A third batch of documents dumped by DoJ in the Gonzales 8 scandal.
On review, it appears that certain statements in the February 23 letter are contradicted by Department documents included in our production in connection with the Committees' review of the resignations of U.S. Attorneys. We sincerely regret any inaccuracy.
Update: Here's why the new documents matter.
Still waiting for the White House documents…
Update: It seems the really good documents may be hiding at gwb43.com.
The law as a rule frowns on the 'pure heart, empty head' defense, which is how we lawyers refer to claims that “I meant well; I didn't know it was wrong to borrow from the pension fund.”
Yet, amazingly, our Attorney General is now asserting a defense for the firings which is no more than that.
Gonzales: Firings were not improper Gonzales: What I can say is this: I know the reasons why I asked you — these United States attorneys to leave. And it — it was not for improper reasons. It was not to interfere with the public corruption case. It was not for partisan reasons.
…
[NBC's
BrianPete] Williams: To put this question another way — if you didn't review their performance during this process, then how can you be certain that they were fired for performance reasons?Gonzales: I — I've given — I've given the answer to the question, Pete. I know — I know the reasons why I made the decision. Again, there's nothing in the documents to support the allegation that there was anything improper here. And there is an internal — department review to answer that question, to reassure the — the American people that there was nothing improper that happened here.
Got that? I had no role in the decision, I just signed off on it. I don't know how they came up with that list, but since I could never possibly have meant anything bad or partisan, and because I never had the brains to make any connection between the names on that list and high-profile Republican prosecutions, the public should give me credit for my pure heart regardless of whether there was anything in my brain.
Come on America. Leaving aside the rather dubious credibility of the claim that Gonzales is this clueless and dumb, can we afford an AG whose defense against charges of unethical and probably criminal activity is … blithering ignorance?
The Brits have a name for what Gonzales is claiming — “Nelsonian Knowledge,” based on the famous incident in which Admiral Nelson put a telescope to his blind eye so that he could say, “I see no ships signals”:
It is dishonest for a man deliberately to shut his eyes to facts which he would prefer not to know. If he does so, he is taken to have actual knowledge of the facts to which he shut his eyes. Such knowledge has been described as “Nelsonian knowledge”, meaning knowledge which is attributed to a person as a consequence of his “wilful blindness” or (as American lawyers describe it) “contrived ignorance”.
—Twinsectra Limited v Yardley and Others, [2002] UKHL 12, at para. 112.
All this aside, given Gonzales's personal history as GWB's legal valet, it's hard to believe he lacked genuine, rather than merely Nelsonian, knowledge of what he was signing and why. Either way he doesn't deserve to stay in office; I suppose, though, the difference might matter to a grand jury.
Late Friday? After the networks and the newspapers' deadlines? Must be time for another White House document dump.
McClatchy kindly puts some pdf's online:
McClatchy also has a first take on their significance, Documents highlight Gonzales' role in the firings. Among them,
The latest documents also raise new questions about how involved White House political operatives were in the decision to fire the prosecutors.
In a Dec. 3, 2006, e-mail released Friday night, Scott Jennings, one of presidential adviser Karl Rove's aides, asked Sampson if he had a list of “all vacant, or about-to-be vacant, US Attorney slots.” Jennings' request came on a Sunday, so Sampson offered to send it to him the next day.
Jennings, a political operative, had earlier passed along complaints from Republican Party activists about U.S. Attorney David Iglesias, who was fired from his job in New Mexico. Some Republicans were angry that Iglesias hadn't been more aggressive in investigating Democrats.
The e-mails also show that administration officials struggled to find a way to justify the firings and considered citing immigration enforcement simply because three of the fired prosecutors were stationed near the border with Mexico. While the e-mails don't provide evidence of partisan motives for the firings, they seem to undercut the administration's explanation that the prosecutors were dismissed for poor performance.
On March 13. I rashly predicted Gonzales wouldn't last two weeks. Then Bush had his petulant press conference, made his crazy proposal for the Senate to invite Rove and Miers to lie to them, and gave Gonzales a new lease on life.
But leases on life may have a short half-life. Although I'm starting to suspect I was a little optimistic, you have to wonder how Gonzales can survive revalations that contrary to his earlier statements Gonzales was in fact much more involved in discussions about firing the US Attorneys than he admitted:
Documents Show Attorney General Alberto Gonzales Approved Firings of Several U.S. Attorneys
WASHINGTON – Attorney General Alberto Gonzales approved plans to fire several U.S. attorneys in a November meeting, according to documents released Friday that contradict earlier claims that he was not closely involved in the dismissals.
The Nov. 27 meeting, in which the attorney general and at least five top Justice Department officials participated, focused on a five-step plan for carrying out the firings of the prosecutors, Justice Department officials said late Friday.
There, Gonzales signed off on the plan, which was crafted by his chief of staff, Kyle Sampson. Sampson resigned last week amid a political firestorm surrounding the firings.
The documents indicated that the hour-long morning discussion, held in the attorney general's conference room, was the only time Gonzales met with top aides who decided which prosecutors to fire and how to do it.
Justice spokeswoman Tasia Scolinos said it was not immediately clear whether Gonzales gave his final approval to begin the firings at that meeting. Scolinos also said Gonzales was not involved in the process of selecting which prosecutors would be asked to resign.
On March 13, in explaining the firings, Gonzales told reporters he was aware that some of the dismissals were being discussed but was not involved in them.
Even if the Attorney General lacked the requisite intent to in fact be guilty of a criminal act when he approved the results of a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, he has by his series of prevarications achieved negative credibility with Congress, with the press, and now with the nation.
Alberto Gonzales must go. Swiftly.
I think this response by Tony Snow during yesterday's TV interview with Harry Smith on CBS deserves to be considered a classic bit of obfuscation and non-denial denial.
Smith: “Karl Rove wasn't involved? Harriet Miers wasn't involved? C'mon!”
Snow: “This is where what you're trying to do is create a narrative that I'm not so sure the facts are going to justify. This is why what we're trying to do is get everybody to figure out what's the deal.”
Snow here is all but bragging that he doesn't know the facts. And guessing about them. But he's not saying he's going to find them out either. The White House Press Secretary surely has some way of finding out the answer to this rather obvious question. Couldn't he ask Rove and Miers and then tell us? You would think.
Then again, maybe couldn't. After all, Rove and Miers would not be under oath when they speak to Snow.
Meanwhile, CREW asks, New e-mails prompt the question: Did Bush make the decision to fire the U.S. Attorneys?
And, one account of what Tony Snow has in common with a pet albino hedgehog.
“Even in Guantanamo, when they have secret hearings they keep a transcript.”
Update: Robert Waldman writes, “If only the rule of law were respected in the USA the way it is respected here in Italy. And no I never expected to write that ever.”
Jotwell Blenderlaw