Gonzalez

I don't really know what to say about Alberto Gonzalez's op-ed and testimony preview. He seems to sense that he can't just stand pat, so he's kinda sorta apologizing for . . . well . . . well . . . well it's not totally clear what he's apologizing for. To be sorry, you need to be admitting to having done something wrong. But he's certainly not owning up to the fact that there was a concerted campaign to get US Attorneys to gin up "voter fraud" cases, to prosecute Democrats on corruption charges, and to avoid prosecuting Republicans and that the purge was part of this campaign.

At this point, however, there's so much circumstantial evidence that there was such a campaign and so much evidence of a coverup by the White House and so much evidence of people lying to congress in their testimony it's very hard to see how Gonzalez can offer a"measured apology for his mistakes in the dismissal of eight United States attorneys." Which mistakes? Apologize for what? Either the line has to be that US Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president and therefore it's perfectly appropriate to fire them for refusing to serve naked partisan interests and there's nothing to apologize for, or else he needs to own up to what happened.

Comments

What are you talking about. The AG has said, repeatedly, that, " 'It' wasn't 'handled' 'well'." What could be clearer than that?

Posted by ed | April 15, 2007 11:19 PM

Near as I can tell, he's saying something like this:
"I'm sorry for the public Washington spectacle that became of the firing of the Attorneys."

But really, he's sorry he and the loyal bushies got caught doing what they did. "Sorry I got caught."

Posted by blatherskite | April 15, 2007 11:20 PM

Matt, he's sorry he can't remember all this stuff and nobody told him all what was going on at the DOJ... ;-)
Doesn't this all make you feel snuggly and secure from terrorists??

Posted by Frenchdoc | April 15, 2007 11:37 PM

At this point, however, there's so much circumstantial evidence that there was such a campaign and so much evidence of a coverup by the White House and so much evidence of people lying to congress in their testimony it's very hard to see how Gonzalez can offer a"measured apology for his mistakes in the dismissal of eight United States attorneys."

Which makes Mr. Gonzales' impending testimony and questioning all the more interesting.

Either the line has to be that US Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president and therefore it's perfectly appropriate to fire them for refusing to serve naked partisan interests and there's nothing to apologize for, or else he needs to own up to what happened.

Or (as has been mentioned here on other threads recently), we'll get to see Alberto trot out his personal version of the Chewbacca defense.

The last graph of his op-ed, though, was particularly awesome in its ability to insult the collective intelligence, such that it is, of the WaPo readership:

In part because of my own experience, I know the real strength of America. It lies in our Constitution, our people and our collective unyielding commitment to equal opportunity, equal justice, common decency and fairness. With this same commitment in my mind, I very much look forward to answering Congress's questions about this matter on Tuesday.

I'm sure he's really looking forward to answering questions - written by his staffers and handed to selected Republican Senators. The other questions, not so much.

His prepared statement is already available.

Just skimming it - after blowing smoke up the Committee's backside about what wonderful lawyers and public servants they are, he's going with same line from his op-ed about apologizing for his role in making this a public specatcle, and then launching into a "reasonable people can disagree" on what constitutes an improper reason for dismissal.

He writes: 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.”

Funny, since that's what appears to be exactly what happened in several of the firings. Tuesday should be fun - if the Committee does its job.

Posted by SoCalJustice | April 15, 2007 11:46 PM

It's true, though -- reasonable people CAN disagree about what constitutes a proper reason for dismissal. But the administration refuses to proffer a reason, or at least a reason that they will stick with for more than a couple of days. If they would just name one reason, then reasonable people could begin to discuss whether that reason was a proper one for dismissal. But at this point, we have no choice but to assume impropriety.

Posted by dj moonbat | April 15, 2007 11:51 PM

He's been saying that he's sorry he and his sorry lot got caught, and he's sorry that he and his anti-American cronies have gotten caught making things worse.

Salient in Gonzo's op-ed is his statement that he did not decide on firings during his discussions with his chief of staff, Kyle Sampson. Leading to the alternate questions that if Sgt. Schultz wasn't deciding who got fired, who did? (And what were we paying the Attorney Sergeant for?) Or, in typical Bush-speak, he didn't actually make the firing decisions DURING the conversations, as he said, but did make them following the conversations.

As W said, "They hate our freedoms."

Posted by Different Ed | April 15, 2007 11:52 PM

The shock troop mad cowboy child still has a good chance of survival, through it all. Truth or loyalty, we know which side they've picked, through the looking glass, on it goes

Posted by Francis | April 16, 2007 12:02 AM

The reality is that there was no law broken. There was a meeting in December 2006 (talk about swift reprisal; a year
and a half after most were put on the list. There was a list
of possible replacements, but only one really was considered;
Tim Griffin, (and he had previous prosecutorial as well as
JAG experience in Iraq) He signed off on it, it wasn't a big deal. There was one meeting. Sampson & Goodling, handled imput
from local officials, judicial appointees, et al. The US attorneys were dismissed for a whole series of local issues; from managerial to handling of policy preferences (immigration
violations, death penalties, voter fraud) You want a real issue
; open up the NSLs controversy, but risk compromising 3,000 active investigations

Posted by narciso | April 16, 2007 12:38 AM

well it's not totally clear what he's apologizing for

For being ostensibly in charge of a department that conspired with Rove's political operation and the White House counsel's office while treating him like a warm body with a sign-off pen?

But he can't exactly admit that he was oblivious to the work of the loyal Bushie underlings. Hence the strained parsing, and the sort of padding that's usually seen in the last-minute papers of high school civics students. But talk about absentee landlords.

SoCalJustice: see, I take 'an improper reason' as an attempt to imply that only one improper reason exists. I want a Senator (presumably a Dem, since Jeff Sessions and Orrin Hatch will be getting their talkers tomorrow) to ask this: what exactly do you do all day, Attorney General?

Leading to the alternate questions that if Sgt. Schultz wasn't deciding who got fired, who did?

I think it's growing clearer by the day that Sampson was receiving the names from two sources working in concert. Rove's shop identified the targets based on political concerns, and Monica Goodling and the DOJ Bushies came up with the oppo research to smear them.

It's a kind of political genius, in a way. By keeping Gonzo out of the loop, you can't pin any specific bad acts upon him, other than being a staggeringly useless AG. And by doing it through Rove's office, you get the advantages of executive privilege and the gwb43.com backchannel.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | April 16, 2007 1:47 AM

The reality is that there was no law broken.

wow - you guys are focusing so much on the big picture that you're forgetting the littler one. Gonzalez and his crew are already on record giving Congress all sorts of explanations, much or most of which have since that testimony already been disproven by the emails. It was non-political, it was due to poor peformance, Gonzalez was completely out of the loop, etc., etc. All that stuff is in the record (and gee, I was under the impression that lying to Congress is breaking the law - silly me, I guess) and somehow or other Gonzalez has to appease a whole bunch of people who feel entitled to oversight and don't take lightly Administration officials blithely leading them down the garden path.
None of the grand conspiracy of ginned-up investigations of "voter fraud" in order to get "voter suppression" in favor of the GOP, or somehow or other affect the 2008 election, or any other grand schemes really are on the table yet. The White House and its apologists and watercarriers are correct when they declare that there's no "evidence of wrong-doing". Of course not - not of the principles have testified to that yet, a whole bunch of crucial documents have not been turned over, etc., etc. - and the White House will fight and stonewall as much as possible to prevent the "evidence" from being made available. So it's premature to focus on that stuff - and the big picture - yet. It would be like the prosecuting attorney going into court with rumors and suppositions, but no evidence.

What Gonzalez is all about this week is somehow or other mollifying a pissed off Congress that knows he's been lying to them about the smaller stuff - and he has to figure out a way to prevent them from going after the bigger stuff. Anything else is way premature. And it really surprises me that MY insists on putting this solely in terms of the big picture. You really have to deal with the little stuff first before you can attack the big picture. That's still down the road apiece.

Posted by Ethel-to-Tilly | April 16, 2007 2:23 AM

Ah, but the high standards of the Bush admin ('restoring honor and dignity', remember?) mean that if it's not illegal, then it's required, and even if it is illegal, it shouldn't be and the bastards set up the perpetrators, etc.

'No law was broken' is the ultimate in weaselry, but Bush and his suckup friends in the DC media have inured us into the idea that what separates good government from bad is simply not being a criminal.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | April 16, 2007 5:37 AM

. . . and even if it is illegal, it shouldn't be and the bastards set up the perpetrators, etc.

Ah, the Clinton Defense.

Posted by David Tomlin | April 16, 2007 6:33 AM

The focus on Gonzales and whether or not he has told the truth is diverting attention from the real issues -- or so I argue here, anyway: http://balkin.blogspot.com/2007/04/misplaced-focus-on-gonzales.html

Posted by Marty Lederman | April 16, 2007 7:56 AM

The Bush admin are many things, but even they acknowledge that they're pretty bad at communicating their message directly: Cheney comes off like Dracula; Bush is incredibly inept as a public speaker, and even worse at answering un-rehearsed questions; the WH Comm Directors--Ari, Scotty, Tony, and Dana--have been roundly lampooned for their obfuscations.

So why is it that the Bushies feel so confident talking over reporters and appealing directly to Americans? What did Gonzo hope to accomplish by "finally" coming clean in WaPo?

Posted by Jamey | April 16, 2007 9:43 AM