Marty Lederman makes the case that the focus on Alberto Gonzalez is misplaced. In his key actions, the AG "simply took Sampson's word for it, because he was confident that Sampson's unadorned list reflected Rove's and Miers's wishes." Thus, "insofar as Congress's objective is to determine whether anything unlawful or unconstitutional was involved in the U.S. Attorney dismissals" what's needed is the information from the White House that Fred Fielding has been declining to hand over. Information about what Rove, Bush, and Miers were up to -- not just stuff in the Justice Department.
« Taxation: Perhaps Some Day With Some Representation | Main | Who's the Boss? »
The Irrelevance of Gonzalez
16 Apr 2007 08:16 am
Comments (6)
Well there may be a reason for dragging out Gonzalez's stay: the same reason they are stonewalling on documents. It helps to play out the clock and keeps eyes on the AG rather than the white house. Losing Gonzalez entails putting a new AG in place, and the core criterion for the smooth passage of a nominee will be independence from the white house. The worst nightmare for the White House going forward would be an AG with a mind to take the lid off that pot of simmering White House scandals.
I think Gonzales' WaPo op-ed yesterday reinforced that point - he wasn't involved in the decision of who to fire; Sampson just kept him intermittently informed on the process, not the names. When it was done, according to Gonzo, he just signed whatever Sampson put in front of him.
The optimum result from tomorrow's hearing would be a strong reaffirmation of Gonzo's having been out of the loop, having given the most minimal oversight imaginable to an unprecedented removal of U.S. attorneys in mid-Administration. That should be sufficient grounds to demand Gonzo's removal.
Then the Congressional hearings can return their focus to the process that Sampson, Goodling, and various White House aides were involved in, and the relation of Rove and Miers to that process.
Sorry I don't buy the non-centrality argument for a second. Gonzales has been part of the inner Bush circle forever, right from the beginning, he has been Bush's Fixer. There is no reason to believe that he would have been cut out of this decision loop and so I don't believe it. Not for a second.
What I see is an attorney seeking to protect his client without going so far as to risk disbarrment or imprisonment for himself. And not doing a particularly good job at it, mainly because from what I see Gonzales has never really been great shakes of a lawyer to start with.
Bruce: I think he may have been involved more than he said he was, but the fact is that Gonzales is still the errand boy, and Rove and Miers were clearly the ones running this particular show.
If Rove gets brought down, Gonzales will fall too, as will a lot of others.
One of the Senators needs to ask Abu G just who, in his department, would he consider had the executive authority to tell Kyle Sampson to put a name on the Little List, or take one off.
Like I said in the previous thread, we're starting to get a clearer sense of Gonzales' utter obliviousness and irrelevance during this process, while the 30somethings at DOJ and the White House orchestrated it like a teenage party while the parents are away for the weekend.
There is no reason to believe that he would have been cut out of this decision loop and so I don't believe it. Not for a second.
I do. Plausible deniability. Congress is going after the head of the department, and if the head is empty, they lose. By running it out of Rove's office and the WH Counsel's office, in consultation with the loyal Bushie underlings at DOJ, the White House inoculates the AG and gets to claim executive privilege if push comes to shove. And Gonzo is such a company man that if he's told to shut up, pay no attention and sign off at the end -- 'it's for your own good, Fredo' -- he'll do it.
Comments closed April 30, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Plausibly the White House is happy to let Gonzales twist in the wind, on the thought that his eventual departure will become the end of the saga rather than an intermediate step as the focus shifts to the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue. There's no inherent reason why dragging out Gonzales' stay tends to protect the White House, except that everyone will grow tired of the story and feel that the Democrats got someone's head.
Posted by Tyrone Slothrop | April 16, 2007 9:03 AM