Welcome to Gonzales Watch - Blawging the Ex-Attorney General

Perhaps the most thorough grilling of U.S. Attorney General Gonzales before the House Committee on the Judiciary today was from Rep. Robert Wexler (Dem. - Fla.).

In the relatively short time that he was alloted, Wexler put the Attorney General through a meticulous grilling. What remains most impressive about his questioning of Gonzales (who testified under oath), is that he secured admissions from Gonzales about who did not decide to fire the former U.S. Attorney for New Mexico, David Iglesias.

By process of elimination, Wexler’s examination suggests that an even more credible case could emerge as White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove being the one who might have been responsible for Iglesias’ termination.

Here are excerpts from today’s exchange between Rep. Wexler and Attorney General Gonzales. Please note that inadvertent omissions of complete sentences and testimony from both parties are likely to be missing, due to an inability to simultaneously type the entire transcript verbatim during the hearing. You’ll get the gist. Feel free to comment, and link to, missing portions of the testimony.

Wexler: Karl Rove spoke with you about voter fraud in New Mexcio in Oct. 2006?

Gonzales: Yes.

Wexler: Iglesias appeared on the list on Election Day in November 2006

Gonzales: Yes, I believe so.

Wexler: You did not select him [for the list].

Gonzales: No.

Wexler: Kyle Sampson testified that he did not select [the U.S. Attorneys on the list].

Gonzales: No.

Wexler: Did McNulty select them?

Gonzales: No.

Wexler: Did Margolies select them?

Gonzales: No.

Wexler: Did the President select him?

Gonzales: No.

Wexler: Did the Vice President select him?

Gonzales: No.

Wexler: All of the Assistant and former U.S. Attorneys did not select them?

Gonzales: No.

Wexler: You made a decision as to “accepting” the list

You won’t tell the American people who you put the former U.S. Attorney on the list. It’s the great national secret!

Wexler: So you don’t know who put him [Iglesias] on the list?

Gonzales: I wasn’t surprised to see him on the list

Wexler: You will not come forth and tell the American people who put Mr. Iglesias on the list to fire him.

Do you know what Mr. Moschella told the Committee? He was an “absentee landlord”

Gonzales: I haven’t made any decision with respect to Mr. Iglesias.

Wexler: But you, Mr. attorney general, don’t you run the Department of Justice?

Strong criticism was delivered at today’s House Committee on the Judiciary hearing of U.S. Attorney General Rep. Maxine Waters (Dem. - Calif.) about Gonzales failure to review personnel files of fired U.S. Attorneys.

While Waters wanted to talk to the Attorney General abut gang activity, she said that she “won’t do that today” because of U.S. Attorney firings.

Then she began her staccato-like query of Gonzales. What follows are some excerpts (with extensive paraphrasing if warranted) from the heated testimony:

Waters: Did you review the personal files of U.S. Attorneys after they were accused?

Gonzales:: I did not review the personal files

Waters: Have you reviewed the files

Gonzales:: No

Waters: You didn’t review the files, you didn’t see if they were advised, reprimanded, etc.? Did you bring “unredacted files with you today?”

Gonzales:: No.

Waters: Are you resisting giving us the documents that we’re asking of you?

Gonzales:: No, Ma’am.

Would you advise the dept. from getting us the documents

Waters: Did you meet with the presidents to discuss the accusations of the politically motivated firing of U.S. Attorneys? Did you discuss with the President of the United states about being asked to produce documents

Gonzales:: No, ma’am. I’m recused [from document production] because I’m a fact witness.

Waters: You don’t know whether they’re good employees, or bad employees?

Gonzales:: I do now.

Waters: I know that you don’t remember a lot, that you haven’t shared those documents.

Gonzales:: We have provided a lot of information to the Congress…I’m not involved in the document production to the Congress. With respect to redacted documents. It’s my understanding that congress has had access to the documents

Here is the prepared testimony of U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to the House Committee on the Judiciary this morning, maintaining his position that the controversial firing of at least eight U.S. Attorneys (and according to The Washington Post possibly nine) U.S. Attorneys “was not based on improper reasons.”

This is the same stance that the country’s top government lawyer laid out before the Senate Judiciary Committee last month.

You decide for yourself.

Good morning Chairman Conyers, Ranking Member Smith, and Members of the Committee.

I have provided the Committee with a lengthy written statement detailing some of the Department’s work under my leadership to protect our Nation, our children, and our civil rights. I am proud of our past accomplishments in these and other areas, and I look forward to future achievements.

I am here, however, to answer your questions to the best of my ability and recollection – not to repeat what I have provided in writing.

Before we begin, I want to make three brief points about the resignations of the eight United States Attorneys.

These points are the same ones that I made before the Senate Judiciary Committee last month. My feelings and recollections about this matter have not changed since that time.

First, as I have said repeatedly, each of those United States Attorneys are fine lawyers and dedicated public servants. I have publicly apologized to them and to their families for allowing this matter to become an unfortunate and undignified public spectacle, for which I accept full responsibility.

Second, as I have said before, I should have been more precise when discussing this matter. I understand why some of my statements generated confusion, and I have subsequently tried to clarify my words.

That said, I believe what matters most is that I have always sought the truth – in every aspect of my professional and personal life. This matter has been no exception. I never sought to mislead or deceive the Congress or the American people. To the contrary; I have been extremely forthcoming with information. I am here today to continue to do my part to ensure that all facts about this matter are brought to light.

Finally, recognizing my limited involvement in the process – a mistake I freely acknowledge – I have soberly questioned my prior decisions.

I have reviewed the documents available to the Congress – but please keep in mind that, in deference to the integrity of the ongoing investigations, there is some information that I have not seen.

I have also asked the Deputy Attorney General if I should reconsider my decisions.

What I have concluded is that, although the process was not as rigorous or structured as it should have been, and while reasonable people might decide things differently, my decision to ask for the resignations of these U.S. Attorneys was not based on improper reasons and, therefore, the decision should stand.

I think we agree on what would be improper. It would be improper to remove a U.S. Attorney to interfere with or influence a particular prosecution for partisan political gain.

I did not do that. I would never do that.

Let me conclude by saying that I have learned important lessons from this experience, which will guide me in my important responsibilities.

In recent weeks I have met or spoken with all of our U.S. Attorneys to hear their concerns. These discussions have been open and frank. Good ideas were generated and are being implemented. I look forward to working with these men and women to pursue the great goals of our Department. I also look forward to continuing to work with the Department’s career professionals – investigators, analysts, prosecutors, lawyers, and administrative staff – who perform nearly all of the Department’s work and deserve the most credit for our accomplishments.

I want to continue working with this Committee as well. We have made great strides in protecting our country from terrorism, defending our neighborhoods against the scourge of gangs and drugs, shielding our children from predators, and preserving the integrity of our public institutions. I do not intend to allow recent events to deter us from our mission.

Thank you.