Comments (74)

Staar wrote on July 26, 2007 9:19 AM:

Please have a pleasant discussion and remember: Ignore the trolls.

James' Conscience wrote on July 26, 2007 9:28 AM:

I understand how frustrating the troll has become so it is imperative that we do not feed that old delusional wing-nut

Waiting for Truth wrote on July 26, 2007 9:34 AM:

Wiggle room: That's what Mr. Gonzales believes he's provided himself, with phrases like "as the President outlined."
Wiggle. Wiggle. Hmmm. Reminds me of a couple of critters -- like, maybe, worms? Or, a little bigger -- snakes?
Keep talkin', Mr. Gonzales.

Billy Pilgrim wrote on July 26, 2007 9:36 AM:

With the distinguished (gag!) Republican senator from Pennysylvania telling Senor Perjury his statements may be "actionable," the waterboarder may have a problem.

GWB's unfavorable rating is now at 66%, only one percentage point behind Nixon, who reached 67% just before he resigned. If Senor Perjury hangs on to his position, he will help his boss eclipse Nixon as the all-time most unpopular president.

Small coincidence: 67 is the number of senators needed to convict in a Senate impeachment trial.

Anonymous wrote on July 26, 2007 9:39 AM:

Akerman says: "In other words, unless Gonzales can prove that the March 10, 2004 meeting wasn't about the TSP, he's going to be hounded by perjury charges for the rest of his tenure."

Is that the worst fate that awaits an Attorney General of the United States who lies under oath to Congress to block its Contitutional oversight responsiblities? No wonder Bush continues to escalate both the war and his unitary executive powers. Hearings, supoenas, threats, contempt citations, perjury charges mean absolutely nothing, if Goanzales remains in office and Bush marches forward.

Anonymous wrote on July 26, 2007 9:40 AM:

Akerman says: "In other words, unless Gonzales can prove that the March 10, 2004 meeting wasn't about the TSP, he's going to be hounded by perjury charges for the rest of his tenure."

Is that the worst fate that awaits an Attorney General of the United States who lies under oath to Congress to block its Contitutional oversight responsiblities? No wonder Bush continues to escalate both the war and his unitary executive powers. Hearings, supoenas, threats, contempt citations, perjury charges mean absolutely nothing, if Gonzales remains in office and Bush marches forward.

jonwash wrote on July 26, 2007 9:42 AM:

From yesterday's press "beating"

"MR. SNOW: Well, no -- I don't want to parse too much here, and I'm not going to serve as the fact witness, so we're not going to get too deep into what he said, when and where. But I will remind you that when one is being called in an open session to talk about classified matters, it becomes very difficult to walk the line about what is permissible and what is not permissible to say in public. We continue to believe that the Attorney General has testified truthfully. He has also testified behind closed doors in considerably greater detail. Neither you nor I have heard that."

This is going to be the spin on this whole matter. The AG may have been less than artful in this testimony but he did not intentionally lie. Move on nothing to see here. And the press will buy it!!!

hope4usa wrote on July 26, 2007 9:42 AM:

I'm curious. I'm assuming that Kyle Sampson, Monica Goodling, and obviously Gonzalez are lawyers. Has anyone filed a grievance against Sampson or Goodling to have them disbarred? If Gonzalez is guilty of perjury he should be disbarred as well.

TheraP wrote on July 26, 2007 9:44 AM:

I think the Harry Potter books have something to offer here.

This is not just the "crux" of the matter. It is the "horcrux" that's been found - the nodal point, so to speak, that holds the "soul" of the administration. And if you can crack this open, the whole house of cards begins to fall.

This is more crucial than the firing of the attorneys. It cuts to the way in which the administration has disemboweled the constitution, the very soul of our form of government.

steve duncan wrote on July 26, 2007 9:44 AM:

We focus on Gonzales. He should be the object of both deserved scorn and investigation. However, the larger picture involves Bush and his continued support of his AG. Gonzales' inept and deceitful conduct in office is a poor reflection on our President. Retaining either in their jobs is in turn a damning judgment against Congress and the public that elected them. Come January, 2009 there are millions who will certainly sigh and think "Finally, our long national nightmare is over".

JML wrote on July 26, 2007 9:46 AM:

I'm wondering if anyone has investigated the implications of Gonzales & Card discussing classified national security programs in the non-secure setting of a hospital room.

Mark F. wrote on July 26, 2007 9:53 AM:

The thing I don't get is, why is Leahy giving him time to revise anything? Why is this man not already being impeached or tried for perjury? Why is he being given eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth chances by Leahy? Cut the crap, Senators. The guy's a criminal. Try him, convict him and move on to Bush and Cheney.

Security Code: "hope". As in, there is no hope for Democracy as long as these spineless buffoons in the Senate continue to issue empty threats and refuse to act.

Jake D. wrote on July 26, 2007 9:54 AM:

steve duncan:

Now you know how we felt on January 20, 2001.

TheraP wrote on July 26, 2007 9:57 AM:

This. One. Issue. Leads. Everywhere.

Just keep pulling every dangling string. Don't overlook one.

We should make a list of all the questionable aspects of this one event. And the cover-up of this event. And all its meanings.

sc: "wound" - and yes, this is the infected wound that needs cleansing, maybe even an amputation or two or three.

JML wrote on July 26, 2007 10:02 AM:

"Retaining either in their jobs is in turn a damning judgment against Congress and the public that elected them. Come January, 2009 there are millions who will certainly sigh and think "Finally, our long national nightmare is over"." Steve Duncan

Do you really think they are going to go so easily or that the electoral process which has been manipulated for 8 years is going to reflect the will of the electorate?

I'm afraid I am more cynical. On your other point, why Gonzales. It's because it's his justice department which is the firewall preventing legal discovery of WH secrets.

And finally -- these security codes can't be entirely random.

laura wrote on July 26, 2007 10:06 AM:

It's confusing to me how any party would stand by this man at this point. Unless all of these thugs are complicit and bought hook, line and sinker the real master mind's (Cheney) justification for setting the Consitution aside in order to "protect" our way of life. People justify actions counter to their conscience all the time; a whole population can also do the same. One need not look too far into the past (Nazi Germany) to see how a whole bunch of people can be swept away.

Code word: Butter, as in "butter the noose"

Punchy wrote on July 26, 2007 10:08 AM:

Some of you are acting as if this perjury "charge" will matter. Do you really think he'd resign if charged with perjury?

If you believe this, I have a big surprise for you. Unless he's CONVICTED of a felony murder charge, Gonzo ain't going anywhere.

c4logic wrote on July 26, 2007 10:12 AM:

Yes the 8 years of the Clinton administration were a nightmare--but only because Republicans refused to accept the will of the voters and attempted to besiege the White House. Financed by wealthy zealots, they drug $20 bills through every trailer park in till they found someone gullible enough to join ranks with their conspiracy to embarrass the chief executive regarding his private, personal behavior--behavior which had zero impact on America or the people who live here.

Following a velvet coup by the Supreme Court, who determined no precident could be derived from their insistence that the votes not be counted, we received an administration that invited industry to write their own regulations, shape American policies, give money back to the rich, give money to churches, spend every dollar in tax revenue for the next 50 years, wreck the environment, wreck food safety, wreck New Orleans, wreck FEMA, wreck the EPA, wreck the Army, wreck the CIA, and wreck the Republican party. Oh YES--on Jan 20 2001--our long national nightmare was finally over--nothing was more troubling than years of double digit growth and the removal of the national Dept Clock, and revenue surpluses for the forseeable future. Yes--what a nightmare that was--FOR THE COMPLETELY INSANE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Waiting for Truth wrote on July 26, 2007 10:13 AM:

He may resign, under the president's direction -- just in time for the president to appoint the next attorney general during Congress' recess.
Very, very good reason to let this process continue -- not because we ought to further punish ourselves or our country's reputation with the likes of Mr. Gonzales, but because the president cannot be trusted to make a unilateral appointment to this most important position.
Unfortunately, the president may pre-empt Congress' plans by sacking Alberto in the next few days.
Any guesses on the stellar replacement possibilities?

Leta wrote on July 26, 2007 10:16 AM:

Well, Gonzales lied - I'm shocked - but what concerns me here the most, is that if it wasn't the TSP, what was it...what was so bad and so illegal that Comey and virtually every senior level DOJ attorney were willing to resign? And if it was this bad, it had to be a shocking affront on America's civil liberties...it had to be shockingly illegal. A rogue program that caught the light of Comey, who wasn't going to sign off on it.

He either lied to the SJC about the March meeting and his reason for his midnight run on Ashcroft...or he inadvertently exposed and even nastier "intelligence" program.

It also may be that the TSP that the gang of 8 was briefed on was not really what it was...they only saw what this Administration wanted them to see. How any Congressman, Republican or Democrat can sleep at night, given the implications here; that they may be only seeing and hearing and signing off on what Bush wants them to see. I know, the WMD intelligence - but I think this should be more personal for the Republicans...at the time of the March '04 meeting this was a Republican gang...and in this intimate setting dominated by Republicans, Bush's soldiers apparently cooked the report to justifiy their means. If I was a Republican Congressman this reality would not give me much comfort - How could they trust anyone in "their" White House when they'd lie so boldly to their own in such an intimate setting?

JNagarya wrote on July 26, 2007 10:17 AM:

This is going to be the spin on this whole matter. The AG may have been less than artful in this testimony but he did not intentionally lie. Move on nothing to see here. And the press will buy it!!!

Posted by: jonwash
Date: July 26, 2007 9:42 AM

No, the press will not buy it. The contradiction is so simple, plain, and obvious that it can't be overlooked. The press loves black/white; it's the nuanced that boggles their minds.

Tom Simon wrote on July 26, 2007 10:17 AM:

I sent this letter to the editor of my local, "partisan republican," newspaper. Thank you Josh for inspiring my words and excuse a bit of necessary plagerism...

"Having just finished reading Ron Chernow’s biography of Alexander Hamilton, I have a greater appreciation for the Federalist doctrines that are the foundation for neo-conservatism. At the same time I now see how important James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and George Washington were in making sure checks and balances are maintained between the executive, legislative and judicial branches of this republic. Our constitution, which every public official swears to uphold, is formed around these check and balances.

But watching the Attorney General of the Unites States caught lying to congress, seeing public officials thumbing their nose at a congressional subpoena, and having a vice president declare himself above any branch of government, I think we are now moving into a situation where this administration, on various fronts, is declaring itself above the law. Worse, President George W. Bush is leading our country as though not just the law but the constitution itself, which is the fundamental law from which all the statutes gain their force and legitimacy, doesn't apply to his administration.

If that is allowed to continue, the defiance will congeal into precedent. And the whole structure of our system of government will be permanently changed.

Whether you are a member of a political party or an independent, you must realize we are now seeing this administration moving on to dangerous ground. If the precedent of an imperial executive is sustained, no matter who you vote for as president, you will be electing a dictator."

Dawn wrote on July 26, 2007 10:20 AM:

Marcy Wheeler has done a great job putting together a unified chronology of the Bush scandals, linking the Abu's testimony yesterday right back to Cheney's role in the Duke Cunningham/MZM investigations.

http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_next_hurrah/2007/07/cunningham-cifa.html

These connections are what is needed to show that Carol Lam was sacked to obstruct justice, at least one underlying crime in the USA purge scandal.

Now, how do we get at least one reporter in Snow's pressers to be well enough informed to ask the right questions?

Mark wrote on July 26, 2007 10:25 AM:

I agree with laura. So what? The crux of the matter is how to resolve the problem of how to take action against these morons. Charge Gonzo with anything you want ... he just sits there with his moronic grin because he knows it's His job to Enforce the Charges, and he won't. He is under no pressure, legal or moral or honorable or whatever, to do so. And Shrub needs that patsy, because there is clearly something volatile behind all this. Stonewalling is all they have. Anybody have an idea for how to break the impasse?

JNagarya wrote on July 26, 2007 10:25 AM:

The thing I don't get is, why is Leahy giving him time to revise anything? Why is this man not already being impeached or tried for perjury? Why is he being given eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth chances by Leahy? Cut the crap, Senators. The guy's a criminal. Try him, convict him and move on to Bush and Cheney.

Security Code: "hope". As in, there is no hope for Democracy as long as these spineless buffoons in the Senate continue to issue empty threats and refuse to act.

Posted by: Mark F.
Date: July 26, 2007 9:53 AM

You obviously don't "get it" -- though that doesn't stop you bashing the Democrats.

Leahy knows what he's doing. The letter is a smoking gun directly ensnaring Gonzales. Leahy has put Gonzales on notice, and is letting him sweat. Meanwhile, the committee will be hearing from FBI Director Mueller. And drawing up the facts from the several testimonies on the point.

In other words: Leahy has given Gonzels enough rope to hang himself. He is now being patient while waiting for Gonzales to put the noose around his own neck.

And keep in mind the ongoing fact: If Gonzales still doesn't resign, he continues to keep the issues alive, and front-and-center, and continues to damage Bushit, and the Republican party and its electoral hopes.

JNagarya wrote on July 26, 2007 10:33 AM:

Some of you are acting as if this perjury "charge" will matter. Do you really think he'd resign if charged with perjury?

If you believe this, I have a big surprise for you. Unless he's CONVICTED of a felony murder charge, Gonzo ain't going anywhere.

Posted by: Punchy
Date: July 26, 2007 10:08 AM

Good: so long as Gonzales remains right where he is, he keeps the issues alive and front and center, and continues to damage Bushit and the Republicans. Enjoy!

And while you're at it, laugh in the face of the anti-American stooge "Jake".

Jake D wrote on July 26, 2007 10:33 AM:

I eat poo

AJ wrote on July 26, 2007 10:36 AM:

Dawn -- I e-mailed Dan Eggen at the Post about those very questions yesterday -- and the reporter for the Times as well. At least the LA Times bothered to mention the May 2006 Gonzalez memo giving access to the OVP -- so I e-mailed them and told them to get together with their colleagues down in San Diego and start asking why.

Anonymous wrote on July 26, 2007 10:46 AM:

Ladies and gentlemen, please do NOT debate or even refer to trolls, their names or their comments.
Treat them like Biblical lepers -- unclean and to be shunned. Maybe we should make them wear a bell, now that I think of it. Put them on a ranch in Idaho with the rest of their race.
Their ONLY motive is to provoke those trying to be reasonably objective about events during this very scary time in our nation's history.

Michael wrote on July 26, 2007 10:46 AM:

You write: "... [T]he previously-unknown "program" came as very convenient for Gonzales, who had told the Senate on February 6, 2006 that no one within the Justice Department had dissented from the program the "president described."

Not to parse semantics, but this "unknown" program became absolutely known during Mr Comey's testimoney, if not by allusion prior to that. Let's remember that Mr Comey and other top officials not exactly unfriendly to this Administration were ready to resign in protest over the legality of the program as it existed in 2004, prior to its reauthorization. The question then became -- though you heard about it almost nowhere -- is what happened to that program to satisfy those challenging its legality, then rendering it the "TSP" thereafter?

Even setting aside a discussion of whether the TSP is itself legal, we still have a 2-plus year-old program / set of activities which were so dubious in their legality that very senior career law enforcement officials were set to resign over it.

(Sidebar: With that as context, the hospital room drama takes on a potentially devastating new meaning -- Card and Gonzales rushing to Ashcoft's bedside so that he can override any decision by then-AAG Comey and prevent these illegal activities from coming to light -- relevant to not having Comey et alia removed -- while simultaneously reauthorizing them. End-run, indeed.)

So the activities, even if related to what became known as the TSP, were known.

Anyone interested should read Glenn Greenwald's recent posts at Salon, including this one:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/07/25/gonzales/index.html

Punchy wrote on July 26, 2007 10:47 AM:

"Unfortunately, the president may pre-empt Congress' plans by sacking Alberto in the next few days."

Never. Ever. EVAH. Going to. Happen.

Steve5117 wrote on July 26, 2007 10:51 AM:

Is there a published list of MSM WH reporters wiyh their email addresses? Perhaps a few thousand emails suggesting questions to ask would help.

snart wrote on July 26, 2007 10:52 AM:

Bush will eventually pardon Gonzales, the vice prez, Mires, Rove, and others in the WH and DOJ. It's why Gonzales smirks all the time. He no longer gives a shit because he knows that he doesn't have to.

Anonymous wrote on July 26, 2007 10:54 AM:

Let’s please NOT respond to nor even mention the names of trolls here.
Treat them like Biblical lepers – unclean and un-housebroken.
Maybe we should have them wear a bell.
Their only motive is to provoke those at least trying to have a rational discussion about some grave matters in our nation’s history.
To respond or use their names is to encourage them.
Some studied rudeness usually works with these turds.

DBH wrote on July 26, 2007 10:56 AM:

Well, I can just hear it now. "He wasn't lying about any actual underlying crime." Bush thinks that crime isn't even worth jail time. Can he pardon or commute a perjury conviction? I bet the answer is yes, and with a full pardon, he can continue to serve as AG...

Betty wrote on July 26, 2007 11:00 AM:

I seem to remember Mr. Comey saying that there was another program, or something, he wasn't comfortable talking about openly. Could that be Gonzales's get out of jail free card?

Austin Cooper wrote on July 26, 2007 11:05 AM:

Please go back and re-read Josh's article from yesterday, "Impeachment?"

I agree with the idea that, tactically, an impeachment might not be possible to succeed in the House *and* Senate... but that strategically, the real threat of the Bush / Cheney 'administration' is becoming harder to ignore.

With every passing week, there's new revelations of mendacity, corruption, and even malicious intent which this 'administration' has created or enabled -- and I'm just talking about the Domestic side. With Afghanistan, Iraq and Al-Qaeda, the 'administration' Foreign Policy has created issues which are exponentially worse.

... and the point where *all* of these issues converge is the 'administration' s assertion of Executive Priviledge; Josh noted:

"Without going into all the specifics, I think we are now moving into a situation where the White House, on various fronts, is openly ignoring the constitution, acting as though not just the law but the constitution itself, which is the fundamental law from which all the statutes gain their force and legitimacy, doesn't apply to them.

"If that is allowed to continue, the defiance will congeal into precedent. And the whole structure of our system of government will be permanently changed."

This is the point of the fulcrum. This will be what is decided over the coming months: Whether we dissolve into a nation that's in effect an autocracy; or, whether we remain in fact a nation guided by balancing three branches of government on the scales of Justice, or not.

I hope that Gonzales' fumbled, spastic testimony will carry Congressional investigations into the heart of the Beast, but I tend to doubt that. As former Counsel to Bush, as AG, Abu is too central a figure to be allowed to twist in the wind. Bush will do whatever is necessary through an assertion of priviledge to protect -- not Abu, but *what he knows from being revealed*.

And, by asserting Executive priviledge at every turn, the 'administration' will continue to run out the clock, hoping that the attention of Democrats will slowly become consumed by the coming 2008 election.

But (unless the fix is already in at the Supreme Court, and that body is now politicized enough that it's an open question) that could be a gamble for the Republicans.

No matter what happens, it's not going to be pretty. Just how ugly it gets will depend on whether Republicans in Congress have a greater loyalty to Party, to patronage and the person of The Leader, or in Constitution and Country.

Make some popcorn.

.

OCPatriot wrote on July 26, 2007 11:11 AM:

The reason the Congress' rating is so low is simply that none of them takes direct action. None of them just says, "Gonzales lied." They can't seem to spreak plainly about Gonzales or Bush or any of these liars; they prevaricate; and they take such s-l-o-o-o-w action, no wonder people disdain them when they're surveyed about their opinion of them. I hate to say it, but sometimes I long for someone like McCarthy, who stood up and accused people directly, and then had them jailed for contempt. McCarthy was scum, but he at least spoke out, "loud and clear", as Rose told Louise.

Yizmo Gizmo wrote on July 26, 2007 11:15 AM:

My crystal ball:

Aug.07 Gonzo charged with perjury

Oct. 07 Gonzo convicted

Nov 07 Gonzo sentenced

Dec 07 Gonzo's sentence commuted by Bush
due to being "excessive."

Moondancer wrote on July 26, 2007 11:17 AM:

Six months from now I hope not to hear a reiteration of Bush's 7/12/07 comments (regarding Libby) applied to Gonzalez: "You know, I’ve often thought about what had happened if that person come forth and said, I did it. Would we have had this, you know, endless hours of investigation and a lot of money being spent on this matter?”.

This administration is a bottomless pit of corruption. Congress has no choice but to devote resources to pursue perjury and impeachment charges against Gonzales and a censure resolution – or better yet, impeachment proceedings – against Bush and Cheney.

Doctor Jay wrote on July 26, 2007 11:18 AM:

What if Bush pardons AG? Please don't throw me into that briar patch! That's at least a 5 point surge in impeachment support (in the polls), maybe 10. Furthermore, it doesn't get AG off the hook for testifying about stuff.

Pardoning him would mean admitting that he lied, and that he lied in to forward Bush's interest.

CSH wrote on July 26, 2007 11:18 AM:

I think I've figured it out now. Gonzales says he isn't lying for the following reason: in Feb. of 2006 he claimed there was no serious controversy about the "program the president had confirmed" (which we have come to know as TSP). Comey's testimony shows that there was, in fact, extensive controversy about the legality of the program known as TSP that ran from 2002-2004. But in the face of the threatened resignations, they had MODIFIED that program so that Comey would sign off on its legality. Thus the controversy was about the pre-modification TSP, not the post-modification TSP -- the one "the president confirmed." So. To most mortals (and congresspeople) there was just one TSP, which did indeed generate legal controversy, and Gonzales appears to have lied. But to the special magic thought process of AG, there were two programs -- the controversial (which is to say illegal) program all the fuss was about in the hospital, and the modified program the president acknowledged the next year, which generated no serious disputes.
So if that's what he was thinking, does it still count as perjury? Can we still impeach him? Please?

Anonymous wrote on July 26, 2007 11:30 AM:

Isn't this about the point during the Armu hearings where Welsh asked McCarthy, "Senator (Mr. Attorney General), have you no shame?"

M M wrote on July 26, 2007 11:33 AM:

"Was it or wasn't it a briefing on the Terrorist Surveillance Program? The answer may determine Alberto Gonzales's fate."

Spencer, it may not be either or--what if the March 10, 2004 briefing was about TSP AND another intel program (however defined in Gonzo's mind)?

one other thought, Bush could squash any DoJ IG investigation by denying clearances (again) to investigators; you would need to be cleared to parse through all the BS definitions of programs that Gonzo has used

Roberta wrote on July 26, 2007 11:47 AM:

Late in the "DoJ-Contempt" thread yesterday, I put out some possible reasons why it's so important not to connect Bush to any of this stuff. I'd love some feedback on it here. My paranoia? Or my epiphany? Here goes:

Think about what Whitehouse brought out with Gonzales Tuesday. Think about all those people who--unlike in any other Admin--are allowed access to and decision-making authority on, in some cases, all the cases and workings of the DoJ. Is it reasonable to believe that this is the only department under the Executive for which this is the case? HUD? Not such a big deal. But how about Defense?

It's one thing for citizens to speculate about who is actually making decisions in the Executive, but its another, very chilling, thing to KNOW that Cheney, his counsel, various aides, and sundry advisors not only have access to information that is supposed to be held in the greatest secret but also to be part of the decision-making process for these issues. I don't think even the staunchest Bush supporters are comfortable with this.

For the truth to come out about how the list of USAs to get rid of was compiled, who talked strategy about getting them out, and who signed off on the action of sacking them opens up the inevitable questions about who's really in charge in so many areas of the government.

Remember how Gonzales outright wouldn't answer who sent him to Ashcroft's bedside? Schumer asked if it was Bush and if it was Cheney. All Gonzales would say is that he went at the behest of the president. He didn't say he didn't remember or do any of his other usual dances. He simply wouldn't answer.

And if it was Cheney? From what I know of the constitutional definition of the powers and responsibilities of the vice president, he does not have that authority. Can he legally be handed it?

The Senate now has documents that show how many people Bush has granted unprecedented authority, and I have no doubt that Congressional staffers and lawyers are burning up serious electricity looking into what the constitution allows Bush to do with his power.

Can Bush giving away that authority be interpreted as treason?

Hobodeluxe wrote on July 26, 2007 12:05 PM:

I think we are missing something important here guys.
I think the real thing they are trying to cover up here is that the so called congressional oversight that this program had was incomplete.
I don't think the "gang of eight" ever got all the information they should have about the program in their briefings.
They were told of the existence of the TSP program and some of the details that Bush wanted them to know but not all of it.
It was these details that Comey and the rest balked on.
Congress still doesn't know the full reach of these programs.
This is what they are trying to obfuscate with their dissembling.

code word debt.
As in the debt we owe to those who have given their lives to make sure these people are held accountable.

cevrero wrote on July 26, 2007 12:08 PM:

I think Gonzales was talking about different illegal activities about the citizen(potential-terrorist) surveillance program. Whether it's one program or two programs/activities is just semantics. The fact is that Comey dissented and Gonzales lied that nobody in the DOJ dissented. Everything the Bush administration does, borders on the legal line,...that's why they have so many interpretations by their lawyers of commonly accepted doctrines. They're always pushing the envelope for more power and secrecy,...unfortunately that makes Congress even more powerless. Gonzales is proof that the DOJ has been politicized in an over abundant Republican tool,....every huncho making the calls used to be in the whitehouse staff. America is still divided and is splitting at the seams. Bush can only hold on for so long,....the incompetence is glowing like kryptonite until we get a new president.

Thinking Person wrote on July 26, 2007 12:10 PM:

The Democrats who were briefed at March 10, 2004, meeting have all rebutted that the subject was only the TSP.

Paranoid yet? wrote on July 26, 2007 12:23 PM:

"bottomless pit of corruption" (administration)

Bears repeating.

Bears investigation.

TheraP wrote on July 26, 2007 12:29 PM:

Roberta, I don't think you're paranoid. You need to be this suspicious!!!

I think we should turn over every stone. And underneath every one of them seems to be a bunch of tentacles, each one interconnected and all leading back to conspiracy to subvert the constitution.

I don't know if bush has committed treason - but he sure as hell has violated his oath of office in every possible way. (or cheney has - if secretly bush has given him all the power - and your thoughts on this may be accurate)

I'm glad you reposted that. Keep on the case!

powkat wrote on July 26, 2007 12:30 PM:

I think I have a love/hate relationship with Bush: I hate what he has done to the country, to our international reputation, to the Constitution - that part of me wants him to confess and clean up his act. But since I know that will never happen - I love that he continues to be as stupid, arrogant and stubborn as ever, since it will give us a Democratic Congress and a Democratic President in about 18 months.

I think that as long as Congress can keep the AG scandal and the rest of them in the news, they can take their time. Since there is no preemptive pardon (not that the jerk won't try) if we wait until January 2009 to bring charges against Gonzales, et al. there's a better chance of finding out what really happened - to parphrase Johnson, when a man knows he won't be pardoned in a fortnight he's more likely to make a deal for his testimony.

bohdi wrote on July 26, 2007 12:38 PM:

Please someone enlighten me. what difference will Leahy possibly make here with all these hollow threats? He is already giving him wide room to back out of his lies by offering him time to 'revise' his statement. Imagine doing that in any civil or criminal court across the land.

The point is simply missed. These revolutionaries simply do not care an iota how often they are caught in their own web of lies. They know that they hold the power. They know that the Democrats will never attempt to genuinely move on them. Its a silly game that has mothballed the Constitution for nearly 7 years now.

The real question is will they declare martial law and suspend the coming election cycle? Will they move on Iran? The question isn't really about how to prosecute them or what loop hole to close. They have made themselves above the law and they are not prosecutable. But will they now attempt to further consolidate power and how will they do this?

Moondancer wrote on July 26, 2007 12:48 PM:

Hobodeluxe:
If I would have read your comments six years ago I might have thought you were paranoid. Not any more. As scary as your theory is to me, I completely agree that the Bush administration is capable of circumventing the congressional oversight process - and far worse. With this WH, each new revelation is more frightening than the last.

Helen Rainier wrote on July 26, 2007 12:58 PM:

JNagarya -- good points all. Another thing I will point out:

Both the Congress and Senate are bodies that are basically law-making entities. As such, there are rules and evidenciary procedures they have to follow to ensure that all of the "i's are dotted and the t's crossed."

The Bushies consider themselves to be above the law but they aren't. That is WHY it is imperative that everything they do be precisely by the book.

If any of these issues end up in front of the USSC, which could very likely happen, the procedures to get it to the point will have to be extremely precise -- to avoid any possibility of any such cases be thrown out due to technical errors.

Pompano Pete Jr wrote on July 26, 2007 1:32 PM:

Congress cannot go into recess. The potential danger of recess appointments is much too great.

Please contact your Congressmen and Senators to demand that they remain in session.

http://www.senate.gov/

http://www.house.gov/

Our system of government is at risk and an informed citizenry must respond.

David Lasagna wrote on July 26, 2007 1:39 PM:

Seems to me he's lying either way you interpret it. If he's sticking to his most recent remarks, he's lying because documentation and four principles in the gang of eight refute them. If he reverts back to his previous statements that there were no legal objections, Comey's testimony shoots him out of the water. I don't see he's got anywhere left to go. He'll have to make up a new lie. I think he should really take it out there with some LSD admission or something. You know, take it to another level even far beyond the Daily Show.

tekel wrote on July 26, 2007 1:44 PM:

"for the rest of his tenure" which with any luck will be nasty, brutish, and short.

Bonus security code plug: Lying to Congress is a federal felony "crime"

osage wrote on July 26, 2007 2:03 PM:

Please....can someone tell me what happens to the likes of Gonzales, Miers, Bolton, Rove and other enablers/protectors too numerous to mention AFTER Bush is no longer in the White House and a Democrat replaces him? I'd like to understand what these people are doing to their potential legal liabilities by avoiding telling the truth NOW. Can someone help me understand what can happen to them in 2009?

Steve5117 wrote on July 26, 2007 2:26 PM:

osage
Date: July 26, 2007 2:03 PM

May I suggest turning them into Soylent Red?

Bindarra wrote on July 26, 2007 2:39 PM:

Roberta wrote:
"I don't think even the staunchest Bush supporters are comfortable with it" (Cheney's unprecedent access).

I think just the opposite -- they probably feel extremely comfortable with it and make excuses like "a good leader has to delegate" or some such mess. I can't bring myself to listen to talk radio or watch Fox News, but given what prominent right-wing blowhards have said about Bush's "leadership" in the past, I'm betting that would be their take.

SC: cold, as in "it'll be a cold day in hell when this administration is held accountable"

Rocky37 wrote on July 26, 2007 3:01 PM:

"Mark-- And Shrub needs that patsy, because there is clearly something volatile behind all this. Stonewalling is all they have."

BINGO!!! This is just the tip of the iceberg.....

SC: part as in seeing only the tip of

Daniel wrote on July 26, 2007 3:11 PM:

[I've posted this comment to another topic here as well; if that is inappropriate, please delete either post]

I haven't seen any mention of the following conflict and revelation.

This exchange occurred during the most recent hearings:

SCHUMER: OK. Now, you kept referring to this meeting of the gang of eight. Did any member of the gang of eight direct you to go to Ashcroft's hospital bed?
GONZALES: Oh, no. In fact...

SCHUMER: Was there any discussion...

GONZALES: No. I'm not sure that they knew that we went.

SCHUMER: So they had no knowledge you were doing that?

GONZALES: I'll put it this way. I did not tell them that we are going to do it.

Yet, here's what Bill Frist's subsequent statement said about that March 10 meeting:

"I recall being briefed with the others about the program and it was stated that Gonzales would visit with Ashcroft in the hospital"

First, this means that likely one of the two men is lying. But perhaps even more interestingly, if Frist is correct, the other seven members of the Gang of Eight also knew ahead of time that Gonzales was going to visit Ashcroft in the hospital. Those other members were Porter Goss, Dennis Hastert, Tom Daschle, Nancy Pelosi, Jane Harman, Pat Roberts, and Jay Rockefeller.

Jaybee wrote on July 26, 2007 3:13 PM:

Preview of coming 'detractions'! Gonzo is acting under Chimpo's direction and Herr Rove's tutelage. IMHO, the next episode in 'As the World Squirms' staring the 3 stooges above, and cameo appearances by P. Leahly, A Spector, C. Schumer, H Waxman, et al, "The Empire Strikes Back"!!! to be released the week after Congress goes on the Aug recess.

I can just see/hear the shock, the stupefied, OMG look on their faces, the endless nattering on about the unexpectedness of Bush's action; of Gonzo resigning and Bush appointing I. Scooter Libby as Acting Attorney General of the US.

Rationale: Gonzo has been a very effective 'lightening rod' and diversionary stalking horse for Cheney & Rove ' scheme to focus Congressional Committees on DoJ misdeeds, mismanagement and politicalization. Get Congress all fired up,indignant holding pressers, issuing subpoenas , demanding answers and responses from the WH. Hopefully even starting a perjury investigation and taunting them into preparing to issue criminal Contempt of Congress charges against WH operatives Bolton a& Harriet 'Oh, you're wonderful Mr. President", et al [Rove?, Cheney ??]get the national spotlight cranked up on the Gonzo, player by refusing to answer questions while lying about others. Then the 'Confrontation' in the Courthouse' drama - will they or won't they - -BUT NO; Gonzo resigns citing personal reasons and the need to be with his family [the ones still in Mexico]. POOF, Gonzo's gone back to Mexico, POOF all the wind goes out of the Investigating Committees focused on the Gonzo smoking gun and the GOP 'leftovers' are emboldened by the tactical success and somewhat re-energized on returning from a 'home' visit' ass-whupping. Rove & Cheney have sanitized documents and reinforced Dubbya's posthypnotic programming and the planned leaks about "Staying the Course" into 09 have begun.

Can this plot twist REALLY happen; damn right it can! Will it happen - Dunno, but U betcha ass that if I can think it through and after evaluating the Cost Benefit Analysis of this coup [++] to a administration in flames, - - - -
This is a very possible scenario; well except for the Libby appointment. Without Gonzo and the relevant documents, only the hope that another 'Deep Throat' will come up for a breath of fresh air and then display the 'Dirty Laundry'.

aldehyde wrote on July 26, 2007 3:31 PM:

This IS being investigated, he has been lying and "parsing" during all of his testimony. They've given themselves lots of material to pour through, and now they've found it. If he doesn't come back and completely explain it hes going to be investigated for perjury and then impeached and easily convicted in the senate. The investigation isn't going to end there, as other people said: this leads everywhere. Once there is blood in the water and we see that there is more or if we find out what the other secret illegal program was that he is defending I can't see the whitehouse administation lasting very long.

Anonymous wrote on July 26, 2007 3:32 PM:

Again, someone tell me how Gonzales, Miers, Rove and the rest of those who can be prosecuted AFTER Bush leaves office expect to get away with lying NOW when the Dems will come after them when a Democrat is president in 2009! Why can't anyone explain to me what they are setting themselves up for if the next President is a Democrat?

Bindarra wrote on July 26, 2007 3:52 PM:

The AP is reporting that FBI Director Robert Mueller is contradicting Gonzales in testimony he's giving right now.

So what is the administration gonna do? Fire Mueller or make him resign?!? Publically brand him a liar? This will be interesting to watch.

As for what will happen to all the Bushies come 2009, somehow the president will arrange to have them pardoned. I wouldn't be surprised if he claims he has the privilege of issuing a preemptive pardon.

SC wound: as in, "how will the US recover from the wound dealt it by the Bush Administration?"

lysias wrote on July 26, 2007 3:52 PM:

Apparently, FBI Director Mueller has confirmed Comey's -- not Gonzales's -- account of the hospital incident in his testimony now ongoing in a House Judiciary Committee hearing on C-SPAN Radio.

(I'm relying on summaries I read on Daily Kos before I tuned in to the hearing.)

XL wrote on July 26, 2007 3:59 PM:

Gonzales is still a member in good standing with the Texas Bar Association. http://www.texasbar.com/Template.cfm?Section=Member_Directory&Template=/CustomSource/MemberDirectory/Result_form_client.cfm

Discipline can me be imposed when there are ethical violations as it appears to have occured here. However, for the Texas Bar to act, someone has to someone file a complaint (hello there! Citizens of Texas - you don't have to be a lawyer to file a complaint) investigate, and then pursue a prosecution. Normally, only if there a displinary action (suspension, disbarrment or the like) will it become public.

I'm a bit surprised that Gonzales is not a member of the D.C. bar. Was he not practing in D.C. as White House counsel?

XL wrote on July 26, 2007 4:00 PM:

Gonzales is still a member in good standing with the Texas Bar Association. http://www.texasbar.com/Template.cfm?Section=Member_Directory&Template=/CustomSource/MemberDirectory/Result_form_client.cfm

Discipline can me be imposed when there are ethical violations as it appears to have occured here. However, for the Texas Bar to act, someone has to someone file a complaint (hello there! Citizens of Texas - you don't have to be a lawyer to file a complaint) investigate, and then pursue a prosecution. Normally, only if there a displinary action (suspension, disbarrment or the like) will it become public.

I'm a bit surprised that Gonzales is not a member of the D.C. bar. Was he not practing in D.C. as White House counsel?

XL wrote on July 26, 2007 4:01 PM:

Gonzales is still a member in good standing with the Texas Bar Association. http://www.texasbar.com/Template.cfm?Section=Member_Directory&Template=/CustomSource/MemberDirectory/Result_form_client.cfm

Discipline can me be imposed when there are ethical violations as it appears to have occured here. However, for the Texas Bar to act, someone has to someone file a complaint (hello there! Citizens of Texas - you don't have to be a lawyer to file a complaint) investigate, and then pursue a prosecution. Normally, only if there a displinary action (suspension, disbarrment or the like) will it become public.

I'm a bit surprised that Gonzales is not a member of the D.C. bar. Was he not practing in D.C. as White House counsel?

ahem wrote on July 26, 2007 6:11 PM:

"In other words, unless Gonzales can prove that the March 10, 2004 meeting wasn't about the TSP, he's going to be hounded by perjury charges for the rest of his tenure."

But 'TSP' is a mutable term. It's also an after-the-fact label.

Negroponte's memo suggests a continuity, but it's fair to surmise that the program discussed in March 2004 was substantially different -- and most likely broader -- than what the NYT reported on and Bush acknowledged.

Martell wrote on September 24, 2007 8:21 AM:

Work from home, earn decent income and forget about your money worries forever. The Canadian marketer tells you how to build your online empire on a tight budget.

Gehl wrote on September 30, 2007 9:42 PM:

What is email marketing? The effective method of getting new leads for your business.

Jack wrote on October 11, 2007 9:24 AM:

How do you think about passing a drug test. Is it easy or not?