Comments (103)

malcontent wrote on April 25, 2007 1:20 PM:

How about put some teeth into that letter?

I think if they'd concluded it with something like this, it may have helped:

If you are unable to furnish the committee with answers to these questions, we will remand you to the custody of a compliant, third-party state which will seek to refresh your memory through the use of the so-called "extraordinary interrogation techniques" you so conveniently claim are legal.

gcs wrote on April 25, 2007 1:21 PM:

Has anyone considered the very real probability that Bush will simply hold his middle finger high and proud at Congress and let Gonzales stay as AG until he leaves office. And in that case, what is the Senate's recourse? They can't fire the AG, so Bush can only win by flipping the bird at Congress avoiding a nasty confirmation hearing and making Congress look impotent at the same time.

Douglas Watts wrote on April 25, 2007 1:21 PM:

Good for Leahy and Specter. Their tenacity is admirable.

DWM wrote on April 25, 2007 1:22 PM:

Can Congress impeach him, and if so, why haven't they already started the process?

impeach'emALL wrote on April 25, 2007 1:23 PM:

Not only legal, but the restrictions against them are "quaint."

Mel Strom wrote on April 25, 2007 1:24 PM:

Wed 25 Apr 2007
10.15 PDT

I, on the contrary, can find little if any sympathy or feel any embarrassment for Mr. Gonzales. Recalling the stack of perfunctory capital punishment reviews he authored for GWB's benefit in Texas and his dismissal of the Geneva Conventions as 'quaint' anachronisms is more than sufficient to quell any emerging hint of feeling for him. Profound embarrassment for my country, for what has been thought to be the civilized world, but nothing for Mr. Gonzales.
==Mel Strom

KYJurisDoctor wrote on April 25, 2007 1:24 PM:

I can't imagine why Gonzales is hurting himself and delaying the inevitable.

http://osi-speaks.blogspot.com/2007/04/alberto-gonzales-appears-on.html#links

Douglas Watts wrote on April 25, 2007 1:24 PM:

gcs -- Gonzales resigning would be lipstick on a pig because the situation requires that his replacement be just as corrupt.

Eric Ferguson wrote on April 25, 2007 1:25 PM:

The House can impeach Gonzales. I ask Congress to just stop with the pretense that Torture Boy is a serious, respectable public official and just get on with the obvious.

Crust wrote on April 25, 2007 1:27 PM:

Gcs, DWM: They can impeach AGAG. Conviction requires 67 votes in the Senate, though.

Harris J Sklar wrote on April 25, 2007 1:29 PM:

Wasn't Spector the one who threw in at the last minute to amendment to the Patriot Bill permitted the President to make interim appointments. If not for that, there probably would not have been any resignations. Has anyone asked Spector why and at who's request he put the amendment in?

Dan wrote on April 25, 2007 1:29 PM:

I have no sympathy for him. He's "throwing sand in our eyes," as Patrick Fitzgerald so aptly stated about obstructionists. No sympathy.

litigatormom wrote on April 25, 2007 1:32 PM:

Abu G can be impeached. He might not get convicted by the Senate -- that requires 67 votes -- but then again, he might. All but two of the Republicans on the Judiciary Committee were pretty disgusted with him last week.

Besides, once there is a live impeachment proceeding, Bush's claims of "executive privilege" over every single communication to or from the White House (including those on the RNC servers) would ring even more hollow than they already do.

Anonymous wrote on April 25, 2007 1:33 PM:

I did feel some symapthy for Gonzales after that incredibly inept performance....until I learned just what a hard on he had for death penalty cases and thought about all his lies and how his only loyalty is to Bush and he doesn't give a damn about the American people. This is not a good person and he belongs behind bars like most of the gang in this White House. He will probably never receive the punishment he deserves.

John B. wrote on April 25, 2007 1:34 PM:

The letter strongly suggests that the Judiciary Committee was so offended by Gonzales' 'forgetful' testimony that it is considering citing him for perjury. That would be problematic -- he can continue to claim stupidity -- UNLESS someone on the murder board practice panels is ready to feed info to the committee.

How would it look if before Gonzales' three weeks of practice his memory was fine, but afterwards it was empty?

just john wrote on April 25, 2007 1:35 PM:

I'm NOT KIDDING when I ask: How blithering does a testifying witness have to be before one of the senators asks, "Sir, are you on drugs?" and then backs it up with an immediate urine test?

After all, thanks to people like Gonzales, half of us citizens with "normal" jobs face that as part of OUR employment.

Austin Cooper wrote on April 25, 2007 1:37 PM:

Gonzales, and all the other Rethugs who have been unmasked so far, remind me of playground bullies -- "Huh?? I'm not doin' nothin'! Well, I ain't doin' nothin' *wrong*! I dunno what I was doin' -- I can't remember nothin'! What do ya mean, I'm gettin' expelled? What for?"

Outraged innocence or unresponsive evasion.

Code = meat

Spencer's Mom wrote on April 25, 2007 1:40 PM:

Perhaps these kind men could suggest that they would be willing to provide a simple shot of sodium pentethol to "help" him refresh his failing memory.

I bet he would find so many, many lost memories in the huge, blank cavities of his addled brain.

Or, perhaps a lie-detector test would help Gonzo "identify" which answers of "I can't recall" are true, and those which his sub-conscious mind know to be false, i.e. lies.

PEACE

code word: porter, as in carrying the baggage

Atkinson wrote on April 25, 2007 1:40 PM:

Sens. Leahy and Spector:

Thank you for your letter of April 24 or 25. I have read it and re-read it several times, and I am writing to respond to your requests.

I have tried real hard to remember all the things I couldn't remember. I know Senator Sessions had a hard time believing I couldn't remember a meeting on November 27, and I held my tongue because maybe I was just forgetful as a result of the lights or all that green felt or the fact my suit pants were a little tight. Testifying is hard work.

But even now, in the comfort of my office, I can't remember. For example, I had hoped that by being back here, alone in my office with the shades drawn and a cold washcloth pressed on my forehead and a small, neat glass of Scotch in my hand, I'd remember more. But, gosh, guys: I really can't.

I know it seems incredible, but I have hundreds of meetings every week on critical, key issues such as Meth Awareness Week, and the D.A.R.E. Annual Jamboree ribbon-cutting ceremony...

The point is, how is a guy with all these things going on supposed to remember even the first detail about a multi-staff meeting held the day after Thanksgiving five months ago where the termination of several United States Attorneys was discussed at a meeting I attended? Those kinds of things get mixed up with all the occasional photo-ops with McGruff the Crime Dog and all the weighty other things I do.

I really wish I could help. I'll keep scratching my head and looking up at the ceiling and pondering, and if I come up with anything, I'll be sure to let you know.

Respectfully,

Alberto Gonzales
Attorney General

P.S. I hope your murder trial goes okay, Senator Spector. or am I confusing you with someone else? I can't recall.

poetry wrote on April 25, 2007 1:42 PM:

I say, "Waterboard the S.O.B. and he'll remember."

Well, isn't that how he thought torturers could "improve the memory" of prisoners?

conniptionfit wrote on April 25, 2007 1:43 PM:

Bush's middle finger works for the Dems, too. The longer the investigation is drawn out, the bigger it all looks. The general public is beginning to recognize and understand the issue. The longer that this drags on the more likely the public is to conclude that there is indeed a problem at the DOJ. And that makes support for the Dems likely to increase as the elections approach.

Ron wrote on April 25, 2007 1:46 PM:

For Executive authority to make interim appointments, see U.S. Const. Art. II, Sec. 2.

Pastor Doodah wrote on April 25, 2007 1:49 PM:

Put him in jail until his memory improves.

Anonymous wrote on April 25, 2007 1:51 PM:

I'm NOT KIDDING when I ask: How blithering does a testifying witness have to be before one of the senators asks, "Sir, are you on drugs?" and then backs it up with an immediate urine test?

After all, thanks to people like Gonzales, half of us citizens with "normal" jobs face that as part of OUR employment.
Posted by: just john

Now THAT would be awesome to see!

donviti wrote on April 25, 2007 1:56 PM:

what I think is more of an embarresment is that the media gives it a pass and moves on.

"ahh, the guy only said he didn't know 60 times, it's hard werk being AG"

give me a freaking break.

EH wrote on April 25, 2007 1:57 PM:

Another letter requesting information and answers to questions? I'm guessing the Administration will put it on top of the stack that Congress is waiting to hear back on.

Cassandrian wrote on April 25, 2007 2:02 PM:

Unfortunately, as I see it.. W will instruct the Attorney General to suspend the constitution an initaite marshal law on 11/5/2008 when the election returns come in. He will do this to keep his Unitary Presidency (Kingship) after the defeat of his chosen sucessor.

joey wrote on April 25, 2007 2:05 PM:

As a lawyer, I'll tell you what this looks like: papering the file. And you waste your time papering the file for one reason, and one reason only.

Punchy wrote on April 25, 2007 2:11 PM:

Where can I go to bet the mortgage, the car, and the wife that Gonzo promptly files this letter in the trash and ignores them completely?

jolie wrote on April 25, 2007 2:13 PM:

I admire the senators and am glad they're standing up to the administration.

unfortunately, I predict that AG AG et al will now conveniently say, "sorry, no can do. the office of special counsel is now delving into these matters and as the focus of an investigation, we won't be releasing any additional information to congress."

or words to that effect.

terrific code word: snake as in the grass! woowoo!

Anonymous wrote on April 25, 2007 2:14 PM:

I think Abu G should be held in contempt of Congress.

via wrote on April 25, 2007 2:18 PM:

Held in Contempt of Congress and Impeached.

georgia wrote on April 25, 2007 2:19 PM:

Supplement those responses, sure:

1) I REALLY don't recall
2) I REALLY REALLY don't recall
3) I HONESTLY didn't know
4) I can't recall if I've ever recalled recalling
.
.
.

Jillian wrote on April 25, 2007 2:21 PM:

It's a take-home make-up exam. Given to a flunkie.

jolie wrote on April 25, 2007 2:27 PM:

I like bush's defense of AG AG: he answered all the questions he could - honestly!

EXcellent!

Punchy wrote on April 25, 2007 2:31 PM:

"As a lawyer, I'll tell you what this looks like: papering the file. And you waste your time papering the file for one reason, and one reason only."

OK, I'll bite. What's the damn reason?

bordersmuggler wrote on April 25, 2007 2:31 PM:

"Wasn't Spector the one who threw in at the last minute to amendment to the Patriot Bill permitted the President to make interim appointments. If not for that, there probably would not have been any resignations. Has anyone asked Spector why and at who's request he put the amendment in?"

Yes, he is the author of the "Spectre Amendment," and no, no one has asked him on the record at whose request the inserted. But Senator Spectre knows that his fellow Senators know the score, that he prostituted the Senate's oversight responsibility for approving USAs for kiss on the cheek from Karl. His fellow Senators have his scrotum tightly in the Jaws of Life (Death?), a gentle turn of which might help deliver the necessary votes for impeachment for (take your pick).

lex_rex wrote on April 25, 2007 2:32 PM:

The purpose of the letter is not to get Gonzo to have a change of heart and fess up. Its purpose is to give him notice that the Committee's investigation "has been hampered" by his evasive testimony; it will make it easier to prove the scienter needed for a conviction of 18 U.S.C. 503, the omnibus provision of the federal obstruction of justice statute.

skeptik wrote on April 25, 2007 2:38 PM:

which implies that if he had to answer the other questions, he'd have lied?

Anonymous wrote on April 25, 2007 2:41 PM:

Dear gcs, why can't the Senate fire Gonzales? All they have to do is revoke their confirmation. Nothing is written in stone, as is obvious with this administration.

Barry Stock wrote on April 25, 2007 2:43 PM:

What Cassandrian mentions below has been a concern of mine since before the last election. These folks have not been in the least bit concerned with anything save the accumulation and use of power. I find it difficult to believe they will relinquish the Executive Branch without some sort of attempt at gaining permanent control. 33% still support him, and apparently will no matter what. Brace yourselves, get your passports in order, it's going to be a rough ride.

Code word = roll, as in "let's..."

"Unfortunately, as I see it.. W will instruct the Attorney General to suspend the constitution an initaite marshal law on 11/5/2008 when the election returns come in. He will do this to keep his Unitary Presidency (Kingship) after the defeat of his chosen sucessor.
Posted by: Cassandrian
Date: April 25, 2007 02:02 PM"

phil james wrote on April 25, 2007 2:45 PM:

Anyone know what Leahy et al can do if Gonzo simply writes back declining the kind invitation to recite variations on the "Huh? Duh" theme? Suppose the WH simply refuses to respond to anything further the Senate or House demand, via subpoena or otherwise, concerning the USA firings, period. Is this contempt of Congress? I mean official contempt rather than the actual contempt for Congress and the American public the WH has repeatedly expressed? Who files for and issues the arrest warrant?

bajajazz wrote on April 25, 2007 2:46 PM:

Karla Faye Tucker was one of the 150 prisoners executed by Bush and Gonzales, after a review so perfunctory it does not merit being called a review.

At the time of her execution -- and for years prior to it -- Ms. Tucker represented the epitome of the redemptive power of Christianity. That she was not accorded the forgiveness that is the most attractive hallmark of Christianity, is both a tragedy and a mockery of her achievement and the religion that Bush purports to practice.

We, as Americans, shall dwell in shame for the rest of our lives that we allowed the despicable likes of Bush, Cheney and Gonzales to ascend to positions of supreme power in our government.

dominiccjr wrote on April 25, 2007 2:47 PM:

Digby has a good post up of this...Gozales is deflecting the investigation from moving on to Rove for as long as he is still AG....That's why he is not being asked to resign. He is very useful to them even though he will eventually be thrown under just like Rumsfeld eventually was...only when it is with the most expedient timing politically.

longtimeobserver wrote on April 25, 2007 2:49 PM:

The question must be, "When did you remember that you couldn't remember?"

Code word "idea", as in "I have no idea, Senators".

Scott wrote on April 25, 2007 2:51 PM:

Alberto Gonzalez, the Artie Fufkin of the Bush regime, must submit mea culpas in writing. The Justice Department is doomed.

mommadona wrote on April 25, 2007 2:54 PM:

Damn "Political Correctness".

He's "going to the mattress" for the Mayberry Mafia.

bohdi wrote on April 25, 2007 3:09 PM:

My money is on Abu staying, no question. Have people learned nothing? These operatives all vehemently beleive that they create their own reality and that the logical world of cause and effect does not apply to them. How many more examples of this do people need? They do not play from the same playbook, it was burned along time ago.

The reality they create is systematically defended and excused by the mass media on every substanitive level. The Dow going over 13,000 is far more relevant in this all important context than any legal argument for dismissal. They have very successfully bribed the big 5 to marry their notions of power. Billions have been given away to them and broad,unprecedented promises of deregulation have been made and secured. Smirking Chimp has all this down in print starting with Rove's call to Jack Welch in 99'. It is perhaps the story of the year.

My money remains on the World's Most Skilled FatMan, K. Rove. No one touchs him and no one resigns as long as the Media message is controled more or less. Marshall McClullan said a rather long time ago that the Media is the message. The Internet in all its brilliance and potential still does not reach the vast audience formerly known as the American electorate and now best regarded as the Domesticated Farm Population of Amerikanna.

No one could ever really stop skilled fatman Charles Barkley once he was down in the paint. Well K. Rove has taken over from there and betting in Vegas is heavily in his favor.

Ernie Fazio wrote on April 25, 2007 3:16 PM:

Digby and Greg Palast are singling out Rove, and the WH is circling the wagons. Gonzales is not the issue since neither he nor l'il Sampson know who made the decisions to fire and there is no paper trail--outside of some RNC e-mails--to track the process. Monica Goodling is a good little girl who probably will not give up the dark lord, but who knows? The plot just thickens, and this is only one of the litany of abuses that Raul Emanuel cites in his speech at Brookings

Ernie Fazio wrote on April 25, 2007 3:17 PM:

Digby and Greg Palast are singling out Rove, and the WH is circling the wagons. Gonzales is not the issue since neither he nor l'il Sampson know who made the decisions to fire and there is no paper trail--outside of some RNC e-mails--to track the process. Monica Goodling is a good little girl who probably will not give up the dark lord, but who knows? The plot just thickens, and this is only one of the litany of abuses that Raul Emanuel cites in his speech at Brookings

Don Rider wrote on April 25, 2007 3:19 PM:

This is an article by Norm Ornstein about the attorney scandal. It is an interesting that a conservative from the AEI even has problems with what the White House is doing.

http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.26025/pub_detail.asp

DAWK wrote on April 25, 2007 3:21 PM:

THANKS FOR THE CHANCE TO SUBMIT COMMENTS,AS I ALSO DO THIS ON THE HUFF-PO,WHICH IS HOW THIS ARTICLE WAS FOUND.
THE VERY FIRST COMMENT SAYS IT-ALL.IF GONZALES REFUSES TO 'REMEMBER' THIS SECOND TIME ROUND, THEN SIMPLY SEND GONZO TO HIS CURRENT ILLEGAL-WAR CRIME,RENDER PRISION OF CHOICE,THAT BE OUR LAWMAKERS-CHOICE!
AND THEN USE THE 'SAME' SUPEANA THREAT WITH RICE-ROVE-AND ANY OTHER BUSH CRONIE WHO COMMITED WAR CRIMES!!

DF wrote on April 25, 2007 3:23 PM:

Are the Attorney General and Acting Attorney General the only two that can appoint a special prosecutor?

TITLE 28--JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION

CHAPTER VI--OFFICES OF INDEPENDENT COUNSEL, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

PART 600--GENERAL POWERS OF SPECIAL COUNSEL--Table of Contents

Sec. 600.1 Grounds for appointing a Special Counsel.

The Attorney General, or in cases in which the Attorney General is recused, the Acting Attorney General, will appoint a Special Counsel
when he or she determines that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted and--
(a) That investigation or prosecution of that person or matter by a United States Attorney's Office or litigating Division of the Department of Justice would present a conflict of interest for the Department or other extraordinary circumstances; and
(b) That under the circumstances, it would be in the public interest to appoint an outside Special Counsel to assume responsibility for the
matter.

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/doj/28cfr600.1.html

Geoff wrote on April 25, 2007 3:39 PM:

The Senate cannot simply revoke its confirmation of the A.G. Instead, the House would need to initiate impeachment procedings as outlined in Article 1, Section 2, Sun-section 5 and Article 1, Section 3, Sub-section 6. As a commenter mentioned earlier, it is likely that the House might vote for impeachment, but that the Senate would not actually vote to convict, since a two-thirds majority would be required.

That said, I think the Dems ought to go after him. Largely because I think we still need discovery. The issue has been deftly changed from "who ordered the removal" to "how incompetent is this guy," which allows the administration to avoid the worst fallout from the issue. A proper round of discovery might illuminate which caused the firings and the response to the story coming out.

Joanne wrote on April 25, 2007 3:40 PM:

Alternate reality, that's for sure. Welcome to the Matrix.

feckless wrote on April 25, 2007 3:46 PM:

COULD THE ABA OR THE TEXAS BAR ASSOC. DISBAR HIM?

rackNruin wrote on April 25, 2007 4:03 PM:

Why doesn't some enterprising young staffer do some research and compare the actual count of "I don't recall" answers from Gonzales with the congressional investigations of Mafiosi in the '50s. Lets see who comes wins in the stretch, the out-and-out mobsters or the political gangsters we are saddled with now.

chuck wrote on April 25, 2007 4:09 PM:

One comment reads:

>As a lawyer, I'll tell you what this looks like: >papering the file. And you waste your time >papering the file for one reason, and one reason >only.

Could you explain to us dull-witted mortals without a law degree what you're referring to here? The suspense is killing me.

malcolm wrote on April 25, 2007 4:12 PM:

I'm with Malcontent. Absent full and complete answers, call him back and water board him in full view of C-Span. Let everyone see what Gonzo thinks is fine. There is, after all, an old saying that what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

barrelhse wrote on April 25, 2007 4:21 PM:

Punchy
I'm waiting for the answer to "paper the file", too.

Perry White wrote on April 25, 2007 4:40 PM:

Have they tried "waterboarding" Gonzales???

He says it works for getting info from terrorists

bob voso wrote on April 25, 2007 4:47 PM:

Give the guy a break, he is in the early stages of Gonzalzheimers.

Kevin wrote on April 25, 2007 5:11 PM:

One thing becomes more and more clear when listening to the testimony of any hi-ranking Bush Admin offical in any situation where lying would mean committing perjury. That is, the phrase "I do not recall" really means "I cannot answer without incriminating myself or someone else in the administration".

Alberto Gonzales consistent use of poor recollection is beyond belief. What becomes even more evident in both his testimony and and others is that they place loyalty to Bush and the administration above loyalty to country. That is why Bush now has MORE faith and confidence in him that he did prior to Senate Judiciary Commitee testimony.

Gonzales proved that no matter how stupid or incompetent it makes him look, he will not tell the truth aboout anything that could be damaging to the administration.

pt bridgeport wrote on April 25, 2007 5:15 PM:

I'm guessing that you "paper the file" of an employee in order to create the trail that deprives him of a defense when you finally can him.

Christian in NYC wrote on April 25, 2007 5:18 PM:

The technical term for what just happened is a "bitch slap", if I'm not mistaken. Ouch!

Com-n-sense wrote on April 25, 2007 5:21 PM:

ENOUGH!

Why don't you serve him milk and cookies too?

What the hell? These bastards have stonewalled, lied, with held evidence and STILL they play nice with these thugs!

Do whatever it takes. If they don't show with the emails - jail them for obstruction of justice. Tell the Pillsbury Dough Boy to show up too. Tell Goodling, to shit or get off the pot. DO FUCKING SOMETHING!!! CHRIST! It's obvious to a 4 year old what these criminals are doing and we're STILL giving them the benefit of the doubt.

Enough.

skyreader7 wrote on April 25, 2007 5:22 PM:

Threaten to send Gonzo to Walter Reed for medical help. That'll loosen his tongue.

jrw wrote on April 25, 2007 5:24 PM:

Read Dahlia Lithwick's piece from Slate:

http://www.slate.com/id/2164751/?nav=navoa

Her thesis is that Gonzales loyally paid the price of looking a fool, but actually was brilliant in showing Congress what the administration believes it should get: absolutely nothing.

If you think about it, it's a compelling notion.

Security code screw...but whom?

AnnaCatherine wrote on April 25, 2007 5:29 PM:

We can only hope the "I don't recall" is worn out by the time they get to Condolezza Rice. She tends to babble on. The memory thing won't work for her. She's an accomplished musician. Can't be done without an above average memory. I'm sure she'll think of something.

AnnaCatherine wrote on April 25, 2007 5:30 PM:

We can only hope the "I don't recall" is worn out by the time they get to Condolezza Rice. She tends to babble on. The memory thing won't work for her. She's an accomplished musician. Can't be done without an above average memory. I'm sure she'll think of something.

hardy wrote on April 25, 2007 5:51 PM:

The dems will get the votes to override Bush's veto...then vanity will indeed replace his 'support for the troops.'

stew wrote on April 25, 2007 5:59 PM:

bohdi, I think it was "the medium is the message".

m wrote on April 25, 2007 6:06 PM:

They can just impeach the Gonzoid:

USC, Article 2, Section 4: "The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."

These "civil officers" include federal judges and cabinet members, but do not include Senators and Representatives, (the Senate and House deal with misconduct by their own members).

Kevin wrote on April 25, 2007 6:06 PM:

AnnaCatherine, unfortunately Rice has already demonstrated that she has the gall to use "I do not recall" in Senate testimony. She uttered those words in reference to Iran's peaceful overture delivered to the State Department a few years ago, and confirmed by one of her underlings there.

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002509.php

bcg wrote on April 25, 2007 6:30 PM:

I'd like to agree with the idea that what Honzales spent weeks preparing for was to not recall. I haven't read the post at Slate; but, it's pretty clear from reading the hearing's transcript that the AG added nothing to what is known about the White House's involvement in the firings. Bush was satisfied with AG's testimony because, as much as it might have indemnified the AG, it added nothing to a case against the White House. Thus, I expect that there will be no substantive reply to this letter.

brizzle wrote on April 25, 2007 6:37 PM:

When will our leaders actually listen to us?

The Revolution is coming...

alabama wrote on April 25, 2007 7:43 PM:

gonzales has pulled a new low in alabama. Richard Scrushy in his criminal case down here in alabama has filed a motion according to the paper asking for the federal judge to recuse himself seems the judge was ceo and president and still owns a large interest in Doss aviation a privately owned government contracting firm that has received over 100 million in contracts in the last seven years from the government and just got a new contract for 178 million from airforce to train inflight training screening for air force see dossifs.com. and doss aviation.com Gonzales sends down here to help prosecutors who one of them happens to be airforce colonial at acc his newly appointed chief of public intergity to help prosecutors defend against scrushy motion to recuse. the public intergity department has exclusive jurisdiction over federal judge criminal corruption. If a need to investigate arises out of this situation to investigate the judge the public intergity chief won't be able to do it because he's down here defending the motion to recuse. What's going on with this justice department. Ya'll should all watch this case it's another republican politics case by the justice department and it is just starting to heat up. Mr Scrushy's co defendant was Don Siegelman former governor of alabama and Don is a democratwho most people down here believe was a target for the republicans. Like is my code word and ya'll are to going like this case if you follow it. it's becoming a legal salvo and the firestorms just starting.

flatus wrote on April 25, 2007 7:44 PM:

Chimp has already said it all: "He answered the questions as honestly as he could".

Kevin wrote on April 25, 2007 8:10 PM:

Chimp is right. Flatus said it alot more concisely than I did.

chompiz wrote on April 25, 2007 8:15 PM:

That's good, keep them busy so they can't plan anymore stupid wars and bad policy.

sheggia wrote on April 25, 2007 8:16 PM:

Papering the file:

(paraphrasing here) it refers to providing as much documentary evidence of what is required of someone early in a proceedings in order to give the impression of doing everything that is possible to be fair. It saves time in the long run and builds moral high ground. More importantly, it's a prelude to going in for the kill.

And I'm no lawyer; I'm a folklorist.

lex_rex wrote on April 25, 2007 8:50 PM:

"[I]mpression of doing everything that is possible to be fair" would include ACTUALLY having given the defendant of an obstruction of justice charge (impeding a Congressional investigation) yet another opportunity to come clean, which the Leahy-Specter letter does.

Anna S. wrote on April 25, 2007 8:56 PM:

Anyone notice that this letter was issued on a date that not-coincidentally also saw the immunity offer for Goodling solidified and a subpoena for RNC emails from a different Senate committee?

The Senate is rather methodically ratcheting up pressure on the administration to either get their ducks in a row, or face consequences. I'm just curious as to how long the WH will continue to try and stall. It's inevitable that they'll lose people to indictments or resignations now, I think. The question is becoming 'who' and 'how many'. The longer they stall, the more the answers start looking like the really big fish.

In other news, what's up with Spector? Does he regret adding that amendment to the Patriot Act, or is he playing nice here only to stonewall later? I'm guessing that he was doing a favor for the WH when he snuck the amendment in, but I'm thinking now he's trying to distance himself. He's nothing if not a smart political animal, and if the WH is the sinking ship it appears to be, he'll try and get as much space between them and himself as possible. That may explain the willingness that he's shown to lean on Gonzalez.

gary wrote on April 25, 2007 9:32 PM:

wasnt it joe biden who said that alberto was the real deal. that he just loved this guy......

DF wrote on April 25, 2007 9:35 PM:

Specter is from PA. He saw what happened to Santorum. He has nothing to lose by grilling Gonzales and putting some daylight between himself and the Administration. Gonzales and Bush are both gone in two years regardless. Specter has a longer view. Rescuing his own reputation and Senator Pete Domenici’s career from this mess is Specter’s focus. His anger at Gonzales and Bush for entangling Senate Republicans in their political incompetence has been evident throughout this scandal. Expect Specter to turn that snarl on Senate Democrats as soon as any Republican legislators are implicated.

san mateo wrote on April 25, 2007 9:37 PM:

Gonzalez is obviously protecting Bush and Cheney. He's not giving up Bush and Cheney and Bush and Cheney aren't going to let their alibi resign. They need their alibi, big time.

krog wrote on April 25, 2007 9:53 PM:

This is a terrific letter.

Gonzalez might respond with another document dump, but I suppose he might respond with a refusal to testify again, pleading that he had already answered questions to the best of his ability.

Of course, such a refusal would include not making and effort to "refresh" his "recollections."

The Committee can respond by suggesting that Gonzalez is not cooperating with their investigation.

Details, details. How long can the neck of a hanging man stretch? Perhaps the Justice Department has collected data on that point.

krog wrote on April 25, 2007 9:58 PM:

DF-- I am also from Philly, Penn 67.

Specter was DA when Frank Rizzo, the corrupt head of the Philly Police, became mayor.

Specter will play ball with the big boys.

Specter has to have an interest,something to gain, in continuing to play with Leahy.

It's too bad Domenici is apparently a friend of Specter's. I've been in NM since 85 and would be glad to sing the swan song for "Saint Pete." And Rep.Wilson too, Pete's partner in their corruption of justice.

sanjay M wrote on April 25, 2007 10:00 PM:

How dare Democrats recall Gonzales back to retestify. Why are they trying to waste taxpayer dollars to investigate a nice loyal foot soldier of the WH. Well if I remember correctly Watergate scandel unfolded slowely slowely before the big fish was in the net. By this single act, the democrats finally have shown some spine. First time since the dumbest President "ever" elected has the opposition to him, shown some guts to take on King George and his men. May the almighty father( not the one Bush prays to) give strenth and guidence to the Democrats to bring about the fall of this Humpty Dumpty of his mighty wall.
AMEN !

Anna S. wrote on April 25, 2007 10:08 PM:

Just thought of this, actually.

Any way AG responds, Bush ends up looking stupid. If AG suddenly 'remembers' information, then Bush looks like a nutjob for the over-enthusiastic 'he answered all questions as completely as he could' endorsement. If he stonewalls, Bush is an idiot for supporting someone who is more and more obviously obstructing justice.

Good on Leahy for a lose-lose proposition for the WH.

R.V. Branham wrote on April 25, 2007 10:17 PM:

Congress does have a few options: 1) Contempt; 2) Vote of no confidence; 3) prosecution for perjury, based on other conflicting testimony given under oath & on copies of Emails; 4) Impeaching the Attorney General.

jono wrote on April 25, 2007 10:57 PM:

i would not expect any useful information to come from Gonzo if he even replies. he spent his weeks before the testimony crafting what NOT to say so any further info from him will cause his weak wall of defense to crumble. W looks like he is committing political suicide for the Republican party by not asking for his resignation but considering all the culpability at the WH the only option is to let Gonzo stay on as a buffer as more shots come across the bow of a sinking ship.

I was suprised during his testimony that given that his second favorite response to pointed questions was " if you look at the documents"
that no one tried to pin him down to what exact document he could produce to support his position

Anonymous wrote on April 26, 2007 1:02 AM:

Keeping Gonzo on is a good thing. Were he to depart, the short-attention-span press would declare the whole affair over, and move on the the next scandal. Under those circumstances, Arlen would declare himself satisfied, Schumer, noting the lack of coverage, would likewise bail, leaving Leahy alone in the wilderness, Krove victorious.

TexasEllen wrote on April 26, 2007 2:18 AM:

The House Judiciary committee can spend weeks/months
on the various unpleasantnesses in the DOJ. A brief scan of Senator Whitehouse's chart of those in both the WH and the DOJ authorized to converse regarding DOJ cases is a dandy roadmap. The Renzi/USAttorney connection is going to provide many interesting avenues. Once the staff has been milked dry, Gonzo should be required to read aloud the sections of the Constitution regarding Presidential pardons, particularly the exception of cases of impeachment.
That might make him more likely to recall what prison/jail might look like.

Code word shame: Shame on the loyal Bushies for putting the cult of personality ahead of the country.

whizkid wrote on April 26, 2007 2:36 AM:

A horse is an ass of corse, of corse, unless its the ass of a horse of corse, just like the ass of corse, of corse, like the ass of President Bush.

DblHelix wrote on April 26, 2007 5:30 AM:

I too have feared that come 2009, Cheney and Bush will not give up the reins. The only respite I can come up with is that they've enriched themselves and their friends to the point that pretending to run the country isn't even worth the aggravation of pretending to run it. It's very sad that anyone would seriously consider this possibly occurring in what once was the world's leading democracy, but it's true. These guys have no limits to their hypocrisy. I don't even need to spout the 40000 words I could cough out onto this page to defend my position, half drunk and with one hand tied behind my back, if needed. I think over half the commentors here could respond to this challenge if given an hour or so. Who eviscerated America's most basic rights, and who acts as though he's above scrutiny from the very people he's supposed to be responsible to? If you answered Bush, you're half-right. Who, when appointed to be head of the steering committee to pick a VP, picked himself? Damn straight, baby, we're talking about Mr. Cheney. Deadeye Dick. Enjoy your retirement in Dubai, you anti-American profiteer. Or, in your own words, "F**k you."

Dave W wrote on April 26, 2007 7:45 AM:

>

And he'll do it with the forces from Blackwater!

Richard L. Adlof wrote on April 26, 2007 7:50 AM:

Are the plans for a certain French doctor's device on the internet? Is there someone crochetting the names of those we need to introduce to that nasty edged device into a very long scarve?

Leg Won wrote on April 26, 2007 8:04 AM:

President Pelosi 2007!

Linda Alvarez wrote on April 26, 2007 11:20 AM:

ditto Malcontent...it doesn't get any more to the point than that.

karen marie wrote on April 27, 2007 7:20 PM:

so did gonzales respond to leahy and specter's letter today? inquiring minds wanna know ...

Ron Hurst wrote on April 28, 2007 6:39 PM:

I watched your interview with Bill Moyer Friday night. It seems to me that there is an elephant in the room. And it's name is Watergate. Does anyone else believe we are`watching the beginning of a Bush "watergate" over the corruption of the DOJ?

DAWK wrote on May 2, 2007 11:16 PM:

WE ARE SICK AND TIRED OF ALL THESE BUSH-LAW-DEFYING SCENARIOS!!LAWMAKERS ,READ THIS:
WHAT THE DEMOCRATIC GONGRESS-SENATE SHOULD DO IS TO SIMPLY DRAWUP A NEW 'LAW': THAT LAW WOULD SAY THIS: "ANY-ALL SUPREME COURT ELECTED OFFICIALS,INCLUDING PRESIDENTS, ARE NOT THEFULLY QUALIFIED,ACTUAL FULLY IMPOWERED 'COMMANDER IN CHIEF' WHEN IT COMES TO STARTING A WAR AND ENDING A WAR,WEATHER IT BE DONE VIA ILLEGAL 'WAR CRIMES' WITH LIES OR VIA ANY-ALL MAJORITY PARTY VOTING WITH A 'TWO THIRDS' MAJORITY. FURTHERMORE CONGRESS SHALL HAVE THE POWER TO (END) ANY SAID WARS,WITH A SIMPLE(VETO-PROOF) MAJORITY VOTE,AND NOT A 'TWO THIRDS' MAJORITY VOTE.CONGRESS SHALL ALSO HAVE THE POWER TO 'STRIKE-DOOWN' ANY SUPREME COURT ELECTED OFFICIAL, WHOM CHOSES TO CONTINUALY ('OVER WRITE-SIGNING STATMENTS')INSTALLED BY THE PEOPLE AND REMOVE SUCH SUPREME COURT ELECTED OFFICIALS,FROM ANY-ALL 'DICITORIAL' AND ASSUMED POWERS.
IMPEACHMENT-REMOVAL WITH A 'SIMPLE MAJORITY' VOTE BY BOTH HOUSES, SHALL FOLLOW ANY-ALL SUPREME COURT ELECTED OFFICIALS,IF THEY VIOLATE THE ABOVE STATED.