Some highlights from session two:
+ During Sen. Grassley's questioning, Gonzales admitted that he made false statements during his initial press conference because at the time he hadn't yet "reviewed the record." Given that he made numerous unequivocal statements about his role in the process, that seems a bit odd, no? Shouldn't the nation's top lawyer do something as basic as review the record before making public statements?
+ Sen. Whitehouse (D-RI) finally nailed Gonzales on his definition of impropriety. Gonzales has always centered his definition of impropriety on the interference in specific cases, but Whitehouse pointed out there are other ways the scales of justice could be rigged. Gonzales seemed confused by this, and wasn't willing to provide a straightforward answer
+ Sen. Kyl (R-AZ) immediately followed up on this and got an admission from Gonzales that yes, in fact, it would be wrong to interfere with the impartial administration of justice on a more general level. Kyl seems to think that this was helpful to Gonzales, but given how hard it was to get Gonzales to agree with this, I don't see how. Kyle then spent the rest of his time talking about Internet gambling. Eh?
+ After grilling him about the missing emails, Sen. Leahy (D-VT) asked Gonzales which of his various conflicting statements - today's, the weekend's, his op-ed in USA Today, his previous press conference - should be considered the truth. Gonzales "took full responsibility" for his past misstatements (who else does he think might be responsible for them?), but didn't really answer the question.
+ Sen. Specter (R-PA) surprisingly chose not to follow up on the USA-8, instead spending his time talking about other matters. First up was VA Tech. I understand why they might eventually want to talk to the AG about this, but what could he possibly add now? Then he moved on to the misuse of National Security Letters by the FBI. Gonzales talked about how bad he felt about all of this, but Specter shut him down and asked him to talk about actions, not feelings. Gonzales couldn't answer the questions, so Specter redirected and demanded a result in writing. Finally, Specter moved on to the Terrorist Surveillance Program, asking him to provide specifics and details on how the FISA Court is using probable cause, and the standards it uses to determine pc. All interesting questions that the AG will respond to in writing.
+ Sen. Feinstein (D-CA) picked up again with questions about process. Sampson testified that he only aggregated names that were given to him by others. The #2 and the #3 in the DoJ have said similar things. Gonzales responded that he had tasked Sampson with compiling the list, but that he (Gonzales) wasn't directly responsible for it either. Amazingly, Gonzales says that he too would like to know who selected the attorneys who were to be fired, but that he hasn't asked anyone yet because he didn't want to interfere with the Senate investigation. Or to put it another way, because the Senate wants the truth, he didn't want to find out the truth, because his search for the truth might somehow interfere with theirs.
This is worth expanding on because this really is the crux of the matter. Leaving aside the question of motives, this issue gets to the heart of Gonzales management failures. Firing 10% of the US Attorneys was one of the most important things Gonzales would do during his time as AG. And yet he has no idea how this process was conducted. None whatsoever. Moreover, he hasn't bothered to ask, because he believes that somehow his asking would interfere with the search for the truth. I suppose if this was a criminal investigation in a court of law that reasoning might make some sense, but it is not. This "I didn't want to interfere" argument just makes no sense under these circumstances
+ Sen Hatch (R-UT) seems annoyed that he has to participate in this process at all. Gonzales is a great guy, and he's served his country well, and this is all just so very unfair to a very fair man. Moreover, since the institution of the DoJ is resilient, changes in leadership don't much matter to Hatch, so he really cannot understand why everyone is so concerned. Hatch clearly is one of those people who doesn't know about Google; I can't wait to watch that statement come back around on him, both when it is compared to his statements during Clinton's term and when it is compared to what he will have to say about the DoJ under a Democratic president in 2009.
Hatch also continued to suggest that because the Dept of Justice is so large, the Attorney General really shouldn't be expected to oversee everything. Sometimes, he said, something will slip by, and this should be considered one of those circumstances. Gonzales is just so busy that he really can't be expected to know about the firing of some of his most important employees. Or something.
+ Sen. Cardin (D-MD) focused in on the issue of voter fraud. Unfortunately, this was the first time this issue came up. Cardin discussed the evidence showing that voter intimidation, not voter fraud, is our most serious electoral concern, and asked why given the DoJ's focus on the lesser problem of fraud they hadn't done anything to combat intimidation.
Gonzales once again fell back on his feelings, describing how his experiences with poverty in childhood made this issue very real and very important to him. This might have scored him some sympathy points, but it did nothing to actually answer the question. In fact, if you ask me, it only made things worse. He was aware of the issue, and it was one that he has deep feeling about, but he nevertheless chose to ignore it.
Taking Gonzales at his word about his feelings, his actions make no sense. This really is yet more evidence that he has no business managing the Department of Justice.
+ Sen. Whitehouse (D-RI) grilled Gonzales about the DoJ's official policy on contact between his department and the White House. Using Clinton's policy as a guideline, a policy about which Sen. Hatch held extensive oversight hearings, Whitehouse showed how enormous the change in policy was when Bush came into office.
Whereas Clinton allowed direct contact between only a small handful of individuals, Bush and Gonzales changed the policy to allow contact between as many as 500 different people. Given the evidence in the record showing that Harriet Miers, the White House counsel, asked specific questions about specific cases to specific US attorneys, this is an incredibly important point. The safeguards that had been in place to prevent improper political contacts and influence had been deliberately removed by this administration, but Whitehouse has approached this from an entirely new angle.
+ Sen. Schumer (D-NY) just became the second member to call on Gonzales to resign. It isn't just that something improper might have happened, Schumer said, it is also that Gonzales clearly failed in his responsibility to manage his department. Gonzales tried to defend himself by suggesting nothing criminal took place, but Schumer shot him down by explaining that an Attorney General must meet a much higher standard than that. Gonzales had no response.
+ Sen. Specter (R-PA) explained that Gonzales has lost his credibility and has not provided adequate details to most of the key questions that have been asked. He nevertheless refused to call for Gonzales' resignation, asking instead that Gonzales himself reconsider whether or not it is appropriate for him to stay on.
+ Sen. Leahy (D-VT) finished up by concluding that "politics have entered the Department of Justice to an unprecedented extent," suggesting that this is one of the worst days he had ever spent on Capitol Hill. No mention of resignation from Leahy.
Topline: Gonzales never once gave specific information about the specific reasons specific US Attorneys were fired. Not once, despite weeks of preparation, was he able to answer the most important questions being asked of him.
My prediction? He won't last a week.
UPDATE: I should add...
Just because Gonzales goes, this whole thing will not be over. Gonzales inability to answer some of the most basic questions, and in particular his continued insistence that he was not involved in the process of selecting the names, means that we do not yet know who in fact was in charge. In both open and closed testimony, all of the aides to the Attorney General have taken a similar line: they were part of the process, but they did not actually add names to the list. That responsibility lied with someone else. But who?
That will be the key question over the coming weeks. If it was the White House, Monica Goodling, the liaison between the DoJ and the White House, would know. If it takes a grant of immunity to get to the truth, so be it. Bring her in, put her under oath, and find out what she knows.
Maybe Gonzales is right. Maybe there's nothing nefarious here. Maybe he and his staff are simply too incompetent to be trusted with such important jobs. Either way, we need the truth.
Subscribe to this blog's feed
