The straw that breaks Gonzales’ (and Rove’s) back?

In a week in which each passing day has revealed more damaging details, this ABC News report from late yesterday afternoon ratchets the prosecutor purge scandal up a notch — to a level that may seal Alberto Gonzales’ fate, and implicate Karl Rove in a more serious way.

New unreleased e-mails from top administration officials show that the idea of firing all 93 U.S. attorneys was raised by White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove in early January 2005, indicating Rove was more involved in the plan than the White House previously acknowledged. The e-mails also show how Alberto Gonzales discussed the idea of firing the attorneys en masse while he was still White House counsel — weeks before he was confirmed as attorney general.

The e-mails put Rove at the epicenter of the imbroglio and raise questions about Gonzales’ explanations of the matter.

Paul Kiel has published the specific email that shows that the purge idea originated with Karl Rove. The subject line read, “Re: Question from Karl Rove,” and features an exchange between Kyle Sampson, who was then at the Justice Department, discusses with then-deputy White House Counsel David Leitch the idea of replacing “15-20 percent of the current U.S. Attorneys,” because “80-85 percent, I would guess, are doing a great job, are loyal Bushies, etc.”

“[I]f Karl thinks there would be political will to do it, then so do I,” Sampson concludes.

Sampson’s email was in response to Leitch’s relaying of Rove’s query about how the administration would handle the U.S. Attorneys. As paraphrased by Colin Newman, a legal aide in the White House counsel’s office, Rove asked “how we planned to proceed regarding US Attorneys, whether we were going to allow all to stay, request resignations from all and accept only some of them, or selectively replace them, etc.”

These new revelations appear to contradict a long list of recent claims from Gonzales and others. Gonzales said he “immediately rejected” the idea of a massive purge, but this shows otherwise. The White House argued that Rove wasn’t involved with the purge at all, but this shows otherwise. The Bush gang said the idea originated with Harriet Miers, but this shows otherwise. Gonzales said he was not aware of the purge effort launched by his deputies, but this shows otherwise.

As for the response to these reports, the Justice Department released a statement from DoJ spokesperson Tasia Scolinos:

“The Attorney General has no recollection of any plan or discussion to replace U.S. Attorneys while he was still White House Counsel. The period of time referred to in the email was during the weeks he was preparing for his confirmation hearing, January 6th, 2005, and his focus was on that. Of course, discussions of changes in Presidential appointees would have been appropriate and normal White House exchanges in the days and months after the election as the White House was considering different personnel changes Administration wide.”

First, if the man who was about to become Attorney General, and who’d been serving as White House counsel, talked with staffers about firing U.S. Attorneys en masse — an event that had never occurred — isn’t that the kind of thing that might stand out in such a person’s mind?

And second, I’ve lost count of just how many times top administration officials have been left clinging to the faulty memory defense lately. They sure are a forgetful bunch.

And we saw how well the faulty memory defense worked for Scooter.

Somebody pass me the popcorn.

  • Re: firing en masse–I bet the real idea was to either ‘fire’ them all and have them all resubmit applications for their positions, or ask all of them to submit resignation requests, with the idea that the “loyal Bushies” would clearly be quickly reappointed en masse (or their letters of resignation rejected en masse) leaving the balance (the few they wanted to eliminate) left out in the cold. The ‘en masse’ part of this is clearly a red herring or more likely a smokescreen attemt to hide the real intent behind what Rove wanted to do.

    Question: If Rove were to step down (doubt if he does), and Congress subpoenas him to testify, is he/the sadministration still able to claim executive privilege? My guess is yes (although, based on the reach of the emails–and no doubt the related converstations–I wonder if the administration lost the use of that privilege due to the number of conversations outside of the executive branch).

  • Congress doesn’t have enough hours in the day now to investigate all the s^%t that’s hitting the ceiling – (1) Gonzales-gate, (2) Sending-wounded soldiers-back-to-Iraq-gate, (3) Walter-reed-gate…

    But today, Treason-gate will have top honors… Valerie Plame testifying within the hour… (drool….)

  • The fact that this all started when a bunch of bloggers started screaming in CAPs about 8 USAs getting let go and asking pertinent questions about the validity of the firings is probably why suddenly the Competent challenged Chertoff and Joe Loserman wants to control the ‘Tubes with their ant-terra law proposal. Even though it focuses on sites like Youtube, but I think that he’s gunning after less “fun” sites to shut down the information flow.

    http://washingtontimes.com/national/20070314-110450-2830r.htm

    Yeah, I know it’s the Moonie paper, but the blowback has just begun.

  • “i don’t remember” didn’t work for the watergate crowd. i don’t think it’s going to work here, either.

  • Perhaps I’m missing something, but I keep reading that this new memo indicates that Rove “initiated” or “originated” this idea of the purge, or that Miers was not the originator. That’s not what I read. All these memos prove is that Rove was aware that replacing some number of prosecutors was being considered, that he had some questions about where the effort was going, and he was likely to have input into the matter.

    Other evidence may surface that says Rove initiated the idea, but this isn’t it.

  • the idea may not have originated with rove, but the big problem here is that these prosecutors should be chosen based on their legal ability and integrity, not on thier politics. that is trying to manipulate the criminal justice system for political purposes, and that is what is wrong with what happened. so, the very fact that rove and the white house were pulling all the strings is the reason why they should be held accountable.

  • This ought to be the straw that breaks their backs—but it probably won’t be, if for nothing else than Bu$hCo not being able to afford the potential apocalypse it these two “cannons” were suddenly cut loose from their ropes. Rove certainly knows how quickly a loyal underling can be thrown under the bus; he’s the architect of the policy. And Gonzo (which sounds a lot like “gone—so?) these days, knows too much about the inner workings of the criminal enterprise. There won’t be anything for either of these guys to move into if they’re canned—no cushy lobbyist positions; no FUX commentator jobs; not even pay-per-view mud wrestling will touch these guys now. Their only means of support will HAVE to come from the tell-all publishing deals—and that is the one thing that Bu$hCo cannot afford. I’m thinking they’ll both be kept on to the bitter end, or shipped off somewhere that’s free from prying eyes and inquiries—but prone to “accidents.”

    Or maybe they’ll both be set up for a staged terrorist attack. You just never know with Bu$hCo….

  • So, let’s recap –
    In Sadaam’s Iraq, you could only get a government job if you a member of the ruling party.
    In Bush’s America, you could only retain your job if you were a loyal “Bushie.”
    Gosh, there seems to be some similarity there, or am I mistaken?

  • They sure are a forgetful bunch.

    Untreated bourbon/cocaine addiction and obsequious fawning and mindless faith and a disdain for reality make it rather difficult to keep one’s lies straight.

  • It was Rove’s mathematical miscalculations that helped lose the Repubs the ’06 elections. Rove is well on his way to botching ’08 for them as well with his political scandalpalooza. These guys need to ditch him if they want to have any legislators left in Washington in two years. What part of political liability don’t they understand?

  • Unfortunately, it doesn’t look like Gonzales can be impeached. Wouldn’t want to set a bad precedent by impeaching White House counsel.

    Disbarment, however, is another matter … take a look at the Texas Bar’s rules for professional conduct:

    http://www.texasbar.com/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm?ContentID=13942

    By my count, he violated one rule by lying to Congress about the timing of those dismissals. Anyone in Texas–this must be acted upon.

  • Comments are closed.