Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Did Attorney Scandal Hearing Put the 'Gone' in Gonzales?

By David Swanson, Tomdispatch.com. Posted April 20, 2007.


Attorney General Gonzales' testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee was a case lesson in obfuscation, and not even Republican senators were buying it.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

More stories by David Swanson

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

When can we put the "consensus" of the senior leadership of the Department of Justice, CSLDJ (pronounced Con Sell Dodge), under oath and ask it questions and then impeach it?

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales assured the Senate Judiciary Committee today that nothing improper has been done and that, in addition, he's not to blame for it, because he simply obeyed the CSLDJ, although he does not actually remember having done so. And if members of the CSLDJ contradict Gonzales or have acted in ways he does not approve of, well, you'll just have to ask Mr. Sampson about that.

Kyle Sampson, Gonzo's Chief of Staff, is a gentleman who well deserves his name given the apparently superhuman feat he's performed of running the Department of Justice for years in exactly the direction his boss did not want it to go. That being said, Gonzales stands by every decision he never made, even the ones he remembers not making.

Daniel Metcalf, a senior attorney at the DOJ who retired in January, recently suggested that Gonzales' Justice Department is run on the basis of consensus and group responsibility precisely because that minimizes personal risk, and that minimizing personal risk is the top goal of many new people at the Justice Department, whose inexperience in the processes of government is "surpassed only by their evident disdain for it." The buck doesn't stop anywhere.

At most, the Attorney General is responsible for a nickel or so of it. And this dodge is not completely ineffective. While several Senators Thursday morning tried to pin Gonzales down on what specifically he had done, only one Senator briefly touched on the point that Gonzales is actually responsible for what his chief of staff does, even if Gonzales claims to have known nothing about it; nor did any Senators even raise the question of the President's responsibility.

A number of bloggers have followed through the finer points of this scandal, and some of them prepared questions ahead of time that they hoped the Senators would ask. At least in the pre-lunch session of the hearing that I watched, the Senators did not live up to the standards of the bloggers. Of the long list of questions posted at Slate, for instance, some were asked or partially asked, but others missed entirely. And the five lines of questioning so powerfully laid out by The Anonymous Liberal set much too high a mark for a hearing led by these Senators, and possibly for any hearing in which only short blocks of time are available to Senators alternating between Democrats and Republicans. (Which reminds me of the other question raised by this hearing: Is there a way to forcefully ask Orrin Hatch to join the eight attorneys in retirement?)

This was the first question the Anonymous Liberal wanted asked:

"Is it your testimony, sir, that the President was not involved in this process, that you made the final call?

"If no: Please explain the extent of the President's involvement. Did he sign off on the final list? Was he given prior notification that these eight attorneys would be asked to resign?

"If yes: You are aware, sir, are you not, that by statute, the power to remove U.S. Attorneys belongs to the President, not the Attorney General? ÖIs it your practice to exercise exclusively presidential powers without getting the president's signoff?"

Anon had this follow up:

"The Albuquerque Journal recently reported that Senator Pete Domenici called you in the Spring of 2006 and told you that he wanted David Iglesias removed from his position as U.S. Attorney for New Mexico. According to the Journal, you refused and told Domenici that you would only do so on orders from the President. Is that account accurate?"

While the Senators never rose to this level of sharp questioning, Thursday's hearing began well -- with Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT.) stressing that testimony the AG had already provided under oath had been contradicted by new evidence. Nothing Gonzales would later say provided reason to doubt that he has committed perjury.

Leahy then remarked on the historic nature of the crisis and pointed out that the 2006 election "rejected a unitary approach to government, an administration without checks and balances." He denounced "Katrina-style cronyism and unfettered White House unilateralism." He even said that Gonzales "cannot expect immunity for the policies of torture he developed as White House Counsel." But why can't he? He was already made Attorney General, wasn't he? His boss at the White House goes on torturing, doesn't he?

Ranking Member Arlen Specter (R-PA.), who is usually much better at talking than acting, did indeed talk a good line, addressing Gonzales this way:

"You said you were not involved in any discussions, and then your subordinates testified to the contrary. You said you did not see memoranda, but your subordinates testified under oath you were at meetings where memoranda were distributed. You said you were not involved in deliberations, but your subordinates said you were. You have a heavy burden of proof to reestablish your credibility."

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: democrats, senate, gonzales, leahy, attorney scandal

David Swanson is the Washington Director of Democrats.com and co-founder of the AfterDowningStreet.org coalition, a board member of Progressive Democrats of America, and of the Backbone Campaign. His website is Swanson.org. In April 2007, Swanson began consulting part-time for Kucinich for President 2008.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Don't hold your breath waiting for President Bush to fire Gonzo.
Posted by: HughScott on Apr 20, 2007 3:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Alberto could expose himself on the White House lawn in full public view and Dub-ya would claim he couldn’t wait to take a leak. That imagined delusional word-spinning is no different than Bush saying yesterday that Gonzo “did a good job” when he spoke before the Senate Judicial Committee.

After four years of investigating Shrub, I’m convinced that he is completely off his rocker. But don’t take my word for it. Consider the following abbreviated article, "A Psychiatrist's Analysis of George W. Bush," written in March 2007 by Dr. Paul Minot:

George Bush's "irrational" consideration of a "surge" in the wake of the Iraq Study Group report -- which apparently defies all credible counsel -- has begun to generate speculation regarding his sanity.

As a psychiatrist, I understandably get concerned when I see clinical terminology bandied about in political discourse, and thought it might be of interest to share a professional perspective on this question. I have a distinct clinical impression that I think explains much of Mr. Bush's visible pathology. First and foremost, George W. Bush has a Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

What this means is that he has rather desperate insecurities about himself and compensates by constructing a grandiose self-image. Most of his relationships are either mirroring relationships -- people who flatter him and reinforce his grandiosity; or idealized self-objects -- people that he himself thinks a lot of, and hence feels flattered by his association with them. Some likely perform both functions. Hence his weakness for sycophants like Harriet Miers, and powerful personalities like Dick Cheney.

That's why he gives impromptu backrubs to the German Chancellor in a diplomatic meeting -- he's insecure intellectually, and tries to make everyone into a "buddy" so he can feel more secure. The most disturbing aspect about narcissists, however, is their pathological inability to empathize with others, with the exception of those who either mirror them, or whom they idealize. Hence Bush's horrifying insensitivity to the Katrina victims, his callous jokes when visiting grievously injured soldiers, and numerous other instances. He simply has no capacity to feel for others in that way.

Regarding Iraq, the ONLY chance that he has to avoid a disaster and save his political skin is to hope against hope for "victory." Advancing the "surge" idea offers Bush two political advantages over following the ISG recommendations. One is that if it is implemented, maybe, just maybe, he can pull out some sort of nominal "victory" out of the situation. The chances are exceedingly slim, granted, but slim is better to him than the alternative -- none.

End of Dr. Minot’s abbreviated article.

If the diagnosis is correct, than EVERYTHING Bush says and does as president is suspect.


Hugh E. Scott, editor of King-George.biz -- the only website with hardcopy proof of White House corruption. AlterNet readers who object to my NON-PROFIT campaign to expose Bush as a lying crook can email me through the website rather than comment here.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: THERE IS NO SCANDAL Posted by: kbest
The First GW
Posted by: robchapman on Apr 20, 2007 3:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The first, the authentic, GW- George Washington, had only four cabinet officers, one of whom was the Attorney General. This is a reminder of the central and essential role the AG plays in governance.

It is unthinkable that Washington would have had an AG with the facile and situatational ethical softness that Alberto Gonzales has repeatedly displayed during his tenure as AG.

It is catastrophic to the legitimacy of the democracy that we are holding up to the world that he does.

The lack of integrity and truthfulness that Gonzales has displayed is not a small or insignificant matter. It is an overt betrayal of the public trust.

In not firing Gonzales, our present GW demonstrates his contempt for the principle of integrity in office and his disdain for the any realistic concept of accountability for public officials.

Robert Chapman
Lansing, NY

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» IMHO You are right. Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: IMHO You are right. Posted by: Conservasaurus
THE HEARINGS
Posted by: Tom Degan on Apr 20, 2007 4:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Did you see those hearings yesterday??? It was beautiful! CNN just quoted an unnamed White House source who sai that the guy went "down in flames". The guy had how many months to prepare for this?

I don't recall
I don't recall
I don't recall
I don't recall
I don't recall
I don't recall

The hideous little geek repeated that line over a hundred times! It's just a joy - an absolute gut-busting joy that I can't even put in to words wathcing this disgusting administration implode before my very eyes! Oh, thank you! Thank you, fate! This is too good to be true! Trust me on this one campers: By summer's end, George W. Bush will be impeached. He will be remembered as the first former president to got to federal prison and he will die there. I'm as sure of that as I am my own name....

Tom Degan. Nice to meet'cha!
"The Rant" by Tom Degan

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: THE HEARINGS Posted by: Mary Eman
» RE: THE HEARINGS Posted by: Conservasaurus
» HEARING THINGS? Posted by: brasilaron
» RE: HEARING THINGS? Posted by: Conservasaurus
» i don't recall Posted by: brasilaron
» RE: i don't recall Posted by: Conservasaurus
Squirm, Toady, Squirm!
Posted by: grumble-bum on Apr 20, 2007 5:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a child of the Iran-Contra scandal & investigation, the outcome (or lack thereof) of which could be described as being formative in regards to my lifelong distrust of Congress' ability to get anything substantive done, this hearing just seems like "more of the same". Unlike our eternally optimistic friend Tom Degan, I highly doubt we will see this pResident impeached. Although it's wonderful to see this body taking any sort of positive action after so many years of... Well, nothing remotely positive, anyway.

That said, it is fantastic to watch this little shit twist & turn in his attempts to escape, all the while slipping around in a growing pool of his own flop-sweat. Even if, as the article postulates, the questions in this hearing were not pointed enough, Gonzales still came out looking like exactly what he is; a shining example of all that is wrong with the bulk of "public servants" & political players as we have come to know & despise them in the last 30-odd years.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

His qualifications for the job
Posted by: chaoslegs on Apr 20, 2007 8:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
See the initials of his name Alberto Gonzalez is the same for Attorney General, AG. So it just seemed like a natural fit.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Perjury
Posted by: ScottP on Apr 20, 2007 9:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It certainly appears that he committed numerous acts of perjury. The claim he "doesn't recall" is the most obvious, but the numerous contradictions also indicate more active perjury. If Congress actually cares about what people say to them under oath, they should be getting another independent prosecutor fired up and get the indictments and trial going. Otherwise they're saying "it's OK to come in here an lie under oath, this place is just for show and facts don't matter".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

gonzo's greatest hits...
Posted by: particle61 on Apr 20, 2007 9:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
redstateupdate has followed the historic career of gonzo the grotesque, from arguing for torture to demanding that phone companies give unfettered access to government spooks (with no judicial order) see stories-

Gonzales Defines Freedom as Grave Threat to Freedom
www.redstateupdate.net/full-page/fullpage-archive-80.html

Gonzalez Cancels Subscription to First Amendment
www.redstateupdate.net/full-page/fullpage-archive-53.html

Gonzalez Denies Federal Prosecutors Were Dismissed With Prejudice
www.redstateupdate.net/full-page/fullpage-archive-87.html

Government Spying Reveals Americans Have Little Useful Intelligence
www.redstateupdate.net/full-page/fullpage-archive-41.html

-and more stories from the annals of the denuding of our constitution at redstateupdate.net

www.redstateupdate.net
funny, frightening, free

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Gonzo Gone?
Posted by: DennisDalrymple on Apr 20, 2007 10:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
G.W. Bonzo would not ever fire A.G. Gonzo, because even Gonzo makes Bonzo look capable.
And what are we to make of at least 3 former crack prosecutors, Senators Leahy's, Specter's and Graham's inability to get Gonzo to tell the American people any reason why the 8 other prosecutors were fired?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Gonzo Gone? Posted by: willymack
Why is everyone surprised
Posted by: james2021 on Apr 20, 2007 10:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Repugwicans just dont know what governance is about. Nixon didnt know, Regan didnt know, Bush the 1st didnt know, and now Bush the 2nd doesnt know. It is illuminatiing that two republican presidents are brushing very close to Impeachment. Must have something to do with the Repugwican leadership. They will eventually lead us into another Great Depression, and the destruction of this country.
But then again, We Did freely Elect them to Office.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Orrin Hatch will be retiring shortly after "September Dawn" comes out
Posted by: xbj on Apr 20, 2007 1:53 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And Romney might well even have to pull out of the Presidential race.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The sole qualification for a Bush appointment
Posted by: xbj on Apr 20, 2007 1:55 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Kneepads.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Gonzo tries to keep a straight face
Posted by: cny39316 on Apr 20, 2007 2:30 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All of the coaching in preparation for the congressional testimony does seem to have helped him to keep somewhat of a straight face. Before, he always looked like a little kid that couldn't help but smile after he's been caught in a fib and tries to talk his way out of it. Some say that attorneys are professional liars. If that's true, our AG is a terrible attorney, because he can't lie worth a damn. It's certainly not for lack of practice.

UgLee

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ah, but the crook in chief has full confidence in him
Posted by: dayahka on Apr 20, 2007 6:55 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes, a dismal and disheartening performance from the department of forgetfulness and injustice. But what did you expect? And the chief crook has "full confidence" in this lower level nitwit, so he will probably stay in office.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Remembering Brownie
Posted by: Maryanne on Apr 21, 2007 7:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Mr. Bush has complete confidence in all his appointees- remember Brownie, Rummy, Harriet Meiers, Wolfie, etc. Isn't it interesting that he has such confidence when the rest of the world can see through these inept inidviduals?

What does this say about Mr. Bush's judgement? (We know, don't we?)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Did Attorney Scandal Hearing Put the 'Gone' in Gonzales?
Posted by: laplacian on May 12, 2007 10:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Did Attorney Scandal Hearing Put the 'Gone' in Gonzales?hairy cunt - free hardcore with hairy pussy hirsute women hairy hairy www lesbo101 - che scopano lesbo ass licking lesbian action sex dogs - sex with women animal sex free bestiality free with horses GEFFEDEVS766GERTT9009ED free dad daughter incest stories - cartoon incest brother and sister son incest stories porn movies fist image - extreme insertions raised fist pictures of pussy insertion stocking stuffers - in stockings stocking sex looking for girls in pantyhose oral - oral sex is vaginal sex sexually transmitted transmitted diseases stupid celebrities - nude celebrities pictures and anna nicole natalie portman

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]