Purged U.S. Attorney: Gonzales may face charges

October 21, 2007

The news from two weeks ago…

No sooner did Alberto Gonzales resign as attorney general last month than he retained a high-powered Washington criminal-defense lawyer to represent him in continuing inquiries by Congress and the Justice Department. […]

The top concern for Gonzales, and now Terwilliger, is the expanding investigation by Glenn Fine, the Justice Department’s fiercely independent inspector general, according to three legal sources familiar with the matter who declined to speak publicly about ongoing investigations. Originally, Fine’s internal Justice probe — conducted in conjunction with lawyers from the department’s Office of Professional Responsibility — focused on the mass dismissal of U.S. attorneys late last year. The investigation has since broadened to include, among other matters, charges that Gonzales lied to Congress about the Bush administration’s warrantless surveillance program and the circumstances surrounding his late-night March 10, 2004, visit to the hospital room of then attorney general John Ashcroft.

…looks even more provocative in light of the news this week:

The U.S. Inspector General may recommend criminal prosecution of departed Attorney General Alberto Gonzales at the conclusion of an investigation, possibly as early as next month, [John McKay] the fired former U.S. attorney for Western Washington told a Spokane audience Friday. […]

McKay said he was summoned to Washington, D.C., in June and questioned for eight hours about possible reasons for his firing by investigators with the Office of Inspector General, who will forward their final report to Congress.

“My best guess is it will be released sometime next month,” and likely will include recommendations for criminal prosecutions of Gonzales and maybe others, McKay said.

If McKay was guarded before, he isn’t any longer.

Gonzales “lied about” reasons for the firings when questioned under oath in July by the Senate Judiciary Committee and now has hired a lawyer and is refusing to answer questions from the Inspector General, McKay said.

The White House said McKay was fired for poor performance ratings of his office, but the ex-U.S. attorney said he and his office got exemplary reviews just three months before he was fired.

“The chief law enforcement officer for the United States should not lie under oath,” McKay told the bar association.

McKay added, “There was a conspiracy to politicize the Justice Department, and they did not get away with it.”

Stay tuned.

McKay added, “There was a conspiracy to politicize the Justice Department, and they did not get away with it.”

Au contraire; they *did*. So far, anyway. Abou is Stonewalling in the best Jacksonian tradition, the Office of Inspector general might (or might not, as the case may be) recommend (but not mandate) criminal prosecution. Which recommendation, even if followed, is as likely as not to result in a “nothing wrong there” verdict, somewhere in 2027. And rightly so; the Senate is so used to swallowing, meekly, all the BS rethugs can feed it…. surely, a few more lies won’t make any difference. Certainly, not a difference to be actually *acted on*.

  • Wait a minute! what was that? I was driving my bus, just minding my own business, and I felt a big “thump” underneath.

    Hey—who threw a Gonzo under my bus?

    Another crack in the neocon dam….

  • How can Gonzales avoid criminal charges?

    Even if the Bush Justice Department doesn’t press charges the new administration probably will.

    How is this for a conspiracy theory?

    What are the odds that PRESIDENT Cheney will pardon former President Bush?

  • The shade of John Newton Mitchell, Nixon’s Attorney General and the first AG ever to be convicted of illegal activities (Conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and perjury.) and imprisoned, can now rest easy.

    Thank you, George W. Bush, for lowering the bar for us all.

  • Can the Boy King issue prospective pardons for Gonzo, Rove, etc.?

    Does there need to be an indictment or conviction for a pardon? If not, and things carry over for the next administration, there may not be anyone to keep them out of jail.

  • Can the Boy King issue prospective pardons for Gonzo, Rove, etc.?

    I would imagine that the administration is hiring some real lawyers (No Regent University grads need apply) to determine whom they can pardon and when. I would guess that Bush’s blanket pardons for himself and Cheney are already in a man-sized safe.

  • McKay should know this comes as no surprise. Gonzo got another USA appointed while the repeal of the patriot act provision allowing appointment without senate approval lay on Bush’s desk waiting to be signed., even after promising he would not do that again.
    How did they not get away with politicizing the DoJ? They got rid of most of the carreer attorneys unwilling to play along, got Bushies hired on, got cronies judicial appointments, halted investigations against republicans, got prosecutions against dems, suppressed minority voters (caging), got illegal wiretapping and torture passed and covered up WH emails and the release of WH documents showing administration’s corruption. At the end of it all McKay says because the IG of the DoJ ‘may’ bring criminal charges against Gonzales that they failed to succeed?

    At best all you can say at this point is that perhaps…maybe Gonzo may be held accountable for his criminal actions…But what about Rove, Miers, Cheney, Bush, Addington…the list goes on and on? At the end of his administration (because Pelosi is such a coward we have to wait till he’s out of office), the best Justice would be that Bush and Cheney be led off in handcuffs before they can shred all of the evidence.

  • #4:

    Let’s hope this doesn’t come to trial before Bush has to give up his pardoning pen.

    Ditto: Au contraire…
    Or should I say: anti-touche.

    The C- Emperor’s wits are not needed on this one.
    Your Dems will be only too eager to throw the lasso of retroactive immunity around Abu Gonzales. If and only if… they will say… he promises to tell us the whole truth and nothing but the half truth.

    Two rules of thumb operant from here on out:

    1) Never overestimate the morality of a Democratic Congressperson.
    2) Never underestimate the lack of morality of a Republican Congressperson.

  • I’m thinking of a picture. Lucy is holding a football, ready for someone to kick it, and, let’s see, Charlie Brown comes running at it, and finally . . . what happens again?

  • Want to freak out a Republican? Ask him to tell you where the nearest open lot is to his house, so it will be easy to send the black helicopters to take him to the de-Nazification camps in 2009. I’m not kidding, they really do freak out when you say this, speaking from experience.

    It’s fun, poking Republicans with a sharp stick!

  • Pingback: Where’s the Outrage? » Alberto still in hot water

  • The only thing that amazes me is that it’s taken this long to get to this point. In appearance after appearance before the Congress, Alberto lied. One can only wonder just how bad it really is, given all the questions that were never asked, and all the ones that were answered with some form of “I don’t remember.”

    I also wonder what role Mukasey – assuming he’s confirmed – will play, or what role the administration expects him to have in this drama.

    One thing’s for sure – Alberto was a good soldier, and he will be rewarded for his loyalty; there’s no way the WH lets him sing to save himself – they’ll step in long before that and nip the process in the bud.

    • Comments are closed.