Welcome to Gonzales Watch - Blawging the Ex-Attorney General

Peter Keisler, the head of the Justice Department’s Civil Division under Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, gave 2-weeks notice today that he’s resigning.

Keisler is one of three Bush appointees who were accused by Sharon Y. Eubanks, the DOJ’s former lead tobacco racketeering prosecution lawyer of interfering with the government’s prosecution of the case against Big Tobacco.

According to an account that Eubanks gave the Washington Post, Keisler and two other Bush appointees only took an interest in her team’s civil racketeering case against tobacco companies “when it became clear that the government might win.”

Before being appointed by Bush, Keilser was a litigator at Sidley Austin, LLP, and served as Assistant Counsel and then Associate Counsel in the White House under former President Ronald Reagan.

Keisler was nominated by President Bush to be a federal appellate judge at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit is still pending.

Given the allegations made against him by Eubanks concerning the huge penalty changes in the government’s settlement with tobacco companies — the $130B in civil penalties were reduced to just $10B after Keisler and his colleagues reportedly made Eubanks rewrite her closing arguments — his nomination is sure to be hotly contested before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Thirteen years of unwavering loyalty to George W. Bush, and an inability to separate partisan politics from his ability to honestly serve the American people. That is the big picture of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales newly announced resignation.

What did Gonzales’ boss have to say? That he received “months of unfair treatment,” and that the attorney will be remembered as “a man of integrity, decency and principle.”

It’s a classic Washington game of doublespeak.

Bush alleged that Gonzales’ “good name was dragged through the mud for political reasons.” In other words, Gonzales’ increasing inability to tell the truth before the American people and Congress about the politically-motivated firings of U.S. Attorneys is nothing more than partisan criticism.

Perhaps more than any other U.S. official in history, Gonzales is likely to best be remembered for his forgetfulness. “I don’t recall,” was the standard refrain of the head of the country’s highest law enforcement agency responsible.

One observer keenly noted that:

On September 17, he’ll show up at the AG’s office.
His erstwhile replacement will ask, “Didn’t you resign?”
And he’ll answer: “I don’t recall.”

Gonzales will also be remembered for his Nixonian defensiveness, repeatedly telling the country that he “did nothing wrong” in terminating federal prosecutors who weren’t “loyal Bushies.”

When a rookie FBI agent violated federal law restricting the collection of personal financial information, the agency notified the President’s Intelligence Oversight Board (’IOB’) and the Department of Justice.

How serious was the violation? Julie Thomas, the FBI’s Deputy General Counsel, was apparently so concerned about the agent’s violation of the Right to Financial Privacy Act (’RFPA’) that she sent a notice of the violation by courier to Brent Scowcroft, the IOB Chairman at the time.

Under the RFPA, an aggrieved party can seek civil damages against a person or entity who violates the law. The FBI admission letter from the agency’s lawyers spelled out this concern.

Even though the agent “did not realize that she had acted in contravention of the RFPA and Bureau policy,” the FBI’s legal team concluded that her conduct “was wilful and intentional.” In other words, when the agent broke the law, she violated not only federal law, but her employer’s HR policies.

The violation of federal law, and the FBI’s lawyers urgent admission of the breach, is the subject of an article in this morning’s Washington Post.

The focus on Attorney General Alberto Gonzales concerning a violation of federal law that was reported in October 2004, when he was still White House Counsel, has less to with the fact that it happened, and everything to do with Gonzales’ testimony to Congress the Spring of 2005 when he said under oath that there still no “verified case of civil liberties abuse” under the Patriot Act.

On Tuesday, Gonzales testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that when he testified about abuse of civil liberties two years ago, that he was only referring to “intentional abuse.”

“My view and the views of other leadership in the department is, in fact, we’re talking about abuses of the Patriot Act, we’re talking about intentional, deliberate misuse of the Patriot Act,” the Attorney General told inquiring Senate Judiciary Committee members.

It is unclear from the documents detailing the FBI’s conduct and liability whether the agent was reprimanded. Washington Post reporter John Solomon does not discuss this aspect of the breach in his investigative report.

As President Bush seeks more surveillance powers overseas, under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, violations of federal law at home are sure to come under far greater scrutiny.

U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’ credibility for truth-telling hit a new low yesterday when FBI Director Robert Mueller told Congress that warrantless wiretapping was a hotly disputed issue within the Bush administration when John Ashcroft was U.S. Attorney and Gonzales was White House Counsel.

The revelation came when Mueller testified under oath before the House Judiciary Committee about warrantless wiretapping and President Bush’s Terrorist Surveillance Program run through the National Security Agency.

The disclosure of then White House Counsel Gonzales’ late-night dash to the hospital room where former Attorney General John Ashcroft was gravely ill with a pancreatitis attack, with Deputy A.G. James Comey was at his bedside.

According to Comey’s testimony, Gonzales tried to make an end-run around a highly debated program. Without disclosing sensitive details of the program, it was subsequently revealed that the Justice Department had already concluded that warrantless wiretapping under President Bush’s program was unconstitutional.

Mueller’s confirmation that warrantless wiretapping was hotly debated is at odds with Gonzales’ current and prior testimony before Congress. It clearly looks like Gonzales lied about the controversy and took a chance that he wouldn’t get caught. Will he face any consequences? That’s the real question.