« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Gonzales on Iglesias Firing
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Pat Leahy (D-VT) was fast out of the gate, jumping right in with questions about the firing of David Iglesias.
Despite Gonzales' foggy recollections, some significant details emerged.
Gonzales could not recall details about his conversation with Karl Rove about voter fraud, although he testified that he did have such a conversation. He said that it covered three jurisdictions -- New Mexico, Milwaukee and Philadelphia. He could not recall when or where or how it had occurred, only that it was in the fall of 2006.
He pinpointed the date of his conversation with President Bush about those same three jurisdictions as happening on October 11.
He also revealed that, when he spoke with Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM) in the fall of 2005 about David Iglesias, that Domenici said that Iglesias "was in over his head." Domenici was concerned that Iglesias didn't have personnel for public corruption cases. Domenici never requested that Iglesias be removed, Gonzales said -- he just questioned whether Iglesias was capable.
When pressed by Leahy, Gonzales could not say precisely why Iglesias was fired, nor when Iglesias' name appeared on the list.
Part 1:
Part 2:
Comments (18)
dbf wrote on April 19, 2007 10:34 AM:Can't really say that Kennedy is drawing blood, here. So many specific questions that could be asked! Who cares about whether theh process was rigorous - the point is that it was political.
Sigh.
symphonyofdissent wrote on April 19, 2007 10:37 AM:The lack of rigor seems essential to me. Had a full and rigorous investigation of performance including discussions with the attorneys and regular evaluations occurred, the situation would be different. Those result would be clear for all to see. (unless they were in deleted emails) A lot of the confusion stems from the lack of process in these firings
m wrote on April 19, 2007 10:37 AM:kennedy asks did you assess affect on investigations in process. AG avoids it! ask it again!
anon wrote on April 19, 2007 10:48 AM:So far, it looks like the AG is getting away with gumming up the hearings. I don't get it. Why aren't they sticking to hard questions and poking more at the holes in Gonzo's tale.
Why don't they ask follow up questions? Why let him get away with being so vague about everything?
Argh.
Code: glass
jon wrote on April 19, 2007 11:07 AM:Mr. Rove, please be patient. Your subpoena will be ready shortly. In the meantime, please try to keep your fingers off the delete button.
Rove might just have a better memory about those conversations with Gonzales, Domenici and Bush, now wouldn't he?
It's clear that there's little importance in who serves as a USA. Gonzales doesn't seem to think it makes much difference who's the AG. So what exactly has Gonzales been doing as AG? He heads the department but never actually seems to play a decisive role on any topic. Glad he cares about kids, though. Maybe we should find out if he thinks puppies are adorable.
borussky wrote on April 19, 2007 11:20 AM:As one of my friends in Bellingham asks "What evidence is there the Democrats want to win"?
He asks that about the 2000 and 2004 elections but it is an appropriate question across the board.
We see the D's offer token resistance and then roll over.
Bo
parrot wrote on April 19, 2007 11:34 AM:What is interesting is how Gonzalez tries to defer to Domenici's judgement here...rather than Gonzalez's own best judgement...yet, in the case of other Senators, Gonzalez doesn't seem to care much about their thoughts with regard who was fired.
SeeDee wrote on April 19, 2007 1:00 PM:To Senators Leahy, Kennedy, Fienstein, and EVERY OTHER majority Party committee member:
Aftr weeks of leading the American public to believe that the era of being made to look ridiculously impotent was ended, we are being treated to further examples of the gutless make-up of Democrats in the Senate.
When, if ever, will they stand for the voters who spoke last November?
LOL, security code 'roll'...as in roll over
Terry wrote on April 19, 2007 2:48 PM:Knowing what We know now, would it be a stretch to think that the ag in Texas did not help Tom Delay, with his re-districting?
Phoenix Woman wrote on April 19, 2007 4:01 PM:To read the some of the comments here (which sound like they all came from the same person), you'd never know that Chuck Schumer just disembowelled Gonzales.
But of course, if your goal is to disrupt and to demoralize, then the truth gets in your way.
glenstein wrote on April 20, 2007 1:11 AM:"as I go back and look at the documents"
he used this clause at least twice
Mike wrote on April 20, 2007 9:50 AM:Seems that AG has the same disease that the president and his gang have. "I forgot and don't recall. Strange that there are some documents and there are none. Alberto should resign. He is a tio taco for good old bush, carl rowe. He is another scooter libby.
Mike wrote on April 20, 2007 9:51 AM:Seems that AG has the same disease that the president and his gang have. "I forgot and don't recall. Strange that there are some documents and there are none. Alberto should resign. He is a tio taco for good old bush, carl rowe. He is another scooter libby.
steambomb wrote on April 20, 2007 11:08 AM:Something struck me when I heard about all the times that Gonzo had said that he couldn't remember. Is there a test for early onset Alzheimers? If so. Let's not make the same mistake we made with Reagan. Let's get him in for the test and removal from office if necessary.
KYJurisDoctor wrote on April 20, 2007 7:43 PM:I hate to admit it, but it may be time for the AG to go. Join the conversation at:
seedyrum wrote on April 21, 2007 2:44 PM:http://osi-speaks.blogspot.com/2007/04/alberto-gonzales-appears-on.html#links
So far we have Carol Lam who was removed as U.S. Attorney in San Diego because of her investigations into corrupt Republican Congress persons Duke Cunningham and John Doolittle, and U.S. Attorney of Los Angeles Debra Yang who was bought off with a lucrative job (at the law firm which represents Rep. Jerry Lewis) and a $1.5 million bribe signing bonus because she was investigating -surprise - Rep. Jerry Lewis. Now we have U.S. Attorney of Arizona Paul Charlton who was removed as he was investigating Rep. Rick Renzi, Republican of Arizona.
Rove was setting up a crime syndicate that would make Tony Soprano green with envy.
vocalpatriot wrote on April 21, 2007 2:55 PM:Are you kidding? Have you folks forgotten the only point here that counts? It was up to the President whether or not to fire those eight U.S. attorneys. Of course it was political, but who cares? They knew that when they accepted the positions. This is improper questioning and leahy and the rest of the cast of the S.S. Minnow are simply exerting "pressure from above" as so ordered by george soros. we are sliding downward into a facist rule. it is insanity as we've seen this before, during the vietnam war. almost exactly parallel to that event. we win every battle in the field but subersion at home causes us to retreat. shameful but true.
ANNE GABRIEL wrote on April 21, 2007 4:45 PM:Vocal Patriot, tell me YOU'RE kidding. Firings of DOJ staff occurs at the pleasure of the President either at the BEGINNING of his term, the END of an ongoing major investigation, or during an internal DOJ corruption or incompetency hearing. The ONLY AG who WAS fired for cause (incompetency - Ryan)was added as an afterthought because his entire department was resigning or in the process of mutiny and advising DOJ as such.
Four of the remaining seven AG's were in the TOP 10 performance evaluations OUT OF 93 staff positions.
The DOJ is NOT to be used as a political tool to investigate ONLY the opposition party and turn a blind eye to the president's party corruption. (Look up Renzi-out of AZ, another worm who barely slithered back into office...he was Charlton's undoing-the NUMBER 1 AG ON STAFF)
EVERYONE, stop spouting the party line and do some independent research.
Another Vocal Patriot, former Republican