The Blue State

Special Counsel or Impeachment -- It's Bush's Choice

Today on CBS' Face the Nation, Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) said his committee will give Alberto Gonzales one week to re-clarify his statements.  Last week both documents and the FBI Director contradicted the testimony of Gonzales a few days prior.  Leahy is giving Gonzales one last chance and then the gloves are off:

"He has a week to correct it if he wants," Sen. Patrick Leahy,D-Vermont, said. "If he doesn't correct it, then I think that there areso many errors in there that the pressure will be very, very heavy,whether it's a special prosecutor, special counsel efforts within the –within the Congress."

This next part is where it gets tricky.  Obviously the Judiciary Committee prefers to have a special counsel.  But that may not happen.  Congress can request a special counsel.  Ultimately though, the decision is made by Solicitor General Paul Clement.  The problem is that Clement is a Bush official, and may be instructed by Dick Cheney not to appoint a special counsel for fear of it opening the executive branch up to further investigations regarding the legality of the warrantless eavesdropping program.

Even though the congressional request can be denied, the Democrats still have political leverage.  Judiciary Committee Chairman can call for impeachment of Gonzales.  So in other words, the Democrats' message to the Administration should be this: allow Clement to appoint a special counsel, or else face an impeachment trial for their Attorney General.

A Stretch -- Even for Tony Snow

With a straight face, White House Press Secretary tried reasoning to the media that FBI Director Robert Mueller did not contradict the testimony of Alberto Gonzales.  Gonzales claimed on Tuesday that in 2004 he did not pressure heavily sedated and bed-ridden then-Attorney General John Ashcroft to go forward with the warrantless eavesdropping program.  He said they spoke about something else.  However, yesterday in front of that same Senate panel, Robert Mueller said the hospital conversation between Gonzales and Ashcroft did include the topic of the warrantless eavesdropping program.  In other words, Gonzales may have lied under oath.

Today, Tony Snow said Gonzales didn't lie under oath, because Gonzales and Ashcroft had different definitions of the phrase 'terrorist surveillance program.'  Unbelievable!  Here is the video:

In response, reporter Helen Thomas said to Snow, "You're not speaking English, really."  You think?

Fine then.  The Senate Judiciary Committee should call Robert Mueller back and ask him even more specifically.

FBI Director testimony proves Gonzales lied on Tuesday

Today, the Democratic Congress may have got the smoking gun they were looking for.  Remember that on Tuesday, Alberto Gonzales claimed he did not discuss the warrantless eavesdropping program with a sedated, hospital-bound John Ashcroft in 2004.  On Wednesday, federal documents showed otherwise.

Now there is more.  On Thursday, FBI Director Robert Mueller confirmed that during that hospital meeting, Gonzales did indeed pressure John Ashcroft on the warrantless eavesdropping program.  Here is an excerpt from Mueller's testimony today:

Lee: Did you have an understanding that the discussion was on TSP?

Mueller: I had an understanding that the discussion was on a, uh, a, uh -- an NSA program, yes.

Lee: I guess we use "TSP," we use "warrantless wiretapping," sowould I be comfortable in saying that those were the items that werepart of the discussion?

Mueller: The discussion was on a National -- uh, NSA program that has been much discussed, yes.

And here is the video:

In summary, Alberto Gonzales' Tuesday testimony has now been contradicted by two sources in less than 72 hours: federal documents and the FBI Director.

Translation: this is perjury.

Gonzales may have perjured himself yesterday

Tonight, word is in from the AP that some of what Alberto Gonzales said in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee does not match federal documents.  As a result, a perjury investigation might be imminent:

Documents show that eight congressional leaders were briefed aboutthe Bush administration's terrorist surveillance program on the eve ofits expiration in 2004, contradicting sworn Senate testimony this weekby Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

The documents, obtained byThe Associated Press, come as senators consider whether a perjuryinvestigation should be opened into conflicting accounts about theprogram and a dramatic March 2004 confrontation leading up to itspotentially illegal reauthorization.

A Gonzales spokesman maintained Wednesday that the attorney general stands by his testimony.

Ata heated Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Tuesday, Gonzalesrepeatedly testified that the issue at hand was not about the terroristsurveillance program, which allowed the National Security Agency toeavesdrop on suspects in the United States without receiving courtapproval.

Instead, Gonzales said, the emergency meetings on March 10, 2004, focused on an intelligence program that he would not describe.

Full Story

This comes in the heels of the contempt charges that were issued against Harriet Miers and Josh Bolton.

Back to Gonzales for a second.  If the Senate does indeed open a perjury trial against the Attorney General, look for him to resign.  Yesterday, Arlen Specter's (R-PA) harsh criticisms of Gonzales may have been a message to Bush that many Republicans would support such an investigation unless he leaves.  This ongoing scandal is added baggage to the Republican Party, and they are tired of it.

Gonzales did not tell Congress the truth, yet again

In addition to his role in the attorney firing scandal, planning the Administration's detainee policy, and pushing the warrantless eavesdropping program, Alberto Gonzales is in trouble yet again.  This time, the political trouble involves statements Gonzales made to Congress about the Patriot Act.  During an April 17, 2005 testimony in front of a Senate panel, the Attorney General claimed there had not been one case in which civil liberties were violated since the first Patriot Act was signed:

The track record established over the past three years has demonstratedthe effectiveness of the safeguards of civil liberties put in placewhen the Act was passed. There has not been one verified case of civilliberties abuse.

But as John Solomon uncovered this morning, just one week before that 2005 testimony, Gonzales was told by the FBI that the Patriot Act actually was violated.  Also, Gonzales had repeatedly been told of these violations over the previous few months:

Six days earlier, the FBI sent Gonzales a copy of a report that saidits agents had obtained personal information that they were notentitled to have. It was one of at least half a dozen reports of legalor procedural violations that Gonzales received in the three monthsbefore he made his statement to the Senate intelligence committee,according to internal FBI documents released under the Freedom ofInformation Act.

Either Gonzales knowingly mislead Congress, or he did not read the multiple memos that the FBI had sent him.

The Justice Department quickly released a statement downplaying everything:

"The statements from the attorney general are consistent with statements from other officials at the FBI and the department."

Patrick Fitzgerald for Attorney General, anyone?

Seventh Justice Department official resigns -- no one wants to work for Alberto anymore

Assistant US Attorney General Rachel Brand became theseventh Justice Department official to resign amid the ongoing scandalinvolving Alberto Gonzales.  Strategically, Brand even used her post as a launchingpad to try and become areplacement for one of the fired US attorneys:

When officials were planning to fire prosecutors in San Diego, SanFrancisco, Michigan and Arkansas, Ms. Brand was named as a possiblereplacement for Margaret Chiari in Michigan, according to documentsreleased as part of a Congressional inquiry.

The Justice Department is in shambles.  The Bush Administration ishaving a very difficult time trying to fill the Justice Department vacancies.  For example, last week thePresident's nomineeto fill the third most powerful Justice Department spot withdrew hisname just days before the Senate confirmation hearings.

No one wantsto work for Mr. Gonzales and have their resume permanently tarnished.  I sure would not.

Another Justice Department official resigns

Michael Elston, a Justice Department official that helped carry out the firings of nine US Attorneys, resigned on Friday (via TPM):

Mike Elston, chief of staff to Deputy AttorneyGeneral Paul McNulty, is the fifth Justice official to leave afterbeing linked to the dismissals of the prosecutors.

Elston's resignation is effective at theend of next week. Reached Friday afternoon, he confirmed his plans toleave but would not say why....

Other aides who have resigned in the wake of the firings includeformer Gonzales chief of staff Kyle Sampson and White House liaisonMonica M. Goodling. A fifth official, Mike Battle, who ran the Justiceoffice that oversees the U.S. attorneys, left in March.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers responded:

"When yet another significant player resignsin the U.S. attorney scandal, it only deepens the mystery of whotargeted U.S. attorneys for firing, why they did it, and what exactlyis going on in the highest reaches of the Justice Department and who isfilling the vacuum of leadership that has developed there," saidConyers, D-Mich.

And Alberto Gonzales still remains the Attorney General.

Gonzales being probed by DoJ

If the President won't fire him and Congress won't impeach him, then maybe his own agency can get the job done.  The Washington Post reports this morning that the Justice Department has launched an internal probe into whether Attorney General Alberto Gonzales deliberately sought to influence the congressional testimony of aide Monica Goodling:

She said Gonzales's comments discomfited her because both Congressand the Justice Department had already launched investigations of thedismissals.

Goodling's account attracted attention partly becauseGonzales had told Congress that he could not remember numerous detailsabout the prosecutors' dismissals because he had purposely avoideddiscussing the issue with other potential "fact witnesses."

This all refers to a meeting that Gonzales had with Goodling prior to her testimony.  Goodling told Congress that she felt "uncomfortable" during the meeting with him:

"It made me a little uncomfortable," Goodlingtestified at the May 23 House Judiciary Committee hearing. "I just didnot know if it was appropriate for us to both be discussing ourrecollections of what had happened."

At this point, the Justice Department gains from launching a probe in an effort to get rid of their boss.  All of the hard-working public servants at DoJ have had their careers and reputations tarnished under the shadow of Gonzales' tenure.  Many of them would probably like to take part in kicking him out.

Revealing documents released by DoJ right after 'no confidence' vote failed

The Bush Administration waited until after the Alberto Gonzales 'no confidence' vote failed before finally releasing evidence that proves Karl Rove helped micromanage the political strategy behind the firing of US Attorneys.

Back in February, White House Political Director Sarah Taylor, who conveniently resigned last month, got mad at the Justice Department for disclosing Karl Rove's role to Congress:

The White House's former political director was furious at JusticeDepartment officials for disclosing to Congress that the administrationhad forced out the U.S. attorney in Little Rock, Ark., to make way fora protege of Karl Rove, President Bush's political adviser, accordingto documents released late Tuesday.

 

Then-White House political affairs director Sara Taylor spelledout her frustrations in a Feb. 16 e-mail to Kyle Sampson, then thechief of staff to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

This all has to do with Tim Griffin, a former aide to Karl Rove, who was nominated to replace fired US Attorney Bud Cummins.  Because of a loophole in the Patriot Act, the former Rove aide was installed without Senate confirmation.  No one knew about this loophole until after Griffin started serving.  Once the scandal broke, Griffin resigned, and the Congress passed a law that repealed the Patriot Act loophole -- meaning that all U.S. Attorney replacements would once again need to be confirmed by the Senate before serving.

Now to perjury.  Many allege that Alberto Gonzales lied under oath to Congress on January 19th.  Gonzales claimed that all US Attorney replacements would be confirmed by the Senate.  But as mentioned above, that Patriot Act loophole allowed Gonzales to hand-select US Attorneys without having them be approved by the Senate.  Either Gonzales was not aware of the loophole, or he misled Congress.

Bottom line: Gonzales is not out of the woods yet.  In his next appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee, he will be pressed on the documents that were just released.

Editorial: Adding a new meaning to precedent

Ever since 2001, we have repeatedly heard the phrase, "This is unprecedented," like a broken record.  But just think to yourself: 20 years from now  -- when another power-hungry attorney general lies to Congress, or another lawless president misleads the country into war -- allies of the administration can say with a straight face, "Nothing that the president is doing is unprecedented.  It all happened during the Bush years."

That is why 'no confidence' votes like the one yesterday do matter.  When you fail to hold public officials accountable for abusing their power, you set a disturbing precedent for the next generation that this kind of public corruption is acceptable.  So you really have to think long and hard -- what kinds of lessons should we teach next generation's politicians, so that they know there are penalties for not behaving responsibly and ethically?

This is not idealism -- it is realism.  Whether in school, work or at home, most people strive to meet certain expectations.  When those expectations are lowered, it can impact performance.  The worry is that all the corruption and destructive incompetence this decade will lower the bar for the future. 

The thwarting of yesterday's 'no confidence' vote of Alberto Gonzales left another dark imprint on everything that America used to stand for, and reinforced the kind of anything-goes ethics that we have witnessed over the last six and a half years.