Fmr US AG to Republicans: “The DOJ Is Not Biased Against Us”

CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, INTERNATIONAL HOST: Now, in the United States, another trial date has been set for Donald Trump on charges of trying to overturn the result of the 2020 presidential election, it’ll be on 4th of March next year. That’s one day before Super Tuesday. Despite four independent grand juries indicting the former president, his Republican base believes it’s all political. Former U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez served under President George W. Bush, he joins Walter Isaacson now to explain why he does not believe the Justice Department is biased against Republicans.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WALTER ISAACSON, HOST: Thank you, Christiane. And, Judge Alberto Gonzalez, welcome to the show.

GONZALEZ: It’s good to be here.

ISAACSON: You have this great piece in “The Washington Post,” very provocative in which you say, no fellow Republicans, you being a Republican, the Justice Department is not biased against us. What are you talking about?

GONZALEZ: Well, I didn’t realize it would be so provocative, quite frankly, in terms of the protection of the rule of law, I ran the department for a number of years. People fail to understand that it’s a department that has over a hundred thousand employees and less than 1 percent are political appointees. And so, there’s always a danger if you are — if you hold a political appointment in that office, that if you engage in politics, make decisions, investigations and prosecutorial decisions based upon politics, the career folks, they notice that and they call you out, and they have friends in the media. And so, you invite great danger if you start making decisions like that. And so, that’s why I really questioned this notion that the department has become politicized simply because it’s prosecuting Donald Trump, because he’s the leading front runner for Republican nomination. And I’ve tried to emphasize, remind people or tell people that, in my judgment, even if he weren’t running for president, he would be investigated and be prosecuted for the things that he’s being accused of committing. So, from my perspective, this is not a political witch hunt. The department is doing what it should be doing, which is to investigate possible criminal wrongdoing and to prosecute that criminal wrongdoing when they believe that they can successfully do so in federal court.

ISAACSON: Let me read you something from the piece that you wrote. You said, it is important for people in the Republican Party to speak out for the rhetoric and activities that we fundamentally know deep in our hearts that is wrong. Tell me why Republicans need to speak out and maybe why you think so few of them really have?

GONZALEZ: Well, I asked to the latter. I really can’t answer the question why they have failed to speak out, other than perhaps, our political leaders, the leadership in the Republican Party. Perhaps they are fearful of speaking out and how it may damage elections going forward. Although, obviously, looking at past — these past recent elections, we’re not doing too good, quite frankly, at the state level or the national level. But I think it’s important for people to speak out because we have a lot at stake here. For the longest time, I didn’t say anything because I thought it was kind of silly, some of the rhetoric coming from those in my political right, but now I’ve concluded that it’s too dangerous to be silent. We need to have people speaking out about the dangers of criticizing the Department of Justice, criticizing the rule of law because if — when people lose confidence in an institution like the Department of Justice, then I think we’re in serious trouble as a country.

ISAACSON: You know, there have been threats of violence against people involved in these proceedings. Do you think that some of the rhetoric is stoking up the possibility of violence against either prosecutors, members of the grand jury, that sort of thing? And if so, what should the judges do about that?

GONZALEZ: Well, I certainly believe that that’s certainly possible. And I think judges have an obligation to ensure or to discourage by the actions — by measures that they can impose in connection with a particular prosecution. And then, of course, I think that the federal government, as well as state governments, should take advantage of whatever rules, processes may be available to ensure the safety of individuals who are engaged, who are somehow implicated in these trials and blamed for doing their job in investigating and prosecuting individuals. And so, yes, I think it’s — I think this is something that’s very, very important and people can — should not be discouraged from speaking out and should not be discouraged from doing their job. And from my perspective, I think the people at the Department of Justice, for the most part, day in, day out, they go to work to serve the American people.

ISAACSON: So, you were general counsel and then the attorney general under President George W. Bush. Have you talked to other members of President Bush’s administration or the president himself, President Bush himself on these things?

GONZALEZ: No, I haven’t had discussions with other — with — surely not with President Bush. And I — from time to time, I have had discussions with other members in the Bush administration, but not detailed discussions. We would simply just sort of shake our heads and say, wow, can you believe?

ISAACSON: Yes, but wait a minute, if people are shaking their head and it’s just dangerous, why don’t a group of people like this say, all right, we’re going to now go to more than just shaking our heads, we’re going to something, we’re going to do something?

GONZALEZ: Well, I leave it to others to decide, you know, what they’re comfortable doing, quite frankly. And maybe there’s more than — even more than I can do. But I think this is important to speak out. Particularly what I worry about is, as we get closer to the election, this becomes more of a challenge, more of an issue. And if something happens that’s anything close to what we saw on January 6th, then I would really deeply regret not having done more to try to discourage that kind of conduct.

ISAACSON: So, you’ll probably do some more?

GONZALEZ: If I find it that it’s necessary, I — you know, again, it’s not about, politics as far as I’m concerned. I dislike when they — when people, commentators and the media and others, political leaders, talk about what’s good for the Republican Party, what’s bad, you know, good for the Democratic Party. I think the simple question is, what’s good for America?

ISAACSON: The Justice Department, in the past few years, has resisted for a while, for a couple years, opening an investigation, against Donald Trump, and yet the indictments come down after he decides to run for office, after he is leading in the polls. It seems there’s some cause for people to suspect this may be political. How do you refute that?

GONZALEZ: Well, a couple things. One I would say is there are, what, eight, nine Republicans running for president, none of them are being investigated, but they’re all running for president, the same office that Donald Trump is running for. The other thing I would say is, investigations take time. And these are complicated case, particularly the ones being prosecuted by Jack Smith and a prosecutor moves forward with a prosecution when he or she is ready to do so. And, you know — and I would say that the prosecutors are likely not ready to go before Donald Trump announced he was running for president again. And, you know, you can’t be — I would have to think that the prosecutors in these cases wished that Donald Trump — that we weren’t in the middle of a presidential campaign. I really do. I believe that, and I certainly believe that Merrick Garland believes that. But nonetheless, you can’t close your eyes and ignore what you believe to be criminal wrongdoing. And so, you move forward with the prosecution when you’re ready to move forward with the prosecution.

ISAACSON: We have a process though for that, which is impeachment and then a trial by the Senate, and twice the Senate did a trial and didn’t convict President Trump. Why should it now be gone into the Justice Department?

GONZALEZ: Well, again, because the rules of evidence are different, being convicted of a crime is different. There’s a, you know, disagreement about what’s a high crime and misdemeanor, what would be eligible for impeachment. And the fact that Donald Trump was impeached but not removed from office doesn’t mean that he’s innocent of criminal wrongdoing, not by any stretch of the imagination. And so, the department is doing what it should be doing, which is to investigate criminal wrongdoing and to prosecute criminal wrongdoing when they believe that they have the evidence to be successful in court. And the fact that Donald Trump was impeached but not removed in no way suggests that he wasn’t engaged in any kind of criminal wrongdoing.

ISAACSON: Even back when you were a U.S. attorney general, there were accusations about the politicization of the department. I’m going to throw it at you. Do you have any regrets about how you handled things then and maybe being part of this process where people lost a little bit of faith that the Department of Justice was above politics?

GONZALEZ: Well, you have to remember that in these positions, you’re going to be criticized by someone even if you’re doing the right thing. That’s just the way it is, and you accept that. The other thing that I would say is, in these positions, you have to make decisions that are so incredibly difficult. You can’t even imagine how difficult they are. And so, it is true. I would think if you asked any cabinet official, if you asked any former president, they would tell you, yes, if I had to do it over again, there may be some decisions that I would do differently, of course. And so, yes, to respond to your question, yes, I wish there may have been some things that I would’ve done differently or may have said things in a different way to be more reassuring to the American public that

—

ISAACSON: Is there any example you want to give?

GONZALEZ: No, I can’t think of an example right offhand, but just the fact that, you know, to reassure the American public that the decisions that were made are being made by the Department of Justice and the actions taken by the Department of Justice are based upon what is required under the rule of law.

ISAACSON: What do you think of Merrick Garlan

GONZALEZ: I don’t know Merrick Garland personally. I — you know, I did — when he was nominated to go on the Supreme Court, I did run an op-ed saying that I thought it was wrong for the Senate Republicans not to give him up or down vote. You know, I wrote that President Obama did his job by nominating someone of the court and that the Senate should do its job in, at least, voting him up or down, by all met — by all accounts, from what I understand, he’s a man of great integrity. Yes. He appears to, you know, not like the limelight. So, I think he’s done a good job. And I suspect he’s frustrated by not being able to get out there more often and talk about — defending the Department of Justice. You want to be careful about doing that, of course. And maybe that’s one of the reasons I failed important to say something for all the career individuals that are just doing their job day in and day out for the American people to say something to defend the Department of Justice. Not that Merrick Garland needs my help in any way to do his job, but, again, I don’t know him that well, but I — you know, I just — from all indications, he’s just trying to do the best that he can.

ISAACSON: You know, he appointed a special prosecutor, Jack Smith, of course, on the Trump case. And then, based on a lot of calls from Republicans, also then does a special prosecutor, choosing somebody who had once been appointed by Trump to look at Hunter Biden, the president’s son. And yet, now, there’s blowback on him. I don’t quite get what the criticism is, what the — you know, the rationale for criticizing his appointment of special prosecutors.

GONZALEZ: Well, the only thing that I can think of is that, given the plea deal that was apparently reached but not followed up on, Republicans felt it was too sweet a deal for Hunter Biden, and they believe that he’ll be too kind, not as aggressive as he should be with respect to the prosecution as a special prosecutor. It’s the only thing that I could think of why Republicans are now upset. The other reason they might be upset is because of the special prosecutor. Before the appointment of the special prosecutor, I think that they had hopes that they would have access to internal DOJ documentation. But now, with a special prosecutor and an ongoing investigation, those documents are going to be shielded from the Congress until the investigation or prosecution is finished. So, there’s some level of frustration. So, I think as an example of, you know, that old adage, be careful what you wish for, because once you get it, you realize this is not what we wanted. But at the end of the day, the main objective here is to investigate Hunter Biden and to prosecute him if, in fact, he’s engaged in criminal wrongdoing. And one, there shouldn’t be any connection between what happens there and what happens with Donald Trump. Every prosecution is based upon the facts of a particular case, and there is some discretion, obviously, in the prosecutor that’s looking at the evidence and deciding whether to move forward. But again, every prosecution is going to be different.

ISAACSON: We have rules in this country against witness tampering and witness intimidation, and Trump seems to be butting up against us, at least according to the judges dealing with the case. He even said, if you go after me, I’m coming after you. Explain to me the rules on witness tampering and intimidation and how close you think Trump is getting to that line.

GONZALEZ: Well, it is a violation of law, of course, to be engaged in witness tampering and witness intimidation, but we also have a First Amendment. And obviously, the First Amendment, the rights under the First Amendment are strongest with respect to a candidate running for political office, which is what we have here. And yet, on top of that, the fact that that is very typical of Donald Trump conduct. And so, maybe we’ve become sort of immune to the kind of rhetoric that he says. But I think he needs to be careful. The judge, with respect to the January 6th cases, appears to be a judge that’s pretty strict and is going to be held — is going to held everyone accountable in connection with that trial. And so, I think he needs to be careful. I think he’s — obviously, his lawyers are speaking to him about this, whether or not he abides or listens to what his lawyers say I think is open to question. But, you know, it’s — again, he’s running for office. He’s entitled to say certain things, but he needs to be careful in terms of what he says here about potential witnesses.

ISAACSON: In the trial involving the January 6th insurrection, how important is it that we have an early trial, that it get done before the election really gets underway?

GONZALEZ: I think it’s vital that American voters know whether or not the person they’re voting for — assuming Donald Trump wins the nomination, whether or not this person has engaged in criminal wrongdoing. And so, I think it’s important for the trial to be completed before the election. In fact, if I’m a defendant in the case, I’d want to know that — I’d want to get it over with as quickly as possible as well. I think Donald Trump would like to delay it pass the election because he assumes he’s going to be successful in getting reelected to the office, and there is a longstanding practice at the Department of Justice, you’re not going to prosecute a sitting president. Now, of course, he would be subject again to another impeachment in the house. And at this time, it’s possible the Senate might remove him. But nonetheless, I think, ideally, quite frankly, we’d have a resolution of the trial before Super Tuesday. Because, you know, voting will occur well before the election. And so, the sooner the better, as far as I’m concerned, for the American people to understand and to know whether or not they’re a candidate, assuming Donald Trump is their candidate, engage a criminal wrongdoing.

ISAACSON: Well, if people have Donald Trump as their candidate now, don’t you think they’ve already made up their mind about whether what he did was right or wrong?

GONZALEZ: Well, it’s one thing to say that now, it may be another thing when, in fact, they learn of the results of a criminal trial and he’s been prosecuted. And evidence is going to come out that we don’t know about. One thing we always have to remember, the prosecutors, investigators are always going to have far more information than you and I, than people in the media, than the American public. And so, all that’s going to come out in a trial. And maybe after that information comes out, people are going to say, well, he’s a criminal and he’s been convicted. And so — and at the end of the day, people may just start getting too tired of all this and realize, this is not good for our country. I hope — I’d like to think we’re past that point, but to the extent that people are not yet tired, perhaps after, you know, a lengthy criminal trial, they’ll become tired and realize that we need to move on. It’s best for our country to move on.

ISAACSON: Do you think the trial should be televised?

GONZALEZ: I’ve always been against televised trials because I think people act differently in front of a camera. I think lawyers act differently in front of a camera. But here, with respect to what happened on January 6th, this is really attack upon, I think, the American system, against American voters all across this country, and I think Americans would like to see that. And the truth of the matter is it might be helpful to our — to the rule of law in that if it’s televised and the Department of Justice doesn’t do a good job in prosecuting Donald Trump and he is convicted, I think people will have seen how our system works and yet — and that he wasn’t — he did receive a fair trial. And so, there are benefits, as far as I’m concerned. This is a unique case in which I think one could make the argument that it should be televised.

ISAACSON: Judge Alberto Gonzalez, thank you so much for joining us.

GONZALEZ: Thank you for having me.