Comments (30)

Robin Boerner wrote on May 11, 2007 1:51 PM:

Is it too late to go back and review Gonzales' LSAT to see who really took it for him?

TheraP wrote on May 11, 2007 2:02 PM:

How about we generate a "process" for getting this guy deemed incompetent?

I'm sure somebody could come up with a "test" based on the "evidence" of the "hearings." And then there could be a "consensus" based upon gathering information from some "comments" by "people" - and before you know it, there would be a "decision" and then we could put the "incompetent AG AG" in a "hospital" - for "life."

Word is "snake." Yup, I think we're already moving in the right direction, guided by this here consensually-generated list of security words.

Mike Conwell wrote on May 11, 2007 2:04 PM:

Okay - after a dismal appearance in both the House and Senate, NOW CAN WE IMPEACH THE ATTY GENERAL?

PrgrsvArchitect wrote on May 11, 2007 2:11 PM:

"Gonzales: I think... I stand by the decision. In hindsight, I’m not happy with the process. I know that… to me, the process was important, too. And I think using a different process, we may have come out with different recommendations to me"

I thought he couldn't recall what the process was. How does he know that a different process wouldn't end up being the same as the first. Which of course, we still don't know what that was.

retired MH therapist wrote on May 11, 2007 2:13 PM:

BANG
HEAD
HERE

at least by now I can identify what medication he should be taking...

bordersmuggler wrote on May 11, 2007 2:13 PM:

In judicial stature, he doesn't reach the kneecaps of the prosecutors he, or rather Sampson/Goodling, fired.

The most absurd exchange of the day was the one between Gonzo and Darrell Issa. The two simply fed off each other, as they came from the same litter.

One of his talking points is that the U.S. Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President. Yesterday when asked pointedly if the President told him who to fire, he emphatically said no. Is that not a contradiction?

Ian wrote on May 11, 2007 2:25 PM:

Obvious that calls for his resignation are falling on deaf ears. Is there any talk of impeaching him?

wrb wrote on May 11, 2007 2:30 PM:

His performance left me doubting that we'll here much from Goodling, immunity or not. He wasn't acting like he tthought the truth would come out. Watch Goodling take blame for everything in exchange for a promised pardon.

Not that it will be believable.

Anonymous wrote on May 11, 2007 2:41 PM:

BANG
HEAD
HERE

at least by now I can identify what medication he should be taking...

Posted by: retired MH therapist
Date: May 11, 2007 02:13 PM

Ex-Lax to get the shit out of his head?

Jane Michener wrote on May 11, 2007 2:43 PM:

Paraphrasing Gonzalez: I don't know who was consulted or what they said and I do know that the guy I sent to get a consensus recommendation did a poor job so I don't know why these 8--oops 9-- individuals were fired but I DO know that that is wasn't for any improper purpose.

Just a small credibility problem particularly sincne he knows that one individual was added on Election Day although he doesn't recall why.

Beyond satire.

bordersmuggler wrote on May 11, 2007 2:51 PM:

"Obvious that calls for his resignation are falling on deaf ears. Is there any talk of impeaching him?"

As a previous poster noted, Gonzo's the whore, Rove's the pimp. They're going for the pimp. With Gonzo now a laughingstock, his effectiveness as AG is shot. For the time being, no one seems to mind if he continues to show up for work and to collect his pay check.

He's delusional if he thinks Monica will take the blame for everything. Her immunity does exclude prosecution for perjury. If she lies on the stand it's off to the slammer. She is certainly not going to fall on the sword for the replacement Bush AG, although she might for the original version.

hwc wrote on May 11, 2007 2:55 PM:

The best part of the clip is when the Congresswoman in the background busts out laughing and Gonzales has to choke back a laugh himself.

lestatdelc wrote on May 11, 2007 3:09 PM:

........................................................amazing that this person is doing anything above watching for the McD's frier to beep so he can pull the French Fries out.

lestatdelc wrote on May 11, 2007 3:14 PM:

Who says that even if Gonzo "resigns so he can spend more time with his family" or is actually held to account by Congress and removed form office via impeachment, that there would be a nominated replacement AG?

Aaron G. Stock wrote on May 11, 2007 3:18 PM:

If Gonzales is capable of remembering the tangled web of deception he needs in order to avoid perjury (and I'm not ruling out that he has), then he's capable of remembering everything else.

It's Catch-22 time for him.*

*(Maybe my following phrasing isn't precise; if you wish, please correct it. He's capable of performing the hiring duties of the AG position unless he claims he can't remember them. But if he he explains how he can't remember how the hiring duties were performed, then he must have been capable of performing those hiring duties.)

parrot wrote on May 11, 2007 4:34 PM:

Fortunately, as far as I know, there is no do over once someone is convicted by the US Senate via Articles of Impeachment.

redbike wrote on May 11, 2007 8:04 PM:

Unless Goodling or another witness provides Congress actual information about the proceess which resulted in the firing of the USA's, the show may be over. Gonzales was very successful in convincing the House Judiciary Committee that he doesn't know much.

DTK wrote on May 11, 2007 8:45 PM:

I say we waterboard him and make him talk.

Richard L. Adlof wrote on May 11, 2007 10:00 PM:

Forty first dates . . . AG the AG style.

In the Know wrote on May 11, 2007 10:56 PM:

FYI to all - Gonzales called Chris Cannon this morning to say thank you and solocit advice! Contact Cannon's office and see if they deny it.

Over the Edge wrote on May 12, 2007 12:23 AM:

Now I understand why the relationship between Gonzales and Bush is so tight.

Gonzales can make Bush seem cognizant by comparison.

The Oracle wrote on May 12, 2007 7:35 PM:

All Gonzales is really saying about changing the "process" is that he wouldn't have fired so many U.S. Attorneys on the same day, but would have spaced their firings out over a longer period of time, so as to try to keep it under the radar.

But Gonzales and his corrupt Republican pals got anxious after last year's elections, with only two years left under Bush to subvert and pervert our Justice Department to their evil ends, which led to the firings of so many U.S. Attorneys at the same time.

Security Codeword: WHEEL...as in what goes around comes around, as in what the "culture of corruption" Republicans have sown, they will reap.

Or as in the case of global warming, their children and grand-children will reap because "culture of corruption" Republican greed and denial has delayed the world doing anything about global warming until it just might be too late, visiting the sins of the Republicans on all of us, including the children of the world.

And all because Republicans have insanely obsessed over the issue of abortion. Why do I say insanely obsessed? Because by focusing on one issue, the Republicans have probably aborted the future of their own children and grand-children, and lain waste to the futures of countless children all around the world.

So WHEEL, what goes around comes around, and what the "culture of corruption" Republicans have insanely sown, they will reap.

Marnie wrote on May 12, 2007 8:29 PM:

He has been one of Bush's most faithful, and long time political lackies. He is simply emulating the Dyslexic-in-Chief.

It is amazing that this man graduated from a reputable law school. He certainly doesn't talk like he knows legalize.

Anonymous wrote on May 12, 2007 11:13 PM:

I think the term "Fredo Logic" just might replace "Pretzel Logic". At least I think I think I do.

PBen wrote on May 12, 2007 11:38 PM:

"If I could dare to summarize: Gonzales stands by his decision to fire those eight, but if he had it to do all over again, he would have fired somebody else."

Close, but no....
Gonzales stands by his decision to fire those eight, but if he had it to do all over again, he MIGHT have fired somebody else.

erandall wrote on May 13, 2007 10:36 AM:

As a foreign observer I am quite frankly amazed. With very few exceptions the US congressmen and women were hopeless at asking and insisting on answers to obvious questions.

With the AG accepting that the 'process' was deeply flawed he should have been pursued relentlessly and forensically about the specific flaws, about his role in creating such a deeply flawed process and about how that process should and can be remedied.

There is no dispute that Alberto G. was personally responsible for the review and appointment system; he publicly 'accepts' responsibility for the results and for the decisions which created it in the first place. With the benefit of hindsight he says he would have done things differently. He approved the appointment of the key staff and sanctioned their role in reviewing and appointing USAs. He is the task master and he was the decider at the DoJ. What did he decide and when? Who did he appoint and when? What powers did he approve and when? What arrangements did he make for ensuring that things were done properly and when? If he cannot answer/remember then he isn't fit to be the decider.

Unfortunately he was allowed to play a poor innocent bystander in front of the HJC. An AG responsible for the creation of such a deeply flawed process surely has to do more than lament the process - he must accept responsibility for its failure and be precise in how things are going to be put right.

For the world's premier democracy the congressional scrutiny and accountability process looks hopelessly inadequate.

Don Spencer wrote on May 14, 2007 12:06 AM:

I just saw this (I'm getting overloaded on his answers), but isn't that Patrick Fitzgerald behind Gonzalez' right shoulder?

Don Spencer wrote on May 14, 2007 12:07 AM:

I just saw this (I'm getting overloaded on his answers), but isn't that Patrick Fitzgerald behind Gonzalez' right shoulder?

Steve Elliott wrote on May 14, 2007 4:48 AM:

Ok Mr. Gonzales, you can keep your job and give pleasure to the President of the United States but will you please submit to a polygraph, then if need be a full psychiatric examination. Thank you very much for your time. Next!

JNagarya wrote on May 14, 2007 8:53 AM:

"He's delusional if he thinks Monica will take the blame for everything. Her immunity does exclude prosecution for perjury. If she lies on the stand it's off to the slammer. She is certainly not going to fall on the sword for the replacement Bush AG, although she might for the original version.

"Posted by: bordersmuggler
Date: May 11, 2007 02:51 PM"

Goodling is only comptent at one thing: being a True Believer of the "bible" crap she learned at Regent College. She has no experience in the world, no political sophistication. She has no idea of the context in which she finds herself, or how to act within it as a political animal. She has no choice but rely upon the advice of her attorney. And his job is to save her ass.

That being my assumption, I'd be surprised if she lied, rather than spilling the beans. And keep in mind that the Democrats in Congress know and have documented a whole lot more than they are letting on -- which her lawyer should know. It would be exceedingly stupid to lie.

I'm not saying she's not stupid; I'm saying that her lawyer, if he's to save her ass, has had to convince her to tell the truth, probably by filling her full of fear which she can't begin to understand, because that's about the only thing that can get through her sort of naive, even childish, delusions that "God" will save her. ""God" can't save you now, child: there ain't no "God" in Congress. Tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, without trying to be clever, and you'll be okay. Lie and you're toast."