White House Privately ‘Frustrated’ And ‘Impatient’ With Gonzales
White House Privately ‘Frustrated’ And ‘Impatient’ With Gonzales
Publicly, the White House continues to claim that President Bush supports Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Today, Press Secretary Dana Perino said the President “has confidence in” Gonzales and “believes the attorney general can overcome the challenges that are before him.”
Privately though, reports indicate that the White House is frustrated with Gonzales. On March 14, Bush told the nation, “Al was right, mistakes were made, and he’s going to go up to Capitol Hill to correct them.” But 16 days later, Gonzales has still not been to Congress to talk to lawmakers. His next scheduled appearance is on April 17, when he tesitifies to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Yesterday, ABC News reported:
The White House is getting increasingly impatient with Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.
Officials are frustrated that Gonzales is taking so long to get up to Capitol Hill to attempt damage control on last year’s controversial firing of eight U.S. attorneys.
Additionally, at a meeting with House Republicans yesterday, Bush refused to expess confidence in his Attorney General:
Asked about Gonzales during a closed-door meeting with House Republicans on Thursday, Bush did not defend his longtime friend, according to one official who attended the session and demanded anonymity because it was private.
Instead, Bush tepidly repeated his public statement: The attorney general would have to go up to Capitol Hill and fix his problem, according to this official.
After yesteday’s testimony by his former deputy Kyle Sampson — who testified, under oath, that Gonzales’s statements about his involvement in the prosecutor purge were “not accurate” — Gonzales will face a much tougher time “correcting” his mistakes to Congress.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
82 Responses to “White House Privately ‘Frustrated’ And ‘Impatient’ With Gonzales”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Privately though, reports indicate that the White House is frustrated with Gonzales.
Then can his lying, justice-obstructing, fascist @$$ already!
March 30th, 2007 at 4:53 pmI doubt he makes it to the day when he’s scheduled to testify. This is such shame. This whole thing just stinks to high hell.
March 30th, 2007 at 4:54 pmLOL Dubya is about to throw Gonzales under the bus. Bye bye Alberto.
March 30th, 2007 at 4:55 pmWhat’s he going to say, besides “I don’t recall being at that meeting?”
I think a little waterboarding would help that memory.
March 30th, 2007 at 4:55 pmCrump’s Brother:
Gonzales can’t FORCE the Senate Judiciary Committee to take his testimony, can he? They are going on spring break anyway. Have they suggested an earlier date and he refused?
March 30th, 2007 at 4:59 pmQuestions for the next AG nominee.
What is your position on torture?
What is your position on signing statements?
What is your position on unitary presidency?
What is your position on executive privilege?
What is your position on congressional oversight?
What is your position on the Constitution?
What is your position on wiretapping?
God, is this going to be fun.
March 30th, 2007 at 5:01 pmDana Perino won’t last a month in Snowjob’s position - she’s doesn’t articulate intelligently and presents a very weak facade for this white house. Frankly, she’s one step above your typical airhead, too young to have enough experience to recognize her lack of invincibility and too ignorant to understand the way people’s minds work. She’s been told what line to sell and she doesn’t even sell that well. Let’s not get into the veracity of her comments or the shallowness of her dialogue….ugh!
March 30th, 2007 at 5:01 pmFrustrated because Gonzo’s going down the tubes? I’d say it’s a fait au complie and the only question left is “when”. As for bush himself, the same question will be applied: “when” will impeachment proceedings force his resignation??? With all of the weekly scandals soon to be made public, I’d say that Bush himself has about 6 months in office to go.
March 30th, 2007 at 5:03 pmLet’s all look at the Gonzales statement that’s making the rounds:
“I never saw documents. We never had a discussion about where things stood.”
1) Has anyone PROVEN he saw documents?
2) What documents?
3) Has anyone PROVEN one of the 5 meetings included “a discussion about where things stood”?
4) Did that one-hour meeting take place?
5) Was anything else discussed, or was the topic for one hour straight: “Firing U.S. Attorneys”
6) Was it a “discussion” that basically said: these are the names — do you approve or not? That doesn’t sound like an in-depth briefing on the matter.
March 30th, 2007 at 5:03 pm“Frustrated” would not be a chosen word to describe Bush; “moronic” would be more apropos.
March 30th, 2007 at 5:04 pmShit, if I were Gonzo I’d just resign and get the f*ck out of there. Why is he letting the Chimp drag this out so long, just to throw him under the bus?
March 30th, 2007 at 5:04 pmJake
I actually think that they did offer an earlier date and he couldn’t make it. Although I could be wrong on that.
Are you insinuating that he can’t wait to get up there and explain how he’s so incompetent that he can’t remember meetings about a highly volatile issues within his own department?
March 30th, 2007 at 5:05 pmCrump’s Brother:
The President could call Congress back early from vacation to hear Gonzales testimony AND get a clean spending bill to him . . .
March 30th, 2007 at 5:06 pmOperation “Heckuva Job Gonzo” is about to happen. They are just trying to find some Cushy Large Law Firm that will take him.
March 30th, 2007 at 5:06 pmLOL — if Bush only has 6 months left in office, Gonzales might as well tough it out too.
March 30th, 2007 at 5:06 pmWhite House frustrated by oversight, getting caught telling new lies every day.
March 30th, 2007 at 5:07 pmWhite House Privately ‘Frustrated’ And ‘Impatient’ With Gonzales
Because Gonzo can’t perform nearly as well as Jeff Gannon.
March 30th, 2007 at 5:08 pm#7 veritas
It’s an interesting predicament. Everything’s going wrong for these guys. Snowjob goes down and they don’t have a replacement ready who can dance as fast or sling the bull as deftly as he could. Gonzales is about to drop and they’re going to have a bitch of a time trying to replace him. The confirmation hearings should be a gas. The circle surrounding Rove is crumbling apart, a piece at a time. And on top of it all, Henry Waxman is on fire!
March 30th, 2007 at 5:10 pmGonzalez knows too much. He’d better watch his back…
March 30th, 2007 at 5:10 pmMany busses are hitting lots of big bumps, and there is a lot of blood all over them lately.
March 30th, 2007 at 5:11 pmCrump’s Brother:
You’ve got to remember this was not “highly volatile” in October-November of 2006 — what date was the supposed one hour meeting — can you recall everything you did on that day?
March 30th, 2007 at 5:12 pmfortruth:BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!
March 30th, 2007 at 5:13 pmP.S. I don’t know if he was offered an earlier date, but isn’t Congress on spring break until mid-April anyways?
March 30th, 2007 at 5:13 pmjake - doesn’t it get tiring constantly being the mouthpiece for this train-wreck of an administration? i couldn’t do it (unless, of course, i was being paid by the republic party to do it) isn’t there someplace like lgf or free republic where you can just go and, you know, spout the same old rubberstamp bullsh*t that you’re making us read? i know that i speak for a lot of folks here when i say that we’d all REALLY appreciate your leaving. think about it, please…
March 30th, 2007 at 5:15 pm#9 Jake
Sampson was very clear. The decisions were made by Gonzales and Harriet Miers. There are several other DoJ and White House staff getting ready to talk. How many witnesses would it take to convince you that Gonzales was at the meetings and made the decisions?
March 30th, 2007 at 5:15 pmJake,
This isn’t a question of what you had for lunch!
You’ve got a meeting about firing about 10% of the top of your workforce.
I bet that you might remember a little bit about that conversation.
March 30th, 2007 at 5:16 pmJakes, who believes that only convicted felons should be asked to resign (Republican) government positions, also apparently believes that only (Republican) people who have been convicted of a crime should be accused of a crime. Any investigation into possible crimes should wait until the crime has been proven, without benefit of any investigation at all.
March 30th, 2007 at 5:16 pmLet’s all look at the Gonzales statement that’s making the rounds:
“I never saw documents. We never had a discussion about where things stood.â€
1) Has anyone PROVEN he saw documents?
2) What documents?
3) Has anyone PROVEN one of the 5 meetings included “a discussion about where things stood�
4) Did that one-hour meeting take place?
5) Was anything else discussed, or was the topic for one hour straight: “Firing U.S. Attorneysâ€
6) Was it a “discussion†that basically said: these are the names — do you approve or not? That doesn’t sound like an in-depth briefing on the matter.
Good questions. Let’s ask the principals. Separately. Under oath. And then subpoena any relevant documents, and mathc ‘em all up. That’s what competent prosecutors do to get the the bottom of things when you have a pack’o'lying’shills…..
Cheers,
March 30th, 2007 at 5:17 pmJake,
No I can’t remember what I did on those days. But was not about to take part in the fairly unprecedented firing of 8 federal prosecutors. If that is what they were doing, and by all the e-mails, they knew it was going to be a huge deal when they did it, don’t you think you would have remembered?
Why is it that no one in this administration, when questioned under oath, seems to remember what the hell they were doing, when in fact, they were working on wildly important stuff that affects the American People?
March 30th, 2007 at 5:18 pmHey whiteyfresh!
March 30th, 2007 at 5:18 pmWhy do we need to argue so much with trolls? What’s the point?
March 30th, 2007 at 5:19 pmI feel kinda poetic
One was a man named Alberto
March 30th, 2007 at 5:20 pmwho was tossed to and fro
under the bus did he go
as they encircled Rove
first Libby and now Gonzo
the bus never slows
as it heads for abyss
one things for sure
the wheels never miss
ah, don’t make whiteyfresh referee this, jake. it’s like calling your mom to fight your battles for you. i asked politely. heck, i’ll even through in a “pretty please” if it will get you to leave.
March 30th, 2007 at 5:22 pm#21 Jake
You’ve got to remember this was not “highly volatile†in October-November of 2006 — what date was the supposed one hour meeting — can you recall everything you did on that day?
That’s right. Firing 8 U.S. Attorneys in one fell swoop, midterm and without cause is such a common occurrence, I can see how it would be hard to remember something like that. With all the other things that Gonzales can remember, and all the other people who can remember these meetings, I don’t think that’s going to work for him. And, I also think everyone in the House Oversight Committee and both Judiciary Committees is getting damned sick and tired of hearing “I don’t recall.”
Everyone knows it’s bullshit. Even you, Jake.
March 30th, 2007 at 5:22 pm#27 Gummich:
akes, who believes that only convicted felons should be asked to resign (Republican) government positions, ….
Dunno about that. What’s he think of peole like Poindexter, Abrams, Negroponte, and Reich being brought back to infest the maladministration?
Cheers,
March 30th, 2007 at 5:22 pmwhat date was the supposed one hour meeting — can you recall everything you did on that day? -Jake
Do you recall the first time you had sex? Drove your first car? Remember Jake these people are supposed to be the best, they have great memories, their jobs depend upon it.
March 30th, 2007 at 5:23 pmReagan “couldn’t recall” whether or not he authorized selling massive amounts of weaponry to the terrorist state of Iran under Ayatollah Khomenhi, either.
How can we expect them to remember all these insignificant things?
March 30th, 2007 at 5:24 pmCrump’s Brother:
I don’t doubt that Gonzales was there — I just don’t know whether he “lied” or simply did not remember — the Attorney General position is more complicated than simply which U.S. Attorneys are we going to fire today. I don’t think that they knew it was going to be a huge deal when they did it — in fact, Sampson testified had he known it was going to become this huge, in hindsight, he would not have recommended David Iglesias at least ; )
The Attorney General is fighting a war against terrorists, as well as everything else that position normally entails — I don’t know that I would have remembered — although I would have just said fire all of them so we don’t have to answer which ones we really didn’t like.
March 30th, 2007 at 5:24 pm#28 pablo
jake - doesn’t it get tiring constantly being the mouthpiece for this train-wreck of an administration?
Jake is the Baghdad Bob of ThinkProgress trolls.
March 30th, 2007 at 5:24 pmWhy do we need to argue so much with trolls? What’s the point?
Comment by ForTruth
Truth.
March 30th, 2007 at 5:25 pmHahahaha! Jake wants all thems items to be PROVEN, yet his boy Bush refuses to allow anyone in the Justice Department to testify under oath. And this after they’ve been shown to have LIED to the American people repeatedly over the past few weeks.
March 30th, 2007 at 5:25 pmIf we look at what he’s done seen being appointed, Gonzales is actually fighting a war against Constitutional rights.
March 30th, 2007 at 5:26 pmWould firing all of them been “better” and sticking with established precedent in your opinion?
March 30th, 2007 at 5:27 pmThe Attorney General is fighting a war against terrorists -Jake
What? He said he was fighting for our children. How does an AG fight terrorists when he was more interested in American political battles?
March 30th, 2007 at 5:27 pmFor the latest news, email archives, hearings, legal filings and other essential documents on the Bush DOJ prosecutor firings, see:
March 30th, 2007 at 5:28 pm“The U.S. Attorney Scandal Documents.”
re: #38
So, Sampson saying something is proof that it is true? He must be a Vulcan.
March 30th, 2007 at 5:29 pmI don’t doubt that Gonzales was there ???? - jake
“Responding to questions from Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., Sampson rejected the notion that the dismissals were ordered by young or inexperienced Justice Department officials.
“The decision makers in this case were the attorney general and the counsel to the president,” he told the Senate Judiciary Committee.
-Distributed by Internet Broadcasting Systems, Inc. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
March 30th, 2007 at 5:30 pmFor the record, I don’t think the President can order ANYONE at DoJ to not testify. That argument about Executive Privilege applies to White House advisors and, you know, the WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL, the official attorney to the Office of President of the United States. If any of you have ever had to be represented by an attorney, would you like it if I suddenly could get that attorney under oath testifying about YOU?!
March 30th, 2007 at 5:30 pm#43 well, they are all republicans, aren’t they?
March 30th, 2007 at 5:31 pmI hear a lot of “This probably reaches to the Whitehouse” and “Gonzales should resign” and all sorts of ideas on how the guilty should be punished, but what I don’t hear is “The attorneys will be reinstated.” Everyone, even the Whitehouse and Gonzales say that they were fired when they shouldn’t have been.
If they aren’t reinstated, then whoever ends up the scapegoat for this (looks like AG) the Whitehouse wins. What happened to making things right?
March 30th, 2007 at 5:31 pmWay back when, I saw lawyer after lawyer go up to Congress and lie during the Watergate hearings. I came to the conclusion it was not possible to be ethical and be a lawyer. It took me a few decades to come to a different conclusion.
Now we’re seeing the top Prosecuting Attorney of the United States of America lie.
Not only that, but this attorney justified the use of torture, of holding a United States Citizen indefinitely without charges.
I would like to see Gonzales declared an enemy combatant and subjected to all the interrogation techniques approved on his watch. Then admit whatever he says while being interrogated as evidence against him. Let Gonzales be afforded the same rights and protections he has approved for others.
March 30th, 2007 at 5:32 pm#38 Jake
The Attorney General is fighting a war against terrorists, as well as everything else that position normally entails
No he’s not. Up until recently he’s been fighting a war to keep Bush’s ass covered. He’s been doing the bidding of the White House instead of serving as the nation’s attorney. But, it finally caught up with him. The White House got him to do something he shouldn’t have and he got burned. Now he’s fighting a war to save his own ass. He’s not going to make it, but he really should take Rove down with him, since that’s who screwed him over with this deal.
March 30th, 2007 at 5:33 pmIf anyone (NOT on the “Ignore List”) honestly has a question what the Department of Justice, including the FBI and Office of Domestic Preparedness, is doing to fight terrorists — let me know.
March 30th, 2007 at 5:34 pm#43 Jake
Would firing all of them been “better†and sticking with established precedent in your opinion?
Why would you even ask a stupid question like that? What is your purpose? Are you just lonely? Do you make up off-the-wall questions like that just to have a conversation or what?
People have gone to great pains to explain things to you over and over, and you continue to act like you’ve never heard any of it before. Seriously Jake, what is the point?
March 30th, 2007 at 5:38 pmf anyone (NOT on the “Ignore Listâ€) honestly has a question what the Department of Justice, including the FBI and Office of Domestic Preparedness, is doing to fight terrorists — let me know.
Comment by Jake
Jake everyone is apparently on your ignore list. Ignoring a problem, or post, or person, doesn’t make it go away.
March 30th, 2007 at 5:39 pmf anyone (NOT on the “Ignore Listâ€) honestly has a question what the Department of Justice, including the FBI and Office of Domestic Preparedness, is doing to fight terrorists — let me know.
Comment by Jake
It’s pretty apparent Jake thinks keyboard warriors actually fight terror.
They don’t. Sitting behind a desk playing politics is a BS excuse.
March 30th, 2007 at 5:42 pmCrump’s Brother or whiteyfresh:
You still around?
March 30th, 2007 at 5:45 pmLet Gonzales be afforded the same rights and protections he has approved for others.
Comment by Briseadh na Faire
Yes, let it be so.
March 30th, 2007 at 5:47 pmI like that idea.
Strip his right to habeus corpus and let the waterboarding begin.
It’s pretty apparent Jake thinks keyboard warriors actually fight terror.
Comment by Zep Tepi
Isn’t is time we treat the ass like the troll he is and freeze him out?
Jake who?
March 30th, 2007 at 5:49 pmThe best way to fight terror is to not allow yourself to be terrorized.
March 30th, 2007 at 5:53 pmjakeoff, your sense of self-importance borders on the pathologic. Yet, we continue to feed your ego, by responding to the rubbish that emits from your keyboard. I for one am placing MYSELF (ironic sense of narcisism) on your ignore list. And please, have a miserable, little life.
March 30th, 2007 at 5:54 pmthese people are supposed to be the best, they have great memories, their jobs depend upon it.
Comment by Zep Tepi — March 30, 2007 @ 5:23 pm
At the very least you’d think they’ve learned to us appointment books. And they all have secretary’s who use calendars, maybe online, or appointment books. I wonder if they all went missing.
March 30th, 2007 at 5:58 pmR.I.P. Jake, 2007-2007
March 30th, 2007 at 6:08 pmHas anyone PROVEN he saw documents - Jake
****************
You seem to think that Gonzo should be held to a “innocence until proven guilt” standard of justice. He and duhbya got rid of that legal standard a while back.
Habius corpus is so 90’s.
March 30th, 2007 at 6:24 pmI think it stinks too, he should be allowed to perjure himself, before he resigns.
March 30th, 2007 at 6:38 pmIn the 1926 Supreme Court decision Myers v. United States, Chief Justice William Howard Taft wrote that any limitation on the president’s power to independently remove executive officers could result in executive “paralysis” at the hands of “a partisan Senate and Congress.” The majority opinion further determined that the Constitution’s silence on protocols for removing executive officers implicitly denies the need for congressional approval.
That ruling codified a precedent set six decades earlier when Congress failed in its effort to oust President Andrew Johnson for his unilateral removal of Secretary of War Edwin Stanton. The House of Representatives impeached Johnson in 1868 for his action, but the Senate fell one vote short, averting what many historians believe might have dangerously altered the balance of power between the legislative and executive branches.
March 30th, 2007 at 6:51 pmThe picture says, “co-conspirators!”
March 30th, 2007 at 6:52 pmWatching the Sampson testimony yesterday on C-Span, it was interesting how he remembered almost nothing….except when a question was asked specifically about the compliaints/concerns about Carol Lam’s failure to prosecute immigration cases strongly enough….he suddenly regained his ability to remember minute details about who said what and when. Quite amazing display of “selective” memory.
Food for thought. Lam had just secured indictments on a couple of MAJOR players in Mexico drug cartels. Juxtipostion this with the case with the Johnny Sutton indictments and convictions of two U.S. Border Patrol guards and the prior immunity given to a drug runner associated with a very large (MAJOR) Mexican drug cartel. Maybe the same cartel.
March 30th, 2007 at 6:57 pmBush’s DOJ:
ignoring warnings of 9/11
covering up failures before 9/11
ignoring habeas corpus
ignoring International law signed by the US
covering statues’ breasts
fear of calico cats
illegal renditions/secret flights to torturing nations
illegal wiretaps
illegal phone records
illegal interception of mail
no evidence released to defendents
no defense counsel allowed
suspects held without charges/without trial
torture legalized
protection for Randy Cunningham
protection for Dusty Foggo
protection for Jack Abramoff
coverup of sexual molestation at Texas juvenile facility
protection for Northern Marianas underage sex trafficking and slave labor
protection for gambling industry
protection of voting fraud
protection for cheap illegal immigrant labor
Coverup of HookerGate
etc., etc.
March 30th, 2007 at 6:58 pm#60: #
How true. There is limited actual damage terrorists can inflict and their only aim is to terrorize.
BushCo did more than Bin Laden ever could to first, enable 9/11 to happen and then, to enable a paralyzing fear of terrorists make home in American guts.
Land of the Free and Home of the Brave. Pffft.
March 30th, 2007 at 8:24 pmComment by Jake — March 30, 2007 @ 6:51 pm
Once again, Jake misses the point. The issue is not whether the Attorneys could be removed; the issue is whether removing these Attorneys constituted obstruction of justice.
And there’s a greater moral issue at stake here. Should U.S. Attorneys General be used to target political opponents and protect political allies?
Or, to put it differently, are we content to do away with an independent Department of Justice and instead turn that Department’s function into maintaining the Party in Power?
Would Jake, Exley and other trolls be making the same arguments if a Democratic Administration were doing the same things?
March 30th, 2007 at 8:52 pm#67-theswan. The picture says , Bush to Gonzalez:”You are safe, as long as you are doing for my pleasure”..
March 30th, 2007 at 9:05 pmWould you, Briseadh na Faire?
March 30th, 2007 at 9:11 pmBoth frustrated and impatient.
Wow . . . being above the law is tough.
March 30th, 2007 at 9:11 pmCHIMPya: “WHA….I though ya was GONE already, AL, What’re STILL DOIN’ Here???????”
March 30th, 2007 at 9:19 pmGONZO: “But Mr. President….Georgie Boy, Don’t You LIKE ME anymore? Hmmmmmm…..?(Pushes his bottom towards CHIMPya’s crotch)
CHIMPya: “Well, I Guess we can work something out…HEY, Turd-Blossom, Ya Got Any Of That There K-Y That Gannon/Guckert Left The Other Night He Was Here?”
Rove: “Here it is Chief….Careful, There’s SHIT on the tip…”
CHIMPya: “ARE YA ACCUSIN’ ME OF NOT WASHING UP AFTERWARDS, FAT BOY????”(ROARS)
Bush has a problem. Speedy knows where all the bodies are buried. That’s why all crime families stick together until muerta do them part.
March 30th, 2007 at 10:20 pmHELP….can someone please tell me how to ignore the posts by this JAKE character…?/ Everytime I come here I have to see his goddam bullshit and it pisses the hell out of me, particularly when people keep responding and thereby just encouraging him….Short of just not reading TP again, what can I do so I don’t have to see either JAKE’s posts or those of his ENABLERS ??? (I spend more and more time on TPMMuckraker these days because there are NO JAKOFFS like Jake and people don’t ENABLE these type of plants.)
March 30th, 2007 at 11:11 pmThe Justice Department officials who were selected to be interviewed hit merely the tip of this iceberg. It is extremely important that the House and Senate Judiciary Committee’s interview John Nowacki, Principal Deputy Director as well as the Acting Counsel to the Director in the Executive Office of the Justice Department, in order to establish the links between the Justice Department officials, the US Attorney’s in the field, and the political operatives who helped remove the targeted US Attorney’s. I have gathered and organized every document released so far from the Justice Department relating to John Nowacki as well as background information on his relationship with the Federalist Society. You will be shocked at how many key pieces of information he gives to Paul McNulty, William Moschella, Michael Elston, William Mercer, Monica Goodling, and former employees Michael Battle and Kyle Sampson.
March 30th, 2007 at 11:22 pmThis story on John Nowacki, including updates, can be found at: http://misterapologist.blogspot.com/
Be patient, give them enough rope and they’ll hang themselves.
March 31st, 2007 at 12:39 amWould you, Briseadh na Faire?
Comment by Jake — March 30, 2007 @ 9:11 pm
The difference Jake, is that we haven’t needed to ask these questions - you have. Whether it’s Nixon, Reagan, or the two Bush administrations. You have nothing but *real* scandal, and abuse of power. That’s why you “fair and balanced” zealots do your best to *manufacture* scandals when Democrats are in power. Because you have so many *real* ones yourselves! You can’t possibly imagine that you are that corrupt, when the other side isn’t. Well Jake, imagine it. Because it’s true! The sopranos are school boys compared to your party - and frankly your *personal* values. You’re a lying, hate filled, weasel piece of sh*t that would shred the constitution in a heart beat for a fast buck. You’re nothing more than an Osama of Orange County - you worthless piece of trailer trash.
March 31st, 2007 at 3:14 amBack in 1978 Carter fired David Marston, US Attorney, Pennsylvania.
He was asked to do this by Democratic Congressman Joshua Eilberg, who was being investigated by Marston at the time.
The unusal thing here was that Marston was a Republican US Attorney.
As President Carter recounted it, Eilberg offered no reason and Carter did not ask; the ‘System’ was at work. Carter thought so little of the matter that days passed before he got around to calling Attorney General Griffin Bell about it.
Carter’s credibility troubles began when he professed to remember none of this, or of Eilberg’s ‘problems’.
Tip O’Neill (house Speaker) described Marston as “a Republican political animal” who took office “with viciousness in his heart and for only one reason—to get Democrats.”
However, GOP Congressman Thomas Evans pointed out that Marston had nailed two Republicans along with several Democrats.
Due to the Carter Administration’s ineptness, a martyr’s image was created for Marston, who was an outright political appointee who hunted headlines as vigorously as he hunted official corruption in both parties.
The Justice Department announced that Bell and Carter were cleared of any charge of obstruction of justice in the affair.
March 31st, 2007 at 4:14 amwath video of D. Kyle Simpsonhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4G-CQ1AruA
March 31st, 2007 at 7:52 pm