview with FOX news.
troqua wrote on March 13, 2007 2:53 PM:First Scooter, now Sampson. Chiefs of staff run amok!
If this was supposed to be the firewall in advance of Congressional inquiries, I think it just made things worse. There are now even more questions. It's really worthwhile to read the DOJ memos and emails released today.
owenz wrote on March 13, 2007 2:53 PM:Dear Mr. Sampson,
Your boss is throwing you under the bus. He is blaming you and you alone. Are you going to take a bullet for him, like Scooter Libby? Or are you going to defend your good name and explain to the American people that you were following orders?
Just wondering.
Thanks,
rube wrote on March 13, 2007 2:53 PM:owenz
I like how they act that "not knowing" is somehow an excuse. Two possibilities exist, either he knew or he didn't. If he knew, he should be impeached for breaking the law and lying to Congress; if he didn't know, then he should be impeached for incompetence. As Att Gen, it is his JOB to know what's going on. And frankly, it strains logic and belief to think that he didn't have input into such an important decision.
Curveball wrote on March 13, 2007 2:55 PM:Apparently the Bush Admin doesn't want to be seen as cutting and running in all this. So they want Gonzalez to stay around a while for the slow bleed. But they also seem to a very low count of platelets.
ccinnc wrote on March 13, 2007 2:56 PM:As Rove might soon say, "He's gone."
He can't win. Either he knows nothing (and therefore shouldn't be running the DOJ) or he knows everything (and is completely corrupt). Kyle, whaddya say?
Noam Sane wrote on March 13, 2007 2:56 PM:...and that Gonzales himself was "involved in seeing any memos" or "any discussion of what was going on."
I trust you meant to type 'was not'.
TheraP wrote on March 13, 2007 2:57 PM:EH
Could it be CEO of the Dept of "just-us?"
Legalize wrote on March 13, 2007 2:57 PM:Abu just fell on his sword, by effectively declaring that he had no idea this sort of thing was going on in his DOJ. Well, gee, Abu, you are either a liar or utterly incompetent, or both.
Have a nice time with your disbarment proceedings.
Lemuel wrote on March 13, 2007 2:57 PM:So Gonzales' top aid was taking requests from Karl Rove, Harriet Miers and others at the White House and making them happen in the Justice department without Gonzalez' knowledge? Can we get him to say this under oath, and then see what Miers and Sampson and Rove say?
Robert Earle wrote on March 13, 2007 2:57 PM:If the point of that was to quell the storm, I'd say it was somewhat less then successful. What a train-wreck.
FS wrote on March 13, 2007 2:58 PM:It's ironic that Gonzales is shifting blame to his chief of staff. Wasn't the "official" complaint about one of the fired attorneys that he had shifted management responsibilities to a lower level attorney?
Richard Cownie wrote on March 13, 2007 2:58 PM:Good. If Gonzo had quit, it might have ended there.
But with him hanging on for a week or two, the
investigation and the press interest will continue,
giving more publicity to the further revelations
about Rove and Bush's involvement.
My bet is that Gonzo and Rove will both be forced
lectric lady wrote on March 13, 2007 2:58 PM:out within a couple of weeks, and Bush will be
even further damaged, forced back to the Reagan
defense of "I don't remember anything and no-one
ever tells me what my administration is doing".
Impeachment isn't going to happen, but he's
going to establish a new record for lameness.
Sampson was "Scootered"
roooth wrote on March 13, 2007 2:59 PM:If he's that dismayed, how long will it take him to give the fired attys. their jobs back?
These guys always claim ignorance, ala Condi's infamous, "nobody ever thought they'd fly planes into buildings" BS. Then they claim remorse and promise to do better. Then they do nothing.
How about a simple do-over?
Give the fired attys. their jobs back.
RB-Chicago wrote on March 13, 2007 3:02 PM:I believe that Legalize hit it right on the nose....HE'S BOTH - LIAR AND INCOMPETENT.
Artie wrote on March 13, 2007 3:03 PM:What a coward.
Anonymous wrote on March 13, 2007 3:03 PM:I watched the presser. He made it sound like he had no knowledge of the list of USAs being fired or the reasons for their ouster. Very difficult to believe an Attorney General wouldn't personally review such a decision.
bob wrote on March 13, 2007 3:03 PM:A chief of staff is an executive's right arm. A CoS doesn't make decisions independently of his boss. He may interpret,/i> his boss's wishes as applied to a given set of real-world circumstances, but he never strays appreciably from the path his boss has personally chosen for the division. People who call or are shunted into his office must absolutely be able to depend on one thing: What the CoS says is as authoritative as if it came directly from the boss's lips.
In other words, Gonzales can't shirk accountability for his own chief of staff's words and deeds.
owenz wrote on March 13, 2007 3:03 PM:Get ready for the rightwing push-back, folks. The wingnuts will argue: (1) it is not illegal for the White House to pressure U.S. attorneys to focus on certain crimes; (2) U.S. attorneys are political appointees and it is therefore okay to fire them; (3) there is nothing wrong with asking political appointees to support Administration policies and requests.
It is a rediculous argument, of course, but unless some laws were broken, the D.C. media and political elites will buy it. They respect raw demonstrations of authoratarian powers and only draw the line at indictable offenses.
MK wrote on March 13, 2007 3:03 PM:----------
he accepts responsibility for the "mistakes" made at the Justice Department... he'll make every effort to "assess accountability."
----------
Does the first sentence logically require that the second sentence has already happened, and arrived at himself?
Bearpaw wrote on March 13, 2007 3:05 PM:Gonzales: "I'm responsible, but it's not my fault."
Jim wrote on March 13, 2007 3:06 PM:Dick Cheney's Chief of Staff blew Valerie Plame's CIA cover without the knowledge or approval of his boss, Denny Hastert's Chief of Staff didn't tell his boss about Scott Foley's predilection for young pages, and now Alberto Gonzalez's Chief of Staff purged US Attorneys without his boss's knowledge or approval and may even have tricked his boss into accidentally perjuring himself in front of Congress.
It's just dawned on me that the Bush Administration has a serious, systemic crisis concerning out-of-control Chiefs of Staff. They're just running wild!
Paul Rosenberg wrote on March 13, 2007 3:07 PM:All The Young Men Are Named 'Scooter'
It's because of how quickly they scoot, when their bosses need them to leave.
squirm wrote on March 13, 2007 3:07 PM:Legalize: "Abu just fell on his sword"
Agreed. You can almost see Rove slipping the "kick me" sign over Abu's neck.
Ralf wrote on March 13, 2007 3:07 PM:How can he claim ignorance if items from the document dump(s) show otherwise?
Thread Theorist wrote on March 13, 2007 3:07 PM:Gonzales is going to get to the bottom of the US attorneys purge? Mr. Gonzales, you are already at the bottom of this scandal. Counting on you to investigate this scandal would be the same as counting on Dick Cheney to investigate the exposure of Valerie Plame's covert identity. You would know all the facts, but would be reluctant to admit them into evidence. The dimensions of this scandal will not be fully known until there is a special prosecutor put on the case. I understand that Patrick Fitzgerald has just finished a major case and could be available.
melior wrote on March 13, 2007 3:09 PM:The lying to Congress part, so that was a "mistake" too?
I think Feinstein and Leahy might want that part explained to them a little more clearly, Albert.
kentuck wrote on March 13, 2007 3:10 PM:Since when did Gonzales take responsibility for anything?? He is covering for someone else. Wonder who that could be??
Did anyone ask him what "mistakes" he thought were made? Knowing the history of this Administration, this is either a diversion or a cover-up of a bigger story? The only time Gonzales would ever take "responsibility" is when his "boss" was threatened by the charges. Bet on it.
Anonymous wrote on March 13, 2007 3:11 PM:Does he include his own scrungy ass in there. He lied to Congress too. And like his boss, "the coward", he SAYS he takes reponsibility, when nothing of the kind is true.
"He professed to be "dismayed" that Justice Department officials had given false information to Congress, but blamed the problem on information not being "adquately shared within the Justice Department."
Raging Moderate wrote on March 13, 2007 3:13 PM:Please remind me again -- Sampson was Chief of WHOSE Staff?
bubba wrote on March 13, 2007 3:14 PM:Thank you very much.
The document dump doesn't appear to contain Abu's email records. Until Abu produces to Congress all of his email records for the relevant time period (including all sent and received, whether or not received as the direct recipient, as a CC or as a bcc) together with any log of phone calls he or his office has, Congress should just keep bitch slapping Abu some more. And even if he turns this stuff over or resigns, regardless of which, Congress will then need to proceed to prosecute Abu and his toadies for lying to Congress. The GOP needs a real good bitch slapping to let them know that the years of their lying to Congress will have significant consequences.
Lemuel wrote on March 13, 2007 3:14 PM:> The wingnuts will argue: (1) it is not illegal for the White House to pressure U.S. attorneys to focus on certain crimes; (2) U.S. attorneys are political appointees and it is therefore okay to fire them; (3) there is nothing wrong with asking political appointees to support Administration policies and requests.
One glaring problem with this: why should Sampson have resigned, instead of just proudly saying the White House rules and should rule? Second glaring problem: why is Gonzalez denying he knew anying instead of proudly saying, of course I knew everything, and I certainly am glad and, indeed, duty-bound to follow the President's lead on this.
bjobotts wrote on March 13, 2007 3:16 PM:Didn't he just recently say he really didn't have the time to be worried about or answering congressional subpoenas and now we are supposed to accept that he'll get to the bottom of these firings. It's easy to be ignorant of your own incompetence especially if you're lying. Fight 'em over there(DOJ) rather than have to fight 'em over here(WH) eh Bush? Gonzales with have to be forced to resign because his resignation will lead to Bush.
Saguaro wrote on March 13, 2007 3:17 PM:Looks like his presser is a train wreck.
Gonzo is headed from west wing of White House to the west wing of some federal penitentiary
Jason wrote on March 13, 2007 3:17 PM:Monkey see as monkey do. Gonzales is only following the Bush modus operandi.
Ron Rich wrote on March 13, 2007 3:18 PM:Has anyone investigated whether calls were made to U.S. Attorneys serving in Ohio, Florida and New Mexico regarding 'voter fraud' in the 2004 adn 2006 elections? Be interesting to compare?
Posted by RER
kis wrote on March 13, 2007 3:18 PM:So the document dump has the emails from Sampson to Miers. Who is going to investigate what OTHER emails may exist, say from Sampson to Gonzales?
This is all a diversion, an attempt to defuse a story which is much bigger.
Can we get Fitz back to look into this???
midwest rube wrote on March 13, 2007 3:19 PM:Someone help me understand the culture of Washington.
Everyone knows Gonzales is a Bush crony through and through. Gonzales now admits that his right-hand man improperly carried out a political hit and then lied to cover it up.
Do they really think anyone will buy that Gonzales was unaware of his own involvement?
Austin Cooper wrote on March 13, 2007 3:19 PM:Accountable? Will he be accountable as one of the architects (along with Yoo) of the 'legal' basis for torture, renditions, the specific reduction of Constitutional rights, and the expansion of the 'Unitary Executive'?
This piece of trash should have been forced to resign long ago. If he leaves the AG post now over the firings, it'll be the equivalent of sending Al Capone to prison for Tax Evasion.
Saguaro wrote on March 13, 2007 3:19 PM:There will be no 'Scooter Sampson'. There should not be 'Scooter Gonzales' either. It must all reach the top of White House, and there should be no 'Scooter Rove' either.
John Goshorn wrote on March 13, 2007 3:20 PM:Two words: special prosecutor.
E-Dog wrote on March 13, 2007 3:21 PM:Smoking Gun, Blue Dress, new addition Scooter.
Can't have a "----Gate" scandal without any of the above!
lestatdelc wrote on March 13, 2007 3:21 PM:Note to self... before leaving office pardon:
1) Libby
2) Gonzales
3) Sampson
— W
Ad Absurdum wrote on March 13, 2007 3:22 PM:Nothing here that cannot be clarified by interrogation methods sanctioned by John Yoo.
Molly, NYC wrote on March 13, 2007 3:22 PM:Not merely "dismayed," but "taking full responsibility."
The utterances "dismayed" and "taking responsibility," coming from this administration, have less intent behind them than my dog's "Arf! Arf!" As conveyers of meaning, they are the equivalent of Rumsfield's "Goodness gracious me."
The rest of it wasn't exactly blossoming with information either. The only reason I can see for having this presser is that when you're in a state of blithering panic (and Gonzales was clearly freaking out), you'll try anything.
Nick Howard wrote on March 13, 2007 3:22 PM:To recap for anybody that didn't watch the press conference Gongalez said these exact words:
"I believe in responsibility."
And he then proceeded to explain that he was out of the loop but that somebody below him or already out of office was responsible for everything and he'd get to the bottom of it.
OJ Sampson wrote on March 13, 2007 3:23 PM:Thank goodness the DOJ is finally going to investigate the DOJ! Certainly there will be no need for anybody outside the DOJ to investigate this. Nothing to see here folks; run along.
If Mr. Gonzalez could figure out who killed Nicole, I'd be much obliged.
Lemuel wrote on March 13, 2007 3:23 PM:The dog that isn't barking now, but is set to chime in is the one noted by Paul Krugman and others: What about the US attorneys who _weren't_ fired. What were they pressured to do to keep their jobs? Once this closet opens, some felonies look like to they tumble out of the chute.
owenz wrote on March 13, 2007 3:24 PM:Note to reporters: start looking at voter fraud allegations across the country from the last few election cycles. The goal: finding U.S. attorneys who will go on the record about initiating politically-motivated investigations at the behest of the White House.
EasyRider wrote on March 13, 2007 3:26 PM:Hey,
It is:
Scooper and not Scooter.
Scooper, he who scoops the horseshit out of the stalls. While it is honorable for those of us who have done it, it is completely dishonorest for Libby to scoop the horseshit of Bush and Cheney into the face of FITZ and America.
sundancer wrote on March 13, 2007 3:27 PM:Did anyone notice the extreme difference in the body
Joe wrote on March 13, 2007 3:28 PM:language as well as the manner and tone of this little man's voice during this very strange presser? He certainly seemed different to me today than on the day he testified? before members of Congress. Am I wrong?
Seemed to me he had that telltale (very thin) white
line above his upper lip. Maybe, he needed to go to the restroom and then sit down for a while. That was an abrupt end to the stand up.
Jim wrote, “Dick Cheney's Chief of Staff blew Valerie Plame's CIA cover without the knowledge or approval of his boss, Denny Hastert's Chief of Staff didn't tell his boss about Scott Foley's predilection for young pages, and now Alberto Gonzalez's Chief of Staff purged US Attorneys without his boss's knowledge or approval and may even have tricked his boss into accidentally perjuring himself in front of Congress.
It's just dawned on me that the Bush Administration has a serious, systemic crisis concerning out-of-control Chiefs of Staff. They're just running wild!”
I was thinking the same thing, but you forgot that Senator Arlen Specter’s chief of staff inserted a provision into the neo-Patriot Act allowing the Justice Department to assign new US Attorneys without Senate approval who could serve until the end of the Bush presidency and poor Arlen knew nothing about it. Gosh darnit these chiefs of staff need to be reigned in.
With regard to Gonzales getting to the bottom of this, isn’t that what Bush said about the outing of CIA agent Plame’s identity and that he would fire anyone in his administration who was involved with it? He’s gonna get right on that one of these days and Gonzales will get to the bottom the purges right after that.
brendan wrote on March 13, 2007 3:33 PM:"The idea that this was simply mishandled by his COS is preposterous."
Why not, it's the same excuse Arlen Specter used when you guys named him as the source of the purge language... (sorry to keep flogging that horse, but still)
owenz wrote on March 13, 2007 3:37 PM:Note to TPM readers: does anyone out there live in a district where federal prosecutors have initiated an unusual number of investigations against Democrats and/or voter fraud in the last couple of elect cycles? If so, send links to Josh.
The next shoe to drop: the U.S. attorneys who took their marching orders from the White House with unrestrained glee.
You know they're out there. We need to identify them, then have reporters call them up and ask: did the White House ask you do this?
cevrero wrote on March 13, 2007 3:37 PM:Didn't Gonzo testify about a month ago or more to congress about the this issue of replacing attorneys without senate approval?,.....didn't he say it was just an overblown personnel issue a week ago? I mean C'mon man, get your shit together gonzo, this isn't a republican majority congress anymore? For some reason I got this Fleetwood Mac song stuck in my head "Tell me lies", oh those sweet little lies can no longer disguise........
Pocket Rocket wrote on March 13, 2007 3:37 PM:I haven't looked at the e-mails in the document dump yet. Can somebody tell me - were these e-mails cc:'d to Gonzales?
alex wrote on March 13, 2007 4:04 PM:Maybe this one is funny to watch because there are not so many deaths attached to it.
The trust that's been given to such incompetent people is staggering. Just think, a Democratic congress could have asked Powell to come to the hill and describe the unicorn that wrote his UN speech. Back then though, the Rove-behind-the-curtain could call in a Ridge-rigged elevation of the nation to orange.
Six weeks into this congress' work, they have, rather effortlessly and comically, let the Attorney General drag his now carcass of a career, pummeled under his own blows, into the town square, where it will be avoided as if rancid by his minority party. Who in either chamber will throw softball questions his way in questioning? - if he even makes it to that future but definite day should 'he' choose to stay on and scrap for his job.
As I opened with though, the 100s of thousands of lives lost, ripped apart and destroyed as a result of their recklessness and some apparent 'faith in mission' just make this latest 'scandal' feel like another mark on a wholly disastrous timeline.
jeffgee wrote on March 13, 2007 4:05 PM:Maybe he'll use the Bart Simpson defense: "I didn't do it."
pdc wrote on March 13, 2007 4:08 PM:This must be big, not one mention today by the Bushbots at The Corner. Cue the chirping crickets.
Allsburg wrote on March 13, 2007 4:09 PM:Is this gonna all come back to haunt democrats in '09, when Hillary fires all of the US Attorneys? I mean, you and I understand that it's a very different issue, but I don't think a lot of my Central California friends will quite understand the subtleties.
Anonymous wrote on March 13, 2007 4:18 PM:Gonzales is effectively offering up the Ken Lay defense.
BinGA wrote on March 13, 2007 4:20 PM:"Gonzales himself was "not involved in seeing any memos" or "any discussion of what was going on.""
Well, that's probably an accurate statement. Gonzo probably was not privy to the memos. And he probably was not invited to any of the discussions. Which means that he is nothing more than a lackey who carries out orders after the orders have been formulated by Rove, and Rove has run them by W who would never question Rove.
Molly, NYC wrote on March 13, 2007 4:22 PM:Allsburg - I don't trust ANY Bush appointees to show the least loyalty to their country or the people in it over the GOP and its deepest-pocketed members--and neither did Bush, that's why he hired them.
So if it were up to me, I'd fire them too.
The difference is, the new people aren't expected to use their positions to try to jimmy elections.
biggerbox wrote on March 13, 2007 4:26 PM:I think Mr. Gonzales has been spending too much time watching late-night reruns of Hogan's Heroes. That Sgt. Schultz "I know nut-zing! Nut-zing!" excuse doesn't really work in real life. Especially with the nation's top law enforcement officer, not a affable and slightly stupid rear garrison sergeant.
cal1942 wrote on March 13, 2007 4:47 PM:Another high ranking Republican who is "not aware" of what's happening in his own department and "not involved in seeing any memos."
Just what does that mean? "NOT INVOLVED in seeing any memos." He didn't say he wasn't copied or was not a primary recipient.
Was it something like Rice claiming not to have read any critical material sent to the NSC?
What Gonzales said was - I don't know what's going on in MY department and I don't bother to read anything
Of course he'll gladly label the firings 'performance related,' somehow absorbing information in a department that operates outside his consious sphere.
After he's impeached and convicted he should return his entire salary.
Anonymous wrote on March 13, 2007 5:00 PM:"The trust that's been given to such incompetent people is staggering."
Alex, it's not that these people are incompetent it's that their policies are nefarious.
The object of their policy is to use US Attorneys to do as much damage as possible to the opposition party. Actual responsibilities of the US Attorney position come AFTER damaging the opposition.
Politicizing the US Attorney position is something like the Reichstag fire without the pyrotechnics.
cal1942 wrote on March 13, 2007 5:01 PM:"The trust that's been given to such incompetent people is staggering."
Alex, it's not that these people are incompetent it's that their policies are nefarious.
The object of their policy is to use US Attorneys to do as much damage as possible to the opposition party. Actual responsibilities of the US Attorney position come AFTER damaging the opposition.
Politicizing the US Attorney position is something like the Reichstag fire without the pyrotechnics.
Adam wrote on March 13, 2007 5:14 PM:I am so sick, tired, and disgusted of Bush administration appointees not taking the ultimate blame for scandal after scandal.
Gonzales and Gates should both have gotten the boot already.
"Assess accountability"? There is no accountability unless it comes from the top down.
Shameful, but of course, not unexpected.
Mary wrote on March 13, 2007 5:25 PM:USAttys serve at the LEGAL pleasure of the President (and something about the very phrase makes them all sound a bit like Bill Clinton).
They can be removed for no reason, for bad reasons, but NOT, despite what Gonzales implies, for illegal reasons. Like, for example, obstruction of justice, or to circumvent Constitutionally required advice and consent procedures.
Also, Sec. 541 only allows removal of a USAtty by the President. Sec 542 allows the Attorney General to remove an Asst. USA, but not a USA.
So if the President was not directly involved, how does the removal compy with Sec. 541?
Maybe a lot more who, what, when, where, why and hows are in order?
Did the President abdicate his mistakering/decidering dutie under Sec. 541? To who, when, for what reasons, with what parameters, etc.
If he did not, then why was the AG's office circumventing the statutory requirement of Sec. 541 that the PRESIDENT handle removal and supplanting to itself Presidential power?
Lots of questions out there.
stephen wrote on March 13, 2007 5:55 PM:Ahhh I am in charge of everything except those things that I am not in charge of.
stephen wrote on March 13, 2007 6:01 PM:The Attorney General is NOT A FUCKING CEO....He is a Guradian of the the Constitution He is Guradian of Justice he has an allegence to the People and the Constitution not The president. Fire this guy Impeach this guy but for God's sake get rid of him now!
Steve wrote on March 13, 2007 6:42 PM:Here's Article 2 part 5 of Nixon's impeachment"
In disregard of the rule of law, he knowingly misused the executive power by interfering with agencies of the executive branch, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Criminal Division, and the Office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force, of the Department of Justice, and the Central Intelligence Agency, in violation of his duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.
Sounds like a modern day match to me.
Impeach, Impeach, Impeach.
Ted wrote on March 13, 2007 8:21 PM:Groan....
I think Gonzales is making it much worse using his "Bernie Ebbers" defense. Last week, in USA Today he was stating how this was a "personnel matter" and the attorneys were fired for just cause, and the Democrats were making alot of noise out of nothing. Now, saying "Well, I am busy guy, and I can't know every specific detail" goes against that there was "just cause" to fire the attorneys, even though the performance reviews showed they were doing good jobs. His Bernie Ebbers defense is not pliable when he goes in front of Congress and lies about the reasons for termination. Firing/resignation of his chief of staff isn't going to help him in these matters, it just going to focus on him, not for firing the attorneys, but why lie to Congress when his chief of staff had all the info about why the attorneys were fired.
For the White House the real political deadly job termination is Caroline Lam. If Rove or Bush got her fired because of Southern California Republicans complaining about the corruption cases, they just gave the White House along with the Congress to the Democratic Party.
Tom wrote on March 13, 2007 10:36 PM:I admire AG's legalspeak. He said:
"I acknowledge that mistakes were made here. I accept that responsibility and my pledge to the American people is to find out what went wrong here."
Let's ignore the lie in the second half of the last sentence (we can presume that his pledge isn't trustworthy, and that he won't investigate, at least to the satisfaction of the American people). It's the shift from the active to passive voice in the first sentence that I admire, and the manner in which the second sentence disavows any of his responsibility. Anyone can "acknowledge" that "mistakes were made" at the DoJ over this. Hell, I can do it; my 2-year-old, who awoke from his nap just as AG said this (it's the truth) can do it. In context, then, the "I accept responsibility" means that he accepts responsibility for acknowledging that mistakes were made.
I reiterate -- I, too, can accept responsibility for acknowledging that mistakes were made at the DoJ. And, so can my 2-year-old son.
This press conference was not about dodging a resignation. It's almost certainly inevitable now. It's about dodging obstruction of justice and perjury charges and only that, and "accepting responsibility for acknowledging that mistakes were made" will exculpate him. Just watch. I just hope I'm wrong.
Tom wrote on March 13, 2007 10:39 PM:Oh yeah, and remember: he took like 20 extra minutes to prepare his opening remarks. That wording was deliberate. All those bad answers to those intimidating questions afterwards -- well, we can sympathize with cutting the press conference short.
jimbo92107 wrote on March 14, 2007 2:28 AM:Wow, look at Alberto lying right to the press. Better yet, he's so scared he's stuttering.
I do believe Bush's legal puta is in a bit of trouble!
dc wrote on March 14, 2007 7:52 AM:"The gist: Gonzales said that he accepts responsibility for the "mistakes" made at the Justice Department..."
How many times have we heard tis line. When is somebody going to stand up when one of these goons says this and explain to them just what responsibility means. With these kinds of "mistakes" responsibility means more than an achey heart.
dono wrote on March 14, 2007 11:25 AM:AG is kind of breathless isnt he. Where is the smirk? Where is that 'I will teach the lawmakers the Constitution tone?'
Oh wait, he's a CEO that is why everyone is so confused - we thought he was the Attorney General of the United States.
Great news, back when he was involved in running the department (not like a CEO) he opposed firing all 93 attorneys because it would be disrruptive. Whew. What a great guy.
Luckily his deputy was vetting out the 'weak' attorneys (but AG doesnt know anything else about that). Maybe he will have the next presser with an O2 mask on so he can lie without huffing so much...
dono wrote on March 14, 2007 11:50 AM:Listen to the question/answer to AG's acknowledgement of the White House request to fire all 93 attorneys - 'I was made aware that there was a request, from the White House...of replacing all US attorneys - that was immediately rejected by me - I felt that was a bad idea'
Q. 'Was that the end of it then?'
pause
A. 'What I know is that there began a process of evaluating strong performers, not as strong performers and weak performers...so as far as I knew my Chief of Staff was involved in in the process of determining who was weak performer...'
Note: He shines to oppose a rather radical second term firing all US attorneys; what happened after that? Oh, um, I sort of noticed my first in command was looking for weak performers... Does this mean the intent of the White House proposal was to improve the performance of the US attorneys by firing all of them? This all was just some kind of commitment to quality? If so, why was the White House micro managing the justice dept (arent they CEO's too)?
Were the US attorneys SO bad they all needed to be replaced?
Since he so bravely stood up to the bad idea of firing every US attorney, wasnt he the least bit curious Why the White House would want to do that? Nope, just let them give your second in command, your Deputy, some busy work and forget about it - that is what CEO's do.
By the way, I dont remember AG mentioning the White House request to fire all the US attorneys 2 yrs. ago when he was before Congress (before the emails were public). Must have skipped his mind.
NevervoteRepublicanAgain wrote on March 26, 2007 9:07 PM:What about that meeting on November 28th you had with your staff regarding firing of USA's? You lied under oath and now need to be IMPEACHED.
YOU ARE A CROOK AND CONGRESS SHOULD IMPEACH YOU ASAP,
Bye bye, Alberto. ANOTHER heck of a job done by a Bush appointee. OMG, they are just the WORST, the whole lot of them belong in jail.
Spectator wrote on April 22, 2007 11:10 PM:I am sick and tired of the nazicons repeated attempts to try and change the subject from Gonzales perjuring himself to how Clinton removed all the attorneys at the beginning of his tenure (fortunately, it appears not to be working!)
Yes, they had the legal right to remove an attorney for their own agenda; no, they did not have the legal right to lie about what their reasons were.
His explanation as to why he should not answer the same fate for his incompetence resonated as being utterly hollow.
AlbertoGottago wrote on May 11, 2007 2:45 PM:If congress can't get Justice and the WH to provide all the emails, they should just ask the NSA. They have copies of everyone's email, right?
Justyna wrote on May 17, 2007 2:38 AM:So, what do you think about
January wrote on May 19, 2007 10:32 AM:last comments ?
O, super project. Yes!
Mieczyslaw wrote on May 20, 2007 5:14 AM:so hold.
Maksymilian wrote on May 23, 2007 3:57 PM:Good job! Your site is great!
Emily wrote on May 26, 2007 11:56 AM:You have a beautiful site ;)
Omg, great site. Its good to know that Im not alone in my obsession with flat mitsubishi panel tv
Flora wrote on June 15, 2007 10:05 PM:...:D
moi j arrive pa le lava l1
Bertha wrote on August 4, 2007 11:06 PM:Excuse me, that without knock has entered into your possession. I simply wish to make your site better. A ja rule naked
Cyril wrote on August 5, 2007 7:15 AM:, that is necessary for us. Once again thanks for understanding. Good luck.
I love you, people. Be happy and live amicably. And yet do not forget about the dansmovies
Cyprian wrote on August 13, 2007 12:56 PM:. Good luck
You are the best! Im glad...
Marcin wrote on August 15, 2007 3:13 PM:Many thanks! An excellentsite! I like to read it +1
Lorenz wrote on October 19, 2007 4:33 AM:Hi all!!! Cool site!!!