BRIAN ROSS REPORTS
Stray Guns in Baghdad
For McCain, Another Problem FundraiserTOP BLOTTER CATEGORIES
- Abramoff Lobbying Scandal
- American Al Qaeda
- Avian Flu
- Beirut Hospital Out of Gas
- CIA
- CIA Secret Prisons
- D.C. Madam Affair
- FBI
- Federal Air Marshal Service
- Homeland Security
- Hurricane Katrina
- Mark Foley Internet Scandal
- Millionaire Sex Scandal
- Nigerian E-mail Scams
- Norman Hsu, Clinton Fundraiser
- NSA: Wiretapping
- Osama bin Laden
- Payola
- Pharmacy Investigation
- Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert
- Terror
- U.K. Airline Terror Plot
- U.K. Bombing Attempts
- Wen Ho Lee
- William Jefferson
- Zarqawi
Is Attorney General's Testimony a Bad Idea?
Email
Print
ShareApril 16, 2007 4:06 PM
Ignoring calls for his ouster over the firing of several U.S. attorneys, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is set to testify before Congress tomorrow. It's a move experts say could rescue his political career, or cost him his job -- even send him to jail.
"It's suicidal," said Stanley Brand, one of the top ethics defense lawyers in Washington, D.C. Given the conflicting stories from Gonzales, his aides and top Justice Department officials about why eight U.S. attorneys were fired, and to what extent Gonzales was involved in the process, the attorney general puts himself in criminal jeopardy by testifying under oath, Brand said.
In his prepared testimony for Tuesday's hearing, Gonzales says he has "nothing to hide" and that he is "committed to assuring Congress and the American public that nothing improper occurred here."
"I've seen it before. People get indicted for false statements and perjury and obstruction of justice," Brand told ABC News. Brand recently represented ex-Interior Department official Stephen Griles, who pleaded guilty to lying to Congress in connection with the Jack Abramoff scandal.
What's so dangerous about simply telling the truth? Isn't it true that, like the old adage, the truth shall set you free?
"Not in my world," Brand retorted.
Click Here for Full Blotter Coverage.
But under oath and before Congress, the truth is what Gonzales should be prepared to tell, according to Alan Baron, a former Democratic counsel who now heads a white-collar defense practice at Holland and Knight. "If he's going to testify, he's got to tell the truth, and if he can't tell the truth, he should avoid testifying."
The attorney general has a difficult needle to thread: He must correct his earlier comments that he had limited knowledge and involvement in the firing process, without making it look as if he had intentionally misled the public. He must give a plausible explanation for both the firings and the muddled response from his department, without appearing incompetent to lead. And he has to do it all under oath.
Some are upbeat about Gonzales' prospects. "He's got his last chance and a great chance," said Gerry Sikorski, a former Democratic congressman who spent a decade on investigative panels and also works at Holland and Knight. Sikorski specializes in working with clients who face heat from Congress -- not unlike Gonzales.
"His biggest danger is losing his job. I don't think he's in danger of perjury," Sikorski told ABC News. Perjuring oneself at a hearing is difficult, he said, because lawmakers must ask their questions repeatedly and in different ways to elicit the same untruthful answer to build a perjury case. With each repeated question, "he'll be able to qualify, condition, caveat his comments," said Sikorski.
Sikorski said the attorney general's message should be that "he made some mistakes in communication and keeping control of the policy, and that he's committed to the principles of fairness and the rule of law."
Attitude is going to be important, he said. "He tends to rely heavily on his smile and his friendliness and cordial manner. It's not going to fly in light of what's transpired on this thing."
April 16, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (13)
When Bill Clinton axed all 93 US attorneys at once, in one day, did Chuck Schumer say anything? Did he talk about the disarray that it caused? Folks, The president can fire any US attorney he wants. They work for him. He has the Constitutional authority. What the hell is this debate all about?
Posted by: Jeff H. | Apr 16, 2007 10:57:44 PM
Dear Alberto Gonzales,
Please do the country a favor,
submit a letter saying your sorry and are returning to private law
to overbill and misslead corporate
america to the best of your ability!
Thanks for your oustanding service!
Sincerely
Average Joe
Posted by: stephen/atlanta | Apr 16, 2007 11:22:32 PM
Amazing that this idiot will be fired for this, and not for advocating torture.
Posted by: Steve | Apr 17, 2007 12:29:44 AM
The idea that Gonzales can save himself by a virtuoso performance is, of course, ridiculous. He is no Clarence Darrow. The story above (and many others) demonstrate that he will not be able to weave a coherent story out of the divergent threads. He will resign, and soon.
The real question is: why has the White House decided to let this go forward? What political gain do Rove et al. see in allowing Gonzales to further humiliate himself?
Posted by: Charles | Apr 17, 2007 12:51:38 AM
Jeff H:
To try to answer your questions:
"The president can fire any US attorney he wants. They work for him. He has the Constitutional authority. What the hell is this debate all about?"
The argument I have been hearing is that both President Bush and Alberto Gonzales were NOT involved in the firing of these US Attorneys.
Also, the debate is about WHY these US Attorneys were fired. If, as it appears, they were fired for refusing to proceed with partisan witch hunts designed to swing the 2006 elections toward the Republicans, then justice is served by firing those who were responsible for their being fired.
If, as it also appears, that some US Attorneys were removed from the firing list because they agreed to pursue bogus investigations, then both they and those who removed them from that firing list need to be removed from their employment.
Posted by: johann | Apr 17, 2007 9:34:08 AM
What's this all about? Give me a break! Axing them in mid-stream for political reasons is what this all about! And then lying about it and covering it up. Some were in major investigations of REPUBLICAN wrong doing, some wouldn't go after Democrats on bogus charges just because Rove asked them to, etc. Pay attention! It's not that they are being fired. Reagan fired them when he came in, Clinton fired them when he came in and NO ONE has a problem with that - it's the way it's being done for POLITICAL reasons in mid-stream just because they wouldn't play Rove's game - so they had to go as far as he and Bush was concerned.
Posted by: Michael M. | Apr 17, 2007 9:40:50 AM
Wow, the "Clinton did it" defense. Yes, Clinton, and Bush *both* got all new federal prosecutors at the *start* of their term. People complained about Clinton doing it, but it was legal. What is troubling here is that they got rid of prosecutors for either not going after Democrats or for going after Republicans. And they lied about why they did it. And they have covered up and destroyed evidence. And then lied about that. And it looks like they have threatened other prosecutors, but let them off when they went after Democrats, even innocent Democrats. So, sorry, but the "Clinton did it" defense does not work.
Posted by: Matt Silb | Apr 17, 2007 11:41:36 AM
"But...But..Clinton!!Clinton!!"
That was 6 years ago, we've got a new president and we don't need to say 'the last guy did it' as an excuse for every unethical thing the Bush administrtaion does.
I am a liberal that will hold Clinton accountable for all his personal failings and as a president. When are the conservatives going to step up to the plate and admit how incompetent W. Bush really is?
Posted by: Jeff G | Apr 17, 2007 12:57:39 PM
jeffh: Who's talking points are you reading from? Most USAs are replaced when a new President is in place. These are patronage jobs. NO ONE! has said Bush can't replace his USAs. All at a time or one at a time. The problem is the way, the reasons and interference by some in Congress that wanted to use them to slant elections by going after their opponents Party with bogus claims and now trying that old scam, COVERUP!
Posted by: nellieh | Apr 17, 2007 2:22:27 PM
I find it exceedingly strange that most of the liberal respondents here have such a such a keen understanding of not only what happened, but why it happened, who ordered it, and what the ultimate resolution should be. I guess they all have very high IQs and are a whole lot smarter than the rest of us.
Posted by: Bob M. | Apr 17, 2007 4:54:17 PM
Bob M - you are correct.
Posted by: Ted | Apr 17, 2007 11:03:39 PM
Liberal, conservative, just labels..........read, learn, and make informed conclussions. This is about the gerrymandering of the leagal process.............plain and simple.
Posted by: George | Apr 18, 2007 9:47:38 AM
HEY AL,
WIPE THAT OBNOXIOUS SMIRK OFF YOUR FACE.
Posted by: shmoopatties | Apr 18, 2007 2:08:22 PM
Post a comment
