« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Conyers Pushes Gonzales on Iglesias Firing
During the first line of questioning today, House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) tried to get Alberto Gonzales to answer the simply of question of who put the U.S. attorneys on the firing list and why they were put there. Gonzales replied as he has in the past, by saying that he'd initiated a "process" and that he trusted the process. Conyers summarized this response, "So you don't know?"
Conyers also cited the testimony of a Justice Department official Matthew Friedrich, who told congressional investigators that he'd met with two New Mexico Republicans who had complaints about U.S. Attorney for New Mexico David Iglesias' handling of voter fraud cases (i.e. Iglesias' failure to indict Democrats). The two Republicans told Friedrich that they'd brought their complaints to Karl Rove and Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM). Iglesias, of course, was subsequently fired.
When Conyers asked if Gonzales was aware of that conversation, he replied, "I am certainly aware of it now."
Comments (19)
gonzone wrote on May 10, 2007 10:47 AM:"he replied, "I am certainly aware of it now.""
But that's not what I asked you f*ckwit! I want to know if you knew BEFORE now so quit playing cute with me!
Rusty wrote on May 10, 2007 10:50 AM:This hearing is weak, weak, weak. My kingdom for some Senators. The Republicans are determinded to make this look like the last hearing on the matter. Their approaches seem well coordinated, "Ask about anything but the scandal. Do not confront or reprimand the AG". If there are not some fireworks soon, it will make the AG look... well, not good, but no worse.
PJ White wrote on May 10, 2007 11:07 AM:I think we can rely on Conyers to provide some fireworks, Rusty. And I agree with you; I believe that the repugs sent their questions to AGAG beforehand so he could be prepared. He is utterly ignorant of everything that relates to the firings; however, he speaks very cogently about their OTHER questions. I can only conclude that he was prepped. Conclusion: Repugs suck.
Otto Man wrote on May 10, 2007 11:10 AM:Can we have this idiot tarred and feathered?
Anonymous wrote on May 10, 2007 11:12 AM:Rusty- Yep. The Republican histrionics and filibuster aren’t by accident. Sadly the Democrats are floundering.
Democrats- NO speeches. NO compound questions. Interrupt when Gonzo changes the subject. Correct Republican misstatements of fact at the start of the next round.
Pamela wrote on May 10, 2007 11:24 AM:Has anyone been able to determine why Gonzales was not placed under oath?
Will someone please pass along this note to Conyers: Tell Gonzales the People Make Process. Process does not make lists, fire people, evade e-mails... Shall I go on?
As Conyers begged Gonzales earlier in the hearing: "Tell me. Just tell me something."
WingNut1 wrote on May 10, 2007 11:27 AM:"As AG, do you want to know who created the list of attorneys to be fired?"
"If so, as AG, what have you done to discover this basic fact?"
Back up, drill, and keep drilling.
ricky wrote on May 10, 2007 11:55 AM:We need to put an incompetency law on the books to make idiots like this pay a real cost for their incompetence. I am sure facing some jail time and heavy fines would help jog Abu's memory.
Impossible to do, I know, but god it drives me nuts that my tax dollars are paying this sh*thead's salary!
borussky wrote on May 10, 2007 12:05 PM:I missed ninth grade Civics. No one made me believe rich establisment Democrats and rich establishment Republicans are on different teams.
This hearing and all the other hearings look like Kabuki theatre to me. A rituaized dance to satisfy emotional needs without actually allowing anything to change.
Do we really think the right of habeas corpus and the Bill of Rights could be rolled back without bi-partisan elite concensus?
Outside Looking In wrote on May 10, 2007 12:07 PM:I sure wish the Democrats had something more powerful that a ton of misleading/incomplete e-mails as their main source for conducting the hearing. It's easy to see the Administration is hunkered down and refusing to cooperate. And the repugs in both House and Senate are going out of their way to make the Democrats task nearby impossible. If this is the information age, then why is it so hard to fine out what was going on? Obviously, someone is selectively emptying the bit bucket.
Outside Looking In wrote on May 10, 2007 12:08 PM:I sure wish the Democrats had something more powerful that a ton of misleading/incomplete e-mails as their main source for conducting the hearing. It's easy to see the Administration is hunkered down and refusing to cooperate. And the repugs in both House and Senate are going out of their way to make the Democrats task nearby impossible. If this is the information age, then why is it so hard to fine out what was going on? Obviously, someone is selectively emptying the bit bucket.
dhs wrote on May 10, 2007 12:10 PM:Is it true that Gonzales is not testifying under oath? If so, that would be very disturbing.
trank wrote on May 10, 2007 12:15 PM:if some of the Rove appointed prosecutors who went after exaggerated or bogus Dem voter fraud cases trying to divert attention from real GOP election fraud in time for the elections it would be a relatively useless move unless Rove could get a lot of PR points.
since Rove's most unnacountable propaganda medium is talk radio it may be of interest to investigators to interview talk radio hosts who were given Dem voter fraud talking points before the elections to find patterns in terms of timing and sources.
as was the case in Florida and then somewhat in NM for the Wilson/Madrid recount, the GOP makes sure to get the public riled to intimidate election workers working on recounts and challenges. they would also help counter possible Dem protests aimed at GOP election fraud. there is no better medium for doing that than talk radio. in NM 770 KKOB did the job, but the Dems seemed to be ready this time.
and in this caase it may have backfired with the locall KKOB dittoheads putting pressure on Domenici to make a big boo boo.
Monz wrote on May 10, 2007 12:42 PM:Q: Mr Attorney General, have you ever removed any USAs to hinder an investigation?
A: "I would never do that."
-That doesn't sound like a definitive answer to me. Why wouldn't he just say "no"?....unless the answer is yes.
Bill Arney wrote on May 10, 2007 1:18 PM:Repugs?
No.
It's the Republican Crime Family.
Get it straight.
Richard L. Adlof wrote on May 10, 2007 2:05 PM:Rhetoric classes and toastmaster for the lot of them.
CTgoaty wrote on May 10, 2007 3:28 PM:"I would never do that" means "I would have someone do that for me," of course.
sec code= right, as in "Yeah, right"
bcg wrote on May 10, 2007 8:02 PM:"I would never do that," speaks to the present and the future. It evades answering whether he'd ever done that before. These are weasel words.
epenisa wrote on January 11, 2008 12:51 AM:Hello
Nice work from your side... have a nice time with yoru blog :)
G'night