A crook’s crook
It’s now clear that Alberto Gonzales is not just a liar, but a brazen liar who thinks he can protect his job (or at least his future pardon chances) if he sticks to his unbelievable story about the political firings of eight U.S. Attorneys. Let’s run through an incomplete list of the whoppers that Justice Department officials have been telling us.
- Jan. 18, 2007: Gonzales testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee: “I would never, ever make a change in a United States attorney position for political reasons, or if it would in any way jeopardize an ongoing serious investigation.” You could believe that, but you would have to ignore some suspicious facts about these fired U.S. attorneys.
- David Iglesias of Albuquerque told lawmakers that he “felt leaned on” by Sen. Pete Domenici and Rep. Heather Wilson, who wanted him to indict Democrats before election day 2006.
- Carol Lam of San Diego, prosecuted former Republican Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham, now in federal prison for accepting bribes. She had a very positive 2005 performance review, calling her “an effective manager and respected leader.” She was also involved in an ongoing serious investigation, continuing the probe of defense contracting that began with Rep. Cunningham.
- John McKay of Seattle said he stopped a top aide to Rep. Doc Hastings (R-WA) from asking him detailed questions about an investigation into the disputed election of Washington state’s Democratic governor, Christine Gregoire, in 2004.
If you choose to believe Gonzales when he claims the firings weren’t political, you have to wonder about all the other lies told in the cause of convincing us.
- Feb. 6, 2007: Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee: “In every single case where a United States attorney position is vacant, the administration is committed to filling that position with the United States attorney who is confirmed by the Senate.” He repeated that tale today despite an email from Kyle Sampson, his former chief of staff, saying the exact opposite. The email tells how the office intended to use the USA-PATRIOT act to appoint replacements without Senate confirmation. The very existence of that provision in the law is reason to believe the administration wants to dispense with advise and consent by Congress. Probably not what the Senators wanted to hear.
- Feb. 23, 2007: Acting Assistant Attorney General Richard Hertling sends several members of Congress a letter saying, in part, “The [Justice] Department is not aware of Karl Rove playing any role in the decision to appoint Mr. Griffin.” On March 28 the Justice Department itself tells Congress that letter is “contradicted by Department documents.” Perhaps those documents include an email from Gonzales’ chief of staff saying they are “still waiting for a green light from the White House” before firing the U.S. attorneys. Of course Rove is involved. And if Rove is involved, of course the operation is political.
- March 13, 2007: Gonzales give the dog-ate-my-homework excuse, insisting that he knew nothing, nnnnothing, about what was going on in the Department of which he is in charge. “I never saw documents. We never had a discussion about where things stood.” When Gonzales attended an hour-long meeting to discuss the matter on November 27, 2006, he perhaps was not paying attention?
Those who call for Gonzales to resign, and they are legion, are missing the point entirely. The fact that the Attorney General is a crook is scandalous, but not as scandalous as the fact that the President has known and tolerated unethical conduct at Justice. And even that is not nearly as scandalous as the likelihood that the President gave the orders. You can take out the Cabinet trash, but the White House will still stink when you’re done. Whoever claims outrage at the conduct of the Attorney General should be calling, not for his resignation, but for the impeachment of the President and Vice President.