The cover-up vs. the crime

March 15, 2007

I’ve never been altogether sold on the Watergate-era argument about the cover-up being worse than the crime — most of the time, the crime itself seems pretty bad — but it does speak to a certain political reality: screwing up seems easier to forgive than lying about screwing up.

With this in mind, the WaPo notes on the front page today that while several key questions linger about why eight U.S. Attorneys were purged and who was involved, the Bush administration’s first goal will be to explain all the inconsistencies in officials’ explanations for the firings.

In testimony on Jan. 18, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales assured the Senate Judiciary Committee that the Justice Department had no intention of avoiding Senate input on the hiring of U.S. attorneys.

Just a month earlier, D. Kyle Sampson, who was then Gonzales’s chief of staff, laid out a plan to do just that. In an e-mail, he detailed a strategy for evading Arkansas Democrats in installing Tim Griffin, a former GOP operative and protege of presidential adviser Karl Rove, as the U.S. attorney in Little Rock.

“We should gum this to death,” Sampson wrote to a White House aide on Dec. 19. “[A]sk the senators to give Tim a chance . . . then we can tell them we’ll look for other candidates, ask them for recommendations, evaluate the recommendations, interview their candidates, and otherwise run out the clock. All of this should be done in ‘good faith,’ of course.”

The conflict between documents released this week and previous administration statements is quickly becoming the central issue for lawmakers who are angry about the way Gonzales and his aides handled the coordinated firings of eight U.S. attorneys last year.

It’s surprisingly straightforward. As Josh Marshall put it, “Simply put, they lied to Congress…. [B]y common sense standards it’s clear that neither man testified truthfully when they answered senators’ questions earlier this year. Even the emails now public make that clear. That visible deceit in covering up an emerging scandal will be too much for them to stay in office.”

It’s exactly why calls for the Attorney General’s resignation continue are becoming increasingly common.

Yesterday, a Republican senator joined the list.

“If I were the president, I would fire the attorney general,” Sen. John Sununu, R-N.H., told USA TODAY. […]

Sununu, who helped Democrats filibuster reauthorization of the USA Patriot Act until the Justice Department agreed to civil liberties protections, said his faith in the department’s assurances had been “misplaced.” […]

Sununu is one of a handful of Republicans facing potentially difficult re-election bids in Democratic-leaning states next year. His action might lead others “to be much more vocal with their dissatisfaction,” said former congressman Bob Barr, a conservative Republican who has charged the department with violating civil liberties. “I’d say Gonzales’ chances of survival are less than 50-50.”

Moreover, Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee met privately on Tuesday, and according to the NYT, “no one spoke up in support of Mr. Gonzales.”

So, any guesses on who Bush will tap to replace him? Before anyone says “Rick Santorum,” keep in mind, Dems on the Senate Judiciary Committee will have the votes to reject unacceptable nominees — and they won’t be in a forgiving mood.

James Baker?

  • ‘Sununu, who helped Democrats filibuster reauthorization of the USA Patriot Act until the Justice Department agreed to civil liberties protections, said his faith in the department’s assurances had been “misplaced.” […]’

    well, maybe next time you’ll listen to your constituents and smarten up, moron.

  • So, any guesses on who Bush will tap to replace him?

    My guess is that the White House is looking through the resumes of Bush Pioneers and their progenies as we speak.

  • What about the provision in the Patriot Act which allowed them to hire without Senate approval? What happens to the representatives who were complacent in trying to use the USAs offices for political means like Wilson , Hastings and Domenici?
    Let’s not forget Rove and Miers who were just as willing to politicize the DOJ. Do we just say ha, nice try but no? Do we reexamine Gonzales do nothing role in allowing state of Texas HUD secretary to publicly award contracts to GOP people but not Democrats? Hell, the worms are out of the can and crawling all through the DOJ.

  • Can Bush make a recess appointment of Atty General?

    The Dems should slap a contempt of congress on Gonzo and start impeachment hearings before he gets a chance to resign. And even if he does resign, follow through with the contempt charges. It is time for the Dems to play serious hardball.

  • The latest right-wing talking point is that “there was no crime, just the cover-up.”

    But there was a crime. All we have to do is prove that at least one out of the eight firings was done specifically to impede an ongoing investigation. That would be one count of obtruction of justice.

  • This is all a bit of a smokescreen.

    The focus should be on the firing of Southern California US Attorney Lam. Had she been able to continue with her prosecutions she would have taken down Jerry Lewis, former chair of the House Appropriations Committee, and also exposed a serious contracting scandal involving the CIA and Pentagon, big contributors to the GOP, etc. In the process this would have probably taken down GOP reps in VA and FL, both states the aspiring permanent majoritarians count on very heavily. (Talking Points Memo has been a valuable source of information on this particular web of corruption.)

    One of Sampson’s e-mails mentioned the Lam “problem.” I bet the Bushies are VERY happy attention is elsewhere!

  • Oh and on the issue of why impeachment over criminal prosecution?

    From the WaPo: “As Eggen correctly notes, prosecutions for lying to Congress are uncommon. And the standards of proof might well be too great to sustain one.”

    If Bush does not remove gonzales, or if Gonzales does not step down, the only really viable and realistic alternative is impeachment.

  • Sometimes the cover-up may be worse than the crime, but in this case, spending too much time and ink on the cover-up is a distraction.

    The larger issue is, by far, the perversion of the judicial system — manipulation, if you’d prefer — to accomplish political ends. Next in importance is the abuse of a stealth clause in what was touted as a vital national security bill for political ends.

    The cover-up is important only in that it indicates they knew they were doing something untoward. This line that “mistakes were made” is wrong on all levels.

  • Also, I don’t see undermining the judicial system and then lying about it as two separate acts. To me it’s one big fat cancer on our goverment that can only be cured by the ‘personnel matter’ known as impeachment.

  • “We should gum this to death,” Sampson wrote to a White House aide on Dec. 19. “[A]sk the senators to give Tim a chance . . . then we can tell them we’ll look for other candidates, ask them for recommendations, evaluate the recommendations, interview their candidates, and otherwise run out the clock. All of this should be done in ‘good faith,’ of course.”

    And this is the word of a leading graduate of Brigham Young University Law School.

    Don’t know how many noticed the pictures of Rove and Sampson over at TPM the other day, but given Rove grew up in Utah, and was 21 when Sampson was apparently conceived….

    Are we looking at father and son in more than the metaphorical sense???

  • Maybe Bush will re-appoint Ashcroft; he’s starting to look better and better all the time. At least he balked at warrant-less wiretapping, and had the class to recuse himself from the CIA leak probe. Integrity? Perhaps, or maybe he just didn’t want to go to jail.

  • “[A]sk the senators to give Tim a chance . . . then we can tell them we’ll look for other candidates, ask them for recommendations, evaluate the recommendations, interview their candidates, and otherwise run out the clock. All of this should be done in ‘good faith,’ of course.”

    I love this passage. Is any further proof necessary that “good faith” for the Bush administration (when it comes to practicing it as opposed to demanding it) is always an exercise in image and never substance? Sampson can’t contain himself to simple arrogance – a string of lies to Congress designed to run out the clock. He has to add the whipped cream and cherry on top by snarking about his “good faith.” These people are the very imbodiment of “too cute by half.” Maybe “half” is not enough.

    I’d love to see Bush have to “eat his vegetables” if he has to nominate a replacement for Abu Gonzo. Jim Comey for AG. Bush likes him so much he gave him one of his vaunted nick names – Cuomo.

    • Comments are closed.