« The Convocation on Job: My Reflections
Main
Echo's of Job in Carmina Burana »
April 20, 2007
That's What Obstruction is All About
White House spokesperson, Perino, said of Gonzales' testimony before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary,
President Bush was pleased with the Attorney General's testimony today. After hours of testimony in which he answered all of the senators' questions and provided thousands of pages of documents, he again showed that nothing improper occurred. He admitted the matter could have been handled much better, and he apologized for the disruption to the lives of the U.S. attorneys involved, as well as for the lack of clarity in his initial responses. [Emphasis Added]
Well, first, Gonzales may or may not have responded to all the senators' questions. He sure didn't answer all their questions. Repeatedly saying you don't remember, answering some other question or obfuscating is not the same as answering.
In her statement, Perino, like Gonzales, tried to change the subject away from Gonzales misstatements (you know, lies) about the nature of his involvement in the decision to replace eight US Attorneys. Until that question is settled, it may not be possible to tell if any or all of them were improperly dismissed. Failing to tell a consistent, credible story may be a fine way to obstruct the effort to find the truth with regard to possible improper conduct, but it sure doesn't show "that nothing improper occurred." And if nothing improper occurred, why the need to obstruct?
Posted by Duane Smith at April 20, 2007 1:09 PM | Read more on Current Events |
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.telecomtally.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2080
Comments
"Until that question is settled, it may not be possible to tell if any or all of them were improperly dismissed."
Duane, there is no question about the propriety of the dismissals: US attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president, and can be dismissed for no reason at all. Clinton fired 93 in one fell swoop.
Posted by: s. needham at April 21, 2007 5:41 AM
Most Presidents, including the current one, replace most of the appointees of the previous administration shortly after entering office. Clinton asked for the resignation of all 93 US attorneys but only replaced 80 of them at the beginning of his term.
While it is true that the US attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president there are limitations in this area. For example, it would be unconstitutional to replace them based on a test for religious beliefs. Let me be clear, I don't think anything like that is the case. In fact, I think Bush's dismissals were likely legal. However, there are to levels of propriety. There is the legal level and I've already said that I don't really think any laws were violated in dismissing the US attorneys. Then there is what I will call the political/policy level. Changes at the beginning of a presidency are reasonable assumed to be in an effort to assure that the DOJ's priorities are inline with the new administration's. When such changes are done mid-term, I think the public and certainly the Congress has a right to know what political or policy contingencies motivated those changes. In any case, neither the public nor the Congress should be treated to a barrage of evasions. If the US attorneys were dismissed because they were not upholding administration policies, just say it and be done with it. Don't wait until you are trapped in your own cloud of smoke to say it as they have done in a couple of cases.
Posted by: Duane at April 21, 2007 9:08 AM
agreed--the attys willingness vel non to enforce admin. policies is a valid determinant of their employment; the ag's bungling is simply inexplicable.
Posted by: s. needham at April 22, 2007 7:20 AM
Sorry, comments are closed for this post.
Send me an email if it is important.