« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Gonzales Tries to Explain Domenici Role in Iglesias Firing
Alberto Gonzales walked an absurdly fine line explaining the firing of U.S. Attorney for New Mexico David Iglesias.
Some quick background: On three different occasions, Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM), evidently perturbed at Iglesias' lack of haste in indicting Democrats, called Gonzales to complain about Iglesias' handling of public corruption cases. The calls took place in September of 2005, January of 2006, and again in April of that year. Gonzales has been careful to say that they did not talk about a specific case -- just public corruption cases in general (and, he added for the first time today, "voter fraud cases generally"). Gonzales has said that it was because of these calls that he was "not surprised" to see Iglesias' name on the list of U.S. attorneys to be fired.
But under persistent questioning by Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), Gonzales admitted that when he visited Iglesias' district in July of 2006, he didn't talk with Iglesias about his handling of public corruption or voter fraud cases at all. So apparently it wasn't such a burning issue.
And Schiff questioned Gonzales about a statement that his spokesman Brian Roehrkasse made back in March, during the media frenzy over Sen. Domenici's October call to Iglesias. The frenzy, you'll remember, was over a call Sen. Domenici had made to Iglesias wanting to know if Iglesias would be indicting a state Democrat on corruption charges before the election.
When addressing Domenici's calls to Gonzales then, Roehrkasse seemed to indicate that the calls hadn't had anything to do with a corruption case. Domenici "expressed general concerns about the performance of U.S. Attorney Iglesias and questioned whether he was up to the job," Roehrkasse said. And "at no time" in those calls to Gonzales had the senator mentioned "this corruption case."
But according to Gonzales' testimony, Domenici had indeed called to complain about Iglesias' handling of corruption cases.
So, don't you think that Roehrkasse's was a misleading statement? Rep. Schiff wanted to know.
Gonzales answered that "there was no mention of a corruption case" during Domenici's calls. They talked generally about corruption cases, not about a particular case. And so: " I don't think that was misleading."
Josh
Zachary
Anybody notice that the second to last questioner backed Gonzon in to a corner over the voter fraud prosecutions. When confronted with the specific cases that they brought he was forced to acknowledge that those cases were innapropriate.
May 10, 2007 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's almost as good as Condoleezza Rice's "historical memo."
May 10, 2007 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Like I said in an earlier post, these USA's serve at the pleasure of the President.
So, lets just review: if George told Gonzo to "Go git me a Big GulP", and Gonzo called David Iglesias in and told him to rob a 7-11 cause he was out of change, and Iglesias wouldn't do it, they could fire him. Nothing wrong with that--didn't Clinton fire a USA for not robbing a 7-11 too?
May 10, 2007 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
But don't forget, lgr: If the president orders it, then it's not illegal. People just THOUGHT Nixon was wrong to do what he did. W has proven that the president can get away with anything that a supine Congress will allow.
May 10, 2007 6:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
During the hearing I heard at least two people state that Clinton had all existing USAs fired at the beginning of his first term. But don't we know that Guam's USA, Frederick A. Black, had been serving since 1991 (appointed by Bush I) when he was removed in 2003?
Is it a crime for members of Congress to lie to Congress?
Does anyone have the real data on Clinton's firing of USAs?
Security code: push - push it real good.
May 10, 2007 6:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I remember that the privilege log of documents withheld from production included several messages from Domenici. How much would you like to wager that they mention a "specific corruption" case and they don't just mention corruption cases "in general?"
May 10, 2007 6:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
How great is it that the hard-charging guy examining the Attorney General is named Adam Schiff? Law and Order, eat your heart out.
May 10, 2007 8:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
ok people...
over at the House Jud. site, go to the hearing that happened today, and click on
Friedrich Transcript Excerpt
there are 3 pages..and only 1 page is readable because the rest is blacked out with a marker!@
Someone do there magic@
May 10, 2007 9:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Today Gone-lawless stated with certainity more than once that Bush and Cheney did not add Iglesias' name to the list.
When queried if Sampson added the name, the Torture Czar would only commit to that he had not spoken to Sampson regarding whether Sampson had added Iglesias to the list.
Does this mean that AG the AG spoke to Bush and the Dark Sethlord Cheney speifically about Iglesias being added to the list?
Why didn't anyone follow up on his memories about these little facts?
The door was openned to dig into the Administration's involvement and nobody walked in.
I'm more than a little pissed off.
May 10, 2007 10:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Today Gone-lawless stated with certainity more than once that Bush and Cheney did not add Iglesias' name to the list.
When queried if Sampson added the name, the Torture Czar would only commit to that he had not spoken to Sampson regarding whether Sampson had added Iglesias to the list.
Does this mean that AG the AG spoke to Bush and the Dark Sethlord Cheney speifically about Iglesias being added to the list?
Why didn't anyone follow up on his memories about these little facts?
The door was openned to dig into the Administration's involvement and nobody walked in.
I'm more than a little pissed off.
May 10, 2007 10:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gonzales was asked if the President or Vice-President added any names to the list. He said no. He was then asked how he could be sure since he didn't seem to have a clue who did put anyone's name on the list. His response was that he "just knew they wouldn't do anything like that."
Like what? He's asserted over and over again that this was handled properly and that Justice stands by the decisions. Is he trying to say that the President and the Vice-President just wouldn't do anything like handle it properly? How many times have we heard that USAs serve at the pleasure of the President? What could possibly be improper with the President adding a name to this list?
Unless, of course, Gonzales is aware that the process was illegal.
Do we finally have an admission of guilt?
May 10, 2007 10:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that the committees are losing sight of the goal. Gonzales is the whore; Rove is the pimp. Go after the pimp.
May 10, 2007 10:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
The congress needs to come up with something soon. The stonewalling is starting to work. We need a revelation or something that will grab the publics attention and make them want more. The Repubs know this. That is why they have started this much ado about nothing campaign. Dem's need to get Goodling in front and center if she is going to cooperate. They need to do it within the next two weeks.
May 10, 2007 10:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
why doesnt these committees seek the people, us! lots of great questions, lots of good leads, common sense thinking is whats missing.
Sometimes the lawyer in them WILL get in the way, when the answer is right in front of them, thats where WE come in. Blogs such as this one, have a great following and educated answers to a lot of issues. They (the committees) need to step back and reach out to the people in real time, home base and not from someone who told someone..., most of us would be willing to jump to the call if asked to help. We all want the same thing, honest government that serves the people's needs.
All they have to do is ask!
May 10, 2007 11:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Check out the AP story on the frontpage of Yahoo- not even added till late this evening:
"Attorney General Alberto Gonzales confidently deflected House Democrats' demands Thursday for details in the firings of U.S. attorneys, appearing ever more likely to survive accusations that the dismissals were politically motivated."
"The mostly muted five-hour hearing in front of the House Judiciary Committee was a sharp contrast to Gonzales' sometimes testy appearance three weeks ago when Senate Republicans questioned his competence to run the Justice Department."
I guess it doesn't help when the Dems are talking about NSLs and prisons in Houston and a Cuban murderer/terrorist- yeah, that is important stuff but not AT A HEARING ABOUT THE FIRED ATTORNEYS! Why is so fucking difficult for these folks to show up prepared and have a clue about the matter at hand. Having said that, this is a phoned in AP article. I get the feeling the reporter left after a couple hours to get a manicure- because the latter portion of that hearing definitely heated up. I'm guessing LARA JAKES JORDAN of the AP has about as much understanding of the story as Matt Lauer.
May 10, 2007 11:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dems are being distrated. corruption and vote fraud are the red herring excuses rove used to explain firing prosecutors who couldn't be counted on. some were really getting out of hand, going after GOP corruption.
exaggerated Dem vote fraud and corruption were part of the rove PR campaign to energize the base and distract from systematic GOP election fraud. most of that campaign was/is waged on talk radio, where there is little accountability, little record.
rove decided to tie into that talk radio campaign and blame the firings on these flimsy excuses, which don't stack up.
domenici is just a stooge trying to give his babe Heather Wilson
an advantage and felt the pressure from the local AM 770 KKOB (Rove propaganda outlet) to blame Dems for vote fraud and corruption. they had to anticipate Dems in the streets finally reacting to putting vote thieves in charge.
May 10, 2007 11:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Artur Davis of Alabama knows how to deal with Gonzales. Dem's should do their questioning just like he does.
May 10, 2007 11:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would suggest that the Dems take one of the aggregious offenses here and run with it. Put the other ones on the back burner because the American public is getting attention deficit disorder.
May 10, 2007 11:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, the Dems have once again reaffirmed my faith in their utter ineptitude. Today was utterly pathetic. I cannot convey how sad the House Dems were. This was a sorry show. Gonzo was positively beaming.
If a special prosecutor is not appointed this will come to naught. I hate to say it, but in some respects Ralph was right: there is very little air between the Dem vs GOP facilitators.
Where is the outrage?
May 11, 2007 1:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Gee, it turns out Gonzales is a True Believer; a Bush-loving criminal with no respect for the Constitution whatsoever. A swearer of allegiance to winguttery and Jesus Camp, so help us Baby Jesus. Regrettably, I have lost my capacity for outrage/
May 11, 2007 2:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
The missed question.
"Did Karl Rove put the names on the list?"
Bozo: "Blah, blah, blah..."
"Please answer the question. Yes or No. Did Karl Rove put the names on the list?"
Bozo: "Blah, blah, blah..."
"Please answer the question. Yes or No. Did Karl Rove put the names on the list?"
Bozo: "Blah, blah, blah..."
Continue ad infinitum.
May 11, 2007 8:20 AM | Reply | Permalink