Bush Confident in Gonzales

Perhaps this will be a replay of Rumsfeld. Bush was fully confident in him until he resigned and even then called him a great defence secretary. Perhaps the same scenario will develop with Gonzales if he goes!


Bush fully confident in attorney general
Published: Saturday March 31, 2007



US President George W. Bush on Saturday reiterated his support for embattled Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, under fire for his alleged role in the dismissal of eight US prosecutors.

Gonzales is an "honorable and honest man. He has my full confidence," Bush told a news conference at his Camp David, Maryland retreat.

"There is no credible evidence that there has been any wrongdoing," Bush added.

Democrats in Congress have pressed for Gonzales's resignation after evidence from e-mails and a top former aide implicated the long-time Bush ally in the sacking late last year of eight US attorneys for what Democrats claim were political reasons.

The Senate Judiciary Committee is investigating why the US attorneys were fired, even as several of them were in the middle of sensitive corruption investigations, and to what extent Gonzales and the White House were involved in their removal.

Gonzales has denied being deeply involved in the matter.

But last Thursday his former chief of staff Kyle Sampson told the committee that Gonzales, who leads the Department of Justice, was involved.

"I and others made staff recommendations but they were approved and signed off on by the principals," Sampson said.

Sampson resigned nearly three weeks ago after the Justice Department released e-mail records that showed him in close contact with senior White House officials over the sackings.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gonzales contemplating resigning?

This is from Raw Story. Probably Gonzales will hang on as long as he has the support of Bush and thinks he can ride out the storm. On the other hand maybe he will resign and form a baseball team with Rumsfeld to play in the ex-Bush little league.


Noose tightens around embattled US attorney general
Published: Tuesday March 27, 2007



The noose tightened Tuesday around beleaguered US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, after a top aide, fearing criminal prosecution, refused to testify in a scandal over the dismissals of eight federal prosecutors.

Questions about what role Gonzales might have played in the affair intensified, after senior aide Monica Goodling invoked her Fifth Amendment rights to avoid potential self-incrimination and declined to answer lawmakers' questions about the firings.

"The hostile and questionable environment in the present congressional proceedings is at best ambiguous," her lawyer John Dowd said in a statement.

"More accurately, the environment can be described as legally perilous."

Goodling, 33, is on a leave from her post as counsel to the attorney general and as the Justice Department's White House liaison.

She is refusing to appear at a US Senate hearing Thursday at which another former senior aide who played a key role in the firings is to testify.

Lawmakers want to shed light on why the eight US attorneys -- powerful local and regional prosecutors who are appointed by the president -- were fired, even as several of them were in the middle of sensitive corruption investigations.

But the overriding question remains what role might have been played by Gonzales, who, in a television interview broadcast late Monday, gave the first indication that he is weighing whether he should leave his high-power post, in light of the scandal.

"Every cabinet official has to ask themselves every day, 'Is it still appropriate for me to lead a cabinet department?' It's something that I've been asking myself more lately than perhaps others," he said.

"At the end of the day, it's not about Alberto Gonzales. It's about this great Department of Justice that does so many wonderful things for the American people," he said.

Gonzales who said he would ride out the controversy "as long as I have the confidence of the president," said nevertheless that it "pained" him.

"The attacks on my credibility ... really have pained me and my family," he told NBC television.

"I grew up with nothing but my integrity. And someday, when I leave this office, I am confident that I will leave with my integrity," he said.

"I would never have asked for their resignations to interfere with a public corruption case or in any way to interfere with an ongoing investigation. I just wouldn't do that," the US top prosecutor continued.

"I've got nothing to hide in terms of what I've done," he said.

His assertions came after a new batch of e-mails released Friday showed he may have had more involvement in last year's firings than he first indicated.

Copies of e-mail messages and other documents sent by the Justice Department to Congress indicate Gonzales attended an hour-long meeting in November on the firings with his then-chief of staff, Kyle Sampson, the aide in charge of putting together a list of those to be dismissed.

Gonzales however told reporters two weeks ago that the dismissals were an "effort that was led by Mr. Sampson," and that they "never had a discussion about where things stood."

Sampson is to appear under oath Thursday before the Senate Judiciary Committee to discuss the matter.

Leading Democrats continue to suspect that the White House removed the prosecutors for partisan reasons, while allies of President George W. Bush say the prosecutors serve at the pleasure of the president, and the president has the authority to dismiss them.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subpoenas issued for Bush aides

Maybe the US can learn from the Philippines. When officials are subpoenaed to give testimony that may be problematic they sometimes disappear from view, often to the US where many have property or contacts. Perhaps the aides could take a paid vacation in the Philippines.


House Panel Approves Subpoenas for White House Aides (Update4)

By James Rowley

March 21 (Bloomberg) -- A congressional panel probing the firing of eight U.S. attorneys authorized subpoenas to compel testimony by Karl Rove, President George W. Bush's top political adviser, and other White House officials.

The House subcommittee took the first step toward a possible constitutional confrontation with Bush over the power of Congress to question presidential aides under oath and review confidential administration documents. It approved the subpoena authority by voice vote over Republican objections.

The White House countered with a threat to withdraw its offer to produce Rove and other White House aides for private interviews if Congress takes the further step of actually issuing subpoenas.

``If they issue subpoenas, the offer's withdrawn,'' White House spokesman Tony Snow told reporters. ``Are we going to change our conditions? No.''

The controversy over the fired U.S. attorneys highlights the political difficulty Bush finds himself in after Democrats last November won control of Congress and with it the power to subpoena witnesses. Bush is resisting calls by Democrats and some Republicans for the resignation of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales over his handling of the prosecutor firings.

The House and Senate Judiciary Committees have demanded answers as Democrats question whether the dismissals were used to suppress prosecutions.

`Merely a Backup'

House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, a Michigan Democrat, said subpoena authority is ``merely a backup'' while Congress negotiates with the administration. ``We are not going to move in a reckless or angry or temperamental way at all,'' he said.

Bush yesterday called the Democratic demands for sworn testimony from his advisers ``a partisan fishing expedition aimed at honorable public servants.''

Snow said the White House wanted Rove and former White House Counsel Harriet Miers to be questioned in private because ``what we want to avoid is the trappings of a media spectacle.'' He said, ``behavior changes when cameras are off.''

``You don't need a showdown here,'' Snow said. Rove and other potential witnesses don't need to be under oath because it's against the law to lie to Congress, whether under oath or not, Snow said. He said it's ``probably worth giving members of Congress a little bit of time to think this through.''

Senator Charles E. Schumer, the New York Democrat leading the Senate Judiciary Committee's inquiry, signaled that lawmakers may accept a deal with Bush that would allow closed-door testimony as long as it's transcribed and under oath.

`No Good Arguments'

``We, hopefully, can work out a compromise,'' Schumer said in an interview. ``I can understand why he wouldn't want it in public even though there are good arguments why it should be in public. There are no good arguments not to have an oath and a transcript.''

The House subcommittee authorized subpoenas for Rove, deputy White House political director deputy J. Scott Jennings, Miers and William Kelley, her former deputy. Subpoenas were also authorized for documents about the firings produced by White House officials, including the president's chief of staff, Joshua Bolten.

During the House subcommittee's debate, Republican Representative Chris Cannon of Utah said subpoenas would be premature because Bush ``has fairly offered interviews and documents. The only purpose of issuing subpoenas is to fan the flames and photo ops for partisan gain.''

Subpoenas aren't warranted because there is no evidence the firings impeded any criminal probes, Cannon said. He cited the testimony of dismissed U.S. Attorney Carol Lam in San Diego, who left after putting a former Republican congressman behind bars. Lam told Congress her removal wouldn't disrupt any criminal investigations.

`Merely a Backup'

The administration's offer for a private meeting on the firings, delivered by White House Counsel Fred Fielding, amounts to a proposed ``conversation,'' Conyers said. ``We could meet at the local pub to have that kind of gathering.''

The House panel today also authorized a subpoena to compel testimony of D. Kyle Sampson, Gonzales's chief of staff who resigned March 12. Gonzales blamed Sampson for not informing him and Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty about the dismissals that Sampson had coordinated with the White House.

Today, Snow declined to voice support for McNulty, whose Senate Judiciary Committee testimony about the firings was criticized as incomplete and misleading by Vermont Democrat Patrick Leahy, the panel's chairman.

`Political Points'

``I'm not in the business of assessing the deputy attorney general,'' Snow said when asked about McNulty's performance.

Bush yesterday accused Democrats of being ``more interested in scoring political points than in learning the facts.''

He conceded the Justice Department's initial explanations of the dismissals were ``confusing and in some cases incomplete.''

But permitting his aides to be questioned in public under oath would inhibit their candid advice, Bush said. The staff would be in ``constant fear of being hauled before various committees to discuss internal deliberations.''

The battle may be headed for court, said Allan Lichtman, a professor of history and politics at American University in Washington.

Courts in the past have ruled that ``a president does not have absolute privilege to say, `The White House has immunity because I need candid advice,''' Lichtman said.

Nixon Tapes

Still, in ordering the release of President Richard M. Nixon's White House tapes in the Watergate scandal in 1974, the Supreme Court did recognize executive privilege. It ruled that it was overcome by the demands of a criminal investigation.

Columbia University law Professor Michael Dorf, in an interview today, said such confrontations are usually resolved by compromise instead of in court. ``There are so few occasions in which courts have looked at this sort of thing,'' he said.

During President Bill Clinton's administration, aides frequently submitted to congressional demands to testify, avoiding a court showdown.

A 2004 Congressional Research Service report listed 47 such instances in which Clinton administration aides testified before Congress.

In the current confrontation, Democratic leaders may face an uphill battle in forcing testimony by administration officials. Bush might leave office in January 2009 before it is resolved.

The firings have prompted at least three Republican lawmakers to join calls by some Democrats for Gonzales to step down. Republicans who haven't urged Bush to replace his attorney general, such as Senator John Cornyn of Texas, have complained that the dismissals were mishandled.

To contact the reporter on this story: James Rowley in Washington at jarowley@bloomberg.net

Last Updated: March 21, 2007 15:32 EDT

Gonzalez' plight plagues Bush

I haven't been following this closely but Gonzales' remarks on the Arar case and his views on torture plus his boot-licking before Bush are enough to make me dislike him. It remains to be seen how much longer Bush can stick up for him. Bush does usually stand by his loyalists until the last minute. As with Rumsfeld he will praise him effusively as he departs!


Gonzales' plight puts Bush at risk
Aides focus on keeping the controversy at Justice from spreading.
By Doyle McManus
Times Staff Writer

March 18, 2007

WASHINGTON — As more Republicans called last week on Alberto R. Gonzales to resign, President Bush's aides began to look beyond the attorney general and focus on preventing the controversy over the firing of federal prosecutors from spreading — and endangering Karl Rove, the president's top political advisor.

"This is not going to go away," warned Joseph E. DiGenova, a former U.S. attorney in the Reagan administration. "I'm sure the president is going to let it go as long as he can … but there's only so much bleeding he can take."

The fracas over the fired prosecutors reflects a larger underlying problem for Bush: His political standing as president, already battered by the war in Iraq and domestic missteps like the handling of Hurricane Katrina, has only continued to erode since his party lost control of Congress in November.

Initially, the dispute centered on the Justice Department, Gonzales and his top aides. But documents released last week suggested that Rove and former White House Counsel Harriet E. Miers were also involved in the decision to fire eight U.S. attorneys after the 2004 election. That brought the issue to the threshold of the Oval Office and prompted reporters to ask whether Bush had been involved.

"I want you to be clear here: Don't go dropping it at the president's door," White House spokesman Tony Snow said Friday when asked about Bush's involvement.

Although U.S. attorneys are presidential appointees who can be removed at the president's discretion, the firings have flared into a potentially damaging issue for the administration because of indications that they may have resulted from political pressure.

Gonzales and his aides initially told Congress that the prosecutors were fired because their performance was unsatisfactory. But documents released last week showed that officials also discussed whether the U.S. attorneys had been "loyal Bushies," in the words of one Justice Department e-mail.

Democrats, with their new majorities in the House and Senate, quickly jumped on the issue.

Bush's diminished popularity, combined with his administration's disdain for Congress' view of legislative prerogatives, have given the president a slimmer margin for error — even with members of his own party.

"You've got Republicans in Congress who have run out their string with him," said Norman J. Ornstein, a congressional scholar at the largely conservative American Enterprise Institute.

The shift to Democratic control has accelerated the controversy.

"Elections matter," Ornstein said. "If the Republicans were still in charge of Congress, even by one vote, the reaction to this would have been that it was just a personnel matter. The administration might still have had a problem, but it would have taken a lot longer to develop."

Several leading Republicans said they expected Gonzales to resign in the next few weeks.

They asked to speak on condition of anonymity because their comments conflicted with Bush's public position that his attorney general does not need to leave.

Two Republican senators, John E. Sununu of New Hampshire and Gordon H. Smith of Oregon, and one Republican congressman, Dana Rohrabacher of Huntington Beach, have publicly called on Gonzales to resign.

Others have said privately that the attorney general should leave.

And no leading Republican in Congress has stepped forward to defend Gonzales — a sign that any political support he once enjoyed has virtually disappeared.

Democrats in the Senate and House have said they want Miers and Rove, President Bush's chief political strategist, to testify about their roles in the decision to fire the prosecutors. Rove, Miers and Gonzales have been among the president's closest aides for more than a decade; all worked for him when he was governor of Texas in the 1990s.

Early reports had indicated that the idea of the firings originated with Miers, but on Friday, Snow said that may not be the case. "At this juncture, people have hazy memories," he said.

Snow said the White House has not decided whether Rove or Miers should testify or whether to release internal documents to Congress, which has the power to subpoena witnesses — Justice Department officials and others.

But the president can assert a counterclaim of executive privilege to shield internal deliberations at the White House.

White House Counsel Fred F. Fielding spent much of last week on Capitol Hill trying to determine what Congress would insist on, officials said, but he gave no indication of what the administration was prepared to give.

"This is one more chapter in the defense of Karl Rove," said one leading GOP figure who insisted on anonymity because he was speaking ill of the president's most powerful aide. "This isn't accountability, it's damage control, and it's protection for Karl."

But other Republicans defended Rove.

"There's no suggestion of illegality in anything he has done," DiGenova said. "He wasn't the one making inaccurate representations on Capitol Hill. I would think that would trump any demand [from Congress] for testimony."

Rove, speaking at a university last week, dismissed the controversy as groundless. "We're at a point where people want to play politics with it," he said.

Some Republicans in Congress have been gauging the electoral cross-currents along with the Democrats.

The two Republican senators who have called on Gonzales to resign face reelection campaigns next year.

Another senator who faces reelection, John Cornyn of Texas, normally one of the White House's most reliable allies, has said he was disappointed in the attorney general.

"The appearances are troubling," Cornyn told reporters last week. "But in Texas we believe in having a fair trial, and then we have the hanging," he added.

Gonzales compounded his own vulnerability by being high-handed with Congress, Ornstein noted.

"He has treated Congress with the back of his hand," he said. "He stonewalled everything, even when he had Republican chairmen. He built no reservoir of support."

As a result, he said, "we're seeing what I call the battered Congress syndrome. After years of being slapped around by the White House, at some point there's a counter-reaction."

Finally, the Justice Department and White House made matters worse by repeatedly issuing inconsistent and incomplete accounts of how the U.S. attorneys had been fired.

"The incompetence has been amazing," DiGenova charged. "Managing crises, beginning with preventing crises, is what life in Washington is about…. But these guys didn't have a plan ready to answer questions once the problem became public. They still don't have their stories straight.

"There are too many Stepford husbands in this administration: young men who are perfectly coiffed and have great clothes, but very few of them have ever been in a courtroom," he added.

Charles O. Jones, a presidential scholar at the University of Wisconsin, said the controversy had weakened a presidency that was already fragile.

"By the normal measures of electoral support and popular support, Bush had the lowest political standing of any president on record when he was reelected in 2004," Jones said.

"He argued that his reelection alone gave him political capital, but it was damned slim," Jones said. "And since then, there has been a decline in his position — a steady decline. There's not a whole lot of political capital left for him to draw on."

The fragility of Bush's mandate, Jones said, stems partly from his governing style: an "executive approach" that rests on unilateral action instead of a "legislative approach" that relies on patient negotiation with Congress.

"That approach can produce positive results … and you can argue that it did after Sept. 11," Jones said.

But "it means you'd better get it right, because if you screw up, you're going to lose your supporters too.

"It's Bush's governing style, and no one can expect that someone like Bush can simply switch styles," he added.


Copyright 2007 Los Angeles Times

Gonzales a goner?

This is from the Sydney Morning Herald.
Gonzales is an example of the American Dream? To climb up the ladder through connections?

the US Attorney-General, Alberto Gonzales, has the support of his close friend, President Bush, for now.


March 17, 2007

ANALYSIS

IN A SENSE, the rise and fall of the US Attorney-General, Alberto Gonzales, is a metaphor for the major failing of George Bush and a pointer to the ordeal that the President will have to endure at the hands of a Democrat-controlled Congress for the remaining 22 months of his term.

The growing controversy over the sacking by the Justice Department of eight federal attorneys - senior prosecutors - threatens to further harm an already badly damaged president and to seriously affect the prospects of the Republican Party's presidential candidates.

Democrats say the sackings were a politically-motivated purge, alleging the federal attorneys were removed to make way for White House allies.

It is a story of incompetence and cronyism and of a disengaged president who has placed loyalty and ideological compatibility above all other political virtues.

The rise of Gonzales is a classic example of what one observer has described as Bush's "hackocracy" of an administration.

Gonzales has the sort of personal history that Bush finds irresistible. The son of a construction worker who did not finish high school and a mother who stayed at home looking after eight children, Gonzales - or Al, as Bush calls him - had grandparents who were illegal migrants, among the many millions of illegals who left Mexico for a better life in the US.

Gonzales, 51, the only one in his family who managed a tertiary education, has described how proud his family was of him when he graduated from Harvard Law School in 1982. Indeed, the first Hispanic attorney-general in US history has often spoken about his family's story and their struggles.

And so has Bush, who first hired Gonzales as his legal adviser when he was governor of Texas in the 1990s, eventually promoting the man he has called his "close friend" to the Texas Supreme Court.

Bush took Gonzales with him to the White House in 2001, where he served as legal counsel and was involved in drafting the now infamous memo to the President that argued that the Geneva Conventions on the treatment of prisoners of war did not apply to captured fighters in Afghanistan.

Then at the beginning of his second term, Bush promoted Gonzales to attorney-general after flirting with the idea of appointing him to the Supreme Court. Even some congressional Republicans believed he was not qualified to be America's top law officer, whose first loyalty is to the justice system and not to the president.

But until the midterm congressional elections last November, when Americans handed control of both houses of Congress to the Democrats, Republicans could - and did - block any examination of the failings of Gonzales.

And there were plenty of them. Apart from the Geneva Conventions memo, Gonzales supported the CIA's notorious secret "rendition" program and it was Gonzales who advised Bush that the warrantless wiretap program that Bush authorised after the September 11 attacks was legal, despite the fact that there was explicit legislation that forbade it.

Now, with congressional Democrats determined to use their new-found power to scrutinise an administration that has basically ignored Congress and treated it with disdain, Gonzales is likely to be their first victim.

Most observers agree that in the end, Gonzales will either resign or Bush will be forced to sack him, but, in the meantime, the Attorney-General and some of his senior officials face tortuous hearings in Congress.

The Senate Judiciary Committee has issued subpoenas on five Justice Department officials and may also summons Bush's senior adviser, Karl Rove, and his former legal counsel Harriet Miers.

Meanwhile, Gonzales is giving interview after interview, admitting that "mistakes were made", but insisting that most of those mistakes were made by his chief of staff, Kyle Sampson, who was forced to resign when it was revealed that he had worked closely with Miers to draw up a list of federal attorneys who were not ideologically sound enough and who ought to be removed.

Sampson also sought to accommodate a request from Rove that the federal attorney in Arkansas be removed so that he could be replaced by a close friend and aide of Rove's.

All this emerged after Gonzales and other Justice Department officials had testified at congressional committee hearings that there had been no political interference in the sackings, that the White House had not been involved and that the attorneys were all sacked because of below-par performance.

Alberto Gonzales might be a great example of the American dream come true, but for George Bush, he is becoming a political nightmare.