The more I think about it, the more certain it is: Alberto Gonzales is playing his role as the fall guy for the Bush administration.
For those of you who have been stuck under a rock, or who don’t pay attention to US politics, Alberto Gonzales is the US Attorney General. Several US Attorneys under his command were improperly fired, and then their replacements put in place without Senate confirmation hearings. Gonzalez’s former aid, Kyle Sampson, was interviewed by the Senate Judiciary Committee some time ago, and it appeared that the firings were motivated by purely political — not performance — reasons.
After the Attorney General’s performance this week, there is little doubt left in my mind. He knows he’s the fall guy for the Bush administration. It’s clear that he received marching orders to fire those attorneys, and being a yes-man, he followed them even though he found them distasteful, and possibly illegal. Those marching orders came from Karl Rove, with the full backing of the President of the United States.
The marching orders were designed to exploit a loophole created by the PATRIOT act, which allowed US attorneys to be appointed without Senate confirmation hearings in certain emergency conditions. Gonzalez reassured the Senate on December 15 that they had no plans to install the new attorneys without confirmation, but reversed himself on December 19 when he installed the new attorneys using emergency procedures… exactly as they had been spelled out in a memo now made available to Congress. This memo had been made back in October prior to elections, and seemed aimed deliberately at replacing lawyers who were not representing Republican interests. He repeated that he “didn’t like it” and “didn’t want to do it”… but did it anyway. I doubt he’d have taken that tack if those firing orders had simply been compiled by subordinates. No, it came from his boss, whom he’s protecting with his testimony.
Why is this important? The main reason is because several of those attorneys were involved in prosecuting criminal cases against Republican office-holders. Others, despite instructions coming from Rove to investigate Democratic candidates or their offices in order to create a scandal, did not find sufficient evidence to bring a case. And those attorneys who were on the list who found convenient Democratic scapegoats to lay charges against immediately prior to the November elections — thus creating scandals — managed to keep their jobs despite being on “the list”.
There’s a name for some of this kind of behavior, and it’s called “obstruction of justice”. Being convicted of this charge results in jail time. It’s the reason Martha Stewart was jailed — for preventing investigation into someone else’s trades — even though her particular trades didn’t qualify as insider trading. Imprisoning someone without sufficient evidence is also unethical, and there are documented cases where this has happened when Democratic functionaries were targetted.
While I believe the calls for Gonzales to give up his job were warranted in light of this scandal, he’s not the man to blame for this egregious behavior. He’s just the lackey who went along with it, and was appointed to the position based on his reputation as a yes-man for right-wing interests and his tolerance of abuses of the Bill of Rights. I’m pretty certain that I know, based on those areas where the Attorney General danced to avoid the questions, who’s holding the reins on this scandal. Most people won’t lie and risk their own jobs to protect subordinates.
It’s just sad. This is what a one-party-controlled White House and Congress gave us. I’m glad we restored some balance in the most recent election, but I fear that in 2008, we’re going to end up electing an all-Democratic House, Senate, and White House… resulting in a stage set for abuses all over again, just by the “other guys” this time.
Agree and Disagree.
Agree that he may indeed be the fall guy.
Disagree that that gets him any slack whatsoever.
If he’s the fall guy, let him come out and say that. Let him come out and say “I was told to do this”. His first loyaltyis not to this president but to the law. If he id knowingly breaking the law and he is supposed to be the ATTORNEY GENERAL, then he knows he is deliberately using the office to illegally protect the president.
In fact, if he is the fall guy and is complicit in covering up a conspiracy to wage political war using the privelege of presidential power – i.e. he feels and knows it is “distasteful” (a euphamism for “wrong”), I consider that worse than him being incompetent or an idealogue and trying to cover his own @$$. At least that is somehow less enormous than what you are describing.
I, in fact, think that you’re right. He is covering up something bigger.. and it is his responsibility to blow the whistle if it seems the president is attempting to bypass the power of the electorate (some would say “again”, but I probably wouldn’t) and illegally put into power lawmakers and judges that back his party. And I don’t buy the “everybody does it” argument. F**k that. The laws were written specifically to allow the people to reevaluate the leadership on a regular basis and make changes accordingly.
And Jail time, hard jail time, is meant as a deterrant to others. Make an example.
Visit the Official Justin Timpane Website Music, Acting, and More! http://www.timpane.com
Opportunist vs. Yes-Man
In War Crimes tribunals, you judge the person in charge, not the people following orders. Hitler’s chauffer got interviews, not hard time*. I think, in most scandals, that’s the correct approach to continue to take.
Not that I find the Attorney General to be an innocent party. Doing something unethical because an unethical person told you it was OK is not OK. But undesirable characters seem to come with the territory.
John Ashcroft (the previous Attorney General) was — and is — an opportunist. His approach to XM radio to offer consulting services on its merger with Sirius, then subsequent retainer by the National Association of Broadcasters, which bitterly opposes the merger, is evidence enough of his ability to talk out of both sides of his mouth on an issue. His idea of truth is whatever will suit his goals.
Alberto Gonzales was — and is — a yes-man. He knows which side his bread is buttered on, and will do whatever he must to ensure that he continues to please those with real power who keep him and his family comfortable. His idea of truth is whatever the guy paying him tells him to do.
I don’t know which is better. I’m certain that Gonzales is more entertaining at a party with a few beers in him, though. He’d laugh at your jokes. I just wish he was back in the Texas supreme court screwing up their state rather than my nation.
—
Matthew P. Barnson
* Yes, I know I just invoked Godwin’s Law. Sorry about that!
The Difference..
The difference is, Gonzales is not a Chauffeur, he’s a Lawyer. He’s a guy trained on what is legally appropriate. He has taken an oath to uphold the law, and be one of the benchmarks for it – so he should be given a harsher penalty for breaking it, and engaging in a cover up.
A yes-man is okay in almost any other respect.. but the attorney General’s bread is buttered by the people..
And the Ashcroft (what a goon) comparison is why I say let him fry. It doesn’t matter if “everyone” is doing it. If you want others to stop, you need to start making examples. The next guy needs to know he’s going to be held accountable, and when asked to do something unethical – or asked to cover a crime, he needs to say “I’m sorry, I can’t do that.”
Visit the Official Justin Timpane Website Music, Acting, and More! http://www.timpane.com
I disagree
If Gonzalez is the fall guy (and I have no doubt that he is), he’s the ONLY guy in the room who doesn’t know it. He appears desperate to save his job. He knows that he screwed up, and like everyone else in the Bush Administration, doesn’t want to admit it.
And yes, he was primarily guilty of being a stooge who listened to Karl Rove too much, but the guy is Attorney General – if anyone should be fired for this scandal, it’s him.
— Ben
Prospects…
I would say he’s desperate to maintain his future prospects, not save the current job. Unlike Karl Rove, George Bush, and Dick Cheney, Gonzales is not a multi-millionaire. He’s pretty much a working-class fellow who has held several prestigious legal positions, but is not rich by any stretch of the imagination and needs to be able to continue to hold jobs in the future.
Not apologizing for him, just elaborating on why I think he’s working so hard to defend himself, his party, and his bosses despite the obvious and complete loss of the hearings.
—
Matthew P. Barnson
See..
And I think he may face charges that wouls stem not from the firings but from the cover-ups, which would (correct me here, ben) I think, preclude him from being able to hold those jobs.
It would seem more likely that the way to ensure future positions as a lawyer or Judge would be to show that you act ethically and within the law. I mean, after the “I don’t recall” debacle (see the hilarious Daily Show collage) – I wouldn’t hire this guy to get me out of a parking ticket.
Visit the Official Justin Timpane Website Music, Acting, and More! http://www.timpane.com
I Would Respect
I would have respect for the Republican party and Bush administration if they came out and said, “Yes, because they weren’t members of our political party, and because they likely wouldn’t operate in tandem with our political agenda, lawyers were fired by us and replaced with people we liked. We carried this out under the new leeway afforded us by the Patriot act.”
To that I would respond with respect. It may not be entirely legal, or popular, but it’s what happens when one party wins elections. Besides, I’m sure it’s not the first time in U.S. history when a President has overhauled senior judiciary staff sans oversight.
Of course, W. and crew didn’t come out and say that. Now they appear even worse (if that’s even possible). What surprises me is the level of obedience these appointed stooges maintain when forced to compromise their own character and intelligence. Gonzales sounded like a moron during that testimony hearing. Does serving at the pleasure of the President ever have limits?
Serving at discretion…
I think that Gonzales is pretty clearly trying to preserve his future opportunities. He’s lived comfortably for decades as a loyal appointee with a strong legal background, and can parlay that into future successes if he manages to maintain his composure.
However, saying “I don’t know” or “I don’t recall” over a hundred times and visibly dodging direct answers is probably not the smart way to do it.
—
Matthew P. Barnson
Future prospects
I don’t think Gonzales has any future prospects, outside of the lecture circuit for right-wing universities and think-tanks.
Gonzales is truly the story of the man who rises to the level of his incompetence. He was just an average lawyer when Bush tapped him for the Texas Supreme Court. And he had absolutely no experience whatsoever that would have prepared him for any high-level position at the Justice Department, particularly not Attorney General.
The thing is (to respond to Justin) it’s unlikely that he’s done anything illegal. (Which is why it’s so weird that Monica Goodling pled the fifth and then quit.) The US Attorneys are basically “at will” employees of the Executive Branch. The cover-up is bad, but still probably not illegal. What’s going on here is the amorphous “abuse of power” doctrine. Congress’s only remedy is shaming him enough in public that he either resigns or the administration gets tired of defending him and cans him.
— Ben
Bush’s comments
With Bush’s comments today basically saying “he’s here as long as I will be”, I guess we’ll still have him around for the remainder of the term.
The President and his Cabinet staffers are immune from prosecution (other than impeachment and sacking) while he’s in office, correct? And due to executive orders signed by Bush a few days after he took office, current and former office-holders are immune from prosecution by the executive branch. Convenient, that.
—
Matthew P. Barnson
Wrong
The President and his Cabinet are NOT immune from prosecution while they’re in office. And why is this?
Because the Republicans pushed this through to the Supreme Court in the mid-90s when they wanted to prosecute Bill Clinton for sexual harassment against Paula Jones. Ironic, no?
— Ben