I Guess He's STILL Not Up to a Sunday Show

[babylonsister]

http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_next_hurrah/2007/04/i_guess_hes_sti.html

April 15, 2007
I Guess He's STILL Not Up to a Sunday Show

by emptywheel

Last week, Alberto Gonzales' handlers had to cancel an appearance on Meet the Press, because he couldn't get his story straight. Apparently, he's still not up for a live appearance, because he weighs in with an op-ed, rather than a sunday show. And while I admit it's like shooting fish in a barrel (or shooting quail at the Armstrong Ranch), Gonzales' editorial deserves comment.

The most notable feature of the op-ed is the agency and the time frame Gonzales paints. It was not Karl Rove who decided in 2005 to fire a select group of USAs, it was Alberto Gonzales "some months ago" (and note how they're still not telling you when in the 18 day gap the final decision was made, since that would lead you right back to Karl Rove).

My decision some months ago to privately seek the resignations of a small number of U.S. attorneys has erupted into a public firestorm.



While I accept responsibility for my role in commissioning this management review process, I want to make some fundamental points abundantly clear.

I know that I did not -- and would not -- ask for the resignation of any U.S. attorney for an improper reason. Furthermore, I have no basis to believe that anyone involved in this process sought the removal of a U.S. attorney for an improper reason.

See how all these statements protect Rove? "My decision" ... "commissioning this management review process." Creating the myth (not under oath, I note) that he, Alberto Gonzales initiated this process, not Rove. And then there's this: "I have no basis to believe that anyone involved in this process sought the removal for an improper reason." He doesn't say it didn't happen. Just that he doesn't know about it. Plausible deniability, anyone?

snip//

The most important part of the op-ed, though, is the way Gonzales has given up all other denials, save one:

All of these documents and public testimony indicate that the Justice Department did not seek the removal of any U.S. attorney to interfere with or improperly influence any case or investigation.

Gone is the insistence that there weren't replacement candidates in mind. Gone is the claim that these USAs weren't fired for political reasons. We're left with the one claim they need to sustain at all costs--that they didn't fire Iglesias and Charlton and Cummins and Buskupic (almost) and, most importantly, Lam, to tamper with ongoing criminal investigations. The claim, of course, is bogus. The one thing DOJ has refused to give Congress--either in its document dumps or in the questioning it has permitted the Judiciary Committees--is any paperwork relating to ongoing investigations. So of course these documents and public testimony don't indicate such a thing--DOJ has simply refused to turn over any documents or testimony that pertains to such things.

Show us the documents relating to ongoing investigations, Abu G. Let us--or at the very least, Congress--be the judge of whether you tampered with ongoing investigations.

[Aviation Pro]

1. Hey, amigo.....

...you can "accept" all the "responsibility" you want, that doesn't absolve you of the crime. Have a nice time in crowbar motel, shorty.

[pscot]

2. The RepubliCon talking point is that

the USA's serve at the pleasure of the pResident, not the AG. The question I'm waiting to hear asked is, just where does the Decider fit into all of this. Doesn't he have to sign off on a mass dismissal of pResidential appointees? What did he know, and when did he know it? Did he sign an order? Can we see it? If Shrub approved the dismissals, and the dismissals, at least in the Lam case, were intended to hamper an ongoing prosecution, then Bush was clearly involved in an attempt to obstruct justice. That's not just an impeachable offense, it's an indictable one.

[Doctor_J]

3. I don't know why

everyone involved in the Smirk admin gets a vicious tongue-washing whenever they appear on the "news" shows.