Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer sees nothing wrong with firing the eight U.S. attorneys and thinks that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is a decent and honorable man. "But," he wrote, "in time, and the sooner the better, Gonzales must resign. It’s not a question of probity but of competence. Gonzales has allowed a scandal to be created where there was none. That is quite an achievement. He had a two-foot putt and he muffed it."
Krauthammer’s complaint is that Gonzeles allowed his aides to "go to Capitol Hill unprepared and misinformed and therefore give inaccurate and misleading testimony." And that he allowed his deputy to say that "the prosecutors were fired for performance reasons when all he had to say was that U.S. attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president and the president wanted them replaced."
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Phantom on It’s the stupidity about the economy
- okobserver on Open thread 11/24
- Regular on Goldman Sachs ‘apology’ hollow
- okobserver on Open thread 11/24
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
- ANTI on Goldman Sachs ‘apology’ hollow
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/24
- bowhowdy2 on It’s the stupidity about the economy
50 Comments
Mr. Krauthammer is right on this; AG AG appears to be incompetent to hold the job he has, and more importatnly blew it ab initio on the “flap”. If the aides had done as Mr. K suggests, the whole thing would not be raging at the moment; it would likely have been a 24 hour thing in the media, at best.
Something good has occurred from this whole thing to date; the Senate passing the bill repealing the change dealing with appointment of interim U.S. Attorneys made in the Patriot Act Reauthorization Bill, restoring in all practical parts, the prior law requiring Senate Confirmation. It is my understanding from reports in the media that the House will soon follow, and the Administration has signaled no opposition.
“the prosecutors were fired for performance reasons” phrase can be liberally interpreted by the hiring person or the firing person.
Does anyone have how performance is defined by the DOJ in reference to DOJ Political US Attorney hires?
I don’t and without this contractual description, I don’t believe one can make an assessment on what “performance” entails.
The Bush Administraton bus wheels are getting pretty bloody from all the people who have been thrown under it.
“I don’t believe one can make an assessment on what “performance” entails.”
It depends on what your definition of the word “is” is…
Republican,
Gonzales wrote an editorial in USA Today on March 7 in which he described this issue as an “overblown personnel matter” and says that the 8 fired Attorneys “simply lost my confidence.”
But just a little over a week later, on March 16, Gonzales himself disavowed the “performance reasons” excuse in a conference call with the remaining US Attorneys. http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/nation/16921226.htm?source=rss&channel=krwashington_nation
“Gonzales apologized to the prosecutors not for the firings but for their execution, including for inaccurate public statements about poor job performance, according to people familiar with the afternoon conference call.”
I’m sure he gave up on that excuse because he knew there would soon be stories like this, which came out on March 19: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/18/AR2007031801077_pf.html
“One of the U.S. attorneys fired by the Bush administration after Republican complaints that he neglected to prosecute voter fraud had been heralded for his expertise in that area by the Justice Department, which twice selected him to train other federal prosecutors to pursue election crimes.”
Conservatives are still moaning about presidential prerogative and performance issues. Those ships have sailed and sunk, kids. But feel free to wade out into the kiddie pool and fish them out again if you like. There’s always someone who will come along who hasn’t heard these canards.
Just one last point on the issue of prerogative. If the President didn’t know about these firings, how can it be an issue of Presidential prerogative? If they serve at the pleasure of the President and the President isn’t involved in the decision to fire them, do they really serve at the pleasure of the President? Such koans may keep you up at night.
But don’t worry. If you’re one of the few brave brainless apologists still defending the administration on this issue you might try lighting a few candles and ritually invoking the phrase “they serve at the pleasure of the President.” Take a breath and then repeat ad nauseum. I’m sure that smug sense of ignorant righteousness will well up again in no time.
Okay Condor, I’ll make sure they are roman candles and point them in your direction. :)
How dare Krauthammerandnails disgrace the wonderful game of golf by using it in the same sentence with a . . . gag . . . member of the shrub mafia. Where’s the decency! Where’s the humanity!
CondorThere is such a thing as “delegation” —The President is allowed to delegate authority to others.
This story is alot like the Libby story.Just tell the truth and let the chips fall!
CondorThere is such a thing as “delegation” —The President is allowed to delegate authority to others.
This story is alot like the Libby story.Just tell the truth and let the chips fall!
Damn right he can delegate, he delegated the Presidency to Cheney!
Econ101,
I’m not sure what your thoughts are on the Libby story, but you don’t seem especially troubled by the fact that the administration and the Justice Department have NOT told the truth so far about the firing of these eight US Attorneys. Are you troubled by that fact?
The reason I’ve been picking on Republican today in this thread and an earlier one, is that when I first posted on this blog a few days ago Republican tried to appear as though he (or she) was a thoughtful reasonable person open to the possibility that Bush and Gonzales have done something worth serious investigation. Republican has since come out as a brainless apologist for the administration. I’ve spilled quite a few pixels presenting Republican with evidence that this scandal is truly scandalous and there’s obviously more we don’t yet know. In response I get nothing. Republican is fond of telling me that this is just an opinion blog. But Republican seems oddly unwilling to register any kind of an opinion on this serious issue.
Conservatives often brush aside Bush administration scandals with fake reasonableness like “just tell the truth and let the chips fall.” But then they express NO concern that the administration is doing everything in its power NOT to tell the truth and NOT to let the chips fall. Bush has offered to let Rove and other administration officials speak with Congress, but they can’t be sworn to tell the truth, they can’t appear in public and there can be no written record of the discussion. That’s not testimony, it’s an invitation to lie. It’s a joke.
As I’ve said in previous posts, if you supported the impeachment of President Clinton and you’re not concerned about what Bush and Gonzales are doing to the Justice Department, you are either a hypocrite or an idiot. Ours is a country of laws, not men.
I’m sure Republican will be along soon to suggest that I’m getting all worked up and incivil and that this is just a blog, after all. But it’s a farily meaningless way to spend your time if you’re willing to converse with frequent commentors who are completely unwilling to seriously engage with serious scandals because they find them politically inconvenient. All I ask is that conservatives own up to the principles they espoused in the 90s. Ours is a country of laws, not men. This scandal gets right to the heart of that principle.
Latest on “the trial by press”
Senator Schumer said after reviewing several thousands documents provided by the Justice Department, they found “nothing.”
Senator Schumer will most likely agree to issues subpoenas so he can continue the search that verifies or rejects the “nothing” he found in the DOJ documents.
No doubt we will hear more on this discovery of “nothing” in the news for days to come.
Condor,
If you would spend less time on telling everyone what you are going to say and how you are going to say it, your point my get across with more clarity.
I sure hope you aren’t in Journalism, the tree count would diminish rapidly with your rhetoric.
Republican,
Again, you don’t have the slightest idea what you’re talking about.
All I ask is that you imagine this scandal involves Clinton and Reno. Just close your eyes for moment and imagine all the same facts applied, except this was a Democratic administration. Tell me honestly what your response would be then?
But you won’t bother to respond to that request just as you haven’t bothered to seriously respond to anything else I’ve said since I happened across you. Until you do engage with the issue rather than dismissing it with empty rhetoric that even the administration has given up on, I think I’m fair in regarding you as either a hypocrite or an idiot.
I vote for Repug being considered an idiot.
“Republican, Again, you don’t have the slightest idea what you’re talking about. All I ask is that you imagine this scandal involves Clinton and Reno. Just close your eyes for moment and imagine all the same facts applied, except this was a Democratic administration. Tell me honestly what your response would be then?” Posted by: Condor | March 23, 2007 at 06:36 PM
Would this hypothetical scenario occur before or after Waco?
Since we are talking Democratic Party here,let’s lay some precedent.====President Jimmy Carter:
“All federal judges and prosecutors should be appointed strictly on the basis of merit without any consideration of political aspects or influence.”
–Such appointments are traditionally made on a frankly political basis, and once Carter was ensconced in the Oval Office, that tradition was fully honored. Of the first 65 U.S. Attorneys named by the new Administration, 64 were Democrats. As House Speaker Tip O’Neill put it, “That’s the way the System works.” And, he might have added, the way Congressmen and Governors want it to work, no matter who is President.”
“Carter got himself in trouble by making two serious mistakes. Several times he told less than the truth about his role in expediting the removal of Marston. Then, after admitting he was asked to fire Marston by one of the prosecutor’s targets of investigation, Democratic Congressman Joshua Eilberg of Pennsylvania, Carter did it anyway.”
But you were talking about Clinton and Reno weren’t you? :)
Republican,
Wow! You’ve been doing your homework!
Congratulations. You get a gold star for proving my point about your brainless partisanship. You’re clearly expecting me to leap to Carter’s defense. But unlike you, I’m not inclined to make excuses for such things.
Ours is a country of laws, not men. It’s really quite simple. And no amount of crying about other isolated incidents excuses what Bush and Gonzales are doing NOW. Where do you stand on this issue? Are you a hypocrite or an idiot?
Condor,
What excuses have I provided for partisan reasons? I have witnessed Senator Schumer stating he found nothing in DOJ documents. I have seen Senator Leahy says he will seek subpoenas because an interview has no transcripts and would be fruitless. Memory problem or ?
An interview with a Congressman is held under the law as the same in open seat arrangement under Congress. That is, if there is a lie or a coverup, the witness called can be prosecuted for presenting or conveying false testimony to Congress.
As it has been said before, the Democratic Congress wants a show trial. Now that’s the truth if you want to acknowledge it.
Now CF er. I mean Condor, what else you got?
Republican,
I hate to say it, but it’s beginning to look like you might be both a hypocrite and an idiot.
You haven’t provided any sourcing for your assertion that Schumer says he found nothing in the documents released thus far, but I’ll sleep well tonight operating on the assumption that you’ve completely misunderstood whatever it is that you’ve read or heard that gave you that impression.
Leahy doesn’t need to seek subpeonas because he already has them in his back pocket. They’ve already voted on it. He’s opted not to use them yet to give the White House a chance to make a more reasonable offer.
I actually laughed out loud at your tangled, tortured assertions about the consequences of lying to congress in a closed door session, without being under oath and without a transcript. Again, imagine Clinton making the same offer to a GOP controlled Congress and tell me how you’d respond. I mean, please!
And this term “show trial”… it’s another of your meaningless rhetorical dead fish. When you use an argument like that you’ve neatly sidestepped the issue of whether there should be a serious investigation of this scandal or not. So now we’re no longer arguing about Congressional oversight of administration wrong doing. Now we’re arguing about political theatrics. Let me assure you that I’m not concerned with political theatrics and the fact that you are is an indication that you still don’t know what you’re talking about, that you still haven’t managed to imagine something like this taking place in the Clinton presidency.
During the Clinton administration the Republican congress took over 200 hours of high profile sworn testimony on the firing of several staff members of the White House TRAVEL OFFICE. And you’re concerned about there being a show trial on this issue?
I’m not going to finish with your stupid rhetorical flair. I don’t need to ask you what else you got because you clearly have nothing.
Okay Condor :)
Perhaps I could have piped by 52 inch screen with a spectacular view of Senator Schumer making such a claim on National TV.
Don’t they have TV on Left Coast?
“Your Honor, Mr. Condor is proposing another Hypothetical using Clinton.”
Judge: “Mr. Condor please keep your remarks to facts that in evidence. There will be no more hypothetical questions, is that understood?”
(looks at Condor with arrogant smugness)
It’s settled. You’re both a hypocrite and an idiot.
(chortles)
So Republican,
I’m now absolutely certain you misunderstood what you heard Sen Schumer say about those documents.
Looky what they just found…
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/23/us.attorneys.gonzales.ap/index.html
WASHINGTON (AP) — Attorney General Alberto Gonzales approved plans to fire several U.S. attorneys in a November meeting, according to documents released Friday that contradict earlier claims that he was not closely involved in the dismissals.
(snip)
On March 13, in explaining the firings, Gonzales told reporters he was aware that some of the dismissals were being discussed but was not involved in them.
“I knew my chief of staff was involved in the process of determining who were the weak performers — where were the districts around the country where we could do better for the people in that district, and that’s what I knew,” Gonzales said last week. “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.”
Later, he added: “I accept responsibility for everything that happens here within this department. But when you have 110,000 people working in the department, obviously there are going to be decisions that I’m not aware of in real time. Many decisions are delegated.”
The documents were released Friday night, a few hours after Sampson agreed to testify at a Senate inquiry next week into the firings of eight U.S. attorneys last year.
psst… Republican….
FYI: The chief law enforcement officer of the United States has just been caught in blatant pathetic bald faced lie. And why was he caught? Because Congress is exercising it’s constitutional oversight duties. Say goodbye, Alberto.
I anxiously await your reply full of non-sequitur wingnut buzzwords. Here, I’ll get you started…
WEBSTER HUBBLE! WHITEWATER! WACO! CARTER! CLINTON! …PRESIDENTIAL PREROGATIVE!!!! SHOWWWWW TRIALLLLL!
Hey Republican,
Remember that 18 day gap I mentioned earlier? http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/03/firing_was_all_.html#comment-64182886
The damning email proving Gonzo lied about his involvment in the firing was from the 18 day gap.
Gee, I wonder why they’d withhold that one from the earlier document dumps.
Oh, but no matter. We can trust the administration to tell us the truth, can’t we?
A show trial would be so distasteful. So incivil! Wouldn’t you agree, Republican?
Condor~~ seems that you’re pretty worked up.Right or wrong, good or bad, you seem to be verging on climbing a clock tower.
Faced with the choice of changing their opinion or attempting to prove the impossible, Bush Cultists set out to work on the proof.
It’s impossible to enter into a rational discussion of Shrub’s Reign of Error with them because their passion for all things Bush has slipped over to the irrational.
Made plans? Knew about plans?
Oh no! Let’s hang em! :D
My god! Resignation, hell; given the hole Gonzales dug, not only for himself but for his boss and all his boss’s advisors, I’m astonished he’s still alive! Every time he’s opened his mouth he’s been proved to be lying; this guy is supposed to be an attorney and he can’t even lie convincingly.
Senator “Loose Lips” LeahyLeahy was stripped of his Senate Intelligence Committee vice-chair during the mid 80’s for making good on threats to sabotage classified strategies he didn’t personally care for. During Ronald Reagan’s own war on terror, the Vermont Democrat was aptly nicknamed “Leaky Leahy” for proving time and again that he would do absolutely anything to discredit the Republican President — including revealing the most vital of national security secrets
In 1985, he was charged with disclosing a top-secret communications intercept which had led to the capture of the murderous Achille Lauro hijacking terrorists. That leak likely cost an Egyptian counterterrorist agent his life shortly thereafter. Then, in 1986, Leahy threatened to leak secret information about a covert operation to topple Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi. When the details of the operation later appeared in the Washington Post, the mission was immediately aborted.
The loose-lipped liberal was finally forced to resign his post a year later when he was caught singing like a canary to an NBC reporter about classified information on the Senate Iran-Contra hearings. On his third strike he was out, but, unfortunately, the game was not over.
Senator Leahy likes secrets so much, he demanding as the Judiciary Chair to know the inner workings of DOD and NSA workings (not his area in the Senate.)
His lip flapping got someone killed and perhaps Senator Leahy wants to make amends, so he can spill more beans to the press on the Gonzales case before it even then ink dries on the Senate room floor.
If you hear anything out of the ordinary, you will know it will have come from “Loose Lips.” Before the ink will dry on the Senate floor, my bets are on Loose Lips Leahy to spill the beans to the press and make horrendous judicial error than cannot be defended.
tickticktick
Sanford,
Does it ever get tiresome being wrong and having as your only defense your own capacity for willful ignorance and a delight in calling people who are right either incivil or unhinged?
Republican,
Every time you post on this topic you further prove your partisan hypocrisy.
Again, no sourcing on your Leahy smearjob. And again, you have nothing to defend the Administration’s actions on this issue, so you resort to smearing their political opponents. I understimated you. You’re not just a brainless apologist, a hypocrite and an idiot. You’re also a shameless attack dog.
And finally, I know this is a blog and all and I don’t like to nitpick grammar and spelling since I make mistakes of my own all the time. But this paragraph has far more problems than just grammar and spelling. It makes no sense at all:
“His lip flapping got someone killed and perhaps Senator Leahy wants to make amends, so he can spill more beans to the press on the Gonzales case before it even then ink dries on the Senate room floor.”
And to prove it wasn’t just an editing error you use the “ink dries on the Senate room floor” line again after that. What ink? And why would it be on the “Senate room” floor? And is he spilling beans or ink? And to whom is he trying to make ammends by spilling these substances?
Yesterday I was amused by our exchange. In the clear light of morning I’m saddened. I always wonder who props up Bush’s approval rating keeping it in the 30s instead of the 20s. I guess I’ve just wasted several hours interacting with one of them.
Hey Gang, the FISTERS are baaaaaccckk!
Gonzalez looks like he is finished. Bush will announce his resignation on Wednesday, I predict.When the top guy is incompetent… that is where the trail of incompetence begins – Harriet Mieirs, Rummy, Heck ofa Job Browny, Chertoff, and Gonzalez.I am amused that Bush thinks his words of support mean anything anymore. It’s a curse for Bush to think you are doing a good job. Bush has attempted to save so much face since taking office that he now has 6 or 7 faces.Gonzalez is/was a zero. He engineered Gitmo. He engineered Abhu Graib, he is a Bush Wus.Janet Reno had more balls.
Go Fisters!
Republican,
One last point. I’ve known for some time that you’re a brainless apologist. But I’ve kept at it with you in hopes that you would so completely expose yourself in that regard to anyone else who may be reading these exchanges. Several times you’ve told me that this is just an opinion blog, as though that means that what we say here doesn’t count. But it does count. You’re building a repuation in these exchanges. And it’s not the kind of reputation any serious opinion blogger wants.
Love, Condor
You meant to say Condor,
“it’s not the kind of reputation for any blogger that takes themselves too seriously.” :)
Looks like Gonzales signed off on the firings in November. He’ll end up being part of the compromise to keep the Bush crew from having to testify when they can’t lie.
Let’s see, Gonzalez signs off on the firings in Nov., Gee, I wonder what was going on in Nov., could it be the elections? Nothing political here, move on!Gonzales attended meeting on U.S. attorney firings Fri Mar 23, 11:53 PM ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Attorney General Alberto Gonzales attended a meeting last November that discussed the imminent enacting of a plan to fire U.S. federal prosecutors, the Justice Department said in documents released on Friday.
ADVERTISEMENTThe documents showed a much greater involvement for Gonzales than previously acknowledged in the controversial dismissal of eight prosecutors that has prompted calls for his resignation and added to pressure on the Bush administration.
One email dated November 21, 2006 from Gonzales’ former chief of staff, Kyle Sampson, set plans for a meeting for November 27 on “U.S. Attorney appointments” and noted it would be held in the attorney general’s conference room with Gonzales there.
Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse, asked about the meeting, said it “concerned the roll-out of the U.S. attorney plan.”
But he said the information “available to us does not indicate that there was any discussion at this meeting about which U.S. attorneys should or should not be on the list.”
Critics accuse the Bush administration of firing the prosecutors to make room for its allies or because it felt some were too tough on Republicans and too easy on Democrats.
The administration has said while the dismissals were mishandled, they were justified, and it has denied making any threats. Officials also note a president can fire a U.S. prosecutor at any time.
“Another late night document delivery has produced evidence of the attorney general’s involvement much earlier than he previously acknowledged, as well as clear concern in the Justice Department and the White House for the political fallout,” Rep. John Conyers (news, bio, voting record), chairman of the U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee, said in a statement.
“This puts the attorney general front and center in these matters, contrary to information that had previously been provided to the public and Congress.”
Gonzales, also under fire over abuses by the FBI in the gathering of private records, has acknowledged mistakes were made in how the firings were handled but has rejected the calls from Democrats and even some Republicans for his resignation.
President George W. Bush, himself facing heavy criticism and falling approval ratings over his strategy in the Iraq war, has said he maintains confidence in Gonzales.
Roehrkasse said Gonzales had made clear he charged Sampson, who has resigned over the controversy, with “directing a plan to replace U.S. attorneys where, for one reason or another, the department believed that we could do better.”
Roehrkasse said Gonzales was “not, however, involved at the level of selecting the particular U.S. attorneys who would be replaced.”
The meeting was at the end of November and the firings took place in early December.
Sampson has agreed to testify next Thursday before a Senate panel investigating the firings of the eight federal prosecutors.
Sampson may spill the beans, as he is this month’s fall guy.
Now Gonzalez, top aide tells congress she’ll invoke the fifth! Repubs. have been breathing the vapors for so long, they can’t smell the stink wafting out of the W.H.
steve – I heard that today on the news! I suppose she faced a choice – lie for her masters or take the fifth!
Heard over the weekend a couple of Republicans using the term IMPEACHMENT! Not democrats; Republicans.
I guess a few Republicans don’t want to be REPUKES!
Just had a thought: What happens if Congress offers her immunity?
“Heard over the weekend a couple of Republicans using the term IMPEACHMENT! Not democrats; Republicans.”
All talk, no action.Bring it!
I suspect that as soon as there are a dozen GOP Senators who don’t want to be Repukes any more it will happen. Impeachment is meaningless unless it can be followed by conviction. And THAT lies in the hands of the GOP.
“I suspect that as soon as there are a dozen GOP Senators…”
blah blah, your party has not the courage it would take to back this up with action.
No fleettwood; we just don’t want to waste the country’s time on such an ill-fated move. PARTISAN impeachment is a REPUKE trick!
Fleetwood,
Yes, good governance is all about the size of one’s balls.
Actually, fleettwood might be right. Non-REPUKE Republicans are All talk, no action. And now the Repukes are also becoming all talk no action – just they spew a lot louder! The Democrats, on the other hand, have at least passed bills from the one House they control.
Immunity would never work, she’d just feel free to lie and protect her masters. Now, immunity with the caveat, that if she lied in her testimony, the deal would be off; would definitely be interesting!
Very good point steve. Maybe one of our resident lawyers can comment.