« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Gonzales Unsure of How Many USAs He Fired
It's become a staple of the Congressional hearings with Alberto Gonzales, the question: Who put the U.S. attorneys' name on the firing list?
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) provided a devastating rundown of the testimony from Justice Department officials, all of them disavowing having selected the names for firing. In response, Gonzales gave his usual response that he'd "approved the list that was given to me." So, the mystery continues.
Feinstein followed up, asking Gonzales just how many U.S. attorneys he'd fired during his tenure as attorney general. Seeming flustered, Gonzales didn't know. "There may have been others." He said that he'd "be happy" to get back to Feinstein with the answer.
FEINSTEIN: All right. I think we've taken care of this. What I'd like to establish, once and for all, is who put the names on the list to fire what are now nine U.S. attorneys. Since you were here last, we've had a number of your top staff appear before us. Kyle Sampson, your former chief of staff, said, "I was the aggregator of input that came in from different sources." Paul McNulty said it was presented to me as here is the idea and here are the names of individuals that are being identified. Jim Comey said, "I was not aware there was any kind of process going on." Bill Mercer said, "I didn't understand there was a list. I didn't keep a list." Mike Battle: "A decision was made to compile a list. It was made by someone. I had no input. Nobody asked for my input." Will Moschella: "Since I was not part of that process, I don't have firsthand knowledge." Mike Ellston: "Kyle asked me to give him my thoughts, give him a draft list. I said, sure. I didn't actually do it. I was very busy." Who approved those names?GONZALES: I ultimately approved the list of recommendations that were submitted to me. I accept responsibility.
FEINSTEIN: And how many names did you approve for firing?
GONZALES: I think, on the list that was presented...
FEINSTEIN: Oh, no -- total. How many names have you approved for firing? GONZALES: You mean total, for cause, not for cause? I'd have to get back to you on that.
FEINSTEIN: There were seven on December 7.
GONZALES: Seven on December 7.
FEINSTEIN: We're now up to nine that we know about. How many -- this is important -- how many U.S. attorneys did you approve to be summarily fired?
GONZALES: Senator, there may have been others. I would be happy to get back to you with that kind of information about who has left. But I don't know the answer to your question. But I can certainly find out.
FEINSTEIN: You don't know, after all we've been through, the hearing after hearing after hearing?
GONZALES: Well, in connection with this review process that Mr. Sampson was coordinating, what was presented to me was a list of seven individuals, on December 7. And so those are the seven that I accepted the recommendation to ask for resignation.
FEINSTEIN: That's right. But those were the ones that were called on December 7 and told to leave by January 15.
GONZALES: Yes.
FEINSTEIN: There were others also asked to resign. GONZALES: Yes. FEINSTEIN: And I'm asking what the total number were.
GONZALES: Well, certainly, Mr. Cummins was asked to leave. Mr. Graves was asked to leave. I'm not aware, sitting here today, of any other U.S. attorney who was asked to leave, except there were some instances where people were asked to leave, quite frankly, because there was legitimate cause.
FEINSTEIN: So you're saying these were asked to leave because the cause was not legitimate? GONZALES: I'm not saying -- no, what I'm saying is wrongdoing, misconduct. There may been some -- in fact, I'm sure there were others... FEINSTEIN: What kind of misconduct? GONZALES: Well, for -- and I'm not suggesting any of this conduct happened, but, for example, an inappropriate relationship, taking action where you have a direct conflict of interest, to help out a buddy, making a -- you know, those kinds of -- something like that, I would say, would constitute misconduct. And there...
FEINSTEIN: Were those specific things involved in any U.S. attorney that was terminated?
LEAHY: Good question.
GONZALES: No. With respect to the seven and with respect to Mr. Cummins and with respect to Mr. Graves, I am not aware that -- certainly, it wasn't, in my mind, a problem or basis to accept the recommendation that they be asked to leave.
Comments (49)
bejammin075 wrote on July 24, 2007 12:22 PM:It was Assistant Deputy Assistant to the Deputy Attorney General David Copperfield. The list appeared out of frickin' nowhere!
Jake D. wrote on July 24, 2007 12:23 PM:Perhaps Feinstein should ask her husband, the Chairman and President of Blum Capital Partners, L.P. (who was accused of a conflict of interest re: business contracts with the government awarded to a company controlled by Blum with the voting and policy activities of his wife), if he remembers the exact number of people he's fired in any given year too.
Anonymous wrote on July 24, 2007 12:27 PM:I like how Gonzales even fired some for legitimate cause. Oh good, so some of the people you fired had reason to be fired.
Harriet in the MIre wrote on July 24, 2007 12:28 PM:The poop, Jakie-Poo! You're slinging the poop!
Jake D. wrote on July 24, 2007 12:30 PM:The Department of Justice employs over 85,000 people in offices in every state, all major cities, and throughout the world. How many CEO's of similar sized companies would know the answer to Feinstein's question?
Harriet in the MIre wrote on July 24, 2007 12:33 PM:It's all poop! Gonzie-Poop! Jakie-Poop!
NCProsecutor wrote on July 24, 2007 12:37 PM:Jake, please. There are only 93 (or 94) USA's, which is what she was asking about. This is a number he should know.
Anonymous wrote on July 24, 2007 12:37 PM:a.g.'s real answer: "i don't know because the 6 or 7 besides Carol Lam were used as cover for firing her."
Harriet in the MIre wrote on July 24, 2007 12:38 PM:Stocks in the poop too! Gonzie-Poop & Jakie-Poop!
You're taking the stocks down with us! Mired!
Jake D. wrote on July 24, 2007 12:43 PM:NCProsecutor:
Without looking it up, can you name all the current Supreme Court Justices?
wburgjo wrote on July 24, 2007 12:44 PM:Jake-D: I know it probably won't stop you from spouting the same nonsensical retort again and again, Jake, but the question wasn't about all DOJ employees, it was about the US Attorneys, of which there are 93, about which we've been having hearings for months. So the question "how many" should actually be pretty easy to answer. So peddle your garbage somewhere else, okay?
In/Sanity wrote on July 24, 2007 12:44 PM:Sounds like another one of Bush's candidates for the Medal of Freedom.
EH wrote on July 24, 2007 12:45 PM:I just don't understand how Gonzales retains any authority to fix problems at the DoJ. Maybe by "fix problems" he means that as long as he's there he can act as a cork against people under him speaking out. The "problem" would be what happens if he leaves, not what happened in the past. I haven't heard anybody ask him what he thinks "the problems" at the DOJ are.
CEO wrote on July 24, 2007 12:45 PM:Jake, you seem remarkably dimwitted. Let me try to help you.
1. There are 93 US Attorneys, not 85,000. Dolt. The question was not how many law clerks or messengers someone else had fired (although those statistics are also readily available to the AG) -it was specifically about how many US Attorneys he fired personally.
2. The US Attorney firings have been- how can we put it?- in the news. Either Gonzo is as dumb as you are or he's lying through his teeth. Since the AG does not want to admit how many were actually fired, he is lying.
3. I have 900 employees and can tell you the names of each person I have fired personally over the last ten years. Any CEO worthy of the title can do as much, as well as speedily access the names and numbers of employees others in the organization have fired. Gonzo's inability to do this points to either his incompetence or dishonesty or both.
CEO wrote on July 24, 2007 12:46 PM:Jake, you seem remarkably dimwitted. Let me try to help you.
1. There are 93 US Attorneys, not 85,000. Dolt. The question was not how many law clerks or messengers someone else had fired (although those statistics are also readily available to the AG) -it was specifically about how many US Attorneys he fired personally.
2. The US Attorney firings have been- how can we put it?- in the news. Either Gonzo is as dumb as you are or he's lying through his teeth. Since the AG does not want to admit how many were actually fired, he is lying.
3. I have 900 employees and can tell you the names of each person I have fired personally over the last ten years. Any CEO worthy of the title can do as much, as well as speedily access the names and numbers of employees others in the organization have fired. Gonzo's inability to do this points to either his incompetence or dishonesty or both.
Hoppy wrote on July 24, 2007 12:47 PM:I wonder when someone will ask how many Rove had on the list to be fired. The list came from somewhere, and I can't imagine that being from anywhere other than Rove or Cheney.
Harriet in the MIre wrote on July 24, 2007 12:47 PM:See, Jakie-Poo, we're in the garbage too! Poop! Poop!
Thm Jefferson wrote on July 24, 2007 12:49 PM:Please don't feed the troll; it, like Gonzales and all of BushCo exists only to lie and misdirect.
JohnW1141 wrote on July 24, 2007 12:49 PM:ALberto Gonzales is protecting our children from predators! All I have to say is "thank God for Alberto Gonzales!"
and "thank God for Matthew Brady!"
Legalize wrote on July 24, 2007 12:50 PM:Why can't the Wingnut Welfare Corp. pay proper trolls to post at TPM?
JohnW1141 wrote on July 24, 2007 12:51 PM:ALberto Gonzales is protecting our children from predators! All I have to say is "thank God for Alberto Gonzales!"
and "thank God for Matthew Brady!"
We'll hang Chuck Schumer from a sour apple tree,
c4logic wrote on July 24, 2007 12:53 PM:We'll hang Chuck Schumer from a sour aple tree....our God is marching on"
The idiot trolls on this thread are just so much information entropy. They are nothing but a narcissistic masturbation fest. Get a life.
Harriet in the MIre wrote on July 24, 2007 12:54 PM:Gonzie-Poop - Protector Poop! Jakie-Poop - Troll Poop!
urban pirate wrote on July 24, 2007 12:57 PM:Again, the trolls are PAID to disrupt conversation. Please ignore, and for the love of god, will TPM start banning these misfits.
Jake D. wrote on July 24, 2007 12:59 PM:At least I don't double post, CEO ; )
Louise wrote on July 24, 2007 1:02 PM:"I just don't understand how Gonzales retains any authority to fix problems at the DoJ."
I don't understand how the man can ever go into a courtroom and argue a case, period. Any opposing attorney will be able to cast such doubt on any argument the man makes that Gonzales will automatically lose. He has completely revealed not only his ignorance but his willingness to sling any bullsh*t and obfuscation just to muddy the waters.
This is our highest law enforcement officer. Apparently the entire legal apparatus of our nation exists for one purpose only: to keep G.W. Bush looking good.
JohnW1141 wrote on July 24, 2007 1:02 PM:New nickname for Gonzales; "the Weasel" as he always answers in such a way as to allow himself room to weasel out later.
mohio wrote on July 24, 2007 1:07 PM:You know -- freedom of speech? just don't FEED the trolls.
biltud wrote on July 24, 2007 1:09 PM:I, for one, did a spit take at "So, you're saying these attorneys who were asked to leave when the cause was not legitimate?"
Here's a hypothetical, everyone.
Let's say, during the the course of your job -- presumably not as important as being Attorney General of the United States -- you're asked to remember specific details, meetings, and major conversations.
And it turns out that after these important events and strategizing, you can't remember a goddamn thing.
Now, given you can't, the question would be raised: If you can't remember anything, shouldn't we replace you with someone who can?
If you're not involved in any major decision making, shouldn't we replace you with someone who is?
The standards that are held for the rest of working America don't apply to Abu.
The incompetence is staggering. And the thugs continue to defend him, to their eternal embarrassment and shame.
Richard L. Adlof wrote on July 24, 2007 1:10 PM:Jake D. @ July 24, 2007 12:43 PM,
I can name all nine Justices and all seven dwarves without looking it up. BFD.
A good formenter would stay topical. There are many comments and thoughts and questions on the subject at hand that would score points for your fantasy addled mindset . . . I'm sorry . . . truth flying in the face of facts.
Any-which-way, as Leahy is pointing out as I type . . . Comey's testimony on the subjects at hand was detailed and fleshed out. Gonzalez is a minor mind and a lying sack of shit. Everything else is happy horse hockey.
Rusty Austin wrote on July 24, 2007 1:15 PM:I can't imagine anyone with as little writing skill could be paid to write such nonsense...oh wait...probably the Bush administration, they like to hire dullards and half wits...makes Bush seem almost sentient by comparison...
Long Memory wrote on July 24, 2007 1:15 PM:Now, Tony, er, Jake, you might have learned by now that just repeating one lie after another and throwing up one smokescreen after another just doesn't work anymore. Well, maybe with the MSM, but people on this sight don't believe in their intelligence any more than you do. There! Something we can agree on. Carry on, Jake.
Rusty Austin wrote on July 24, 2007 1:15 PM:I can't imagine anyone with as little writing skill could be paid to write such nonsense...oh wait...probably the Bush administration, they like to hire dullards and half wits...makes Bush seem almost sentient by comparison...
Dave wrote on July 24, 2007 1:24 PM:WOW! I loved those protesters at the end. At least someone in this country is speaking out and calling the criminals exactly what they are. If anyone knows who those people were, let us know, please! In the meantime, my THANKS to them.
J. Thomason wrote on July 24, 2007 1:31 PM:Very ironic. Both here and at The Next Hurrah, yesterday, the long suffering trolls Jodi and Jake D. both confessed to being "independent" and offered concilatory statements: Jake with his proposed legislation and Jodi in her anti-war mode.
For any that doubt that these folks are paid operatives consider the message control that emerged here then its back to the steady stream of thoughtless drivel. Those who warn against the distractive intent of paid operatives are on to something.
JNagarya wrote on July 24, 2007 1:31 PM:Perhaps Feinstein should ask her husband, the Chairman and President of Blum Capital Partners, L.P. (who was accused of a conflict of interest re: business contracts with the government awarded to a company controlled by Blum with the voting and policy activities of his wife), if he remembers the exact number of people he's fired in any given year too.
Posted by: Jake D.
Date: July 24, 2007 12:23 PM
Off topic smear and _ad hominem_ based upon no names making alleged accusations, while in the matter at hand we have hard evidence that Gonzales, as example, participated in the effort to give the appearance of legality to a kind of action which cannot be made legal: the war crime of torture.
We also note that the allegations you make against Feinstein's husband concern private endeavors, not gov't/public. Anything to avoid the issue, change the subject, and smear a Democrat, even if only be means of guilt by association.
We also know he attempted to coerce Ashcroft to authorize an illegal progam -- which authorization also wouldn't have been legal.
You're a moralless worm, "Jake". A professional shithead who hates Constitution and rule of law, and support and defend the multiple assaults against those by your party-before-country fellow anti-Americans.
Jake D. wrote on July 24, 2007 1:33 PM:Richard L. Adlof:
I was asking NCProsecutor, but thanks anyways.
Long Memory:
Who is "Tony"?
Dave:
I can't imagine anyone with as little intelligence could be paid to protest such nonsense...oh wait...probably MoveOn.org or Operation Pinko, they like to hire dullards and half wits...makes them seem almost sentient by comparison...
JNagarya wrote on July 24, 2007 1:42 PM:The Department of Justice employs over 85,000 people in offices in every state, all major cities, and throughout the world. How many CEO's of similar sized companies would know the answer to Feinstein's question?
Posted by: Jake D.
Date: July 24, 2007 12:30 PM
According to Ganzales, he has no idea, even to the least degree, what's going on in the DOJ, even when being done directly under his nose by his own staff. Thus, he's either lying, or he's not competent to run the DOJ.
How many employees there are in the DOJ, either in DC or as a whole, is irrelevant to those facts. As is the question, "How many did you fire?" irrelevant to the number of (not-fired) employees in the DOJ -- in DC, or as a whole.
JNagarya wrote on July 24, 2007 1:47 PM:NCProsecutor:
Without looking it up, can you name all the current Supreme Court Justices?
Posted by: Jake D.
Date: July 24, 2007 12:43 PM
Irrevevant and off-topic. But you know that. Thus we know you are a shithead on purpose. You're here to disrupt and distract from the issues. You are, in a word, rude. You not only deserve no respect, you deserve to be called out for what you are: lying anti-American slime defending the criminal worldview.
A lunatic-fringe dead-ender.
nmabry wrote on July 24, 2007 2:01 PM:Just a guess here but i believe Long Memory is inferring that you, Jake, are really Tony Snow due to your blatant shilling for W. So blatant in fact only someone under the employ of the administration could shill so shamelessly.
biggerbox wrote on July 24, 2007 2:04 PM:That performance is just pathetic. This is not the first time Mr. Gonzales has been asked before Congress to talk about US Attorneys. A competent, intelligent professional worthy of his position would have spent a couple hours before his first appearance reviewing the records of all USA status changes over the last two years. If he had a good memory, he'd remember them in detail, if not he'd certainly have notes. If he were smart, he'd probably bring some assistants with laptops and some well-prepared hard drives and the ability to look stuff up in the hearing room. And that's before the FIRST appearance.
Gonzo has apparently done none of that. A properly prepared official shouldn't have any problem with that question from Feinstein.
He is either incompetent or he feels no responsibility to answer the senators' questions, or both. Most likely, both. Which is why he earns the confidence of his boss, who wants him that way.
nmabry wrote on July 24, 2007 2:06 PM:Just a guess but I would venture that Long Memory is inferring that you, Jake, are in fact Tony Snow due to your blatant shilling for W. Shilling so blatant that only someone in the employ of the administration could shill so shamelessly.
I will never cease to be amazed by conservatives' overall lack of sarcasm/irony/humor.
jfaustus wrote on July 24, 2007 2:26 PM:Did y'all see how Fredo squirmed, poleaxexd, in response to Feinstein's question? There was no WAY he was going to commit himself to a specific number. Keep an eye on this one. My bet is he doesn't provide a written answer either.
So how many more are there? And which of the yet-unnamed fire-ees has the smoking gun that put that panicky look into his eyes?
CEO wrote on July 24, 2007 2:32 PM:Littel Jakey:
I pressed the button once and left. Fire and forget. I have to say though, it's worth noting twice (now three times) that you are a dolt.
anonymous wrote on July 24, 2007 2:48 PM:JakeD: "The Department of Justice employs over 85,000 people in offices in every state, all major cities, and throughout the world. How many CEO's of similar sized companies would know the answer to Feinstein's question?"
How many CEOs directly approve firings that they don't remember?
None.
If a CEO fires an upper level manager personally, they remember.
If a mid-level manager fires a secretary they don't.
Gonzales was asked the former question, not the latter.
Another strawman goes down in flames.
Another JakeD lying diversion shot down.
Code word = same, as in the same old crap from JakeD that we always get.
StephenH wrote on July 24, 2007 3:46 PM:JakeD: "The Department of Justice employs over 85,000 people in offices in every state..bla bla bla"
Oh, shut-up you miserable right-wing troll. We're talking about a total 93 US attorneys - not the janitors and secretaries.
The answer to the question is that Gonzales fired only as many as we are able find out about by other means. He obviously knows how many he fired, but he will never admit to it until/unless sufficient proof is offered that he did. Then he'll simply continue to change his story like he has all along.
Gonzales has no intention of ever telling the truth about anything. His only goal is to lie and cover up everything that's been done for as long as he possibly can. And the White House gives him another pat on the back everytime he does it.
John Wilson wrote on July 24, 2007 5:12 PM:"Jake" seems to have turned TPM into
a "flame" echo...a temporary aberration, I'm
sure. (On FIDONET it's "them dang Liberals"
who are the excoriated ones.)
To echo someone in here --
The Code word is "Ignore"
..as in...uh...what one does with
this post :-)
Cheers!
parrot wrote on July 24, 2007 8:06 PM:AG AG and Cheney need to be impeached so they can never serve in our government again. Bush needs to be impeached on principle.
JD wrote on July 25, 2007 12:09 PM:This testimony was great. It was one of the few instances where he actually gave away some nuggets of truth. If you kind of read between the lines he insinuates the following:
- yes there were other people on the list
- there were actual legitimate causes for them being on the list, misconduct , as he categorized it.
- those who committed misconducts were not fired.
Meaning that those who were fired committed more egregious acts than misconducts. Hmmmm. Like not being a loyal Bushie?