« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Schumer Tears into Gonzales
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Alberto Gonzales went back and forth in the most heated exchange of the hearing so far.
Schumer began on the question of whether U.S. Attorney for San Diego Carol Lam had been told that there was a problem with her immigration enforcement numbers. That supposedly was the main reason for her firing.
Gonzales hedged the question, saying that Lam must have known that there was “interest” in and “concern” with her immigration performance. Members of Congress, Gonzales said, had complained about Lam’s performance. Gonzales allowed that she “may not have been told that if there is no change in policy, there will be a change,” but seemed to think that was an unimportant distinction.
Schumer pressed, citing the testimony of both Carol Lam and Kyle Sampson that Lam had never been told that she should change her office’s approach to immigration enforcement. And he took issue with the idea that the department would let members of Congress be representatives of the Justice Department.
The second half of Schumer’s testimony was even more contentious.
Gonzales’ former chief of staff Kyle Sampson testified last month that Gonzales did not reject the idea of circumventing the Senate until after Gonzales spoke with Sen. Mark Pryor (D-AR) about Tim Griffin in mid-December. Sampson said that he’d discussed the idea with Gonzales before, that Gonzales didn’t seem to like the idea (not clear how he got that impression), but that Gonzales didn’t reject it outright.
But in his testimony today, Gonzales has said that he rejected the plan and never considered it. Despite that, Sampson consistently pushed that plan – first in an email in September, and then in a detailed email to the White House in December. Schumer was incredulous at Gonzales’ explanation that he’d rejected the plan all along. If Gonzales really had rejected the idea, than that means that Sampson was advocating the plan behind Gonzales’ back. Who’s running the Justice Department? Schumer wanted to know.
Comments (27)
Sholom wrote on April 19, 2007 1:08 PM:... and why did Gonzales support the Patriot Act provision?
What's the point of supporting it, and then, when the first opportunity comes to use it, claim it's a "dumb idea."
When would it not have been a dumb idea, according to the AG? Then why did he support the idea in its legislative form?
DevilsAdvocate wrote on April 19, 2007 1:15 PM:Point of clarification: Mark Pryor represents Arkansas (AR), not Alaska (AK). Common mistake.
Anonymous wrote on April 19, 2007 1:17 PM:This stuff is funnier than the Daily show at its best!!!
Dabb wrote on April 19, 2007 1:19 PM:I found it very interesting when Gonzales stated that Iglesius should have reported the phone calls from Wilson and Domenici. And something to the effect that Iglesius was derelict in his duty by not reporting the calls. When did Gonzales find out about the calls? From what I recall the calls didn't come out until after the firings when the ousted USAs were pushing back after it was said the firings were performance related. Maybe my timeline is wrong here but it sounds stupid to blame the firing of Iglesius on calls that Gonzales didn't supposedly know about. Can anyone clear up my confusion here?
Node of Evil wrote on April 19, 2007 1:20 PM:Changing management style. That's the meme now for high-profile Republicans under investigation, or who've been caught doing something wrong. Wolfowitz said it, Gonzales has repeated it many times in his testimony today. Maybe the whole White House will change their "management style"? I suspect that if we ever get to hear from Karl Rove in one of these hearings, that's what he'll plead.
One thing that really needs to change is blaming everyone else. Gonzales tried to lay the rap on Iglesias, for instance, for not reporting the phone calls he received from Wilson and Dominici. He also flatly stated that any criticism of him is a criticism of the Justice Deparment and the _career employees_ who work there. That's some management style.
Also, it looks like he's gonna try to pin much of this on the folks who've already testified. He's tried to push alot of it off onto Sampson, but generally the impression I get is that he was surrounded by incompetents and back-stabbers. I'd say the behavior of your staff is just a reflection of the behavior of the boss. This is the Enron defense -- it's such a big, complicated organization and I don't know about everything that happens here.
The only way we're going to get a change of "management style" is by changing the managers.
barrelmonkeys wrote on April 19, 2007 1:21 PM:Schumer should have pushed Gonzo further. When Gonzo told Pryor that he wanted to work with the Senate on an USA confirmation, did Gonzo know of Sampson's plans to the contrary? If not, on whose behalf was Sampson working? If so, why did he lie to Pryor?
dick wrote on April 19, 2007 1:26 PM:Friends: the reason Bush does not fire Goon-zales, and the reason he does not resign(Bush to Goon-zales...PLEASE DO NOT RESIGN!) is really simple: ANY new attorney general, at least one qualified enough to by approved by the Senate, would, in a New York minute, reject all those attorney general opinions which form the basis of Bush's 6 plus years of malfeasance. Does anyone really believe Bush and his handlers would risk that? Even at the risk of looking especially stupid for putting up with Goon-zales? Not a chance; they want someone of his caliber in there.
enough wrote on April 19, 2007 1:39 PM:I'm confused. If Gonzo is rejecting the idea of using the Patriot Act to bypass Senate confirmation, where are the confirmation processes.
hlou wrote on April 19, 2007 1:46 PM:"The second half of Schumer’s testimony was even more contentious."
Schumer was questioning, not testifying. Sorry to nitpick.
LMG wrote on April 19, 2007 1:55 PM:It appears, that in the style of how the rest of the Executive Branch seems to be run, underlings at DOJ were being directly supervised by Karl Rove, not the AG. If Gonzales is an example, then everyone under him was either in total cahoots with Rove or too afraid of him to NOT do his bidding. Either this strategy is to create plausible deniablity for the higher ups being undermined, or simply because Rove believes HE is the President and everyone else is a buffoon.
parrot wrote on April 19, 2007 2:00 PM:*cough*
(Federalist Society)
*cough*
df wrote on April 19, 2007 2:04 PM:is it just me - but if you close your eyes and listen to Gonzales talking about how it's such hard work etc., etc. and nauseatingly etc., he sounds just like - and just as pathetic as - Bush himself.
It's like the scene in the Wizard of Oz when the curtain comes down at the end.
pre-Amerikkkan wrote on April 19, 2007 2:35 PM:has anybody else seen people go ballistic at hearings like at this one?
he has failed, on to the next step. there's no way to keep turdblossom or 43 out of it.
eugene debs wrote on April 19, 2007 2:44 PM:if that is what passes for 'contentious" than i know why the democrats are such pussies and why the repigs treat everybody with contempt, cause they know nobodies got the balls to stand up to them.
D.V. wrote on April 19, 2007 2:57 PM:Schumer's 2nd half reminds me of Tom Cruise vs. Jack Nicholson in A Few Good Men.
"Sir, if you told them you didn't like the plan and you are in charge of your department, then why did your deputy Sampson turn around and push forward with the plan?"
Too bad Alberto didn't respond with "You can't handle the truth!"
Farinata X wrote on April 19, 2007 2:57 PM:Why can't Schumer (or one of these other Senators) just cut to the chase and tell Goonzales to his face that he's a liar? Is there some protocol or convention of proper etiquette that prevents this?
do-ci-do wrote on April 19, 2007 3:08 PM:Hello, I'm a firedog lurker straying over here for once...
OK, here's my beef: why is it up to Gonzales to "believe" or not believe in his ability to lead effectively? That essentially means it's only his opinion that counts about the job he is doing. "I'm doing a helluva job, Bushie!"
Also, if he is relying so heavily on senior staff and taking so many marching orders from everyone else, is that leadership??? Jeez!!
I think he is just a figurehead, a place-holding AG. His competence is irrelevant as long as he doesn't get in Rove's way. He really doesn't get the whole independent, be-your-own-man stance that we need in the DOJ, does he?
Did anyone hear the young handsome repug on CNBC saying if the President is happy with AG, the rest of us should be too? OMG OMG!
chuck wrote on April 19, 2007 3:49 PM:"the young handsome repug on CNBC saying if the President is happy with AG, the rest of us should be too"
That is the precise problem -- it is completely backwards. The public doesn't serve at the President's pleasure. He needs to please us by faithfully executing the laws and the Constitution. If he was up to the job and interested in doing it, his numbers wouldn't be lower than the basement in the outhouse.
RichG wrote on April 19, 2007 4:26 PM:What's with the passive voice? Why not:
Schumer: Were you unsatisfied with the way Lam did her job?
AGAG: yada yada ... yes.
Schumer: What were you unsatisfied with?
AGAG: bla bla ... immigration something or other.
Schumer: You were her boss, did you tell her that before firing her?
AGAG: She was told, uh, members of Congress, uh...not me personally.
Schumer: Who is her direct supervisor? Did that person tell her or not?
Yeesh.
JDS wrote on April 19, 2007 6:42 PM:The second half of the video is nuts. AG keeps saying "I didn't like the plan, I was not in favor of the plan, I thought it was a bad idea." I wish Schumer had just replied, "Sir, your preferences are not what's being questioned here!"
Who *cares* whether or not he "liked" the plan. I don't like a lot of the dumb ideas marketing comes up with at work, but it doesn't mean I act on my preferences.
willy@hotmail.com wrote on April 26, 2007 12:02 PM:treatment of yeast infections on the penis
suse@gmail.com wrote on April 30, 2007 2:03 PM:hello
suse@gmail.com wrote on April 30, 2007 2:03 PM:hello
brtney@gmail.com wrote on May 1, 2007 2:47 AM:hello
hillary@gmail.com wrote on May 5, 2007 1:06 PM:hello
harry@gmail.com wrote on May 6, 2007 2:22 PM:hello
acyclovir wrote on May 13, 2007 4:42 PM:Good work!