A “Smoking Gun” In The Gonzales Fired Prosecutors Case?
Is there a smoking gun in the case of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’ Justice Department and the fired prosecutors?
Professional political scientist Dr. Steven Taylor has looked at the emails. Here’s just part of his conclusion:
I went looking for information regarding the specific issue of the new appointment power granted in the re-authorization of the USA PATRIOT Act. To me, this new power is the central issue in this whole affair, as it tips the balance of control over the appointment of USAs to the executive at the expense of the legislative and judicial branches. It appears to me to be the case that the main motivation behind these firings is the recognition by some at DoJ that they could exert a great deal of control over the process in new ways (meaning that the “Clinton did it� defense, or any other reference to prior presidents misses the point of the situation).
And at the end:
This clearly goes beyond just replacing political appointees to trying to assert substantially more partisan political control over these offices by the executive branch.The fact that in this case we are talking about a person who was a partisan political operative in the RNC and in Karl Rove’s office further ups the ante, as it clearly looks like cronyism and partisan hackery instead of concerns over how well a given USA is doing his or her job (which is the spin on the story)
Taylor’s post shows readers the actual emails (from a PDF file).
If there was ever a MUST READ POST OF THE DAY this is it.
P.S.: Taylor can’t be dismissed as a liberal blogger by Bush supporters. You’ll note that his excellent blog Poliblog is in our Right Voices column.
Meanwhile, Newsweek’s Howard Fineman has an absolutely devastating take on Bush, Gonzales and the fired prosecutors:
All presidents, to a degree, play politics with U.S. attorneys’ jobs. Bill Clinton did so with relish. But it is revealing, if not shocking, to see vivid evidence of George Bush’s contempt for (or, at best, willful ignorance of) the idea that justice should be administered impartially, even by political appointees. Most presidents pay lip service to the concept of independence, even in private discussions. The Bush Administration didn’t bother.
Having covered Bush for years, I know where that dismissive attitude comes from: his family, Texas, his inner circle and his own experience – or lack of it.
Bushes see themselves as men of action and profit. As a rule, they tend to loathe or dismiss people who monitor and measure thought and behavior: reporters, shrinks, accountants and lawyers. Bushes go into business (sometimes with MBAs), never law. (Maybe the next generation will have a different attitude: George P. Bush, son of former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, earned a J.D. at the University of Texas in 2003.)
He gives perhaps the best explanation yet of the view of justice held by Bush and his advisors. His end paragraph:
The fact that Gonzales initially told Congress that the White House had nothing to do with the process shows something else: he forgot who holds the subpoena power now.
This scandal points up the benefits of divided government where there is authentic, vigorous oversight. Read Fineman’s entire column.
21 Responses to “A “Smoking Gun” In The Gonzales Fired Prosecutors Case?”
Well, this shows that there are still some responsible conservatives left, who put the wellbeing of the US above selfish partisan interests. And Taylor raises a good point. Indeed, the cronyism that shows in the new appointments directly is connected to abysmal administrative performance, most prominently displayed in the response to Katrina. Fighting this policy of rewarding buddies instead of chosing the most qualified person to do the job isn’t liberal nor conservative, it’s just the right thing to do!
Btw, right wingers, many of you are against affirmative action, so how can you defend a procedure where not simply the best candidate is hired, but only the best from a certain party?
That ‘must read’ link hasn’t worked yet – I tried several times in the last hours. Is ‘Poliblogger’ down???
Gray,
If you are a politician, part of the qualification for a political appointee is that they must agree at some level on basic political philosophy. Why would any politician want to appoint a political appointee who is their opposite in political philospophy.
It is easy for Democrats to support Affirmative Action because they know that virtuall all black and hispanic quota hires/beneficiaries will be Democrats to begin with and that the middle class whites who are punished for being white under Affirmative Action and are denied held to a separate standard are, more than likely, Republicans.
“Why would any politician want to appoint a political appointee who is their opposite in political philospophy.”
Indeed, I agree, superDD, why? Only reason may be that the appointee is superiorly qualified, and can be trusted to to the job regardless of his own ideological stance. But this is the seldom exception from the rule.
However, “that the middle class whites who are punished for being white under Affirmative Action” is just another evidence for me of the selfish way of thinking of some conservatives. If someone else from a group that faces severe disadvantages is supported by a program, this amounts to punishing the others??? Pls!
Besides, I’m for affirmative action based on social and finacial disadvantages. Race shouldn’t play a role in it. ‘White trash’ deserves to be supported to get a better qualification, too.
He’s on blogger and I see I can’t get onto his site, either, and I tried it several ways. I may redate this post and put it at the top later since people can’t get to the link
Gray,
Whatever you want Affirmative Action to be, it benefits upper middle class and middle class blacks (especially recent immigrants who cannot claim that they were hurt by discrimination.
I use the Shannon Faulkner test when it comes to Affirmative Action. If change the race from white to black change a rejection to an admission, it is prima facia evidence of racial discrimination and is unconstitituional.
The current structure of AA demands that whites have higher GPA’s and higher SAT scores to have the same chance of being admitted as a black or hispanic. That is punishing white kids for being white and rewards black kids for being black.
“Whatever you want Affirmative Action to be, it benefits upper middle class and middle class blacks (especially recent immigrants who cannot claim that they were hurt by discrimination.”
Afaik that’s how it ran before several court orders stopping this. In response, universities reformed their programs. But I agree, this kind of ‘affirmative action’ doesn’t make much sense.
However, back to the original question: If you’re against advantages based on group affiliations, what’s your position on party affiliation being one of the main ‘qualifications’ for candidates for administrative jobs? Isn’t this just another color of favorism?
Gray,
Political appointees are not administrative jobs. Political appointees are just that. Administrative jobs are civil service jobs and are done under a different system (except when people like President Clinton was finding a civil service jobs for Monica Lewinsky). The highest level administrators are called Senior Executive Service and are generally long term government employees. They are the equivalent of generals in the military. Of course most of them are long term Democrats but that is another matter.
Political appointees are policy people and figureeads and are there on ensure than policy direction of the current administration are carried out. Political appointees are not administrators.
Of course a victorious party has the right to appoint the political appointees of its choosing. But, if candidates are selected based on party affiliation alone- that is hackery. Its a judgement call, but it is still one that is incumbent upon the decision-maker to choose wisely. Otherwise, we end up with a situation where big party donors or loyalists have access to offices that they have little or no qualifications for.
This has been a pervasive problem with this administration, and may be why they are making so many serious mistakes. By choosing party affiliation over experience in the CPA, for example, there was resulting failure to govern that was so painfully inadequate, that it resulted in alienating many of the Iraqi people that we were trying to win over. George Bush may have paid back party loyalists, but in doing so he brought down his own administration.
The worst thing about this particular scandal, is that it undermines our faith in the fairness of the justice system by rigging it, and reveals that those inside the administration are more than willing to cynically use the Patriot Act to their own narrow ends.
“Political appointees are not administrative jobs.”
Huh? Where did you get this idea? Isn’t Chertoff an appointee? Isn’t Gonzalez? Rummy? Gates? Tenet? Wasn’t Brownie a political appointee? Now you want to tell us they aren’t (or wheren’t) doing administrative jobs? Stop spinning, Super…
Two words: Web Hubbell.
Clinton appointed #3 at Justice in 1993.
Yes, an administrator and a political appointee.
He coordinated the firing of all 93 US attorneys…including the one investigating Hubbell’s own law practice in Arkansas.
I don’t know what Taylor is going on about here. There has always been substantial political interference in DOJ.
How can you explain Web Hubbell…Hillary’s chum…masterminding the 1993 firings…that in the short term represented a clear personal conflict of interest (Hubbell was eventually convicted on multiple felonies in 95 btw).
And when a Clinton political staffer pulled the FBI Security Clearance files on Republican politicians (look this up…it happened).
Or when lost files turned up in the personal quarters of the Clinton WH…tests showing Hillary’s fingerprints on them…and Hillary denying she every saw them.
An innocent filing mistake. How dare you question the integrity of the Clinton White House?!
Politics in the DOJ. Heavens to Mergutroid!
Gray,
I guess we have different definition of administrative job. I have worked in Washington, DC and no one here would have considered any political appointee to be doing an “administrative job.” I would not considered CEO or COO an administrative job and that is more like what political appointees are versus managers.
Yes, it does create tremendous problems when the political appointees try to involve themselves in the details of running the government (i.e. Brown). Remember, Brownie was not in charge of the Katrina Response because he was head of FEMA but because he was the principle federal offical designee under the National Response Plan. It was the first time that the plan had been implemented and the plan failed.
Komrad Marlow – Politics in DoJ at the start of an administration is common, doing it as a lame duck near the end is unique.
Marlow- Hubbell was indicted and went to jail, so whoever replaced the US Atty in Arkansas must not have gotten with the program, lol! If this was a blatant attempt to subvert justice for Hubbell, wouldn’t the investigation have been dropped???
BTW, this isn’t the first time Gonzales has fired a USA in the middle of an investigation. He fired Frederick Black who was in the middle of issuing indictments in Guam, involving our old friend Jack Abramoff. Guam Gov. Gutierrez complained because some close pals in his office had been indicted so they fired 10-year DOJ veteran Black. Now, Black’s replacement quite coincidentally, had a conflict of interest, so the probe was dropped. That is the difference between what Clinton did and what Gonzales did.
LOL…Kritter, I totally agree. Hubbell must have been pissed!
Clinton did not, of course, fire 93 US attorneys for Hubbell. That was just a convenient coincidence. Unfortunately for Hubbell, the Democrat they hired was not a normal party hack but had integrity. Point I was making was that Hubbell – a close FOH – was running the firings (i.e., WH political interference in DOJ).
I would love this to result in the removal of US attorneys from political interference in hirings/firings. I suspect the GOP would love this too, as it would preserve some of the current hires from firing if a Dem takes the WH.
For the same reasons, the Democrats will tread carefully. There will be screaming and outrage at Bush GOP corruption and partisanship…try to take Gonzales scalp…but no change.
Change would result in a denial of many Dem hacks being appointed.
That is my prediction: Sound and fury…try to take out Gonzales…no real change.
If anyone wants to read an interesting take on Gonzo, Balkin’s Scott Horton has a post(h/t Sully). He goes beyond the he said/she said and looks at the actual damage done.
http://balkin.blogspot.com/2007/03/struggle-to-see-what-is-right-in-front.html
It starts with a snip from an Orwell essay and gets better….
Marlowe- as Rudi has already pointed out, no one makes a big deal out of it if they are removed at the beginning of a term. They usually only serve 4 years anyway. It starts to smell when they are ranked by loyalty and taken out according to what investigations they are working on or if they can be replaced by a political hack, like in the Cummins case. They are usually only fired mid-term if there are serious competence issues. In this case, the firings were obviously politically motivated, since all of the 8 had good to excellent evaluations, and were given no reason for the firings.
Looks like Gonzales has been lying nonstop to Congress. He’s been caught red-handed, but only will admit to providing incomplete information. Oh, I guess the memory lapse defense has already been used unsuccessfully in Plamegate!
Not a problem. To quote Poppy.
“I hereby pardon Cap Weinberger for all the things he didn’t do that I didn’t know about”.
To quote Hank Williams Jr.
“It’s a family tradition”
Davebo-
I guess the last President who was actually honest was Jimmy Carter. But he had a disasterous presidency, because he wouldn’t adapt to the Washington culture, and remained an outsider his entire term. Maybe his successors concluded that chronic lying was the key to a positive legacy.
I also think Ford was honest overall, despite his controversial pardon of Nixon.
Carnival of Divided Government UNDECIMUS – Springtime for Divided Government Edition…
Joe Gandleman at The Moderate Voice references Howard Fineman’s column and finds A “Smoking Gun In The Gonzales Fired Prosecutors Case?”: “This scandal points up the benefits of divided government where there is authentic, vigorous oversight.”
Ag…