Ignoring Post's own reporting, Wash. Post editorial found no underlying misconduct in U.S. attorney firings
Discussing the ongoing controversy surrounding the firings of eight U.S. attorneys and the role played by U.S. Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzalez, a March 26 Washington Post editorial stated: "Mr. Gonzalez finds himself in this mess because he and others in his shop appear to have tried to cover up something that, as far as we yet know, didn't need covering. U.S. attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president -- with the advice and consent of the Senate. The president was entitled to replace any he chose, as long as he wasn't intending to short-circuit ongoing investigations." The Post, however, ignored evidence that the prosecutors may have been fired for other improper reasons. For example, former U.S. attorney John McKay has alleged that his dismissal may have had to do with his decision not to bring voter fraud charges in the Washington state governor's race, which was won by a Democrat -- an allegation reported by the Post itself. Also, former U.S. attorney David Iglesias has alleged that Sen. Pete V. Domenici (R-NM) and Rep. Heather A. Wilson (R-NM) contacted him about their interest in his pursuing investigations of Democrats prior to the November midterm elections.
A March 26 Post article by staff writer R. Jeffrey Smith reported:
John McKay of Washington state, who had decided two years earlier not to bring voter fraud charges that could have undermined a Democratic victory in a closely fought gubernatorial race, said White House counsel Harriet Miers and her deputy, William Kelley, "asked me why Republicans in the state of Washington would be angry with me."
[...]
McKay's disclosure of an explicit White House question about the damage his decision caused to his standing among party loyalists added new detail to his previous statement that Miers accused him of having "mishandled" the voter fraud inquiry.
The use of the word "mishandled" left open the possibility that White House officials -- who in September were weighing whether to recommend McKay for a federal judgeship -- merely disputed McKay's professional judgment. But his statement yesterday lent new credence to suspicions that partisan political concerns weighed heavily in his firing.
The implication that Gonzalez attempted to cover up what "didn't need covering" suggests that there is no evidence of underlying impropriety in the U.S. attorneys' dismissals. As Media Matters for America documented, Iglesias, the former U.S. attorney in New Mexico, has alleged that Domenici and Wilson "attempted to pressure him to speed up a probe of Democrats just before the November elections" -- both Domenici and Wilson have since acknowledged contacting Iglesias about his corruption investigations. In a March 5 article on Domenici's statement, the Post reported: "Legal experts say it violates congressional ethics rules for a senator or House member to communicate with a federal prosecutor regarding an ongoing criminal investigation."
From the March 26 Washington Post editorial:
Mr. Gonzales finds himself in this mess because he and others in his shop appear to have tried to cover up something that, as far as we yet know, didn't need covering. U.S. attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president -- with the advice and consent of the Senate. The president was entitled to replace any he chose, as long as he wasn't intending to short-circuit ongoing investigations. But the shifting explanations for the eventual dismissals of eight federal prosecutors -- from no explanation to saying performance was at issue to acknowledging that performance was not the issue for all of them -- have Democrats and Republicans calling for candor from Mr. Gonzales.
Well, that is why Congress is investigating - to find out why the editorial page insists that there is no underlying crime in obstruction of justice, isn't it?
Obviously, MMFA isn't happy that the editorial board didn't render a "guilty" verdict in advance of the actual decision.
uh, no, not even close. do try again AFTER reading the article
Bruce, it's not the absence of a premature guilty verdict that's the point of the item- it's that it's implied that Gonzalez' only problem is the "appearance" of a cover-up, and the suggestion that there is no need for that cover up.
Presuming innocence is good. Discouraging investigation of anything indicating guilt isn't the same thing. The editorial sounds a bit like what Gonzo's lawyer's opening remarks might be.
Where in the editorial does it discourage the investigation?
Sorry, Bruce, I wasn't very clear. I didn't mean that there was explicit discouraging of the investigation, only that the editorial seemed to downplay even the probability of wrongdoing, minimizing it.
Actually, the WaPo editorial board proclaimed innocent the AG and his staff, in the face of overwhelming evidence of from their own pages, of lies, deceits, abuses of process, and - possibly - outright obstruction of justice.
In another world, we would hear a call for independent prosecutors - but this is the Corporate Media, after all; and that is the Corporate Administration. So, Congress investigates.
Right, that's why the headline on the editorial reads: The Cloud Over Mr Gonzales. The Attorney General has a few things to explain.
Because they've given him a free pass.
And the editorial clearly conveys that the "cloud" is comprised of elements of graceless articulation (of sound underlying reasons for the dismissals, of course) and partisan frenzy on the part of the investigators, who certainly would never even have questioned motives had it not been for those sound-bite stumbles . . . my foot!
The reason Gonzo had to try to explain, is that the motives were questioned 2 months (TPM) before WaPo began their reporting, and almost four months prior to the editorial board's sigh of reluctant resignation, that another poor Bushie has been undone by [his] choice of words, combined with the frenzied hatred of Bungle that permeates the Democratic partisans somehow (mysteriously - I mean, it is almost as though they believe they have a mandate or something) empowered to conduct these investigations.
This is one of those you have to re-read a few times- Gonzo is only in a "mess" because he's accused of covering up something that, as far as we know, doesn't need to be covered up.
Hey! Isn't that the point of covering something up? So that nobody knows that there's something to cover up? I understand the whole "presumption of innocence" thing, but this sounds more like giving the benefit of the doubt to one with a history of giving us reasons to doubt.Almost suggesting innocence because of the cover-up, or appearance of a cover-up.
Bonus Zombie points for throwing in the "serve at the pleasure of the President" line.
The writers of the WAPO Editorial Page get their news from... The Washington Times.
This story adds another spoonful to the mountain of proof that the breadth of bias in the media is best gauged by the leanings of those in control: the editors and the owners.
Meanwhile we critique the monkeys in the window.
This item alludes to yet another focus of inquiring into these U.S. Attorney dismissals: The involvement of a U.S. Senator and House member from New Mexico, and their admitted contact with a U.S. Attorney regarding an investigation and/or prosecution...
...which may not in any way suggest an Obstruction of Justice, but might surely come under the Jurisdiction of Senate and House ethics (Rules).
The Washington Post editorial might take it upon itself to defend the president and his administration, as to their firing U.S. Attorneys for reasons they may consider valid (and legal and ethical)... but does the Post's editorial deny the right of the Senate and the House to investigate ethics, or Rules violations, regarding it's own members?
It's strange to me, that anybody at all, would jump into this matter and defend the president and his administration, from investigation or even Journalistic inquiry, into matters of Justice and ethics...
...strange to do this, and ignore the focus of these inquiries; a focus that if not a crime (of Obstruction of Justice), could easily be a Senate or House Rules violation.
The Post cites the president's authority to dismiss these U.S. Attorneys, but ignores the fact that nobody has the authority to obstruct JUSTICE, or violate Senate or House Rules.
Where might the crime of Obstruction of Justice been committed, or any Senate or House Rule broken?
Only an investigation can tell.
So if the Washington Post finds no underlying misconduct in these dismissals, then fine... but they don't mind if the Senate and the House investigate anyway, in order to determine none of their members to have broken Senate or House Rules, do they?
You said, forthrightly, what I could only find words adequate to hint.
BRAVO!
Thanks. And I neglected to point out, that had Mr. Iglesias not been dismissed, the contacts made to him by Sen. Domenici and Rep. Wilson, would still concern those who are charged with investigating violations of Senate and House Rules...
...but Mr. Iglesias' subsequent dismissal, only makes those contacts the more worthy of investigation.
"Mr. Gonzalez finds himself in this mess because he and others in his shop appear to have tried to cover up something that, as far as we yet know, didn't need covering. U.S. attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president -- with the advice and consent of the Senate.
The above is misleading by the Washington post.
Gonzales started out with a story. His story was the firings was based on performance. Emails proved otherwise. He brought up at the pleasure of the President when he got caught lying. The Attorney General's use of this technical point "at the pleasure of the president" wasn't a use for the firings; the technical point at the pleasure of the president was brought up to divert attention away from his original statement that the firing was based on performance. Note how Gonzales used the technical point not the text book reading of the technical point.
Gonzales distanted himself from the firings; again emails proved otherwise. This is a lie to the public.
The other Washington Post innaccuracy is the line: with the advice and consent of the Senate.
The people used to replace the fired prosecutors were not hired with the advice of the Senate. Gonzales used a line in the Patriot Act that allows the DOJ to hire prosecutors without Senate approval. That line since then has been removed from the Patriot act. Washington Post needs to correct this.
Just curious...
Why go to such extremes to hide the facts, including removing weeks worth of emails, or using Republican Party email instead of White House email? Why refuse to testify under oath, or without a transcript? Why did Gonzalez say he had no part in the firings in the first place when the email trail clearly shows he was a major player? Why try to accuse Harriet Miers of being behind it, then retracting that statement?
Why go to such lengths to cover up "nothing"??? The coverup itself implies they knew what they were doing was wrong, and possibly illegal. The Washington Post's editorial pages have become a laughingstock. How they can see the coverup, but then conclude Gonzalez had no reason at all to cover anything up, is ludicrous.
TPM is killing WaPo on the Monica Goodling story! Not only is there significant information on Goodling in the comments, but the article itself also ties her and Ashy to yet another US Atty scandal apparently involving yet another Repugnant Congressperson in bank fraud and money-laundering. 3 co-conspirators convicted, yet not even an investigation of the (named) Congressperson (until TPM starts it up for WaPo?). That one might be the reason for the decision to plead the Fifth; or at least fear that investigative staff might look at her history for other involved decline-to-presecute, decline-to-investigage cases, and trip over Rep. Charles Taylor, R-NC - or read it directly on TPM.
And let us hope that Kyle Sampson does as his lawyer promises:
Really! "decline-to-prosecute"
You know it would be really nice to figure out between this, and all the other recent articles from Toensing about how Fitzgerald should be prosecuted, or Novak still complaining she wasn't covert, etc., whether the Washington Post cares about the integrity of the United States Justice system or not. If these attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President, then why wasn't Bush initiating the removals? What did they do to displease Bush rather than Karl Rove? Perhaps the WP should ask Bush why he felt his own appointees had upset him so much to lose their jobs? If he wasn't deciding and it seems Gonzales wasn't deciding, then is the future of American Justice in the hands of a couple of 30 year old staffers and Karl Rove's political posturing on how to win in 08? Perhaps the Washington Post should ask Gonzales why he wasn't interested in this whole process til the last moment? I would suggest that his lack of involvement either means he is incompetent and isn't fulfilling his duties or he doesn't give a darn about the lives of those he works with and to cover his own lackof interest could smear them so easily when there is no paper trail to back up his assertions. In all honesty, this latest refusal by Goodling, and her sudden leave and disappearance, leaves a nasty taste to this whole mess. I certainly hope she will be fired after this because she certainly doesn't deserve to keep her job now. Implying that the Congress is acting politically or corruptly by saying they have already made their minds up, shows her contempt of congress. I certainly hope they still subpoena her and make her take the fifth over and over for the American people to see.
I would hope for a crafted limited grant of immunity, in order to bring down the bigger sobs: perhaps even forego a shot at Ashcroft, by agreeing not to inquire about the 2003 decline-to-investigate involving bank fraud and money laundering and Rep. Charles Taylor, R-NC - see comments (since Ashy is already out of power, but Abu Gonzo and Darth and Bungle aren't - yet).
OOOOOH! Another good day in Congress! And a nugget for those insisting that all the investigation is just partisan nit-picking - particularly those at WaPo.
Rep. Waxman is tying the White House to the Cunningham (and others) investigation by . . . following the money. When a first-time contractor picked up a contract for $140,000 for furniture and computers for Darth's office, and, 2 weeks after payment, Cunningham paid for and accepted delivery of his pre-negotiated purchase of a . . . wait for it . . . $140,000 boat; when the proprietor was already a felon; when subsequent contracts have revealed failure to deliver services or goods billed, including outright fraud; one is virtually forced to conclude that this is all a coincidence . . . right?
ThinkProgress
Separate trail, checking out the indictments of Wilkes and Foggo as her last official act, Lam was covering the very same contractor (MZM) - and indicted the proprietor - as adjunct to the Cunningham hookergate. Let's check back in 60 days or so, to see if, even though Lam is gone, that office has managed to find adequate resources to prosecute? Acute interest generated from several WH emails questioning DOJ policy on allowing Lam resources.
I suppose now you want a link?
CREW keeping an eye on Foggo & Wilkes Indictment
Anyone who dosen't have a problem with what is going on with this situation wants to live in a Banana Republic.....all cronies, all loyalists, all the time. Well, unless you're into crime family mentality. U.S. attorneys shouldn't be in a position to be shaken down.