« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Gonzales: U.S.A. Review Should Have Been "More Rigorous"
The Justice Department has released Alberto Gonzales' written statement for Tuesday's hearing, which was provided today to the Senate Judiciary Committee. We've posted the entire section concerning the U.S. attorneys below.
The statement is long on promises and short on specifics, and Gonzales' narrative for how the firings occurred is a very simple one: he tasked Kyle Sampson with it, had a handful of conversations about it over the course of two years, and then eventually signed off on the firings.
Nevertheless, there are a couple of noteworthy passages.
First, Gonzales says again that (as far as he knows, at least) none of the U.S. attorneys were fired for "improper" reasons -- which would be "in order to impede or speed along particular criminal investigations for illegitimate reasons." But he says that "it is clear to me that I should have done more personally to ensure that the review process was more rigorous." That's an admission that's sure to open him up to some battering from senators on the panel.
Second, he again says that he "misspoke" at a press conference on March 13th when he said "I was not involved in any discussions about what was going on.” That statement, he says, "was too broad." He regrets the confusion, he says.
The entire thing is below....
From Gonzales' written statement for Tuesday's hearing:
First, I will address the issue of the resignations of eight of 93 U.S. Attorneys. I know this is an issue of concern to the Committee, and I want you to know that I share your commitment to bringing all of the facts to light on this matter. I hope we can make great progress on that goal today.
I also want the Committee and those U.S. Attorneys to know how much I appreciate their public service. Each is a fine lawyer and dedicated professional who gave many years of service to the Department. I apologize to them and to their families for allowing this matter to become an unfortunate and undignified public spectacle, and I am sorry for my missteps that have helped to fuel the controversy.
The Justice Department has tried to be forthcoming with the Congress and the American people about the process that led to the resignations. The Department has provided thousands of pages of internal and deliberative documents to the Congress. I consistently and voluntarily have made Justice Department officials available for interviews and hearings on this subject.
I have taken these important steps to provide information for two critical reasons: (1) I have nothing to hide, and (2) I am committed to assuring the Congress and the American public that nothing improper occurred here. The sooner that all the facts are known, the sooner we can all devote our exclusive attention to our important work – work that includes protecting the American people from the dangers of terrorism, violent crime, illegal drugs, and sexual predators. I know that the Committee must be eager to focus on those issues of great importance to the American people as well.
At this point, we can all agree that U.S. Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President. We further should agree on a definition of what an “improper” reason for the removal of a U.S. Attorney would be. As former Acting Solicitor General and Assistant Attorney General Walter Dellinger has stated, an improper reason would be: “The replacement of one or more U.S. attorneys in order to impede or speed along particular criminal investigations for illegitimate reasons.”
I agree with that. Stated differently, the Department of Justice makes decisions based on the evidence, not whether the target is a Republican or a Democrat.
For the benefit of the Committee as well as for the American people, I would like to be abundantly clear about the decision to request the resignations of eight (of the 93) United States Attorneys – each of whom had served his or her full four-year term of office:
I know that I did not, and would not, ask for a resignation of any individual in order to interfere with or influence a particular prosecution for partisan political gain.
I also have no basis to believe that anyone involved in this process sought the removal of a U.S. Attorney for an improper reason.
These facts have been made clear through the testimony of Justice Department officials who have appeared before the Congress, as well as by the thousands of pages of internal documents that the Department of Justice has released. Based upon the record as I know it, it is unfair and unfounded for anyone to conclude that any U.S. Attorney was removed for an improper reason. Our record in bringing aggressive prosecutions without fear or favor and irrespective of political affiliations – a record I am very proud of – is beyond reproach.
While reasonable people may dispute whether or not the actual reasons for these decisions were sufficient to justify a particular resignation, again, there is no factual basis to support the allegation, as many have made, that these resignations were motivated by improper reasons. As this Committee knows, however, to provide more certainty, I have asked the Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) to investigate this matter. Working with the Department’s Office of Inspector General (OIG), these non-partisan professionals will complete their own independent investigation so that the Congress and the American people can be 100 percent assured of the facts.
The Committee should also know that, to ensure the independence and integrity of these investigations, and the investigations of congressional committees, I have not spoken with nor reviewed the confidential transcripts of any of the Department of Justice employees interviewed by congressional staff. I state this because, as a result, I may be somewhat limited when it comes to providing you with all of the facts that you may desire. I hope you understand that, to me, it was absolutely essential that the investigative work proceeds in a manner free of any complications by my efforts to prepare for this testimony.
While I firmly believe that these dismissals were appropriate, I have equal conviction that the process by which these U.S. Attorneys were asked to resign could have – and should have – been handled differently.
I made mistakes in not ensuring that these U.S. Attorneys received more dignified treatment. Others within the Department of Justice also made mistakes. As far as I know, these were honest mistakes of perception and judgment and not intentional acts of misconduct. The American public needs to know of the good faith and dedication of those who serve them at the Department of Justice.
As I have stated before, I want to be as crisp and clear as I can be with the Committee about the facts of my involvement in this matter as I recall them.
The Coordination Process
Shortly after the 2004 election and soon after I became Attorney General, my then-deputy-chief-of-staff Kyle Sampson told me that then-Counsel to the President Harriet Miers had inquired about replacing all 93 U.S. Attorneys. Mr. Sampson and I both agreed that replacing all 93 U.S. Attorneys would be disruptive and unwise. However, I believed it would be appropriate and a good management decision to evaluate the U.S. Attorneys and determine the districts where a change may be beneficial to the Department.
I delegated the task of coordinating a review to Mr. Sampson in early 2005. Mr. Sampson is a good man and was a dedicated public servant. I believed that he was the right person (1) to collect insight and opinions, including his own, from Department officials with the most knowledge of U.S. Attorneys and (2) to provide, based on that collective judgment, a consensus recommendation of the Department’s senior leadership on districts that could benefit from a change.
I recall telling Mr. Sampson that I wanted him to consult with appropriate Justice Department senior officials who would have the most relevant knowledge and information about the performance of the U.S. Attorneys. It was to be a group of officials, including the Deputy Attorney General, who were much more knowledgeable than I about the performance of each U.S. Attorney. I also told him to make sure that the White House was kept informed since the U.S. Attorneys are presidential appointees.
Mr. Sampson periodically updated me on the review. As I recall, his updates were brief, relatively few in number, and focused primarily on the review process itself. During those updates, to my knowledge, I did not make decisions about who should or should not be asked to resign.
For instance, I recall two specific instances when Mr. Sampson mentioned to me that Harriet Miers had asked about the status of the Department’s evaluation of U.S. Attorneys.
I also recall Mr. Sampson mentioning Assistant Attorney General Rachel Brand as a possible candidate to be U.S. Attorney if a vacancy were to occur. I am not sure he mentioned a specific district, but it may have been Michigan. I do not recall my response, nor when it happened. But I do recall thinking I did not want to lose Ms. Brand as head of Legal Policy. I also recall Mr. Sampson mentioning career prosecutor Deborah Rhodes for San Diego in the event of a vacancy. I do not recall my response or any other discussion. Nor do I recall the timing of when this was raised with me. Although these names were mentioned to me, I do not recall making any decision, either on or before December 7, 2006, about who should replace the U.S. Attorneys who were asked to resign that day.
Near the end of the process, as I have said many times, Kyle Sampson presented me with the final recommendations, which I approved. I did so because I understood that the recommendations represented the consensus of senior Justice Department officials most knowledgeable about the performance of all 93 U.S. Attorneys. I also remember that, at some point in time, Mr. Sampson explained to me the plan to inform the U.S. Attorneys of my decision.
*******
I believed the process that Mr. Sampson was coordinating would produce the best result by including those senior Justice Department officials with the most knowledge about this matter. As in other areas of the Department’s work – whether creating a plan to combat terrorism or targeting dangerous drugs like methamphetamine – my goal was to improve the performance of the Justice Department. And as in other areas of the Department’s work, I expected a process to be established that would lead to recommendations based on the collective judgment and opinions of those with the most knowledge within the Department.
In hindsight, I would have handled this differently. As a manager, I am aware that decisions involving personnel are some of the most difficult and challenging decisions one can make. United States Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President, but looking back, it is clear to me that I should have done more personally to ensure that the review process was more rigorous, and that each U.S. Attorney was informed of this decision in a more personal and respectful way.
I also want to address suggestions that I intentionally made false statements about my involvement in this process. These suggestions have been personally very painful to me. I have always sought the truth. I never sought to mislead or deceive the Congress or the American people about my role in this matter. I do acknowledge however that at times I have been less than precise with my words when discussing the resignations.
For example, I misspoke at a press conference on March 13th when I said that I “was not involved in any discussions about what was going on.” That statement was too broad. At that same press conference, I made clear that I was aware of the process; I said that “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.” Of course, I knew about the process because of, at a minimum, these discussions with Mr. Sampson. Thus, my statement about “discussions” was imprecise and overbroad, but it certainly was not in anyway an attempt to mislead the American people.
I certainly understand why these statements generated confusion, and I regret that. I have tried to clarify my words in later interviews with the media, and will be happy to answer any further questions the Committee may have today about those statements.
It is said that actions speak louder than words. And my actions in this matter do indeed show that I have
endeavored to be forthcoming with the Congress and the American people.
I am dedicated to correcting both the management missteps and the ensuing public confusion that now surrounds what should have been a benign situation. For example:
In recent weeks I have met personally with more than 70 U.S. Attorneys around the country to hear their concerns and discuss ways to improve communication and coordination between their offices and Main Justice.
These discussions have been frank, and good ideas are coming out, including ways to improve communication between the Department and their offices so that every United States Attorney can know whether their performance is at the level expected by the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General. Additionally, I have asked the members of the Attorney General’s Advisory Committee of United States Attorneys to present to me recommendations on formal and informal steps that we can take to improve communication.
During these meetings I am also sharing with the U.S. Attorney community several key messages that I wish to also share with the Committee:
First, the process of selecting U.S. Attorneys to be asked to resign, while not improper, should have been more rigorous and should have been completed in a much shorter period of time.
Second, every U.S. Attorney who was asked to resign – Dan Bogden, Margaret Chiara, Paul Charlton, David Iglesias, Carol Lam, John McKay, Kevin Ryan, and Bud Cummins – served honorably, and they and their families made sacrifices in the name of public service. The Justice Department owes them more respect than they were shown. In some cases, Department leaders should have worked with them to make improvements where they were needed. In all cases, I should have communicated the concerns more effectively, and I should have informed them of my decisions in a more dignified manner. This process could have been handled much better and for that I want to apologize publicly.
And third, I am also telling our 93 U.S. Attorneys that I look forward to working with them to pursue the great goals of our Department in the weeks and months to come. I have told them that I expected all of them to continue to do their jobs in the way they deem best and without any improper interference from anyone. Likewise, in those offices where U.S. Attorneys have recently departed, I emphasized the need to continue to aggressively investigate and prosecute all matters – sensitive or otherwise – currently being handled by those offices.
I wish to extend that sentiment to the Committee as well. During the past two years, we have made great strides in securing our country from terrorism, protecting our neighborhoods from gangs and drugs, shielding our children from predators and pedophiles, and protecting the public trust by prosecuting public corruption. Recent events must not deter us from our mission. I ask the Committee to join me in that commitment and that re-dedication.
We must ensure that all the facts surrounding the situation are brought to full light. It is my sincere hope that today’s hearing brings us closer to a clearing of the air on the eight resignations.
That is why I intend to stay here as long as it takes to answer all of the questions the Committee may have about my involvement in this matter. I want this Committee to be satisfied, to be fully reassured, that nothing improper was done. I want the American people to be reassured of the same.
Comments (132)
Kate Henry wrote on April 15, 2007 12:36 PM:"Second, he again says that he "misspoke" at a press conference"
Misspoke = lying. He lied to Congress and he should be prosecuted for his lie. I am getting really tired of all the neocon trolls saying that he did nothing wrong, that it is the president's privilege to fire a US Attorney whenever he wants. But if he is firing them to prevent them from prosecuting a Republic, that becomes obstruction of justice which, I do believe, is a crime. The Bush crime family is imploding. More to come tomorrow....
Mary wrote on April 15, 2007 12:49 PM:I guess Abu forgot about the email Kyle sent on January 9, 2005 in response to a question from Karl. A couple of relevant sections:
Subject: RE: Question from Karl Rove
Judge and I discussed briefly a couple of weeks ago.
...snip...
3. As an operational matter, we would like to replace 15-20 percent of the current U.S. Attorneys -- the underperforming ones. (This is a rough guess; we might want to consider doing performance evaluations after Judge comes on board.)
...snip...
That said, if Karl thinks there would be the political will to do it, then so do I.
It looks like "Judge" (who is obviously Abu himself) forgot he discussed Karl Rove's question with Kyle Sampson and now only remembers that Harriet Miers was asking this question. Well, that session sure should be interesting to watch.
And ha-ha! My code is "blood" which is what I picture will be from Abu after his day in front of the Congress.
Mary wrote on April 15, 2007 12:51 PM:Link to email: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/sampsonrove-email/
nofltwlt wrote on April 15, 2007 12:53 PM:The review of USAs was very rigorous and consisted of one qualification, which was, could these USAs be counted on to be loyal to the Bush administration, the GOP and the other crooks and liars carving up our nation for their own benefit.
This is like the 10nt smoking gun, any one of which should be grounds for impeachment of Bush, the neocons and the GOP.
ding7777 wrote on April 15, 2007 12:53 PM:Mr Gonzales - based on your definition of "improper" when will your office investigate Heather Wilson and Domenici?
Candyce wrote on April 15, 2007 12:59 PM:One of the words used in relation to the attorneys is "underperforming." Here, again, we have an AG who is apparently underperforming. Underperforming in his management of the Justice Department. Even if we find nothing outwardly nefarious in the USA Replacement Project, at a minimum, the installation of inexperienced, green lawyers into high offices within the DOJ shows us that Abu, and the Bush administration, value party credentials over experience and dedication to the good of the country. Let's not forget Brownie. We have a whole DOJ full of Brownies, in over their heads. Or, like Goodling, weaned on Pat Robertson christopolitics, and willing to overlook questionable ethics requests for "the greater good." And, by the way, easy to be used by RoveCo, which is what happened here, in my estimation.
Code: Story.
Anonymous wrote on April 15, 2007 1:01 PM:I can't wait to hear them ask Gonzalez about the revelations in the Albo Journal article.
"Did Domenici ask you to fire Iglesias? Did you refuse? What changed after October 15?"
Carleton Wu wrote on April 15, 2007 1:02 PM:V\As former Acting Solicitor General and Assistant Attorney General Walter Dellinger has stated, an improper reason would be: “The replacement of one or more U.S. attorneys in order to impede or speed along particular criminal investigations for illegitimate reasons.”
Or (I think he'd have to admit) punishing a USA who failed to bend to pressure to "impede or speed along etc". Which, given what we know about the Iglesias situation, is *exactly* what happened. We can be pretty sure that Lam was dismissed to end the investigation into the administration (and more documents will shed more light), but at this point there is no reasonable alternative explanation for the canning of Iglesias (at least, one that takes into account all of the evidence).
barrelhse wrote on April 15, 2007 1:07 PM:Why the need for recess appointments?
Hank Gillette wrote on April 15, 2007 1:09 PM:In other words, the only improper reason to remove a U.S. attorney is:
“The replacement of one or more U.S. attorneys in order to impede or speed along particular criminal investigations for illegitimate reasons.”
and unless you can prove that we did that you should just shut up, even though we can't (or won't) actually tell you why these particular U. S. attorneys were removed.
Anonymous wrote on April 15, 2007 1:12 PM:In his final paragraphs Gonzales expresses his "sincere hope" that the hearings " will bring us closer to a clearing of the air on the eight resignations" . Is he having a laugh??? If he considers the 8 "resigned", I hate to think what has happen to any USA attorney fired by the DOJ.
I love the bit where he "specifically" asks Sansom
to keep DAG McNulty and the White House in the loop. And Gonzales also ropes in Harriet Miers s being an interested party in the progress of the 'evaluations'.
Message to the faithful:
Richard L. Adlof wrote on April 15, 2007 1:15 PM:Lil Al aint going down on his lonesome!!!!!!!!boat
Except for the all of the facts contadicting Fredo's rose-colored (and mostly not applicable) point of view everything seems honkey-dory in Bush-world:
1. Studies show that investigations are pursued against Democrats about three to four times more often than against registered Republicans.
2. Investigations against and convictions of more affluent (and statistcally white prepetators) crimes are WAY DOWN.
3. Prosectution of crimes that supress voter turn-out are WAY UP (and apparently made-up).
4. Prosectution of crimes traditionally perpettated by minorities are way up.
5. Corporations and folk that can afford to purchase for justice are getting while the common man hides beneath his bed praying that the evil (insert your favorite boogeyman her) does not come to get him.
6. Privacy Rights are all a shambles unless the e-mail originated in the presently Orwellian named White House.
7. And hey! One or two of the three or four 'tay-er-er' convictions might actually stick if openned up to judicial review.
defender of truth and justice wrote on April 15, 2007 1:21 PM:READ Jesselyn Radack's book "The Canary in the Coalmine; Blowing the Whistle in the Case of 'American Taliban' John Walker Lindh".
Jesselyn Radack worked int he PROA (Professional Office of Responsibility) in the EHTICS department. The PROA is completely partison now that they've cut out and fired any dissenters!
In today's WAPO, Gonzalez has called upon the PROA to investigate the purges.
He says, "I have nevertheless asked the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility to further investigate this matter. Working with the department's Office of Inspector General, these nonpartisan professionals will complete their own independent investigation so that Congress and the American people can be 100 percent assured of what I believe and what the investigation thus far has shown: that nothing improper occurred."
He wants us to believe we can trust the DOJ-PROA. BEFORE you even THINK of trusting them, READ JESSELYN RADACKS BOOK and read why she BLEW the whistle in the torture case while in front of the cameras Ashcroft was saying, "We are protecting his civil rights...." (paraphrased).
I'm serious! READ the whole book and find out how the PROA covered up her emails from a court order, attacked her for speaking the truth to Newsweek, and put her on the no-fly list.
http://www.patriotictruthteller.net
defender of truth and justice wrote on April 15, 2007 1:27 PM:Sorry for the caps but this latest ploy by Gonzalez is another scam! And most people don't even have a clue on how polluted the PRAO is under the Bush administration.
Marple wrote on April 15, 2007 1:32 PM:Does anyone else see a contradiction here?
In question is Paragraph 9 and first sentence of paragrah 10 versus the first sentence of paragraph 12.
Paragraph 9 and 10:
"I also have no basis to believe that anyone involved in this process sought the removal of a U.S. Attorney for an improper reason.
These facts have been made clear through the testimony of Justice Department officials who have appeared before the Congress..."
Paragraph 12:
"The Committee should also know that, to ensure the independence and integrity of these investigations, and the investigations of congressional committees, I have not spoken with nor reviewed the confidential transcripts of any of the Department of Justice employees interviewed by congressional staff.
How can he state something is proved based on testimony before Congress then state he has not spoken with or reviewed transcripts of interviewed staff?
nattyb wrote on April 15, 2007 1:35 PM:The AG still cannot explain why any US Atty was fired. No one can explain. Consensus??? Is that the reason, a concensus was reached, but why? No one, under oath or otherwise, has yet to explain why any one US Atty was fired.
Iglesias - It was alleged that he didn't prosecute enough voter fraud cases, and that he was an absentee landlord. 1. He was selected by the DOJ to lead a symposioum on how to properly investigate Voter Fraud because he had prior lead such a task force. 2. He was absent because of his Naval Reserve duties, and 'serving at the pleasure of the president' not withstanding, is not a legally fireable offence.
Don't these people know, that with mass media, internet, etc... the truth will ALWAYS come out, that it's only a matter of time, and it's better to acknowledge reality, then to try to consistently cover things up. Do they really think the american people are this fucking stupid.
MLS wrote on April 15, 2007 1:48 PM:The roadmap for his testimony:
"... I have not spoken with nor reviewed the confidential transcripts of any of the Department of Justice employees interviewed by congressional staff. I state this because, as a result, I may be somewhat limited when it comes to providing you with all of the facts that you may desire. "
That's his license to answer everything with "I don't recall" (Senator Schumer notwithstanding) or "that was handled by staff" and he's not privy to what they did. Heckuva defense.
Dr. Wu wrote on April 15, 2007 1:50 PM:Shorter Gonzo: "Ok, so I lied, again. But I'm telling the truth now, maybe. And I didn't do anything wrong--at the very most, I screwed around while my handpicked lieutenants did something wrong, but you can't prove that, so fuck all y'all."
Security code: snake
Dem-agog wrote on April 15, 2007 1:53 PM:OK. I'm getting a bit confused/impatient. What exactly can happen here? When will we see special prosecutors? Indictments? Trials? Convictions?
Will any of this lead to that? Right now it's all "he said/she said" and "I misspoke..." "I was not in charge..." "Pleasure of the President.." 9/11, blah, blah, blah..
The Repubs keep insisting there's no criminality. "There's no scandal here," said Sen. Jon Kyl, an Arizona Republican, on CNN's "Late Edition." Kyl said the potentially missing e-mails, sent through Republican Party accounts, were duplicates of messages already released.
We KNOW this administration lacks any ethical standards whatsoever. That's a given. I find it frustrating that while the "coverups" potentially snag a few people, the "crimes" go unpunished.
Dr. Wu wrote on April 15, 2007 2:00 PM:"Sorry for the caps but this latest ploy by Gonzalez is another scam! And most people don't even have a clue on how polluted the PRAO is under the Bush administration."
Don't worry. At this point, I think the safe assumption is that every Executive Branch has been sufficiently packed with overgrown Jesus-campers or unqualified Brownie-style hacks as to never deserve the benefit of the doubt.
oblio wrote on April 15, 2007 2:02 PM:I am sorry but this is just pathetic. All I can say is once again he is saying, just like Kyle Sampson, that he did not do anything wrong while sticking exactly to the plan laid out in their incriminating emails. The plan - stick to talking about the 'process' and never talk about the reasons these people USA's were chosen for firing. This group brings new meaning to the word chutzpah!
mbbsdphil wrote on April 15, 2007 2:02 PM:US Attorneys, barring a few jobs at Main Justice, are THE most important political - and patronage - appointments the Attorney General makes. Doing it right is critical to the administration of federal criminal law and the enforcement of federal civil rights THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES.
Not even an incompetent Attorney General would fail to pay close attention to changing a large number of US Attorneys, certainly not after a close election that required the President, for the first time in his sober career, to work with an opposition legislature. (Texas doesn't count: Southern Democrat is a contradiction in terms and the legislature meets only every other year.)
Staffing the ranks of US Attorneys is a delicate balancing act. It is a mix of getting the right talent to do the job; getting talent placed so as to enhance its future utility; taking into consideration local needs and histories; acknowledging the Senate's power and patronage; and responding to the mix of criminal and civil rights issues facing each jurisdiction. From Kansas wheat fields to the Chicago Loop, from South Florida to Southern California and the Great Lakes.
I believe that Mr. Gonzales "tasked" this most essential of senior management responsibilities to his White House minder - the guy considered a stand-in for Karl Rove, Kyle Sampson - because he knew that the White House was controlling these appointments and would not look kindly on his input. He was an autopen, there for a signature.
I think that pretty much sums up why the White House put Mr. Gonzales at the Justice Department in the first place. Because even such a limited, loyal partisan like John Ashcroft wouldn't blindly play along with their electoral games.
Alexander wrote on April 15, 2007 2:06 PM:Is the fact that Gonzo remains in his job indicative of a death-wish on the part of the Bush regime, or that they fear he won't fall elegantly on his sword? This is truly remarkable incompetence. How can even the Bush faithful retain respect for the president. Are they all on hallucinatory drugs?
foggylady wrote on April 15, 2007 2:08 PM:2 things:
1.It;s interesting to lspot the key denial pattern used by all the gang in their various hearing statements.....
gee I am so sorry, mistakes, , unintentional behaviors, misinterpreted actions, heh heh heh,
don'tcha see I am really just a harmless stumble bum who wants to cooperate and clear up this unfortunate misunderstanding, so we can all just put this behind us and focus on the REALLY REALY important matters of running this agency/country/program....
( and pretty please do not look at the PATTERN of these incidents and excuses..please)
2. The most interesting interview at Law.com that Josh pointed to yesterday suggests maybe Gonzo was correct one score..if issues are indeed managed by dept. concensus ( and some of the e-mails suggest this)
then top down decisions by Gonzo may not have been done in the firings..
just saying.....
JD21 wrote on April 15, 2007 2:10 PM:How to address our failed policy in the Middle East?
Is impeaching Bush and Cheney the answer? Place your vote and join the discussion if you like.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/4/15/125413/065
Candace wrote on April 15, 2007 2:11 PM:Enough! I mean it, enough already! There are so many lies and half-truths in Gonzales' statement that I am appalled at and for this man. My God, how pathetic does he think the U.S. Congress is? Does he really believe that this repetition of NOTHING will satisfy the American people that he has not broken the law, both consistently and enthusiastically? For the love of God and country, resign, Gonzales. Put yourself and the American people whom you purport to work for out of the misery, sadness, pain, and humiliation you've bestowed upon us all. I pray for your soul - you certainly are going to need it for the trangressions against humanity you've committed.
jdw wrote on April 15, 2007 2:14 PM:"US Attorneys, barring a few jobs at Main Justice, are THE most important political - and patronage - appointments the Attorney General makes. Doing it right is critical to the administration of federal criminal law and the enforcement of federal civil rights THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES.
Not even an incompetent Attorney General would fail to pay close attention to changing a large number of US Attorneys"
---------------
Totally agree. And someone like DiFi or Schumer needs to say that explicitly and passionately on Tuesday in terms that fit into a soundbite that can be rolled out on every news program other than FoxNews. With the kicker to the comment that if the an AG isn't willing to take an active roll in the firing and highing of 10% of the country's USAs, he's neither competent nor worthy of the office.
JD21 wrote on April 15, 2007 2:22 PM:The man is a joke. He needs to go. Now.
JD21 wrote on April 15, 2007 2:23 PM:How to address our failed policy in the Middle East?
Is impeaching Bush and Cheney the answer? Place your vote and join the discussion if you like.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/4/15/125413/065
brenathome wrote on April 15, 2007 2:23 PM:The AG is insisting on making it so that the only way a US Attorney can be improperly canned is if the deciders (if it can be figured out who the deciders are) were trying to impede or speed up a criminal investigation for illegitimate reasons. The AG insists that did not happen. Simply firing a US Attorney for not pursuing an investigation - well, what does that have to do with impeding or speeding up an investigation, right? Pressuring USA's in general to prosecute doesn't apply either because the AG's office had no specific target in mind, right? They've already proven that Lam's dismissal was all about immigration - so questions about her are irrelevant, her firing had nothing to do with Dusty Foggo and Co. But I digress, it's really comical how narrowly he construes "improper" and how he will hold to that definition till his dying day, and beyond. He'll even argue it with St. Peter most likely.
code=canvas
georgia wrote on April 15, 2007 2:24 PM:"At this point, we can all agree that U.S. Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President."
AZCowboy wrote on April 15, 2007 2:29 PM:Okay, they explain why the AG was allowed to fire them. Hmmm??? Still waiting for an answer....
"I have not spoken with nor reviewed the confidential transcripts of any of the Department of Justice employees interviewed by congressional staff. I state this because, as a result, I may be somewhat limited when it comes to providing you with all of the facts that you may desire."
Right. And if you believe that, I have a beautiful ocean front bungalow right here in Phoenix to sell you. Cheap!
georgia wrote on April 15, 2007 2:29 PM:"We further should agree on a definition of what an “improper” reason for the removal of a U.S. Attorney would be."
Maybe we should, but we don't. I believe the firing of the court-appointed interim United States Attorney (the only true Presidential firing) was highly improper, as were the actions leading up to it.
The attorney general asked the first interim USA to resign is position prior to the 120 term limit, so that he could make another 120 interim appointment. This was questionably legal, at best, especially since the courts were prepared to make an appointment in the absense of a Presidential nomination.
When the courts and the AG both went ahead with appointments, the President simply fired the courts' choice and recess appointed the AG's choice.
That sounds improper to me. How about you?
mbbsdphil wrote on April 15, 2007 2:33 PM:Short version:
"US Attorneys, barring a few jobs at Main Justice, are THE most important...appointments the Attorney General makes....[They are] critical to the administration of federal criminal law and the enforcement of federal civil rights THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES.
[snip]
"I believe that Mr. Gonzales "tasked" this most essential of senior management responsibilities to his White House minder...because he knew that the White House was controlling these appointments.... He was an autopen, there for a signature."
Karen Johnson wrote on April 15, 2007 2:34 PM:"the only improper reason to remove a U.S. attorney is:
“The replacement of one or more U.S. attorneys in order to impede or speed along particular criminal investigations for illegitimate reasons.”"
That is like saying that if your reasons are legit, it is ok to speed or impede!
nrglaw wrote on April 15, 2007 2:35 PM:What are the LEGITIMATE reasons to speed or impede criminal investigations?
They will be claiming that the reason were legit, but that misses the point.
The "undignified spectacle" language comes right out of a letter (the first I think) from Kyle Sampson's lawyer to Senate Judiciary.
A new GOP TP, I reckon.
litigatormom wrote on April 15, 2007 2:35 PM:Marple:
I think that Abu G is saying that he has not read the transcripts of the behind-closed-door interviews of DoJ personnel that have been conducted by Congressional staffers. He is therefore admitting that he has read the public testimony of McNulty, Moschella and Sampson, or has at least been "informed" of the substance of their remarks.
For him to point to that public testimony and the documents dumped thus far as "evidence" that the firings were proper is either the height of arrogance, or the height of stupidity -- or both.
The man is just too stupid to be Attorney General. Not even Ed Meese was this stupid.
rlogan wrote on April 15, 2007 2:36 PM:Pffft.
I've been working on this for weeks and still can't tell you why they've been fired.
Therefore they weren't fired for improper reasons.
Try again.
georgia wrote on April 15, 2007 2:51 PM:improper - “The replacement of one or more U.S. attorneys in order to impede or speed along particular criminal investigations for illegitimate reasons.”
It's interesting to note that one of the examples "Where Judges Discussed Appointing or Attempted to Appoint Unacceptable Candidates" came from 1987 in Southern District of West Virginia, and it revolved around efforts "to impede or speed along particular criminal investigations for illegitimate reasons."
Anonymous wrote on April 15, 2007 2:59 PM:"While I firmly believe that these dismissals were appropriate"
Arkansan wrote on April 15, 2007 3:01 PM:Okay, so we've established that these were in fact "dismissals". Now, where is the Presidential order?
I'm so proud! Gonzo used a post of mine here as an outline for his prepared testimony.
--------
1. “I don’t recall that conversation.”
2. “Pleasure of the President, pleasure of the President, Presidential Pleasure …”
3. “There are no documents.”
4. “No email either. We relied on our memories, but I have no memory of…”
5. “10,000 people work at DOJ, you can’t expect me to know what all of them do.”
6. “There was no decision maker, only an assemblage of nonspecific views…”
7. “I take full responsibility, but I had nothing to do with it.”
8. “The President wasn’t informed in writing or orally, but agreed to the dismissals.
9. “All decisions are political, nothing wrong with that. “
10. “Clinton did it…”
Posted by: Arkansan
Date: April 3, 2007 10:05 AM
______
Who knew he was a TPM fan?
Anonymous wrote on April 15, 2007 3:03 PM:"As far as I know, these were honest mistakes of perception and judgment and not intentional acts of misconduct."
I'm sure they "accidentally" slipped the unification of power provision into the PATRIOT Act Reauthorization too.
Zog wrote on April 15, 2007 3:07 PM:I hate to say this however,...Dems have no backbone, they are like jellyfish. The Rethugs could commit any act they wanted in their presence
KYJurisDoctor wrote on April 15, 2007 3:09 PM:and they will let them slide or come to an compromise that lets them slide...makes me sick...
fu#%ing cowards!!!
I'm going to wait and hear it from the horse's mouth, so to speak, and also view the live testimony on video tape!
Anonymous wrote on April 15, 2007 3:10 PM:OsiSpeaks.com or OsiSpeaks.org
NOT video tape but live video. LOL.
nofltwlt wrote on April 15, 2007 3:10 PM:Is there anything Gonzales can say that would be sway anyone who has followed the DOJ's actions regarding these republican placed attorneys that were not prosecuting Dems and were investigating other corrupt republicans?
I don't think so. Gonzales is just another ill-prepared, corrupt sing-song republican appointment who must do what he is told despite is lofty position. How sad is this?
georgia wrote on April 15, 2007 3:12 PM:"Near the end of the process, as I have said many times, Kyle Sampson presented me with the final recommendations, which I approved."
Again, where is the PRESIDENT in all this? At that point in "the process" Gonzo's approval should have went up to the White House for execution, not down to Kyle Sampson. The AG is not legally authorized to fire USA's.
Pat wrote on April 15, 2007 3:13 PM:I just hope the Senate will not just give speeches and ask real hard questions.
elrapierwit wrote on April 15, 2007 3:15 PM:The point of this entire fiasco, is that there did not need to a reason to fire any US Atty. None. It simply was power that the President had and could use whenever he chose.
Therefore there cannot ever be an improper reason for the firings as they are political appointments and the President decided that the US Attorneys were expendable.
Arbitrary and capricious use of power. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.That's what we have here. After absolute power has blinded the powerful to their own corrupt use of the power it is absolutely theirs and thus is in and of it self non-corruptible once power has been granted.
That is what this story is...the decider has the power and can use it in any manner he chooses as long as it is not illegal. Right and wrong have no place in how the power is executed. It is merely used to affirm that they are indeed powerful and decisive. Nothing is corrupt because they have been granted the power.
We are simply spectators who have been forced to watch their motto is : Just watch. Like a toddler when they can control their own bowels. They will defecate when they choose, how they choose and no one can ever exert any influence to alter that basic autonomy. Only they control their bowels. So, they force others to watch them defecate and laugh as they watch others clean up their shyt. Knowing they will soon shyt on the powerless again since they are in control of all shyt and most especially the excretion of it.
Gonzo understood that, which is why he is still there. He knows that he only gets to clean up shyt and decide when and where to flush it. He was nothing but the middle man between Karl and Kyle.
He still is.
Bush and Rove shyt all over the USA indiscriminately nothing mattered other than them being the shytters.
Good 'ol turdblossom...he shyt like Johnny appleseed planted trees all over the nation
code word: fire..as in all this shyt needs to be set ablaze...burned to a crisp
Anonymous wrote on April 15, 2007 3:16 PM:"I regret that I've been misunderstood. And I regret that I delegated this to young, inexperienced lawyers who were, really, after all is said and done, not qualified to be left to come to a consensus about something which is now making me look as foolish as I regret that I look."
"And I particularly regret having to be here today instead of at home working on my taxes, which are due tomorrow. So if we could please get this over quickly - so I can do my duty as a citizen and go home to finish my taxes - which I regret I have left undone due to having to spend the last month practicing for this regret-full meeting today."
Mr. gonzales - we the voters have no regrets about telling you to resign. Do it properly - ASAP!
a_blue_georgia wrote on April 15, 2007 3:21 PM:"First, the process of selecting U.S. Attorneys to be asked to resign, while not improper..."
It wasn't just improper, it was illegal.
Anonymous wrote on April 15, 2007 3:21 PM:Who killed the Aguirre investigation?
sobe wrote on April 15, 2007 3:25 PM:After politicizing everything else, e.g. climate science, stem cells, Terry Schiavo, September 11, 2001, the Iraq war, the Valerie Plame case, the FDA, FEMA, NASA, the FCC, the FERC etc. etc. we are supposed to believe that they DIDN'T politicize the Justice Department?
Badges? Badges? We don't need no stinking BADGES!
georgia wrote on April 15, 2007 3:29 PM:elrapierwit, you say, "there cannot ever be an improper reason for the firings as they are political appointments and the President decided that the US Attorneys were expendable," yet I fail to see evidence of any such decision. Not a single one of the "thousands of pages" released show that the President himself was in any way involved.
georgia wrote on April 15, 2007 3:34 PM:sobe, continuing... CPSC, Department of Education, Social Security, OMB, Department of the Interior, CDC, Council on Environmental Quality, DHS, ...
DR wrote on April 15, 2007 3:39 PM:To Misspeak:
v. intr.: To lie, or to bullshit. choose.
Diana Kitch wrote on April 15, 2007 3:40 PM:I know that I did not, and would not, ask for a resignation of any individual in order to interfere with or influence a particular prosecution for partisan political gain.
I don't believe you.
Victor wrote on April 15, 2007 3:50 PM:from the Senate statement:
Near the end of the process, as I have said many times, Kyle Sampson presented me with the final recommendations, which I approved.
Directly contradicts his Post op-ed, see “During those conversations, to my knowledge, I did not make decisions about who should or should not be asked to resign.” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/14/AR2007041401010.html ]
ahem wrote on April 15, 2007 3:53 PM:Abu G is hanging his job on 'particular'.
That's a false limitation of impropriety, and needs to be called out as bullshit. The impropriety was quite generalised.
And I also want at least one Senator to ask the following: 'What exactly do you do, Attorney General? I mean, what does your job actually involve? Do you do any actual work?'
Stan wrote on April 15, 2007 3:54 PM:The justice department has apparently been working very hard to put together a rationale for the firing of each of the prosecutors--a thorough review of their performance, and key points to fire them for.
However, have they diligently identified the reasons for making such a thorough investigation into the performance of these eight people in particular? If they were doing a thorough house cleaning as they've suggested they were doing, where are the thorough reviews of the other 85 prosecutors? Where are the reviews of those who came close to being sacked but didn't?
In all likelihood, the eight prosecutors were fired for political reasons as evidence has shown. However, even taking the Justice Department's explanation that they were the victims of a house cleaning, it is highly unlikely that they'll show us that all the cupboards were examined for dirt.
ahem wrote on April 15, 2007 3:55 PM:"That is why I intend to stay here as long as it takes to answer all of the questions the Committee may have about my involvement in this matter."
Well, clear your schedule till Friday, Gonzo. Or until you resign.
georgia wrote on April 15, 2007 3:56 PM:"I also told him to make sure that the White House was kept informed since the U.S. Attorneys are presidential appointees."
georgia wrote on April 15, 2007 4:13 PM:Informing the White House is not the same as informing the President.
"Kyle Sampson presented me with the final recommendations, which I approved. I did so because I understood that the recommendations represented the consensus of senior Justice Department officials most knowledgeable about the performance of all 93 U.S. Attorneys."
It's unreasonable to believe that Gonzo would have signed off on the list without a detailed evaluation. Afterall, in this same statement he said earlier:
"However, I believed it would be appropriate and a good management decision to evaluate the U.S. Attorneys and determine the districts where a change may be beneficial to the Department."
As the head of the Department, how could he possibly ascertain the benefit without anything more than a list? Either he knows more, and he's lying, or he doesn't know, and he's not fit to lead. Either way, he should step down or be removed.
NEVERvoteRepublicanagain wrote on April 15, 2007 4:17 PM:I smell smoke "Speedy". You're pants must be on fire with so much lying. You are a loser just like the man who appointed you.
Bush will be the worst President ever and "Speedy" you will be the most corrupt AG in US history. Now that's a real bonus for Hispanics. You being the first Hispanic AG and a crook all at the same time. Not good "Speedy".
shg wrote on April 15, 2007 4:31 PM:Gonzales offers a definition of ONE kind of impropriety: "to impede or speed along particular criminal investigations for illegitimate reasons." But it is not the only kind of impropriety. He is chopping logic.
If you fall for his silly trick, then if he make changes in the US attorneys so they will target democrats in general, or protect republicans in general, his motive does not fall within the defiinition of "improper."
This is not a serious man.
Anonymous wrote on April 15, 2007 4:35 PM:http://www.dealbreaker.com/gary_aguirre/
Robin wrote on April 15, 2007 4:45 PM:More than a few things bug me about this "explanation" but two things in particular stand out.
He likes to refer to getting back to the priorities of prosecuting child predators, terrorists and the like but the evaluations of the USAs didn't even include any evaluation in these areas. Exactly who sets the priorities for DOJ?
And, if he would have us believe he just made "too broad" a statement to Congress earlier, can not Congress conclude that he doesn't think enough of them to think about his answers?
This guy is too much.
MWS wrote on April 15, 2007 4:49 PM:Pathetic statement.
Arlen Spector was on one of the Sunday morning talk shows. Even he said, Gonzales must provide facts. That facts were needed to decide why the Attorneys were fired. There are no facts in the written statement, just conclusions. "We did nothing improper", as if that bald assertion would save Gonzales. Spector dismissed the WaPo op-ed out of hand, saying "He would have been better advised if he had dealt with some facts."
http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=3043013
It looks like Gonzales is going to go to the Hill, spin a fact free story, never answer the question of why the 8 were fired, and stonewall to protect the White House in the person of Rove and the President. Here's a talking point I expect Gonzales will use sometime during his testimony. "I have no evidence that anyone at the White House did anything improper."
The result will be that Spector and other Republicans will call for his removal. He will resign as the sacrificial lamb and then the White House will hide behind Executive Privilege refusing to let anyone at the WH testify and refusing to release any documents or emails held by the WH. The hope of the Administration is the press will "cover the controversy", treat the resignation of Gonzales as "the big outcome", say "we got our man", and forget about the basic question which is...
Were any of the 8 US Attorneys fired for any of the following reasons:
1) because they did not prosecute Democrats vigorously enough to satisfy some political power, like Dominici, Rove, or the Washington state republican committee.
2) because they did prosecute Republicans (like Cunningham) and thus gain the enmity of powerful Republicans (like Issa).
3) because they did not pursue bogus voter fraud cases vigorously enough to satisfy Karl Rove or other political operatives.
4) because they caused enough controversy to threaten embarrassing investigations into the DOJ (as Kevin Ryan apparently did).
This stonewall is unlikely to work, but it might drag out long enough to fester until the end of Bush's term.
georgia wrote on April 15, 2007 4:55 PM:Hasn't been their policy not to treat terrorists as criminals but as enemy comatants?
Georgia wrote on April 15, 2007 4:58 PM:Hasn't it been their policy not to treat terrorists as criminals but as "enemy combatants"?
Haven't they ridiculed Clinton for prosecuting terrorists?
katherine wrote on April 15, 2007 5:03 PM:Such a carefully crafted, but transparently flawed statement. The contradictions, the smug assumption that no one will notice the sleights-of-hand, the oily-mouthed pseudo-accountability. I still have a wan glimmer of faith that Gonzales and his puppeteers will be punished for deceiving and robbing the American people, and for squandering the honor and resources of a great nation.
georgia wrote on April 15, 2007 5:11 PM:It's interesting what the cost of "securing our country from terrorism" is:
"More than five years after the attacks, the Justice Department has failed to replace at least 2,400 agents who were detailed to focus on counterterrorism, the newspapers said.
The switch has led to thousands of white-collar criminals nationwide who are no longer prosecuted in federal court, frustrated victims and potentially billions of dollars, the newspaper said."
- http://news.bostonherald.com/national/view.bg?articleid=194110
pestimist wrote on April 15, 2007 5:23 PM:The Financial Times is running an editorial on the Wolfowitz scandal ('Why Bush should let a damaged Wolfowitz go') that sums up the emerging overseas elite consensus on the Bush administration's SOP:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0df59e26-e9f3-11db-91c7-000b5df10621.html
The best hook:
"To place loyalty above all other virtues is the ethics of a mafia boss not of the leader of a great country."
Security code: horse, as in the one you rode in on.
feckless wrote on April 15, 2007 6:06 PM:Just because he's the country's most important lawyer people think he should speak clearly and precisely. Sheesh, next thing people are going to start telling Bush to stop taking 5 week vacations during a war!
Thank god we didn't elect the flip-flopper.
Anonymous wrote on April 15, 2007 6:12 PM:I love parsing statements like this. Let's just take the first sentence:
"First, I will address the issue of the resignations of eight of 93 U.S. Attorneys."
Mark this down to broken promise number 572.
Before he addresses the issues he lets the committee know:
1. That he feels the committees pain. This is not just their issue. But his too. ("I know this is an issue of concern to the Committee, and I want you to know that I share your commitment to bringing all of the facts to light on this matter.")
2. He then panders with another dish of pablum and warm fuzzies. ("I hope we can make great progress on that goal today.")
And then he gets down to the key issue. Right?
PSYCHE!
"I also want the Committee and those U.S. Attorneys to know how much I appreciate their public service. Each is a fine lawyer and dedicated professional who gave many years of service to the Department. I apologize to them and to their families for allowing this matter to become an unfortunate and undignified public spectacle, and I am sorry for my missteps that have helped to fuel the controversy."
How about the third paragraph. Do we finally get to: "First, I will address the issue of the resignations of eight of 93 U.S. Attorneys."
Not exactly:
"The Justice Department has tried to be forthcoming with the Congress and the American people about the process that led to the resignations. The Department has provided thousands of pages of internal and deliberative documents to the Congress. I consistently and voluntarily have made Justice Department officials available for interviews and hearings on this subject."
A whole lot of truthiness going on my friends.
Kathy wrote on April 15, 2007 6:13 PM:Gonzo: "I didn't do it. Nobody saw me do it. They can't proove it!"
PeeJ wrote on April 15, 2007 6:13 PM:(PS: "It was like that when I got here!")
What about Wolfowitz? Why are the networks letting him pay his mistress $200,000 a year at the expense of the poor? Clinton never paid Monica a dime as far as we know. Oh, I know, Imus is more important. Shame on you MSM! Is Imus news or just noise? No mention of the adulterer Wolfowitz on any MSM network. Unbelievable. This is sex! Maybe even a blowjob! Wolfie should have a least got a blowjob for $200,000.
Peace!
PJ
PJ
freepatriot wrote on April 15, 2007 6:19 PM:hey, abu gonzo, instead of wasting your time writing this lie filled piece of shit article, I seriously hope you'vew been studying up on why these eight US Attorneys were fired
cuz you're going to have to explain the reason for each firing individually, in a clear and concise manner, without any quibbles or questions
if you are unable to explain why each US Attorney was fired, your claims that "Nothing Improper occured" will be exposed as just another lie
if you don't know why they were fired, you can't say that there was nothing improper happening, it's THAT SIMPLE
good luck on tuesday
I'll be the guy in the back corner with the tar and feathers, standing next to the guy holding the rail you're soon to ride
security code: face
as ii "IN YOUR FACE"
Alex Great wrote on April 15, 2007 6:24 PM:This presentation is an inversion of the old superior orders argument. In short, the AG delegates authority for the firings to Mr. S, and thereafter bears no responsibility. Incredible.
cfk wrote on April 15, 2007 6:51 PM:Clearly resignation is in order.
But...but...Mr. Gonzales...what about the beautiful chart that Monica made? You didn't mention that in your letter.
Did you just wave Monica away and say, "whatever?" After all that work? I am ashamed of you, Sir...very ashamed.
Your apologies are worthless. These people need their name cleared completely.
Judgenjury wrote on April 15, 2007 7:10 PM:What is going to be really exciting is when he offers a reason for an individual firing, i.e., Carol Lam was weak on immigration cases, and the Senators start naming every single USA with a weaker record on the issue who was retained.
marple wrote on April 15, 2007 7:21 PM:ligatormom,
Thanks for the response, typical to claim absolute assurance of no wrong doing, without the knowledge of half the facts, ie. the closed questioning of his staff.
Marky wrote on April 15, 2007 7:26 PM:One thing I'm not sure I've seen remarked on. Several times, DOJ flacks have said, in response to questions about Carol Lam's firing, that there was no discussion of her ongoing corruption case. If true, isn't that evidence of impropriety already? It would be gross dereliction of responsibility not to examine her current major cases to make sure she could be replaced without harming the continuity of the investigation and prosecutions.
regular lurker wrote on April 15, 2007 7:40 PM:Wow. Scary..and not for the obvious reasons.
Think of the above as a commentary on Gonzales' summaries of Texas death row cases provided to then Gov. Bush.
Anonymous wrote on April 15, 2007 7:40 PM:Great point Marky. It also is another pointer that suggests the A.G. let the wall between Justice and the political office in the White House break down.
It's pretty clear here that the White House delegated to the DOJ the task of "explaining" why these firings were done after the fact, but that the DOJ did not in fact decide why these firings were to be done. A key distinction.
Under normal circumstance the DOJ would have played a much more active role in deciding what the criteria was for removal, and then applying that standard to come up with a list of names based on job performance. This is putting aside the fact that removals for political reasons mid-term are in and of themselves a serious departure from the usual practice.
In this perverted case it's pretty clear that the standard, whatever it was, was conceived and applied outside of the DOJ.
A pretty perverted decision making process.
Nuncamas21 wrote on April 15, 2007 8:30 PM:to the poster above at 07;40--very good point. i've not seen anyone else say that there is supposed to be a wall between doj and the political office in the white house, and that's a crucial point that the senators should establish in the hearing. this stuff is not supposed to go on. yes the initial selection of us attorneys is thoroughly political--well, except for the competence and local issues--but the internal doj stuff, the workings of the outfit, should be hands-off. anything less, and you get this extreme doubt about how fair the operations of justice are. any conviction obtained by any of the extant usa's is now highly suspect and i think judicially reveiwable for political influence affecting the prosecuting choice.
i actually once interviewed for a ausa position during an earlier republican administration, and i was getting such a strange vibe, the only words i could think of at the time to describe the hinkiness i felt about it was-selective prosecution. so i kept my lowerpaying, lower prestige job as county ass't da, to the shock of friends and the mentor who had encouraged me to apply.
well, that, and that the usa asked me if i had a boyfriend. that chapped me off and i knew i'd hate working for the guy.
lm945 wrote on April 15, 2007 8:36 PM:Come on, give the guy a break. Consider his options.
He can either (a) lie his ass off and admit to being totally incompetent, which would cost him his job. Or (b) tell the truth and admit to all the laws he's broken, which would cost him his freedom.
If you were Gonzales, which would you choose?
Chris wrote on April 15, 2007 8:39 PM:I just had to report this. EVERYTHING IN THAT LETTER BOILS DOWN TO THIS....
The roadmap for his testimony:
"... I have not spoken with nor reviewed the confidential transcripts of any of the Department of Justice employees interviewed by congressional staff. I state this because, as a result, I may be somewhat limited when it comes to providing you with all of the facts that you may desire. "
That's his license to answer everything with "I don't recall" (Senator Schumer notwithstanding) or "that was handled by staff" and he's not privy to what they did. Heckuva defense.
steambomb wrote on April 15, 2007 8:48 PM:I would like to suggest something here to all bloggers. The released that statement for a reason. The did it so they can look at reactions and see where their own discrepancies are. I would suggest that you all and all bloggers put a gag on it until he is before congress. Dont give this shit any help with his testimony! The code word is Right as I know that I am.
Anonymous wrote on April 15, 2007 8:54 PM:Steambomb - I agree you in theory. But no, there is really nothing that will allow them to dig out at this point. Too many people lying and too many lies at this point.
Code word: Well-done
parrot wrote on April 15, 2007 9:24 PM:"shielding our children from predators and pedophiles", eh?
Two words: Foley, FBI
Mr. Attorney General, can you please explain to the American people, how the FBI managed to blame an NGO who forwarded them emails providing evidence that violations of various sexual predator laws might have been occuring...and the behaviour of the FBI leading up to the resignation of Republican House Representative Foley?
parrot wrote on April 15, 2007 9:31 PM:Mr. Attorney General, when did you become aware that an important criteria under consideration for the job performance of United States Attorneys was membership in the Federalist Society? I ask you to look at the following charts--do you recall seeing these charts and what was your feeling at the time when and if you did see them? Do you believe that one factor in determining whether a United States Attorney will continue to serve is membership in the Federalist Society? What do you know of the Federalist Society? Are you yourself a member of the Federalist Society?
Can you explain to the committee what the rational behind that column is on this chart? Again, I ask you if, before today, you have seen this chart. When was the first time that you were made aware that membership in that organization was pertinent and important to performance review criteria with regard to USAs?
Anonymous wrote on April 15, 2007 9:43 PM:He's toast. Seriously, if this is the best he can come up with he's a goner. But at this point he's a small fry. This is not gonna die with his resignation. There are too many other strands- perhaps the most interesting being where Monica Goodling's testimony and the prosecution by the WI will take us.
parrot wrote on April 15, 2007 9:51 PM:Sorry. These bozos have got me so flippin' POed that I can't even write a sentence straight. Still, there are a whole host of questions that this statement begs...and here is another one...
"these non-partisan professionals will complete their own independent investigation"
Mr. Attorney General, you recently announced an investigation into how these firings were handled. Are you aware of any possible conflicts of interest with regard to members of the OPR and OIG staffs and or directors who will, in all likelihood, have to recuse themselves from this investigation if they are or have been members, and, especially, officers in the Federalist Society organization?
The fact that the Federalist Society is not a USGO and appears to have been criteria for deciding who is and who is not performing well at the Justice Department, certainly points to a potential conflict of interest for any internal investigators at the Department of Justice. What is your opinion on whether or not members or recent members of the Federalist Society should recuse themselves from these investigations?
John John wrote on April 15, 2007 10:12 PM:The coming hearings will look like a liears convention.
Robert L wrote on April 15, 2007 10:27 PM:All the commenting on what Gonzalez thinks, as set forth in the letter he submitted, may be missing an important point. Does anyone believe he wrote that letter? Is he capable of putting together twenty-five pages of that boilerplate? And when did he have the time? We've been hearing that he has been spending all his waking hours cramming for his Senate appearance, and that his tutors have kept him out of the public eye because he has been continually flunking his preparation. That doesn't sound to me like he could compose the lengthly missive to the Senate Judiciary committee, were he even trusted by his handlers to do it. I don't think he even read it, unless it's the script they gave him to try to memorize without success.
Anonymous wrote on April 15, 2007 10:29 PM:parrot--I feel your pain.
The Democrats just must improve their questioning skills.
We all know the background, so please don't waste time framing. If the senators wish to improve their presidential chances, they would be to impress us witj clear concise questions.
Insightful follow-up will make them rock stars. The public is ready for modest wisdom. In fact they are desperate for quiet ostentation, with an emphasis on quiet.
The more time left for Gonzales, the better the senator questioning will appear.
How is it that they don't know this stuff? Isn't there paid professional staff smart enough to figure this basic out for them?
Anonymous wrote on April 15, 2007 10:37 PM:Gonzales was a smart man at one time. He's a Harvard Law graduate, with no legacy admission (to say the least).
When he became stupid is anyone's guess, but from the best we know, the time line coincides with his friendship with Bush.
Anonymous wrote on April 15, 2007 11:17 PM:In this mass of bitching about the obvious, one statement stood out.
"Do they really think the american people are this fucking stupid."
Yes. They do think the American people are that stupid. Not all the American people, but the 30% who will be outraged by the Senate's mistreatment of poor Alberto. Those nasty liberals, you know, are still mad about Bill Clinton. This is just payback. The Democrats don't care about the country. They even want to take money from our brave soldiers defending our freedoms.
Gonzales is a firewall, otherwise he would have resigned long ago. His "defense", no matter how lame and unbelievable, serves to distract from the real culprits. The circus that surrounds the firings (or as AG AG puts it, the "resignations") creates the spectacle behind which they do their dirty work.
The Democrats can get as pissed off as they want. What can they do? They can't impeach without Republican participation. They can't even order the US Marshalls to arrest Karl Rove. They can't defund the troops and they can't manage the media.
Instead they act as a sponge for all our hatred of the Bush regime; they can shout and posture and pontificate but they do not have the institutional tools to deal with a WH that tells them, "Go fuck yourself." Nixon resigned not because the Democrats hated him, but because the Republicans threw him overboard.
How many Republican legislators can be trusted to do the right thing when their re-election depends upon the very people they are supposed to indict?
Further, how many Democratic legislators can be trusted to follow through on their rhetoric? (Remember Joe Lieberman.) I fear that like Specter, many Democrats cannot be trusted either.
I'll watch and enjoy the spectacle Tuesday, but I won't be encouraged. Suppose Alberto resigns (just in time for a recess appointment). Will Ted Olson be an improvement?
Milton Wiltmellow wrote on April 15, 2007 11:20 PM:I forgot to sign 1137 pm post.
Anonymous wrote on April 15, 2007 11:23 PM:(sigh)
The 11:17 post, I mean.
Nuncamas21 wrote on April 15, 2007 11:29 PM:gahhhh, not ted olson, por favor, amigos...
but of course abu is a firewall, eveybody's a farkin' firewall, all have to be felled before you get to the quote principals unquote.
my caps key doesn't work, sorry. i'm trying to work around it.
i do think there is a tipping point, and also i think that the spinning isn't doing so hot right now. people really do wonder what the f was going down in the agag's office. maybe not very many people, but people who care about stuff. people who pay attention. and that's us. we are paying attention. and it is us who will eventually, finally, make a difference.
i hope i'm right.
Com-n-sense wrote on April 15, 2007 11:57 PM:Blup ... blup, blup ... blup.
JD Brooks wrote on April 15, 2007 11:58 PM:Maybe it's just me, but whenever I read or hear shit like this from Fredo, I have a mental image of him sitting in an office stuffed to the rafters with executive toys. Maybe a 'Billy Bass' hanging on the wall.
I'm with the other posters who wonder just what in the hell he does all day. I guess he learned from the master. After all, "It's hard work bein' The Delegator-in-Chief."
Bonus Gonzo security code/fortune: 'sticky'
The Oracle wrote on April 16, 2007 12:09 AM:Between now and November 2008, everytime a "loyal Bushie" stonewalls Congress then the chances will increase that even more Republicans will lose their seats in Congress next Fall. Everytime executive branch "loyal Bushie" emails are deleted or lost, then the issue of Republican "obstruction of justice" will dominate the minds of a majority of voters before the November 2008 elections.
And if a single "voter fraud" case involving any Democrat occurs between now and next Fall, then I would hope that Congress will subpoena the U.S. Attorney responsible and drag this "loyal Bushie" before Congress for an explanation, even if it happens one week before the election.
There's a new sheriff in town (the Democratic-controlled Congress) and the internet posse is out to round up all the Republican outlaws responsible for trashing our democracy and stealing our nation blind. Forget the popcorn...who's got the rope?
JP wrote on April 16, 2007 12:50 AM:Steambob, if the White House is looking to bloggers comments to shore up its defense, then they are really hurting in a bad way.
There have been some incredibly perceptive comments here today, still, these are questions that the White House should have anticipated.
At the end of the day the testimony will have some value. But given that we are dealing with a witness who has serious credibility problems to begin with, this matter won't reach a resolution until the full document trail is available, and until other "principals" have testified concerning their actions.
If parts of the document trail continue to end up "missing" that's going to create another set of problems for the White House.
Charles Bowman wrote on April 16, 2007 12:52 AM:Gonzales answers troublesome quesion: I have ordered my cronies to invesigate these firings and report back to me. Until then, I cannot comment.
Eric Ferguson wrote on April 16, 2007 1:13 AM:Senator's reply: That being so, I think that we should postpone these hearing until your investigations are complete! In the meanwhile we will continue to compile evidence. Congressmen Conyers investigators will continue to accumulate evidence and if we gather enough incriminating evidence, this ludicrous lyfest won't even be necessary!
When I did a keyword search for Sampson's name in Gonzales' statement, his name lit up a bunch of times in the first paragraphs. I was using Opera 9, which highlights each instance of the keyword. It was striking, and together with the release ofthe e-mail that directly contradicts Sampson's testimony, suggests that Sampson is taking the fall for the whole scandal. He's Gonzales' Libby. I hope he'll have more willingness to talk than Libby.
JP wrote on April 16, 2007 1:27 AM:Eric, I suspect Gonzales will try to pin the blame on a subordinate.
However, if Gonzales choses this path he is essentially saying "I was an incredibly inept manager who delegated a vital responsibility to a subordinate in a manner in which no other A.G. in the history of my office has". In other words, I, Alberto Gonzales, also need to go.
Additionally, if Gonzales continues to insist that he was not aware of the details of these firings, as his advance statement suggests, then he is also saying "I cannot really speak to whether or not these firings were illegal or improper, because I didn't really know the circumstances of the firings. Sampson did it, and he screwed up. But beyond that I can't really comment."
So the Gonzales defense comes down to:
1. I am incompetent and no longer have the credibility to hold this job.
2. I do not know the details fully enough to comment with any authority on what went on, so after I am fired, please keep digging. Someone else has the answers, talk to Sampson again.
Sampson in his testimony said that the principals were Gonzales and the White House Counsel (Harriet Miers), which means that Miers needs to tell her version of events under oath as well.
Nuncamas21 wrote on April 16, 2007 1:46 AM:t'is a pity, but late on a sunday night, few of s are still trying to ge things right.
sorry, i've been listening to bob dylan's modern times and it's easy to slip into his rhythms of rhymes.
thunder on the mountain, indeed.
JP wrote on April 16, 2007 2:27 AM:Didn't Dylan also have some song along the lines of:
"There must be some way out of here," said the joker to the thief,
"There's too much confusion, I can't get no relief.
Gonzales and Rove fired them, Goodling pleads the fifth,
Neither Hannity nor Limbaugh know what any of it is worth."
"No reason to get excited," the thief, he kindly spoke,
"There are many here among us who feel that life is but a joke.
But you and I, we've been through that, and this is not our fate,
So let us not talk falsely now, the hour is getting late."
Roughly drawn from memory. Dylan circa '67 meets 2007.
Bob in Arkansas, USA wrote on April 16, 2007 3:37 AM:Smoke, mirrors and subterfuge, does that describe the AG's defense? While I wish him to be removed from office, unlike some of you I will not be overly pleased. I never thought that I would live long enough to see the end of this great nation, but my gut tells me that we are close to seeing the demise of our country. How many of you actually think that the group that occupy the administration are not capable and devious enough to seize our country and declare martial law? What is so pathetic is that we hear individuals say, "I'll grab my gun and fight", but when they come to round up our guns these people will gladly give them up for the safety net that will be provided! Flame me if you wish, and I truly hope that I am wrong, but give some thought to what I have said before you ignite the match!!
Anonymous wrote on April 16, 2007 6:42 AM:In the 25 page script sent by Gonzales to the Senate:
No mention of Karl Rove.
No mention of Monica Goodling.
Guess Monica chickened too early in promising to plead the 5th and quitting her job.
Then , again, I may be wrong.
angryvietnamvet wrote on April 16, 2007 9:50 AM:In today's NYT article, reference is made to AG's statement:
“I know that I did not and would not ask for a resignation of any individual in order to interfere with or influence a particular prosecution for partisan political gain,” he said. ...
Q: he claims the firings were not done to "interfere with or influence a PARTICULAR prosecution...".
Does this mean that his actions could have been aimed at interfering with or influencing prosecutions without identifying which particular one to target....???? Maybe just the ones involving democrats?
Judith Miller wrote on April 16, 2007 10:42 AM:Bush Is Mobilizing The ENTIRE National Guard…
WASHINGTON, DC — I have two subjects to deal with today. The first is the completely disastrous military situation in Iraq and the second deals with deliberately poisoned food in the United States. In the first matter, it will soon become public that Bush is going to extend the tours of duty for troops to 15 months or, with some clever interpretation of the rules, to 20 months.
http://www.tbrnews.org/Archives/a2666.htm
The new “surge” troops are not properly armed; have absolutely no body armor, for example, and not is, or will be available, and the casualties are soaring.
http://www.libertyforum.org
Anonymous wrote on April 16, 2007 11:52 AM:IF I WERE A SENATOR:
Mr Gonzales, you affirmed that an improper firing would be "The replacement of one or more U.S. attorneys in order to impede or speed along particular criminal investigations for illegitimate reasons.”
Please define "legitmate resonings" under which an attorney can be fired to impede particular criminal investigations? Is a Presidential directive to fire a prosecutor a legitimate reason to impede an investigation? Would circumstances embarrassing to your political party be legitimate reasons to impede an investigation?
jeremiah wrote on April 16, 2007 11:52 AM:[CODE=EXPERT, as in "Please find a torture expert to extract the truth from Herr Gonzales."]
IF I WERE A SENATOR:
Mr Gonzales, you affirmed that an improper firing would be "The replacement of one or more U.S. attorneys in order to impede or speed along particular criminal investigations for illegitimate reasons.”
Please define "legitmate resonings" under which an attorney can be fired to impede particular criminal investigations? Is a Presidential directive to fire a prosecutor a legitimate reason to impede an investigation? Would circumstances embarrassing to your political party be legitimate reasons to impede an investigation?
JTSpangler wrote on April 16, 2007 2:59 PM:[CODE=EXPERT, as in "Please find a torture expert to extract the truth from Herr Gonzales."]
Soy mio perdidor,
I'm a loser, baby,
So why don't you kill me?
Copyright by Beck [Hansen]
Ethan Olivia wrote on April 21, 2007 10:16 AM:This humiliating video says it all:
http://www.govgap.com
tom@gmail.com wrote on April 29, 2007 7:54 PM:Generic Cialis. Buy Generic Cialis
rick@gmail.com wrote on April 30, 2007 11:42 PM:hello
rick@gmail.com wrote on April 30, 2007 11:42 PM:hello
alex@gmail.com wrote on May 1, 2007 11:59 AM:hello
alex@gmail.com wrote on May 1, 2007 12:00 PM:hello
alex@gmail.com wrote on May 1, 2007 12:00 PM:hello
bill@gmail.com wrote on May 5, 2007 10:48 PM:hello
bill@gmail.com wrote on May 5, 2007 10:49 PM:hello
bill@gmail.com wrote on May 5, 2007 10:49 PM:hello
twvdy jlnyus wrote on May 9, 2007 11:43 AM:fvob cqkz qsjkxinr nyjuodr bxwdg ijnezl fhincpwb
eyoni wrzkdse wrote on May 9, 2007 11:44 AM:vkylcb iatw lsguyokwh opnlmtdew nkwtqibaf tcpjwdo zqomexvj [URL]http://www.yubcjid.tcjpf.com[/URL] qpcuy itmx
David wrote on May 25, 2007 7:09 PM:This is gonsalez music site - best music site in da world.
free mp3 music downloads wrote on September 26, 2007 5:37 PM:Hi boys!991fa736aab7ce0e8d395f96f1a61a42