Gonzales' Op-Ed

Alberto R. Gonzales has an op-ed in today's Washington Post called Nothing Improper. I find it really unsatisfying.

He starts with "My decision some months ago to privately seek the resignations of a small number of U.S. attorneys" and later says "I directed my then-deputy chief of staff, Kyle Sampson, to initiate this process" but he doesn't at all say why (there's a hint, "changes in leadership might benefit the department"). Did he just want to fire 8 people?

He says "I apologize to them, their families and the thousands of dedicated professionals at the Justice Department for my role in allowing this matter to spin into an undignified Washington spectacle." Not about firing them and not about falsely saying the reasons were for performance when they were merely political.

He says "I know that I did not -- and would not -- ask for the resignation of any U.S. attorney for an improper reason. Furthermore, I have no basis to believe that anyone involved in this process sought the removal of a U.S. attorney for an improper reason." But doesn't define "improper". Is firing people because they pissed off a Republican congressman for not partisanly prosecuting Democrats improper?

He says he's testified before Congress and will do so again, that he's ordered department officials to testify and "ordered the release of thousands of pages of internal documents". He doesn't mention that he's testifying again because his previous statements have been shown to be false or misleading. He don't mention that one of the officials took the 5th and wasn't let go for several weeks (actually she resigned) and he doesn't mention that related White House emails have not been give or have been claimed to have been lost. He also hasn't apparently used though close White House connections to convince their people to testify under oath and with a transcript on the matter. Finally, documents release were redacted (sometimes entire pages) to the point that Congress has felt the need to issue subpoenas for the information they need.

"All of these documents and public testimony indicate that the Justice Department did not seek the removal of any U.S. attorney to interfere with or improperly influence any case or investigation." Actually that's not clear (regarding Domenici). The White House won't comment on an on-going investigation at all (well when it suits them), nice to draw conclusions before it's over.

Here's a good one: "I have nevertheless asked the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility to further investigate this matter. Working with the department's Office of Inspector General, these nonpartisan professionals will complete their own independent investigation so that Congress and the American people can be 100 percent assured of what I believe and what the investigation thus far has shown: that nothing improper occurred." Now doesn't that sound like they are tasked to prove him right?

"While I have never sought to deceive Congress or the American people, I also know that I created confusion with some of my recent statements about my role in this matter. To be clear: I directed my then-deputy chief of staff, Kyle Sampson, to initiate this process; fully knew that it was occurring; and approved the final recommendations. Sampson periodically updated me on the review. As I recall, his updates were brief, relatively few in number and focused primarily on the review process. During those conversations, to my knowledge, I did not make decisions about who should or should not be asked to resign." Funny how that does contradict the fact that he was in at least one meeting where this was the main agenda topic, the he requested a spreadsheet from Goodling on each attorney including their political activities and membership in the Federalist Society, And of course he previously said ""I never saw documents. We never had a discussion about where things stood." If I believe him now, it means he lied before.