Gonzalez and the (in)Justice Department

Now that the Justice Department scandal is starting to reveal the depth of its deception, it is time for me to comment in full. The story first broke when several US Attorneys were fired by Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez. It was suspected at the time that the attorneys were fired for not being "loyal enough" - that they did not pursue the prosecution of political opponents with sufficient vigor. This report provides the initial basis for that claim. (click to enlarge) This email between Republican DOJ staffers is also part of the evidence that continues to surface. Kyle Sampson (we will discuss him more later) writes: I strongly recommend that as a matter of administration, we utilize the new statutory provisions that authorize the AG to make USA appointments," By avoiding Senate confirmation, "we can give far less deference to home state senators and thereby get 1.) our preferred person appointed and 2.) do it far faster and more efficiently at less political costs to the White House." The link to the White House is made stronger by this report from NPR. The involvement of the President, the Attorney General, strategist Karl Rove (the same Karl Rove from the 2006 CIA leak scandal - my, he does get around, doesn't he?), and many other Republican insiders only serves to increase the taint that this case leaves on the DOJ. As calls for Gonzalez's resignation became louder, the Attorney General was forced to address the matter. He refused to resign - his speech and reasoning, along with detailed tracking of the case, can be viewed here: He said that his chief of staff Kyle Sampson, now resigned, headed up the process for replacing the U.S. attorneys, and that Gonzales himself was "not involved in seeing any memos" or "any discussion of what was going on." He professed to be "dismayed" that Justice Department officials had given false information to Congress, but blamed the problem on information not being "adquately shared within the Justice Department." You can view his Press Conference: Relevant parts of the transcript: Let me give you some core principles, some things that I believe in. One, I believe in the independence of our U.S. Attorneys. They are the face of the Department. They are my representative in the community. I acknowledge their sacrifice. I acknowledge their courage to step into the arena on behalf of the American people. Secondly, the Attorney General, all political appointees, such as U.S. Attorneys, serve at the pleasure of the President of the United States. Implying, we suppose, that the President can have them removed whenever he sees fit? This would conflict with what Gonzalez says immediately following this statement: Third, I believe fundamentally in the constitutional role of the Senate in advice and consent with respect to U.S. Attorneys and would, in no way, support an effort to circumvent that constitutional role. And yet, they serve "at the pleasure of the President". More thinly veiled references to the Unitary Executive Theory, perhaps? Gonzalez certainly finds a way to work this into almost all of his public speeches. Gonzalez also continually makes corporate references in his speech: "I believe in accountability. Like every CEO of every major organization, I am responsible for what happens at the Department of Justice. I acknowledge that mistakes were made here..." How very Republican of him. In fact, how very governmental of him. He is questioned about it by the audience: QUESTION: With all due respect, your -- the sense of being a CEO sounds a little bit like Ken Lay, that he was so detached from the day to day operations. How can you make that statement given the fact that you spend an enormous time at the White House and your chief of staff reports to you and spends, you know, all day with you? ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: Again, I accept responsibility for what happened here and I regret the fact that information was inadequately shared with individuals within the department of Justice and that consequently information was shared with the Congress that was incomplete. But the charge for the chief of staff here was to drive this process and the mistake that occurred here was that information that he had was not shared with individuals within the department who was then going to be providing testimony and information to the Congress. Gonzalez accepts responsibility, but states that the mistake was made by someone else. Specifically, chief of staff Kyle Sampson - someone who has very conveniently resigned. This is the same Kyle Sampson that received his current job at the urging of our good friend Karl Rove and White House counsel Harriet Mears. He also and penned the e-mail to Mears that was referenced at the top of this post, suggesting the removal of certain attorneys and recommended bypassing Congress in naming replacements, using a little-known power slipped into the renewal of the USA Patriot Act in March 2006 that allows the attorney general to name interim replacements without Senate confirmation. Just the opposite of Gonzalez's third point in his press conference Ah, the tangled web they weave... The use of the Department of Justice to advance the political ideals of the current Republican administration is deplorable. My post Political Law was written in this same vein, but before some of this new information was available. This, like most of the rest of the current administration's problems, starts at the top. Scooter Libby, Karl Rove, Kyle Sampson, and several others have either resigned or been prosecuted for the sins of the leadership. Gonzalez will probably have to resign as well. Ho hum - just another casualty.