Alberto Gonzales is a Symptom
By William Sumner Scott, J.D.
04/11/07 "ICH"
-- -- -On March 13, 2007, Alberto Gonzales, attorney
general, said: "I never saw documents. We never had a discussion
about where things stood." to describe his lack of involvement
in the replacement of eight US District Attorneys. Subsequent
releases of documents and testimony have proved he was actively
involved.
On March 23, 2007, in response to a Senate subpoena, an
appointment calendar was produced that disclosed that Gonzales
was provided over an hour long meeting on November 27, 2006,
that resulted in approval of a detailed plan for the dismissal
of eight competent district attorneys.
On March 29, 2007, one of his aides, D. Kyle Sampson, gave
testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee to confirm that
Gonzales had participated in the deliberations that led to the
dismissals. One of the Senators questions forced Sampson to
admit that Gonzales had been less than truthful during his March
13 press conference.
Why would a person of Gonzales intellect make false statements
to the press? False statements were not necessary to justify
their removal. The President was granted authority in the
Patriot Act to change the Attorney General and the District
Attorneys without Senate approval. The President instructed
Gonzales to replace the competent eight with Bush loyalists.
Gonzales’ is too bright and experienced to lie without the
belief that he would not be questioned. After all he had been a
Texas Supreme Court Judge. He was used to his pronouncements
being received with impunity. Now that he has been exposed, why
he lied becomes important. He had to believe at the time he lied
that the adverse consequences of the truth would be
catastrophic.
The only way Gonzales could possibly escape detection would be
for members of Gonzales’ staff to also lie. It would require his
assistant, D. Kyle Sampson, to say he was solely responsible for
all communications to obtain Presidential approval for the
replacements.
But Sampson, a Mormon, is a lawyer who learns by example. On
March 6, 2007, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Jr. was convicted of
four felony charges, two for perjury, one for obstruction of
justice, and one for making false statements to federal
investigators. None of these charges against Libby had anything
to do with the underlying charge that someone wrongfully
disclosed to the public that Valerie E. (Plame) Wilson was a CIA
agent. Had Libby told the truth, there would not have been any
indictment against him. In fact, there have been no indictments
against anyone for the wrongful disclosure. Since the
replacement of the eight District Attorneys was legal, the only
exposure to criminal prosecution is to lie to the Senate
Judiciary Committee. The Libby conviction made Sampson’s course
of conduct obvious to everyone except Gonzales.
The videos of his press conferences to first deny, then admit,
participation in the replacement of the district attorneys; the
evidence supplied by Michael A. Battle, his former Executive
Office Director, to admit that the eight were dismissed for
other than just cause; the testimony of D. Kyle Sampson, his
former Chief of Staff, to admit that Gonzales participated in
the firings; and, the statement by Monica Goodling, his former
Aid for White House Relations, that the Senate request for her
testimony was nothing more than a “perjury trap”; has boxed
Gonzales in with no plausible alibi that will allow him to
escape public humiliation for his prior false statements when he
appears on April 17.
Gonzales reacted negatively to the lack of support from his hand
picked subordinates. Rather than face Gonzales pressure, Battle
and Sampson elected to immediately resign.
Monica Goodling, Gonzales’ last hope, was taught that God would
lead her through tribulation in undergrad training at Messiah
College (formerly Messiah Bible School and Missionary Training
Home). She honed her reliance on faith at Regent University Law
School. Regent University was founded by Dr. M.G. "Pat"
Robertson, televangelist, who also founded the Christian
Broadcasting Network (CBN). Dr. Robertson had an inspired vision
from his television work to establish a graduate-level
institution that would train men and women for the challenge of
representing Christ in their professions, including government
“faith based initiatives”.
Goodling’s initial reaction to Gonzales’ request that she
buttress his denial to the journalists on March 13, was to
assert the Fifth Amendment against self incrimination. When
asked to explain why she did that, she said testimony before the
Senate was nothing more than a “perjury trap”. To be a trap
requires that she either lied in some prior statement or would
have to lie to keep her Department of Justice position. When her
“perjury trap” explanation failed rational evaluation, she too
elected to resign.
Battle, Sampson and Goodling have nothing further to offer to
bolster support for public confidence in the Gonzales led
Department of Justice. He is left to face the flood of Senate
questions alone.
He refuses to resign. His explanation is that he has worked too
hard to surrender. After all, he gave up a Texas Supreme Court
Judgeship for the opportunity to engage in this morass.
What responses to the Senate Judiciary Committee’s expected
questions are available to him?
His goose would certainly be cooked if he continues to assert
that he did not participate in the eight dismissals. That tack
could lead him to the same fate imposed upon Libby.
But then what happens if he admits he approved the firings at
the behest of the President? How can he justify his
participation in the firing of eight good, if not the best,
District Attorneys? He could say the eight were not that good.
But that would beg for a comparison between those he fired and
the new ones. A review of their qualifications and track records
discloses a rather slim chance for him to win that one.
But all is not lost – Gonzales could do good work for the
Country. He could acknowledge that his initial statements to the
press were incorrect. The pressure to shield the President
temporally clouded his judgment.
He then would admit that the present appointment system puts too
much political pressure on the Attorney General. Under the
present system the attorney general, no matter who that is, has
no choice but to honor the President’s request to replace
District Attorneys to comply with the law.
The law must be changed to remove the President from the
selection process. Gonzales would justify this change by a
honest explanation of his motive for his false press conference
and his understanding of the President’s motives for the
dismissal of each of the eight District Attorneys.
He would further urge that the best interests of the public
would be served by a change in the administration of justice.
The Executive Branch of government can no longer be trusted to
participate in the selection of the Attorney General or the
District Attorneys.[1] These functions must be delegated to the
legal profession to allow potential candidates for office to be
reviewed for competence. Candidates for these offices must be on
non-partisan basis. Once appointed, the Attorney General and the
District Attorneys would serve against their record such as
cases worked, reduction in Federal crime and other standards to
be developed. Politics must be removed so that political
motivation is eliminated from the process.
To adopt this reform would require the Congress and the
President to surrender their right to replace DOJ personnel.
Admittedly, this would be a rather utopian result.
Gonzales will have the stage on April 17 – from that position,
he can make a significant impact to change the structure. His
dismissal would do nothing to prevent the same abuse of the
system by some future President. When problems such as the
wrongful dismissals of the competent eight become known, focus
must be on long term solutions rather than eliminate the
symptom. Gonzales is a pawn in the saga. The system for
selection of the attorney general and the district attorneys
must be corrected before justice will be achieved.
It would be refreshing for Gonzales and the Congress to put the
good of the Country ahead of partisan politics.
William
Sumner Scott is a author and television film producer. He
can be reached at
wmscott@bellsouth.net
Note -
[1] The same argument applies to the appointment of Federal
judges.
Copyright William Sumner Scott, J.D
Click here
to comment on this and other articles
Send Page To a Friend
In accordance
with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material
is distributed without profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information for research and educational
purposes. Information Clearing House has no
affiliation whatsoever with the originator of
this article nor is Information ClearingHouse
endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
|
