Posted on 04/20/2007 7:44:05 AM PDT by AntiGuv
Judging by his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee Thursday, there are three questions about the U.S. attorneys mess that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales wants answered: What did I know? When did I know it? And why did I fire those U.S. attorneys?
As the day dragged on, it became clear — painfully clear to anyone who supports Gonzales — that the attorney general didn’t know the answers. Much of the time, he explained, he didn’t really know much at all — he was just doing what his senior staff recommended he do.
Gonzales began the day with an apology. “Those eight attorneys deserved better,” he said in an opening statement. “They deserved better from me and from the Department of Justice which they served selflessly for many years.” Gonzales also took the blame for his own statements about the case that were, in the words of Republican Sen. Arlen Specter, “at variance with the facts.” “My misstatements were my mistakes — no one else’s,” Gonzales told the committee. “ I accept complete and full responsibility.”
It wasn’t a terribly auspicious beginning, and it’s fair to say that things went downhill from there, despite Gonzales’ weeks of preparation. And it did not take long for it to become clear that Gonzales’ big problem was not with committee chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy and his fellow Democrats, who brought righteous indignation and little else to the hearing, but with Republicans, who brought simple, straightforward questions — questions Gonzales often failed to answer.
Under examination from Republican Sens. Sam Brownback, Lindsey Graham, Jeff Sessions, Tom Coburn and others, Gonzales maintained, in essence, that he did not know why he fired at least some of the eight dismissed U.S. attorneys. While Gonzales was able to give a reason for each firing, it appeared that in a number of cases, he had reconstructed the reason after the fact; he didn’t know why he fired the U.S. attorneys at the time, other than the dismissals were recommended by senior Justice Department staff.
Brownback began his questioning in a gentle, collegial way. “I’d like to get just a series of facts and the factual information out on the table on why this list of U.S. attorneys out of the 93 were terminated,” Brownback said. He then methodically went down the names of the eight U.S. attorneys who had been fired, starting with Daniel Bogden, the U.S. attorney in Nevada sacked in the group firing of last December 7.
“Senator, this is probably that one that to me, in hindsight, was the closest call,” Gonzales began. “I do not recall what I knew about Mr. Bogden on December 7th. That’s not to say that I wasn’t given a reason; I just don’t recall the reason. I didn’t have an independent basis or recollection of knowing about Mr. Bogden’s performance.”
Gonzales explained that, after the Bogden firing, he went back to look at documents relating to the matter. “It appears that there were concerns about the level of energy, generally, in a fast-growing district,” Gonzales explained, “concerns about his commitment to pursuing obscenity…and just generally getting a sense of new energy in that office.” But after the controversy over the firing blew up, Gonzales continued, he wondered whether getting rid of Bogden had been the right thing to do. So he asked a top staffer whether he should stand behind the decision. “I went to the deputy attorney general,” Gonzales said, “and I asked him, ‘OK, do we stand behind these decisions?’“ The deputy attorney general said yes, so Gonzales stood by his decision. In the end, Gonzales explained, even though he did not know why he fired Bogden, “I believe it was still the right decision.”
What about Margaret Chiara, the U.S. attorney fired in Michigan, Brownback asked. “Quite candidly, senator…I don’t recall the reason why that I accepted the decision on December 7,” Gonzales said. “But I’ve since learned that it was a question of similar kinds of issues: poor management issues, loss of confidence by career individuals.”
How about John McKay, the fired U.S. attorney in Washington state? “When I accepted the recommendation on December 7, generally I recall there being serious concerns about his judgment,” Gonzales testified. “That’s what I recall when I accepted the recommendations. And what I’ve since learned, of course, is that it related to an information-sharing project….He was doing a good job with respect to that. It’s the way he pursued it, in exercising poor judgment.”
Gonzales was even less clear a little later when he was asked about a U.S. attorney who had been on the firing list but was later spared. Why? Gonzales didn’t know. “This was a process that was ongoing that I did not have transparency into,” he said.
It’s safe to say that no senator, Republican or Democrat, was terribly moved by Gonzales’ explanations. Why was he so removed from decision making? Why didn’t he know what was going on? When it came his turn, Sen. Graham cut to the essence of the story. “Is it fair to say,” Graham asked, “that when you made your final decision, it was based on trust of your senior team more than it was knowledge?”
“I think that’s a fair assessment,” Gonzales answered.
And so it went. At times, Gonzales seemed not only removed from the decision-making process in the U.S. attorneys matter but also removed from his daily life as attorney general. For example, Leahy brought up an October 2006 meeting at the White House in which President Bush told Gonzales about concerns that some allegations of voter fraud weren’t being pursued. What did Gonzales remember about that? “There was a meeting in October, with the president, in which the president, as I understand it, relayed to me…concerns about pursuing election fraud,” Gonzales answered. At that, a number of observers scratched their heads. As I understand it? Gonzales spoke as if he hadn’t been there, but someone had told him about it.
The attorney general faced even more trouble when Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions questioned him about his statement at a March 13 news conference that he “never saw documents” about the firings and “never had a discussion about where things stood.” Documents released later showed that Gonzales did attend at least one meeting, on November 27, 2006, at which the U.S. attorneys matter was discussed, and he likely had greater knowledge of the matter than he told the press in March.
Sessions, a former U.S. attorney himself, wanted to know more. “Senator, I have searched my memory,” Gonzales said. “I have no recollection of the meeting. My schedule shows a meeting for 9:00 on November 27th, but I have no recollection of that meeting.”
“This was not that long ago,” Sessions said. “This was in November of last year?”
“According to my calendar, November 27.”
“And [former Gonzales chief of staff Kyle Sampson] seemed to indicate that he really — he understood it was a momentous decision,” Sessions continued, “that there would probably be political backlash. He even performed some outline about how that should be managed. And you don’t recall any of that?”
Gonzales didn’t.
“Well, I guess I’m concerned about your recollection, really, because it’s not that long ago,” Sessions said. “It was an important issue. And that’s troubling to me, I’ve got to tell you.”
By that time, Gonzales could see that he wasn’t going to get a break, certainly not from his own party. And in the end, it was a senator no one had expected, Republican Tom Coburn, who delivered the most devastating blow. The Justice Department had described the U.S. attorneys firings as performance-related, Coburn said to Gonzales. “Why should you not be judged by the same standards by which you judged these dismissed U.S. attorneys?”
Gonzales explained that he had admitted his mistakes and had taken responsibility for them. “Well, I believe there are consequences to a mistake,” Coburn replied. “And I would just say, Mr. Attorney General, it’s my considered opinion that the exact same standards should be applied to you in how this was handled. And it was handled incompetently. The communication was atrocious. It was inconsistent. It’s generous to say that there were misstatements. That’s a generous statement. And I believe you ought to suffer the consequences that these others have suffered. And I believe that the best way to put this behind us is your resignation.”
And that was that. After the hearing ended, the White House went into damage control mode, issuing a statement that President Bush was “pleased” with Gonzales’s performance and has “full confidence” in the attorney general. Perhaps that’s true. But things can change. If Gonzales has lost the support of Sam Brownback and Jeff Sessions and Lindsey Graham and Tom Coburn and other Republicans on the committee, he might soon lose his support at the White House, too.
As I was listening to this yesterday, I wondered if anyone would complain about the Dems and RINOs beating up on the most powerful Hispanic in the country, in such a public and demeaning way.
Any evidence of law breaking in all this testimony and two trillion emails?
No way. He’s a Republican.
So when is lying a cause to be fired? These days it seems par for the course.
I think we’re our own worst enemies at times like these....
As it is, this poor performance is good as he will not be appointed to the SCOTUS. and have any chance of confirmation.
Tokenism sometimes produces lightweights.
Ever since the Clinton years I have noted that the above statement can actually be a statement of volition (I do not recall, i.e. I choose not to) as opposed to ability to remember (I can not recall).
It is hard to defend the charge of crony-ism against Bush after this, because clearly Gonzales is out of his league.
I don't want the Dems to get another scalp, but DAMN!
I don’t believe there was any ‘wrong doing’ with these firings, they are all political appointees, and subject to termination at any time, for any reason.
That said, Gonzales is simply killing the Administration publicly with each successive appearance.
He just looks dumber than a bag of hammers at this point, completely disengaged from his job.
He should resign. If you aren’t helping the President - and lets be honest, Gonzales isn’t - then you need to go home.
I agree. The Dems get away with murder. If a Republican had said what dispicable Reid said about the war, there would be hell to pay. I have heard of only 2 Republicans come out against what he said. We need to put these SOB’s on the defensive and stay on the offensive.
To think that upon a time his name was connected with a potential SCOTUS appointment. Yikes.
“Those eight attorneys deserved better,” he said in an opening statement. “They deserved better from me..."
Do Republicans
ever say to anyone,
"Hey, screw you! I did
the right thing, I did
my job and I'd do the same
damn thing tomorrow!"
I am totally tired of hearing politicians use "misspoke, misspeak, misstatement". These words actually mean, "I am a liar".
No, they don’t. Then again, neither does the President on this kind of topic, so it should be surprising.
President Bush could have nipped this in the bud if he had just held a press conference and stated ‘I’ve lost confidence in these eight lawyers I appointed, and therefore decided to replace them as the Constitution allows. Period’.
Instead, he let it spin out of control. The political ineptness this second term is staggering. Its like the President has the same kind of advisor’s that told his father ‘go ahead and cut the deal with the Democrats, you won’t suffer from going back on your ‘no new taxes pledge’’.
I simply don’t understand it.
Gonzalez worked hard to lose conservative support yesterday.
I wish Gonzales would say “I fired them, I can fire any US Attorney, at any time, for no reason other than I want to. Watch, I’ll fire eight more.”
Gonzalez never had conservative report. Personally, I shut up about his being appoint AG because I was so relieved that Bush didn’t put him forward for SCOTUS. I remember saying something like, “At least he can’t do much damage as AG.”
Big mistake. The truth is, you can’t afford to appoint idiots to ANY of these important posts, although we can certainly rejoice that he’s not on the court. And now never will be, thank God.
This was another Harriet Miers appointment, put forward purely because he was a personal friend of the president, and ignoring the fact that he was completely unqualified.
all of Gonzales’ responses should have been:
“It’s none of you (fill in the blank) business.
BULL Squeeze.. I watched it.. ALL theatre.. all drama..,br> Nothing substantive.. like the Libby leak fiasco..
Spectre was in full "Figaro".. clown attire..
ALL Throwing dirt in the air and tearing their clothing..
High comedy.. like a SNL skit..
Gonzales looked like he was ready to break out laughing at any minute..
He "lied" to our sworn enemies when they were hounding him for information that was/is essentially NONE OF THEIR DAMN BUSINESS.
cobarde
In this case, the dems didn't even need to take a scalp...it was handed to them.
We do not know that the Gonzalez appointment was tokenism, it could have been cronyism.
I think Dems and Pubs were equally as frustrated with his performance.
One committee member asked if the same standard for the firings "lack of confidence, et al" should be applied to Gonzalez. Ouch.
This does not surprise me at all. Tom Coburn seems to me to be an independent-minded fellow, not in the tradition of John McCain, but as a principled conservative.
unggghhh
FWIW, we had dinner last night with some of our liberal inlaws, and they all said they watched the show on TV and enjoyed it immensely. Best thing since the army-McCarthy hearings, no doubt.
We were all able to agree on one thing, at least: that Gonzalez is a jerk. This does not reflect well on Bush’s judgment. I wish he had fired Gonzalez rather than Rumsfeld after the election.
You know, for a guy with a rep of “being in a bubble, fair or not, that was a really lame thing to say.
Then again he could have said the AG “did a heck of a job” (Brown) or gave him the Congressional Medal of Freedom (Tennet).
My unabashed terms for him were Rip Van Gonzalez and Not-So-Speedy Gonzalez. I gave the factual reasons why. I referred to him as one of the two worst AGs appointments in modern history.
After his performance this week, I have no reason to apologize or recant. This whole fiasco is yet another domestic political screw-up by GWB. It will continue to be a calamity if the President doesn't cut his losses, swallow his pride and send this embarrassingly pathetic non-performer out to pasture pronto.
Leni
I felt the same way. But if this article is accurate, Gonzales did not handle things well at all yesterday.
John McCain is “independent-minded” just in the sense that the only principle he’s loyal to is self-promotion.
Now back to our regularly scheduled witch hunt. :)
Although I believe the AG has the right to fire any attorney for any reason, Gonzalez is such a weenie, it is obvious that he is not fit to hold such a powerful position. To not be able to answer the simple question of exactly why these people were fired is inexcusable. I don’t care if it was because he didn’t like the color of their eyes, he should have been prepared to give an answer. He wasn’t. He is clearly not qualified to hold the position of AG.
It is no wonder that we have border patrol officers going to jail on the testimony of international drug smugglers. I suspect that Gonzalez doesn’t even know which country he is the Attorney General for.
They are political appointees, it is not a career job. They usually serve, at most a 4 year term. All of them can be fired every six months if the President wants to.
Didn’t sit through the whole thing, but from all I’ve seen so far, no law breaking. For those who say he should resign to end the harassment—it wouldn’t. If he resigns, they’ll smell the blood in the water and go on to the next victim. The ‘Rats want EVERY Republican, from the President on down, to not only be run out of their jobs, but, no doubt, mass executions. Their hatred is blinding.
I bet you were vilified too. At least you were 100 percent correct!!!
You’re right, of course. But I still don’t think it would be prudent, as they say, for the Attorney General to come out and say I can fire any of them for any reason at all. See, I just fired 8 more. It makes him look like an insane tyrant.
Amen. Except for the Damn.
So what.....they'll do this anyhow. No one is stopping them in their onslaught. If there is, tell me who. Better to get rid of the bag of rocks we have in Gonzalez right now before he does further damage through action or inaction.
Think of the many things he's ignored like Sandy Burglar, the NYT's leaking of intelligence, the handiwork of traitors, etal.
Think of what may be coming into the pervue of the AG's office in the final year-and-a-half of the GWB administration. Plenty! So, do we want this clueless turkey still ensconced?
The President can redeem himself somewhat for his disasterous, politically-correct appointment by dumping Rip van Gonzalez post-haste, let the Dems have their ill-gained little victory and move on with the appointment of a STRONG, well-respected, experienced, truly-conservative AG whose brain isn't JELLO.
Being a Texan, the President has a strange inability to know when to hold 'em and when to fold 'em.
Leni
A prosecutor friend of mine said watching Gonzales’ appearance yesterday was like watching a baby seal get clubbed.
All he had to say is that he had a right to fire them and he did. And he could have added that it was unfair to the fired attorneys to publicize the reasons for their firing. It would be a violation of privacy, and it would be wrong to hash over the details on TV.
Good grief, I’m neither a lawyer nor have I ever worked in the justice field, but I know that much.
This guy was a judge. But he showed the same bad judgment back then, when he struck down a Texas law calling for parental notification before minors have an abortion. That action alone should have been enough to disqualify him for any job in the Bush administration. Clearly he has no more understanding of the Constitution than Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi.
That’s the thing: fire him for those things, not the scandal of the moment. Get him for what he actually did. When he fired those attorneys, he did nothing wrong. If they “get” him for this, it sets a precedent not even THEY will be happy with in the end.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.