When I went to bed last night, news about a new 3,000+ 280+ page document dump from the Dept of Justice had just broken, and within just the first few hours we had already learned definitively that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has been lying. In fact, within hours we already knew that virtually all of the most important statements Gonzales' made in his own defense just 10 short days ago were lies. Remember, this Gonzales' denial of involvement was broad:
"I was not involved in seeing any memos, was not involved in any discussions about what was going on."
As it turns out, he participated in an hour long meeting on the subject just 10 days before the purge began. The DoJ is trying to claim that his attendance at this meeting does not contradict his earlier statement. Their statement:
"This meeting concerned the roll-out of the U.S. attorney plan. The information available to us does not indicate that there was discussion at this meeting about which U.S. attorneys should or should not be on the list," spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said.
Even taking them at their word, this still doesn't get Gonzales off the hook. He didn't just claim he wasn't involved in selecting the attorneys to fire; he claimed he "was not involved in any discussions about what was going on."
Picking nits? Not. Gonzales is our nation's top lawyer. Certainly he understands the importance of choosing his words carefully, no?
Shortly after I had gone to bed, TPM Muckraker posted the documents online, and throughout the night, the power of the network has once again been put to the test. Already hundreds of the documents have been poured over, and already the news is most certainly not good for this administration.
First up, the claim that some were fired for not aggressively pursuing immigration cases is now known to be a lie. Here is how McClatchy reports one discovery:
The e-mails also show that administration officials struggled to find a way to justify the firings and considered citing immigration enforcement simply because three of the fired prosecutors were stationed near the border with Mexico. While the e-mails don't provide evidence of partisan motives for the firings, they seem to undercut the administration's explanation that the prosecutors were dismissed for poor performance.
"The one common link here is that three of them are along the southern border so you could make the connection that DOJ is unhappy with the immigration prosecution numbers in those districts," Tasia Scolinos, a senior public affairs specialist at the Justice Department, told Catherine Martin, a White House communications adviser, in an e-mail."Which ones are they?" Martin replied.
You "could" make the connection? Too funny. But not even nearly the funniest bit.
Here, for the record, are the names Martin was given. Note that Martin needed clarification on which of these 6 were "along the border."
Paul Charlton (D. Ariz.) Carol Lam (S.D. Cal.) Margaret Chiara (W.D. Mich.) Dan Bogden (D. Nev. 1 John McKay (W.D. Wash.) David Iglesias (D.N.M.)
Now, as TPM points out, throughout several of the email exchanges you get the sense that members of the administration thought this would provoke only short-term political problems. For the most part, they seemed to think it would quickly blow over. I'll let TPM take this part from here:
DoJ's Tasia Scolinos wrote on November 21 to the White House's Catherine Martin, little more than two weeks before the firings: "The one common link here is that three of them are along the southern border so you could make the connection that DOJ is unhappy with the immigration prosecution numbers in those districts."
Other emails between the two show Scolinos optimistic that the purge would go over quietly: "I don't see it as being a national story - especially if it phases in over a few months." Oops.Her explanation:
Speaking with reporters on Friday evening, Ms. Scolinos said that when she sent that message she had only a fragmentary understanding of the plan to dismiss the prosecutors.
Obviously not.
But back to the lying. Here's the second major find, once again courtesy of the TPM network:
One central aspect of the U.S. attorneys firing is that the Justice Department (via a staffer for then-Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-PA)) was able to slip in a provision to the Patriot Act Reauthorization bill that made it possible for the administration to appoint interim U.S. attorneys for an indefinite period without Senate confirmation. That way, the administration could install who they wanted for the rest of Bush's term -- like, say, Karl Rove's former aide.Justice Official William Moschella told McClatchy ten days ago that he'd sought the change "without the knowledge or coordination of his superiors at the Justice Department or anyone at the White House." Just a rogue operator.
The emails tell a different story:
"We support eliminating the court's role" in appointing interim U.S. attorneys, Moschella wrote to officials, including Michael Battle, the director of the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, "and believe the AG should have that authority alone."
Josh Marshall has more here.
I had hoped today to be able to put together a comprehensive post on the state of play of all of the various scandals currently unfolding, but between this ongoing story, my responsibilities as a grader for a course at BU, and the ongoing SEIU Health Care Debate among the Democratic presidential candidates going on right now, I'm not sure if I'll be able to make it happen. We'll see...
UPDATE: Andrew Sullivan takes a look at some of Gonzales' earlier statements on the matter and comes to one very simple conclusion: Gonzales is a liar. He must go. Read the whole post, but here's the key quote from Gonzales:
We never had a discussion about where things stood.
That's not about naming names. That's a much more general, blanket denial.
UPDATE II: One last, gratuitous thought: Remember, it wasn't the sex that was the problem with Clinton. It was the lies.
Sorry, couldn't resist....
UPDATE III: Great catch by Kevin Drum and ThinkProgress.
Gonzales was interviewed yesterday on a popular radio program in Seattle. John McKay, Seattle's USA, was apparently quite popular, so people are looking for concrete answers as to why he was, first, considered for a federal judgeship, and then second, fired for "performance related issues."
Gonzales couldn't answer the question. The best he could do was repeat the "serve at the president of the pleasure" line. It's almost as if he doesn't understand the difference between how and why. Yes, the president can fire them for any reason, or even for no reason at all. But even "no reason" is a reason.
If his argument is simply that "the president felt like it," then fine, say so. If that isn't his argument, then what is it?
"Pleasure of the president" doesn't explain the motives behind the firings, and not all motives are equally valid. If the president fires USA's to thwart an investigation into the activities of some of his supporters, for example, we would all (I hope) agree that his actions were both unethical and illegal. We agreed back when Nixon did it, anyway, so I would hope we could still agree now.
But hey, if you don't want to believe me because I am "left wing," go listen to what Andrew McCarthy has to say over at NRO. Even Andy, a right winger by anyone's definition, understands that what is at stake here is no less than the rule of law.
USA's serve at the pleasure of the president; the law does not.
UPDATE IV: Had the number of pages released way, wAY wrong. Its been corrected above.
Subscribe to this blog's feed
