Muddy Waters Still Run Deep For Gonzales

Legal Analyst Andrew Cohen Examines U.S. Attorney Scandal Before Tuesday Testimony

(CBS)  Attorney Andrew Cohen analyzes legal issues for CBS News and CBSNews.com.

---

It is not hard to figure out why the Justice Department took the unusual step Sunday morning of releasing to the media an advanced copy of the opening statement Attorney General Alberto Gonzales plans to make Tuesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

The screaming headlines in the nation's leading newspapers this past week about the scandal over last year's dismissal of eight U.S. attorneys — headlines based upon newly-disclosed contradictions from the mouths and computers of Justice Department officials — easily explain why the attorney general would want to try to squeak out his own counter-message a full 48 hours before he enters the lion's den on Capitol Hill.

"Attorneys assessed long before firings," the Los Angeles Times offered Saturday. "Bush officials looked at insiders to take the prosecutor jobs, new documents show."

The Boston Globe offered this: "Testimony of ex-aide to Gonzales questioned; e-mails show list of replacements for prosecutors."

The Washington Post's coverage was extensive, and on Friday, The New York Times ran a story about an under-experienced federal lawyer entitled: "Political resume, not court, stood out for a contender."

And the most telling story of all, from USA Today, reported on a newly-discovered internal Justice Department memo from a spokeswoman there who declared it the purpose and strategy of her office to "muddy the coverage" of the scandal.

The strategic and tactical "muddying" this weekend didn't begin or end with the pre-release of the attorney general's canned message to Congress. Gonzales summarized his official position and his upcoming remarks in an op-ed piece in Sunday's Washington Post. In both instances, his message classically proves precisely the points about his tenure as attorney general that Gonzales is hoping to undercut before the professional crisis of his life gets any worse. Parsed to the point of meaninglessness, his speech and his column both read more like losing legal briefs than compelling political statements.

Even though mistakes were made in the process of firing those federal prosecutors, Gonzales now writes: "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."

This clearly is the last line of his defense and of the defense of the executive branch. Even though the U.S. attorney mess was handled terribly, in the end nothing wrong of substance was done to the prosecutors or anyone else.

Focusing only upon the above Gonzales quotes, and forgetting the other mush-mouthed statements contained in the weekend "muddying" efforts, there are two fundamental flaws in his position. First, he narrowly defines "improper reason" in his speech as "the replacement of one or more U.S. attorneys in order to impede or speed along particular criminal investigations for illegitimate reasons." In doing so, he is able to declare, in the sort of legalese that ought to raise red flags, that he "has no basis to believe" that any of the eight U.S. attorneys were fired for an "improper reason."

It's an easy straw man to build up and then tear down, and it makes Gonzales appear as if he, indeed, has "nothing to hide." But there are other "improper reasons" for firing a U.S. attorney, if not in law then in fact. And even if you agree with Gonzales' cramped reading of that phrase, he clearly is signaling by his "no basis to believe" talk that he's not interested in facing a perjury rap on behalf of one of his many misguided Justice Department underlings, one of whom, Kyle Sampson, is now in more hot water than ever for his now-discredited comments made a few weeks ago before the Judiciary Committee.

It would seem improper, for example, to fire a seasoned and successful federal prosecutor for not being "a loyal Bushie," even though the U.S. attorney at the time is zealously advocating the civilian use of a fantastic new information-sharing law enforcement system.

Yet that is precisely what Gonzales did. And it would seem improper, too, to replace experienced and respected U.S. attorneys with political cronies of high-ranking White House officials, or graduates of less-than-mediocre law schools, or attorneys who have never tried a case in court. But that is precisely what Gonzales did as well.

There are other oddities in the factual and legal position Gonzales has taken in the days before his latest last stand. For example, the attorney general still maintains that, "to his knowledge," he did not make decisions about which federal prosecutors were to be replaced, a curious notion for the head of the Justice Department to take and one that is becoming less and less supportable given the amount of conflicting evidence that keeps emerging from the documents turned over by the executive branch to the legislative branch. Besides, even if true, it's not exactly confidence-inducing or respect-inspiring that the attorney general would keep himself out of the loop on such a vital matter.

Gonzales also writes that he "misspoke" during his hapless press conference of March 13 (the one during which he seemed to melt under the cameras' glare). He "never meant to mislead Congress," he writes, but sill won't be able to provide Congress "with all the facts" that it "desires" during Tuesday's hearings because he doesn't remember those "facts" and has not "reviewed any confidential transcripts of any interviews" other Justice Department officials gave to Congressional investigators.

These comments beg the question: What, then, has Gonzales been doing these past two weeks while holed up practicing his testimony with Republican officials? They also are not likely to make his visit Tuesday to the Judiciary Committee any less heated than it was already going to be. Political blood is in the air. And maybe some legal charges, too. That's as clear as mud.

[adian1-2009]

P. S.: I wonder what is the Senate going to do regarding Senator Domenici. This Mister Senator is clearly behind the firing of Attorney Iglesias, and certainly not for GOOD REASON. That Mister Senator brought in Bush and Rove. Now Bush says no specifics were mentioned and other small lies. Well, what that Mister Senator did is unethical and against morals, to say the least. What does the Senate, as an INSTITUTION, plans to do with Domenici? We want to hear from them. Or is it that . . . ?

[adian1-2009]

Gonzales, besides being a sick liar, is incompetent for holding office. I see no crime in being incompetent. But certainly there could be in intentionally hiding the truth and facts during the legislative investigation provided his testimony is under oath. Perjury is a grave crime. I think that he has two options: be truthful and accept the obvious, and then quit as AG or keep lying, be indicted for perjury and be put in jail. The first option is what we should expect from a man of dignity. The second, and the most probable to happen, is the option for a man without concept of what is good for our nation nor of what decency means.

[toldyouso21]

Gonzales is toast and would be smart to resign, but he won't, thinking he will be able to wriggle out. No, he will try to hang tough and thereby make sure that this stays in the public eye and keeps questions going and could bring Rove into the whole mess. Another stupid Bushie. Time to get rid of them all. Posted by clestes at 12:40 PM : Apr 16, 2007


If IT forensics uncovers paydirt on those laptops--actual charges may be brought against Republicans for using unofficial lap tops for official white house business then, deleting the data---and should that happen, I imagine that Bush will not only sell Gonzales down the river, but will eventually try to strike a different tone with Congress to save his own azz from impeachment--because there is more than enough speculate that there were many reasons why the RNC was purging their servers every 30 days and why nothing from Rove can be found. I bet Rove imagines he is like the "Jackal" from spy novels. Not yet. Karl. Not yet.

[toldyouso21]

President or attorney general is well within their rights to fire federal employees without cause Just ask the White house travel employees during Clinton about Justice. Posted by didntinhale at 08:17 AM : Apr 16, 2007

According to the top Republican on the Judicial committee, the President can fire for no reason--but he cannot do it for a bad reason--like trying to stack the legal deck in the favor of dispensing less than true justice. Sorry, didn'tinhale--maybe it's time you did-- (inhale that is) going without oxygen for so long is bound to cause severe brain damage--as your posts can well attest to. Poor thing, and this is your best arguement. PS--outing an agent is a crime. The fact that no one has yet been charged with that does not mean a crime has not been committed--it simply means not enough evidence has been found to pursue it. And Scooter's crime--why to lie? Lying in the middle of a Grand Jury investigation is called "obstruction of justice" Just a tad more severe than Gonzales's lying under oath about what he knew and when he knew it--but you KNOW all this huh? You are spinning so much and yet...you know...or at least you should know.

[toldyouso21]

"These comments beg the question: What, then, has Gonzales been doing these past two weeks while holed up practicing his testimony with Republican officials? They also are not likely to make his visit Tuesday to the Judiciary Committee any less heated than it was already going to be. Political blood is in the air. And maybe some legal charges, too. That's as clear as mud. "

Gonzales is doing the best he can--that's what he is doing--and THAT sad fact, should make us all give the appointment of Bush's torture boy ---pause. This man is a joke, a travesty and a soft spoken liar--sort of reminds one of Himmler. You know...self effacing, quiet, secretly behind the acceleration of death camps.

Gonzales is scary and I believe (though this has no bearing except to point out his hypocrisy) he may be a closet homosexual. It is the way he acts, talks and the flexibility of his lips--just like Haggerts. Such " mouth, tongue and lipcercise" --does something to the lips, you know.

[jonny_chaos]

Furthermore, in the 80s when i was a kid, the government that spied on its citizens was the USSR. now, the conservatives call themselves red and seem to like the policies. go back to the USSR you commie scum. the ag works for me as well. I think he's unqualified for the position. as for bush, well calling the constitution "just a piece of paper" shows how much respect he has for the US. Which is more important? Living a good life in an open society, or cowering like all the gutless fools that gush on about the threat of terrorism. Last time I checked life was dangerous. Terrorist, heart attack, cancer, what are you afraid of? You%u2019re a bunch of cowards, let the truth come out. again, you like soviet rule, go help Putin, the man bush locked eyes with and saw a kindred soul.

[jonny_chaos]

flat out, its not what they did. its the fact that these guys keep looking like total clowns. everytime anyone asks a question, these guys lie. sure, you can hire and fire whoever you want. the issue is the AG of the US is standing on his own ***. why not just say hey, we did it, heres why? instead they deny, then lie, and to cover what? everything this administration has done has been totally spun. and the sad thing isnt really what they do, its the total cowardice and incompetence. if you do something admit it. the only thing helping the enemy is the total stupidity and dishonesty these guys display. were a free society, i can say anything i want, get used to it. otherwise, move to a country with a more agreeable form of public debate, say Syria or Iran. so, sorry right wingers, i know you hate it but the reason our coutry is the best on earth is our ablity to hold our leaders accountable.

[diamtool]

It's Ok if Gonzalez did nothing wrong.
That's just fine with me.

Alot of people he ordered tortured at Gitmo and "black" sites overseas did nothing wrong.

Many of the people that he had kidnapped off the streets around the world had done nothing wrong,

Alot of the people he is wiretapping without warrants did nothing wrong.

let him prove it. Under oath. With the full heat and light of the law and the media in a full investigation.

At least they won't use dogs to scare him or attach wires to his testicles.

He won't even have to wear a hood.

Like these noecon bugbrains are fond of saying about warrantless wiretaps-
"if you've got nothing to hide then you've got nothing to worry about."

So get him up on the hill and turn him slow over the high heat. Let's find out if he did anything wrong. Let's see if he has something to hide.
After he is complete toast and resigns, if it turns out that he was just a malicious intellectual midget whose underlings screwed up and he didn't know anything about it and "didn't do anything wrong"--

That's just fine with me.

[micma-2009]

OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, connecting the dots:


Gonzales chief of staff, Kyle Sampson, denied that former U.S. Attorney Carol Lam in San Diego might have been fired for investigating a top Republican CIA official and a Republican lawmaker.


The day after Carol Lam notified the Justice Department that she was issueing search warrants on the two prominent Republican co-conspirators in the Duke Cunningham bribery scandals, Kyle Samson sent an email to the White House saying we've got a "real problem" with Lam. He also suggested that she be removed sooner than later. She was abruptly fired.


In testimony before Congress, Samson said that the "problem" was that she was not agressive enough on immigration cases. However, Carol Lam is listed amoung the top three most successful prosecutors of immigration cases in the entire country. In fact she has a 100% conviction rate on immigration cases. The head of the U.S. Border Protection Agency issued her a letter of commendation citing her effectiveness on combating migrant smuggling.


When asked if Lam had been notified of the "problem" before she was abruptly fired, Samson said, "uh.....um.......no".



Dan Dzwilewski, FBI special agent-in-charge in San Diego, said of Lam's dismissal, "I guarantee politics was involved." He was subsequintly ordered to stop talking to the media.

[tucano2]

Mr. Gonzales, just like his boss GW Bush, seems to be a pathological lier. Do Americans need
or want such persons on the public payroll?

[nyckate]

ademeyer - the reason Gonzalez crew gave for letting Iglesias go was that he spent too much time away from the office - seems he's in the reserves and was called to serve- something the Bush gang don't view as showing loyalty to them - he chose the nation over them and that really ticks them off.

[nyckate]

All4Change - I think at this point people are simply inured due to the degree of corruptness shown from the Bush Administration as other than incompetence all we've seen from Bush crowd is corruptness - seems they are incapable of being truthful, honest or ethical about anything at all - in a way it's a shame that all this didn't come out before the 2006 mid-term elections - there'd be more even higher losses to the Bush crowd!!

[nyckate]

didntinhale - Good Christ son - you truly are an idiot - you may not have inhaled but it's quite obvious your momma did adn washed it down with her nightly bottle of white lightening - while she was pregnant with you!!!

These prosecutors were appointed by Bush in 2000 -- you really oughta get your brain's back from Rush - if he hasn't sold them for drugs yet that is.

[all4change]

"Given the history of Rove there's sufficient reason to believe that some REAL dirty tricks were played and thus the "loss" of all those e-mails."
Posted by skyk at 09:02 AM : Apr 16, 2007

Yes, I would be curious to know the full content of those deleted emails! I'm picturing the electronic equivalent to a bunch of men in suits shredding documents in the middle of the night.
I'm absolutely amazed that more people aren't outraged that this country is being run by a bunch of crooks. Makes me sick.

[clestes-2009]

Gonzales is toast and would be smart to resign, but he won't, thinking he will be able to wriggle out.

No, he will try to hang tough and thereby make sure that this stays in the public eye and keeps questions going and could bring Rove into the whole mess.

Another stupid Bushie. Time to get rid of them all.

[jjreding-2009]

Hey, didntinhale - What did they convict and then try Bill Clinton on? Oh, yeah, oral ***. Go find someplace to post your *** that people will actually enjoy, like maybe FoxNews or Rush Limbaugh.

[terrapin78]

Now picking on Gonzo for firing those liberal Prosecutors that were probably releasing killers and child molesters?

Posted by didntinhale at 08:17 AM : Apr 16, 2007

All were appointed by Bush. He DOES NOT appoint Liberals. Though he should!

Get your lies straight!

[johnpatrick9]

Gonzalez, Condoleeza, Powell, Meier...all people of little substance who sadly rose toooo fast with little principle or depth to say "NO" to the despost who deigned to "elevate" them to positions beyond their capacity. Where are the Richardsons to tell a president gone bad: NO.
Thomas Moore did it to Henry the VII but this is bushie america and their are sadly men and now women of little substance to say that word at the risk of their pensions and vaunted positions. Bush/cHENY have intentionally surrounded themsleves with weaklings to aid and abet their reigning idiocy.

[ademeyer]

didntinhale: "they" didn't convict Libby, a jury did. The crime was lying about revealing the identity of a covert CIA agent. The investigation was requested by the head of the CIA, George Tenet.

I saw McKay and Iglesias on a Sunday show. These guys were top drawer: ethical, smart, articulate and Republican. Either one would be more qualified to be US Attorney General than Gonzales. To think Kyle Sampson, the 38 year old toadie in charge of their firing, wanted to be considered for the Utah U.S. Attorney position, when he had never prosecuted a case! Of course you would say its not illegal to replace competent Prosecuters with cronies, and you are right, however, it is highly unethical to remove Prosecuters for not sufficiently harrassing an administration's rivals.

[condumism]

didntinhal blurted:

A President or attorney general is well within their rights to fire federal employees without cause Just ask the White house travel employees during Clinton about Justice.

YOu're comparing apples and oranges, same as any fascist that is pandering to their own. Too bad you don't control the audience on this board. Then maybe you wouldn't be considered such an America hating fascist.