GoneZo

I haven't written about the Attorney General scandal yet but I don't know what else is left to say. I don't know who is left to convince. Shrub only has the approval of those that have drank the GOP Kool-Aid. Those people aren't really going to be convinced of anything. I really think that Bush could walk into their house, shoot their wives and rape their dogs and they would tell you what a good guy he is.

Despite all that a couple of things today will make me break my silence (with myself).

First: If You've Got Nothing To Hide
I heard during my afternoon commute that a key Justice Department official has informed Congress that she will Plead the 5th if called upon to testify. I don't think this is what Gonzales had in mind when he promised full cooperation. I was practically giggling to myself when I heard this. I can't count the number of times the law-and-order types I know have said that pleading the 5th is a sure sign of guilt. How many times have they said, "You've got nothing to fear if you've got nothing to hide."? As I said I doubt this will persuade any of the Kool-Aid drinkers but I'll keep it in reserve.

Second: Defining "Is"
At lunch today a colleague asked, "Why hasn't anyone called for Gonzales to be arrested?" It's an interesting question. There is solid evidence (not proof, they haven't had a trial) that the AG lied to Congress. That is a crime whether you are under oath or not. Of course, the White House is defying this notion. Here's what WH Spokeswoman Dana Perino said today when asked about the inconsitencies between the AG's statements and Jsutice Department memos.

Q Let me ask you about the email that shows the Attorney General in a meeting on November the 27th, and then the Attorney General's statements on March 13th, "We never had a discussion about where things stood." Do you find anything inconsistent in that?

MS. PERINO: The Justice Department, when they gave their statements on Friday night, said that they weren't inconsistent. And my reading of it is that the Attorney General has said -- I understand that there's a March 13th piece, but I also looked back on March 14th, when he did interviews back and forth -- I think it was with a CNN network -- in which he said, and he said consistently, that he does not recall being involved in deliberations about who -- which U.S. attorneys might be asked to be replaced for the remainder of the term. But he does say that he signed off on the final list. And my reading of that meeting was that was the final decision -- the decisions had been made, the final plan had been in place, and they were asking the Attorney General for a sign-off.

Q So what's he getting out of the 13th, when he said, "We never had a discussion about where things stood"?

MS. PERINO: I think what he's referring to -- and, again, I'm going to refer you to Justice Department for exactly what his thinking is, but when he says he doesn't recall having recollections about having deliberative discussions about the ongoing process over that two-year period, but that he does take responsibility for signing off on the final plan.

And they accused Clinton of obfuscating!

But Gonzales is not going anywhere fast. As Tim at Baloon Juice points out, where else is Bush going to find someone so partisan, so loyal that he's willing to take a job where his boss is all but forcing him to break the law.