Comments (104)

Punchy wrote on April 17, 2007 9:06 AM:

You can fire a guy for lying. You cannot fire a guy--hell, there'll be no firing, only perhaps a resignation--for "forgetting".

Gonzo knows this. Ergo, his strategy. "Forgetting" is to be human, while lying is not. Not to mention, none of his errant and wanton forgetfulness will see ONE MINUTE of press coverage.

Sorry, Gonzo skates.

Kevster wrote on April 17, 2007 9:07 AM:

"To my knowledge I did not decide..."

The stonewall appears to be crumbling around Abu Gonzo yet they are still going through with this.

So, what softballs will Orrin Hatch and Box Turtle throw at Gonzo?

Tom L wrote on April 17, 2007 9:08 AM:

Does Gonzales remember where he lives?

MC wrote on April 17, 2007 9:10 AM:

You may not be able to fire a guy for forgetting, but you sure as shit can fire a US Attorney General who doesn't remember doing things of significant moment. You can fire him for incompetence.

That's a conversation he damned well *should* have remembered.

But wait: they *never* fire anyone for incompetence. They let them resign and then give them medals.

My bad.

Wretched Refuse wrote on April 17, 2007 9:12 AM:

Maybe, he will FORGET he is the Attorney General and just not show up.

mashu wrote on April 17, 2007 9:12 AM:

"I don't remember. The new excuse to solve all of life's problems."tm

global citizen wrote on April 17, 2007 9:13 AM:

Gonzales not remembering what Bush told him is like Libby proceeding with a systematic media campaign without having discussed it with Cheney. Do these people really imagine that anyone will believe them?

r€nato wrote on April 17, 2007 9:14 AM:

convenient amnesia seems to be a malady unique to Republicans.

elf wrote on April 17, 2007 9:15 AM:

Holy Cow Batman..it's the dreaded

LIBBY DEFENSE...

Get your batboots on QUICK!!

Johann wrote on April 17, 2007 9:16 AM:

With the complete Republican politicization of the Justice department, it would be to the Democrats advantage to totally defund that department.

Code loss as in lost Justice department.

Phil wrote on April 17, 2007 9:17 AM:

How can Gonzales both be so certain that he was not really involved in firing the USAs and yet have forgotten every instance where he was participating and/or making decisions?

Wouldn't a reasonable person start to question their certainty of innocense? And after like the tenth or twentieth time not remembering, isn't it possible that he worked on it regularly and just isn't "remembering"? Regardless, how can Congress possibly believe ANYTHING he has to say at this point?

punjab from annie wrote on April 17, 2007 9:20 AM:

Fire him for performance.

Off Topic, but I like Scott Horton's via Harpers new term Banana Republicans for these clowns.

Right on.

Security code is cloth for the administration's not so new clothes.

* wrote on April 17, 2007 9:24 AM:

Pathological Liar

A pathological liar is usually defined as someone who lies incessantly to get their way and does so with little concern for others.

Pathological lying is often viewed as coping mechanism developed in early childhood and it is often associated with some other type of mental health disorder.

A pathological liar is often goal-oriented (i.e., lying is focused - it is done to get one's way).

Pathological liars have little regard or respect for the rights and feelings of others.

A pathological liar often comes across as being manipulative, cunning and self-centered.

Garry wrote on April 17, 2007 9:24 AM:

The big worry is that the media is once again chasing after the wrong bone. Everyone in the country is now focused on the drama of whether Gonzalez will get caught lying and not on the scope of the plan itself to politicize the US Attys' positions across the country. After the Gonzalez "dramatic" confrontation, will it be possible to ramp up the country's interest in what this is really about?

Jan wrote on April 17, 2007 9:26 AM:

GREAT question.

TheraP wrote on April 17, 2007 9:33 AM:

Yes, Phil

You have pointed out the nub, the central conflict in the AG's assertions. To assert one has a poor memory while claiming one has never, ever, ever done anything for improper reasons.... Well, it begs a "dear listener" indeed!

Code word is "fire."

Yes, things are really heating up for this man!

unpoetaloco wrote on April 17, 2007 9:35 AM:

The Senate cannot allow this Administration to set the new standard for (in)competency. We cannot allow the "I've got so many things happening I can't possibly remember everything" defense to become the new standard.

By their own admission -- albeit to save their butts -- they all have memories of knats. When my college students try to pull this crap, I shut them down immediately, "I don't remember you saying that." "Too bad," I tell them. "It will teach you to listen more closely next time."

If Gonzo wants to use the "I'm a blithering idiot, but I'm honest" excuse, then the Senate needs to say "We don't want a blithering idiot, honest or not," running a governmental agency.

JEP wrote on April 17, 2007 9:37 AM:

"Sampson's version, which has the conversation focusing on Iglesias, implicates Bush much more directly in his removal."

The sharks smell "blood" (code-word)...

Now we are getting down to plausible undeniability... obviously, Gonzo's duty to the protection of Bush/Cheney's cabal has always outweighed his duty to the American people and the Constitution.

TheraP wrote on April 17, 2007 9:38 AM:

To *

Pathological Liar = Sociopath = Anti-Social Personality.

Not just lying. But stealing (justice etc.). No empathy at all. No conscience.

Part of the criminal enterprise in the white house.

ryk wrote on April 17, 2007 9:41 AM:

Okay, so the story is now that Gonzales went to Sampson to spread a rumor that he (Gonzales) had spoken with the president? Whuh??
"I don't remember it, but I heard through the grapevine that I talked to the president about firing some attorneys, so we better get right on that."

Heraldblog wrote on April 17, 2007 9:41 AM:

I'm pretty sure that when the AG meets with the President, a record is kept of the time, place, and what is discussed. Can't Gonzales at least refer back to those notes before he opens his mouth?

Chris63 wrote on April 17, 2007 9:43 AM:

Seems to me that the time has come for the Gonzales story to come full circle. He is having a bit of trouble with the truth. He is well aware of ways to get the truth -- sleep deprivation, cold rooms, waterboarding. And he believes that none of these is torture. So perhaps the time has come for him to volunteer to these aids to memory.

cv wrote on April 17, 2007 9:45 AM:

What I don't understand is that Gonzales says he doesn't remember this conversation, but he seems to remember exactly what he did and did not discuss in this conversation he doesn't remember.

jay severin has a small pen1s wrote on April 17, 2007 9:47 AM:

Now, more than ever, I urged the American people and the Bush Administration to support stem-cell research. We need to find a cure for the plague of 'forgetfulness' that has been brought upon our elected official. Don't let the lessons of the Reagen era go unnoticed. A cure can be found.

While the Attorney General was prepping, 100,000 illegal aliens came into this country. Why do the Democrats hate America?

Dem-agog wrote on April 17, 2007 9:47 AM:

Gonzo is a skilled "testifier". With only 5-minute questioning periods he can easily eat up the clock and frustrate the Dem questioners (who, imo, overall do not seem that skilled in direct & probing questioning). The Repub questions will continue to maintain that there's just no scandal and making honest "mistakes" does not rise to criminality.

The worst that will happen to Gonzo is that he will resign, Bush will thank him for his service, he won't be disbarred and he'll find another cushy job. Joe Lieberman will be tapped to replace him.

I've gotten my hopes up too many times in the past so anything else that happens will be an unexpected treat. (i.e. he suddenly breaks down sobbing and implicates Rove, Cheney & Bush in everything....).

borussky wrote on April 17, 2007 9:47 AM:

Ye, Bannana Republicans and I call the Democrats who offer token resistance and then roll over "Vichy Democrats".

Richard L. Adlof wrote on April 17, 2007 9:49 AM:

Misrepresentation (unintentional lying) is still a form of fraud under the law. It is still a felony (or a high crime). It is still imprisonable and impeachable.

Unfortunately, it is still pardonable by the sitting President.

John in Erie wrote on April 17, 2007 9:50 AM:

Heraldblog, of course they are available. Just check the Presidential records system. Oooohh...

bp wrote on April 17, 2007 9:51 AM:

Anyone seen Koppel of the CNN. Last heard looking for a smoking gun in the document dumpster. Information as to the whereabouts of CNN's ace defective (opps, sorry detective) will be welcome.

Dan D wrote on April 17, 2007 9:51 AM:

I was hoping some of this kind of thing would come from the private testimony. Having them talk in private, means they can't watch each other's testimony and keep their stories straight.

Same reason the police separate suspects while interrogating them. Catch the differences in their stories and press for more details. Eventually, the whole thing gets blown open.

snappy wrote on April 17, 2007 9:51 AM:

is somebody with such a horrible memory qualified to be attorney general?

SB wrote on April 17, 2007 9:54 AM:

Paul,

You need a "third." The Justice Department itself claims that Gonzales believed in early March that he had discussed the attorney firings in October, even if he had to be told this by others. Given that belief, how can Gonzales's later claim that he simply "didn't remember" the conversation be considered truthful? His failure to volunteer that just a few weeks earlier he had been convinced by others that such a conversation took place is itself a deceit, and a blatant deceit is a lie.

P.S.: Has TPM considered creating a contradiction/deceit/bald-faced-lie page in addition to its timeline?

Arkansan wrote on April 17, 2007 9:56 AM:

Seriously, it is time to bring those Articles of Impeachment. Even assuming the Democrats made some sort of agreement about impeachment similar to the moratorium on ethics complaints in congress, certainly that agreement didn't extend beyond the President and Vice President. The Republicans couldn't have planned to criminalize the AG from the get go also, could they?

If the promise didn't extend to the AG's crimes, then it is fair game to pursue him through the only means the Democrats have left. The Democrats will simply have to come up with a talking point, and stick to it, that deflects the "partisan witch hunt" retort.

The charge isn't true, so they'll just have to muster the courage to let the nation know that. For some reason the potential of that "partisan" charge scares them silly. What should scare them silly is the core corruption at the DOJ, a propose of which is to pursue phantom charges against Democrats. Come on guys, wake up! If you don't make things right --and soon-- they'll be coming after you with bogus charges. Don't worry about the nation as a whole, just protect yourselves. If you do that we'll all reap the benefits.

bibimimi wrote on April 17, 2007 9:56 AM:

Clearly this level of dementia is acceptable in an AG. Was Ashcroft wearing Depends and wandering away from his motorcade?

owenz wrote on April 17, 2007 9:57 AM:

Someone above called Gonzo a pathalogical liar. Maybe. But if that's the case, he sure is bad at it.

Lying, that is.

My 8-year old cousin is more convincing than this guy.

Bill Cameron wrote on April 17, 2007 9:58 AM:

It might just be me, but I personally want the most powerful law enforcement official in the nation to have a mind like a steel trap. That person should be able to remember everything. Hell, any lawyer should. The members of the Professions (doctor, lawyer, etc.) have jobs that require they remember almost infinite minutiae in order to do their jobs, and if they can't, they need to be doing something else. Gonzales shouldn't just lose his job for "not remembering", he should be dis-barred. He's obviously not up to the job.

RW wrote on April 17, 2007 10:01 AM:

This is but a small tail of a much bigger monster and the pathway that is open to get at the monster. Gonzo is as close to the Oval Office as the VP or Rove or Myers(err Fielding). The level of mendacity is slowly being exposed.

OKAY we get it, the USA's were a political arm of the WH for the purposes of motivating the base to vote against the corrupt Democrats except that the Republicans were more corrupt.

The monster is that the entire government was re-designed to be political arms, legs, tails of the WH for the cause of the neo-con's internationally and the evangelical's domestically.

Inside the DOJ we now see the loyalty oath, the Federalist Society (domestic neo-cons and evangelicals intermingling), attempting to manipulate the law for their aims. The problem is that the Constitution actually holds the Congress in initiation and oversight over the Executive and Court.

The 5 million emails will probably show many other tails, legs, fingers, arms and hands going out like spokes from a bicycle axle. The amount will be overwhelming...btw amount is the code word

KYJurisDoctor wrote on April 17, 2007 10:06 AM:

Thursday will be here just soon enough and then we'll know the truth (under oath)!

OsiSpeaks.com or OsiSpeaks.org

Steve Garrett wrote on April 17, 2007 10:12 AM:

Clearly all of the firings were politically motivated. Knowing that I don't believe Alberto was making these decisions. It had to be Rove. Rove pressures Alberto to get the 8 fired. Alberto, who probably really didn't want to fire them and even took something of a stand on Iglesias, first tries to say I wasn't involved. But that falls apart because Rove is working through him and he's very aware of what is happening. Now he's stuck because to point a finger means pointing it at Rove and Bush which he is far too loyal to do. So he's left twisting in the wind trying to explain why he did something that he didn't want to do but was his decision alone. But behind the scenes Bush is twisting too. If he cuts Alberto loose Alberto may decide to point that finger to save what's left of his reputation but by keeping him there battered and bloodied Bush once again looks like the incompetent CEO who cares little about performance.

My view is that Alberto is baked. The best case scenario is if he slips and points the finger at Rove. If that happens the wagon train continues. If he falls on the sword then it will end there. I'm sure Rove, as he busily deletes more emails, is praying for Alberto to resign.

Security Code "smile" :-)

enough wrote on April 17, 2007 10:13 AM:

If caught in bed with the neighbor's wife, does he answer that he forgot which house he lived in.

bcf wrote on April 17, 2007 10:13 AM:

Curious if anyone remembers how many times Gonz said "I don't know" or "I don't remember" at his confirmation hearings?

RandyR wrote on April 17, 2007 10:14 AM:

I think more than anything this goes to the credability of the president. TPM readers know a lot more about this than the public who only reads the paper. Here we have a president who has said at least 6 times he had nothing to do with the firings. Now the subject of the hearing will be about what the president said.

The longer this goes on the more the president will be implicated. I think that there will be a back room deal to stop the bleeding.

Security code: News The news will have the word resigns in it.

pablo wrote on April 17, 2007 10:14 AM:

Question about the hearings: Who sets the rules about how much questioning is done? If each Senator gets 5 minutes, and they have more questions, will they have an opportunity at redirect? It seems strange hat Democrats would allow a hearing to end before all their questions are asked.

randron wrote on April 17, 2007 10:17 AM:

To my knowledge, I did not decide to forget to file my income tax, ergo, I don't have to pay them, right?

TT wrote on April 17, 2007 10:18 AM:

Gonzales told Sampson about a conversation with the President "based on what others had told him, not his own memory." I see. So did anyone ask the spokescritter when Gonzales would go into rehab for alcoholism?

SteinL wrote on April 17, 2007 10:19 AM:

This White House needs a generous allocation of Memory Pills. Never, in the history of the presidency, have a crew been so affected by an inability to recollect even the simplest little things.

And it's quite astonishing. Every one of these Swiss-Cheese brains has rooms filled with assistants and notetakers, schedulers and planners that should be able to jog their braincells along a touch, when they can't remember exactly which day they chose to take a piss on the Constitution.

Just look it up, then!

Anon wrote on April 17, 2007 10:19 AM:

Wisconsin State Journal

COLUMNS
E-MAIL STORY PRINT STORY

MON., APR 16, 2007 - 11:36 AM
Wineke: Time to end voter fraud witch hunt
Bill Wineke
608-252-6146
bwineke@madison.com

Read Bill Wineke's Blog at www.madison.com/wsj/blogs.

There is some truly comforting news in the latest audit of elections in Wisconsin: Voter fraud here seems virtually nonexistent.

The state Elections Board reported late last week that as many as 82 felons may have voted in the 2006 election. Given that 2.16 million state residents voted, that amounts to a tiny fraction of a tiny fraction of 1 percent.
Join The Forum

It's easy!
Post your views or read others' opinions

It even amounts to a fraction - two- tenths of 1 percent - of the 41,500 felons who are being supervised in the state.

The issue of felons voting has been a big political football. Republicans have raised the specter of voter fraud repeatedly, using it as a club to try to change the laws to require that voters have a photo identification card.

One state resident, Kimberly Prude of Milwaukee, has been in jail for more than a year after being convicted of voting while on probation, an infraction Prude attributes to confusion. She says she thought she could vote so long as she wasn't in prison.

She's in prison now because her conviction on the voting fraud charge ended her probation.

U.S. Attorney Steven Biskupic and his staff looked at hundreds of potential violations based on 2004 voting records and eventually charged 14 Milwaukee area residents with violations, people The New York Times described last week as "mostly black, poor Democratic and first-time voters." Of these, five were convicted.

Prosecution of voter fraud has been a Justice Department priority in the Bush administration. U.S. attorneys who weren't sufficiently zealous in this area lost their jobs.

Biskupic has been zealous. That doesn't mean he's done anything wrong. Carrying out the priorities of the Justice Department is one of his duties.

But the fact is that no one has found enough evidence of wrongdoing to make that priority worth the effort. Voting fraud has not had a serious effect on state elections.

It's really time to end the witch hunt for crooked voters, since all it does is intimidate voters and undermine public confidence in the electoral system. Did Wisconsin really gain anything by putting a woman in jail at taxpayer expense for more than a year because she misunderstood her parole rules?

And do we honestly think there are large numbers of convicted felons out there who are plotting secret ways to cast their ballots?

What the audit shows is Wisconsin voters are honest and trustworthy.

We should rejoice in that. It's good news. Frankly, the results of the audit show us to be a far more law-abiding people than I would have suspected.

Our real problem as a society is not that too many people who shouldn't vote do, but that too many people who should vote don't.

The lack of participation in the voting process is a major concern in a society that operates on the assumption that rulers rule with the consent of the governed.

So for the sake of the governing process, perhaps we in the Badger State ought to just give ourselves a pat on the back for being honest voters and encourage our prosecutors to go look for some more promising areas of skullduggery.

GSD wrote on April 17, 2007 10:21 AM:

To Dem-agog above who asserted that Gonzo is a skilled testifier?

Jeesh, he barely got through his confirmation hearings. He's acted like penny-ante crook in the latest pressers.

If Gonzo is a skilled testifier, Bush is a skilled military strategist.

-GSD

Code: dress

MST wrote on April 17, 2007 10:25 AM:

I think I now understand why they released the AG's prepared statement ahead of his testimony before the Judiciary Committee. It's easy, really. It allows the contradicitions and inconsistencies between his account and that of Kyle Sampson and the e-mail records to surface through the Hill and the media, which in turn enables Gonzales and his handlers to anticipate what the most difficult questions will be, and (sadly) where their lies need to be most coherent and defensible. I hate to think in these cynical terms, but how can we doubt that it is true?

litigatormom wrote on April 17, 2007 10:27 AM:

So when Abu G heard about Sampson's testimony on this, it was "as if for the first time" (tm-Scooter Libby)?

You can fire a guy wrote on April 17, 2007 10:27 AM:

Who said that you can't fire a guy for forgetting? That's wrong. You can, and typically should, fire a guy for forgetting such key moments. "How did $10 million get embezzled on your watch?" "I forget."

The correct answer, trolls, is that you can't criminally prosecute someone for forgetting, and thereby making a misstatement while under oath. However, there is still the question of whether Abu forgot, or is lying again to cover up his misstatement. In a courtroom setting, that would be up to the jury to decide. See, e.g., Scooter Libby.

kikikowalski wrote on April 17, 2007 10:32 AM:

The "I don't recall" defense is as Republican as they come. It helped get Ronald Reagan dodge indictment in a Hollywood antitrust probe in the 1950s. It later became his excuse in Iran Contra. The revelation that he had developed Alzheimers may have actually vindicated him in the later case, but it nonetheless has proved a successful strategy to avoiding indictment, impeachment or resignation for the GOP.

atavist wrote on April 17, 2007 10:41 AM:

Regarding misrepresentation being a form of fraud, and therefor a felony, Richard L. Adlof wrote, "Unfortunately, it is still pardonable by the sitting President."

What I wonder about is the statute of limitation is for fraud . . . and whether a pardon can be granted before somebody is found guilty.

Sisyphus wrote on April 17, 2007 10:42 AM:

I’m reminded of the line in “A Man for All Seasons.” Richard Rich perjures himself against Sir Thomas More and it’s this perjury that gets More condemned. For this perjury Rich is rewarded with the job of Attorney General of Wales.

After Rich’s testimony, More turns to Rich and says, "Why Richard, it profits a man nothing to lose his soul for the whole world... but for Wales?"

When I think of Gonzo and him imminent humiliation and sacrifice I have to think also, but for George Bush?

Sucker. He never knew that Bush types would throw you to the sharks as look at you.

Jeff (no, the other one) wrote on April 17, 2007 10:43 AM:

Question: "So, #1: were you lying then? or #2: are you lying now? Or is it #3: you're just completely incompetent AND a pathological liar?"

AG: "What was #1, again?"

He'll stall it out as long as humanly possible. That's his only task here, try to run out the clock; protect the White House well enough, and you get to resign and collect your Medal of Freedom!

FMArouet wrote on April 17, 2007 10:43 AM:

Why not hand the ball to Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse?

I wonder whether the other Democratic Senators on the Judiciary Committee might consider giving all or most of their allocated minutes to Sen. Whitehouse to pursue the questioning of AG Gonzales. Sen. Whitehouse was the best prepared questioner at Kyle Sampson's hearing, and he is the one who dragged out of Sampson the admission that the key decisions in the USA firings were made at the AG and WH levels.

The banana Republicans on the committee will be tossing Gonzales Nerf balls drafted and relayed by the AG and WH, though Sen. Specter may ask a legitimate question or two. The Democrats cannot afford to waste their allocated time bloviating and pontificating, or to let AG Gonzales hem, haw, hedge, and "gum to death" their questions.

Sen. Whitehouse, with his real world courtroom experience as a prosecutor in Rhode Island, is the committee member best equipped to slice through Gonzales's by now well prepared and rehearsed layers of obfuscation and evasion. Sen. Whitehouse would not allow Gonzales to "gum to death" his questions.

pj in jesusland wrote on April 17, 2007 10:45 AM:

Maybe you can't lose your job for forgetting, but can't you lose it for lying about forgetting?

Once you start lying about forgetting you forget all the different versions of your story and how they logically tie together.

That's where Gonzo is right now. There's no logical way out of the maze of contradictions he has created.

It's sweat time under the bright lights. Will we see the beads of perspiration on his upper lip, like we saw with Nixon?

pj in jesusland wrote on April 17, 2007 10:51 AM:

And as far as "gumming out" a Gonzalez perjury trial goes, Dem's can play that game, too.

Drag a conviction out beyond January '09. Bush can't pre-emptively pardon someone accused of a crime (like he pre-emptively invades countries he decides are threats to the US).

thevineyard wrote on April 17, 2007 10:53 AM:

There is a lack of logic in the AG and Pres positions. On the one hand, no one wants to take responsibility for the firing. On the other hand, they "serve at the pleasure of the President" and they were fired. The AG and the President essentially had to be responsible. The dodge of forgetting and assigning responsibility to others is just not that good. Their lawyers should be telling them that. I guess there is an attitude that the Congress and the Public don't have any authority over them so there's no problem lying. It's a childish game of chicken.

dbrown wrote on April 17, 2007 10:54 AM:

I hate to let perjury become "the" issue. Ultimately, what really matters is the politicization of justice and the prosecution of innocent people for political reasons.

El Borba wrote on April 17, 2007 10:55 AM:

Like borussky, I smell “Vichy Democrats” in the woodpile (or is it under that pumpkin?).

Code: summer (as in how long all this US-A stuff will drag out without resolution)

JackNYC wrote on April 17, 2007 10:55 AM:

Too bad the the Clenis didn't use this tact.

'I don't recall ever remembering having sex with any woman, Mr. Starr'

Wonder if it would have worked? It sure would have given the TheoCons & NeoCons conniptions.

bohdi wrote on April 17, 2007 10:58 AM:

this little man will skate unless Leahy and his boys dig deeper. They need a corroborating witness to support Sampson's version otherwise its just a he said she said thing. They also need the court of public opinion. Oddly enough tortureboy is set up nicely with massively reduced expectations to win over the domesticated farm population formerly known as the American electorate. He comes on as so innocuous and so sweet that to a stupid and illiterate public that can only judge by image rather than content he will be favored on a subliminal level. He will also get central coverage by a media that will run interference for him as a great 'underdog' story.

A good 80% chance he gets off most especially now that he is tied to bush via the conversation. As operatives they are simply far,far superior in the trenches to anything that Democrats have seen in all their combined years in office. In Vegas my money is most definitely on AGAG.

Rich wrote on April 17, 2007 11:02 AM:

And this is from the crowd that furthered the meme that Clinton and Gore often gave lawyerly answers.

rick wrote on April 17, 2007 11:02 AM:

No doubt he heard it from reporters.

steambomb wrote on April 17, 2007 11:03 AM:

Gonzales not remembering what Bush told him is like Libby proceeding with a systematic media campaign without having discussed it with Cheney. Do these people really imagine that anyone will believe them?

Posted by: global citizen

Well it is interesting to watch them bring forth the "bush 41 defense" = not in the loop And the "ronny raygun defense" = sorry I dont recall. Back to your question. It really doesn't matter whether we believe them or not and they know that. If nothing can be proven, If nothing can be brought forth from the records to convict anyone of a crime, then they skate. It grieves me to watch men who are supposed to be patriotic to our country circumventing our laws, destroying our constitution through precedent at the same time creating cover for themselves from their powerful offices that they hold. There may come a point where the public cannot put up with this all this clever criminal behavior any longer. Then I wonder what the backlash will be.

dh wrote on April 17, 2007 11:11 AM:

"I think I don't remember"

That wonderful title is a 1987 book of a collection of columns by Art Buchwald.

Anonymous wrote on April 17, 2007 11:12 AM:

"You can fire a guy for lying. You cannot fire a guy ... for 'forgetting'. "

If we're discussing someone working at Burger King -- no, you probably can't fire him. But we're not.

Gonzales is currently the Attorney General. His private and public conduct and statements go to probity, and the idea that scales and blindfold aren't just elements of a statue but representations of impartiality and Justice. That his words and actions should be held to a higher standard than most occupations require.

Another TPM reader [PG] already raised the point:

"Implicit in all the [media] coverage is the assumption ... that the Attorney General is going up to Capitol Hill to lie... **nobody seems to find it shocking or tragic that the Attorney General of the United States is going to lie to [C]ongress** ... no one seems the least bit concerned about his truthfulness, just his tactics..." [Emphasis added]

What does that say about us as a country, that our expectations of the conduct of the highest law enforcement officer in America are this low?
That we assume our government is just another corrupt banana republic, run for the benefit of the rich and Junta-connected. That Government, and service in government, is to work for its benefit, and not for the People.

The curtain has been steadily rising for yearsto reveal Gonzales as an integral part of a government riddled with political and religious conservatives, promoting legal "interpretation" in support of torture and the abandonment of the Bill of Rights -- of an Executive branch with no limits on its power or authority -- and of turning the Department of Justice into a base to promote a nation under the dominance of a single political party and its "values".

This is the context within which Gonzales will appear on Thursday. Ostensibly, his appearance is about eight U.S. Attorneys, but (like the agony of New Orleans, Libby's trial, the forged Nigerian documents and domestic wiretapping) it's about a great deal more -- and everyone, from Cheney and Rove to the Person In The Street -- knows it.

In that real and broader context, we fully expect Gonzales to say he can't recall -- which is, of course, a lie.

Austin Cooper wrote on April 17, 2007 11:16 AM:

"In that real and broader context, we fully expect Gonzales to say he can't recall"

Didn't mean to make that an anonymous post.

Code = polish

td wrote on April 17, 2007 11:22 AM:

Now that 'aggressive questioning' (i.e., torture) was deemed OK by Mr. Gonzales for others, surely he wouldn't resist some waterboarding (in public, just for the exta fun of it) to help his memory refresh itself.........

Richard L. Adlof wrote on April 17, 2007 11:24 AM:

Imcompetence requires unintentionally failing to deliver specific measurable results in a timely manner due to the lack of capability. The folk who are the topic of discussions here act intentionally and deliberlately with forethought and malice. This is their desired result. Our favorite fascist plutocrats want and need democratic republicanism (small 'd', small 'r') to miserably fail. It is their meme that our government can't deliver. It is their Talking Point that humans are not enough. To continue this discussion in this frame gives them the 'win'.

They are not imcompetant. They ARE criminal.

sponson wrote on April 17, 2007 11:24 AM:

You can certainly "fire a guy" for plotting to fire someone for bogus reasons, changing their mind, coving the whole episode up, and then pretend to forget it extremely conveniently, when the person he wanted to fire was in the process of investigating multiple Congressmen and top CIA officials for corruption. And throw in the great likelihood that he deep-sixed the documents that proved it.
To answer Paul's question, the person Gonzales will claim "told him" of his conversation with Bush is - Monica Goodling. That would explain her bizarre claim that testifying under oath would be a "perjury trap," if she is under pressure to lie and "remember" this conversation.

Mooser wrote on April 17, 2007 11:24 AM:

Here we have a president who has said at least 6 times he had nothing to do with the firings

That's even worse than if he did!

osage wrote on April 17, 2007 11:38 AM:

Not only will Gozales resign or be fired, he will be indicted for lying to Congress. Now, which one of these things happens first is anyone's guess.

bordersmuggler wrote on April 17, 2007 11:41 AM:

The Gonzo strategy is based on the expectation of a repeat the weak line of questioning by the Democrats during the Sampson hearing. The exception then was the questioning by Senator Whitehouse. I concur with FMArout that Sen. Whitehouse should be allocated most if not all of the Democrat minutes. No doubt, he is the one member of the Committee that the Gonzo team most fears.

Anonymous wrote on April 17, 2007 11:42 AM:

Gonzales will fight to the end, but go down. This is a desperation strategy to fight like hell in a losing cause in hopes of it stopping there and not escalating to the most responsible perps......George W. Bush and his henchman Karl Rove......and their boss, Dick Cheney.

chief baconrind wrote on April 17, 2007 11:46 AM:

Personally, I hope Bushco flounders about for as long as possible on this issue, since it goes to the heart of thier weakness - they are simply all unqualified to do thier jobs.

jdw wrote on April 17, 2007 12:04 PM:

You can fire a guy for lying. You cannot fire a guy--hell, there'll be no firing, only perhaps a resignation--for "forgetting".

Gonzo knows this. Ergo, his strategy. "Forgetting" is to be human, while lying is not. Not to mention, none of his errant and wanton forgetfulness will see ONE MINUTE of press coverage.

Sorry, Gonzo skates.

----------------

WTF?

To paraphrase the mantra of Fredo and the President:

"They serve at the pleasure of the President. They can be fired at any time, for any reason."

Fredo can be fired for any reason. Being a poor AG would be a good starting point.

Security Code: Grip, as in "Get a..."

Adjacent wrote on April 17, 2007 12:11 PM:

Sure you can be fired for forgetting what your boss said about an important matter, especially if your boss is the President. If I am the boss, and one of my employees forgets about what I told him to do, but remember what somebody else said that I said about the subject, that is kind of upsetting. He is not paying attention when I talk to him.
Obviously they are lying and playing stupid, but since this is the game they are giving, take it. Embarrass them. They are playing stupid with Gonzales, they are playing stupid with e-mails. They played stupid with a lot of stuff.
Can the country be trusted to a party of stupids?
With a little more carefully chosen words, but this can be used for the big picture, which is 2008. And to justify that, with so much stipidity going arround, they can be left alone, hence the need of a close oversight.
By the way, a am relatively new to this site, but I like it very much, good work

littlesky wrote on April 17, 2007 12:12 PM:

Gonzales actually practiced this defense for several days?

Uh, wow.

Vinson & Elkins really lost a great mind, didn't they?

conniptionfit wrote on April 17, 2007 12:36 PM:

Send him to Gitmo! Bet they can help him remember!

Mark F. wrote on April 17, 2007 12:46 PM:

I think it's important to remember that this isn't just about Gonzales and the current White House. They are players in a much broader strategy by the Republicans to permanently push Democrats out of power--using any and all means. Redistricting, voter intimidation, false prosecutions, etc. In short, whatever it takes to make this a Republican country forever. Anyone who thinks the Clinton impeachment was about anything Clinton did isn't paying attention. The Democrats need to get hip to the fact that the Republicans have been waging an undeclared war on democracy for several decades. And they consider the Democrats to be Enemy Number One.

cevrero wrote on April 17, 2007 12:56 PM:

And to think, that this wouldn't even be an issue if
Republicans were in charge. It makes me wonder how different things could have been over the last 6 years if we had a bipartisan government instead of all three branches being republican.

Mauimom wrote on April 17, 2007 1:32 PM:

bcf @ 10:18 above:

Curious if anyone remembers how many times Gonz said "I don't know" or "I don't remember" at his confirmation hearings?

You sure wouldn't want to play a drinking game with these as the keys. Alcohol poisoning would come all too soon.

Go ask Alice wrote on April 17, 2007 2:26 PM:

"Incompetence requires unintentionally failing to deliver specific measurable results in a timely manner due to the lack of capability. The folk who are the topic of discussions here act intentionally and deliberlately with forethought and malice. This is their desired result. Our favorite fascist plutocrats want and need democratic republicanism (small 'd', small 'r') to miserably fail. It is their meme that our government can't deliver. It is their Talking Point that humans are not enough. To continue this discussion in this frame gives them the 'win'.

They are not imcompetant. They ARE criminal."

I completely agree with Richard Adolf's analysis above. We cannot let these thugs continue to frame the debate. This is one of the key traps that the right-wing Theocrats and Corporocrats of the Rethuglican party have laid for the American people and expects us to fall into, yet again. They aren't just incompetent to govern, they are actually criminal and have demonstrated that beyond a reasonable doubt. It is their M.O.

As with "Plamegate" in the Scooter Libby trial, and in Watergate, before it, primarily because of their "I can't remember" defense, they are only prosecuted/convicted for perjury and obstruction of justice, not for the (much worse) original crime, which continues to go unpunished. At least 3 people in the Bush Administration (Karl Rove, Scooter Libby and Richard Armitage) deliberately "outed" a covert CIA agent, destroying not only her cover, but the entire undercover operation, and no one is prosecuted for this??? It is really unbelieveable! What gives, Patrick Fitzgerald?? Can't we make our justice system work better than this for the people of this country?

This esteemed prosecutor is perhaps, a perfect segue to our current scandal. How convenient?! The same thing appears to be going on here with, shall we call it, "Gonzogate"? I wonder, have you been feeling the heat, Mr. Fitzgerald? The emphasis in the media and the "set-up" going on behind the scenes, is on Gonzo's incompetence, faulty memory and neglecting his professional and Constitutional responsibilities as AG, instead of on the blatant and brazen crimes of the subversion of justice that were committed by the highest officials in the U.S. Justice Dept. and the Bush Junta. They are making a mockery of our entire Justice system and the rule of law. When the lie is so big...(that people just can't believe that it could be true). The Republican trick is played out again. How do they keep getting by with it??

Don't let them by with it this time! One last thought...if the grotesque "incompetance" of the Bush Administration (and the still rubber-stamping Republicans in Congress) proves anything, it is that Republicans cannot govern and are totally incapable of running a effective, much less efficient, government (to say nothing of honest government). Maybe they really are incompetent, in addition to being corrupt and criminal. If so, their incompetance is a direct result of their bankrupt ideology that government, like taxes, is always bad and must be 'shrunk to the size that it can be drowned in a bathtub', courtesy Gorver Norquist. What they really mean, is that it must be shrunk to a size that corporate wealth and power/influence-peddling can competely overwhelm the public interest. And guess what, folks, they are succeeding wildly at that.

Republicans must be branded (both like a steer and in the corporate sense) with their horrendous failures to govern over the past 7 years so that they will not be able to win an election in this country for a very long time to come. Hopefully, that time will coincide with my lifetime.

freepatriot wrote on April 17, 2007 2:45 PM:

"Richard L. Adlof wrote, "Unfortunately, it is still pardonable by the sitting President.""

Richard L. Adlof should read the constitution so day

the presnit is prohibited from pardoniong in cases of impeachment, by direct enumeration

that means that the Constitution says directly that the presnit can't issue a pardon for a person who has been impeached

security code: sugar, as in SWEET

Erasmus wrote on April 17, 2007 3:03 PM:

To be a tragic figure, a player much have some measure of nobility. Gonzo fails there.
Gonzo is a hack. Always was; always will be.
He thought that that if he did the Bushman's bidding that he would be treated like a Bushman, invited to his parties and allowed to marry one of his daughters.
Problem is, Gonzo, that the Bushmen and their ilk hold guys like you in no higher esteem than the guy who does their gardening or the gal who cleans their bathrooms.
You are to be used and discarded at will after you have thrown yourself on the barbed wire for these people who secretly despise you.

pzykr wrote on April 17, 2007 3:51 PM:

Wasn't is the preznit who asked "Which is worse, if they did know or if they didn't?" He liked that line so well he repeated himself. As someone commented above, an attorney with such a porous memory should not be allowed to practice law, much less lead the Justice Department. As if we believed his memory were really that porous....

parrot wrote on April 17, 2007 4:06 PM:

Article II, section 2. Clause 1, last phrase:

"except in cases of impeachment."

http://www.house.gov/house/Constitution/Constitution.html

James wrote on April 17, 2007 4:28 PM:

Reactions from earlier cynics:

"Every one complains of a poor memory, no one of a weak judgment." [Duc De La Rochefoucauld, François]

"It is very difficult to get someone to [remember] something when his salary depends on his not [remembering] it." Upton Sinclair

Frederick wrote on April 17, 2007 4:55 PM:

The sad part is these people ARE willing to lie under oath, as long as the lies muddy the water. They are hoping it takes the justice committee a long time to get to the real truth.

hugh wrote on April 17, 2007 7:40 PM:

"i cannot recall" is a staple dodge of these types of hearings (made famous in iran-contra). the question i have is: does the US want to have a DOJ run by someone with such a bad memory? seems to me it's dangerous...and that alone should be grounds for dismissal.

what else has he forgotten?

John Carragee wrote on April 17, 2007 10:05 PM:

Alberto Gonzales Outwits Mark Twain

"If you tell the truth, you don't have to remember anything."

-- Mark Twain

Jonglly wrote on May 5, 2007 1:53 PM:

Before buying generic viagra read this.
I've got new info about [url=http://us-viagra.us]generic viagra[/url] and share with you.

mujwfor xktcva wrote on May 29, 2007 6:59 PM:

otnkuq oztpimja tasmwo wjukhao vifhalo ywibtq cbhgpnlu

mujwfor xktcva wrote on May 29, 2007 7:00 PM:

otnkuq oztpimja tasmwo wjukhao vifhalo ywibtq cbhgpnlu

xpofuw hqjn wrote on May 29, 2007 7:03 PM:

ezrtu lfrvak dxgsew ubwhizv vknsmh fkzoej oyvfcjhwa [URL=http://www.tqvgue.ksqewc.com]iqwdmz trbih[/URL]

gzvpq qdafs wrote on May 29, 2007 7:03 PM:

evtwfhij fionygdaj mbfqwdcol njukcvyo yrup wkhjuiq phkxdaj [URL]http://www.sucfalh.qlvydkjg.com[/URL] gjvty mwvfhpsy

Discount Tramadol online wrote on June 16, 2007 2:42 PM:

Drugshome.Ws: we sell brand-name and exact generic equivalents of US FDA approved prescription drugs through our fully-licensed overseas pharmacy.

Shipping is free regardless of destination. There are no dispensing fees, membership fees, or any other hidden fees. Orders are sent by Registered Air Mail. Delivery time to the USA is typically 10 business days after we have sent the order, though it can take longer, http://www.DrugsHome.Ws

Le DoH wrote on August 30, 2007 12:05 AM:

Just looking through the comments and disappointed that someone would use my great-grandfather's name, "Chief Baconrind", and not have the wherewithall to use correct English!

music downloads wrote on September 30, 2007 3:37 AM:

Hi, there!..d5bb3e4447ce60854fca09f7cab994ac

madrus mpeg cum animl wrote on October 10, 2007 4:31 PM:

Good job. I loved youre site, keep it up.

gonne collant wrote on October 11, 2007 9:20 PM:

Good job. I loved youre site, keep it up.

epenisa wrote on January 11, 2008 12:09 AM:

Hello
Nice work from your side... have a nice time with yoru blog :)
Bye