Alberto Gonzales' legal troubles may just be beginning.

The law, lawyers, and the court.
Oct. 25 2007 8:11 PM

What Lies Beneath

Alberto Gonzales' legal troubles may just be beginning.

(Continued from Page 1)

There are, for starters, numerous instances of what looks to be false congressional testimony by Gonzales—itself a crime—most notably his claim that there was no serious disagreement inside the administration about the Terrorist Surveillance Program. This has now been broadly refuted by Robert Mueller, Jack Goldsmith, and James Comey. Gonzales testified in 2005 that "[t]here has not been one verified case of civil liberties abuse" under the Patriot Act. Documents indicate he'd received multiple reports in 2005 and 2006 of violations in connection with national security letters. He testified in April 2007, that, in the matter of the U.S. attorney firings, "I haven't talked to witnesses because of the fact that I haven't wanted to interfere with this investigation." Former White House liaison Monica Goodling later testified she had an "uncomfortable" discussion with him in which Gonzales set out his version of events regarding the process of firing U.S. attorneys. Gonzales has come back with a slickly parsed explanation for how these false statements were all, in fact, true. But Fine nevertheless told the Senate judiciary committee in September that his office "has ongoing investigations that relate to most of" these subjects.

According to a recent article in Newsweek, the former AG finally lawyered up because, according to three legal insiders, "Gonzales's team … is concerned that Fine may end up making a criminal referral to the Public Integrity Section of the Justice Department—or even seek the appointment of a special counsel to determine if Gonzales made false statements to Congress." And the oft-somnolent House judiciary committee heard yet more devastating testimony this week about the depth and breadth of the politicization at DoJ—including claims by Richard L. Thornburgh, attorney general in the Reagan and first Bush administrations, that the best way for an ambitious U.S. attorney to advance in the Gonzales Justice Department was to go after high-profile Democrats during election season for the most trivial of infractions. Murray Waas also suggested last week that Gonzales' conflict of interest in overseeing the investigations of subordinates who were likely to testify against him in regard to a leak case was so egregious that a special prosecutor may be the only way out.

Advertisement

In short, with all these tentacles of misdeeds waving around, the IG's report may finally package it all up in a systemic way that Congress has failed to do. At which point, the only question will become whether the Justice Department will refer this case for prosecution. Another of the dismissed U.S. attorneys, David Iglesias, said in a telephone interview that he'd be "stupified" if that happened. But whether or not it does, the seriousness of the threat could still explain why Gonzales is out of a job. 

Had he stayed on at DOJ, Gonzales would have been expected to testify again this fall before the Senate judiciary committee on the FISA legislation, and that questioning likely would have picked at the loose threads of all his prior testimony, opening up yet more possibilities for more perjury. No defense attorney would have permitted this to happen. Emptywheel agrees that this is the likeliest scenario. Gonzales lawyered up when the IG started to investigate him, and his lawyer finally told him what a child could have known nine months ago: Shut up and avoid the parsing, mincing, and lying. This president isn't worth going to jail for.

  Slate Plus
Working
Nov. 27 2014 12:31 PM Slate’s Working Podcast: Episode 11 Transcript Read what David Plotz asked a helicopter paramedic about his workday.