« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Specter Presses Gonzales on Details of Involvement
Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) also pulled no punches in his questioning.
He began by battering Gonzales with questions about how he could make false statements about his involvement in the process if he was properly prepared for the January Senate hearing and his March 13th press conference. Gonzales kept insisting that he'd been prepared, Specter demanded to know how he could have made such statements if he'd actually been properly prepared, and they went back and forth like that for a little bit.
And later in Specter's questioning, he asked how Gonzales could say that he wasn't involved in the process of eliminating certain U.S. attorneys if he'd sat in on a meeting last year when DoJ officials discussed the possible removal of Carol Lam. Gonzales responded by drawing an artful distinction between that meeting, which was in the course of his normal duties as attorney general, and the review process of U.S. attorneys. That conversation, Gonzales said, was "outside of the review process."
Comments (7)
smacfarl wrote on April 19, 2007 10:55 AM:How can Gonzales claim to fire attorneys for not being in control of their offices when his testimony demonstrates he is not in charge of his own.
You are either the top guy or you aren't. If the decisions were so inconsequential that you have to look at your own records to figure out your decision making process, then you are too incompetent to be in charge of Justice.
If your actions are so malign that you have to concoct a story after the fact from the extent of your public hang out, you need to be removed from office.
EH wrote on April 19, 2007 11:01 AM:"How can Gonzales claim to fire attorneys for not being in control of their offices when his testimony demonstrates he is not in charge of his own."
That's why Gonzales is already gone. A good strategy would be for the Senators to paint him into a corner with this and then ask him if he's not subject to the same criteria or something, but whatever.
Anonymous wrote on April 19, 2007 11:03 AM:Watch Specter’s walk, ignore his talk, recall that it was the Specter Amendment that facilitated this mess. Specter is a Liebeman, a master of disguise, but a team player when they need him.
anon wrote on April 19, 2007 11:14 AM:... it was the Specter Amendment that facilitated this mess
NFK. Is there any reason to trust Specter? I can't think of any. In fact, it seems like a serious conflict of interest for him to be an active member of this committee. Note how the AG totally dodged Feinstein's question about the Patriot Act business.
womanhattan wrote on April 19, 2007 12:35 PM:In reference to Lam, Gonzales says he was focused on "making sure she was doing her job" rather than participating in the review process (i.e. adding names to the list). Specter might have asked what steps, outside of the review process, were taken to "make sure she was doing her job." We know from Sampson that Lam was given no feedback.
anonymous wrote on April 19, 2007 3:28 PM:So, basically, Gonzales is saying the review process was supposed to be separate from normal DOJ activities (he doesn't explain why this should be so - isn't review of the USAs a part of his normal duties?) by design (otherwise, why make a big deal about the distinction), sort of a chinese wall if you will, but he violated his own policy of segregating that process by allowing it to be discussed outside of the process.
jak1 wrote on April 19, 2007 5:24 PM:Wait a minute, did Gonzo say he wasn't doing a very good job?!?
Or was it that it was his job to SUPERVISE the USAs??!!??