« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Today's Must Read
Finally, the time has come.
Alberto Gonzales will sit down before the Senate Judiciary Committee at 9:30 this morning. What to expect?
Well, from Gonzales, some notions of regret (though not about the firings themselves) and many failures to recollect details of conversations (coincidentally, the conversations everyone wants to hear about).
The papers this morning give us some indications of where the senators will focus their questioning.
One U.S. attorney in particular will be front and center -- New Mexico's David Iglesias. The New York Times explains why:
That case, perhaps more than any of the other ousters, demonstrates the interaction of the Republican Party, the White House, a prominent Republican senator and Mr. Gonzales that led up to the firings.Investigators have already determined that Mr. Gonzales spoke directly three times with Senator Pete V. Domenici, Republican of New Mexico, about his complaints regarding David C. Iglesias, the state’s former top federal prosecutor.
Administration officials have confirmed that Mr. Gonzales also spoke with President Bush and Karl Rove, the president’s chief political adviser, about the perceived lack of enthusiasm in Mr. Iglesias’s office, among others, for prosecuting voting fraud cases, a top Republican Party priority. And investigators know that Mr. Iglesias’s name was among the last to be added to the ouster list.
The Times adds that committee staffers think that "given the repeated instances in which Mr. Gonzales was directly involved in discussions related to Mr. Iglesias, it might be hard for the attorney general to refuse to testify about these discussions or any follow-up conversations or to deny any recollection of them." Oh, how they underestimate Gonzales.
But not to worry -- Iglesias won't be the sole focus. Senators will have a fine time prodding Gonzales about his numerous contradictions.
As for Gonzales, he will focus "particularly on reassuring Republican lawmakers," senators like Arlen Specter (R-PA) who haven't said yet that he should resign.
Comments (22)
seedyrum wrote on April 19, 2007 9:31 AM:Gonzales should resign now. No matter what he says if he admits he lied he should be charged. if "he doesnt remember" he is incompetent. I have no confidence in the DOJ. What did the ones who weren't fired, do to keep their jobs?? Incompetence all around. Bush is stacking the DOJ to excuse Republican wrong doing and to only investigate Democratic wrong doing. The same is true of the Supreme Court, stacking the courts to decide in the Republican's favor if there is a "tie" on matters.
shrubsy wrote on April 19, 2007 9:36 AM:Impeachment isn't coming fast enough to restore order in our government. Impeach the whole administration, as many if not most know, what is going on but choosing not to speak out on the assault on our courts, goverment, and the Constitution.
I am very interested to see if the Senators have kept the flying excuses straight...
Trying to say they fired Iglesias for running an absentee office - because he was serving his National Guard Reserve duties. That itself is a crime.
Saying they gave Bud Cummins job away to Karl's protege, because the next person in line was a pregnant woman. Deciding a pregnant woman doesn't deserve her next logical promotion (cuz she's pregnant)is a crime.
In Nevada, Daniel B. was removed only after they figured their cover story was good enough...and because he wasn't a family man he could be axed. Crime.
Carol Lam, they floated a bunch of reasons...all bad and incoherent and full of lies. Then, they fire her for an amalgam of ALL their bad reasons...but never once broached ANY of the topics with her. Crime? Oh, and she was about to nail a very powerful politician and all their Black Budget larceny.
And with the WA state dude and Iglesias and Biskupic...they were meddling with prosecutions: twisting arms, ignoring rep. malfeasance, railroading dems....
There is a Texas USATTY scandal going....where a bunch of kiddie rapists in the state juvenile penal system were repeatedly abusing inmates.
There is the Big Tobacco lawsuit where justice pounced on the USATTY who was about to get a 130 billion settlement and CEOs removed....Justice clamped down on here, wrote her closing statements for her, demanded she not say what she was going to say, and did a backdoor deal with the judge to reduce the penalty to 10 billion. That is 120 Billion stolen from the US treasury. Oh, and no CEOs get removed. Ever!
Of course the bigger story here is what the NON-Canned USATTys have been doing under the velvet glove of Rove and Justice.
There is obstuction of Justice going on here, at the Dept. of Justice. That is a big crime. There are other obstuctions going on...RNC, WH, Rove. There are lies. There are unlawful firings, illegal reasons(cause). Lies to congress.
I listened to Wisc. Pub. Radio this morning, they had on a professor who seemed to have NO knowledge of what is going on here. He seemed like a lefty, but thought it was a tempest in a teapot...Look, the president CAN FIRE these people - seemed to be the depth of his knowledge. One whole hour of cluelessness. Another crime here....no coverage by MSM. The only people who seem to know the profundity of what has been occurring are Bloggers, some Senators (staff) and Justice/Rove.
seedyrum wrote on April 19, 2007 9:41 AM:Yes the MSM has been AWOL. I think in part some of the parent companies have benefitted from Bush and his lawlessness on "taxes". I see Faux News has the hearings on ( switching between VT massacre press conference)
dbf wrote on April 19, 2007 9:44 AM:It's worth remembering a few larger points as this circus swings into action.
1. The US Attorney firings were conceived in politics by Karl Rove. His goal was to purge noncooperative USAs and replace them with party loyalists who would pursue the GOP agenda and, in future Administrations, be well positioned for nomination to the Federal judiciary.
2. The US Attorney firings, from the beginning, were motivated by politics. Even when a mass firing of all 93 USA's was contemplated, it was only as cover for the dismissal of the noncooperative USA's that Karl had his eye on.
3. Politics has been acknowledged to have played a primary role in at least the firings of Cummins and Iglesias. No one even denies it at this point - the best they can say, as Kyle Sampson did, is that politics is part and parcel of job performance.
4. Politics was clearly behind the other firings as well (except for SF USA, Kevin Ryan). Otherwise there would be documentary evidence of performance reviews and critiques in the record, where there is none. To the contrary, we have clear evidence of an organized attempt to synthesize a rationale for the firings, after the fact ("several of the USAs are in border states...").
5. The idea that Carol Lam, in particular, was fired over "immigration issues" rather than her pursuit of corrupt Republicans, and that politics never came up in discussions of her firing, is laughable.
Now, consider that despite the overwhelming volume of evidence against him, Attorney General Gonzales' primary aim today will be to argue that politics played no substantial role in the firings. To the extent that it is humanly possible, media organizations and Republican senators will greet this claim with a straight face and report it as one side of the larger story.
Anonymous wrote on April 19, 2007 9:49 AM:I have a question:
Monica Goodling has notified the committee that testimony regarding this matter would incriminate her; therefore, she has invoked her Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination and refused to testify.
About what crimes does Ms. Goodling hope to avoid testifying?
dbf wrote on April 19, 2007 9:53 AM:Ooh - one more:
(2b) The famous PATRIOT Act provision that was inserted, at White House request, to enable interim USAs to be appointed indefinitely and without Senate approval, was part of this larger political plan.
Patience wrote on April 19, 2007 9:58 AM:Sessions' statement was strikingly unwilling to toss Gonzales a lifeline.
global yokel wrote on April 19, 2007 9:58 AM:Arlen Specter is hopeless. He loves to mumble a few phrases now and then that make him appear to be a moderate Republican, but in the end he always folds his tent and caves to the Bush agenda.
semanticleo wrote on April 19, 2007 10:03 AM:Does he have more than one suit? He is wearing the same as in photo above and also has a red tie, but with a different pattern. Is it possible he has been an obedient monkey without requiring the financial Quid Pro Quo? Or was he too late to join the Pyramid scheme?
seedyrum wrote on April 19, 2007 10:06 AM:DBF, yes "to enable interim USAs to be appointed indefinitely and without Senate approval", that was the larger plan. I suspect the Senate would have found these "interims" un-qualified in many categories if not all like Goodling. I do give Goodling credit though, she resigned as she did have the 'legal acumen" to recognize she broke the law. Why else to take the 5th Amendment? The same of Sampson, he knew he broke the law. Now, Gonzo is going to try to put the blame on Sampson and all others who resigned. However, Sampson nixed that by telling all he knew under oath BEFORE Gonzo's testimony.
semanticleo wrote on April 19, 2007 10:08 AM:Every single morning news show, cable news is discussing the whys of Cho, and even CSPAN went from Gonzales to the House. No coverage. Pfeh!
wnsrfr wrote on April 19, 2007 10:19 AM:Shrubsy and dbf, nice! Anyway to get your posts onto Leahy's Blackberry? :)
seedyrum wrote on April 19, 2007 10:27 AM:Gonzales misspoke again. ( paraphrasing this exchange)
Anonymous wrote on April 19, 2007 12:31 PM:Specter said i know you prepared for this hearing.
Gonzales said "I prepare for all hearings."
Specter said, "Did you prepare for the press conference where you said you weren't involved with of whom to replace?"
Gonzales, "I said I misspoke."
Specter, "Did you prepare for it? You said you always prepare?"
Gonzales, "I said I prepare for hearings"
Specter, "You dont prepare for press conferences?"
Gonzales " Yes I prepare for press conference but i said I misspoke."
( Good exchange)
then Specter said, "I want you to win this but you got to win this on your own."
" I don't have anything to hide"
but..he cannot answer a direct question, and I think he really really does not get it....
and his memory comes and goes...strange...
I gotta stop listening..I am yelling at the tv....
grrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
( and I know I will watch tihs tonight on Cspan, prolly over and over, and yell at the screen again).
I think Rove and Cheney both have the ring...gotta get it away from them somehow....
pre-Amerikkkan wrote on April 19, 2007 3:59 PM:how come no one asks about that fed soc column in the grid? what's up with the "loyal bushie" phrase that kyle1 uses?
tonny@gmail.com wrote on April 30, 2007 6:21 PM:hello
tonny@gmail.com wrote on April 30, 2007 6:21 PM:hello
bruce@gmail.com wrote on May 1, 2007 6:54 AM:hello
bruce@gmail.com wrote on May 6, 2007 6:56 PM:hello
users_cart wrote on June 4, 2007 9:20 PM:used car sale
users_cart wrote on June 4, 2007 9:20 PM:[url=http://used-car-sale.livejournal.com]used car sale[/url]
used car sale
users_cart wrote on June 4, 2007 9:20 PM:[url=http://used-car-sale.livejournal.com]used car sale[/url]
used car sale
[url=http://used-car-sale.livejournal.com]used car sale[/url]