Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Rights and Liberties

Attorney Scandal: Gonzales and White House's Lying to Congress Has Consequences

Center for American Progress. Posted March 20, 2007.


Despite Karl Rove's portrayal of the U.S. Attorney scandal as something for Congress to "play around with," Bush officials will likely end up paying for their lying and ethical mistakes.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Top White House aide Karl Rove continues to portray the U.S. Attorney scandal as "a lot of politics," something for Congress to "play around with." But the continuing allegations of wrongdoing and dishonesty are placing heavy pressure on senior Bush administration figures. "Republican officials operating at the behest of the White House have begun seeking a possible successor to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales," whose support among conservative lawmakers has "collapsed," The Politico reported last night. It is a "now a virtual certainty that Deputy Attorney General Paul J. McNulty, whose incomplete and inaccurate congressional testimony about the prosecutors helped precipitate the crisis, will also resign shortly." Rove's spin cannot paper over the serious ethical and legal questions raised by the U.S. Attorney purge, and the administration's subsequent effort to cover up its deeds.

The Ethics Problem: Several members of Congress -- including Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM) and Reps. Heather Wilson (R-NM) and Doc Hastings (R-WA) -- have acknowledged that they or their offices contacted a U.S. Attorney about an ongoing case, which may violate congressional ethics rules. The watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) alleges that Domenici's call to U.S. attorney David Iglesias violated an ethics rule stating that "Senate offices should refrain from intervening in such legal actions…until the matter has reached a resolution in the courts," and that "Senators are not to communicate with an agency regarding ongoing enforcement or investigative matters." Wilson and Hastings may have violated similar House ethics rules.

The legal problem -- lying to Congress: There are at least two instances where Bush administration officials may have violated federal law in the course of this scandal. One involves testimony to Congress by Gonzales and Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty that the Justice Department would never fire U.S. attorneys for political reasons. Subsequent Justice Department e-mails have shown that to be untrue. It is illegal to lie to Congress, and the relevant provision "is very broad." Gonzales has blamed their inaccurate testimony on his former chief of staff Kyle Sampson, who resigned last week after Gonzales said Sampson had provided "incomplete information" to senior Justice Department officials. But as CREW explains, "Federal law provides that if Sampson knew that he was causing DOJ officials to make inaccurate statements to Congress, he can be prosecuted for the federal crime of lying to Congress even though he did not personally make any statements to Congress." Now Sampson's lawyer now says other top Justice Department officials knew of the White House's role. Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) said last week that "Kyle Sampson will not become the next Scooter Libby, the next fall guy."


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: bush, white house, attorney scandal

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Rights and Liberties! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
The reasons Gonzales and the Bush Admin give for firing...
Posted by: Ghoulman on Mar 20, 2007 10:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... some of the top legal people in the US read like the sort of excuses low level management at Walmart use to fire single mothers, or burger flippers at MickyDs, or corporate drones. Ever notice? And this is testimony from top US officials. Sheesh.

Just curious, have the number of people; generals, advisers, CIA, FBI, etc, etc. that the Bush Admin has "retired" or out and out attacked and fired (not to mention Ambassadors and their undercover CIA relations) exceeded the number of people who died on 9/11?

Am I making a bad joke? Maybe. It's hard to tell when one is joking about the Bush Admin.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» The time for jokes is over. Posted by: HughScott
Freedom of The Press! Or Is It?
Posted by: mite on Mar 20, 2007 11:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Journalist's Creed: from University of Missouri-

I believe in the profession of jounalism.

I believe that the public journal is a public trust; that all connected with it are, to the full measure of their responsibility, trustees for the public; that acceptance of a lesser service than the public service is betrayal of this trust.

I believe that the journalism which succeeds best--and best deserves success--fears God and honors Man; is stoutly independent, unmoved by pride of opinion or greed of power...

U.S. Constitution- Bill of Rights, Amendment 1...

www.journalism.missouri.edu/about/creed.html

This comment is for 'ALL' media-press outlets and government elected=appointed officials in these united States of America. I reference all to the meaning of 'Treason' against 'We-The-People.'

Judges and Lawyers take notice!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Shrub is in a bind
Posted by: HughScott on Mar 20, 2007 11:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Alberto Gonzales and Harriet Miers protected Dub-ya when he was governor of Texas.

In their role of legal lapdogs, they helped create the falsified Bush biography I found on a State Department website in 2004 and reported to the Boston Globe. Impressed, it ran the story the next morning, on 02/28/07, under the headline, “Bush Bio on Web Inflates Guard Service,” and gave me credit as the source.

If Miers and Gonzales had knowledge of the phony State Department bio and helped cover it up, they betrayed the U.S. electorate which was entitled to full disclosure of Bush’s military service.

Three other likely accomplices also worked for Shrub when he was in Austin: spin-masters Karl Rove and Dan Bartlett plus Karen Hughes, State Department propagandist and co-author of Bush’s 1999 alibi autobio, “A Charge to Keep,” which misrepresented his missing (AWOL) Guard service as well.

The federal employment of intimate confidants like Gonzales, Miers, Rove, Bartlett and Hughes explains why the Bush administration is characterized by cronyism and incompetence. To keep Shrub's dishonorable ANG record secret, he and his Texas pals selected White House staff members and department officials based on loyalty, not ability.

The BIG question is, can Bush trust Alberto not to spill the beans after firing him? Stay tuned.

For details about the "Bogus Bush Bio Caper," including the complete Globe article, visit my investigative website, King-George.biz.

Hugh E. Scott

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Shrub is in a bind Posted by: ALANHESTER
Globe article date correction
Posted by: HughScott on Mar 20, 2007 11:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I should've written "02/28/04."

Sorry.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

And so now...
Posted by: JoshuaLudd on Mar 20, 2007 12:49 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Now that Gonzales has lied before congress... no surprise.. meirs and Rove will be interviewed... but won't be under oath. Gee... wonder why....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Did the Dems cave in already? Posted by: lessbread
gtash
Posted by: gtash on Mar 20, 2007 1:21 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Congress is apparently accepting the invitation for Bush, Miers and Rove to lie in a chat fest out of public view and not under oath as an acceptable substitute for investigation.

Democrats are overtaking Bush in the "fool" department.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Brilliant summary. Thank you - nm.
Posted by: mmeetoilenoir on Mar 20, 2007 3:12 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
NM

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Today Shrub declared war on freeedom-loving Americans.
Posted by: HughScott on Mar 20, 2007 3:12 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bush said today, March 20, that he would allow interviews of his White House staff regarding the U.S. attorney firing scandal, but WITHOUT BEING SWORN UNDER OATH.

Can there be any doubt about King George and his court of treasonous neocons being pathological liars? Tell me this isn't worse than Watergate!

For the truth about Dub-ya, the most dishonest president in American history, visit King-George.biz.

Hugh E. Scott

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Permission to lie
Posted by: Jeanne on Mar 20, 2007 4:49 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If the White House is negotiating for testimony not under oath, it is clearly so that they can lie with impunity. "Say anything" is their motto and their tried-and-true practice. If Congress accepts these conditions they are stupider than a bag of rocks. If it isn't under oath, it will be a waste of time and oxygen to watch Rove, Meiers, Gonzalez, et al move their lips, because we know whatever words they say will be lies, lies, lies.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A historical reminder of blatant Bush dishonesty
Posted by: HughScott on Mar 20, 2007 6:12 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
On Aug. 20, 1999, the Houston Chronicle published an article about George W. headlined, "Governor says no illegal drugs used since 1974 / Bush won't specify mistakes made before he turned age 28."

The Chronicle reported that federal disclosure requirements developed by his father's administration required job applicants to admit if they had used drugs since 18 years of age. George Senior created the new rule after reports surfaced that Supreme Court nominee Douglas Ginsburg had once smoked marijuana.

George Junior, apparently deciding he was immune from daddy's rules, drew a line in the sand at a Columbus, Ohio, press conference and adamantly refused to discuss possible drug use occurring before 1974, the year he turned 28.

Conveniently, the period in question covered his missing (AWOL) National Guard years, 1972 and 1973. When a reporter at the press conference pursued the subject, Dub-ya snapped, "I told the American people all I am going to tell them! If they won't accept my answer, then they can go find someone else to vote for."

Simply put, George W. told the U.S. electorate to go to hell even though it was entitled to full disclosure of his military record. By doing so, inhibiting the ability of voters to make reasoned value judgments about character and integrity, Bush betrayed his fellow citizens -- just as he’s doing now by refusing to come clean about Karl Rove's role in the U.S. attorneys firing scandal.

Hugh E. Scott, editor of King-George.biz -- the only website with hardcopy proof of White House corruption. The text above is one of many examples of Bush dishonesty on my website.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Uncontitutional Fraud is OK, Lying Takes him Down?
Posted by: dayahka on Mar 20, 2007 11:41 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Well, I suppose something's better than nothing. Here's a man with an entire administration of crooks, frauds, liars, and dehumanizers who's been given six years of free rein by Republican fellow travellers, who's suddenly being held accountable.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Wheels are Falling Off.....
Posted by: Redhead5050 on Mar 21, 2007 1:32 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It looks like the lying Bushies are about to get their due as the wheels wobble off of this regime..Iraq, fired justices, scooter and the boys, the war monger money chest, Walter Reed...and on and on. It is getting more and more difficult to piss out all of the fires without getting burned. Impeach, Impeach, Impeach.....we have more than enough reason to get that done.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

cottontail
Posted by: cottontail on Mar 21, 2007 1:41 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What else did you expect from this band of thugs? Sadly, I predict that no one will take the fall for this latest obscenity.
They will continue to trample the constitution, appoint sleazebags to government jobs, keep the Iraq invasion going until Jan. 2009, at least. Who the hell is going to stop them? Surely not congress nor that bunch of lapdogs in the supreme court. It's over. What democrat in his or her right mind would want to inherit the mess left by this incompetent and criminal leadership?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Can we name anyone else who was interviewed off the record...
Posted by: djnoll on Mar 21, 2007 1:43 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
and not sworn in for a Congressional investigation? Let's hear the answer: George Walker Bush and Richard Cheney.

How many times are the members of Congress going to allow this kind of BS from the White House before they get the message - The BushCo does not give a damn about them, their rules and regulations, the Constitution and the American People! Enough already - either Impeach these creeps and their appointees, or resign, Madame Speaker, because you are no better than they are!

http://www.standanddeliveramerica.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]