The Controversey Over Alberto Gonzales

[Judgement]

Alberto Gonzales has again testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee and the result is the same. In other words, he did not really answer any questions and it really feels like he's not even trying to hide the fact that he is clearly evading. This week's "I don't recall"?


LEAHY: Last week, the administration said that the U.S. attorney wouldn't be allowed to carry out that.

So my question to you is, if a house of Congress certified a contempt citation against former or current officials for failing to appear or comply with a congressional subpoena, would you permit the U.S. attorney to carry out the law and refer the matter to a grand jury, as required by 2 USC 194, and, therefore, fulfill the constitutional duty to faithfully execute the law, or would you block the execution of the law?

GONZALES: Mr. Chairman, your question relates to an ongoing controversy which I am recused from. I can't -- I'm not going to answer that question.


Here is the transcript of the hearing:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/gonzalez_transcript_072407.html

Here is the link to the Daily Show video. When it loads, scroll to the one called "Hearing Problems"
http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/the_daily_show/index.jhtml

 

[Steeler]

FEINSTEIN: That's right. But those were the ones that were called on December 7 and told to leave by January 15.

GONZALES: Yes.

FEINSTEIN: There were others also asked to resign.

GONZALES: Yes.

FEINSTEIN: And I'm asking what the total number were.

GONZALES: Well, certainly, Mr. Cummins was asked to leave. Mr. Graves was asked to leave. I'm not aware, sitting here today, of any other U.S. attorney who was asked to leave, except there were some instances where people were asked to leave, quite frankly, because there was legitimate cause.

FEINSTEIN: So you're saying these were asked to leave because the cause was not legitimate?

"uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh"

 

[Deck Knight]

If he's recused from a case, he is bound by the law not to comment on it.

I'd be more concerned about Leahy than Gonzales. The only thing Congress has been able to pass is the minimum wage bill, and apparently they're still wasting their time with show trials and Buck Fush rhetoric.

Leahy's one to talk of independence, transparency, and accountability. Apparently he missed the Clinton years. Clinton fired every last US Attorney to cover up his own crimes. Bush fires eight, which, by the way, serve at the President's convenience, and all of a sudden partisan hacks like Leahy are talking about horrible abuses and the confidence of the American people. Maybe Leahy forgot that Bush has the lowest approval rating in history, but Leahy and the rest of the Democrat controlled Congress have half of that, so maybe he should stay his tongue when he talks about the confidence of the American people in government institutions.

If Leahy weren't so busy bloviating like a the partisan shill that he is and actually got some work done, he probably wouldn't be sitting on a 14% approval rating.

One last thing:

LEAHY: But sadly, prosecutions will now be questioned as politically motivated. Evidence will be suspected of having been obtained in violation of laws and civil liberties.

Duke Lacrosse. I. Lewis Libby. Those were politically motivated prosecutions, all brought on by Democrats in pursuit of their agenda, none of which are paid any attention because Leahy and his ilk really don't care about "independence, transparency, and accountability," they care about scoring one on President Bush or otherwise furthering their agenda. You can tell just by Leahy's tone: smug, arrogant, its as if he's having a mental jerk-fest at the thought of canning Gonzales even as he sits there as high inquisitor. Leahy obviously isn't talking to Gonzales, he's bloviating crocodile tears.

 

[hbdragon88]

All politics aside, Gonzales is faring really badly. He's been contradicated at least twice, right? One to say taht he wasn't at involved at all but a minutes meeting thing showing that he was at one of the meetings that discussed the firings, and recently when Mueller said that he had qualms while Gonzales said that nobody had any protests.

 

[Judgement]

If he's recused from a case, he is bound by the law not to comment on it.

I'd be more concerned about Leahy than Gonzales. The only thing Congress has been able to pass is the minimum wage bill, and apparently they're still wasting their time with show trials and Buck Fush rhetoric.

Leahy's one to talk of independence, transparency, and accountability. Apparently he missed the Clinton years. Clinton fired every last US Attorney to cover up his own crimes. Bush fires eight, which, by the way, serve at the President's convenience, and all of a sudden partisan hacks like Leahy are talking about horrible abuses and the confidence of the American people. Maybe Leahy forgot that Bush has the lowest approval rating in history, but Leahy and the rest of the Democrat controlled Congress have half of that, so maybe he should stay his tongue when he talks about the confidence of the American people in government institutions.

If Leahy weren't so busy bloviating like a the partisan shill that he is and actually got some work done, he probably wouldn't be sitting on a 14% approval rating.

One last thing:



Duke Lacrosse. I. Lewis Libby. Those were politically motivated prosecutions, all brought on by Democrats in pursuit of their agenda, none of which are paid any attention because Leahy and his ilk really don't care about "independence, transparency, and accountability," they care about scoring one on President Bush or otherwise furthering their agenda. You can tell just by Leahy's tone: smug, arrogant, its as if he's having a mental jerk-fest at the thought of canning Gonzales even as he sits there as high inquisitor. Leahy obviously isn't talking to Gonzales, he's bloviating crocodile tears.

Bush wasn't the one that did the firing though, it was the Justice Department, so it is a completely different issue. Both the Republicans and Democrats are frustrated by Gonzales because he never answers any questions and then his testimony is contradicted as well, which points to the possibility of perjury.

The Congress has about 3 options at this point. First would be a special prosecutor, but it would be Gonzales who appoints one. Second is going to the courts, but Bush has put enough people in the courts that it wouldn't be much help. The last option is Congress holding a trial, but they do not have a congressional prison. However, I think that if they do something about Gonzales in the near future, then the last option is pretty likely. They are not going to just sit there and be stonewalled by the Justice Dept. or the White House.