More on a non-scandal
Paul Mirengoff
The Washington Post continues to give front-page coverage to what (so far as appears now) is a very slim story -- the firing of eight U.S. Attorneys, which I discussed here. According to a memo from Attorney General Gonzales' aide, the goal was to remove "weak U.S. Attorneys who have been ineffectual managers and prosecutors, chafed against Administration initiatives, etc." The Post points to no evidence (and I've seen none) that any of the "gang of eight" didn't have either performance-related problems or issues relating to failure to pursue administration initiatives. The Post points to no evidence (and I've seen none) that the initiatives in question were illegitimate. They appear to consist of prosecuting voter fraud or prosecuting crimes associated with ilegal immigration. Surely, any administration has the right to remove its appointed prosecutors (who serve at the president's pleasure) if they aren't aggressive in pursuing types of criminal activity the president considers significant.
In the absence of any real scandal, the Post finds itself talking about how a White House aide used an e-mail account registered to the RNC to communicate about the appointment of a new U.S. attorney in Little Rock. Hold the presses! The Post also notes that Gonzales had a high enough regard for the fired New Mexico U.S. Attorney, a strong performer who apparently lost his job because (allegedly) he wasn't strong enough on voter fraud crime, that he was willing to serve as a job reference. One can only imagine the Post's outrage if Gonzales had been so "vindictive" as to refuse to serve as a reference. ...
Why I don’t care about the AG/prosecutor firings (yet)
Bryan Preston
We’ve gotten an email or two asking why we haven’t covered the AG/prosecutor fracas, or demanding that we cover it THIS INSTANT or we’re a bunch of Bushbots. People sending emails in the latter category obviously don’t read this site very closely. We criticize the Bush administration all the time, and I’m about to criticize it again. So pay attention, “idiot liberals.”
At its most basic level, the firing of 8 of 93 federal prosecutors just isn’t that big of a deal. For a little perspective on just how big of a deal the AG’s action isn’t, I’ll refer you to Clinton-era AG Janet Reno. She fired all the federal prosecutors in 1993. All of them. And then replaced them all with prosecutors of the Clinton administration’s choice. This was the same AG that botched the raid on Waco and did her level best to cover for Bill Clinton for 8 long, scandal-plagued years–years that the liberals now excoriating Gonzales spent justifying whatever Reno and Clinton did, no matter how petty or obviously wrong it was. The liberals in high dudgeon today simply have no credibility with me, based on their own history with Janet Reno.
Furthermore, their tendency to cry “Scandal!” the way the boy once cried “Wolf!” has left me skeptical of everything they say. So I don’t follow their leads into any scandalmongering anymore. They’re just headhunters constantly on the war path, always out to take down adminstration figures in whatever way becomes available. It’s all a proxy attack on Bush, their ultimate bete noir. These liberals have no credibility, only outrage, and they’re always trying to ramp up their outrage at the latest alleged Bushreich brutality just a little bit more than the outrage they generated in response to the last alleged Bushreich brutality. My response: Yawn. ...
As for Gonzales, he lost me on Sandy Berger. He should go for that case alone, in my opinion. This AG’s approach has been, in general, a lawless one. He trades more on his biography than his abilities. That’s unacceptable. So I’m not one to go to the mat to defend him, and I can’t say that I care enough about this “scandal” to follow all or indeed really any of the left’s various takes on it. I don’t believe the liberals or the press, I’m not a fan of Gonzales, and I’m not about to wade into the breech in defense of this administration again. A pox on all of them.
The Trap That Gonzales Fell Into
Ed Morrissey
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has fallen into a tough spot, either through his ignorance or by his own machinations. Gonzales testified to Congress that the White House had no involvement in the firings of eight US Attorneys, but a series of memos and e-mails show that his aide planned the terminations with senior White House staff:
Emails between White House aides and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales's chief of staff show an orchestrated effort to fire several U.S. attorneys, counter to Mr. Gonzales's previous assertions that the firings weren't instigated by the White House.
The emails released yesterday appear to conflict with statements Mr. Gonzales and other top Justice Department officials made to members of Congress in testimony and letters explaining the prosecutor dismissals. Some lawmakers and former Justice Department officials say Mr. Gonzales, a longtime friend of President Bush who previously served as White House counsel, seems to be acting more as presidential counselor than the nation's top law-enforcement officer.
One of two things must be true: either Gonzales knew of the coordination between Harriet Miers and and his aide Kyle Sampson, or he knew nothing. If the former is true, then he deliberately misled Congress. If the latter is true, then Gonzales has serious issues in management skills, and the White House must know it -- because Miers then deliberately bypassed Gonzales. ...
