AG's Written Testimony:
TPMMuckraker has posted Albert Gonzales's written testimony for Tuesday's hearing about the U.S. Attorney firings. The gist of the testimony: Gonzales was basically out of the loop on who would be fired and why. Gonzales told Sampson to make up a list, and Gonzales approved Sampson's list a year or two later without asking about or getting into the details.
Marty Lederman offers comments over at Balkinization.
Marty Lederman offers comments over at Balkinization.
Republicans have great ideas when they are in the minority but they simply can't make the transition to majority power. Maybe antipathy to government IS the cause of their inability to govern. Democrats love to govern the lives of others and they are effective at it.
If Gonzales goes, so should Bush and Rove. This plan sounds a lot worse than lying under oath about sex.
Just another mountain being made out of a molehill. I am gonna enjoy watching this whole web of supposition and exaggeration unraveling. Just like the Plame nonsense. (Of course, it's not like the media will ever admit that. Irresponsible allegations will fly, and then the circus will move on to the next "scandal.")
That has been one of the largest problems of the Bush Administration so far. I hope the next Administration Republican or Democrat brings responsibility and competence back to the executive branch.
Tenant 1) The Unitary Executive Thesis: The President should have unfettered control over all executive agencies and career administrators should fall in line. The normative and constitutional justification for this (beyond "in Bush43 we trust") is that the President is accountable to the electorate, and therefore brings legitimacy and responsiveness to the administrative state.
Tenant 2) The Secrecy / Know-Nothing Thesis: whenever faced with criticism, the administration stonewalls, obfuscates, claims executive privilege, and generally acts as if decisions were made by some disembodied "administration"
How, pray tell, is the President and is administration deserving of strong executive power when they undermine the transparency necessary for accountability? Framed the other way (since I actually happen to favor strong executive power) - Congress needs to demand transparency from the administration as the necessary corollary of the Unitary Executive Thesis. If the administration purposely structures itself to encourage opacity, I'm all for some familiar information-eliciting rules; i.e., we have something here that looks pretty sketchy, you are the only one in a position to tell us what happened, so the burden is on you to show that your actions were proper.
'During those conversations, to my knowledge, I did not make decisions about who should or should not be asked to resign.'(WaPo sunday)
The man running the Justice Department did not decide who would or would not be fired is his defense.
That would be a firing offense even if the firings were perfectly kosher.
Seriously, this testimony is disgraceful. I'd accept it from an administration that hadn't been shrouding itself in secrecy and arrogating excessive power, but not from one that wants to run everything itself.
Sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice. If this testimony is true, then the incompetence of AG AG is remarkably advanced. If it's false, he's equally remarkably malicious.
The man running the Justice Department did not decide who would or would not be fired is his defense.
It's even worse if you read it closely - he's claiming he doesn't know whether he made decisions about who should or should not be fired. I think if you're talking about a presidential appointee, confirmed by the Senate, as all US attorneys are, you've got a duty as the AG to at least be aware of whether you decided to fire him or not.
Now if he stands in front of the Senate on Tuesday and claims he left all the decisions up to Kyle Sampson, how would that make you feel if you were a US attorney, knowing that some 30-something political appointee with neither wisdom nor experience has been put in charge of deciding whether you should be fired? It's hardly surprising the DOJ has a morale problem.
Even when, as here, it appears to be the truth?
(Or possibly the first few episodes of this seasons BSG)
(I'm trying to avoid bringing in Goodwin's Law).
It is sad, that Gonzales wimped out on this, especially after he stood up to the president on the search of William Jeffers (sp?) office.
It seems like the wagers on the outcome of the hearings are between, "very bad" and "catastrophic." Somewhere, Robert Bork will be saying, "I did way, way better than that, and it didn't go that well for me."
--JRM
Always a mystery to me. Didn't half these guys use to be lawyers?
You don't have to invoke Godwin's Law. You could cite "Paths of Glory" (French in World War I) or "Breaker Morant" (British in the Boer War) as movies where soldiers are railroaded for the good of the Empire. Breaker Morant is based on actual events where Australian soldiers shot Boer prisoners on apparent unwritten orders from Kitchener.
They do the same things as Clinton's group or Reagan or Nixon or Lincoln, but they always find the most awkward &spectacular way to present their version of the facts. It is so very easy to read between the lines as to their true intentions.
Clinton and Reagan at least knew how to bamboozle and leave you wanting more misguided policy. Or even the institutions they've set up, like this new DOJ where it becomes a very large and scary rubber stamp, or DHS which adds an extra complex layer of paperwork and non-accountability into a top-heavy list of agencies already crippled by too many cooks in the kitchen.
For thinking people, there is little to argue about DOJ's effectiveness or DHS making the country / world safe.
The image that comes to mind is a concerned father putting a padlock on the fridge so his kids don't get fat, but he forgets the combination and everyone starves to death.
Decisions of that nature are not to be handed off to subordinates - it would be like a CEO handing over to his executive assistant the decision of which branch and division managers would be fired.
It is such an astounding dereliction of duty that I would prefer it if he were lying - gross incompetence is usually more dangerous than venality.
Either way, Gonzales should resign right away.
Nick