« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Lie, Lie, Lie, Lie, Lie, Lie: Gonzales' Top Six Fibs
The verdict is clear: Alberto Gonzales is the lying-est attorney general in recent history. "I don't trust you," Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) told him last month. Ranking member Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) sounded him out for his "lack of credibility." "He tells the half truth, the partial truth and everything but the truth," said Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said that Gonzales. “He’s one sneaky, lying S.O.B., to put it bluntly" is Rep. David Obey's (D-WI) frank take.
But even though we've been cataloging the troubles, and Gonzales' dwindling credibility, at the Justice Department for the past several months, we hadn't yet done a rundown. So we've collected below what are, as far as we can tell, Gonzales' six most brazen public untruths.
To do this, we were forced to constrain the endeavor. Gonzales' amazingly faulty memory is clearly cause for strong suspicion -- but his countless "I don't recall"s have not yet been proven to be dishonest. And there have been a stream of dubious statements -- such as that he'd never fire a U.S. attorney for political reasons or his insistence that they were fired for "performance" reasons -- countered by weighty circumstantial evidence. But we've set a high bar. Certainly we expect our little list to lengthen in the future as more evidence is produced -- and as Gonzales continues to speak publicly.
We arrived at the six statements below. Some can be judiciously described as lies, i.e. apparently consciously false statements made with the intent to deceive. Some are better described as "wily" prevarications, or as literally true statements made with the intent to deceive or cover up. (I count #2-5 in the former category, #1 and #6 in the latter.)
Yesterday, Sen. Leahy requested that the Justice Department's inspector general investigate five public statements that Gonzales had made -- the same five statements that we chose as #1-5 in our tally. Certainly these statements will play a significant role in impeachment proceedings, should Democrats decide to go that route.
Enjoy:
1) “The disagreement that occurred, and the reason for the visit to the hospital, Senator, was about other intelligence activities. It was not about the terrorist surveillance program that the president announced to the American people.”
-- 7/24/07 testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee
The parsing in this testimony was so awkward, so evidently legalistic, that Gonzales has stood by the testimony, apparently confident that the inherent dishonesty in the distinction did not rise to the level of perjury. He’s since explained that his language “may have created confusion,” but that the “terrorist surveillance program” only referred to a narrow and uncontroversial surveillance activity, and that the dispute which led to his infamous trip to John Ashcroft’s hospital bed was about other activities -- albeit activities that others, like FBI Director Robert Mueller, have consistently viewed as part of a single program. To Mueller apparently, Gonzales' parsing is needlessly misleading.
2) “The consensus in the room from the congressional leadership [the gang of eight] was that we should continue the activities, at least for now, despite the objections of Mr. Comey. There was also consensus that it would be very, very difficult to obtain legislation without compromising this program, but that we should look for a way ahead. It is for this reason that within a matter of hours Andy Card and I went to the hospital."
"I just wanted to put in context for this committee and the American people why Mr. Card and I went. It's because we had an emergency meeting in the White House Situation Room, where the congressional leadership had told us, "Continue going forward with this very important intelligence activity.”
-- 7/24/07 testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee
There were a couple questionable (and contested) assertions in this one. Remember the situation: Deputy Attorney General James Comey was serving as attorney general, since Ashcroft had fallen ill. After Comey refused to reauthorize the administration's warrantless surveillance program, Gonzales and Andrew Card went to the hospital to try and convince Ashcroft to overrule him. FBI Director Robert Mueller's notes on the hospital showdown have since shown that he found Ashcroft to be "feeble, barely articulate, clearly stressed" after the encounter.
First and foremost is Gonzales’ bizarre cover story that admits all of the facts but insists on another interpretation of them. Gonzales claims that he did not go to the hospital room to “take advantage of a very sick man,” as Comey put it in his testimony – no, he went to inform Ashcroft of the congressional leadership’s decision. Of course, he admitted in his testimony that he came to Ashcroft’s hospital room with the reauthorization form in his hand (as Comey had testified). There's no other interpretation than that the reason he went to the hospital room was to have Ashcroft reauthorize the program. So what’s the difference? It’s a matter of emphasis, you might say. According to Gonzales, he was just acting on the will of Congress.
Except he wasn’t. Three people present at the meeting told The Washington Post that the briefing was solely on operational details and not on the legal basis for the program. So when Gonzales says that they wanted to continue the program "despite the objections of Mr. Comey," he's being dishonest. The lawmakers didn't know about Comey's objections. Ex-Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-ND) and Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) have both said unequivocally that the meeting as Gonzales describes it never happened.
3) "I was not involved in seeing any memos, was not involved in any discussions about what was going on."
-- A March 13th press conference on the U.S. attorney firings.
After internal Justice Department emails and memos demonstrated that this was false, Gonzales explained in a March 27th interview: “What I meant was that I have not been involved, was not involved in the deliberations over whether or not United States attorneys should resign.” Kyle Sampson testified two days later to Congress that Gonzales had been periodically updated on the firing process over the course of two years.
4) "I haven't done -- I haven't talked to witnesses because of the fact that I haven't wanted to interfere with this investigation and department investigations."”
-- 4/19/07 testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee
“….as I've indicated, I have not gone back and spoken directly with Mr. Sampson and others who are involved in this process, in order to protect the integrity of this investigation and the investigation of the Office of Professional Responsibility and the Office of Inspector General.”
-- 5/11/07 testimony before the House Judiciary Committee
As Monica Goodling testified, in a private conversation approximately a week after Congress requested to interview her about the firings, Gonzales recounted to her his memory of how the U.S. attorney firings had occurred. He then wanted to know if she had “any reaction” to his recollection. Gonzales later testified that the conversation was “not to shape her testimony” -- it was “in the context of trying to console and reassure an emotionally distraught woman that she had done something wrong.”
5) “The track record established over the past three years has demonstrated the effectiveness of the safeguards of civil liberties put in place when the act was passed. There has not been one verified case of civil liberties abuse.”
-- 4/27/05 testimony before the House intelligence committee
In fact, as reported by The Washington Post (http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003635.php), FBI reports to the attorney general had shown a number of instances of improper surveillance or searches. Gonzales later testified that his testimony had been truthful because these were not “intentional” abuses of the Patriot Act.
6) “…[L]et me publicly sort of preempt, perhaps, a question you're going to ask me, and that is, I am fully committed, as the administration's fully committed, to ensure that, with respect to every United States attorney position in this country, we will have a presidentially appointed, Senate-confirmed United States attorney.”
-- 1/18/07 testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee
What Gonzales didn’t tell Congress is that his chief of staff Kyle Sampson had been scheming for months to circumvent the Senate, via an obscure provision of the Patriot Act that allowed Gonzales to appoint interim U.S. attorneys indefinitely. Sampson wanted to use the authority to keep Karl Rove’s former aide Timothy Griffin in place as Little Rock’s U.S. attorneys, despite opposition from Arkansas’ Democratic senators. He continued to tout the idea until as late as December, even communicating the strategy to lawyers in the White House counsel’s office.
In subsequent testimony, Gonzales admitted to being aware of Sampson’s scheming, but said he’d “never liked” the idea and had never considered it. Sampson, however, testified that Gonzales had considered it, and had only rejected the idea as late as January, shortly before he made the remarks above, and after senators had started asking questions about the U.S. attorney firings. So Gonzales' statement may have been literally true at the time he said it, but his chief of staff had certainly been unaware of such a commitment earlier that same month.
Gonzales appears to have used the same line about being committed to having a Senate-confirmed U.S. attorney a month earlier in a private conversation with Sen. Mark Pryor (D-AR). Of course, back then, Sampson was still avidly pushing his scheme since Gonzales had not rejected it -- a revelation that led Pryor (one of the few Democrats to have supported Gonzales' confirmation as attorney general) to announce on the Senate floor that Gonzales had "lied" to him.
Comments (55)
RWN wrote on August 17, 2007 1:31 PM:So what are we waiting for, why not commence impeachment proceedings?
lawrencekansan wrote on August 17, 2007 1:36 PM:What about the lie that he told to the Sentate, to Hatch I think, that in the bedside conversation with Ashcroft, Ashcroft was as lucid and as clear as he'd ever been, or something like that? That is clearly contradicted by Mueller's notes, right?
William Ockham wrote on August 17, 2007 2:01 PM:Minor nit to pick. You said:
Certainly these statements will play a significant role in impeachment proceedings, should Democrats decide to go that rout.
parrot wrote on August 17, 2007 2:01 PM:I think you intended to for that last word to be route.
That's only the big picture, not all the fibbing, just the general direction of it. AG AG is in for a world of hurt if not pardoned. And that's why these guys are so desperate to avoid impeachment...why they are being helped in that regard is likely due ot their ability to blackmail using the power of our own government to continue their thuggishness.
Sean wrote on August 17, 2007 2:14 PM:If the highest ranking law enforcement oficer in the nation doesn't respect the rule of law, why should anyone else?
This administration always talks about sending messages. The message: We are a yellow bellied lawless nation that doesn't even have the strength of character to stand by our actions. We teach our children to tell the truth - they teach our children how to be smug little bullshitters.
We should all follow their example and hold the courts and law enforcement in contempt. We should all just refuse to pay our tickets, our taxes, fail to show up to court or claim executive privelege.
This admiinstration makes me ashamed to call myself American.
For Whom the Bell Tolls wrote on August 17, 2007 2:36 PM:I've learned to speak Canadian. You can too, eh?
Johann wrote on August 17, 2007 2:40 PM:Post by: William Ockham
Date: August 17, 2007 2:01 PM
Minor nit to pick. You said:
Certainly these statements will play a significant role in impeachment proceedings, should Democrats decide to go that rout.
I think you intended to for that last word to be route.
A freudian slip? Hopefully going that route would be a rout.
phil james wrote on August 17, 2007 2:44 PM:Johnny we hardly knew ye! During his reign as AG, we Dems would often cringe at Ashcroft's positions and pronouncements (as well as his singing). Little did we know that he was in fact in some cases acting in the nation's interest but he would soon be ousted and replaced by an AG who could truly carry the Bush/Cheney/Rove agenda with no compunction and not a scintilla of interest in the US Constitution or the rights of ordinary Americans. Oh, how we long for the days of Ashcroft.
alley wrote on August 17, 2007 2:51 PM:It is strange how a handful of people in power can totally mess up the world.
Long Memory wrote on August 17, 2007 3:00 PM:This small group of people put Iraq on the map.
Now they want to spy on us, when we are are not the source of the ills of this world they are, they have lost the ability to understand others.
99.999 percent of the worlds population would love to live their lives in peace, but will never happen as long as we trust those who now hold power. we really need to vote those old timers out of Congress.
I've always been embarrassed for Bill Clinton. In the presence of Fredo, Bill Clinton is a piker, and unmitigated truth-teller. It's sad for Bill. New standards in prevarication, that will be Alfredo Gonzalez's legacy.
moondancer wrote on August 17, 2007 3:01 PM:The faster he becomes history, the faster
tamiasmin wrote on August 17, 2007 3:15 PM:cheneys empire collapses. The glue to the obstruction is consigliare fredo.
Sean wrote:
"We should all follow their example and hold the courts and law enforcement in contempt. We should all just refuse to pay our tickets, our taxes, fail to show up to court or claim executive privelege."
Not good advice. You cannot flout the law with impunity unless you control it. Ordinary people are still bound by the rule of law. Call it tyranny's Catch-22.
RWN wrote on August 17, 2007 3:37 PM:This is what gets me....but I see the logic...refer the matter to the solicitor general, it is suppressed by the President, now the only move is impeachment....move to the House,,,
now impeachment provides special investigative powers that the executive privalege cannot hold up to....impeachment of the DOJ moves to a vote, then in the evidence an impeachment of the VP and Pres...naturally this is made partisan but to overcome that charge it must hold on the evidence...
dalloway wrote on August 17, 2007 3:40 PM:And Congressional Democrats STILL won't consider impeachment. Politics trumps the rule of law every time. Democrats' spineless enabling is what oils the Republican corruption machine -- and they wonder why their JAR is in the toilet. Don't they understand they're supposed to be the good guys, who do the right thing regardless of their personal political safety? The security code is "green," as in how green is the money they get from corporate America to NOT do their jobs.
Tired of the BS wrote on August 17, 2007 3:40 PM:Unfortunately, you're preaching to the choir. These lies are so transparent that they force one to ask the question, Why do they lie? This administration has proven again and again that they have no concern for the opininions, the desires, or the needs of the american people nor do they have any deference to the rule of law or to the constitution. Lying to them is just an expression of their cynicism, just like Bush's uncontrollable smirks, evident every time he speaks to us. Somehow, I just feel like we are being led into the showers.
p_lukasiak wrote on August 17, 2007 3:42 PM:"What about the lie that he told to the Sentate, to Hatch I think, that in the bedside conversation with Ashcroft, Ashcroft was as lucid and as clear as he'd ever been, or something like that? That is clearly contradicted by Mueller's notes, right?"
not quite. Mueller was not in the room when Gonzo and Card were there .... and Comey testified that he was surprised at how forcefully Ashcroft managed to blow off Gonzo and Card.
Ducky wrote on August 17, 2007 3:52 PM:In reference to "lie #2, Tom Daschle D-ND":Isn't Tom Daschle from South Dakota?
ARG in Chicago wrote on August 17, 2007 3:55 PM:^^
Yes -- what are we waiting for??
Maybe some members of Congress, or their staff, read this TPM site. If you are they, please tell me:
What are we waiting for? Isn't this enough to get a "warm-up" impeachment going for Gonzo?
Then we can move on to the big Dick. And finish off with Bush (who would probably resign a sniveling blob after Gonzo goes, and Uncle Dickie is shown the door).
Let's get it started. IMPEACHMENT NOW!!
-- ARG
Nell wrote on August 17, 2007 4:05 PM:Lying to Congress is a crime. There's regular perjury, which a couple of the lies above rise to. But it needn't be perjury to be a crime; two other separate statutes discussed in an Elizabeth de la Vega piece could form the basis for many, many counts against Gonzales.
de la Vega points out that Specter made much of these other statutes back when the Judiciary Committee, with him as chair, was taking testimony from Gonzales without him being sworn in. When Dems objected, Specter insisted that there was no need because these other statutes could be used to hold him accountable.
I say let's do it now (Specter, of course, now talks only about perjury... and lets Gonzales off the hook for that). The de la Vega article is at:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/080307R.shtml
Austin Cooper wrote on August 17, 2007 4:07 PM:Yes, what are we waiting for?
Get rid of him. Impeach him. NOW.
Impeach ALL of them.
.
Johnny2Bad wrote on August 17, 2007 4:10 PM:God, that reads like a John Kerry stump speech.
sca88805 wrote on August 17, 2007 4:18 PM:Maybe we should all start citing "executive privilege" when refusing to answer legal and judicial questions. When asked the basis of our claim, we can say, "in alignment with the President's directive, the basis and extent of [our] claim is also privileged."
Nannie nannie boo boo,
ARG in Chicago wrote on August 17, 2007 4:56 PM:if it's good for King George,
it's good for me and you.
+
Thanks for the link to the Elizabeth de la Vega article, Nell.
Excellent point! We shouldn't allow the Republicans (Specter chief among them) to move the goalposts and raise the bar, to frame the issue as being only about purjury.
In light of 18 USC Section 1001, as Ms. de la Vega explains so well, Gonzo appears clearly to be guilty of lying to Congress. That should be ample reason to impeach him and toss him out of office.
And/or we'd get some Republican senators -- like Specter -- on record explaining a convoluted rationale to justify voting against a conviction. That would at least be entertaining.
Impeach now!!
-- ARG
JakeInDK wrote on August 17, 2007 5:08 PM:Seems like another example of the 'legal-industrial complex'. Has this lawyer broken the law? Dunno, let's ask some lawyers. What? they don't agree? We need more lawyers - judges even! Wait - some lawyers say these judges don't have legal authority to judge this case. If only a lawyer could tell us... etc. ad infinitum.
It would be rank hypocrisy to lament the treatment of Jose Padilla without granting Presumption of Innocence to Alberto Gonzales. No?
714Day wrote on August 17, 2007 5:25 PM:ARG don't count on Spectre to jump aboard anything other than the gravy train. He's always the partisan hack in the end.
As to earlier mention of freudian slips...Alberto's own statements - even when he's obfuscating are riddled with them:
marshall wrote on August 17, 2007 5:40 PM:"it was “in the context of trying to console and reassure an emotionally distraught woman that she had done something wrong.”"
Indeed, Goodling had done alot of something wrong.
Has anyone notice that Alberto Gonzales looks like Pervez Musharraf. Are these guys long lost brothers?
Kitt wrote on August 17, 2007 5:41 PM:"It would be rank hypocrisy to lament the treatment of Jose Padilla without granting Presumption of Innocence to Alberto Gonzales. No?"
Posted by: JakeInDK
In the mean time, how about we remove Alberto from society and place him in a prison while he awaits his fate. Same treatment that Padilla got - minus the torture. Would that be all right with you, Jake?
Katie wrote on August 17, 2007 5:59 PM:So let me get this straight. Alberto Gonzales lies and lies and lies to Congress. And then Congress, instead of voting to impeach him, votes to give him temporary enhanced surveillance powers. The euphoria I felt when the Dems took the Congressional majority in the last election has turned to confusion and despair. I'd scream "Impeach, impeach" as these other comments do, but I've lost faith that it will happen.
Steve Rapport wrote on August 17, 2007 6:00 PM:"Gonzales later testified that his testimony had been truthful because these were not “intentional” abuses of the Patriot Act."
IIRC, the Washington Post article highlighted one abuse of the Partiot Act that was intentional, as defined by the FBI themselves. So this was a lie all round.
Fredo: "It ain't the way I wanted it! I can handle things! I'm smart! Not like everybody says... like dumb... I'm smart and I want respect!"
James A. Webster wrote on August 17, 2007 6:52 PM:I guess calling Bush a liar is getting old hat and now it's time for Gonzales to get the lib treatment: "Liar, liar, pants on fire!". Of course we all know libs never lie (except about sex). Repeating a lie often enough will make some people (stupid people) believe the lie. The leaders of the Democratic party understand this very well and that is why they keep feeding this Liar, Liar stuff to their hungry for hate base.
James A. Webster wrote on August 17, 2007 6:53 PM:I guess calling Bush a liar is getting old hat and now it's time for Gonzales to get the lib treatment: "Liar, liar, pants on fire!". Of course we all know libs never lie (except about sex). Repeating a lie often enough will make some people (stupid people) believe the lie. The leaders of the Democratic party understand this very well and that is why they keep feeding this Liar, Liar stuff to their hungry for hate base.
MarktheSpark wrote on August 17, 2007 7:03 PM:I agree w/ Kitt, above. They're spitting in our faces, & the Demos not only do nothing, they give the lying thugs more power. We have a one-party state of the elite, who can't even be troubled to pretend there's any accountability
JakeInDK wrote on August 17, 2007 7:10 PM:Kitt, while it might get my rocks off to see Abu G subjected to the worst (best?) interrogation techniques available, my comment was meant to illustrate the disconnect between 'law' as it applies to the common (wo)man and The Law as applied to those privileged enough to pay for it.
It was an ad absurdum argument, not a statement of conviction.
Gonzales should be tried and - hopefully - convicted with all the (open and transparent) power of the American legal system.
Herb wrote on August 17, 2007 8:15 PM:Al Gonzales's main problem is the daily-marijuana. The wine and hard-liquor doesn't help, that's for sure, but it's not EVERY DAY, ALL - DAY, like the weed. The "pot" turns him into some kinda half-dead voodoo-zombie, and he doesn't do any work! LAZY BASTARD!
He invariablyt ends-up watching HBO all night, every time, the night before a Congressional hearing. Karl would usually give him a binder of canned-responses, and specific White House positions on relevant issues... but he wouldn't even open the first page... STONER!
HE DOES NOT DRINK OR USE DRUGS WHEN HE'S ON CAPITOL HILL, OR OTHERWISE APPEARTING, ON OFFICIAL A.G. BUSINESS. DEFINITELY NOT, EXCEPT FOR HIS SECOND HOUSE-JUDICIARY-COMMITTEE APPEARANCE; AND HIS SENATE APPEARANCES; AND SPEECHES TO HIGH-SCHOOL KIDS, AND...
piggly wrote on August 17, 2007 8:32 PM:I'm struck by two things
1) Congress should see this as a direct attack on theirauthority. They do nothing.
2) If an ordinary person were to act in the manner tha Gonzo has we would be in jail now if not under the jail.
Sam wrote on August 17, 2007 8:34 PM:If the Attorney General is a liar, then you can't trust anyone in the Justice Department. Disband the whole thing and send their funding to the states. There's nothing they do that states and localities couldn't do better.
v. populi wrote on August 17, 2007 8:44 PM:"I guess calling Bush a liar is getting old hat and now it's time for Gonzales to get the lib treatment: "Liar, liar, pants on fire!". Of course we all know libs never lie (except about sex). Repeating a lie often enough will make some people (stupid people) believe the lie. The leaders of the Democratic party understand this very well and that is why they keep feeding this Liar, Liar stuff to their hungry for hate base."
hey James A. Webster,
We all still think Bush is a liar, and there's plenty of evidence to support this. it's not a matter of "believing the lie" because lies are false, and these happen to be facts. prewar intelligence tampering and WMD? you can't use tenet as the fall guy for an entire war. if at any time bush or cheney or the collective cabinet had wanted to stop this thing, they could've. you can't blame congress either, because they were being fed the intelligence cooked up by whom? oh yeah, the executive branch.
gonzo is just the latest bumbling liar, and it's thanks to his and the WH's stonewalling that we have to continue to press this until we get transparency on all of these scandals...just take your pick.. the inquiring public has a right to question the workings & affairs of its own government, and receive truthful answers. i think they lay out 6 good lies here. you'd have to be an idiot to believe Gonzo was being truthful about not being able to recall any single detail about the meeting where the 7 attorneys were approved by him to be fired - after having a month to prepare for the hearing at which he was supposed to provide candid answers about said meeting. we all know that's b.s., and that the executive branch was trying to exert partisan influence on elections by pressuring and then firing USAs.
i don't think asking for transparency from OUR EMPLOYEES is too much to ask. we sign their paychecks, government serves the people, and transparency has been enshrined by democracy ever since FOIA and before. and we have a right to call them what they are as often as we want to, under the first amendment. liars.
we didn't want to hate these people when they were elected/appointed, they just make it so easy by failing us or lying to us at every turn.
i think we can all acknowledge that both sides of the aisle lie. at least we know that no democrats perpetrated the lies about WMD that led us into this illegal war.
deRougemont wrote on August 17, 2007 9:34 PM:I think we all suspect now that the reclacitrance of the Congress in forwarding impeachment proceedings is due to the Bush adm having found enough 'dirt' on each of them (through the NSA wiretaps) for blackmail purposes. If all these congress people would come out and admit their 'mistakes' en masse and the fact that the Bush adm has been holding the info over their heads, the 'dirty' details would evaporate instantly in the face of the larger crime, and we could start fresh. PLEASE someone be bold!
Duilawyer wrote on August 17, 2007 9:58 PM:To JakeinDK. ""It would be rank hypocrisy to lament the treatment of Jose Padilla without granting Presumption of Innocence to Alberto Gonzales. No?"
Posted by: JakeInDK"
Give up the idea you have any legal opinion worth sharing.
The presumption of innocence applies only to the jury in his trial, not us. We do not have to assume Hitler was innocent because he was never tried. You really are a joke.
JD21 wrote on August 17, 2007 10:11 PM:Oh my. Remember the scandal about Al Gore taking a few campaign contribution calls from the White House. Well this makes that look like a drop in the ocean. A drop in the ocean of sorry Republican Party disgraces. These incompetent Republican politicians took MY MONEY to get themselves reelected against my vote!!! Now that makes me really mad.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/19034.html
olo wrote on August 17, 2007 10:50 PM:Hay! I recall reading recently that the isolation techniques used by the US on padilla & others are for the purpose of helping them "Focus" on remembering details of their activities.
In view of all the scores of big & small details he can't recall, perhaps congress ought to offer gonzo the same kind of memory "Focus" assistance that helped padilla remember things he probably didn't even know he knew, much less - forgot.
It's the least we can do.
whizkid wrote on August 18, 2007 2:04 AM:We all know people like Bush and Gonzalez.
Rev G. wrote on August 18, 2007 9:33 AM:Except the people we know don't have their money or power.
The people we know end up dead in a flop house with a hooker.
Or end up with a dead hooker in a flop house.
I don't understand all the carping about Bush and Gonzalez and Cheney.....Everyone knew that they were lying bastards before they were in office....Give them a break....
Joe wrote on August 18, 2007 9:37 AM:Security code "mine?" How topical.
Clearly, Congress as a whole is unwilling to impeach. The provision seems to be in there for the overall concept (like titles of nobility really aren't used to carry out any particular law) that executive officials (and judges, but "good behavior" does that too) are not to be considered there by right as long as the President wants.
Anyway, this is a warning for the future. Confirming Fredos in the future or even voting for Presidents who would appoint them cannot be deemed acceptable. Simply put, if a presidential candidate doesn't strongly reject this and other anti-republican (small 'r') acts, they by def. shouldn't have our votes.
Jim wrote on August 18, 2007 10:19 AM:Leave Alberto alone, but make him the poster-child of what America gets when it elects the current breed of republicans.
There have been so many awful and anti-government political appointees why not begin to reveal the record, and Alberto is the quintessential Bush appointee.
JEP wrote on August 18, 2007 11:02 AM:Paul;
Truth, truth, truth, truth, TRUTH!!!
(one for each lie!)
This kind of dissemination helps all of us out here in laymanville understand the situation so much better.
Our suspicions, our gut-feelings that we are being lied to, our nagging uncertainties about the staccato stream of constant lies, can make us all passionately confused...
Your ongoing coverage and this type of qualification just takes the confusion away.
I remember being on the Gabbly at Firedog Lake during the coverage of one of these Gonzo lie-fests, and someone suggested we start counting lies as they were spoken.
Within a few minutes, we just gave up, because every word that proceeded for Gonzo's mouth was either not-so-subtle obfuscation or outright deceit. It happened so fast, it was hard to sort out all the overlapping lies and their total implications.
And here you have taken the most egregious of Gonzo's deceptions and exposed them very clearly. The overload of lies CAN be sorted out, and we all thank you for your generous scrutiny.
There's one line in your post today that I'd like to highlight;
"but his countless "I don't recall"s have not yet been proven to be dishonest."
Like I said, our gut-feelings toold us then that Gonzo was lying, you have expressed clearly some of those lies.
But, due to the complicity of the MSM in this total subterfuge, it is going to be up to people like you, and "blogs" like this one, to "prove" the dishonesty oin those unmentioned lies,
This "short-list"of lies is a great beginning.
But keep after em', you are the best watchdogs barking right now.
Ernieson wrote on August 18, 2007 2:53 PM:The blatant lie I saw Gonzo tell was when testifying before the Congressional Committee and he was asked about clarifying an earlier statement he had falsely given in a news conference.
Anonymous wrote on August 18, 2007 8:03 PM:He said he had clarified it to a reporter.
When asked who the reporter was and for whom the reporter worked, he turned to his aides twice and responded with the name of the reporter and the Washington Post. Seconds later, when asked what was said to the reporter, he admitted that it was not he who had spoken to the reporter and he did not know what was said to the reporter. He was caught red handed in a lie to Congress and yet he remains as the nation's top law enforcement officer. How can this be? He does not serve the people of this country as he is supposed to do. He serves as Bush's personal attorney. Impeach the dishonest, incompetent political party servant who is not doing the job of Attorney General of the United States of America -but rather the Bush Administration. Collectively, they have riddled the Constitution and ruined everything good this nation once stood for.
And he STILL hasn't been impeached.
JusticeForall wrote on August 18, 2007 8:34 PM:Ernieson, I agree with all your points but one. I disagree that everything good is "ruined"
Marnie wrote on August 18, 2007 9:17 PM:In tatters,severely wounded,yes, but ruined?NO. All of us fighting for the Constitution, for truth, our freedoms, transparency and accountability are like a big rock rolling downhill collecting more and more speed and strength as we go. Truth and Justice WILL survive. We the People will not allow a small band of psychopathic, self serving zealots to "ruin" our beloved USofA.
We have a lot of work ahead, Im up for the task and I bet you are too.
Impeachment can begin AFTER he is out of office. We don't want to rush it and miss something, they are witholding all the evidence and stonewalling,committing more crimes trying to coverup what they did. Once he's gone he no longer can continue to hide behind Gonzo. I feel the Dems want to run out the clock until Bush is powerless to pardon or allow anyone else to escape justice. When he is out of office then go after them ALL and indict them for conspiracy,war profiterring, RICO violations, Hatch Act violations, contempt of Congress (and lord knows how many other criminal charges) and that's just in terms of his domestic actions. We have to weed out all the partisan neocon Christian zealot plants they placed in our government in positions of power. I don't want another criminal (like Libby) to weasel out of punishment and accountability because they proceeded to impeachment with their hands tied due to lack of evidence they are witholding! Bush/Cheney belong in the Hague in front of a judge to be tried before the entire world for War Crimes they have committed in addition to all their crimes here at home.
America WILL survive this and be stronger for it. It's gonna hurt us more before it gets better I'm afraid but a handful of evil men can't ruin our great country.
I agree with the first writer.
The Oracle wrote on August 18, 2007 9:34 PM:Why are we not already proceeding against the sewer rat?
We need to prevent further harm by him and we need to send a strong message that this kind of assault against the institutions of this country will be harshly punished.
For Republican plans to steal the November 2008 elections to succeed, Alberto Gonzales must stay as Attorney General.
Gonzales took over the Justice Department from Ashcroft with the express goal of turning Justice into a poltical arm of the Republican Party, using the power of Justice to "fix" the elections next year, to reverse Republican losses suffered in last year's election, and hold onto the White House.
Thus, the firings of the U.S. Attorneys who wouldn't "get with" the Republican "game plan." As well as these "disloyal" U.S. Attorneys being replaced with purely partisan hacks.
Moreover, Gonzales oversaw the attempt to completely politicize the Justice Department by having loyal Republicans like Monica Goodling hiring only other loyal Republicans as career Justice Department entry-level employees.
Therefore, for "culture of corruption" Republicans to continue this "shadow" attempt at perverting one of our most important "rule of law" federal departments, Alberto Gonzales must stay on as Attorney General.
Which is why all patriotic U.S. citizens should keep calling for the impeachment of Alberto Gonzales...the most lyingest, cheatingest, thievingest Attorney General in our nation's history.
Of course, anyone that Bush nominates to replace the impeached Gonzales will probably be just as bad, but at least Gonzales (and his perverted vision for Justice) will be gone.
JusticeForall wrote on August 18, 2007 10:34 PM:If the Pres simply refuses to act and fire him like any decent President would, because he is the AG, the highest legal authority in the land, the President is his only authority. Scary stuff.
bill wrote on August 19, 2007 4:17 PM:The legal mangle this has created for our reps is monunemtal. I see why they aren't proceeding with actions against AGAG yet, I don't think that makes me unpatriotic, just realistic. Legal proceedings are painfully slow. They are building their case and the admin. and Gonzo are giving it to them piece by piece.
I am not a lawyer but even to a lay person it seems they are in a real legal pickle because Fredo's "boss" is the President, so he is essentially the "check" to an out of control AG, and he himself is a criminal. This being the case, it seems to me they ALL have to be impeached/indicted at once, Bush, Cheney, Rove and Gonzales. As far as we know, they do not have what they need to do that yet.
Personally I don't understand why We the People aren't taking to the streets in large numbers in marches and protests all over the nation to end our illegal occupation of Iraq and have ALL of the WH cabal removed. Forcibly.
James A. Webster, don't look now but your pants are on fire. Reich wing fascist talkers like you are ruining America. Go to Iraq or STFU.
Paul wrote on August 20, 2007 7:53 AM:Oh James Webster. I didn't think idiots like you were around anymore (you only need to press the enter key once machoboy). people like you are soley responsible for all that has happened to your sad disaster of a country, and the damage done to all other countries sucked into the Republican/Likud/Neocon nightmare. You are a fool of the highest order, but I suppose the final outcome of this battle for global control will determine whether you end up being called a traitor or not. I personally don't need to wait that long to call you out right now.
Spencer wrote on August 27, 2007 3:54 PM:Just a minor correction- under #2, you cite Tom Daschle as (D-ND). He actually represented South Dakota.