 |
|
|
 News from Around the Americas | April 2007 
‘Nothing to Hide,’ Attorney General Insists
 David Johnston & Neil A. Lewis - NYTimes
| | Attorney General Alberto Gonzales in Washington, March 13, 2007. Gonzales conceded on Sunday he mishandled the dismissals of eight U.S. attorneys last year in one of several controversies swirling around President Bush. (Jonathan Ernst/Reuters) |
Washington — Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales offered a measured apology for his mistakes in the dismissal of eight United States attorneys, but said in testimony prepared for a Senate hearing on Tuesday that he had “nothing to hide” and that none of the prosecutors were removed to influence the outcome of a case.
In his testimony, which was released Sunday by the Justice Department, Mr. Gonzales provided an account of his actions that was largely consistent with his past assertions that his role was very limited and his recollection fragmentary.
Mr. Gonzales said that he did not select any of the prosecutors slated for dismissal last year and that he largely delegated the effort to his former chief of staff, D. Kyle Sampson.
“I have nothing to hide,” he said in his testimony, “and I am committed to assuring the Congress and the American public that nothing improper occurred here.”
A string of Democrats and some Republicans have already called for Mr. Gonzales’s resignation, and the Senate hearing is seen by many as the major battle in his fight to keep his job. The release of Mr. Gonzales’s testimony was part of the intense political gamesmanship and calculation by the Bush administration and Senate Democrats in advance of the hearing. Mr. Gonzales also previewed some of his testimony in an op-ed article on Sunday in The Washington Post.
He acknowledged in his testimony that his public statements about the firings had been confusing and that he had misspoken at a news conference on March 13 when he asserted that he “was not involved in any discussions about what was going on.”
And, Mr. Gonzales said, “Of course I knew about the process because of, at a minimum, these discussions with Mr. Sampson.”
Mr. Gonzales said he was even aware that two Justice Department lawyers had been identified as possible replacement candidates for attorneys to be fired, including Rachel L. Brand, chief of the Office of Legal Policy, and Deborah J. Rhodes, now a United States attorney in Alabama.
After the testimony was released, two Democratic senators, Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and Charles E. Schumer of New York, dismissed Mr. Gonzales’s written testimony as inadequate.
Mr. Leahy said the Gonzales testimony was “another in a series of contradictory statements about the mass firing of U.S. attorneys.” Mr. Schumer said that the testimony “does not advance his cause at all,” and that his answers on Tuesday “will be make or break for him.”
And the top Republican on the committee, Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, said Mr. Gonzales would need to disclose more facts when he appeared before the panel.
“The op-ed piece was Pablum,” Mr. Specter said Sunday. “I’m looking for facts.”
He added, “In his testimony before the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Gonzales is going to have to be much more specific in answering questions about exactly what role he played, and explain, as best he knows, his understanding of the rationale behind the dismissal of individual prosecutors.”
Vice President Dick Cheney continued to express the White House’s support for Mr. Gonzales, but he made it clear that it was up to the attorney general to save his job.
“He’s a good man,” Mr. Cheney said in an interview recorded Saturday and broadcast Sunday on “Face the Nation” on CBS. “I have every confidence in him; the president has every confidence in him.”
But Mr. Cheney added, “This took place inside the Justice Department. The one who needs to answer to that and lay out on the record the specifics of what transpired is the attorney general, and he’ll do so.”
Mr. Gonzales’s troubles come as another figure who has played a major role in the Bush administration, Paul D. Wolfowitz, is fighting to retain his post as president of the World Bank after accounts that he had used his influence to raise the salary of his girlfriend. Both men represent important elements of the administration’s policy, as Mr. Wolfowitz was a principal architect of the invasion of Iraq and Mr. Gonzales was a principal supervisor of the legal strategy to fight terrorism.
In his statement, Mr. Gonzales admitted he had made mistakes, but his contrition was limited largely to missteps in the treatment of prosecutors who were asked to resign. “I made mistakes in not ensuring that these U.S. attorneys received more dignified treatment,” Mr. Gonzales said. “Others within the Department of Justice also made mistakes. As far as I know, these were honest mistakes of perception and judgment and not intentional acts of misconduct.”
“I am sorry for my missteps that have helped fuel the controversy,” he said.
Mr. Gonzales is certain to be asked on Tuesday about his own recollection of events. He has said he does not recall a meeting on Nov. 27, 2006, in which the dismissals were discussed. Michael A. Battle, the former director of the department’s United States attorney liaison office, has told Congressional staff members that Mr. Gonzales was at the meeting when a memorandum was circulated that provided a detailed outline of the plan to dismiss the prosecutors.
But Mr. Gonzales insisted in his written statement that not one of the United States attorneys was improperly fired. “I know that I did not and would not ask for a resignation of any individual in order to interfere with or influence a particular prosecution for partisan political gain,” he said.
Mr. Gonzales’s prepared statement did not address several significant issues cited by Democrats who have charged that the firings were politically motivated. Two of the prosecutors, David C. Iglesias of New Mexico and John McKay of Washington State, were dismissed after Republican officials complained to the Justice Department. In Mr. Iglesias’s case, Senator Pete V. Domenici, Republican of New Mexico, complained to the White House about what he saw as the prosecutor’s lack of progress on a politically sensitive case involving Democrats.
Administration officials have said the testimony was the product of high-level deliberations about how Mr. Gonzales should present himself and his actions to counter his critics and justify retaining his post.
In the last week, Mr. Gonzales, whose courteous but often uninformative appearances at past Congressional hearings have left Democrats complaining, has prepared for the hearing in practice sessions Monday through Saturday in the attorney general’s conference room at Justice Department headquarters.
The meetings have included mock question-and-answer sessions, with experienced trial prosecutors from the department playing the role of hostile senators asking Mr. Gonzales to be specific about his recollection of events.
Although there is little doubt that the purpose of Tuesday’s hearing will be about the dismissal of the federal prosecutors, Mr. Gonzales’s comments about that subject filled less than six pages of his testimony, with the rest devoted to discussions of other issues before the department.
He said he wanted to dispose of questions about the dismissals, saying, “The sooner that all the facts are known, the sooner we can devote our exclusive attention to our important work,” which he said was combating terrorism, sexual predators and illegal drugs.
Eric Lipton contributed reporting. |
| |
|
Vallarta Weddings
Tell a Friend
Site Map
Print this Page
Email Us