Alberto Gonzalez testimony

[MDC 5,933]

I've long hated this focker. For the past few years at least 2-3 times I've seen him hauled before Congress and outright evade or brush off answers to questions about things like the NSA wiretapping by claiming 1) he doesn't know or 2) will get back to the Congress (which, typically he has not). Most of the time he sits there with his lips pursed in a smirk like a little b1tch - I guess he knows his boss values loyalty over character or competence and would never fire anyone unless he had no other option.

 

Anyway, he is taking a brutal beating today from both sides of the aisle. Looks to me like Congressional Republicans are also getting kind of sick of the White House telling them to go fock themselves and making the whole party look silly with scandal after scandal. My question: Is there any way this focker keeps his job? He is the new Donald Rumsfeld of the administration.

[DAVID RUFFIN 1]

He's going down! bye, bye Alberto. Another one falls, and another one falls, another one bites the dust.

[IAMWood 6]

Yeah, see ya gwb's favorite wetback. time to get rid of that aunty tomina.

[davebg 0]

Granted I have not followed this story as closely as I could have...and I have found this commentator to be wildly pro-Hispanic (imagine that ), but it would seem that some people think he's not being treated fairly. So, I figured I'd throw it out there to play a little devil's advocate.

Details, details. The critics of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales are absolutely sure of his guilt in the matter of the fired U.S. attorneys. They're just not sure what he's guilty of.

 

Well, they had better figure it out fast. Gonzales testifies Thursday before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

 

In an op-ed Sunday for The Washington Post, Gonzales admitted that he had "created confusion" with recent statements about the firings but insisted, "nothing improper occurred."

 

He wrote that he directed his former deputy chief of staff Kyle Sampson to initiate the process, that he knew it was occurring and that he approved the final recommendations -- but "did not make decisions about who should or should not be asked to resign."

 

That won't satisfy the critics. Nothing will, absent Gonzales' head. To get it, they keep changing their line of attack.

 

First, the critics said that Gonzales didn't understand the difference between being the president's personal lawyer and being attorney general. Then, they said he had orchestrated a purge of dissidents to further political goals. Then, they said he lied to Congress. Then, they said he lied to the media. Then, they said he had been a bad manager. Then, they said he bungled the explanation of what happened and created the appearance of a scandal where there may not have been one in the first place.

 

For some conservatives, principle lost out to practicality. Former House speaker Newt Gingrich recently said the firings had wrecked Gonzales' credibility and that the administration would be better served by "a new team at the Justice Department."

 

Perfect. Liberals have spent more than a month slinging mud at Gonzales, and now weak-kneed conservatives are giving in and saying that maybe the attorney general should go because: "Look, he's covered in mud!"

 

As it happens, some of that mud has come from the get-Gonzales faction of the Fourth Estate.

 

Recently, The Washington Post reported that Gonzales had "retreated from public view ... in an intensive effort to save his job, spending hours practicing testimony and phoning lawmakers for support in preparation for pivotal appearances in the Senate."

 

Time out. The Washington Post and the rest of the media have repeatedly insisted that Thursday's testimony is "make or break" for Gonzales. If so, why wouldn't he prepare for it?

 

Then there is Andrew Cohen, who has been covering this story on a Washington Post blog that serves as a sort of deathwatch anticipating Gonzales' demise. Cohen called it a "disgrace" that Gonzales is so heavily immersed in preparing his testimony that he "isn't working full-time for you or for me" but "working instead to save his professional hide."

 

Come again? One of the most common arguments you hear from Gonzales' critics is that he can't be effective on the job while this cloud hangs overhead. So shouldn't lifting the cloud be his No. 1 priority? And when he tries to do that, they blast him.

 

I've said all along that Gonzales deserves a fair hearing. Thursday, he'll get the hearing. But, so far, no sign of the fairness.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/19/navarrette/index.html

[IGotWorms 3,380]

Fredo

[Cyber Gandalf 0]

He's going down! bye, bye Alberto. Another one falls, and another one falls, another one bites the dust.

 

GUILTY

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Has anyone mentioned yet that Alberto's testimony is a total waste of time and taxpayer money since Bush can fire any, or all, of the U.S. Attorneys for any, or no, reason whatsoever?

 

 

You boys keep whining though, it is very entertaining.

[lennie75 0]

Has anyone mentioned yet that Alberto's testimony is a total waste of time and taxpayer money since Bush can fire any, or all, of the U.S. Attorneys for any, or no, reason whatsoever?

 

 

You boys keep whining though, it is very entertaining.

Yeah, that is forgotten...how many did Clinton fire?? Oh yeah...I think it was in the mid-nineties. Who did he fire that started an investigation into White Water...oh that's right.

[MDC 5,933]

Has anyone mentioned yet that Alberto's testimony is a total waste of time and taxpayer money since Bush can fire any, or all, of the U.S. Attorneys for any, or no, reason whatsoever?

 

Which explains why the White House and Gonzalez lied about it.

[IAMWood 6]

Which explains why the White House and Gonzalez lied about it.

 

Yeah, really if it is no big deal, always been done, then stand up and be a man about it. No wishy washy answers and hiding like he is. give me a break.

[mighty_thor 115]

He isn't going down unless Bush removes him. So, this hearing is meaningless unless Bush just gets tired of all the mess and gets rid of him.

[MDC 5,933]

Yeah, really if it is no big deal, always been done, then stand up and be a man about it. No wishy washy answers and hiding like he is. give me a break.

 

That's what I don't get - Does Gonzalez really think it's better to lie about his role in the firings and claim he cannot recall why he fired these US attorneys and has no idea what's going on in his own Justice Department? Nobody believes the guy anyway - now he looks incompetent in addition to corrupt and dishonest.

 

Really, they should've gotten after him for the NSA wiretapping and his assinine comments on habeus corpus instead. And they should compel him to testify under oath, because the man is a proven serial liar.

[RLLD 3,503]

I blame Bush....

[MDC 5,933]

I blame Bush....

 

Well, yeah. Gonzalez is his appointee.

[RLLD 3,503]

Well, yeah. Gonzalez is his appointee.

 

Can I still blame Bush i don't want anyone else to be responsible for their own actions, i only want to hold Bush accountable, for everything...

[MDC 5,933]

Can I still blame Bush i don't want anyone else to be responsible for their own actions, i only want to hold Bush accountable, for everything...

 

Yeah no kidding.

 

What's with these stupid libs always blaming Bush for EVERYthing??? The war he started, the deficits he's run up, the incompetent hacks he's appointed to government ... like this crap is his fault.

 

Why do the Demolibs hate America?

[Isotopes 1]

Yeah, that is forgotten...how many did Clinton fire?? Oh yeah...I think it was in the mid-nineties. Who did he fire that started an investigation into White Water...oh that's right.

 

Clinton fired all of the attorneys and appointed his own when he took office. That is the same thing GWB did and has become common practice. This is unusual because he is firing his own appointees for not being "loyal bushies".

 

I haven't heard that Gonzo commited a crime but I do not have to commit a crime to be fired from my job. If he did something unethical I think it is ok for congress to question him and urge for him to be fired.

[lennie75 0]

Clinton fired all of the attorneys and appointed his own when he took office. That is the same thing GWB did and has become common practice. This is unusual because he is firing his own appointees for not being "loyal bushies".

 

I haven't heard that Gonzo commited a crime but I do not have to commit a crime to be fired from my job. If he did something unethical I think it is ok for congress to question him and urge for him to be fired.

You still didn't comment on the fact that Clinton fired someone investing him personally. Lets just be fair...it is either no harm no foul. Or the Dems should realize their hypocracy and move on...one of the two!!!

[MDC 5,933]

Gonzalez is being questioned because:

 

1) He's initially changed his story about the firings and claimed he can't remember details or that he was just in the dark. So the guy is either lying to Congress or grossly incompetent.

2) He has a long history of ignoring and outright lying to Congress and a lot of them have it in for him now.

3) He has dangerous views of the law and the flexibility of the Constitution and folks want him out.

 

As for #3, I think it's absurd that the head of the Justice Department can claim the constitution does not grant a right to habeus corpus. I'm all for the President making his own appointees, but a common sense understanding of the Constitution and respect for the rule of law should be a prerequisite for Gonzalez' job.

 

The guy is a dangerous partisan hack - THAT is why Congress is going after him.

[Isotopes 1]

You still didn't comment on the fact that Clinton fired someone investing him personally. Lets just be fair...it is either no harm no foul. Or the Dems should realize their hypocracy and move on...one of the two!!!

 

This isn't the best source but from what I have heard that claim is completely false and the attorneys taht Clinton fired were ta the beginning of his first term.

 

http://mediamatters.org/items/200703160009

 

3. Clinton fired Arkansas U.S. attorney to avoid Whitewater investigation

 

In a March 14 editorial, The Wall Street Journal suggested that former President Bill Clinton "dismiss[ed] ... all 93 U.S. Attorneys" upon taking office in 1993 and subsequently appointed " 'Friend of Bill' Paula Casey" as the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Arkansas in order to avoid an investigation into "the Clintons' Whitewater dealings." Following the Journal editorial, co-host Sean Hannity made a similar suggestion on the March 14 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes. Hannity baselessly suggested that Clinton "fire[d] the Little Rock U.S. attorney" in 1993 because he had launched an "investigation into ... the Whitewater deal." In fact, Casey's Republican-appointed predecessor, Charles A. Banks, had refused to pursue the Whitewater matter, reportedly in defiance of pressure from George H.W. Bush administration officials in search of a pre-election issue with which to tar challenger Clinton.

 

Moreover, as Media Matters has documented, the extensive investigation into Whitewater -- initiated shortly after Clinton took office -- ultimately led the independent counsel to close the probe without charging the Clintons with any wrongdoing.

 

2. Bush dismissals comparable to Clinton's '93 dismissals

 

Several media outlets have compared the Bush administration's controversial dismissals of eight U.S. attorneys to President Clinton's dismissal of almost all U.S. attorneys upon taking office in 1993. Clinton's firing of the prosecutors was highlighted March 13 at Drudgereport.com, the website of Internet gossip Matt Drudge. Over the next 24 hours, several media outlets -- including Fox News, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Times, and MSNBC -- echoed the unfounded comparison between the Clinton and Bush dismissals.

 

In fact, while both Clinton and Bush dismissed nearly all U.S. attorneys upon taking office following an administration of the opposite party, The Washington Post reported in a March 14 article that "legal experts and former prosecutors say the firing of a large number of prosecutors in the middle of a term appears to be unprecedented and threatens the independence of prosecutors."

 

A March 13 McClatchy Newspapers article -- headlined "Current situation is distinct from Clinton firings of U.S. attorneys" -- further noted that "[m]ass firings of U.S. attorneys are fairly common when a new president takes office, but not in a second-term administration." The article added that "Justice Department officials acknowledged it would be unusual for the president to oust his own appointees."

[Snoopy1 0]

You still didn't comment on the fact that Clinton fired someone investing him personally. Lets just be fair...it is either no harm no foul. Or the Dems should realize their hypocracy and move on...one of the two!!!

 

 

You are seriously ignorant.

 

It has been stated and restated how it's customary for a new admistration to remove the previous attorneys. The aforementioned attorney was part of the normal purge of a new administration.

 

Also, what would the President Clinton care about Whitewater, the GOP backed Starr decided after spending millions pursing it closed the probe without finding any Clinton wrong doing.

[RLLD 3,503]

Yeah no kidding.

 

What's with these stupid libs always blaming Bush for EVERYthing??? The war he started, the deficits he's run up, the incompetent hacks he's appointed to government ... like this crap is his fault.

 

Why do the Demolibs hate America?

 

I still want to blame Bush, and only Bush, as blindly as possible....I infer this is still the cool-kids direction

[MDC 5,933]

I still want to blame Bush, and only Bush, as blindly as possible....I infer this is still the cool-kids direction

 

Exactly. How dare those blind liberal partisan dooshes blame Bush for his own actions and appointees? Don't they know that all Presidents pass the buck and never take responsibility for anything?

 

THAT is the American way.

[Guest Davaco]

and hes a wetback

[wiffleball 4,659]

Gonzalez is being questioned because:

 

1) He's initially changed his story about the firings and claimed he can't remember details or that he was just in the dark. So the guy is either lying to Congress or grossly incompetent.

2) He has a long history of ignoring and outright lying to Congress and a lot of them have it in for him now.

3) He has dangerous views of the law and the flexibility of the Constitution and folks want him out.

 

As for #3, I think it's absurd that the head of the Justice Department can claim the constitution does not grant a right to habeus corpus. I'm all for the President making his own appointees, but a common sense understanding of the Constitution and respect for the rule of law should be a prerequisite for Gonzalez' job.

 

The guy is a dangerous partisan hack - THAT is why Congress is going after him.

 

Can't add much more to that. I remember watching part of the testimony about Habeus and I just couldn't believe not only what he was saying but how he said it. He seems to have an open disdain for Congress and the Constitution. The fact that the Republicans are nailing him says a lot.

 

Do I give a rat's butt about the firings? No. But when you're the friggin Attorney General and you say you weren't involved in the deliberations of which US Attorneys should be FIRED? Then Congress finds out that you WERE in meetings specifically FOR such discussions - Not smart. It's Scooter Libby all over again: If you'd just tell the focking truth and not try to outsmart the guys asking the questions, you'd be okay. It's the lying that gets you focked.

 

Basically, he's taking the Ken Lay approach - "I wasn't in on the details" - And Congress is taking the Ken Lay prosecutorial approach - "Either you knew and lied - or you didn't and you're incompetent. Which is it? -"

[lennie75 0]

Can't add much more to that. I remember watching part of the testimony about Habeus and I just couldn't believe not only what he was saying but how he said it. He seems to have an open disdain for Congress and the Constitution. The fact that the Republicans are nailing him says a lot.

 

Do I give a rat's butt about the firings? No. But when you're the friggin Attorney General and you say you weren't involved in the deliberations of which US Attorneys should be FIRED? Then Congress finds out that you WERE in meetings specifically FOR such discussions - Not smart. It's Scooter Libby all over again: If you'd just tell the focking truth and not try to outsmart the guys asking the questions, you'd be okay. It's the lying that gets you focked.

 

Basically, he's taking the Ken Lay approach - "I wasn't in on the details" - And Congress is taking the Ken Lay prosecutorial approach - "Either you knew and lied - or you didn't and you're incompetent. Which is it? -"

Do you know what's worth than lying to Congress....Congress initiating something in which you could never be found guilty for anything.

 

You can't have a testimony for something that is not illeagal in the hopes of catching someone in a lie which would be illegal.

[kpbuckeye 2]

personally, i'd rather have the current moron (gonzalez) than the previous piece of shiot.

 

I would rather leave it alone bc the next guy will be a bigger douche than both of the past two losers.

[davebg 0]

I wonder how many of the esteemed members of Congress on this panel would fare if they faced similar scruitiny for their job performance.

 

I'm just sayin'.

Sayin' that they're all a bunch of no-talent assclowns.

[MDC 5,933]

I wonder how many of the esteemed members of Congress on this panel would fare if they faced similar scruitiny for their job performance.

 

I'm just sayin'.

Sayin' that they're all a bunch of no-talent assclowns.

 

I'm sure none of them are perfect, but I'm equally sure all of them are better than Gonzalez. Unless you know of someone on the panel who routinely lies to Congress and is openly hostile to the Constitution and his own job?

 

Gonzalez is a POS.

[davebg 0]

Do you know what's worth than lying to Congress....Congress initiating something in which you could never be found guilty for anything.

 

You can't have a testimony for something that is not illeagal in the hopes of catching someone in a lie which would be illegal.

Self-fulfilling prophecy.

 

"We want you to be guilty...we're not just sure really of what yet, but I'm sure if we have you testify long enough we'll come up w/something."

 

I'm sure none of them are perfect, but I'm equally sure all of them are better than Gonzalez. Unless you know of someone on the panel who routinely lies to Congress and is openly hostile to the Constitution and his own job?

 

Gonzalez is a POS.

Oh...I think a whole lotta' them routinely lie to Congress and their constituents.

[wiffleball 4,659]

Do you know what's worth than lying to Congress....Congress initiating something in which you could never be found guilty for anything.

 

You can't have a testimony for something that is not illeagal in the hopes of catching someone in a lie which would be illegal.

 

 

You got a lisp?

 

No, actually it's not worse. I mean, it might be to you, but the fact is Congress can investigate anything. Hell, they investigate shiit that has nothing to DO with the government or breaking laws. They sure as hell can investigate the actions of the Attorney General whether or not charges could ever be filed.

 

Perjory in Congressional Testimony? That's actually a Felony. It's on the books. If congress puts u on the hot-seat and you say you wear boxers instead of revealing you wear briefs? You've just committed a Felony.

 

Just filling you in on the facts. You may not like it, but hey, should ring a bell:

 

Getting a blowjob ain't illegal either.

[Snoopy1 0]

 

Do you know what's worth than lying to Congress....Congress initiating something in which you could never be found guilty for anything.

 

You can't have a testimony for something that is not illeagal in the hopes of catching someone in a lie which would be illegal.

 

 

Self-fulfilling prophecy.

 

"We want you to be guilty...we're not just sure really of what yet, but I'm sure if we have you testify long enough we'll come up w/something."

Oh...I think a whole lotta' them routinely lie to Congress and their constituents.

 

Yeah, who cares that the man who is appointed to oversee all of the states attorneys in this country maybe complicit in firing them for investigating republicans. We wouldn't want the nations Top Cop to actually enforce the law or anything...

[davebg 0]

You got a lisp?

 

No, actually it's not worse. I mean, it might be to you, but the fact is Congress can investigate anything. Hell, they investigate shiit that has nothing to DO with the government or breaking laws. They sure as hell can investigate the actions of the Attorney General whether or not charges could ever be filed.

 

Perjory in Congressional Testimony? That's actually a Felony. It's on the books. If congress puts u on the hot-seat and you say you wear boxers instead of revealing you wear briefs? You've just committed a Felony.

 

Just filling you in on the facts. You may not like it, but hey, should ring a bell:

 

Getting a blowjob ain't illegal either.

irunny

 

Yeah, who cares that the man who is appointed to oversee all of the states attorneys in this country maybe complicit in firing them for investigating republicans. We wouldn't want the nations Top Cop to actually enforce the law or anything...

That was not my point. The point I was trying to make is how so many of these special investigations are politically motivated from the start. Half the time there aren't even specific charges or if there are, then they're often found to have no substance to them fairly early on. However, the charade is kept moving along until at some point something can be held over the person's head...whether that's a lie about what kind of underwear they have on or them admitting to not remembering if they even put on underwear that day.

 

This is not a republican thing or a democrat thing...it's a political scumbag in DC thing.