Two Fired U.S. Attorneys and Senators Discuss Gonzales

By Jeralyn, Section Other Politics
Posted on Sun Mar 25, 2007 at 12:28:00 PM EST
Tags: Alberto Gonzales (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Two of the fired U.S. Attorneys were on Meet the Press this morning. They said they believe they were fired for political purposes, there's a cloud over the Justice Department.

Two members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senators Dick Durbin and Arlen Specter, said Alberto Gonzales' credibility is at stake.

Now the attorney general's statement of just a few days ago has been contradicted by a fact,'' Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.,) said of Gonzales on NBC News' Meet the Press today. "He was involved in a meeting… It really raises a question of credibility.

"This shadow, this cloud, across the U.S. attorney offices all across the country has to be lifted,'' Durbin said, adding of Gonzales: "I don’t believe he enjoys the confidence of the American people or the Congress.''

More...

Sen. Specter:

"There are so many contradictions in what the attorney general has already told us,'' said Sen. Arlen Specter (R.-Pa.), who said he had spoken with Gonzales on Saturday – the day after the story broke about the attorney general's Nov. 27 meeting on the prosecutor dismissals. Specter said he told him "he was going to have to have an explanation as to why he said he was not involved in discussions.'

"We have to have an attorney general who is truthful,'' Specter said. "If we find that he has not been candid and truthful, that is a very compelling reason for him not to stay on.''

Is this is a way for Gonzales to step down with out admitting wrongdoing? He acknowledges that he has lost the confidence of Congress and is no longer in a position to provide effective leadership over his prosecutors? And for the good of the Department of Justice, he's going to step aside?

I don't think Bush's public statements of confidence mean much. He supported Harriet Miers and said she wouldn't withdraw her nomination for the Supreme Court, but she did. He said Rumsfeld would not step aside, but he did.

Gonzales' former Chief of Staff Kyle Sampson has agreed to testify under oath. Will he be the top fall guy...or will that be Gonzales?

< Iraq, the Supplemental and Democrats: What the Future Holds | Duke Defense Lawyer Kirk Osborn Has Died >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Two Fired U.S. Attorneys and Senators Discuss Gonzales | 21 comments (21 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

The social liberal (5.00 / 1) (#18)
by jondee on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 09:41:39 AM EST

keeps shilling for the most socially illiberal faction to weasal into power in fifty years.

A social liberal. And Tony Snow's a sincere man of the utmost integrity.

bush has everything to lose (4.50 / 2) (#2)
by profmarcus on Sun Mar 25, 2007 at 02:36:45 PM EST

by dumping gonzo... gonzo is fully 1/3 of his front-line of defense, along with rove and cheney... gonzales' departure would leave quite a hole and render george extremely vulnerable... as frank rich pointed out in today's nyt, and i fully agree, there has been a very dysfunctional co-dependency (my term) between the two of them going back for a long, long time... as we all know (or SHOULD know), co-dependency, particularly the long-lived variety, tends to become more and more toxic and destructive as time passes... a gonzales resignation might get gonzo off the hook for wrongdoing but it just might open the floodgates for george... on the other hand, if he stays, they could very well both go down together... i think there's a strong chance of a revelation so staggering, so devastating, that it would bring the entire house of cards tumbling down... call it a hunch...

And, yes, I DO take it personally

: I dunno (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by scarshapedstar on Sun Mar 25, 2007 at 07:41:54 PM EST

He is a good hatchet man, but there are many like him. It's not like anyone takes his legal arguments seriously ("Torture is OK as long as you're not trying to get information!"). He's just a cog in the noise machine trying to muddy the waters long enough for Bush to sneak back to Crawford before the impeachment. He's done absolutely nothing of importance besides draw fire away from the less high-profile authoritarians.
Bush could replace him with a like-minded flunkie and it would be hailed as a magnanimous compromise by the Broders and Blitzers of the world, and we would Move On and Heal The Nation. That he hasn't done so already serves as a reminder that the man is dumb as a post.

Sampson (none / 0) (#1)
by terryhallinan1 on Sun Mar 25, 2007 at 01:43:10 PM EST

Gonzales' former Chief of Staff Kyle Sampson has agreed to testify under oath. Will he be the top fall guy

Looks more like another John Dean to me.

Best, Terry

hazy memory (none / 0) (#3)
by zaitztheunconvicted on Sun Mar 25, 2007 at 05:40:45 PM EST

You obviously don't understand. When the AG said that he was involved in any discussions re the firings, he was speaking as best he knew from his somewhat hazy memory. Now that his memory has been refreshed by the email about the meeting, I am sure that his memory will have improved.

You know, (none / 0) (#5)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Mar 25, 2007 at 08:18:15 PM EST

I could not tell you the number of times that folks working for me came into my office and we had a brief discussion about something that had been pretty well decided. If you later asked me if I had been involved in a discussion/decision about it, I would have said no.

The issue is what is remembered, and what is considered to be "involved." It is an analog world folks, and your continued hunt for something, anything, demonstrates how desperate the Demos are.

Of course I am sure that if Gonzales had referred to those being fired as "Nazis," I am sure Durbin would understand...

A good issue (5.00 / 2) (#6)
by Repack Rider on Sun Mar 25, 2007 at 08:50:50 PM EST

The issue is what is remembered, and what is considered to be "involved."

Of course. And I am looking forward to endless discussion in the press of what AG knew and when he knew it.

Endless. Let's make sure there is no aspect of this left unexamined over the next year or so. Let's get Mr. Bush to explain how these attorneys got fired without his knowledge, even though the statute says that only Bush can do what he didn't know had been done.

If we can keep it up, by the 2008 election, Congres will be 432 Democrats, two Green Party and a Vegetarian.


RePack (none / 0) (#8)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Mar 25, 2007 at 11:00:05 PM EST

If we can keep it up, by the 2008 election, Congres will be 432 Democrats, two Green Party and a Vegetarian.

And they still will not be able to get anything done.

BTW - Thanks for confirming that all this is about is politics.

BTW - Please, please. Never ever try and take a high moral position on an issue again.

All we're doing now is discussing price.


CONFIRMED (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by Repack Rider on Sun Mar 25, 2007 at 11:49:35 PM EST

I agree that the attorneys were fired because of Republican politics, but I do not see how that reflects negatively on the Democrats in Congress, who after all are just trying to figure out which of the many versions that have been given to them is true, and who committed crimes by lying to Congress.

Since the conflicting versions cannot all be true, do you agree that someone must be lying? Isn't lying to Congress a crime?

I do not understand why you think investigating wrongdoing (lying to Congress) is NOT a "high moral position." Isn't it the HIGHEST moral position?

And please, riddle me this: Since the statute that allows the president to fire US Attorneys says that ONLY he can do it, how could it possibly happen without the president knowing? If if DID happen without the president knowing, as Tony Snow has claimed, that is evidence that a crime has occurred?

Since Tony Snow's statement indicates a crime has taken place, why shouldn't Congress investigate?


RePack (none / 0) (#13)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 07:57:20 AM EST

So, your definition of a crime is that the President delegated something?

Like I said, it is all politics, everyone knows it and all we are doing now is discussing the price.

In the meantime, healthcare, tax reform, gay rights, fixing Social Security, etc., all are just laying there.

What a joke the Democratic Party has become.


: Definition (none / 0) (#21)
by Repack Rider on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 10:19:18 AM EST

your definition of a crime is that the President delegated something?
No. If you are saying that the president "delegated" something that Tony Snow says he was not aware of, how exactly did he "delegate" it?
And if the law says he CAN'T "delegate" this act, then of course it is a violation.
My definition of a "crime" then is that it violates the standard set by Congress in the Federal Statutes.
Good enough?

Due diligence (none / 0) (#7)
by scarshapedstar on Sun Mar 25, 2007 at 10:00:24 PM EST

So, Jim. What if you found out that an employee two or three levels below you had somehow been making decisions that company policy expressly states must be signed at your desk and yours alone? What if the decisions turned out to be indefensible and you were forced to publicly acknowledge them as mistakes? Wouldn't you give out at least one pink slip? I mean, not only is the rogue employee pretty blatantly begging to be fired, but someone else is clearly enabling them. Is their supervisor an idiot, or is he in on the scheme? Either way, why the hell are you still paying his salary?

It goes without saying that you'd better have an investigation, and you might want to consider clearing your own name ASAP because all indications are that you aren't doing your job. After all, if this is a publicly owned company, you're about to enter a world of hurt and/or garnishments.


Do you still beat your wife?? (none / 0) (#9)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Mar 25, 2007 at 11:03:44 PM EST

If we had some ham we'd have some ham and eggs if we had some eggs.

If the rabbit hadn't stopped, the dog wouldn't have caught him.

I love the smell of false suppositions in the morning.


So (none / 0) (#12)
by scarshapedstar on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 05:34:49 AM EST

Where did I lie? I agree that the situation is silly (since Bush obviously did sign off on the firings) but that doesn't really help.


Scar (1.00 / 1) (#14)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 08:04:17 AM EST

So your response to a silly situation is to keep on doing silly things?

Politics. All Politics.

BTW - You forget that I am a Social Liberal. One would hope that a Demo congress might look at a few issues like Health Care, Gay Rights, etc., etc....


: Ooooookay (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by scarshapedstar on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 10:03:19 AM EST

I'm just gonna smile and nod...

BTW - In the real world, (none / 0) (#15)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 08:08:41 AM EST

the direct supervisor of the offending employees would fire them, with the oversite and assistance of HR.

In otherwords, your example is incorrect.

Try again.

This time be specific in what you think is a crime.


: I'll concede the point (none / 0) (#19)
by scarshapedstar on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 10:01:28 AM EST

The situations are different. Bush actually has a lot more power than my hypothetical manager would. But that kinda digs his hole deeper, given that the failure to respond rests entirely on his shoulders.
Also, I never said anything about a crime.

Lousy dodge, Jim (none / 0) (#11)
by Che's Lounge on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 12:20:52 AM EST

Answer Repack's questions, if you dare.

Instead you decend into children's rhymes.

: Got so excited (none / 0) (#16)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 08:09:38 AM EST

you couldn't even keep up with who said what, eh??

Making it up as you go along? (none / 0) (#17)
by Che's Lounge on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 08:50:16 AM EST

You know for a fact that that is how it went down? That's not what Snow said.