Author Archives: Michael Froomkin

OK, maybe I was too pessimistic in the previous post: four Senators have written Gonzales asking a series of pointed questions about the claim that he blocked an investigation into his own conduct.

Looks like new majority is starting to feel its oats. I could get to like this.

Murry Waas has the scoop, Aborted DOJ Probe Probably Would Have Targeted Gonzales:

Shortly before Attorney General Alberto Gonzales advised President Bush last year on whether to shut down a Justice Department inquiry regarding the administration's warrantless domestic eavesdropping program, Gonzales learned that his own conduct would likely be a focus of the investigation, according to government records and interviews.

Bush personally intervened to sideline the Justice Department probe in April 2006 by taking the unusual step of denying investigators the security clearances necessary for their work.

It is unclear whether the president knew at the time of his decision that the Justice inquiry — to be conducted by the department's internal ethics watchdog, the Office of Professional Responsibility — would almost certainly examine the conduct of his attorney general.

That security clearances are abused to prevent pesky questions into administration misdeeds is unfortunately sufficiently common as to rise almost to business as usual.

That AG's fail to recuse themselves from investigations into themselves, and that they potentially implicate Presidents in their obstruction of investigations is not business as usual. But it's not unheard of either: think “Watergate” for starters.

This is as big a deal as the 'Gonzales 8' but because it doesn't involve lying to Congress I don't suppose it will get quite as much traction. Then again, given the seriousness of the underlying issue — the attempt to procure legal opinions justifying warrant less wiretapping — maybe there's some hope.