On Gonzales: Defining "Discussion"
Following a weekend of dramatic disclosures and denials in the expanding controversy over the Justice Department's firing of eight federal prosecutors, and amid growing Republican unease over the tenure of Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, Monday's reasonable question is this: at what point should a president's longstanding loyalty to an old friend give way to the practical requirements of governance in this time of terror and age of anxiety? Let me be even blunter: At what point should we again expect an attorney general to be coherent and competent instead of merely convenient and a crony to the man he serves?
Let's forget for a moment the questions surrounding the underlying scandal—whether and to what extent the White House and Justice Department leaders conspired to fire loyal, successful U.S. Attorneys for reasons unbecoming them or the people who fired them. Let us stipulate that all federal prosecutors serve at "the pleasure of the president" and that all U.S. Attorneys live in a world that is fraught with political opportunity and peril. Let us even agree (for today's purposes anyway) that it is a good idea for the White House to interfere with the day-to-day decisions that federal prosecutors are called upon to make.
Let's focus instead upon the aftermathof this dismissal dogfight. On March 13th, as the temperature rose and the critics circled, Alberto R. Gonzales went on live television and said this: "But again, with respect to this whole process, like every CEO, I am ultimately accountable and responsible for what happens within the department. But that is in essence what I knew about the process; was not involved in seeing any memos, was not involved in any discussions about what was going on. That's basically what I knew as the Attorney General." (Emphasis added).
He continued (and again I have added the emphasis): "I never saw documents. We never had a discussion about where things stood. What I knew was that there was ongoing effort that was led by Mr. Sampson, vetted through the Department of Justice, to ascertain where we could make improvements in U.S. attorney performances around the country." As incredulous as some observers (like me) were to hear him say these things—what kind of leader wouldn't know the details about such a delicate matter?—it is fair to say that the nation collectively agreed at the time to believe the Attorney General's story, to give him the benefit of the doubt.
On Friday night, however, after the network news broadcasts had been completed and the cable lineups already set, the Justice Department disclosed that on November 27, 2006, just 10 days or so before seven of the eight federal prosecutors were fired, Gonzales and his deputies held a formal meeting to discuss the matter. There is an email record that indicates preparations for this meeting and all of the key players, including the Attorney General's now-departed chief of staff, D. Kyle Sampson and Gonzales' likely-soon-to-be-departed deputy, Paul J. McNulty.
The Justice Department now claims that there is no distance between Gonzales' attendance at this meeting and his made-for-television pledge that he "never had a discussion about where things stood" and "was not involved in any discussions about what was going on" How? By saying that the Attorney General merely "tasked his chief of staff to carry this plan forward… He did not participate in the selection of the U.S. attorneys to be fired. He did sign off on the final list." In other words, Gonzales wasn't technically involved in "any discussions about what was going on" because he didn't actually do anything at the meeting on November 27th.
Aside from casting Gonzales in an even more hapless light than before (he's a boss who goes to meetings about important things but doesn't get to actually make any decisions), the Justice Department explanation here is truly the 21st Century Clintonian equivalent of saying that it all depends upon what the definition of "is" is. In this case, it all depends upon what your definition of the word "discussion." is. If you (silly you) believe that "discussion" is a broad enough term to include conversations that do not include decisions to fire federal lawyers well, then, the Justice Department wants you to know that you are wrong.
The late-night, bad-news document release came at the end of a difficult week for the Justice Department. And now, with an intense internal investigation underway there, and with more and more Republican lawmakers distancing themselves from the Attorney General, it is hard to see how this week is likely to get any better.