Poor Baby

It's a tough employment market out there.

Alberto R. Gonzales, like many others recently unemployed, has discovered how difficult it can be to find a new job. Mr. Gonzales, the former attorney general, who was forced to resign last year, has been unable to interest law firms in adding his name to their roster, Washington lawyers and his associates said in recent interviews.

He has, through friends, put out inquiries, they said, and has not found any takers. What makes Mr. Gonzales’s case extraordinary is that former attorneys general, the government’s chief lawyer, are typically highly sought.

[...]

He has had no full-time job since his resignation, and his principal income has come from giving a handful of talks at colleges and before private business groups.

[...]

His first speech at the University of Florida last November was interrupted by protesters dressed as detainees.

[...]

The greatest impediment to Mr. Gonzales’s being offered the kind of high-salary job being snagged these days by lesser Justice Department officials, many lawyers agree, is his performance during his last few months in office. In that period, he was openly criticized by lawmakers for being untruthful in his sworn testimony. His conduct is being investigated by the Office of the Inspector General of the Justice Department.

  NYTimes

I feel so badly for him.

Justice

”Longstanding principles of law hold that an American corporation is entitled to rely on assurances of legality from officials responsible for government activities. The public officials in question might be right or wrong about the advisability or legality of what they are doing, but it is their responsibility, not the company’s, to deal with the consequences if they are wrong.”

  NY Times

That’s from John Ashcroft. So, I am sure that when in the final course of determining that waterboarding is indeed torture by legal definition, Misters Ashcroft, Gonzales and Mukasey (et al.), being the responsible parties who told CIA agents and soldiers that waterboarding is legal, will be dealt with accordingly. Right?

Small problem: [Ashcroft is] wrong on the law. Companies that deal with the government in fact are not entitled to rely on promises made by government officials, and it is common for companies to lose major legal cases despite the fact that they relied on what they believed to be valid advice from government officials.

What Ashcroft wrote probably sounds like a reasonable rule to the average person: it’s not fair for a company to be penalized for doing something the government told it to do. The real rule, at least as reasonable as Ashcroft’s, is exactly the opposite.

[...]

A mistaken or corrupt government official does not have the power to make an illegal act legal.

[...]

[It] is very common for the citizen who relies on an erroneous representation by a government official to get to get the shaft, high and hard.

  Bad Attitudes

D’oh! Oh, yeah, John…I think it’s something like: “ignorance of the law is no defense.” And therefore, jail time all round – torturers and toture pushers alike.

[A]ctions aren’t made lawful by the president’s saying they are lawful; actions are lawful if they are within the law.

Somebody should tell George.

One corollary to this legal rule: anyone who is shafted by relying on the mistaken legal interpretation of a government official usually cannot sue the government for relief because the sovereign is immune from suit, but such an injured citizen may have a legal recourse: a suit against the personal assets of the government official who made the mistake.

And by the way, this not only applies to the waterboarding question, it applies as well to the telecom immunity B.S.

We need to change that sovereign immunity rule.

....but hey, do what you want....you will anyway.

Surprise! We Can Still Torture

It turns out the DoJ has some secret legal opinions on torture from 2005 and 2006. A House Panel has demanded the documents be turned over. Because Congress has been so very successful in the past in getting material from the administration. They can’t even get them to turn over subpoenaed material.

[S]oon after Alberto R. Gonzales’s arrival as attorney general in February 2005, the Justice Department issued [a secret opinion on torture,] according to officials briefed on it, an expansive endorsement of the harshest interrogation techniques ever used by the Central Intelligence Agency.

The new opinion, the officials said, for the first time provided explicit authorization to barrage terror suspects with a combination of painful physical and psychological tactics

[...]

Mr. Gonzales approved the legal memorandum on “combined effects” over the objections of James B. Comey, the deputy attorney general, who was leaving his job after bruising clashes with the White House. Disagreeing with what he viewed as the opinion’s overreaching legal reasoning, Mr. Comey told colleagues at the department that they would all be “ashamed” when the world eventually learned of it.

  NYT

Of course he was giving them credit for having shame.

Comey strongly objected and told associates that he advised Mr. Gonzales not to endorse the [torture] opinion. But the attorney general made clear that the White House was adamant about it, and that he would do nothing to resist.

Under Mr. Ashcroft, Mr. Comey’s opposition might have killed the opinion. An imposing former prosecutor and self-described conservative who stands 6-foot-8, he was the rare administration official who was willing to confront [Dick Cheney's counsel David] Addington. At one testy 2004 White House meeting, when Mr. Comey stated that “no lawyer” would endorse Mr. Yoo’s justification for the N.S.A. program, Mr. Addington demurred, saying he was a lawyer and found it convincing. Mr. Comey shot back: “No good lawyer,” according to someone present.

[...]

[I]n July, after a monthlong debate inside the administration, President Bush signed a new executive order authorizing the use of what the administration calls “enhanced” interrogation techniques — the details remain secret — and officials say the C.I.A. again is holding prisoners in “black sites” overseas.

And now I know how Patrick Fitzgerald got to be the special prosecutor in the Plame case: James Comey appointed him, further pissing off the Bush cabal, or, as the NY Times article puts it, “irreparably offending” the White House.

They were offended that a “good lawyer” might get involved.

....but, hey....do what you want, you will anyway.

Free to Make Ridiculous Money

Alas, poor Gonzo, we knew him too well.

On his final day, Mr. Gonzales told a crowd at Bolling Air Force Base in Washington that, since his AG tenure commenced 30 months ago, "I have seen tyranny, dishonesty, corruption and depravity of types I never thought possible."

That has got to be the best straight line ever offered up for a comedy duo in politics. You wanna be the one to add the punch?

Last month, when Attorney General Alberto Gonzales announced he would resign effective Friday, The New York Times editorialized that the President Bush acolyte "has finally done something important to advance the cause of justice. He has resigned."

And that's the lead paragraph in the article which has a title that captured my fancy (which is why I chose Wired for my Gonzo retires post source): Amen: Mr. Gonzales Departs; He was 52

Requiem for a Bottom Feeder

Since Fredo gave such a short speech notifying the country of his resignation and neither took questions from reporters nor claimed he needed to spend more time with his family, it has been noted in many reports that there was no reason given for his departure or for the timing of his leaving.

Maru cleverly suggests that he simply can't recall.

David Brooks of the NY Times gave a less witty, but logical suggestion tonight on the PBS news. He said it was a matter of waiting until the calls for him to leave had died down so they could pretend it was his decision to go.

NPR reported that Mr. Brooks also lamented that under Gonzo's leadership, the Department of Justice, which should be able to draw on its prestige to recruit people for work there, had been "notably unsuccessful" at getting top attorneys. I'd say they'd been notably unconcerned about getting top attorneys. After all, they hired 150 graduates of Regent University. Come to think of it, it seems less like unconcern than a full out drive to hire attorneys for reasons other than their brains.

NPR also reported that two weeks ago Gonzo, talking to a group of young attorneys about the pride of working in the public service, answered the question of how they were to pay off big school loans by saying they didn't need to stay in public service; they could just put in two years and then go to work in the private sector and earn lots of money. In fact, he said, that's just what he was going to do.

And David Iglesias said that when Gonzo talked to a group of U.S. attorneys, he told them they worked for George Bush. Unfortunately, Iglesias was under the impression that they worked for the people of the United States, which I guess is essentially why he got canned.

Steve Benen sums up Gonzo's record.

On warrantless-searches, the Military Commissions Act, policy on detainees at Guantanamo Bay, and the Geneva Conventions, Gonzales was a disaster. On actual law enforcement, crime rates went up under Gonzales’ watch. On managing the Justice Department, he filled his staff with Pat Robertson acolytes, feigned ignorance while structural disasters unfolded, and showed shocking tolerance for corruption and politicization of a department that, for the benefit of the nation and the rule of law, needed to maintain independence.

Gone Fishin'

Some reactions (courtesy the AP) to Fredo's resignation. Apparently, the effective date of his resignation is September 17. That will get him through the "Petraeus" report scheduled for September 11. What else?

....but hey, do what you want....you will anyway.

STOP THE PRESSES!

The NYT is reporting that Alberto Fredo Gonzales turned in his resignation on Friday.

"The unfair treatment that he's been on the receiving end of has been a distraction for the department."

So unfair. Incompetent liars whose job it is to protect the illegal activities of their boss want fairness, too.

Mueller's Notes

FBI Director Robert Mueller took notes on the night that Andrew Card and Alberto Gonzales tried to pressure a very sick John Ashcroft into signing off on the warrantless wiretaps. John Conyers is now asking for an unredacted version of those notes which include the information that one of the reasons John Ashcroft refused to sign anything was that he wasn't allowed to see all the pertinent information about the program! TPM Muckraker has details.

Expanded AG Powers

Whatever It Is, I'm Against It and TPM Muckraker discuss the rule granting power to the US Attorney General (Fredo Gonzo Gonzales in this case) to decide whether a death penalty case is adequately defended.

The LAT finds another unnoticed provision of the renewal of the Patriot Act: the authority to decide whether prisoners in death-penalty cases received adequate counsel is no longer held by federal judges, but by Alberto Gonzales, who in his own person epitomizes the words inadequate counsel.

  W3IAI

During Gonzales' hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee last month, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) grilled him about the [Rios Rico murder] case. Was it true that he'd only spent 5-10 minutes examining the case? Did he really think that was a "significant amount of time" on such a weighty issue?

Gonzales, characteristically, couldn't remember the case or anything about it:

[YouTube video]

"Well, Mr. Attorney General, I'm not totally unfamiliar with this sort of thing," Specter concluded. "When I was district attorney of Philadelphia, I had 500 homicides a year. I didn't allow any assistant to ask for the death penalty that I hadn't personally approved. And when I asked for the death penalty, I remembered the case."

  TPM Muckraker

You may well have done, Senator Specter, but, Senator Specter, you're no Alberto Gonzoles.

Besides, he doesn't have to remember anything. Except that he'll decide whatever he's told to decide.

Of course what we're really talking about here is the fact that those fools who voted to expand the Patriot Act hadn't even read it.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Justice

It's nice to see that the DoJ is still pursuing the matter of who let the cat out of the bag about the WH's illegal wiretapping program.

The home of a former Justice Department lawyer was searched last week to try to determine who leaked details of a warrantless eavesdropping program to reporters, Newsweek magazine reported Sunday.

The agents, who had obtained a classified search warrant, took Thomas Tamm’s desktop computer, two laptops belonging to his children and some of Tamm’s personal files [...]

  Kansas City.com

Newsweek (August 13 issue) quoted Gonzo as saying, "This is really hurting national security; this has really hurt our country." Much more than the outing of a covert CIA agent investigating WMDs, apparently, since the DoJ isn't too keen on finding that leaker.

....but hey, do what you want....you will anyway.

If His Lips Are Moving, He's Lying

Gonzo is nothing if not consistent in his willingness to lie under oath. He recently said DoJ officials did not attend any of the GOP political speeches given by Karl Rove, et al, in violation of the Hatch Act. But newly released documents say they attended "at least a dozen" such meetings.

Of course, true to this administration's weasel form under questioning, what he actually said was that he wasn't aware of it; he didn't believe so.

Will Fredo Go Fishing?

Congressman Jay Inslee is instigating impeachment proceedings against Gonzo.

Was it really Cheney who sent Gonzo and Andrew Card to Ashcroft's hospital bedside? As I posted earlier, I assumed he was simply admitting that he did when he answered Larry King's question by saying he couldn't remember if it was him. Well, of course that's utter bullshit. That's not something one would forget.

But, there's this article from Dan Froomkin asking another question...Why on earth would Cheney be sending two of the president's staff (Gonzo was counsel a the time) anywhere? They don't work for the V.P. They work for the president.

I think that's a good question. And the answer must be that either Dick really is running things, and even the president's staff answers to Dick, or Dick is covering for Bush by leading people to think that maybe he (Dick) did send them, because if he denies it, that leaves only Bush to have sent them. Which is more likely? I think the first, and I think that Dick probably tells Bush what he's going to do without having to worry that Bush will disagree with whatever he says. I could be wrong. But the relationship really strikes me as one of the evil vizier and the easily-led king who's not quite smart enough and too self-absorbed to mind what's being done around him.

....but hey, do what you want....you will anyway.

Shameless

Last week, Gonzales told a House panel that the visit to Ashcroft's bedside did not deal with the "Terrorist Surveillance Program," which involved warrantless wiretaps of people suspected of terrorist activities.

[...]

President Bush's spy chief seemed to offer a new explanation Tuesday of why Attorney General Alberto Gonzales didn't lie to Congress when he denied an administration dispute in 2004 was about the "Terrorist Surveillance Program."

"I understand that the phrase 'Terrorist Surveillance Program' was not used prior to 2006," Mike McConnell, the director of national intelligence, said in a letter to Pennsylvania Republican Sen. Arlen Specter.

  USA Today

Department of Justice my ass.

When a senate hearing becomes a game of words and they actually attempt to justify a trick like this, and we're supposed to say, "Guess you got me there," what's left to work with? They have no rules. They have no shame.

The FBI responds.

What's the Fuss?

Stop reading if you do not understand this:

The following information are not statements of fact, but are allegations based on the above theory. We continue with the presumption that the information is not allegations of illegal activity directed at any specific individual with Sidley Austin, nor are they conclusions of law about the conduct of Ralston.

I have to admit that I had stopped reading well before that, and just started skimming, because I stopped understanding somewhere in the first or second paragraph.

But, in case you are willing and able, Cannonfire has pulled out somebody's anonymous comments on Josh Marshall's blog about what might really be behind the administration's refusal to comply with subpoenas and claims of executive privilege. Joe's summary is that this involves data mining by the administration through the warrantless wiretaps, not for information about terrorist suspects, but about political adversaries in an election year.

As Good As An Admission

Oh ho! Dick Cheney tells Larry King he doesn't recall if he sent Gonzales and Card to Ashcroft's bedside. No, no, folks. There may be a lot of things Mr. Cheney really doesn't recall, but that is not something one would forget. Even Larry King called him on it.

Of course, what will anyone do about it? I think we know.

Sputter.

....but hey, do what you want....you will anyway.

"Oh Behalf of the President"

If you watched any of the Gonzales testimony recently, you know that he wouldn't answer the question, "Who sent you to see John Ashcroft in the hospital?" He just kept repeating that he went "on behalf of the president," with that little smirk he's practiced from watching his sweetie George W.

Is the answer to the question Dick Cheney?

Mueller Backs Comey

FBI Director Robert Mueller testified today that then acting Attorney General James Comey's story about the night raid on John Ashcroft's hospital room by current AG Alberto Gonzales was true. (Surely there's nobody reading this that needs me to reference that incident yet another time.) He said he took notes.

Take Fredo Fishing?

Conservative blogger Pejman Yousefzadeh (supply your own comments) says "It's time to take Fredo out fishing." If you haven't seen the Godfather movies (or read the book), this won't make a lot of sense. But since Bush nicknamed Alberto Gonzales Fredo (for those of you who have seen the movies - how's that for apt?), we get to go into referential mode here.

No, Alberto Gonzales should not be offed. Let me repeat that: No one should kill, wound, or even try to temporarily inconvenience the life functions of the current Attorney General of the United States. But the man President Bush calls "Fredo"--was a Presidential nickname ever more apt?--should at long last be invited to spend more time with his family. Much more time. He should be a Soccer Dad, a Harry Potter Dad, a Couch Potato, Sleeping Late In The Morning The Better To Avoid Any Senate Judiciary Committee Hearings He Might Accidentally Stumble Into Dad, a Dad who doesn't leave the Gonzales family compound for any reason whatsoever without legions upon legions of intelligent adults accompanying him in a supervisory capacity.

[...]

[A]ny confirmation hearings for a new nominee for the position of Attorney General will simply turn into one big, giant Bush-bashing session. Naturally, the Bush Administration does not want that and so, Alberto Gonzales stays safe in his job.

Or to put it another way: Mamma is still alive and no one's goin' after Fredo yet.

So I have a solution for the Bush Administration: Take Fredo fishing (again, this is just a euphemism!) and then declare that the Deputy Attorney General is the Acting Attorney General. Then nominate no one. My RedState colleague, the Dark Lord Krempasky informs me via e-mail that the Acting Attorney General can run things for 210 days before it's time to put forth a nominee.

I wonder if Pejman is missing something more personal and perhaps a bit sinister about why Fredo is still in office.

Intriguing Lead...

At TPM

"Senate Democrats are calling for a special prosecutor to probe Alberto Gonzales...."

You know what I'm thinking....

....but hey, do what you want....you will anyway.

Oh What a Tangled Web

Gonzo has been cautioned to have a very close look at his testimony, because the Senate investigators will be doing just that.

The Senate Judiciary Committee will review Alberto Gonzales' past statements to determine whether Gonzales lied to the committee in 2006 by saying there had been no internal Justice Department dissent over the legality of the president's Terrorist Surveillance Program (otherwise known as the NSA's warrantless wiretapping program). When confronted by the senators, Gonzales today offered a surprising explanation of his consistency and veracity: he repeatedly suggested there's a different intelligence program, other than the TSP, that Justice Department officials found legally dubious in 2004.

[...]

Whatever Gonzales expected to get out of today's hearing, he left the Senate having raised two lingering and mutually exclusive questions: whether the Bush administration has pursued a second secret, internally controversial intelligence program of dubious legality; or whether the attorney general of the United States lied under oath. Gonzales looked this morning like he had beaten back his political foes. What he probably didn't expect is that this afternoon, he became his own worst enemy.

  TPM Muckraker

But I don't understand why those questions should be considered mutually exclusive. The second secret program could exist quite happily alongside Gonzo's lies, couldn't it?

Schumer pointed out that in a June press conference, Gonzales confirmed that Comey was in fact talking about the "highly classified program which the president confirmed to the American people sometime ago" -- that is, the TSP. But Gonzales said at the hearing that shortly thereafter, he contacted Washington Post reporter Dan Eggen to retract the statement -- and then he stuck to his line about there being "other intelligence activities" that were at issue in March, 2004.

Will Gonzo go down on for George? There's a commutation waiting, so I don't see why not.

....but hey, do what you want....you will anyway.