Following on the previous post for a moment, there are a variety of unanswered questions about the prosecutor purge, many of which deal directly with the Justice Department.
Certainly, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who has said many times that he’s anxious to “cooperate” with Congress, would want to answer any questions lawmakers may have about the burgeoning scandal, right? Wrong.
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has indicated he is too busy to answer letters from Democratic congressional leaders about his firing seven U.S. attorneys involved in probes of public corruption, though a lower-level Justice Department official rejected their proposals.
Rep. Rahm Emanuel, House Democratic Caucus chairman, had written Gonzales two letters suggesting that he name Carol Lam, fired as U.S. attorney in San Diego, as an outside counsel to continue her pursuit of the Duke Cunningham case. Asked by Melissa Charbonneau of the Christian Broadcasting Network about this column’s report that Gonzales did not respond, Gonzales said: “I think that the American people lose if I spend all my time worrying about congressional requests for information, if I spend all my time responding to subpoenas.”
What a surprise. Alberto Gonzales finds himself in the midst of a controversy with no easy explanations, and all of a sudden, he no longer wants to provide information that could, in theory, resolve the matter. What’s more, Gonzales mentions his sudden reticence on TV preacher Pat Robertson’s “news” program.
This just won’t do.
First, Carol Lam’s firing may very well be the most controversial and potentially damaging angle to the entire prosecutor-purge scandal. If she were fired for bringing corruption charges against Duke Cunningham and his cohorts, and there’s reason to believe she was, most of the Justice Department’s senior leaders, including Gonzales, will probably have to resign. If Congress wants answers to some of this, Gonzales doesn’t have the luxury of saying, “I don’t feel like talking about this right now.”
Second, beyond Lam’s dismissal, the entire controversy surrounds Gonzales’ office. How did he decide whom to fire? With whom did he consult? Why does the Justice Department keep changing its story? Why did Gonzales’ chief deputy testify under oath that the U.S. Attorneys were fired for job performance issues and that politics was irrelevant, when both of these claims now appear false? Gonzales may think he’s too busy to deal with questions, but if subpoenas start showing up on his desk, one assumes he’ll make time.
Third, is Gonzales hinting that he won’t respond to congressional subpoenas? (Wouldn’t that be interesting.) The Attorney General certainly isn’t used to Congress acting like a co-equal branch of government with oversight responsibilities, but the sooner he realizes the GOP-led Congress is gone, the better.
And fourth, I can’t help but laugh a bit at the notion that the Attorney General believes it’s in the nation’s interest for him to blow off “congressional requests for information.” Funny, when Janet Reno was being called to the Hill to answer bizarre questions from congressional Republicans every other day for several years, she never had the luxury of saying, “Sorry, Dan Burton, I’m too busy to chat right now.”