HOME / the chat room: Real-time discussions with Slate writers.

The Rap on GonzalesEmily Bazelon answers your questions.

Posted Thursday, April 19, 2007, at 6:47 PM ET

Emily Bazelon was online at the Washingtonpost.com on Thursday, April 19, to discuss testimony by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales before the Senate judiciary committee. An unedited transcript of the chat follows. Slate tracked the hearings at "The Gonzales Q&A."

(Continued from page 1)

RSS

_______________________

Chicago: Gonzales is using the Scooter Libby defense. He can't recall anything about the November 2006 meeting where the firing of the attorneys was discussed because that was a really busy week for him -- including a trip to Mexico, and one of the days of that week was National Meth Awareness Day. I wonder if he remembers anything about Meth Awareness Day. Maybe if "Awareness" is in the title of a meeting it would stick in his memory better? If he's actually telling the truth about this, shouldn't he be fired for gross incompetence?

Emily Bazelon: yes these "I don't recall" answers by public officials are awfully maddening. This Nov. 27, 2006 meeting Gonzales can't recall isn't exactly ancient history. In all fairness, though, I sometimes feel like I can't remember things that happened at work a few weeks ago, so I have some sympathy for the "my brain is a sieve" defense. Though one would think that after weeks of reviewing documents full time, one's memory would be refreshed.

_______________________

Anonymous: In the Times today, David C. Iglesias suggested that Gonzales be asked the following question. Was it or a similar one asked?

Since 1981 there have been several hundred United States attorneys appointed the president. According to the Congressional Research Service, before the recent firings, only a handful were dismissed or resigned under questionable circumstances. In light of this history, was it prudent to ask seven United States attorneys in December to resign where there have never been allegations of misconduct?

Emily Bazelon: Those stats are correct: The "group purge" nature of this firing, for reasons unrelated to misconduct and midterm, is unprecedented. Was it prudent? If they'd had a review process with clear, consistent, and preset criteria, and they'd followed it to weed out the slackers, I don't think we'd be seeing an outcry. It's the murky and apparently subjective and political nature of the dismissals that have caused Gonzales trouble. That and DoJ's original decision to call them "performance related," which made the fired US attorneys--who, remember, were previously loyal Republicans--feel like they had to defend their reputations.

_______________________

Washington: Does it need to be called the Alberto Gonzales Deathwatch? Are you hoping he dies or gets killed? I'm no fan of the man or anyone in the administration, but I think equating his firing to his death is pretty tacky and tasteless -- particularly with all the death we've seen in the news lately. How would you like the Emily Bazelon Deathwatch? Does that look nice to you?

Emily Bazelon: Fair enough. We mean it in jest, of course, and only in reference to his job, but I take your point.

_______________________

Pikeville, Tenn.: While Alberto Gonzales as a member of the executive branch obviously serves at the pleasure of the president, isn't there a point at which the Senate Judiciary committee will use its oversight power in a way that would make his resignation/removal inevitable?

Emily Bazelon: Well that's what the Democratic senators would like to think, but it's been harder to dislodge Gonzales than I certainly expected. The administration has to decide he's too toxic, which apparently they haven't yet. I confess I find that pretty baffling. I don't see why he's worth all the negative headlines etc that he has generated over the past couple of months. But you could also argue, I suppose, that they don't gain enough by getting rid of him to make it worth their while, because the Democrats would be emboldened. I don't really buy it but that's the argument.

_______________________

Chicago: This was one of my favorite answers: "Senator, I do recall having a conversation with Mr. Rove. I now understand that there was a conversation between myself and the president..."

Emily Bazelon: Yes, another great circumlocution, if that's a word!

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: Was there anything that Gonzales or his supporters on the committee members said that would be a positive for him in terms of any perception that he should remain in his position? In other words, did he help himself at all?

Emily Bazelon: Well, he has repeatedly said "I made mistakes" and "I take responsibility." I guess that has to help. The problem, though, is that he is apologizing only for the process and the mishandlings post-firing, rather than the rationales for the firings themselves. That's a tricky line to walk.

_______________________

Burlington, N.C.: Why do you think that Karl Rove's name has not been mentioned more in the questions that the senators are asking?

Emily Bazelon: I just got an email saying that a few minutes ago Gonzales said that the e-mails Rove sent from his Republican National Committee account are covered by executive privilege, meaning that the White House doesn't have to turn them over to Congress. To me this is all pretty amazing: You get to bypass presidential records keeping by using a political email account, and then claim privilege? Seems like the classic have cake, eat too.

_______________________

Germantown, Md.: As near as I can tell, the only one even somewhat on the Attorney General's side was Orrin Hatch. The Republican Senators were at times even more active in condemnation than the Dems. How much of this is the more general concern with the U.S. Attorney process, and how much is pique with the e-mails that indicated that the AG's office was going to game the system and "run out the clock" on the interim appointment for the U.S. Attorney's Office in Arkansas's east district?

Emily Bazelon: I agree--the Republican senators, with the exception of Hatch, have gone after Gonzales. Or rather they haven't asked lots of tough questions (with the exception of Specter, who seemed to be unable to resist this morning) but they've all used words like "deplorable" about the firings and clearly distanced themselves from the attorney general. I don't think this is so much about the interim appointments allowed by the changes last year to the Patriot Act, which after all the senators voted for. I think it's because they don't want to spend their political capital on a guy who is unpopular and in danger of being wholly discredited. Not good for AG, obviously.

_______________________

Sheffield, Mass.: Emily, I saw a clip of AG Gonzales's testimony and I found it, in a word, pathetic. He seemed to be saying, in effect, "I've really screwed up, but please give me a second chance, and I promise to try to do better." Now, that line would work coming from my 11-year old to me; it's embarrassing to hear it from a Cabinet Officer to the Congress. Your thoughts? Also, on a cynical note, do you think Gonzogate will damage the exalted position of Harvard Law School in the public consciousness?

Emily Bazelon: I wouldn't worry too much about Harvard -- it's got lots of illustrious alums to fall back on! Indeed it is odd, and frustrating, to hear top public officials plead for mercy like this. On the other hand, some mistakes are possible to atone for. So maybe the problem is the mismatch between the second-chance rhetoric and the mess. The story of the U.S. attorney firings is so un-confidence inspiring that it's hard for Gonzales to inspire confidence in explaining and apologizing (in a limited way) for it.

_______________________

Millersburg, Mo.: Gonzales has acknowledged the process by which the prosecutors were fired was flawed. If a proper process had taken place, is it possible the eight would not have been fired?