Gonzales Showtime
Rizwan Ghani
April 16, 2007
If Sen. Leahy and his team manage to keep their focus on bigger picture to bring out right facts it will ensure that in future no one will dares to meddle in the affairs of justice dept
His article in the Washington Post is Gonzales preview to his April 17 testimony, remarked a member senate judiciary committee. On the other end thundering Sen. Leahy, chairman Sen. Judiciary Committee promised to “reach” Rove’s already deleted e-mails. Reportedly, working technicians have reported success and some of the lost e-mails have already been retrieved.
There are those who believe that e-mail issue is a decoy digression to divert attention from the main issues in Gonzales case.
And most if not all of those issues that Gonzales might face in his hearing have been summarized by Arlen Specter, member Senate Judiciary, in one of his interviews: Is Gonzales capable of running justice dept.? Is he having enough knowledge about what is going on in the justice dept.? Can he explain reasons for firing of eight attorneys? Was justice dept. right or wrong to fire these attorneys? What role he played in it?
These firings in itself raise following questions: who and how will the hanging cloud over the attorneys future be cleared? Can they be reinstated? If so will that be on case to case basis or in accordance to the statement of one of the fired attorney’s in which he said we were forced to leave as a group and we will come back as a group.
Here is another set of questions: what is the role of White House in attorneys firing? As is commonly perceived Karl Rove has much to do with firings. If yes was it legitimate? If yes, On whose behalf he micromanaged the issue and got involved in the first place?
Here is a catch. The new White House position on firings issue has changed. Unlike the past position on the issue in which White House maintained that as political appointees, attorneys work at the pleasure of the president and their dismissals were legitimate.
But now there is a new spin that is focused to delink Bush from attorney firings. Specter when asked if White House link goes up to Bush. He rejected the notion by saying that Bush didn’t micromanage firings. If this statement is taken on its face value then who fired those attorneys and on whose behalf Karl Rove was doing what he was doing in relation to the firings.
Gonzales (shifting) statements don’t support latest White House position. He has been basically telling that he has nothing to do with the firing case.
Now just before the testimony everyone in the White House is also trying to promote the impression no one had anything to do with firings. Look for the culprit in justice dept. alone.
Ironically since the start of this scandal till today despite all the efforts neither White House nor justice dept. has told America who actually fired the attorneys.
Gonzales is unaware of firing details, Rove is acting innocent, Bush doesn’t micromanage. Employees from Justice dept. itself are either resigning or invoking 5th amendment. But no one is ready to tell one simple truth. “I fired them”.
Hearing could bring another dimension to the Gonzales testimony. It is the working relations between the White House, justice dept, the expected role of AG, and the actual role of Gonzales as AG.
Gonzales testimony as I mentioned earlier in one of my articles in this space is irrelevant because the core issue is moral credibility of AG which he has lost in last few weeks mostly due to his shifting stances on the issue. That is by and large based on the assertion that he rubber stamped whatever transpired in his name in firing case.
This has raised another very serious and complex set of questions: Did Gonzales fail to uphold his oath to the country by allowing politicians call the shots in justice dept under his watch that led to firings. If yes, can he be trusted in future to protect public interest in accordance to the constitution? Similarly, Karl Rove is just an aide he cannot fire attorneys on his own. There are strong speculations over the firing of two attorneys; New Mexico and Santiago. People are joining the phone calls and e-mail dots right up to Bush.
In other words Karl Rove didn’t do anything at his own. And otherwise also aides don’t take such decisions or for that matter any decision at their own. There is a system and in this case also Rove had his orders-loud and clear. He has nothing to worry.
If true, politicians have a real challenge at their hands in which justice dept. has been forced to protect and peddle political interests of one party. It is against the law. And that is exactly what justice dept is paid to do- respect, implement and uphold the law of the land.
Sampson talked but resigned. In accordance to the spirit of law Goodling instead of invoking 5th amendment in personal interest could have testified in national interest.
Once the Sen. Judiciary committee is done with Gonzales’ case it should vet the statements of office holders with a view to rule out if public statements served the cause of justice or otherwise. And in view of findings if necessary initiate action so that politicians don’t get away with public statements primarily aimed at covering facts than resolving issues.
Sen. Judiciary Committee, politicians both Republicans and Democrats need to take all such steps that are necessary to set a precedent for future so that no one dares use justice dept. and the post of AG to peddle party interests.
From this angle Gonzales has no place in justice dept. as AG. Similarly, like Gonzales’, Rove may like to recognize his constitutional obligation that is foremost to the country not individuals, party or even Bush. He could have voluntarily shared the information with the committee long time back.
America will see written testimonies. All concerned are heading for a consensus on the issue and Fielding, White House attorney is just waiting for unified approach from both House and Senate over the issue. President’s aides are going to testify and there will be written transcript. It will keep everything clear, bring matters on record and avoid different or confusing interpretations of what and what wasn’t said behind closed doors.
Gonzales testimony leaving aside its importance from his job aspect or reputation is irrelevant at this stage. What is at stake is effectiveness of Justice Dept. Vs. executive and that is where the actual focus of the testimony will be and should be. That is one reason the e-mails issue at this point is a decoy. Sen. Judiciary Committee is not so much in chasing of details as some of its members might sound.
The real battle which even Gonzales avoided in his opening statement published in the Washington Post is not about his statements. Everyone by now is fairly clear that he is a fall guy for a scandal that was conceived and hatched somewhere else. He as part of the puzzle will face the heat but then he is part to reach the end.
If Sen. Leahy and his team manage to keep their focus on bigger picture to bring out right facts it will ensure that in future no one will dares to meddle in the affairs of justice dept. In that respect Gonzales departure will make sure that future AGs choose to uphold law of the land even if they want to do otherwise for the fear of their job. Same is true for politicians and employees of justice dept.
Finally, it would be interesting to see how everyone makes his moves and who gets the most out of this so called make or break “irrelevant” Gonzales hearing. But what is equally important this hearing will settle most questions raised in this piece to help strengthen and improve functioning of the justice dept. and its AG. All this will also help push the executive branch back in its original place both in national and the public interest.
His article in the Washington Post is Gonzales preview to his April 17 testimony, remarked a member senate judiciary committee. On the other end thundering Sen. Leahy, chairman Sen. Judiciary Committee promised to “reach” Rove’s already deleted e-mails. Reportedly, working technicians have reported success and some of the lost e-mails have already been retrieved.
There are those who believe that e-mail issue is a decoy digression to divert attention from the main issues in Gonzales case.
And most if not all of those issues that Gonzales might face in his hearing have been summarized by Arlen Specter, member Senate Judiciary, in one of his interviews: Is Gonzales capable of running justice dept.? Is he having enough knowledge about what is going on in the justice dept.? Can he explain reasons for firing of eight attorneys? Was justice dept. right or wrong to fire these attorneys? What role he played in it?
These firings in itself raise following questions: who and how will the hanging cloud over the attorneys future be cleared? Can they be reinstated? If so will that be on case to case basis or in accordance to the statement of one of the fired attorney’s in which he said we were forced to leave as a group and we will come back as a group.
Here is another set of questions: what is the role of White House in attorneys firing? As is commonly perceived Karl Rove has much to do with firings. If yes was it legitimate? If yes, On whose behalf he micromanaged the issue and got involved in the first place?
Here is a catch. The new White House position on firings issue has changed. Unlike the past position on the issue in which White House maintained that as political appointees, attorneys work at the pleasure of the president and their dismissals were legitimate.
But now there is a new spin that is focused to delink Bush from attorney firings. Specter when asked if White House link goes up to Bush. He rejected the notion by saying that Bush didn’t micromanage firings. If this statement is taken on its face value then who fired those attorneys and on whose behalf Karl Rove was doing what he was doing in relation to the firings.
Gonzales (shifting) statements don’t support latest White House position. He has been basically telling that he has nothing to do with the firing case.
Now just before the testimony everyone in the White House is also trying to promote the impression no one had anything to do with firings. Look for the culprit in justice dept. alone.
Ironically since the start of this scandal till today despite all the efforts neither White House nor justice dept. has told America who actually fired the attorneys.
Gonzales is unaware of firing details, Rove is acting innocent, Bush doesn’t micromanage. Employees from Justice dept. itself are either resigning or invoking 5th amendment. But no one is ready to tell one simple truth. “I fired them”.
Hearing could bring another dimension to the Gonzales testimony. It is the working relations between the White House, justice dept, the expected role of AG, and the actual role of Gonzales as AG.
Gonzales testimony as I mentioned earlier in one of my articles in this space is irrelevant because the core issue is moral credibility of AG which he has lost in last few weeks mostly due to his shifting stances on the issue. That is by and large based on the assertion that he rubber stamped whatever transpired in his name in firing case.
This has raised another very serious and complex set of questions: Did Gonzales fail to uphold his oath to the country by allowing politicians call the shots in justice dept under his watch that led to firings. If yes, can he be trusted in future to protect public interest in accordance to the constitution? Similarly, Karl Rove is just an aide he cannot fire attorneys on his own. There are strong speculations over the firing of two attorneys; New Mexico and Santiago. People are joining the phone calls and e-mail dots right up to Bush.
In other words Karl Rove didn’t do anything at his own. And otherwise also aides don’t take such decisions or for that matter any decision at their own. There is a system and in this case also Rove had his orders-loud and clear. He has nothing to worry.
If true, politicians have a real challenge at their hands in which justice dept. has been forced to protect and peddle political interests of one party. It is against the law. And that is exactly what justice dept is paid to do- respect, implement and uphold the law of the land.
Sampson talked but resigned. In accordance to the spirit of law Goodling instead of invoking 5th amendment in personal interest could have testified in national interest.
Once the Sen. Judiciary committee is done with Gonzales’ case it should vet the statements of office holders with a view to rule out if public statements served the cause of justice or otherwise. And in view of findings if necessary initiate action so that politicians don’t get away with public statements primarily aimed at covering facts than resolving issues.
Sen. Judiciary Committee, politicians both Republicans and Democrats need to take all such steps that are necessary to set a precedent for future so that no one dares use justice dept. and the post of AG to peddle party interests.
From this angle Gonzales has no place in justice dept. as AG. Similarly, like Gonzales’, Rove may like to recognize his constitutional obligation that is foremost to the country not individuals, party or even Bush. He could have voluntarily shared the information with the committee long time back.
America will see written testimonies. All concerned are heading for a consensus on the issue and Fielding, White House attorney is just waiting for unified approach from both House and Senate over the issue. President’s aides are going to testify and there will be written transcript. It will keep everything clear, bring matters on record and avoid different or confusing interpretations of what and what wasn’t said behind closed doors.
Gonzales testimony leaving aside its importance from his job aspect or reputation is irrelevant at this stage. What is at stake is effectiveness of Justice Dept. Vs. executive and that is where the actual focus of the testimony will be and should be. That is one reason the e-mails issue at this point is a decoy. Sen. Judiciary Committee is not so much in chasing of details as some of its members might sound.
The real battle which even Gonzales avoided in his opening statement published in the Washington Post is not about his statements. Everyone by now is fairly clear that he is a fall guy for a scandal that was conceived and hatched somewhere else. He as part of the puzzle will face the heat but then he is part to reach the end.
If Sen. Leahy and his team manage to keep their focus on bigger picture to bring out right facts it will ensure that in future no one will dares to meddle in the affairs of justice dept. In that respect Gonzales departure will make sure that future AGs choose to uphold law of the land even if they want to do otherwise for the fear of their job. Same is true for politicians and employees of justice dept.
Finally, it would be interesting to see how everyone makes his moves and who gets the most out of this so called make or break “irrelevant” Gonzales hearing. But what is equally important this hearing will settle most questions raised in this piece to help strengthen and improve functioning of the justice dept. and its AG. All this will also help push the executive branch back in its original place both in national and the public interest.
Print
Email
