Spinonymous: Newsweek gave anonymity to DOJ official defending Gonzales
An article in the April 30 edition of Newsweek by investigative correspondent Michael Isikoff quoted an anonymous "top Justice official" defending Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales' alleged role in the firings of eight U.S. attorneys, saying: "We believe the burden is now on the Democrats to prove that something improper occurred here -- and they haven't done that." According to Newsweek, the official "asked not to be ID'd talking about nonpublic matters." The article offered no indication as to what "nonpublic matters" the anonymous official referred to, or why they would prevent this official from speaking on the record.
As Media Matters for America has documented, Newsweek has frequently granted anonymity to Republican officials praising President Bush, despite the magazine's guidelines stating that "the burden of proof should lie with the reporters and their editors to show why a promise of anonymity serves the reader." The article in the April 30 Newsweek failed to explain how allowing a Justice Department official to anonymously defend the attorney general's and the Justice Department's conduct in the U.S. attorneys scandal "serves the reader."
From Isikoff's article in the April 30 edition of Newsweek:
But Gonzales himself was hanging tough. "We believe the burden is now on the Democrats to prove that something improper occurred here -- and they haven't done that," said a top Justice official (who asked not to be ID'd talking about nonpublic matters). Publicly, the White House was standing by its A.G. One White House adviser (who asked not to be ID'ed talking about sensitive issues) said the support reflected Bush's own view that a Gonzales resignation would embolden the Dems to go after other targets -- like Karl Rove. "This is about Bush saying, 'Screw you'," said the adviser, conceding that a Gonzales resignation might still be inevitable. The trick, said the adviser, would be to find a graceful exit strategy for Bush's old friend.
Are they serious, Gonzales is a complete embarassment. Even if nothing happened (which most intelligent people belive not to be the case), he had about a month to prepare for the hearing and he couldn't answer the simplest of questions. If anything it shows a complete lack of competence on his part as the attorney general.
Did you happen to hear Bush's appraisal of Gonzalez's performance at the hearing? Hilarious. He talked about how Gonzalez gave clear concise answers...wherever possible. I kept expecting him to say "You're doin' a heckuva job, Gonzo!"
Yeah, I just don't get. I mean even the republican senantors thought he was full of it.
I have to admit I dont know or something like it IS clear and consice. However after all that time for preperation if he had to say that more than 70 times then the only thing missing was the dunce cap
I couldn't help but think AG's performance smacked of typical lawyer dodginess (which gave Repubs material for years when Bill Clinton did it). As a "top cop" and lawyer for this country, it may have been more indicative about what really goes on in our "justice" system then we are able to stomach.
Dana Milbank: "Explaining his role in the botched firing of federal prosecutors, Gonzales uttered the phrase "I don't recall" and its variants ("I have no recollection," "I have no memory") 64 times.
Take Gonzales's tally along with that of his former chief of staff, who uttered the phrase "I don't remember" 122 times before the same committee three weeks ago, and the Justice Department might want to consider handing out Ginkgo biloba in the employee cafeteria."
Unfortunately, Bush isn't only saying "screw you" to the Democrats. He is saying it to all of us as well. The Justice Department is only as good as the attorney general who leads it. And after Gonzales' performance in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee, it is a clear indication that this department is being run incompetently and ineptly.
Until Gonzales has resigned, the Justice Department will lack any credibility to get anything done. And, right now, it seems unlikely he will resign.
I posted this on the Chris Matthews thread, but it fits here too,
The "I can't recall" dodge was first used by Jimmy Hoffa, when Congress was investigating corruption in the Teamsters. Every Teamster official who testified prior to Hoffa had taken the 5th on virtually every question. He fooled everyone who expected him to do the same, claiming (with a big grin) that he couldn't remember a thing.
Gonzo's in great company.
Post a new commentYour comment Path: <!-- <ul> <li>Blank lines become paragraph divisions.</li> <li>You may use the following HTML tags:<br> <code><a> <ol> <ul> <li> <i> <em> <b> <strong> <blockquote></code></li> </ul> -->Sorry about that stuff at the bottom. I tried to cut and paste, but it brought too much.
If Newsweek’s correspondent, Michael “the investigator” Isikoff, had blown the cover of this "top Justice official"…Mikey would have been arrested for committing a reflexive, lewd & lascivious act in public.
There is a saying going around that says, "Either you are with Bush or you are with the United States'.
We can see that Newsweek opted to go with Bush. It would be nice if the media would side with the United States for once.
It doesn't sound good when you have Bush, Rove, and Gonzales polluting the DOJ with Bushies for the sole purpose of trying to fix the 2006 election and pushing forward to fix the 2008 election by drumming up charges against those running against Republicans.
If the fix in the DOJ wasn't enough. The Republicans drummed up the National ID act in order to make it difficult for the weakest members of our society to vote all done under the name of voter fraud even though voter fraud is extremely rare.
Newsweek needs to explain why they bend their own rule about the burden of proof. Media Matters has documented that Newsweek has made Republicans the exception to the rule regarding burden of proof.
I will admit I do have great respect for the Republicans that will stay loyal to the United States; just wanted to clear that up.