From The New York Times:
The former chief of staff to Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales testified today that contrary to Mr. Gonzales’s earlier assertions, the attorney general was involved in discussions to fire United States attorneys.
“I don’t think the attorney general’s statement that he was not involved in any discussions about U.S. attorney removals is accurate,†the former Gonzales aide, D. Kyle Sampson, said under questioning at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing.
“I don’t think it’s accurate,†Mr. Sampson repeated under questioning by Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the panel’s ranking Republican. “I think he’s recently clarified it. But I remember discussing with him this process of asking certain U.S. attorneys to resign, and I believe that he was present at the meeting on Nov. 27.â€Â
It was disclosed last week that Justice Department documents showed Mr. Gonzales to be present at the Nov. 27, 2006, session in which the firing of federal prosecutors was discussed. That disclosure seemed to contradict Mr. Gonzales’s assertions at a March 13 news conference that he was not involved in talks about letting the prosecutors go.
“So,†Senator Specter went on, “he was involved in discussions, contrary to the statement he made in his news conference on March 13?â€Â
“I believe  yes, sir,†Mr. Sampson replied.
The testimony of Mr. Sampson, a loyal aide to Mr. Gonzales until his recent resignation, could create grave problems for the attorney general, who is already under fire from Democrats and some Republicans for the way the dismissals of the prosecutors were carried out.
Even those Republicans who have so far been loyal to Mr. Gonzales have complained that the dismissals were accompanied by poor communications and poor explanations, points that even President Bush has conceded. With new doubt cast on Mr. Gonzales’s candor, or at the very least his memory, support for him could further erode, despite President Bush’s insistence that he wants his old friend from Texas to stay on.
Under questioning from Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas, Mr. Sampson said he did not recall a single instance in which someone from the Bush administration suggested removing a United States attorney for “an improper reason.†But over all, the questions and answers cast Mr. Gonzales in an unflattering light.
[my emphasis]
Anybody see a pattern developing here? Every verbal bungle or every mis-statement or misremembering by a Republican is a de facto lie in the service of a cover up—even if there is no crime to cover up.
Again, I’m no big fan of Gonzales’—and I think his clumsy attempts at explaining the process muddied the waters for the Administration—but what I don’t think should happen is that Gonzales be pressured to step down under (bi?)partisan political pressure when there seems to be (if you believe Mr Sampson’s testimony non-selectively, or if you believe other stories beginning to well up from the mire) no underlying malfeasance.
In short—and as the Times lets slip—this is about appearances. Gonzales, we’re informed, emerges from Sampson’s testimony “in an unflattering light.” Which, of course, can be said about, say, Joe Biden or Chuck Schumer each time one of them hurries in front of a microphone—yet you hardly ever hear Republicans calling for their ouster.
AG’s serve at the President’s pleasure. Which means the Democrats are either trying to create a scandal from this because they can, or because they believe they may be able to leverage Gonzales’ missteps into a further encroachment on Executive power.
And unfortunately, that impulse appears to be bipartisan.
Bush is half again more popular than Congress. He simply fails to make his case.
“The attorneys serve at my pleasure. I want them to leave for reasons I decline to discuss until such time as Chuck Schumer testifies under oath about the imbroglio over Michael Steele’s credit report, Diane Feinstein testifies under oath about her connection to contracts awarded to her husband’s firm, Harry Reid testifies under oath about…”
“You will notice an important distinction. The testimony you are not getting from the Democrats concern crimes by public officials who want to investigate my administration over differences in policy.”
I’m just glad that the Rethuglian attempt to divert attention from the truthiness of Gozalesgate (TM) by besmerching the good name of Dianne Feinstein hasn’t, so far, worked.
Yes. Appearance. It appears as if the Attorney General is a liar. Big deal. who cares. It also appears as if Sampson has learned the ‘do not recall’ line.
I haven’t looked at The LA Times’ ethics policy, but it’s interesting–and telling, I think–that the KC Star’s policy makes no mention at all about being accurate or even striving for accuracy. What that tells me is that they are specifically reserving the right to lie, mislead, and leave false impressions–as long as they do it for any reason other than money.
Anybody see a pattern developing here? Every verbal bungle or every mistatement or misremembering by a Republican is a de facto lie in the service of a cover upâ€â€even if there is no crime to cover up.
The existence of evidence about a charge isn’t what matters, it’s the seriousness of the charge.
And it’s never the act that causes the problem, it’s the cover up. Right?
Therefore, if you attempt to cover up—or appear to be covering up—perfectly legal or innocent actions, clearly you’re doing something wrong.
Or something like that.
And, yeah, the way actual crimes committed by Democrats are being treated is grating. Schumer, Feinstein, Reid, Berger… the behavior of the press is stunningly Orwellian, as they work themselves into a froth over nothing if it looks like they can damage Bush and quietly, quietly ignore anything that looks like it could damage a Democrat.
Not that I care that much about Gonzalez, but remember Janet Reno? Ordered the burning of the Branch Davidian compound, which killed I forget how many people? Forcefully repatriated Elian Gonzalez?
There might be worse qualities in an AG, is all I’m saying.
Wayyyy past the point of caring. Robert’s right- press blows this out of proportion and yet Sandly Burglar barely gets a mention.
Not to mention Dianne Feinstein, who SHOULD be in hot water over awarding billions of dollars in defense contracts to her husbands own company. But I’m sure we won’t hear anything about that except on Fox news and we know they lie about everything anyway.
Since it’s clear this a sarcastic comment, let me remind everyone that the same people screaming about this are the ones who saw no issue with a President lying under oath about a provable fact.
But for Gonzales, it’s the appearance of dishonesty that matters. Not the reality.
I dunno about anyone else, but this shit’s getting really scary.
If Congress can tell the President who he can fire, the next step is to tell the President who he must fire. And then Congress sets the policy for the Executive branch and controls it.
What’s next, telling Federal judges what decisions they must reach else they face subpoena and impeachment?
Parliamentary Supremacy is a concept that our system does not have. Thank God.
I think of it more as evidence that the story with the Cheshire cat and the playing-card soldiers may be non-fiction after all.
Andrew Johnson was impeached for trying to fire his secretary of war, but he was not convicted.
It would seem strange that the President cannot have the freedom to get rid of political appointees whenever he wants. Otherwise, how is he to have any hope of exercising any influence over the executive branch?
Ordered the burning? Nice. Very nice.
Seems like the people who think it’s just fine if the administration considers every American a potential terrorist and digs through their private records to prove it are having some problems with above board and legal oversight of the same administration.
How come?
Sigh.
Do you really think it’s just sloppiness that explains the long, long delay in coming forward with a consistent explanation about why the attorneys were fired? Or how many different explanations have been tried?
Or maybe it’s because the real reason the attorneys were fired are reasons the White House understands would be embarrassing or worse.
Sure, the AG and the USAs serve at the pleasure of the President. But some reasons still stink to heaven. If a top performing prosecutor was fired because he refused to indict shortly before an election (Iglesias) the President might just prefer that no one learn about it. Same story if he fired an excellent prosecutor for refusing to wade into a governor’s race (McKay) or for investigating a high-ranking House member (Lam). The public would very much like to know!
Did the President do these things? I don’t think it’s dead-bang established yet, but the evidence looks plenty strong enough to put it before the public and let them decide.
And, for what it’s worth, any lawyer who’s a member of the criminal defense bar or who’s worked for a prosecutor’s office will tell you what a very big deal this is. Prosecutors have a *lot* of discretion and even more power. An indictment—even without conviction—can irreparably damage a person’s good name, subjects the person indicted with considerable expense, and can occupy his or her time for years. It’s not a power that should be abused, *especially* for partisan reasons.
If you believe Gonzales, he was ignorant of the process going on for two years in his office. That’s just shocking. If you don’t believe him, and especially if you believe the replacements were done for political reasons, it’s outrageous.
Just for a moment try to imagine how you would feel about all this if President Hillary Clinton’s Attorney General put on this kind of performance.
That’s why the anger at Gonzales is bipartisan.
Ted, that was a nice explanation. Futile, but nice. I hope you like being called an “idiot” because that is the only response you’ll get around here when you have the cajones to suggest a Bush administration official fucking take responsibility for mistakes made during their watch.
Myself? I applaud this tough PW stance. It shows character to never admit you or your side is at fault for anything. Ever. Must be the media. Or the Democrats. Or the Muslims. Feminists. Minorities. Whomever.
Wrong. It’s always about covering up the crime.
What crime is that, markg8?
Silly Ted, as if we’d hear about it if it happened under a President Hillary Clinton. We’d hear about it about as much as we hear about Feinstein’s shady dealings.
Under Bush, it only has to have a whiff of impropriety to make headlines. Everday.
The crime of being a Republican, according to the
fucktard leftists.
reading is fundamental, heet. Do you ever try it? Ever? Like this fucking post?
Pablo, you’ve already proven that you talk out of your ass most of the time. Now I see you are so fucking stupid that you believe “clumsy attempts at explaining” a process is taking responsibility for anything. Bravo. Does “Heckuva job, Brownie” qualify as an apology in your crazy world?
Ipso facto, QED. Ad hominem, progerssium, world without end, amen.
Eat shit, heet. Then put up or shut up.
Just what is it you want responsibility taken for?
Ted,
First of all, Jeff is making the point that the issue with Gonzales is that he’s fuzzy/confused about when and where he came into the loop. You’ll find that no one is disputing that and pretty much agrees that the guy was incompetent. You’re suggesting that this indicates that he must be covering up interfering with ongoing investigations. So far there is nothing – let me repeat that, nothing – to suggest any evidence of that. Quite the contrary. There are no investigations that were halted after the USAs were discharged.
heet,
I see no disagreement here with the idea that responsibility be taken for mistakes on their watch. But mistakes don’t equal criminal activity, and mistakes made by administration officials are not subject to congressional oversight.
markg8,
Plenty of speculation. No indication of crimes. There is no indication cover up except in fevered imaginations.
Then again, I understand the details of this and unless there’s a very unlikely blockbuster dropped into the mix, I’ve no particular interest in the ongoing clown show. It started with the resurrection of the Plame BS. This latest foolishness will pass too. Then another media jackass will start another in an attempt to Woodward his or her self, a congressional stalking horse will run with it… rinse and repeat.
As far as I’m concerned, Bush should instruct the AG office to aggressively pursue any and all reasonable complaints about congressional malfeasance. If the AG office and the special committees in congress paralyze each other, it’s win win.
Did you notice Karl Rove rapping at the Correspondents dinner last night as opposed to having been frog marched off to the federal pen? Any word from Jason Leopold and the entire left half of the planet on how that happened after he personally outed Agent 69?
Damn it Jeff, come out and call Gonzales a liar before heet’s head explodes!
Uh… as the Attorney General… isn’t he supposed to be part of the firings? Am I missing something here?
heet spells his handle wrong, methinks. He used one too many “e”s and forgot the “a”. And misspelled it too.
hate
Yes, that’s it.
Do you really think it’s just sloppiness that explains the long, long delay in coming forward with a consistent explanation about why the attorneys were fired? Or how many different explanations have been tried?
Hilarious.
Thanks for demonstrating the point of the thread.
You leftists really are too funny to bother imitating anymore.
Sauce for the goose, etc. Are you saying she didn’t order the assault?
And, for what it’s worth, any lawyer who’s a member of the criminal defense bar or who’s worked for a prosecutor’s office will tell you what a very big deal this is.
You can’t name one.
Here is a former federal prosecutor:
Same guy, you know, in the group who is supposed to think this is a “big deal” (which you of course can’t explain):
Your ignorance is embarrassing.
I can do you one better, I can remember how I felt when Bill Clinton fired all 93, including one who was investigating Bill Clinton: slightly embarassed, wondering if I had fucked up voting for the bastard, but overall thinking it was just business as usual.
The best description of this whole non-scandal was “The Democrats trying to nail legs onto a nothingburger.”
Liberalism. It’s not just for the insane anymore.
Oh. Wait.
Gonzales has demonstrated the in advisability of violating the eternal verities:
And Henry Ford II’s commentary thereon:
mark D—how is he supposed to make his case through media like these?
Imagine FDR’s fireside chats with the radio networks offering equal time to Father Coughlin and Colonel McCormick of the Chicago Tribune…
Hmmm.
He could go on national tv and make a speech.
*shrug* hey just throwing something out there.
Right memo. With equal time given to his political opponents. For balance.
Perhaps Rosie O’Donnell could provide that.
Get your tickets here for the show91 trials.
This whole fake scandal is another result of the Bush adminstration trying to hard to be liked.
You’re fired. Why are you fired ? Because you serve at the pleasure of a president.
The executive branch is Bush’s company and he should be able to hire and fire who he wants to.
Oh wait, not should. He’s constitutionally permitted to do so. I’m pretty sure the constituion doesn’t have the words “and it has to be a good reason”.
Given my profession, I remembered being horrified that Clinton fired every one of his 93 odd attorneys – it wasn’t a nice thing to do. But Clinton had the right to do it.
Well, riddle me this : if this is all no big deal and the WH shouldn’t have to explain anything to anybody, why did they change their story multiple times on their justifications for the firings? Why not just come out and say “none of your beeswax”? Why send emails around saying :
Clearly, nothing to see he- aw fuck it. The hive mind has made up its, uh, brain.
The point, heet, is that they don’t owe you—or Chuck Schumer—an explanation.
Maybe Bush just didn’t like that they wouldn’t wear a flag lapel pin, who knows?
His choice.
You don’t get to go fishing for an underlying crime because you don’t trust Republicans.
Since you didn’t answer the last time it was asked…
WHAT LAW WAS BROKEN, DUMBFUCK?
Take your drone ass back to the Queen Kos, twatwaffle.
My point, Jeff, is if they don’t owe us an explanation, why concoct several? Why have an email bullshit session to dream up fake explanations? Hmmm…. It’s almost as if they want to avoid the impression of impropriety. Why might that be, Jeff?
heet, I think you missed a little something upthread, maggot.
Take your time.
…why am I insisting on one?
Bush Fires 9 Attys, Refuses To Admit Why
In what is yet another scandal for the embattled Bush Administration, the DOJ is reported that 9 attorneys have been…
… When asked, spokesmen for the White House responded that it was “within their right” to fire the attorneys, who had been investigating several prominent Republicans…
…Speaker Nancy Pelosi described this as “perhaps the most egregious in a long line of crimes committed by this administration. [The politically motivated firings] are inexcusable.”
heet, THAT’S why they don’t just come out and explain that it is within their right.
Pablo, and assorted morons : where did I say anything was illegal? Christ you guys stick to the script so tightly you don’t see shit.
Let me repeat myself for the second time, since you’re inept enough to think I said you said something was illegal.
It’s really not a tough question, heet. Put up or shut up.
so how is this different from most employers? I’ve known people that were fired for showin’ up to work drunk too many times, but they still got a good reference. In my experience, you’d be hard pressed to find an employer that will give anything but benign reasons for a firing for fear of a lawsuit no matter how true whatever they say may be.
If the evidence is so strong, I don’t understand why the fired attorneys aren’t suing. Isn’t this proof of their incompetence?
So if even you, rabid leftard commie twatwaffle, admit that there is nothing illegal… the what in the name of Zeus’ BUTTHOLE are you (and the rest of your ilk) squealing about?
What is your problem with Bush acting within his constitutional authority?
The fact that Gonzales wasn’t clear answering a question?
Talk about sticking to the script… go back to DailyKos, you moron.
As for the inconsistencies on whether Gonzo was involved in the firings or not, I’m close to calling B.S. on him. I’ve had to fire people, and I don’t see how anyone else could be so harried that they wouldn’t remember having done so or not. The Dems may well just be trying to play an ordinary bit of Washington muddle into a scandal for an uninformed public. But there’s no reason for the A.G. to be vague on that point.
The daunting ailment that has plagued those in the service of the White House continued to take its toll on the President’s minions. Today, members of a congressional investigative committee continued their efforts to find the source of the ailment as it seems to be highly contagious. The most recent strains seem to be far more pervasive yet determining its origin continues to remain elusive. Senator Chuck Schumer closed his questioning by offering the hypothesis that the ailment was a virulent form of lying.
Many within the media stepped in to immediately offer the public a layman’s interpretation of the symptoms as well as analysis of the ongoing implications if a cure for the ailment could not be administered soon. The White House continued to downplay the seriousness of the ailment as it sought to allay the growing fears within the American public that the disease might soon decimate the bulk of their elected officials. A growing number of pundits continued to suggest that the President is in denial as to the severity of the ailment and what it might do to the Republican Party.
See a tongue-in-cheek visual spoofing an upcoming episode of Saturday Night Live featuring a guest appearance by “The President’s Prevaricators”…here:
http://www.thoughttheater.com
The President was well within his rights to fire the attorneys. But, they do appear to be politically motivated not that that should surprise anybody, it is Washington we’re talking about.
The problem I have with this situation is that Gonzales doesn’t appear to be the best AG we’ve had and has the Bush Administration’s lack of ability to communicate effectively. However, the way the Dems and their media allies have attacked any mis-statement and ginned up “scandals” where none exist (Plamegate), has to make an organization be very careful when communicating. If the press would start reporting the news and stop twisting what they cover and how they cover it to conform to their template, perhaps they’d get more information.
Ted:
Actually President Bubba put on an even better show- firing US attorney Jay Stephens and then trying to have him fired again as he probed scandals leading back to Hillary.
When this non-story fist broke, I asked 2 of my attorneys, both of whom were USAs under the Clinton Administration, what they thought about it & both found it to be a non-story & cited stories where attorneys working in the US attorney’s offices were fired for less. Who do I believe, professionals who have worked in the field, done the job or professional politicians, heet, little “a†or any other troll who have never recovered from the fact that their side lost the last 2 elections?
The ability of leftards to prove our point is stunning. It’s like a football game where the only scoring is safeties.
While Schumer is doubtless an expert in the field, it is quite possible his years of dedication to this singular art have left him with a professional bias.
It’s at will employment. They can be fired, with no reason whatsoever.
And if the reason was political? It’s a political appointment.
Big deal.
I believe that when Gonzales first indicated that he had not been involved, a fair reading of his words in context would be that he did not participate directly in the SELECTION of who would be let go, but did some time ago review and approve the PROCESS.
It is ridiculous for an AG to say he was not involved and that be taken that he was not even aware, etc. The man said he didn’t make the selection, period.
But like I said above, that would require “…a fair reading of his words in context…”, something that he did not get thanks to the politicized media, and a congress that sees itself as duty-bound to cripple the administration and the military.
Those “100 hours” must finally be up.
AS a nonrepublican I think I can say with some objectivity that the reason the scandal machine works so well is that many, many Republicans seem to enjoy feeding it.
If one remembers, in the face of out right lies in the media’s Katrina coverage a great number of otherwise stalwart conservative commenters practically knocked one another flat racing to condemn the amdinistration as incompetent, uncaring and worse, thus giving Spike Lee and the rest a rocket assisted take off.
Likewise, when Tim Russert walked into a federal court and admitted filing an affidavit that was factually false. Then on his testimony and pretty much his testimony alone got Lewis Libby convicted of a felony. The right leaning pundits lost their voice and happily trooped forward to appear on Russert’s show.
As much fun as is made of Sean Hannity, and Lord knows he deserves it, he’s the only one that has really made any attempt to figure out what Sandy Berger was up to.
Who was it in the conservative media that broke that Diane Fienstien conflict of interest story? Yep, that’s right no one. They were all to busy piling on Gonzales.
And don’t even get me started about “When the Media is Right.”
For one reason or another it is more imporant to the right to do victory laps around Gonzales, and Donald Rumslfeld’s corpse than it is to actually defend their agenda, or advance it or even confront thier colleague when they openly lie.
For that reason the Democratic congress, as horrible as it is, has not garunteed itself a defeat in 2008. There will be more scandals as transparent as this one, and the right side of the media divide will gleefully play along.
Alphie isn’t right about much, but he’s right about this 2006 could be worse than 2008. In no small part becuase the conservative media’s incompetence, arrogance and laziness.
The obvious answer to heet’s question is the DOJ and Administration wanted to avoid the bad press and the subsequent distractions (like the hearings) which are inevitable with a democratic congress. I already addressed this in one of my posts- Bush does this kind of thing because he/his administration wants to be liked, wants to not be seen as bad guys, as they are constantly portayed in the mainstream media.
Its not like the administration is not fully aware that democrats will take even a hint of inpropriety and blow it up into a major scandale (see Libby, Scooter), even where these is no real scandal and certainly is no real crime.
If you’re saying Bush’s administration lacks both balls and the ability to communicate a firm position on an issue that they don’t owe anyone an explanation about, then I will give you that one.
So this twit is spouting 3×5 Kos/HuffingtonTalking Points, but we’re part of the hivemind…
Why don’t you just crawl back to the enveloping moistness of Rosie’s embrace okay? You won’t be missed…well, you might never be found either, but that’s beside the point