Somehow things just aren't working out for Alberto Gonzales:

Alberto R. Gonzales, like many others recently unemployed, has discovered how difficult it can be to find a new job. Mr. Gonzales, the former attorney general, who was forced to resign last year, has been unable to interest law firms in adding his name to their roster, Washington lawyers and his associates said in recent interviews....

The greatest impediment to Mr. Gonzales's being offered the kind of high-salary job being snagged these days by lesser Justice Department officials, many lawyers agree, is his performance during his last few months in office. In that period, he was openly criticized by lawmakers for being untruthful in his sworn testimony. His conduct is being investigated by the Office of the Inspector General of the Justice Department, which could recommend actions from exonerating him to recommending criminal charges.

First Alberto Gonzales was forced to resign in disgrace. Now they've stripped his Lawyer of the Year crown from him. What next?

Earlier this week, the American Bar Association Journal, to universal derision, named Gonzales Lawyer of the Year. They tried to make it clear that the recognition was merely for Gonzo's talent for stealing headlines, a talent unmatched among lawyers in 2007, but still, the jarring combination of his picture next to the words "Lawyer of the Year" proved too much for many to bear.

So the journal has issued a clarification:

When this article was posted online on December 12, 2007, it was titled “Lawyers of the Year.” The article defined that term as the year’s biggest legal newsmaker, identifying former U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales as the major newsmaker of 2007. The Journal regrets that we did not make this theme clear.

We appreciate the feedback we’ve received, and we’re acting on it. So that there can be no confusion, the term “Lawyers of the Year” has been changed in the headline and story to “Newsmakers of the Year.” The story is otherwise unchanged from its original version.

Note: Thanks to TPM Reader MB.

Yep, that's right. The American Bar Association Journal has named Alberto Gonzales Lawyer of the Year. Wait a minute, you say, isn't that like naming Alec Baldwin Father of the Year?

But there's a rationale. Gonzales makes the cut for being the "most talked-about" lawyer around, not for the quality of his lawyering. True, most of the talking had to do with how he should resign, but there was undoubtedly a lot of talk. Other administration figures like Monica Goodling, Scooter Libby, and David Addington -- also much "talked-about" -- got honorable mention.

How did Alberto Gonzales' $40,000 speech to University of Florida students go last night? The front page of The Alligator tells the story:

Next stop: Wash U.!

Now that someone else is saddled with the job of salvaging the department he damaged, Alberto Gonzales is free to speak to the nation's youth. It's a whistle-stop tour to spread the good news of cronyism, mismanagement, and politicization, to tell tales from his years as the administration's doormat at the Department of Justice. He's already scheduled a couple of speaking engagements.

But Gonzo doesn't come cheap. It's costing the University of Florida $40,000 for his appearance tonight. And Washington University in St. Louis is looking to pay him $30,000 for a speech in February (plus $5,000 for the necessary security). The student paper, Student Life, reports that "The decision to bring Gonzales to campus comes as part of a larger effort on the part of [the Student Union] to bring well-known and controversial speakers to campus." He fits the bill.

For those who can't mount the funds necessary to bring Gonzales to campus, remember: you can always give to his defense fund.

There are rare moments when you, the citizen, can feel like you've really made a difference.

Not since Scooter Libby has a devoted, loyal public servant been in such need of your help. Alberto Gonzales was set upon by hordes of journalists and Democrats and finally stepped down for the good of his beloved Justice Department. But his ordeal is not over. Because his enemies misrepresented certain carefully-chosen phrasings as lies, he is being investigated by that same department. "But what can I do?" you ask?

Contribute to the Alberto R. Gonzales Legal Expense Trust:

David G. Leitch, a Gonzales friend and general counsel at the Ford Motor Co., wrote in an e-mail solicitation to potential contributors last month that Gonzales is "innocent of any wrongdoing" but does not have the means to pay for his legal defense after a career spent mostly in public service.

"In the hyper-politicized atmosphere that has descended on Washington, an innocent man cannot simply trust that the truth will out," Leitch wrote. "He must engage highly competent legal counsel to represent him. That costs money, money that Al Gonzales doesn't have."

Leitch also wrote that Gonzales's attorney, George J. Terwilliger III of White & Case in Washington, "has substantially reduced his fees to represent Al Gonzales, but the costs will likely be high nonetheless." A contribution form asking for donations to the Alberto R. Gonzales Legal Expense Trust suggests amounts from $500 to $5,000.

Sure, the business elite, former administration officials and ambassadors (and then finally the President) came through for Scooter Libby. But Gonzales is still exposed to the forces of injustice. Won't you do your part?

You might never have a similar chance again. The Washington Post notes that "legal defense funds are common in Washington, but not for attorneys general." So act now!

When a U.S. attorney tried to get Alberto Gonzales to reconsider the Department's decision to seek the death penalty for a defendant, he was told that Gonzales had already spent a "significant amount of time" on the issue -- meaning "5 to 10 minutes." When Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) asked Gonzales about that case, he couldn't remember it. That USA, Arizona's Paul Charlton, was among the nine fired U.S. attorneys, and this instance of "insubordination" was cited as justification.

So today, Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) asked Michael Mukasey what his approach to the death penalty would be. And he promised to "review every such decision" to seek the death penalty "in excruciating detail." Presumably that means more than 5-10 minutes.

But when pressed as to whether he would promise to speak to U.S. attorneys who disagreed with the Department's decision to seek death, Mukasey refused. He'd want to have that U.S. attorneys' views "made known" to him, he said. But he's concerned, he said, about similar cases getting "different treatments in different jurisdictions."

So it's unclear if Charlton's view that "if a government seeks to take another person's life it should do so on only the best of evidence" would get a more sympathetic hearing from Mukasey.

You never can be too careful, particularly when you're being investigated for lying to Congress. From Newsweek:

No sooner did Alberto Gonzales resign as attorney general last month than he retained a high-powered Washington criminal-defense lawyer to represent him in continuing inquiries by Congress and the Justice Department.

Gonzales’s choice of counsel, George Terwilliger—a partner at White & Case—is ironic if not surprising. A former deputy attorney general under the first President Bush, who later helped oversee GOP lawyers in the epic Florida recount battle of 2000, Terwilliger had been a White House finalist to replace Gonzales—only to be aced out at the last minute by retired federal judge Michael Mukasey.

The top concern for Gonzales, and now Terwilliger, is the expanding investigation by Glenn Fine, the Justice Department’s fiercely independent inspector general, according to three legal sources familiar with the matter who declined to speak publicly about ongoing investigations.

Fine is not only investigating whether Gonzales made false statements to Congress (see the top six here), but also whether Gonzales might have improperly coached his aide Monica Goodling on her recollection of the U.S. attorney firings. That's in addition, of course, to Fine's sprawling investigation of the politicization of the Department under Gonzales' leadership. But apparently Gonzales is most worried that his statements to Congress are the most likely to lead to a criminal investigation.

On Monday, we noted that Peter Keisler was unexpectedly slotted in as the man to replace Alberto Gonzales until the President's nominee, Michael Mukasey, was confirmed by the Senate. This morning, The Washington Post is the first paper to take much notice of the move, and reports that it caught pretty much everyone, including officials in the Justice Department, by surprise:

While Mukasey's nomination is pending, the Justice Department will be run by former civil division chief Peter D. Keisler, a conservative appointee who this week was a surprise replacement in that role for Solicitor General Paul D. Clement. Clement, who was publicly tagged last month as the temporary replacement for Gonzales, wound up officially taking the helm at 12:01 a.m. Monday and relinquishing it 24 hours later, officials said.

The switch was made on Sunday by the White House with no input from Justice Department officials, said two sources with knowledge of the matter. The change added another level of uncertainty to life at the Justice Department, where nearly every top senior official has resigned in the wake of controversies under Gonzales....

Read more »

Bush threw an unexpected change-up in his announcement this morning. Towards the end of his remarks about his nomination of Michael Mukasey as attorney general, he also said that outgoing Justice Department official Peter Keisler would serve as the acting attorney general until Mukasey is confirmed.

The administration had said that Solicitor General Paul Clement would serve as the acting attorney general. But Keisler, who announced his retirement from the Department two weeks ago, will apparently stick around in his stead.

That's a move likely to provoke Democrats, who had been signaling that they'd block Keisler's pending nomination to the D.C. Court of Appeals. Keisler was first nominated in last year and was renominated this year. Only this May, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) warned that Keisler's nomination was "controversial." As a result, Keisler will now be in the odd position as acting attorney general of having to deal with the Democrats who are holding up his still-pending nomination.

Among the strikes against Keisler for Democrats was the fact that he's a co-founder of the conservative Federalist Society. He also "oversaw the Bush administration's lengthy legal fight over the rights of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay."

Read more »

Michael Mukasey is it, the president's pick for attorney general to be announced as soon as today.

What do we know about the guy? Relatively little, it's apparent from the morning papers.

His relevant experience is comprised four years as an assistant U.S. attorney and 19 years on the federal bench after being appointed by Ronald Reagan. Of all that time, the most telling decision for liberals and conservatives alike is his ruling in the Jose Padilla case, where he found that the U.S. could detain Padilla indefinitely without charges (eventually reversed on appeal), but that he should be able to meet with his attorneys. Mukasey is, in other words, conservative -- but independent-minded. And the first indications are that Democrats are likely to determine that they can live with him. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) remains an enthusiastic supporter.

Politically, all that's known about Mukasey is that he backs Rudy Giuliani, with whom Mukasey served as a prosecutor in the Manhattan U.S. attorney office -- both he and his sons advise the campaign, and his son heads up the white collar defense practice for Bracewell & Giuliani, the law firm that Giuliani joined two years ago.

The only signs of controversy are supposed grumblings among conservatives about the pick. But although that dissatisfaction is noted by all the major papers, not one of them names an actual dissatisfied conservative. Even the note of warning sounded at The Corner doesn't put a name to Mukasey's detractors, just noting that there are "perfectly sane conservative activists who are concerned." The Wall Street Journal reports, however, that "the White House was reaching out to conservative legal activists over the weekend to make a detailed case for its choice." Bill Kristol started the charge this weekend, by arguing that conservatives shouldn't be upset that the president didn't nominate Ted Olson (after Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) threatened to block him) because Mukasey is Olson without the mess: he'll "come to judgments similar to Olson's on key issues of executive power and the war on terror."

For now, the big fight over Mukasey, barring some unexpected revelation, is likely to be how much Democrats push to get documents and testimony relevant to the U.S. attorney firings before they allow a vote on his confirmation, as they've warned.

We'd be remiss if we didn't link over to fellow muckraker Charlie Savage's stay at TPMCafe this week to discuss his new book Takeover: The Return of the Imperial Presidency and the Subversion of American Democracy.

It's long been apparent that the administration has sought to expand executive power whenever possible. But Savage's book documents the extent to which this was a conscious and controlling priority, especially for Dick Cheney -- so much so that Savage calls it "The Cheney Project." Go check it out.

A particularly telling excerpt from the book is below.

Read more »

Today at 3 PM, Alberto Gonzales will speak at his farewell ceremony at the Department of Justice. In addition to the dwindling number of remaining Department officials who haven't resigned, a coterie of law enforcement officials, such as FBI Director Robert Mueller will be there to see him out the door.

The Washington Post reports this morning that Gonzales appears "relieved and happier since announcing his resignation."

As for what he leaves behind:

Almost every senior Justice Department official has resigned or announced plans to depart this year, leaving the department under the control of more than a dozen acting officials. More than a quarter of the nation's U.S. attorneys are also temporary appointees, partly because of the mass firings that eventually had repercussions on Gonzales's tenure.

How much opposition would Ted Olson get if nominated? Well, consider the gauntlet thrown down:

Senate Democrats will block Ted Olson from succeeding Alberto Gonzales as attorney general if President Bush nominates him, Majority Leader Harry Reid said Wednesday.

"Ted Olson will not be confirmed," Reid, D-Nev., said in a written statement. "I intend to do everything I can to prevent him from being confirmed as the next attorney general."

The field for Alberto Gonzales' replacement has narrowed to two, with Ted Olson remaining the front runner, The New York Times reports this morning. Olson in unequivocally not the nonpartisan pick Democrats had urged President Bush to make.

As Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) puts it to the Times:

“Clearly if you made a list of consensus nominees, Olson wouldn’t appear on that list.... My hope is that the White House would seek some kind of candidate who would be broadly acceptable.”

How staunch of an opposition to Olson's candidacy Democrats would offer is an open question. The Times reports that the administration is betting that Democrats "will pay a political price if they try to block confirmation of a new attorney general. The thinking inside the White House is that Democrats cannot call for new leadership at the Justice Department, then block it."

The case against Olson is considerable. The chief issue driving opposition to Olson's nomination as solicitor general back in 2001 (he very narrowly passed, 51-47) was his role in the so-called Arkansas Project, the well-funded and unscrupulous effort to unseat the Clintons via scandal. Olson sat on the board of directors for The American Spectator, the organ for the effort, but when he was questioned about his role, he downplayed it, leading to accusations that he'd lied to the Senate Judiciary Committee. So you have a confirmed partisan (don't forget his role as representing the administration in Bush v. Gore) who was less than candid in testimony to Congress. Hardly much of an improvement from Gonzales.

But there are some mitigating factors. Olson lost his third wife, Barbara Olson (author of a screed against Hillary Clinton) on 9/11. The Wall Street Journal reports today that the administration could thus gain "an emotional political advantage," with Olson's nomination.

More considerable is Olson's role in the administration as solicitor general. James Comey testified to Congress, for instance, that he'd sought out Olson to serve as a kind of backup for him after the infamous Ashcroft/Gonzales hospital showdown in March, 2004. Because Olson is someone that Comey "respects enormously," as Comey testified, he asked Olson to accompany him to his late-night meeting with Andrew Card in the White House to serve as a witness. Olson's role in that showdown -- he backed Comey in the dispute -- might serve to temper Democrats' view of his past.

On the other hand, the position of solicitor general is much different from that of attorney general. And Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) opposed Olson's nomination as solicitor general back in 2001 because he was unconvinced that Olson's "sharp partisanship over the last several years might not be something that he could leave behind." That doesn't sound like a person who could fix the Justice Department.

Olson isn't the only nominee in the running. George Terwilliger, George H.W. Bush's former deputy attorney general, is still in it. Though the Times reports that Leahy is "cool" to that option and that Terwilliger "may also be criticized for partisanship, given his association with conservatives who have embraced the administration’s expansion of executive powers during wartime."

The Times reports that the other three names floated in the past week have all bowed out. So it seems fair to conclude that this is not a nomination that will go smoothly.

Ted Olson is "leading the pack" as the administration's likely next attorney general, Roll Call reports (pdf).

Olson would be a tough sell. After all, most Democrats, including Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) opposed Olson when he came up for confirmation for solicitor general in 2001 (he passed 51-47). The memory of Olson's role as a lawyer for Bush in the 2000 recount imbroglio was fresh. And Olson's history as a member of The American Spectator's board of directors during the so-called "Arkansas Project" in the 90's, when the magazine, backed by millions from millionaire Richard Mellon Scaife, set to ending Clinton's presidency by scandal, also became a major issue. As Leahy put it, his concern was that Olson's "sharp partisanship over the last several years might not be something that he could leave behind." Given Democrats' expressed desire for a less partisan nominee to succeed Gonzales, it's hard to see how Leahy wouldn't have similar concerns today.

Roll Call reports on how Olson might play this time around:

At press time GOP and Democratic aides said it was unclear how receptive Democratic lawmakers will be to an Olson nomination. The Conference appears to be split between longtime Washington insiders who view Olson as a reliable member of their ranks and relative newcomers who see him as the principal architect of Bush’s successful legal campaign in the messy aftermath of the 2000 presidential race. While those familiar with Olson likely would confirm him, the Conference’s other faction seems to be in no mood to back him.

The senior Democratic aide said that while positions will become clearer once a formal nomination has been made, at this point it is impossible to tell whether Olson could make it through the Senate. A veteran GOP aide agreed, saying, “I can’t get a good read” from Democrats.

Note: Olson has spent the last several years as a partner at his old firm, Gibson, Dunn, and Crutcher, where he continues to represent Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA), who's under federal investigation for appropriations funny business.

If you're bidding for a spot at the Bush Justice Department, you better come ready to field a barrage of questions. And not the variety you might expect. If you're not prepared, you might just leave feeling like you ran into a buzz saw.

Jack Goldsmith, in his new book The Terror Presidency, provides a first hand account of his interview at the White House to be the chief of the Department's Office of Legal Counsel in 2003. The OLC position is among the most important at the Department, since its legal opinions bear directly on government policy. As Goldsmith explains, the OLC has the power to essentially offer "advance pardons" for dubious administration conduct.

So Goldsmith expected to spend the interview talking about his views on the law and the Constitution. Instead, he writes, this is how it began:

Sitting in chairs around [Deputy White House Counsel David] Leitch's desk as I entered the room were [then-White House Counsel Alberto] Gonzales and [Dick Cheney's counsel] David Addington. I had met both men briefly before, but I had never had an extended conversation with either. I shook everyone's hand and was settling in on the couch at the opposite end of the room when Leitch kicked off the interview.

"Who's Henry Perritt?" he asked in a slightly accusatory tone.

Read more »

From The Politico:

White House Counsel Fred Fielding is scheduled to visit the Hill Wednesday to discuss attorney general candidates with Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), according to Senate sources.

Last week Leahy wrote Bush to see if he was free to meet this week about the nomination.

Jack Goldsmith, who headed up the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel for a stormy number of months in 2003 and 2004, has written a tell-all of his time in the Department, which included clashes with the administration over warrantless surveillance, torture, and other weighty topics. Jeffrey Rosen's sneak peek in The New York Times Magazine with Goldsmith is rife with revealing details.

To start, Goldsmith adds his own recollection of the infamous hospital showdown in March of 2004 over the warrantless surveillance program. Attorney General John Ashcroft, remember, had undergone gall bladder surgery, and since he was incapacitated, Deputy Attorney General James Comey had been tapped as the acting AG. When Comey, acting on Goldsmith's analysis of the program, decided that he could not provide a legal authorization for it to continue, then-White House counsel Alberto Gonzales and chief of staff Andrew Card raced to the hospital to see if they couldn't get Ashcroft to sign off.

We've already heard Comey's, FBI Director Robert Mueller's, and Gonzales' version of events. Goldsmith's telling comfirms Comey's and Mueller's version and adds a priceless detail:

As he recalled it to me, Goldsmith received a call in the evening from his deputy, Philbin, telling him to go to the George Washington University Hospital immediately, since Gonzales and Card were on the way there. Goldsmith raced to the hospital, double-parked outside and walked into a dark room. Ashcroft lay with a bright light shining on him and tubes and wires coming out of his body.

Suddenly, Gonzales and Card came in the room and announced that they were there in connection with the classified program. “Ashcroft, who looked like he was near death, sort of puffed up his chest,” Goldsmith recalls. “All of a sudden, energy and color came into his face, and he said that he didn’t appreciate them coming to visit him under those circumstances, that he had concerns about the matter they were asking about and that, in any event, he wasn’t the attorney general at the moment; Jim Comey was. He actually gave a two-minute speech, and I was sure at the end of it he was going to die. It was the most amazing scene I’ve ever witnessed.”

After a bit of silence, Goldsmith told me, Gonzales thanked Ashcroft, and he and Card walked out of the room. “At that moment,” Goldsmith recalled, “Mrs. Ashcroft, who obviously couldn’t believe what she saw happening to her sick husband, looked at Gonzales and Card as they walked out of the room and stuck her tongue out at them. She had no idea what we were discussing, but this sweet-looking woman sticking out her tongue was the ultimate expression of disapproval. It captured the feeling in the room perfectly.”

More from Goldsmith soon.

The busiest employee of the Department of Justice by far must be the inspector general, Glenn Fine.

A couple of weeks ago, Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) asked Fine to investigate whether outgoing-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales had misled the Congress and press on a number of occasions. Fine, in a letter sent today (you can read it here), has responded that he's already looking into it.

That's because Fine is already juggling a number of investigations. And those investigations will necessarily touch on Gonzales' public statements. Writes Fine:

"The OIG has ongoing investigations that relate to most of the subjects addressed by the Attorney General's testimony that you identified. In particular, the OIG is conducting a review relating to the terrorist surveillance program, as well as a follow-up review of the use of national security letters. In addition, the OIG is conducting a joint investigation with the Department's Office of Professional Responsibility into allegations regarding the removal of certain United States Attomeys and improper hiring practices.

We believe that through those investigations and other OIG reviews we will be able to assess most of the issues that you raise in your letter."

Leahy responded in a statement (in full below) that he's "pleased" that Fine is examining Gonzales' statements.

In June, Fine also confirmed to Leahy that he was investigating whether Gonzales had obstructed Congress' investigation of the U.S. attorney firings by having a conversation with Department aide Monica Goodling about his recollections.

Read more »

Can they all just get along?

From The New York Times:

White House officials said Wednesday that the search for a successor to Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales would probably last at least several days. The officials said they were trying to strike a conciliatory tone with Senate Democratic leaders who will control the confirmation.

The officials said a nominee might not be announced until after President Bush had returned on Sept. 9 from Australia....

In hopes of smoothing the nominee’s way, senior White House officials have contacted Congressional leaders to sound them out about candidates.

The contacts are routine for all cabinet nominations, although Senator Charles E. Schumer, the New York Democrat who is on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said he was struck by the cooperative tone he had heard in a conversation about nominees with the White House counsel, Fred F. Fielding, who is overseeing the search.

“In the past,” Mr. Schumer said in an interview, “the White House has talked about consultation, but they were the most wooden conversations I ever had. This was the first time there was a real back and forth.”

Get ready for more revelations about the extent of the National Security Agency's post-9/11 warrantless surveillance program. Newsweek's Michael Isikoff reports that the Senate Judiciary Committee is going to hear testimony from Jack Goldsmith, the former head of Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, a key ally in James Comey's efforts as acting attorney general to scale back what they considered an illegal program.

A Senate source confirms to TPMmuckraker that the committee "expects him to testify at a hearing sometime after Congress reconvenes," but no dates have been announced yet. Nor is there word about other witnesses, or if Goldsmith -- who didn't testify along with Comey during his dramatic May 15 hearing -- has been subpoenaed. Isikoff reports that that the hearing will likely occur next month.

Read more »

Why did Alberto Gonzales resign this weekend? He just did and that's all there is to it, says the White House.

Witness, for example, this perfectly absurd exchange from this morning's press gaggle with spokesman Scott Stanzel:

Question: The resignation, is this an admission that his critics were right, that after all this time that he would no longer be effective as Attorney General?

Stanzel: No, I think this is a recognition by the Attorney General that it was in the department's best interest for him to move on.

Take a second to wrap your head around that one.

The other telling exchange from the gaggle:

Question: Did the President try to talk him out of resigning?

Stanzel: He did not. He respects the Attorney General's judgments and he knew that the Attorney General had given this thoughtful consideration and had come to the conclusion that it was in the best interest of the Department of Justice for him to step down.

Question: If the President is so insistent that there was no wrongdoing, then why would he accept his resignation?

Stanzel: Well, like I said, he does respect the Attorney General's judgment.

Any more questions?