http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2007/03/16/BL2007031600594.html?referrer=email&referrer=email&referrer=email&referrer=email&referrer=email Alberto Gone-zales?
By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, March 16, 2007; 7:46 AM
Could George Bush's Texas pal really lose his job?
As the tale of the purged prosecutors has gathered steam, and Alberto Gonzales has had all these TV interviewers ask whether he's quitting, I've started to wonder whether he actually might be forced to clean out his desk--especially in light of the e-mails released last night. Now we know Gonzales was plotting to dump prosecutors while he was still in the White House.
This crowd doesn't do damage control very well, do they? Haven't they heard of getting all the bad stuff out in one news cycle?
On the surface, the fiasco of the eight fired U.S. attorneys--as disturbing as it is, as much as it raises questions about the Justice Department's credibility, and as badly as it was botched--doesn't seem like a career-ender. It's great fodder for the Democrats, and especially the '08 contenders, to call for Gonzales's head. But I don't have the sense that people are standing around the water cooler arguing over whether Carol Lam and David Iglesias should have been let go. And besides, Gonzales faces a jury of one: GWB. And the president has given no indication that he'll cut his friend loose.
Of course, Bush also said Don Rumsfeld was going to serve till the end of his term.
But here's why Gonzales has a problem that stretches beyond the particulars of Purgegate...
From the NYT:
"The White House senior adviser Karl Rove inquired about firing federal prosecutors in January 2005, prompting a Justice Department aide to respond that Alberto R. Gonzales, soon to be confirmed as attorney general, favored replacing a group of 'underperforming' United States attorneys, according to e-mail messages released Thursday.
"The e-mail messages, part of a larger collection that the Justice Department is preparing to turn over to Congressional investigators, indicate that Mr. Rove and Mr. Gonzales, then the White House counsel, had considered the proposal to replace prosecutors earlier than either has previously acknowledged . . .
"In a message on Jan. 6, 2005, Colin Newman, a White House lawyer, wrote to David G. Leitch, another lawyer in his office: 'Karl Rove stopped by to ask you (roughly quoting) 'how we planned to proceed regarding U.S. Attorneys, whether we were going to allow all to stay, request resignations from all and accept only some of them or selectively replace them, etc.' ' "
"D. Kyle Sampson, who resigned this week as chief of staff to Mr. Gonzales, responded by e-mail three days later. Discussing a plan to replace 15 percent to 20 percent of all 93 prosecutors, Mr. Sampson noted: 'Judge and I discussed briefly a couple of weeks ago.' "
The judge has problems. What's really telling is that most Republicans aren't rushing to the barricades on Alberto's behalf. In fact, it now seems like National Review would be perfectly happy to send him into early retirement:
"The Gonzales Justice Department managed to mishandle the firings into a scandal. At one point, the department said that the U.S. attorneys had been removed for 'performance-related reasons.' Most of the fired prosecutors understandably considered this a smear and were outraged. Both Gonzales and his top aides have now offered serial justifications of the firings, and have said misleading things about who ordered them. Gonzales says he wasn't aware of his just-resigned chief of staff's coordination with the White House concerning the U.S. attorneys -- a highly embarrassing line of defense.
"This episode coincides with an internal audit's revelation that the FBI has misused national-security letters, a kind of subpoena the FBI can issue without the approval of a judge or prosecutor. This second controversy, along with the U.S.-attorney fiasco, has fueled calls for Gonzales's resignation and sparked demands that the executive branch's authority be circumscribed. If forced to choose, we'd much prefer the former. The administration's supporters should consider whether the price of keeping Gonzales in office will be the surrender of important policies in order to try to appease his critics . . .
"Next will be an assault on the Patriot Act, thanks to the FBI's inexcusable bungling of the national-security letters...
"Although these fumbles don't rise to the level of a firing offense, Alberto Gonzales could yet become a liability on matters more important than he is."
Josh Marshall, citing the testimony of Gonzales and Deputy AG Paul McNulty, is ready to start an office pool on the attorney general's tenure:
"By common sense standards it's clear that neither man testified truthfully when they answered senators' questions earlier this year. Even the emails now public make that clear. That visible deceit in covering up an emerging scandal will be too much for them to stay in office. Sen. Sununu's (R-NH) announcement will be followed by others.
"Who wants to guess how many days remain before Gonzales decides his presence at Justice is becoming an obstacle to the fulfillment of President Bush's important law enforcement policy objectives?"
Philly Inquirer blogger Dick Polman sees some tea leaves that don't bode well for Gonzales hanging on:
"Certain anonymous remarks floated in The New York Times strongly suggest that the folks at the top are fitting their loyal subordinate for the noose. (Folks at the top routinely assail newspapers for running anonymous quotes, when those quotes prove embarrassing. But they have no problem with such quotes if they are the ones using anonymity to serve their own needs.)
"Here's the key passage: '(Gonzales' press conference) underscored what two Republicans close to the Bush administration described as a growing rift between the White House and the attorney general . . . The two Republicans, who spoke anonymously so they could share private conversations with senior White House officials, said top aides to Mr. Bush, including Fred F. Fielding, the new White House counsel, were concerned that the controversy had so damaged Mr. Gonzales's credibility that he would be unable to advance the White House agenda on national security matters, including terrorism prosecutions. 'I really think there's a serious estrangement between the White House and Alberto now,' one of the Republicans said.'
"So the White House seems to be telling Gonzales that his usefulness is over and that it's time to fall on his sword for the throne. The problem, however, is that Congress -- which is well aware that the prosecutor scandal is rooted in the Bush administration's governing philosophy -- will not be content with a partial shuffling of personnel. A modified, limited hangout route might have worked when the supine Republicans ran the Hill, but those days are over."
What about . . . impeachment? The Nation's John Nichols gets excited in making the case:
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?bid=1&pid=175382 How to Handle a Lawless Attorney General
"Attorney General Alberto Gonzales says he is not going anywhere.
"Never mind that he is caught up in the biggest scandal involving a sitting Attorney General since the sordid days of the 1920s.
"Never mind that the scandal that plagues Gonzales involves the same sort of concerns about the politicization of the Department of Justice and the federal bureaucracy that ultimately forced Richard Nixon from office in the 1970s.
"Never mind that even Republicans are saying the firing of U.S. attorneys who would not agree to launch pre-election prosecutions of Democrats has created 'a crisis with the Justice Department'--to borrow a phrase from conservative Nevada Senator John Ensign--while Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee are beginning to echo the assessment of New York Senator Charles Schumer, who says that Gonzales has engaged in an 'unprecedented breach of trust and abuse of power' . . .
"If Gonzales refuses to do the honorable thing and resign of his own accord, and if Bush refuses to cause his appointee to surrender control of the Department of Justice, Congress is fully empowered to force the hand of the attorney general."
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
>
