[tag]Attorney General[/tag] [tag]Alberto Gonzales[/tag] has been furiously working behind the scenes to shore up enough support to keep his job, but he hasn’t answered reporters’ questions since a press conference two weeks ago in which he claimed to be out of the loop. Yesterday, Gonzales endured an [tag]interview[/tag], this time with NBC’s Pete Williams.
If this was an effort to set the record straight and stop the political bleeding, Gonzales might as well have not bothered. The AG couldn’t figure out how to clear one simple hurdle: explaining how he knows for certain that he fired these U.S. Attorneys for proper reasons and, at the same time, does not know for certain why these U.S. Attorneys were fired.
Gonzales: I depended on the people who knew about how those United States attorneys — were performing — people within the department — who — who would have personal knowledge of — about these individuals, who would have, based upon their experience, would know what — what would be the appropriate standards that a United States attorney should be asked to — to achieve.
Williams: Given that, then how can you be certain that none of these U.S. attorneys were put on that list for improper reasons?
Gonzales: What I can say is this: I know the reasons why I asked you — these United States attorneys to leave. And it — it was not for improper reasons. It was not to interfere with the public corruption case. It was not for partisan reasons.
Don’t blame Gonzales, he just works there.
Gonzales recently wrote a USA Today op-ed in which he insisted these prosecutors had “lost [his] confidence.” Common sense dictates that the Attorney General didn’t have confidence in these U.S. Attorneys he fired because he knew something about them. Not so, Gonzales said last night; he relied on others to tell him which prosecutors needed to be fired in an unprecedented mid-term purge, and he just signed the paperwork.
This is apparently supposed to increase confidence in the Attorney General’s strength as the nation’s chief law enforcement officer.
NBC’s Pete Williams kept pushing for an explanation, but Gonzales was stuck.
Williams: To put this question another way — if you didn’t review their performance during this process, then how can you be certain that they were fired for performance reasons?
Gonzales: I — I’ve given — I’ve given the answer to the question, Pete. I know — I know the reasons why I made the decision. Again, there’s nothing in the documents to support the allegation that there was anything improper here. And there is an internal — department review to answer that question, to reassure the — the American people that there was nothing improper that happened here.
Therein lies a hint of a shift in the explanation. Gonzales knows why he signed off on these firings; someone stuck a piece of paper in front of him. But he doesn’t know why others picked those prosecutors for dismissal.
Gonzales: If I find out that, in fact, any of these decisions were motivated, the recommendations to me were motivated for improper reasons to interfere with the public corruption case, there will be swift and — there will be swift and decisive action. I can assure you that.
Williams: Meaning people would be fired?
Gonzales: Absolutely. Because there is no place for that. Our prosecutors have to — there has to be no question about the integrity, the professionalism, undue influence of prosecutions in connection with public corruption kind — kinds of cases. And if I find out that any of that occurred here involving the Department of Justice officials, yes, they will be removed.
Indeed, Gonzales was raising the specter of all kinds of new revelations. Maybe the prosecutors were fired for improper reasons (though he was ignorant the whole time). Maybe he was involved in discussions (which he doesn’t remember). Maybe the president did lean on him about three different U.S. Attorneys (though he initially said it was just one).
Michael Froomkin asks, “Leaving aside the rather dubious credibility of the claim that Gonzales is this clueless and dumb, can we afford an AG whose defense against charges of unethical and probably criminal activity is … blithering ignorance?”
Remember, that’s not an attack on Gonzales, that’s Gonzales’ defense, intended to reassure the nation about his qualifications to head the Justice Department.