I intimated that Gonzales was lying in my previous post here. It was simply beyond unlikely that the Attorney General was NOT involved in the firing of that many high profile political appointees. I mean, if he were not behind the firings, then he'd have to be one of the most incompetent AGs in the history of the office, for dereliction of duty on tasks that should NOT be delegated down the chain (and as it turns out, were tasks actually dictated straight from the White House).
I say, don't even let him resign. Fire his ass.
Did Gonzales really think his ex-aide would watch his March 13 presser and then take on the task of CYA on his behalf? Or does he just like wearing egg on his face to CYA for HIS boss?
Link: Ex-Aide Says Gonzales Was Involved in Firings - New York Times.
Ex-Aide Says Gonzales Was Involved in Firings
By DAVID STOUT and BRIAN KNOWLTON
WASHINGTON, March 29 — The former chief of staff to Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales testified today that contrary to Mr. Gonzales’s earlier assertions, the attorney general was involved in discussions to fire United States attorneys.
“I don’t think the attorney general’s statement that he was not involved in any discussions about U.S. attorney removals is accurate,” the former Gonzales aide, D. Kyle Sampson, said under questioning at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing.
“I don’t think it’s accurate,” Mr. Sampson repeated under questioning by Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the panel’s ranking Republican. “I think he’s recently clarified it. But I remember discussing with him this process of asking certain U.S. attorneys to resign, and I believe that he was present at the meeting on Nov. 27.”
It was disclosed last week that Justice Department documents showed Mr. Gonzales to be present at the Nov. 27, 2006, session in which the firing of federal prosecutors was discussed. That disclosure seemed to contradict Mr. Gonzales’s assertions at a March 13 news conference that he was not involved in talks about letting the prosecutors go.
“So,” Senator Specter went on, “he was involved in discussions, contrary to the statement he made in his news conference on March 13?”
“I believe — yes, sir,” Mr. Sampson replied.
The testimony of Mr. Sampson, a loyal aide to Mr. Gonzales until his recent resignation, could create grave problems for the attorney general, who is already under fire from Democrats and some Republicans for the way the dismissals of the prosecutors were carried out.
Even those Republicans who have so far been loyal to Mr. Gonzales have complained that the dismissals were accompanied by poor communications and poor explanations, points that even President Bush has conceded. With new doubt cast on Mr. Gonzales’s candor, or at the very least his memory, support for him could further erode, despite President Bush’s insistence that he wants his old friend from Texas to stay on.
Under questioning from Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas, Mr. Sampson said he did not recall a single instance in which someone from the Bush administration suggested removing a United States attorney for “an improper reason.” But over all, the questions and answers cast Mr. Gonzales in an unflattering light.
Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, pursued a line of questioning similar to Mr. Specter’s, and with similar results. Mr. Schumer recalled Mr. Gonzales’s statement of March 13 that he “never saw documents” related to the impending dismissals and “we never had a discussion about where things stood.”
“Was that statement accurate?” Mr. Schumer asked.
“I don’t think it’s entirely accurate, what he said,” Mr. Sampson replied. He went on to say that he did not know if the attorney general had seen dismissal-related documents, but that he was sure Mr. Gonzales was involved in discussions about the firings early on.
As for the Nov. 27 meeting, Mr. Sampson said he did not recall it clearly.
“But,” Mr. Schumer persisted, “your recollection is, he did speak at the meeting?”
“Yes,” Mr. Sampson said.
“O.K.,” Mr. Schumer said. “Now that in itself says a whole lot.”
Mr. Gonzales’s early accounts were further undermined in an exchange between Mr. Sampson and Senator Herb Kohl, Democrat of Wisconsin.
“Now, this is hard to believe,” Mr. Kohl said. “Either the attorney general was simply absent as manager of the Justice Department or he’s not been candid with the American people about his participation in the firings. Which one is it, or is there some other explanation?”
“Well,” Mr. Sampson replied, “as I said in a previous answer, the attorney general was aware of this process from the beginning in early 2005. He and I had discussions about it during the thinking phase of the process.” The attorney general’s involvement continued until the list of dismissals was final, Mr. Sampson said.
[...]
Democrats in particular expressed deep doubt at Mr. Sampson’s argument that politics were not involved in the dismissals. “In the last seven weeks, we’ve learned that Attorney General Gonzales was personally involved in the firing plan, after being told that he wasn’t,” Mr. Schumer said. “We’ve learned that the White House was involved, involved, after being told that it wasn’t; we’ve learned that Karl Rove was involved, after being told that he wasn’t,” the senator said, alluding to the president’s chief political adviser. “And we have learned that political considerations were very important, after being told that they weren’t.”
[...]
Comments