Support grows for Gonzales despite new evidence

AP/Houston Chronicle ^ | 3-24-07 | LARA JAKES JORDAN

[veronica]

Documents show Gonzales approved firings WASHINGTON — The White House and a key Republican senator reaffirmed support today for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales even as Democrats questioned his credibility for apparently misrepresenting his role in firing eight federal prosecutors.

Critics said the latest document disclosure — more than 280 pages of e-mails, calendar notations and other documents sent to Congress late Friday — bolstered their case for Gonzales' ouster.

Yet one longtime ally who largely has kept quiet about the attorney general's fate issued a statement of support.

"He has always been straightforward and honest with me," said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah. "So, unless there is clear evidence that the attorney general deliberately lied or misled Congress, I see no reason to call for his resignation."

Gonzales has said he participated in no discussions and saw no memos about plans to carry out the firings on Dec. 7 that Democrats contend were politically motivated.

His schedule, however, shows he attended at least one hourlong meeting, on Nov. 27, where he approved a detailed plan to execute the prosecutors' firings.

Democrats said the new documents appear to show Gonzales was more involved than he claimed earlier.

"How much scrutiny do we have to put behind everything the attorney general says?" the House Judiciary Committee chairman said in an interview with The Associated Press. "I know he's busy, and he could have done things that he didn't remember, but we're going to give him as much rope as he needs," said Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich.

Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, who heads the Senate Judiciary Committee, said the Nov. 27 meeting "widens the gap between the evolving explanations the Bush administration has offered and the facts that keep coming to light."

But White House deputy press secretary Dana Perino said the documents do not conflict with Gonzales' earlier statements.

"The president continues to have confidence in the attorney general," Perino said. "As the Justice Department said last night, these new documents are not inconsistent with its previous statements."

Justice spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said today there are no plans for Gonzales to resign.

Also, several Republicans in both the House and Senate said they needed to learn more about how closely he was involved in the firings. Still stopping short of calling for Gonzales' resignation, Sen. Gordon Smith, R-Ore., "thinks it's better to have an attorney general that Congress has confidence in," spokesman R.C. Hammond said.

At issue were statements Gonzales made at a March 13 news conference that appear to conflict with what the documents show.

On that day, Gonzales portrayed himself as largely unaware of the process of firing the prosecutors, depending instead on then-chief of staff Kyle Sampson — who resigned March 12 — to handle it.

"I never saw documents," Gonzales said then. "We never had a discussion about where things stood. What I knew was that there was ongoing effort that was led by Mr. Sampson, vetted through the Department of Justice, to ascertain where we could make improvements in U.S. attorney performances around the country."

At the same news conference, Gonzales said he was "very dismayed" that the department may have given incomplete or misleading information to Senate and House panels investigating whether firings were politically motivated. The attorney general said he would take "corrective actions" to prevent it happening again.

The new documents, however, included a page from Gonzales' calendar that shows he participated in an hourlong Nov. 27 meeting with five senior officials at the department to discuss the firings.

At the meeting, aides said, Gonzales approved detailed "roll out" plans for the firings. That plan involved notifying Republican home-state senators of the impending dismissals, preparing for potential political upheaval, naming replacements and submitting them to the Senate for confirmation.

Six of the eight prosecutors who were ordered to resign are named in the plan.

"A good lawyer will tell you, when the story keeps changing, it's usually because someone has something to hide," Sen. Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y., renewing his demand that Gonzales quit.

There is little in the thousands of department documents released over the past two weeks that directly name Gonzales. An e-mail from Jan. 9, 2005, mentions a conversation between Gonzales and Sampson about White House suggestions to replace all 93 U.S. attorneys as part of a second-term house cleaning.

"Judge and I discussed briefly a couple of weeks ago," Sampson wrote back to White House aide David Leitch; Gonzales is a former Texas state Supreme Court justice. The across-the-board firings, however, were ultimately rejected. Gonzales himself called it a "bad idea" and "disruptive."

Sampson is scheduled to testify Thursday before Leahy's committee about his — and, presumably, Gonzales' — role in planning and carrying out the dismissals.

One e-mail in the new batch of documents highlights anew the White House's political team involvement in the firings.

"Does a list of all vacant, or about to be vacant, US Attorney slots exist anywhere?" White House deputy political director J. Scott Jennings wrote in an e-mail to Sampson last Dec. 3. The e-mail, titled "USATTY" was written from the Internet domain address of "gwb43.com," which is registered to the National Republican Committee.

Sampson answered back a few minutes later, the e-mails show. "My office. Want me to send to you tomorrow?" he wrote.

———

Associated Press writer Deb Riechmann contributed to this report.

[marron]

Lets try a little boldness, please. Stop wincing like a battered child. We fired them because we weren't happy with their performance. We'll do it again if we have to. And firing a half dozen is nothing to the wholesale firings that have occurred under other administrations.

Drop it, and we'll get back to running the country and the Dems can get back to watching Oprah.

[veronica]

Much ado about nothing.

[sgtbono2002]

Tell Chuck the Schmuck to go straighten his kinky hair.

[marron]

Granted. The people who are worked up about this are the people whose switch is set on permanent outrage. And when someone is always outraged, it is just noise, its meaningless.

We should just tune it out.

[Wild Irish Rogue]

" Gonzales has said he participated in no discussions and saw no memos about plans to carry out the firings on .."

That's my big problem with Gonzales-he always seems to be MIA.
He gives off a Mr Magoo vibe-nice guy who doesn't have any idea what's going on around him.
I would think that the AG should have been involved with ongoing discussions about his USAs.
And if Gonzales was going to be targeted by the Democrats, I wish it was because he had stepped up and fired Fitzgerald.

[upsdriver]

They are on permanent phony outrage!! Democrats have the ability to manufacture outrage at the drop of a hat. They are slimy, evil bastards!

[operation clinton cleanup]

At least he didn't lie to the FBI about taking money from the Chi-Coms.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=17413

[tessalu]

If Congress does not like the law about Federal Judges serving at the pleasure of the President, they need to change the law or rewrite it.

[DWPittelli]

When it comes to the question of whether Attorney General Gonzalez (or anyone else) lied, you should never trust characterizations, or short quotes, provided by the media or Senators. You will see everywhere the same two very short quotes, selected with the intent to deceive us about Gonzalez' claimed "lie" because the press is fully invested in the lies of Senator Schumer et al.

Instead, read the full transcript* and come to your own conclusions. The news that Gonzalez signed off on the 8 dismissals, and how they would be effected, in a one-hour meeting isn't in conflict with any reasonable interpretation of what he said.

The infamous "I was not involved in seeing any memos" quote is, in context, clearly better read as describing his lack of involvement in "the process of determining who were the weak performers", and is not a claim to have never signed off on the decision.

Indeed, if the evidence showed any less involvement on Gonzalez' part, that would itself be the latest "scandalous" twist in this story.**

*The actual transcript of Gonzalez' March 13, 2007 press conference is at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/13/AR2007031300891.html

**(As it is, on this last note, see http://www.citizensforethics.org/press/pressclip.php?view=6126 "Ousting a group of top federal prosecutors isn't some minor, inconsequential act. It's the sort of thing that a responsible attorney general would be deeply immersed in. Gonzales's depiction of his own marginality is the most damning evidence of his unfitness for the job.")

[Lancey Howard]

"Many conservatives burrowed within the Department of Justice have long complained that Gonzales has permitted career government employees and hold-overs from Democratic Administrations to remain in perches of power and thereby water down conservative directives from the top. As one conservative and Federalist Society member in the Justice Department told me: “This is definitely not Ronald Reagan’s Justice Department, I assure you. You have holdovers from Clinton calling the shots in a lot of places here.” "

[Calvin Locke]

I caught part of Ingraham on Friday. She said she had Fred Thompson on and quoted him as saying Bush was fielding the "B" team late in his last term.

I've never been impressed with Gonzales, and his record and actions have only reinforced that opinion.

Unfortunately, Gonzales sleazed himself into a position of complete incompetence, but is being targeted by the Dims, of all things, for a legitimate exercise of his authority.

They aren't even alleging a conspiracy to obstruct justice.

What to do, what to do...

[Logical me]

And if Gonzales was going to be targeted by the Democrats, I wish it was because he had stepped up and fired Fitzgerald.

You got that right!

[edsheppa]

Thanks for "linking" to that transcript but I think your interpretation is wrong. Either Gonzales didn't remember the meeting (which I think unlikely) or he lied. Further, his scapegoating of Smapson is unseemly.

[George W. Bush]

I think Gozales will survive. I don't think he's especially outstanding as an AG but bringing in someone new with less than two years to go and who wouldn't get confirmed until summer means that Justice would be hampered by having a new AG there.

Since this is just Dim grandstanding, I think Bush and the Senate should resist it hard. I think the Dims are overreaching and the public will support Bush. We might even see Bush's poll numbers coming up.

[Doogle]

Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, who heads the Senate Judiciary Committee, said the Nov. 27 meeting "widens the gap between the evolving explanations the Bush administration has offered and the facts that keep coming to light."

Sen Leahy, why hasn't William Jefferson been arrested and put in jail? Why has he been promoted and given a seat on a committee?

Doogle

Doogle

[Doogle]

I swear there's only one of me

[Popman]

George, buddy: Here's some friendly advice.

Call a press conference at 8:00 PM Monday night:

Tell the American people
1. The people that were terminated were done for good reason. They serve at our pleasure, anyway.
2. If you and the democrats don't drop this silly nonsense, I WILL FIRE EVERY ONE OF THEN LIKE BILL CLINTON DID. DEAL WITH THAT
3. The democrats are acting like children. Ask them why they are playing silly political games?
4. Don't you have MORE IMPORTANT ISSUES to report about?
5. We are bombing Iran 4:00 am tomorrow morning. (Just to asee if they are paying attention)