The Case Against Gonzales Falls Apart

[Tigermike 3,067]

April 05, 2007

The Case Against Gonzales Falls Apart

By Ruben Navarrette

SAN DIEGO -- When I wrote recently that Alberto Gonzales was being unfairly castigated by -- among others -- white liberals who have long opposed him because they couldn't claim credit for his achievements, some people took offense. How dare I suggest that race had anything to do with this mess, they said -- right before they proceeded to charge, sweet as you please, that the only reason I was defending the embattled attorney general is because we're both Hispanic.

Just curious: If a white male defends another, have you ever heard someone say it's because they're both white males?

The real reason I feel queasy about the ongoing persecution of the attorney general is because the case for his ouster -- Pundits and Politicos v. Gonzales -- is slowly falling apart.

You wouldn't know it, given how inept Gonzales and others at the Justice Department have been in defending themselves. Nor from the shoddy media coverage, which often has been marked by inaccuracies.

For example, The New York Times penned an editorial on March 27 claiming that Gonzales had denied signing off on the firings of eight U.S. attorneys. But the White House released video footage of Gonzales -- from a week or so earlier -- in which the attorney general acknowledged that he had approved the firings while insisting that he was not involved in the nitty-gritty of deciding who ought to go.

In fact, the case against Gonzales is unraveling so fast that the accusations are constantly shifting.

When this non-scandal broke at the beginning of March, the accusation by some was that Gonzales was guilty of the political equivalent of a felony -- canning federal prosecutors to thwart prosecutions that could have political consequences, and then trying to hide it by lying.

Never happened, Gonzales' ex-chief of staff told the Senate Judiciary Committee last week. When Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., asked D. Kyle Sampson if he was "prepared to swear under oath that no U.S. attorney was asked to resign because the U.S. attorney was pursuing an investigation ... or failing to undertake a prosecution,'' Sampson answered yes. Later, in response to questioning from Sen. Herb Kohl, D-Wis., Sampson was even more explicit that "no U.S. attorney was asked to resign for the purpose of influencing a particular case for a political reason.''

Hence the predicament facing Senate Democrats: They don't want to take Sampson's word that the firings of the U.S. attorneys were justified, and yet they insist that Sampson is credible when he says he doesn't "think the attorney general's statement that he was not involved in any discussions about U.S. attorney removals is accurate.''

Whereas Gonzales is accused of having selective memory, Democrats want to attach to Sampson something akin to selective believability.

By the end of the month, the accusations against Gonzales had been whittled down to what you might consider a misdemeanor, as the punditry complained that Gonzales had poor communication skills and had badly bungled the explanation of what happened.

It's a fair criticism. Gonzales could have done himself a lot of good from the beginning by explaining -- with candor, straight talk and simple language -- exactly what happened and what didn't happen concerning the fired U.S. attorneys. He'll have one last chance to do that, and perhaps keep his job, when he testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee on April 17.

And yet Gonzales' critics on both the left and the right are in no position to lecture him on communicating clearly. They haven't been able to settle on one narrative of what he supposedly did wrong since this thing started. First, they said that Gonzales didn't understand the difference between being the president's lawyer and being the people's lawyer. Then, they said he had led a political purge. Then, they claimed that Gonzales lied to Congress when he testified on Jan. 18. Then, they said he lied to the media at a news conference in March 13. Then, they said he had shown poor leadership. Then, they said he mishandled the whole thing. And finally, the conservative National Review said last week, Gonzales had lost his effectiveness and should resign because the Justice Department needed a fresh start.

Such has been the railroading of Alberto Gonzales, orchestrated as it has been -- ironically -- by people who decry what they insist is the reckless ruining of reputations and tarnishing of the Justice Department for the sake of political expediency.

You don't say.

ruben.navarrette@uniontrib.com

El Linko

[AURaptor 1,128]

Drats. First the Libby Inquisition fails to get Rove OR Cheney. Now this.

[TexasTiger 13,054]

I guess word the case is crumbling hasn't gotten to Alberto, yet:

Gonzales Crams for a Senate Grilling

By Michael Isikoff

Newsweek

April 16, 2007 issue - Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has virtually wiped his public schedule clean to bone up for his long-awaited April 17 testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee—a session widely seen as a crucial test as to whether he will survive the U.S. attorney mess. But even his own closest advisers are nervous about whether he is up to the task. At a recent "prep" for a prospective Sunday talk-show interview, Gonzales's performance was so poor that top aides scrapped any live appearances.

During the March 23 session in the A.G.'s conference room, Gonzales was grilled by a team of top aides and advisers—including former Republican National Committee chair Ed Gillespie and former White House lawyer Tim Flanigan—about what he knew about the plan to fire seven U.S. attorneys last fall. But Gonzales kept contradicting himself and "getting his timeline confused," said one participant who asked not to be identified talking about a private meeting. His advisers finally got "exasperated" with him, the source added. "He's not ready," Tasia Scolinos, Gonzales's public-affairs chief, told the A.G.'s top aides after the session was over, said the source.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17995971/site/newsweek/

[DKW 86 7,451]

So showing up uninformed is good for your job? Must be nice....

[TexasTiger 13,054]

Guess no one told the Republican Senators that the case against Gonzo was falling apart. This has to be the most pathetic performance ever by a person of Cabinet status.

Republican as well as Democratic lawmakers challenged the embattled attorney general during an often-bitter five-hour hearing before the Judiciary Committee. Lawmakers confronted Gonzales with documents and sworn testimony they said showed he was more involved in the dismissals than he contended.

"The best way to put this behind us is your resignation," Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma bluntly told Gonzales, one conservative to another. Gonzales disagreed, rejecting the idea that his departure would put the controversy to rest.

Even with the White House offering fresh support, it was a long day for the attorney general. Seventy-one times he fell back on faulty memory, saying he could not recall or remember conversations or events surrounding the firings. During breaks in the hearing, sign-waving protesters rose from the audience calling for him to resign.

Digging in as the day wore on, Gonzales defended his decision last year to oust the U.S. attorneys. Congress is investigating whether the firings were politically motivated, which the Bush administration vehemently denies.

"The notion that there was something that was improper that happened here is simply not supported," Gonzales said, adding that he would make the same decisions again.

Late Thursday, Sen. Jeff Sessions said in a telephone interview that the Justice Department might be better served with new leadership. "I think it's going to be difficult for him to be an effective leader," said Sessions, a Republican member of the Judiciary Committee and former federal prosecutor.

"At this point, I think (Gonzales) should be given a chance to think it through and talk to the president about what his future should be," Sessions said, adding that he was most troubled by Gonzales' inability to recall attending a meeting at which the firings were discussed. Documents provided by the Justice Department show he was present at the Nov. 27, 2006, meeting.

Gonzales has provided differing versions of the events surrounding the dismissals, first saying he had almost no involvement and later acknowledging that his role was larger -- but only after e-mails about meetings he attended were released by the Justice Department to House and Senate committees.

There was no doubt about the stakes involved for a member of President Bush's inner circle, and support from fellow Republicans was critical to his attempt to hold his job.

Calling most of Gonzales' explanations for the firings "a stretch," Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham asked whether the dismissals simply came down to personality disagreements the Justice Department and White House had with the former prosecutors.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washingt...nzales_to_task/

[DKW 86 7,451]

I heard Gonzalez used the term, "I cant recall" 70 times today. That must piss Hillary off, she is the only person to use it more often in front of a Congressional Committee.

[quietfan 233]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18227600/

WASHINGTON - Attorney General Alberto Gonzales came to Capitol Hill with only one missionThursday: to placate Republican and Democratic senators dissatisfied with his account of how eight federal prosecutors were fired.

Apparently, he failed. For the first time, Republicans on the Judiciary Committee broke ranks and said it might be best if Gonzales stepped down.

"It is generous to say the attorney general's communications about this matter have been inconsistent," Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., told Gonzales in a packed hearing room. "The consequence should be the resignation of the attorney general."

Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., said in an interview after the hearing, "There are some problems that he just hasn't handled well, and it might just be best if he came to a conclusion that the department is better served if he's not there."

Some of the committee's biggest questions went unanswered: How exactly did the Justice Department settle on the eight prosecutors who were fired? Does Gonzales have command of his agency?

"You have been a forceful witness, and you have had a lot of staying power," Sen. Arlen Specter, the ranking Republican on the committee, said near the end of Gonzales' seven hours of testimony.

"But we haven't gotten, really, answers," added Specter, R-Pa. "I urged you to put on the record the details as to all the U.S. attorneys you asked to resign so that we could evaluate. And you have not done that."

Specter threw Gonzales a thin lifeline, declining to call for his resignation but making it clear that he thinks there's little argument for Gonzales keeping his post.

"His ability to manage the department has been severely undercut by the way he has handled these resignations and by the way he has handled his news conferences, his press statements and his testimony before the committee," Specter said.

Seventy-one times Gonzales claimed a faulty memory when members of the Senate committee asked such questions as who decided on the ousted eight, and whether Gonzales was or was not involved in the evaluation process.

It was not the performance President Bush seemed to be seeking when he said last March that "Al's got work to do up there." Still, White House officials said the president continued to support his longtime friend. Bush spokesman Tony Fratto said that Gonzales "can be effective going forward."

For his part, the attorney general insisted he had committed no wrongdoing.

"The moment I believe I can no longer be effective, I will resign," he said.

Gonzales faced a long day of challenges to his credibility from Democrats and Republicans, while behind him, protesters hooted and sometimes shouted, "Liar!"

Senators ticked off evidence - based on department documents and testimony from two former senior Justice officials - that Gonzales participated in discussions about at least three of the fired prosecutors: Carol Lam in San Diego, Bud Cummins in Little Rock, Ark., and David Iglesias in New Mexico.

Gonzales recalled an Oct. 11 conversation with Bush and White House political adviser Karl Rove about voter fraud concerns during which Iglesias, who was later fired, came up.

"I now understand that there was a conversation between myself and the president," Gonzales said.

Asked several times whether he was responsible for deciding whom to fire, Gonzales at times appeared to answer both yes and no. At one point he said, "I had everything to do with the decision." At others, he described the decision process as a consensus among top Justice officials, headed by former chief of staff Kyle Sampson and signed off on by Gonzales.

Democrats, many of whom have called for Gonzales' resignation, widely ridiculed his answers. But some of the sharpest criticism came from Republicans.

Sen. John Cornyn R of Texas, like Gonzales a close Bush ally, called the handling of the firings "deplorable."

Sen. Lindsey Graham R of South Carolina called most of Gonzales' explanations "a stretch."

"It's clear to me that some of these people just had personality conflicts with people in your office or the White House and (they) just made up reasons to fire them," Graham said. "You have a tremendous credibility problem with the American people and the Congress."

At the end, Gonzales shook hands with the senators remaining in the room and strode out, ignoring reporters' questions. Protesters at the back of the room sang a rock tune popular with sports fans when a rival basketball player fouls out of a game: "Hey, hey, hey, goodbye."

...Doesn't seem to have much support even from Republicans. That's five out of the eight Republicans on the Committee quoted in just this article with critical comments about Gonzales. Wouldn't this be a classic case where a person should resign for the good of his President and the country?

[AURaptor 1,128]

Here we have ANOTHER case where nothing wrong was done, but a Republican is acting guilty anyways. Libby didn't do anything wrong, but then 'misremembered', and that landed him in trouble. Gonzalez could have kept his hide clean had he simply been straight from the beginning, and said the firings were done at the discretion of the President. That's all that needed to be said. There was no reason for this hastily contrived management talk to make matters sound more complicated than they were. The President wanted them gone, so that's what happened. Next question. Meanwhile, we have the likes of Sandy Burger stealing and destroying top secret documents, and virtually nothing happens.

[quietfan 233]

Here's a question in my mind that no one seems to be asking:

SHOULD the President have the authority to fire federal prosecutors at will?

I agree that this is the way things work currently, and it's fairly common for new presidents to clean house and replace most or all federal prosecutors upon taking office (even Bill Clinton did.) The debate in the these recent firings is not whether the President had the right to fire them, but whether or not the firings were politically motivated or used to impede ethics investigations of Bush allies.

But is this really a good system? Why aren't federal prosecutors merit employees, as in most of the civil service system, protected from political pressure by either party? I mean, the President can't fire a postal worker at will, and surely prosecutors deserve more protection from political pressure than a mail carrier. As long as criminal investigators serve at the whim of the President, won't there always be the danger of partisan politics intruding on law enforcement? Isn't it time to provide a level of insulation between White House politics (by whichever party is in power) and criminal investigators trying to do their job?

[TexasTiger 13,054]

Here we have ANOTHER case where nothing wrong was done, but a Republican is acting guilty anyways. Libby didn't do anything wrong, but then 'misremembered', and that landed him in trouble. Gonzalez could have kept his hide clean had he simply been straight from the beginning, and said the firings were done at the discretion of the President. That's all that needed to be said. There was no reason for this hastily contrived management talk to make matters sound more complicated than they were. The President wanted them gone, so that's what happened. Next question. Meanwhile, we have the likes of Sandy Burger stealing and destroying top secret documents, and virtually nothing happens.

You're saying they've done nothing wrong, so they're lying to covering up "rightdoing", not wrongdoing. Why does one lie to cover up something that is not questionable?

[quietfan 233]

Meanwhile, we have the likes of Sandy Burger stealing and destroying top secret documents, and virtually nothing happens.

I guess it depends on what the definition of "virtually nothing" is.

Burger pled guilty in a plea bargain in which he lost his security clearance, got two years probation & community service, and a $10,000 fine later raised to $50,000. Of course, everyone is entitled to their opinion and I understand that some may feel that sentence wasn't sufficiently harsh. But if so, why did the Attorney General let his Department agree to the plea bargain? Let's see...the Attorney General when Burger pled guilty was...hmmm...Alberto Gonzales!

[TexasTiger 13,054]

Meanwhile, we have the likes of Sandy Burger stealing and destroying top secret documents, and virtually nothing happens.

I guess it depends on what the definition of "virtually nothing" is.

Burger pled guilty in a plea bargain in which he lost his security clearance, got two years probation & community service, and a $10,000 fine later raised to $50,000. Of course, everyone is entitled to their opinion and I understand that some may feel that sentence wasn't sufficiently harsh. But if so, why did the Attorney General let his Department agree to the plea bargain? Let's see...the Attorney General when Burger pled guilty was...hmmm...Alberto Gonzales!

Berger won't work in Government again. And he's forever humilated. What he did was bizarre. It doesn't make sense, but nothing was truly lost:

Archives officials have said previously that Berger had copies only, and that no original documents were lost. It remains unclear whether Berger knew that, or why he destroyed three versions of a document but left two other versions intact. Officials have said the five versions were largely similar, but contained slight variations as the after-action report moved around different agencies of the executive branch.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2005Mar31.html

[AURaptor 1,128]

Here we have ANOTHER case where nothing wrong was done, but a Republican is acting guilty anyways. Libby didn't do anything wrong, but then 'misremembered', and that landed him in trouble. Gonzalez could have kept his hide clean had he simply been straight from the beginning, and said the firings were done at the discretion of the President. That's all that needed to be said. There was no reason for this hastily contrived management talk to make matters sound more complicated than they were. The President wanted them gone, so that's what happened. Next question. Meanwhile, we have the likes of Sandy Burger stealing and destroying top secret documents, and virtually nothing happens.

You're saying they've done nothing wrong, so they're lying to covering up "rightdoing", not wrongdoing. Why does one lie to cover up something that is not questionable?

It turns out that Libby didn't 'out' Val Plame, or anyone. Gonzalez gave a standard company line, poor performance, with out doing his homework. It's likely neither one expected to be questioned AT ALL, is my point.