AUDIO: Gonzales on the Offensive: ‘Irresponsible and Reckless’ to Question Prosecutor Firings

[babylonsister]

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/03/23/gonzales-reckless/

AUDIO: Gonzales on the Offensive: ‘Irresponsible and Reckless’ to Question Prosecutor Firings

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales appeared on radio in Seattle this morning to defend the Justice Department’s decision to fire eight U.S. attorneys. When asked why former U.S. attorney John McKay of Washington state was ousted, Gonzales responded:

Listen, we made a decision at the Department as to the appropriate way forward. There was nothing improper about the decision here … There’s no evidence whatsoever, and it’s reckless and irresponsible to allege that these decisions were based in any way on improper motives.

CLICK AT LINK TO LISTEN TO GONZALES

Gonzales’ statements are distortions. McKay revealed earlier this month that Rep. Doc Hasting’s (R-WA) office contacted him and pressured him as to the status of an ongoing investigation into voter fraud in the midst of a tight gubernatorial election. Emails released this week show that then-Gonzales’ chief of staff Kyle Sampson touted McKay for a federal judgeship, saying that it is “highly unlikely we could do better in Seattle.” One month later, McKay was listed as one of the seven attorneys in the process of being “pushed out.” “What happened between those dates to reverse McKay’s political fortunes is a bit of a mystery.”

Gonzales’ defiant tone comes in the midst of a last ditch attempt to avoid being fired himself. This week, Gonzales is touring the country in an attempt to get away from Washington, as he “appeared to be launching a campaign to save his job by repairing relations with prosecutors in the field and reaching out to political supporters.”

[C_U_L8R]

1. Sounds pretty darned guilty

once republicans start attacking with the same old "irresponsible and wreckless" drivel
you know they've got nothing else. They're goin' down.. squawkin' !!!!

[opihimoimoi]

2. Heck of a Firing Alberto....stay on and serve me Pleasure

[onenote]

3. and here is how I would respond to alberto

Yes, it is without doubt true that US Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president. But that fact does not necessarily support the argument that the president's decision-making with regard to the replacement of US Attorneys is somehow immune from oversight. From a legal standpoint, the president can replace a US Attorney for a wide range of reasons, or even for no reason at all. He might decide that someone else could do the job better, or he might simply wake up one morning and decide that he feels like replacing someone. He might make a change because he doesn't like the fact that the incumbent wears brown ties or because he has decided that the incumbent is really an alien from the planet Glimmph. Or, as many presidents have done (not just Clinton, but Bush I, Bush II, Reagan, etc.), he might decide to replace all or virtually all of the US Attorneys appointed by a previous occupant of the White House.

However, when the president decides to make a change, the public has a right to know why. It has a right to know so it can decide whether the president's actions are arbitrary or reasoned, sound or delusional. Again, even a change made for a delusional reason is "legal" -- but in a democracy, the public should not be kept in the dark about why a president makes decisions of public consequence.

This, of course, all leaves to one side the issue of whether a president might make a personnel change for a more nefarious, and thus illegal purpose --- namely to obstruct or interfere with an ongoing criminal investigation or case. It is claimed that there is no evidence of such. Of course, unless the documents and participants in the process testify regarding these matters and make available their email correspondence, there can be no "evidence" of such. However, there is evidence that the original explanation given for the changes --- performance issues --- was not accurate or, at least, that the standard used in finding a "performance" deficiency has not been clearly explained. Under those circumstances, a further inquiry designed to shed light on why the changes were made, whether or not it turns out that there was anything unlawful about the changes, is not only warranted, but demanded in an open democracy.