The Email That May Take Down Alberto Gonzales
An important point of contention in the rapidly escalating controversy over the recent mass-firing of U.S. Attorneys is whether the Bush administration ever intended to invoke its authority under Section 546 of Title 28. This provision, which was inserted at the last second into the Patriot Act reauthorization last year, allows the Attorney General to bypass the normal Senate confirmation process and simply install U.S. Attorneys at his discretion.
When he testified before Congress in January, Alberto Gonzales was adamant that the Administration had no intention of invoking this provision:
If this tactic sounds familiar, by the way, it's because it's the standard Bush administration tactic for dealing with Congress. For years the administration led Congress to believe that it was complying with FISA when in reality it was secretly invoking its supposed authority to conduct warrantless surveillance outside of FISA. And as Glenn notes, the administration also misled Congress about its use of National Security Letters in order to secure renewal of the Patriot Act.
Back to Sampson's email. He continues:
In typical Bush administration fashion, Sampson is suggesting that the Justice Department and White House use a term that means one thing to those within the administration and something else to everyone else. He continues:
I especially love the use of the phrase "our guy" to describe Griffin. Perhaps someone should remind Sampson that the Office of the Attorney General is not supposed to be an extension of the White House Counsel's office.
Sampson ends his email with this:
After reading this email exchange, it's not hard to see why Kyle Sampson was forced to resign yesterday, and Alberto Gonzales was forced to hold a press conference today disclaiming any knowledge of Sampson's actions. That denial, however, is pretty hard to take at face value. Sampson was Gonzales' chief of staff. Are we really supposed to believe that Sampson was saying all this without any input or knowledge on the part of his boss? Did Sampson really make the decision to "test drive" the Attorney General's new authority under Section 546 on his own? Doesn't that seem like a decision the Attorney General himself would and should sign off on?
Moreover, doesn't Gonzales' testimony seem to track pretty closely with the strategy laid out by Sampson in his email? Sampson suggested that the administration "pledge to desire a Senate-confirmed U.S. Attorney, and otherwise hunker down." That's pretty much what Gonzales did. And it might have worked had it not been for a series of leaks and mounting pressure from Congress.
This scandal is quickly mushrooming and, frankly, I'll be surprised in Gonzales weathers it. This is as close as you generally get to being caught deliberately misleading Congress. Gonzales can continue to blame his chief of staff, but I'm really not sure where that gets him. After all, what's worse: intentionally misleading Congress or being so utterly clueless that you have no idea your chief of staff is "test driving" your office's new authority under the Patriot Act (and doing so at the behest of the White House)?
Gonzales has, from the beginning, run the DOJ as if it was little more than the White House's outside counsel. It's time for him to go.
UPDATE: A number of commenters (no doubt directed here by Instapundit) are claiming that this really isn't a big deal because Clinton fired all 93 U.S. Attorneys. It's hard to understate just how silly this argument is. Yes, Clinton (and Reagan and Bush and every other president) replaced all the U.S. Attorneys at the beginning of his term. This is what always happens when a Democratic administration replaces a Republican one (or vice versa). It's what Bush did when he took office. The U.S. Attorneys are political appointees. But once a U.S. Attorney is appointed, he or she is supposed to serve only the interests of justice. It is highly problematic if U.S. Attorneys are making prosecutorial decisions based on a fear of being fired by the White House. That's why no previous administration has engaged in this sort of prosecutor purge mid-term. If you don't want to take my word for this, here's what Kyle Sampson wrote in his memo to Harriet Miers last year:
When he testified before Congress in January, Alberto Gonzales was adamant that the Administration had no intention of invoking this provision:
And so let me publicly sort of preempt perhaps a question you’re going to ask me, and that is: I am fully committed, as the administration’s fully committed, to ensure that, with respect to every United States attorney position in this country, we will have a presidentially appointed, Senate-confirmed United States attorney.Yet emails produced to Congress today reveal how utterly disingenuous this claim was. One email exchange in particular is quite damning. It took place in late December--less than a month before Gonzales' testimony--between Gonzales' chief of staff, Kyle Sampson, and Christopher Oprison of the White House Counsel's office. In the exchange, Oprison asks Sampson about the Attorney General's strategy for installing Tim Griffin, a protege of Karl Rove, as the new U.S. Attorney in Arkansas. Oprison notes that Griffin's appointment is encountering resistance from Arkansas' Senate delegation but wonders why, in light of Section 546, Griffin is being referred to as the "interim" U.S. Attorney:
If this is a Section 546 AG appointment for unlimited duration, Tim [Griffin] can call himself "US Attorney" rather than "interim" or "acting" and our talkers should avoid referring to him as "interim." What are your thoughts?Sampson's response perfectly encapsulates everything that is wrong with how the Bush administration operates. He writes:
I think we should gum this to death: ask the Senators to give Tim a chance, meet with him, give him some time in office to see how he performs, etc. If they ultimately say "no never" (and the longer we can forestall that the better), then we can tell them we'll look for other candidates, ask them for recommendations, evaluate the recommendations, interview their candidates, and otherwise run out the clock. All of this should be done in "good faith," of course.Translation: we're going to invoke Section 546 and make Tim Griffin the U.S. Attorney, but we're not going to tell anyone that's what we're doing. In fact, we're going to placate Congress by going through the motions of the normal appointment process while actually engaging in a deliberate, bad faith stalling campaign. Sampson even puts "good faith" in quotes, which is priceless.
If this tactic sounds familiar, by the way, it's because it's the standard Bush administration tactic for dealing with Congress. For years the administration led Congress to believe that it was complying with FISA when in reality it was secretly invoking its supposed authority to conduct warrantless surveillance outside of FISA. And as Glenn notes, the administration also misled Congress about its use of National Security Letters in order to secure renewal of the Patriot Act.
Back to Sampson's email. He continues:
Officially, Tim is the U.S. Attorney, and will identify himself as such on pleadings and other official documents. I think it's fine for us to refer to him as "interim U.S. Attorney" in talking points with the understanding that by "interim U.S. Attorney" we mean AG-appointed (as opposed to Presidentially-appointed and Senate-confirmed) U.S. Attorney.Translation: we're going to use talking points that refer to Griffin in a way that obscures his actual status and makes it appear as if we are not invoking Section 546 when in reality we are.
In typical Bush administration fashion, Sampson is suggesting that the Justice Department and White House use a term that means one thing to those within the administration and something else to everyone else. He continues:
Overall, I think we should take the temperature way down--our guy is in there, so the status quo is good for us. Ask for them to consider him; note that he is qualified and doing a good job whenever asked; pledge to desire a Senate-confirmed U.S. Attorney, and otherwise hunker down.Translation: Stall and lie. Tell the Senate that you desire a Senate-confirmed U.S. Attorney when in fact you do not. Try not to bring undue attention to the fact that we've installed a political crony using an obscure provision that most Senators aren't yet aware of.
I especially love the use of the phrase "our guy" to describe Griffin. Perhaps someone should remind Sampson that the Office of the Attorney General is not supposed to be an extension of the White House Counsel's office.
Sampson ends his email with this:
The only thing really at risk here is a repeal of the AG's appointment authority. We intend to have the DOJ leg affairs people on notice to work hard to preserve this (House members won't care about this; all we really need is for one Senator to object to language being added to legislative vehicles that are moving through. There is some risk that we'll lose the authority, but if we don't ever exercise it, then what's the point of having it? (I'm not 100% sure that Tim was the guy on which to test drive this authority but know that getting him appointed was important to Harriet, Karl, etc.)Translation: Griffin's appointment is pretty hard to defend on the merits, but hell, what's the point of having this authority if we can't secretly use it to install cronies hand-picked by Karl Rove and Harriet Miers?
After reading this email exchange, it's not hard to see why Kyle Sampson was forced to resign yesterday, and Alberto Gonzales was forced to hold a press conference today disclaiming any knowledge of Sampson's actions. That denial, however, is pretty hard to take at face value. Sampson was Gonzales' chief of staff. Are we really supposed to believe that Sampson was saying all this without any input or knowledge on the part of his boss? Did Sampson really make the decision to "test drive" the Attorney General's new authority under Section 546 on his own? Doesn't that seem like a decision the Attorney General himself would and should sign off on?
Moreover, doesn't Gonzales' testimony seem to track pretty closely with the strategy laid out by Sampson in his email? Sampson suggested that the administration "pledge to desire a Senate-confirmed U.S. Attorney, and otherwise hunker down." That's pretty much what Gonzales did. And it might have worked had it not been for a series of leaks and mounting pressure from Congress.
This scandal is quickly mushrooming and, frankly, I'll be surprised in Gonzales weathers it. This is as close as you generally get to being caught deliberately misleading Congress. Gonzales can continue to blame his chief of staff, but I'm really not sure where that gets him. After all, what's worse: intentionally misleading Congress or being so utterly clueless that you have no idea your chief of staff is "test driving" your office's new authority under the Patriot Act (and doing so at the behest of the White House)?
Gonzales has, from the beginning, run the DOJ as if it was little more than the White House's outside counsel. It's time for him to go.
UPDATE: A number of commenters (no doubt directed here by Instapundit) are claiming that this really isn't a big deal because Clinton fired all 93 U.S. Attorneys. It's hard to understate just how silly this argument is. Yes, Clinton (and Reagan and Bush and every other president) replaced all the U.S. Attorneys at the beginning of his term. This is what always happens when a Democratic administration replaces a Republican one (or vice versa). It's what Bush did when he took office. The U.S. Attorneys are political appointees. But once a U.S. Attorney is appointed, he or she is supposed to serve only the interests of justice. It is highly problematic if U.S. Attorneys are making prosecutorial decisions based on a fear of being fired by the White House. That's why no previous administration has engaged in this sort of prosecutor purge mid-term. If you don't want to take my word for this, here's what Kyle Sampson wrote in his memo to Harriet Miers last year:
In recent memory, during the Reagan and Clinton administrations, Presidents Reagan and Clinton did not seek to remove and replace U.S. Attorneys they had appointed . . .I don't know why this is such a difficult concept to grasp. Just because someone serves at "the pleasure of the president" doesn't mean it's perfectly fine to fire them because they are bringing charges against the "wrong" people or not bringing charges against the "right" people. If U.S. Attorneys have to consider how every indictment decision might affect their job status, it would severely undermine our system of justice.
15 Comments:
Excellent translation. Like Cliff Notes for George Orwell.
Maybe I'm at a loss to understand things here but doesn't the "at the pleasure of the Executive" kind of defuse any attempt to paint any dismissals as some kind of political scandal?
After all, these are political appointments in the first place. All this hyperventilating and throwing around the word "scandal" is just another attempt to blow something up into something that it isn't.
I certainly don't recall any concerns when every single US Attorney was replaced when Clinton came into office. You can't seriously expect anyone to believe that they were all incompetent and weren't replaced for political reasons can you?
Rob:
What's most amusing of all is the fact that in 2008, when Hillary gets elected and fires all the attorney's again, these same people will shrug and say "Well, or course they're political appointments!"
And, of course, the media will print nothing but the Clinton admin's side of the story, and everyone out here in flyover land will shrug their shoulders and wonder what the fuss is about.
Prediction: Gonzales is gone. Because the press and the Dems will mindlessly pursue his scalp to further bolster the impression that there's a real scandal here.
Pretty good, A.L. Your analysis is spot on - it has drawn some attention. You have the "B" team trolls here today - you know - the ones that always say "But Clinton blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah..."
Take it as a complement when the shills for this administration show up to talk about Clinton!
Good analysis. While I'm generally on the other side of the fence politics-wise (and don't really give a damn about the eight ousted US Attorneys - the post is a political appointment, so easy come, easy go) but Gonzales' bait-and-switch on the subject of the 546 appointments is over the line.
Ah, where's Ashcroft when you need him?
Nice pre-emptive argument, Anon. Cut yourself off from all history to justify your hypocritical criticisms today.
The U.S. Attorney serves at the Executive branch's good pleasure since it is a political appointment. The history is clear other Presidents/administrations have fired U.S. attorney's wholesale including your precious perjurer, Bill Clinton, WHO FIRED THEM ALL.
Of course if there were cases that specific U.S. attorney's were pursuing that could be an embarassment to said administration, then that would raise some suspicions, but the Constitution is quite clear about the power of the Executive branch in dispensing with certain U.S. attorney's, particularly incompetent ones.
And that seems to be what is missing in this debate, the fact that these attorneys may have indeed demostrated a level of incompetence which justifies their dismissal.
The real witchhunt in this story is the liberal media and the partisan liberal hacks in Congress yelling for Gonzales scalp. And if the roles were reversed, the Dhimmiecrats would be screaming "racism" in view of Gonzales ethnicity.
Jeebus wingnuts are stupid. Actually no, it is much worse than that - they are fundamentally unAmerican. They couldn't care less about truth or what is correct and decent and they will lie and obfuscate at every opportunity in an attempt to cover up obvious wrong-doing by their corrupt leaders.
Their mothers' should be so embarrassed. I bet lying was one of the first things they were taught not to do. Unfortunately it never took.
A.L. - I have never seen so many lying liars shill for the chimperor's administration at your blog (at least not as a percentage of the total posts).
YOU HAVE PRESENTED A COMPELLING AND WELL ORGANZIED CASE AGAINST THE FUHRER. The wingnuts think they have to come hear and try to neutralize it!
KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK - Americans are getting sick of this administration, the war crimes, treason, crimes against humanity, and the destruction of US democracy.
When the "B-Team" trolls show up, you are SPOT ON!
If Clinton had purged USAs because they didn't go after enough Republicans, there would be such a cry from the right.
I am concerned with the USAs who didn't get fired. What did they have to do, to retain their positions? Maybe they were already doing it.
Guys, George Bush also replaced all the US attorneys when he came into office, and no one batted an eye. Every President does it. It is standard practice. What is not routine is to fire US attorneys in the middle of one's term because their prosecutions are not partisan enough.
I am concerned with the USAs who didn't get fired. What did they have to do, to retain their positions?
Excellent question, Nal. I remember Kevin Drum passing a good answer last week, though, quoting a study by professors Donald Shields and John Cragan, who counted up corruption investigations by the Department of Justice under George Bush.
"In statewide and federal cases they found a total of 66 investigations. Here's the breakdown: 36 Democrats, 30 Republicans. This is roughly what you'd expect. But the numbers for local cases paint a very different story.
"They found 309 investigations, broken down as follows: 262 Democrats, 37 Republicans, 10 Independents".
Great summary. Thank you. Of course, what amazes me the most is that the Department of Justice left a trail of email evidence. You would think the DoJ lawyers would know better because of all the email monitoring they do. (See my comments about the FBI under-repoprting of email monitoring done under the Patriot Act.)
The "our guy" language is especially damning given that the contrast is to someone originally appointed by the Bush Admin itself. "Chafing" and all that.
Sampson resigned, but he's not gone. He's still on the payroll while he searched for other work. (I don't have a cite but I'm pretty sure its at Talking Points Memo.)
Hey mate, you got a link from Howie Kurtz at the Washington Post. I can't stand Kurtz because he's such a suck-up to the Bush Crime Family, especially on his CNN media watch show. But even HE can see how slimily corrupt this bunch of bastards is. Trouble is, he's afraid to say it in his own words, so he uses your well-crafted brief.
I second the first poster about how Orwellian, or Red Queenish, this double-speak is. A word means what they say it means. "Interim" is permanent. The mendacity would be stunning, except as you note, it's the pattern.
As someone who's worked as a psychiatric nurse, I wonder what's in the mentality of the reich wingnuts who can only see that "Clinton fired all the U.S. attorneys" without noticing your sentences about how BUSH FIRED ALL THE U.S. ATTORNEYS TOO when he took office. Do they have an actual mental blind spot, like survivors of hideous abuse who block out what happened to them? Are they so cult-like that they experience cognitive dissonance and cannot fathom any criticism of the leader, like Moonies or followers of Rev. Jim Jones? Or are they just willfully stupid?
It boggles my mind, and leaves me with no hope for the U.S., because the people with this mindset have the power and weaponry of control in the U.S., so they won't be leaving without some tectonic-level disturbance to root them out. That's why I emigrated here. People in Australia are generally rational. I find that refreshing.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home