Category Archives: alberto gonzales leahy iglesius conyers subpoena duces

what is missing from alberto gonzales’ e-mail delivereries. . .

as i wrote this post, primarily
about monica goodling
, it occurred
to me that i didn’t
remember seeing
any c.y.a. e-mail
from the attorney
general — at any
date — ordering or
directing his sub-
ordinates to pre-
serve e-mail, cal-
endars, phone-message-
logs, other documents
and/or records related
to the ongoing investigation of the
mass-firings of u.s. attorneys. . .

where is that e-mail? it would
plainly bolster his case that he
is cooperating — and, has done nothing
wrong — therefore has nothing to hide. . .

why hasn’t he done this?

it is pretty much a standard practice
employed by competent defense counsel
in organizational settings — ooh. wait:
i. think. i. just. answered. my. own. question.

never mind.

more seriously — i’ll have more on
this notion of the lack of an exonerating
contemporaneous record, here, later.

[updated — reader CTuttle, over at
firedoglake, alerts me this morning that,
whilst i was off-the-grid, emptywheel
speculated about much the same topic.
that is gratifying — “great minds“, and
all — but i’ve not found the link as
of yet — will post it here when i do. . .]

Advertisements

so much has already been written on gonzales’ lack of "truthiness" yesterday. . .

it seems almost redundant to
take time to mention it here,
but i found that mr. gonzales’
testimony, almost uniformly
lacked credibility. . . i say
almost“, because, as the new
york times ably points out,
on its opinion page, this
morning, he inadvertently told
the truth
on at least one score. . .

“. . .If Attorney General Alberto Gonzales had gone to the Senate yesterday to convince the world that he ought to be fired, it’s hard to imagine how he could have done a better job, short of simply admitting the obvious: that the firing of eight United States attorneys was a partisan purge.

Mr. Gonzales came across as a dull-witted apparatchik incapable of running one of the most important departments in the executive branch.

He had no trouble remembering complaints from his bosses and Republican lawmakers about federal prosecutors who were not playing ball with the Republican Party’s efforts to drum up election fraud charges against Democratic politicians and Democratic voters. But he had no idea whether any of the 93 United States attorneys working for him — let alone the ones he fired — were doing a good job prosecuting real crimes. . .

Some of his answers were merely laughable. Mr. Gonzales said one prosecutor deserved to be fired because he wrote a letter that annoyed the deputy attorney general. Another prosecutor had the gall to ask Mr. Gonzales to reconsider a decision to seek the death penalty. (Mr. Gonzales, of course, is famous for never reconsidering a death penalty case, no matter how powerful the arguments are). . .

In another telling moment, Mr. Gonzales was asked when he had lost confidence in David Iglesias, who was fired as federal prosecutor in New Mexico. His answer was an inadvertent slip of truth.

“Mr. Iglesias lost the confidence of Senator Domenici, as I recall, in the fall of 2005,” Mr. Gonzales said. It was Senator Pete Domenici of New Mexico, of course, who made a wildly inappropriate phone call to Mr. Iglesias in 2006, not 2005, to ask whether charges would be filed before the election in a corruption inquiry focused on Democrats. When Mr. Iglesias said he did not think so, Mr. Domenici hung up and complained to the White House. Shortly after, Mr. Iglesias’s name was added to the firing list.

We don’t yet know whether Mr. Gonzales is merely so incompetent that he should be fired immediately, or whether he is covering something up.

But if we believe the testimony that neither he nor any other senior Justice Department official was calling the shots on the purge, then the public needs to know who was. That is why the Judiciary Committee must stick to its insistence that Mr. Rove, Ms. Miers and other White House officials testify in public and under oath and that all documents be turned over to Congress, including e-mail messages by Mr. Rove that the Republican Party has yet to produce. . .”

notice — sadly — that mr. gonzales was
asked when helost confidence” in
iglesias, but he replies that it
was the republican senator in mr.
iglesias’ district who had “lost
confidence
” in mr. iglesias. . .
implying, at a minimum, that mr.
gonzales outsourced his hiring
and firing decisions to a “whatever
any politician would like. . .” standard.

he must go. now.