Leahy's Keeping Busy

by emptywheel

Shouldn't Pat Leahy be back in Vermont tipping cows or something like that? Instead, he's churning out letter after letter, closing in on the Bush lying thugs. Tuesday's letter seemed to target Karl Rove. In today's letter, Alberto Gonzales is clearly the target.

I am writing to ask that you investigate and evaluate potential misleading, evasive, or dishonest testimony by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales before the Senate Judiciary Committee on July 24, 2007, and in previous hearings before this and other congressional Committees.  I have identified numerous instances in which the Attorney General appears to have contradicted his own previous testimony or the statements or testimony of other senior officials, or where he appears to have engaged in efforts to mislead.  I have given him an opportunity to clarify and revise his testimony, but he has not meaningfully addressed our significant concerns.

Now just because I'm a timing weenie, let me remind you that the last we heard from Leahy (way back on Tuesday) he had agreed to contact the White House to see if they would meet and negotiate. Does this letter indicate he has already gotten his "go fuck yourself" in response?

In any case, Leahy seems to be striking a moderate tone, suggesting that Gonzales' lying may not be criminal, but simply inappropriate.

I ask that you review the Attorney General’s testimony and compare it with other testimony and evidence to determine whether his testimony was in any instances intentionally false, misleading, or inappropriate.  Consistent with your jurisdiction, please do not limit your inquiry to whether or not the Attorney General has committed any criminal violations.  Rather, I ask that you look into whether the Attorney General, in the course of his testimony, engaged in any misconduct, engaged in conduct inappropriate for a cabinet officer and the nation’s chief law enforcement officer, or violated any duty – including the duty set out in federal regulations for government officials to avoid any conduct which gives the appearance of a violation of law or of ethical standard, regardless of whether there is an actual violation of law. [my emphasis]

(Though if you have any doubts on the criminality of Gonzales' lies, I recommend this Elizabeth de la Vega piece.)

Click through for Leahy's list of AGAG's lies--though if you've been reading this site, I'm sure you're familiar.

This letter only leaves me with one question (besides whether the White House has already told Leahy to fuck himself, in which case this is his next level of escalation).

As I've reported before, DOJ's Inspector General, alone among the Inspector Generals in the Executive Branch, has kind of a hinky jurisdiction. As established, DOJ's IG cannot investigate any violations committed by DOJ's lawyers as lawyers--OPR has to investigate those issues, which means the results will not be made public, and the investigation will fall under Gonzales' direct authority. Most of what Leahy is talking about here are Gonzales' duties as Agency head, not as a lawyer. But given that Leahy talked about AGAG's inappropriate conducts as the nation's top law enforcement officer, it raises the question.

Has DOJ's IG received the ability to investigate DOJ's lawyers fully, or not?

Comments

[nolo]

hey EW -- my hunch is that leahy's
latest letter signals nothing about
the one to george bush.

this letter, today, i think, clearly
angles toward the easy path of least
resistance -- charge 'berto with violations
of the ethical code governing lawyers --
the standard of proof is "preponderance
of the evidence" (vs. "beyond a reasonable
doubt", for a crime) -- and the offense
can be as easy stated as a "lack of candor"
before a tribunal -- like the senate
judiciary committee.

it doesn't even have to be an out-
right lie -- all it need be is an
INCOMPLETE version of some truth,
while under direct questioning before
the tribunal. that would be sen.
leahy -- and 'berto would be toast,
on f.b.i. mueller's notes, alone.

look at the description of ashcroft's
physical condition at 3/10/04 @ 21:10,
for example. this, coupled with comey's
sharply contradictory testimony before leahy,
and 'berto's shading about ashcroft being
"alert, awake and unaffected" when he, and
andrew card, saw him @ about 19:25-19:30. . .
would be a path to disbarment.

the very same game, just different name.

just my take on it.

[Comrade Rutherford]

Hey! I live in Vermont, and Pat is my Senator. And in all the times I've gone cow tipping, I've NEVER seen Pat out there, not once! Now Rep. Welch, on the other hand...

[Snooper]

This is another ghost hunt by Leaky Leahy on yet another non-issue, plain and simple.

There are bigger fish to fry.

Soldier On.

[Jodi]

To me it sounds like the "Rocky Horror Show."

A bit camp, the believers (Democrats/Progressives/Liberals) devoutly mimicking the words, comfortable in their familiarity and here fervent belief in the script(their version of what happened.).

But it is nothing but fiction, and highly improbable.

There is nothing of substance there friends. Nothing.

Just like the Padilla case. You are just way out in left field.

Get over it.

[casual observer]

Unlike nolo above, Leahy's course seems more oriented towards impeachment, than disbarment. I wish to God that the Legal Guild would attempt disbarment, regardless of where Leahy is going.

Speaking of 'where he's going', I have some question as to whether the committee, or the majority en masse is going anywhere. Oversight hearings are great, but by themselves are almost meaningless unless they are conducted with the intent to act, should the facts warrant it. Given the performance of this majority, I have serious doubts about this.

[spoonful]

The fact that Gonzales would be in a position to oversee an OPR investigation of himself is indicative of what appears to be a constitutional flaw allowing foxes to rule the henhouse. In corporate law, a director may not be indemnified by the corporation for wrongful acts intentionally committed by the director; a grantee of a deed of property may not notaraize the grantor's signature . . . but Bush had power to pardon Libby respecting a matter directly implicating the president himself. Also, Bush is permitted to claim executive privilege or state secret with respect to any information which may be incriminating to him or his administration. Of course these arguments are bogus. But where to go? The Supreme Court w/Clarence and Alito & Co? At least we have the democrats in Congress to protect us . . . yuh, right.

[Neil]

To me it sounds like the "Rocky Horror Show."
Posted by: Jodi | August 17, 2007 at 06:50

Yea but that was a spoof. If only the clusterf#$% at 1600 Pennslavania Avenue were a spoof. Hey, wasn't Susan Sarandon heroine Janet Weiss?

[MarkH]

Thanks for the advice Jodi.

Go get 'em Pat. Nail that sum' bitch to the wall.

[endofworld]

It should have been better if Pat Leahy have worded his request in such a way that it included criminal violations,misconduct,conduct inappropriate for a cabinet officer and the nation’s chief law enforcement officer, or violation of any duty without seeming to indicate that Mr. Pat Leahy thinks it unlikely that Mr. Gonzales engaged in criminal acts or at least he thinks it unlikely that Attorney General can be successfully proven to have been engaged in such acts,as present phrasing does.
Further more is the question of why did senator worded his letter in such peculiar way?Has Inspector General given any indication that his investigation will be limited to criminal matters.
One last question,is this the first attempt by senator to have Attorney General investigated by Inspector General?
If yes then my suggestion may not be operative.

[Comrade Rutherford]

Actually I wish Pat wouldn't spend all his time tipping vows up here in Vermont, and DO SOMETHING about the most criminal and depsotic presidecny this nation has ever seen.