With A Defense Like This...

I am agog at the latest plot twist in the Eight Men Out debacle involving Alberto Gonzalez and the eight fired US Attorneys, as reported in the Times:

Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and senior advisers discussed the plan to remove seven United States attorneys at a meeting last Nov. 27, 10 days before the dismissals were carried out, according to a Justice Department calendar entry disclosed Friday.

The previously undisclosed meeting appeared to contradict Mr. Gonzales’s previous statements about his knowledge of the dismissals. He said at a news conference on March 13 that he had not participated in any discussions about the removals, but knew in general that his aides were working on personnel changes involving United States attorneys.

So far, I am undaunted - I would take for granted that the US Attorney General would know about the plan, even if he did not get involved every (or in this case, any) step of the way.

However, this is absurd:

Ms. Scolinos said the meeting was in Mr. Gonzales’s conference room at the Justice Department. The meeting focused on “rollout” of the dismissals, she said, and from available records was not a meeting in which a final target list was determined.

Another department official said that Mr. Gonzales did not recall the meeting and that his aides had been unable to determine whether he approved the dismissal plan then.

The meeting took place as Mr. Gonzales’s aides awaited final White House approval of a detailed dismissal plan that had been drafted by D. Kyle Sampson, Mr. Gonzales’s chief of staff. His plan was sent to the White House on Nov. 15, according to previously released e-mail. Harriet E. Miers, the White House counsel at the time, approved Mr. Sampson’s proposal on Dec. 4, and the dismissals were carried out three days later.

They don't know if they had a final target list on Nov 27, even though the plan had been sent over for White House approval on Nov 15?

Since a key part of the process meant to be managed by the White House (i.e., Karl Rove) was the politics of soothing the home-state Senators of the fired US Attorneys, how could the list sent to the White House have not included the final names?

And how could we be expected to believe that Harriet Miers and Gonzales' chief of staff came up with a list without Gonzales reviewing it at some point?  Who is in charge?

And his aides can't remember if he approved it?  Geez, as the old television broadcast used to say, due to technical difficulties the Invisible Man will not be seen tonight.  And the Invisible Boss will not be heard from at DoJ.

At this point, Gonzales should either resign for lying, or resign for ineptitude.  This "See no evil, hear no evil" explanation is past embarrassing.

MORE:  I welcome a pep talk, natch... Let me look around for other reax.

Powerline is unfazed if Bush is, and link to the WaPo version.  Here is how the WaPo reports on the "hour-long" meeting:

[Spokeswoman] Scolinos also said there is no evidence that meeting participants reviewed a draft memo on the firing plan, written by Sampson, that was dated six days earlier and widely distributed among Justice Department and White House officials.

According to Scolinos and her deputy, Brian Roehrkasse, there is also no evidence that individual U.S. attorneys were discussed at the meeting.

Must have been quite an hour.  A plan is sitting with the White House but they didn't review that, and no names were mentioned.  I don't want to ask what they did talk about, because I am afraid they will tell me and then I will hurt myself laughing.

STILL MORE:  The Captain is fed up:

Either [Gonzales has] been deceptive or incompetent.  There really is no third choice.

And he links to Jonah Goldberg, whose well of sympathy has run dry:

Maybe, just maybe, a good "CEO" would have asked his staff, "Hey, before I unequivocally tell the world I was out of the loop, let's double check and make sure I wasn't in the loop. Okay?"

I can hear Gonzales' defenders now - it depends on the meaning of "loop".  Ahhh!  Here is Gonzales from his March press conference.

EVERYONE'S A CRITIC: Brad DeLong makes a good point about the Times coverage of what Tony Snow said versus what the Times reported.

But why does he call it "journamalism" and not "journaminimalism", which we can suggest as a new sub-category.  Put me in this camp, and no, Google is not helping.  Bah - I'll go with the face value interpretation that "journamalism" is something similar to but a few flawed notches down from "journalism".

Comments

[Mackenzie]

The White House will not let Gonzales resign until the last possible moment, which could be months away. A replacement would of course need Senate confirmation, and the Senate won't accept another underqualified political hack. But a well-qualified, less-partisan replacement could not be counted upon to do the White House's bidding on every sensitive issue. It will no longer be possible to run Justice as a branch of the GOP. So Gonzales stays, for now.

[sferris]

Kudos to Tom for posting this discussion thread. You don't have to be a partisan to wonder whether the DOJ bumbling on the issue of the attorney scandal is the result of something larger than incompetence. That's the question that I think needs to be asked.

[boris]

Gonzales:

"I knew my chief of staff was involved in the process of determining who were the weak performers - where were the districts around the country where we could do better for the people in that district, and that's what I knew," Gonzales said last week. "But that is in essence what I knew about the process; was not involved in seeing any memos, was not involved in any discussions about what was going on.”

That is not a specific denial of involvement in discussion about any results.

WaPo:

“a disclosure that contradicts Gonzales's previous statement that he was not involved in "any discussions" about the dismissals.”

Conflating about the process with about the dismissals is dishonest.

[clarice]

Yes, it is, Boris. One could well alert Rove that DoJ was working on a dismissal list and give them a heads up to coordinate how it would be handled w/o the process being completed and w/o having been involved in the decision-making process except to sign off on it.

I have never thought that Gonzales was the sharpest knife in the drawer, but to suggest he's a liar is another thing.

As for the way best to have handled this, I feel compelled to note the Administration has always been weakest on personnel decisions and communications , and this is but another example.

[Other Tom]

After enjoying a week of skiing, I return to find this hapless fool Gonzales stepping deeper and deeper into various forms of animal waste.

I have thought this guy was in way over his head from the first day I laid eyes on him. It wouldn't break my heart one bit to see him treated to the boot-tip. However, anyone who expects an AG who won't do the White House's bidding is in for a rude shock. The AG is in the executive branch, and works for the chief executive. Thus it has ever been, and thus it shall ever be. He is an instrument of the GOP when the GOP holds the White House, and of the Democratic Party when it holds it. Get real.

[sferris]

So, he stays because the White House can't find another political hack to fill Fredo's place? Fredo doesn't have a lot of supporters. Republicans are going to start calling for Fredo's head and then he's gone. His testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee is going to be an embarrassment. Leahy will rip him apart.

[clarice]

"based on what has been reported, it seems to me that this morning's headlines could just have easily been "New documents verify Gonzales' claims." For example:

Reporting shows that the final plan was sent to the WH for review 12 days before the meeting where it was presented to Gonzales, the meeting that everyone claims is a smoking gun. In other words, the plan was not in development at the time of the Nov. 27 meeting, it was complete and tied up with a bow nearly two weeks earlier.

This meeting, according to printed reports, was about a rollout of a plan that had already been completed, and an opportunity for the AG to review and sign off on something that had already been developed.

According to the AP, "There are no other meetings on the calendar pages released between that Nov. 27 and Dec. 7, when the attorneys were fired, to indicate Gonzales participated in other discussions on the matter, Justice spokeswoman Tasia Scolinos said."

In other words, all available reporting actually backs up the AG's claim that he delegated this effort to senior DOJ officials, that those officials created a proposal and plan, and only when they were done did they bring it to the AG for approval. That is completely consistent with what the AG said on March 13 in his press avail.

So while I agree that this has not been handled well from the start, I don't agree that hanging the AG based on a Post article that is misreporting the facts is ever a good idea. "

Mtg

[Mackenzie]

The Post article is directly from the emails - the ones that were withheld a week ago. The ones that supposedly did not exist. They aren't even adept at lying.

[SlimGuy]

Sounds like all that is trying to be accomplished is to keep throwing stuff at the administration till they make them gun shy to do anything.

It is very hard to carry on day to day operations when you have to triple examine each thing you say or do in light of how will it look if I have to testify about this.

Almost like a bad marriage about to come apart at the seams.

Yes do things legal and above board, but anything with a lengthy history can be picked at an spun in 50 thousand ways.

[clarice]

Nothing would amuse me more than to see how the trolls/press critics would handle this.

As I see it, Gonzales left the choice to his staff, they sent it to the President's office to review and sign off on it, and then reviewed what steps should be taken on the rollout also to send their suggestions up to the President's office to coordinate this.

Personally, I have only ever known of one organizational system that worked--put all the decision makers in one big room w/o walls so everyone knows what everyone else is doing. I mentioned this to a Little Rock warroom firned who'd worked on Clinton's first campaign. She agreed--thinks worked well in Little Rock where that was the system. Once they won and were farmed out to varius offices in the Executive Office Bldg everything fell apart. They ended up spedning 90% of their time trying to communicate to one another what they were doing and even then paranoia and backstabbing proceeded apace. They even considered whether it would be possible to rip down some walls in the EOB to go back to the original working arrangement.
(Read the psychologist Bion on group dynamics if you think I'm kidding.)
The more different offices involved in a decision under the old everyone- in- his- own- office- w/- a- door- that- closes- system the more FUBARed and time wasting it is.)

[clarice]

***warroom friend who'd worked on Clinton's first campaign. She agreed--thinGs worked

[ErnestAbe]

Clarice,

Gonzalas said at the March 13 press conference that he was NOT involved in ANY discussions concerning the firings.

That means, no process discussion, no substantive discussion, no discussion at all.

This was a lie.

Plain and simple.

What is it about the words NOT ... ANY ... DISCUSSIONS that you don't understand?

[sferris]

Gonzales was left out of the loop?

"So far as I knew, my chief of staff was involved in the process of determining who were the weak performers,' he said. "Where were the districts around the country where we could do better for the people in that district, and that's what I knew... That is in essence what I knew about the process; was not involved in seeing any memos, was not involved in any discussions about what was going on," he said. "That's basically what I knew as the attorney general." ...

"Many decisions are delegated," he said. "We have people who were confirmed by the Senate who, by statute, have been delegated authority to make decisions." Mr. Gonzales then repeated: "I never saw documents. We never had a discussion about where things stood."

Yesterday we found out this:

Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and senior advisers discussed the plan to remove seven United States attorneys at a meeting last Nov. 27, 10 days before the dismissals were carried out, according to a Justice Department calendar entry disclosed Friday.

Was Fredo asleep during the meeting?

[clarice]

Naturally, I think you are putting a ridiculous slant on his words. He's the AG . Of course, he signed off on the decision. He's the AG, of course he had some input into how to announce and coordinate the decision. But there is no evidence that he decided who should be removed or why. Not that there would have been anything wrong with it if he had.

[Wonderland]

This quibbling that because Gonzales allegedly was not intimately involved in the process of choosing the firees, his prior comments were not "lies" would be comical if it didn't border on clinical denial. He said he didn't see any memos, and wasn't involved in any discussion about "what was going on.". Except that on Nov 27, he had a meeting to discuss exactly "what was going on," i.e., what the plan was to fire these attorneys. And we're supposed to believe that Sampson didn't break out his detailed memo outlining the plan at the meeting whose purpose was to go over the plan? Come on. Either Gonzales closed his eyes and covered his ears for the whole meeting, or he lied. Get real.

[sferris]

"Not that there would have been anything wrong with it if he had."

Yes, becuse he would have lied.

[boris]

Trolls still can't read (or they're just lying, or both).

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: What I know is that there began a process of evaluating strong performers, not-as-strong performers, and weak performers. And so far as I knew my chief of staff was involved in the process of determining who were the weak performers. Where were the districts around the country where we could do better for the people in that district, and that's what I knew. But again, with respect to this whole process, like every CEO, I am ultimately accountable and responsible for what happens within the department. But that is in essence what I knew about the process; was not involved in seeing any memos, was not involved in any discussions about what was going on. That's basically what I knew as the Attorney General.

***

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: I just described for Pete the extent of my -- of the knowledge that I had about the process. I never saw documents. 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.

Gonzales is clearly referencing the process of evaluating performances for selection, not the more general issue of dismissals. Notice how that context keeps getting left out?

Sorta trollishly suspicious I'd say.

[clarice]

As Schumer said to his nitwit troops, that there is no proof of any wrongdoing in the correspondence he received just suggests there was. LOL

The man with a penchant for seeing daggers aimed at him everywhere, needs a thorough checkup, I think.

[boris]

He said he didn't see any memos, and wasn't involved in any discussion about "what was going on.".

Based on what I just posted, your comment is an obvious lie.

[sferris]

How long do you think it's going to take Senate Judiciary to find out Gonzales was in the loop regarding the US Attorney purges? In the unlikely outcome he wasn't in the loop what does that say about the AG's competence?

[clarice]

It says to me this was a decision he delegated to others, the decision was sent to the WH for approval and he was called in to discuss the rollout plan. Period.

[Other Tom]

What reason would he have for lying? He didn't do anything wrong; he's just rather slow of wit. I'd rank him as about the equal of Janet Reno, except that so far as I am aware he has never tried to hit on Oprah.

[SunnyDay]

from macranger:

Here we are with picking and choosing meanings of words, but the fact is that this “shocking memo” appears to be nothing more than a calendar entry where Gonzales met to choose replacement AG’s, which is a meeting he would be at.

Also from Macranger - there is a bigger reason behind this so-not-a-scandal. Dems must get rid of Gonzalez.

IMO - every time the administration is accused of :something," they sound defensive. That gives the impression there is a there, there, when there isn't.

[EH]

Yeah, but why did he delegate it to others, especially seeing how the underlings predicted political backlash? Furthermore, and I suppose I have some Googling to do, but how many USAs have had requests for their resignation decided by anybody except the AG? Maybe all, maybe none, maybe some.

[clarice]

Is that anyone's business,EH? Or is the Imperial Senate going to determine how the AG and WH should delegate decision-making?

[sferris]

Kyle Sampson has a date with the Senate Judiciary Committee next Thursday. Fortunately, Moschella, McNulty, among others, are also going to testify under oath in congressional hearings so we should get the details out very soon. Pass the popcorn.

This quote from Sampson's lawyer is intriguing:

“Kyle did not resign because he had misled anyone at the Justice Department or withheld information concerning the replacement of the U.S. attorneys,” Mr. Sampson’s lawyer, Brad Berenson, said in a statement late Friday. “The fact that the White House and Justice Department had been discussing this subject since the election was well known to a number of other senior officials at the department, including others who were involved in preparing the department’s testimony to Congress.”

[EH]

"Is that anyone's business,EH? Or is the Imperial Senate going to determine how the AG and WH should delegate decision-making?"

I don't know, I figure any information at my disposal can be my business. Plus the whole Democracy thing. The fact is, Congress already determined part of how the AG and WH should delegate decision-making, at least as concerns obstruction of justice. Now, whether or not you believe in obstruction of justice for this context, the document dumps do seem to be working their ways around the explanations being offered. Do you think the President gets to decide what is who's business?

[stevesh]

Clea,

OMG, are you telling me the fascist Viacom is going after YouTube?

Oh, the Humanity!

[clarice]

EH ??????????????????????????????

[boris]

It seems that acting AG Comey was able to delegate "Full Authority" to Fitz in the persecution of OVP with basically ZERO supervision.

In what universe is that ok but Gonzales can't delegate selections for dismissal without knowing everytihing that's involved?

Sure seems like AG can delegate the hell out of stuff. Now after all of the lying about what Gonzales actually said and what he was talking about at the time, some skepticism is called for when evaluating MSM claims on this subject.

[Semanticleo]

"OMG, are you telling me the fascist Viacom is going after YouTube?"

Demonstrated sense of priorities.

[SunnyDay]

boris - heh!

[stevesh]

TM - Captain Ed quoting the above post on Northern Alliance Radio right now.

RealTimeJOM!!!!!!

[clarice]

Good point. Boris, you do realize that most of these criticisms are out of the mouths of people no one in their right mind would ever--has ever--placed in a position to delegate anything more complicated than picnic arrangements .

[stevesh]

**** Demonstrated sense of priorities ****
---------------------------------------------

Sadly, no. I read the article on the NSL's yesterday. Out of control FBI, GOLLY. Check Hillary's closet for some raw files.

[Semanticleo]

"-placed in a position to delegate anything more complicated than picnic arrangements ."

No, but I have organized several trips to
the bathroom and that qualifies me to be
AG, apparently.

[boris]

No that qualifies you to be smelly.

[dvorak]

I think boris has found the key to the whole kerfuffle. It seems Gonzo is being busted for saying "We never had a discussion about where things stood" which in context was something closer to 'I just described for Pete the extent of my -- of the knowledge that I had about the process. I never saw documents. We never had a discussion about where things stood [during the time my staff was considering who should stay and who should go].'

What fascinates me is this is turning into an inverse of the Plame-sent-Joe debate. Her defense is that she didn't have the authority to approve a final decision and therefore was not "involved". Gonzo on the other hand is the one with authority and therefore is getting pinned with blame no matter what point in the process he comes in at, even if he did little more than pass along a recommendation from someone on his staff.

As for Tom's quesitons:

"They don't know if they had a final target list on Nov 27, even though the plan had been sent over for White House approval on Nov 15?"

Suppose you were planning a birthday party. A month before the party you have a guest list of those you KNOW you want to be at the party. Are you committed to the exact same list two weeks later or can you still be considering to add a few more names?

Considering the meeting described a discussion of SEVEN attorneys and we ended up with eight...

"Since a key part of the process meant to be managed by the White House (i.e., Karl Rove) was the politics of soothing the home-state Senators of the fired US Attorneys, how could the list sent to the White House have not included the final names?"

Why would they need it to be finalized? Just because on Monday they send a list saying 'You are going to need to talk to these 7 people' doesn't mean they couldn't send another note on Wednesday 'Here's another person you will want to speak to.'

"And how could we be expected to believe that Harriet Miers and Gonzales' chief of staff came up with a list without Gonzales reviewing it at some point? Who is in charge?"

Kyle Sampson came up with the list. Gonzales passes it on to the President. If Gonzales trusts the judgment of Sampson, perhaps he doesn't spend more than a few minutes on the matter. If he is the type who micromanages and doesn't trust anyone, perhaps he spends a month re-doing the entire thing himself just to see if he comes up with the same results.

I'm baffled how you could ask that after writing: "I would take for granted that the US Attorney General would know about the plan, even if he did not get involved every (or in this case, any) step of the way."

"And his aides can't remember if he approved it?"

When, not if. "his aides had been unable to determine whether he approved the dismissal plan then."

[Semanticleo]

Jeez, Snoreus

[sferris]

What's with Monica Goodling taking a leave of absence? She was senior council to Abu and White House liaison. Also, Michael Battle. It's hard to tell if there is anything there. I guess it's all going to come out soon.

[stevesh]

Andrew McCarthy (I know he's friends with SP Fitzgerald but...) at NRO/Corner on why this matters, even if AG is truthfull/truthy:
---------------------------------------------
That is why I've always thought representing the United States as a lawyer is the greatest job on the planet. No one gives you a medal for having integrity; it is assumed you have it or you wouldn't be there. It is a standard to which the Justice Department and United States Attorneys Offices have held themselves throughout the years, no matter who was in charge. When people fall short of that standard, they tend not to last very long.
---------------------------------------------

Agreed.

[boris]

Bored Smellyclown?

Seek entertainment elsewhere then.

[Semanticleo]

"Seek entertainment elsewhere then"

What could possibly be more entertaining
than the likes of you?

[Cecil Turner]

The fact is, Congress already determined part of how the AG and WH should delegate decision-making, at least as concerns obstruction of justice.

Since when is the Executive run by the Legislature?

Do you think the President gets to decide what is who's business?

No. Neither does Congress. Appointments are an Executive function, shared with the Senate and Congress. Congress can by law vest the authority in others, but I missed the part where they get to tell the Executive how to delegate decision-making:

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

[boris]

What could possibly be more entertaining ... ?

Organize trips to the bathroom to qualify yourself as extra smelly Smellyclown.

[sferris]

So, Abu's defense is he was the Delegator and not the Decider. He wasn't in the loop. He only signed off on the firings. Good luck Gonzo, your going to need it.

[Semanticleo]

"as extra smelly Smellyclown."

Would THAT qualify me to replace Gonzaliars?

[boris]

Would THAT qualify me to replace ...

That qualifies you to replace StinkyBuffoon.

[Cecil Turner]

He wasn't in the loop. He only signed off on the firings.

Oh, what silliness. Only the President has the authority to fire the US Attorneys . . . hence he has to sign off on it. Obviously the recommendation going from DOJ to the President has to be approved by Gonzales, so he had to sign off on it first. There's no dispute on either of those points, and never has been.

The allegation, from our lefty friends, is that the US Attorneys to be fired were selected improperly. That is the point Gonzales addresses with:

"I knew my chief of staff was involved in the process of determining who were the weak performers - where were the districts around the country where we could do better for the people in that district, and that's what I knew," Gonzales said last week. "But that is in essence what I knew about the process; was not involved in seeing any memos, was not involved in any discussions about what was going on. [emphasis added]

In other words: "I didn't select which USAs should be fired, nor was there any inappropriate pressure on those doing the selection." That is a perfectly on-point response to the allegations, and the newest "revelation" doesn't contradict it at all.

[Evelyn]

I am so tired of the constant attempt to destroy the President and his ability to conduct the affairs of his office. The President appoints the Justice Department lawyers, he can fire them.

George Bush from the moment the election was called was denied what every other president was given. That is, the right to take his office without a fight in court, the right to have timely briefings before he took office and the right to have his appointments confirmed in a timely fashion.

The "Invalidators" now want to tell the Executive branch who they can fire and when they can fire them. Liberals cannot "win" with ideas. They can only do so by destroying their opponents either with the court as with Libby and Tom DeLay or by destroying their reputation. If liberals utterly destroy G. W. Bush that’s fine with them, if they destroy the Presidency, well so be it, it is GW’s fault.

I’ll end with this thought. It is easy to “win” the politics of destruction game now because Republicans generally never play this way, but what if some day they do. The precedent has been established.