MSNBC just ran an interview between NBC's Pete Williams and Alberto Gonzales. I can only think that Gonzales thought that Williams, a Bush I Pentagon spokesperson, would somehow find a way to make the whole thing smell like a rose.
Didn't work that way. Williams softballed it a bit but was tough enough to keep his journalist's bona fides (granted that doesn't say a whole lot, but still, I've seen worse). Williams turned out to be plenty tough enough to force Gonzales to launch into extended and ridiculous lies. It didn't take much.
Portions of the transcript follow. Text in italics are my comments.
TRANSCRIPT
Pete Williams: Mr. Attorney General, what is it that you would like people to know about this controversy?
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales: Let me begin with the attacks on my credibility, which really have pained me and my family. You know, I have grown up — I grew up with nothing but my integrity. And someday, when I leave this office, I am confident that I will leave with my integrity. The United States attorneys that were asked — to resign — were appointed by this president, they serve, like me, at the pleasure of the president.
I asked for their resignation not for improper reasons. I would never have asked for their resignations to interfere with a public corruption case or in any way to interfere with an ongoing investigation. I just wouldn't do that. And if you look carefully at the documentations we've provided to Congress, there's no evidence of that.
Mr. Gonzales said much of this with a quaver in his voice, much as if he were about to break down in tears. To my mind, the "and you can't prove nothing, copper!" bit at the end detracted a bit from its emotional impact. The fact that he went on to follow it with a collection of ridiculous lies renders it despicable.
If I find out that, in fact, any of these decisions were motivated, the recommendations to me were motivated for improper reasons to interfere with the public corruption case, there will be swift and — there will be swift and decisive action. I can assure you that.
Williams: Meaning people would be fired?
Gonzales: Absolutely. Because there is no place for that. Our prosecutors have to — there has to be no question about the integrity, the professionalism, undue influence of prosecutions in connection with public corruption kind — kinds of cases. And if I find out that any of that occurred here involving the Department of Justice officials, yes, they will be removed.
OK, Gonzales said that. Noted and logged. Apologists please scratch "nothing improper is even alleged" off the list.
Williams: Can you answer some of the questions that have come up over the weekend? As you know, there was a — an email that came out Friday night that showed that ten days before the firings there was a meeting in your office which you attended to discuss the firings. And yet when you talked to us here at the Justice Department two weeks ago, you said you were not involved in any discussions about the firings. Can you — can you explain what seems like a contradiction?
Gonzales: Let — let me just say — a wise senator recently told me that when you say something that is either being misunderstood or can be misunderstood, you need to try to correct the record and make the record clear. Let me try to be more precise about my involvement. Good idea. You weren't all that "precise" the first time, were ya? When I said on March 13th that I wasn't involved, what I meant was that I — I had not been involved, was not involved in the deliberations over whether or not United States attorneys should resign. So that's what you meant? How come, then, that what you actually said was "I was not involved in seeing any memos, was not involved in any discussions about what was going on."?
Now, of course, ultimately at the end of the process or near the end of the process, the recommendations were — were presented to me. There had been a lot of work done to review the performance of the United States attorneys. And recommendations were presented to me that reflected the recommendations of Kyle Samson and of others in the department. And so there was obviously a discussion with respect to that — that recommendation. I thought we were dancing away from calling that a "discussion," but hey, whatever.
And, of course — having decided there will be changes, there was — there was a discussion about how do we implement this change? And so that is in — in essence — the context of my involvement and the substance of my comments on March 13th. Nothing like a new document dump to refresh the old memory!
Williams: So you didn't get into the decision about specifically which U.S. attorneys to include on this list until the very end?
Gonzales: Absolutely. Now, that's not to say that during the process I may not have heard about the performance — or particular matter with respect to the United States attorney. For example — we've already confirmed that Senator Menacheet [sic] did call me about the performance of the United States attorney in New Mexico. Note to reader: substitute "the press has already found out" (or an appropriate similar phrase) for anything like "we've already confirmed" both here and in the following paragraph.
The president — the White House has already confirmed that there was a conversation with the president, mentioned it to me in a meeting at the Oval Office — in terms of concerns about — about the commitment — to pursue voter fraud cases in — in three jurisdictions around the country. Interesting that the President's direct connection to the case is related to the selective political prosecution aspect of the scandal, it's most damning aspect. I don't remember that conversation (You don't remember your conversation with the President about micro-managing U.S. Attorney's prosecutions of political cases. Uh-huh. Guess they haven't found the documents on this one yet.), but what I'm saying is during the process there may have been other conversations (in other words, you're saying you can't rule out that other documents might be discovered uncovering one of the numerous other conversations and meetings you actually had on the subject) about specifically about the performance of US attorneys. But I wasn't involved in the deliberations as to whether or not a particular United States attorney should or should not be asked to resign. Except for that little bit about approving all the firings. (Some documents have been released.)
Williams: You mentioned the conversations with the president. What role did they play in deciding which U.S. attorneys would be on the list?
Gonzales: As far as I know, Pete — they did not play a role in — in adding names or taking off names. An oddly precise formulation. Notice what Gonzales didn't say. He didn't say that the President did not approve the process at the outset, and he didn't say that the President didn't approve the final list. Among other things. Get the idea there might be some more documents coming out on this one?
Williams: The — so the list came to you toward the end for you to sign off on. But you were not involved in deciding who should be on or off the list during the process.
Gonzales: I was not involved in the deliberations during the process as to who-- who should or should not be — asked to resign.
Williams: If that —
Gonzales: I depended on the people who knew about how those United States attorneys — were performing — people within the department — who — who would have personal knowledge of — about these individuals, who would have, based upon their experience, would know what — what would be the appropriate standards that a United States attorney should be asked to — to achieve. If it was all based on people who would have personal knowledge of the U.S. Attorneys, wouldn't this be documented somewhere? Why have we yet to see a single document referring to the process of making the firing decisions, as opposed to the numerous contradictory documents concerning the reasons that were to be given publicly for firing decisions that had already been made? (Who actually made those decisions?)
Williams: Given that, then how can you be certain that none of these U.S. attorneys were put on that list for improper reasons?
Gonzales: What I can say is this: I know the reasons why I asked you — these United States attorneys to leave. (Do tell. OK, I'm waiting. . . . Still waiting.) And it — it was not for improper reasons. It was not to interfere with the public corruption case. It was not for partisan reasons.
Pete. Pete. Hey Pete! Wake up! Ask him what the firings actually were for. He says he knows why. Make him tell you!
I also — we also know that there's nothing in the documents that indicates that they were asked to leave for improper reasons. So buzz off, coppahs. Yas can't prove nuttin'! But all — but lastly, just to be sure, I have asked for an internal — review by the Office of Professional Responsibility, working with the Office of Inspector General. And I'll ask my employee who is tasked with conducting this investigation to ignore the fact that his boss just said on national TV that none of them were put on the list for improper reasons. And, of course, the Congress is going to be doing its own review over my dead body because I want to know as well if, in fact, there were improper reasons, we — we should know about it. And there will be accountability.
Williams: To put this question another way — if you didn't review their performance during this process, then how can you be certain that they were fired for performance reasons?
Gonzales: I — I've given — I've given the answer to the question, Pete. I know — I know the reasons why I made the decision. (Pete. Hey Pete.) Again, there's nothing in the documents to support the allegation that there was anything improper here. Coppahs. And there is an internal — department review to answer that question, to reassure the — the American people that there was nothing improper that happened here. Well gosh we are just so reassured.
Williams: Given that, how difficult is it going to be — you just said there's a shortage of documentation here. How hard is it going to be to make the case to Congress that they were not fired for improper reasons if there isn't a lot of documentation on the reasons they were put on the list?
Gonzales: I didn't — I don't think that I said there was a shortage of documentation. Oh good. Oh good. Cause we haven't seen the first little note on this subject yet. Listen, what I will say is this. The — the — the evaluations of individual United States attorneys is — is not solely contained within the documents. Ha! Bet that's an understatement!
Obviously, people have personal observations, personal views that may not be reflected in those documents. Those will — will be presented — to the Congress at the appropriate time. And under oath, I pray to God.
--