The “Nothing Improper” Attorney General

By Scott Horton

Forty-eight hours shy of his make-or-break appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Alberto Gonzales delivers an op-ed in which he states his case. He personally had no involvement in any wrong-doing, he argues. The core of it is this contention:

I know that I did not—and would not—ask for the resignation of any U.S. attorney for an improper reason. Furthermore, I have no basis to believe that anyone involved in this process sought the removal of a U.S. attorney for an improper reason.

The disclosures in today's Albuquerque Journal alone eviscerate this contention. We now learn that he thought there were no grounds for removing New Mexican David Iglesias, and that the decision was taken on a completely political level. It's true that there's nothing criminal about this. But is that the standard for our Attorney General: I did nothing for which a prosecutor exercising reasonable discretion would indict me? That is the sense of Gonzales' “not improper.” The key is that his conduct was not proper, and against that charge Gonzales hardly puts up a defense.

Balkinization's Marty Lederman has the take of a heartsick career Department of Justice professional on this whole affair. This is all about politics, and the hand of Karl Rove appears behind every trick that is played. It may be that the decider's decider on Iraq issues is Dick Cheney, but the decider's decider on the U.S. attorneys scam is Karl Rove. The most damning evidence was the initial proposition that all 93 U.S. attorneys be fired as a cover-up of the real scheme, and the other highly damning clue is the discussion about firing Patrick Fitzgerald.

In the end, the Gonzales op-ed isn't much short of a confession. But let's see how much of it remains standing after the hearing on Tuesday.