Gonzo uses the 'aw shucks' defense

The "Aw, shucks" defense or the " deliberate ignorance" defense. Ebbers and Lay received that award for their crimes and so will Gonzo....

Alberto Gonzales is trying to explain away explosive revelations in the U.S. attorney scandal by using the "aw, shucks," or "I didn't know" defense that the late Kenneth Lay of Enron so famously used.

With no apparent shame, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales pleaded the Ken Lay defense -- also known by his own prosecutors as the "Aw, shucks" defense or the " deliberate ignorance" defense -- in his explanation of the political executions of United States attorneys by his office and the White House.

Gonzales tried to avoid any responsibility in the growing scandal by using the word " responsible" while ducking its consequences. He said, "I accept responsibility for everything that happens here within this department, but when you have 110,000 people working in the department, obviously there are going to be decisions made that I am not aware of in real time."

The late Kenneth Lay of Enron fame attempted this during his federal trial. So did former WorldCom exec Bernard Ebbers. When Lay tried it, federal prosecutor Kathryn Ruemmler said, "Over and over again, Lay chose not to ask hard questions. He did so trying to stick his head in the sand, and the law says you cannot do that."
In the WorldCom case, prosecutors mocked Ebbers for claiming he was an accounting ignoramus who didn't know about the fraud his underlings were committing. Juries didn't buy it with Lay, and they didn't buy it with Ebbers.

Gonzales' defense is not original. It is the standard practice of many contemporary leaders, from presidents who blame anyone but themselves, including the public, for their military follies and policy debacles, to CEOs. Chief executives love to bask in the limelight as square-jawed, determined, take-charge kind of people, until massive fraud is found on their watch. Then it's, "Aw, shucks. I didn't know."

They are paid to know.

A good rule of thumb: Whenever someone embroiled in controversy starts tossing around the words " accountability" and "responsibility," it is time to beware, because "fall guys" and scapegoats are not far behind. There's an important difference here, by the way. Fall guys are involved, and are probably guilty subordinates in the scandal at hand. Scapegoats, like the sacrificial animals they are named for, are innocent. But either will do if it stops the buck well short of the boss' desk.

http://alternet.org/story/49239/

Here is the 'aw shucks' defense used by prosecutor William Johnson to prove Ebbers was guilty of his crimes:

Ebbers' testimony that he was unfamiliar with finance and accounting is little more than a deceitful effort to avoid punishment -- an "aw-shucks defense," Johnson told jurors.

"He lied right to your face," Johnson said. "The aw-shucks defense insults your intelligence. You know better."