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. "

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NTVlNTlhZGIxMGRjNzUwYjQ2YzYyMWQ5NjJiZGZlNjA=>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.

[sferris]

No one is claiming the Senate can delegate appointments. Senate approval was required before the Patriot Act was approved recently. If US Attorney's were fired because they were investigating Republican malfeance, the Senate has has a duty to hold hearings. Also, if the replacement US Attorneys were hired to prosecute partisan cases the Senate should obviouslty look into these cases. This is what oversight is about. Get used to it.

[boris]

Focusferret you're losing it.

[clarice]

ferret:"If US Attorney's were fired because they were investigating Republican malfeance, the Senate has has a duty to hold hearings. Also, if the replacement US Attorneys were hired to prosecute partisan cases the Senate should obviouslty look into these cases"

If wishes were fishes.

Perhaps you have been taken in by Fitz' preposterous notion in his press conference that one may investigate w/out any serious evidence of wrongdoing, but that is not how it works.

The FBI , for example, did not just spin a wheel and decide to subpoena Jefferson's records in his Congressional office w/o probable cause. Perhaps you think it advisable for each branch to just keep invetigating eachother on no more than , say, Schumer's notion that absence of evidence=evidence, but that's not how it should work.

[TMF]

If gonzalez lied, hes an idiot.

Why NOT be up front about firing incompetent, partisan hack US attorneys who refuse to proscute Dum voter fraud and were soft on illegal immigrants?

[mkultra]

Shorter Boris:

It depends on what the meaning of "process" is.

[SunnyDay]

Plame kerfluffle all over again. Different names, different theme, same pattern.

dems: aha!! here is a scandal!

media: another scandal!

public: huh? what?

republican base: what scandal? that's not wrong.

administration: while it may appear that there is wrongdoing here, we assure you we had nothing to do with it.

media: administration denies involvement in scandal

dems: Gotcha!!

[boris]

Bigger boris,

Gonzales clearly defined the meaning of "process" before answering.

"the process of determining who were the weak performers"

[sferris]

Republicans appear to be having hard time adjusting to changes brought on by the last election. My advice is to stop your shameless whining, it's pathetic and loathsome.

[SlimGuy]

Clarice

I agree.

It's like all the early red herring about performance evals.

Yes they may have been judged competent to do their job, and hopefully all could meet that test.

But nowhere is there a test of are they following the admin agenda in an impartial job evaluation.

That is a separate judgment that can be objectively made about supporting admin priorities and choice of retention.

[Tulsan]

Republicans don't lie. Never. Only Democrats lie. Sometimes Republicans remember details incorrectly, but that is because they spend long working days saving us from Democrats, and are often too busy to even check facts before testifying before Congress, or to the FBI, or to a Grand Jury.

[Evelyn]

Shameless, pathetic, loathsome. A perfect description of today's democrat party. When you cannot win with ideas, lie, steal and cheat is the battle cry.

[mkultra]

Gonzales clearly defined the meaning of "process" before answering.

"the process of determining who were the weak performers"

*****

A prepositional phrase describing the purpose of the process is not a definition of the process of the itself. It only invites the question as to what the process entailed.

Don't confuse ends with means Boris, it's unbecoming.

[sferris]

Hearings next week into the DOJ is going to help clear up the issues. The myriad of reasons the DOJ has given over the firings of eight prosecutors will probably be answered during the hearings. What's wrong with clearing things up unless the DOJ has something to hide?

[SlimGuy]

If there are differing perceptions for reasoning and motivation for the dismissals at various levels within the department, this should only be accepted as the view of the person stating it. Just that simple.

For example

Clarice may have a motivation for the dress she chose to go out to dinner with her husband.

My wife may draw her own conclusions.

I may draw even another.

None are right or wrong, and for any one to imply wrongdoing because of the fact that any or all of the perceptions differ is a bit of a stretch.

[SlimGuy]

sferris

Have you stopped beating your wife?

Lets investigate to clear that up.

Makes as much sense as that prattle you just uttered.

[boris]

Boris, it's unbecoming

Rather be unbecoming than stupid.

[sferris]

The election is over Evelyn. Time to move on. Lie, steal, and cheat is what were finding out about Republicans in short order.

[PeterUK]

Evelyn,
Democracy was a non-violent solution to whoever had the biggest army ruled,hereditary rulers and the like,not a perfect system but the best we have got.It is based on the concept that the interested parties accept the result,the opposition parties can oppose but accept that the ruling party rules.This has obviously broken down,this can be seen in those third world failed democracies where the ruling party simply jails the opposition,or like the Nazis who after winning the election simply rounded up the opposition and exterminated them.
This is a dangerous and extremely dangerous path the Democrats are treading,it may sate the totalitarian nutroots lust for blood but at some point in the future the rules are going to be changed..not for the better.
I agree,this needs to be thought about very carefully.

[Mackenzie]

Whatever was discussed at that meeting in Alberto Gonzales' conference room, we all know that the the list (of US Attorneys to be replaced) was developed by the White House political staff.

[boris]

we all know that

More dangerous than what you don't know is what you know that aint so.

[SlimGuy]

PUK

The problem that is overlooked is that we and many others are aware of a lot of what happens in the netroots, but how aware is the average American?

Only the politically active have a good comprehension.

I can suggest that some may have heard the term but have no concept of what or why they are about.

I also imagine not a small number fit into this group.

[clarice]

The average IQ of an American is 100. (In the Arab world the average is more like 70-80, depending on the country). That means, half of each population is less than that figure. Looking at the bell curve, 30 % of the population is really stupid.

Add to that the elimination of literacy tests and even understanding of the English language and you have only a small number of citizens even capable--if they are at all interested--to make sensible judgments about governance.

With the media (especially the nets for whom one needn't pay to see) rooting and distorting for the DUmmies, we have our work cut out for us.
It doesn't help that so many are unwilling to fight the good fight.

[sferris]

Alberto Gonzales through his statements is establishing himself as either a liar or a fool. Either he misled the country, when he said two week ago he wasn't involved, or he wasn't sharp enough to remember what happened in this meeting last Nov. 27. Either way, it undercuts the premise of the White House and DOJ about the dismissals of the eight US Attorneys. It's no small wonder then there are now two separate investigations underway into the Justice Department to determine the scope and whether there is wrongdoing. The DOJ has only itself to blame.

[clarice]

QED

[sferris]

Bye bye Alberto.

[PeterUK]

Slim Guy,

Watching this from afar is like watching one of those dramas where one wants to shout " Behind you!". The firing of some Attorneys is more important than,funding your military,a subject more gripping than the President of Iran canceling a visit to attend to a crisis created by piracy on the high seas,Iran's nuclear ambitions.More prosaic, seizing up the AG and the DOJ,is there no real crime to attend to?
There is no grandeur in the Democrat's tactic,Lilliputians tying down a giant.
One thing is certain China and Iran will be watching this with great interest,just as al Qaeda learned from Vietnam so will you future opponents learn from this.

[Semanticleo]

More Nixonian kerfluffle from WSJ;

March 23, 2007, 5:16 pm
Senate Records Prove Important in Lobby Case

Evan Perez reports on the link between J. Steven Griles guilty plea and Congress’s confrontation with the White House over executive privilege.

If there’s any doubt about the importance of getting a record of Senate investigative interviews, consider the case of J. Steven Griles.
[Jack Abramoff]
Abramoff
Griles, the former deputy Interior secretary, pleaded guilty in U.S. District Court in Washington today to lying to Senate investigators when he was asked about the nature of his relationship with disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff, who was trying to help clients on matters before the Interior Department. Abramoff, in prison after pleading guilty to felony charges, has been aiding a wider investigation that has netted eight convictions or plea deals for the Justice Department.

A transcript of the Senate interview is what helped get Griles in trouble. (See the plea agreement.) Former White House aide David Safavian found himself in similar hot water, and was convicted earlier this year on charges that included lying to Senate investigators.
[Harriet Miers]
Miers
The importance isn’t lost on lawmakers who are pushing the White House to reconsider its insistence that President Bush’s political adviser, Karl Rove, former White House Counsel Harriet Miers and other aides can be interviewed only in private, not under oath and with no transcript.

[SlimGuy]

Repeating an opinion doesn't make it a fact, never has and never will.

[boris]

its insistence that President Bush’s political adviser, Karl Rove, former White House Counsel Harriet Miers and other aides can be interviewed only in private, not under oath and with no transcript

Eminently sensible under the circumstances.

Given that deceitful twisty word parsing is the new game in town.

[PeterUK]

"The importance isn’t lost on lawmakers "

Which lawmakers Septic,Democrat,Republican?

[SunnyDay]

We have McCain Feingold and George Soros to thank for it.

[Tulsan]

Only Democrats need to be sworn in and have their answers transcribed, because Democrats are mostly liars and Republicans always tell the truth.

[Spartacvs]

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.

Were you out of the country during the whole Clinton Presidency or something?

[SlimGuy]

Well the longer this non issue is dragged thru the mud and pranced about like a scalp to a war party the more likely it is that the next scandal of the day will have the public tuning out even quicker.

I may give joy to some and orgasms to the extreme left, but for the general public it will be viewed as "Where's the beef".

I can't wait to see the hearing exhibit charts taking us back to elementary school diagramming sentences and debating alternative scenarios depending on which pronoun or adjective is used.

[Spartacvs]

TMF: Why NOT be up front about firing incompetent, partisan hack US attorneys who refuse to proscute Dum voter fraud and were soft on illegal immigrants?

WTF?

These were all your guys, Repugs to a man/woman and all appointed by Bush. The evidence revealed to date would tend to suggest they weren't partisan enough!

[Jack Moss]

Macranger thinks that the main motivation for democrats may have something to do with how close Gonzales was getting to some Democrats vis the NSA leak investigation.

see here.

[Tulsan]

With only 8 positions still waiting to be filled on a permanent basis, it is good to know that there are 85 incumbents considered to be "loyal Bushies".

[PeterUK]

I still think TULSAN sounds like a toilet tissue.

[Spartacvs]

clarice:

The average IQ of an American is 100. (In the Arab world the average is more like 70-80, depending on the country). That means, half of each population is less than that figure. Looking at the bell curve, 30 % of the population is really stupid.

There are a lot more stupid Americans than there are stupid Arabs which is why we have a stupid American President running riot in the Arab world. It would seem there is indeed power in numbers.

[Tulsan]

There is nothing wrong with being a "loyal Bushie". It would be better, though, to be a "competent loyal Bushie".

[SlimGuy]

Spart

Don't you think , and that is being generous , that if that were the case they would be the cosmopolitan developed civilization and the super power and we would be on the receiving end of economic aid to help us out?

[Terrye]

sferris:

I don't think Gonzales has to be a liar or a fool. It could be that a lot of anally retentive and controlling cry babies are going ape over nothing and trying to reconstruct every utterance to fit their game plan, that being:

We don't care if there is a crime here or not, we are going to bitch and moan and whine.

Meanwhile too many people on the right get pissed because someone {gasp} might have made a mistake.

Well that happens everywhere all day. I have seen worse cases of noncommunication in my office between people whose desks are 20 feet apart.

The whole thing is absurd, ridiculous, assanine. Bush could fire these people because they were born in a month ending in the letter R if he damn well feels like it.

And while I like Tom and Ed and the other bloggers on the right who grow understandabley impatient with the mistakes of others or the lack of finesse on the part of the mortals in the Bush administration...it still does not change the fact that this whole thing is dumb. And it will go away if people stop yammering about it, because it does not really matter.

Almost as dumb as the Dubai, when Schumer claimed the people from Dubai were going to kill us all. Or something like that.

[Tom]

Slim,
When you say: "I may give joy to some and orgasms to the extreme left, but for the general public it will be viewed as "Where's the beef"

Are saying that the American public is just so stupid they can't grasp the concept of an Attorney General lying through his teeth?

Or that Americans actually believe Kyle Sampson or Harriet or even Karl Rove, arbitrarily fired 8 U.S. Attorneys, without bothering to review the specifics as to why they were being terminated...with the Attorney General of the United States first??

They got together, picked out some names, and out the door they went...just like that? No conferring with the President, Vice President or Attorney General. (And by the way, if they didn't confer with the President, where does Executive Privilege come in...if there were no conversations regarding the firings??)

And even if the American public believes this is what happened...it isn't that big
of a deal??

Really?

[Terrye]

Spart:

How many major univerisities are there in the Arab world? I think the answer is 0.

[Terrye]

Tom:

The average American knows that Reno did not even lose her job after Waco in spite of the fact that her bad call lead to the deaths of 87 Americans.

The average American also knows that Bill Clinton's administration was a soap opera and so the idea that Gonzales would have lied about something he did not even need to lie about just because a bunch of paranoid politically motivated people say so...well to most Americans that all seems a tad ridiculous. The average American is wondering why it is the Democrats promised to bring down the price of gas when they got the Congress and now all they do is harass Bush. The average American is worried about paying the bills and taking care of their families. They don't much care about stuff like this.

[sferris]

Interesting that both Steven Griles and David Safavian were both convicted base primarily on transcripts to Senate investigators.

From the WSJ:

"The importance isn’t lost on lawmakers who are pushing the White House to reconsider its insistence that President Bush’s political adviser, Karl Rove, former White House Counsel Harriet Miers and other aides can be interviewed only in private, not under oath and with no transcript."

Is this why the White House doesn't want a transcript when and if Rove and Miers testify?

[SlimGuy]

Tom

Nope I just believe that no matter which way this goes they don't have any interest in the middle happenings, they will only hear the final outcome and say ok, next.

[Tom]

Terry,
You say: "I have seen worse cases of noncommunication in my office between people whose desks are 20 feet apart."

Considering the fact that serving as the Attorney general of the United States is probably just a tad more important than whatever position you hold, don't you think Mr. Gonzales has a responsibility to be more attentive to such matters? (A recent report by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service (released Feb. 22, 2007) revealed that since 1981, no more than three U.S. attorneys had ever been forced out under similar circumstances.)

*Oh, and you might consider moving those desks (20 feet apart??) in your office closer together.

[sylvia]

"At this point, Gonzales should either resign for lying, or resign for ineptitude. "

See. People in positions of power lie. It happens. A lot. My theory is it's probably because of the personality types of many people who become successful - very scared to get caught going against any rules, lest they get a demerit on their report card.

[Tom]

Slim,
Methinks you give our fellow citizens too little credit.