Showing posts with label alberto gonzales. Show all posts
Showing posts with label alberto gonzales. Show all posts
Thursday, August 02, 2007
All The President's Enablers
Congress shouldn't impeach Alberto Gonzales. That would be too hasty according to the editorial in the Washington Post today. They shouldn't request a special prosecutor either. That would be too expensive. Sure, Gonzales is a crook, but let's take care of him Fred Hiatt style.
In Mr. Gonzales's case, there's a good alternative to such extreme measures. The senators put their request for a special prosecutor to Solicitor General Paul D. Clement, who is functioning as the acting attorney general on these issues because Mr. Gonzales is recused. Mr. Clement, in turn, has the option of referring the matter to Justice Department Inspector General Glenn A. Fine.
This is just as good! The democrats can hope that Clement gets the Inspector General on the case. This is much more effective than impeachment. When the IG starts investigating, heads start to immediately roll.
Mr. Fine and the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility are already investigating apparent contradictions in the testimonies of Mr. Gonzales and former aide Monica M. Goodling over the U.S. attorney firings. And since at least last November, the inspector general has been examining Justice's use of the surveillance program.
For nine months now, the obviously illegal surveillance program has been under investigation. There should be a report issued by the time the Chelsea Clinton administration is sworn in to office. I think the IG could crack the whip and get this report on Alberto Gonzales done in a year. Then in August 2008, if we are lucky, he can recommend a special prosecutor, or as an alternative put Gonzales on double secret probation. In September, right before the elections we can get congress to fund the office, and staff can be hired, the investigation starting to roll just as Alberto Gonzales is leaving office.
Or we could ignore the Washington Post and shit can Gonzales for being a lying creep.
One of the two would work.
Wednesday, August 01, 2007
Secrets & Lies
The Bush administration's chief intelligence official said yesterday that President Bush authorized a series of secret surveillance activities under a single executive order in late 2001. The disclosure makes clear that a controversial National Security Agency program was part of a much broader operation than the president previously described.
The disclosure by Mike McConnell, the director of national intelligence, appears to be the first time that the administration has publicly acknowledged that Bush's order included undisclosed activities beyond the warrantless surveillance of e-mails and phone calls that Bush confirmed in December 2005.
In a letter to Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), McConnell wrote that the executive order following the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks included "a number of . . . intelligence activities" and that a name routinely used by the administration -- the Terrorist Surveillance Program -- applied only to "one particular aspect of these activities, and nothing more."
Where exactly is the congressional and judicial oversight on these programs? The reason we have checks and balances is that having Alberto Gonzales be the person to decide if something should be legal or not is not a very good way of running a government.
The sixth circuit recently threw out a lawsuit by people who had reasonable suspicion (but no proof) that they were being spied upon by the NSA program. The court's reasoning was that until you had cause or grounds to sue, you had no right to be in court.
This is the danger of an unchecked executive. They could be doing terrible, ineffective, unconstitutional actions. Nobody knows. The people who lose their privacy rights have no way of knowing they were spied upon, so there is no redress in court.
To put a wild example on this, what if the President signed a secret order that one out of every 20 redheaded people must be killed, and it should be made to look like an accident or natural causes. A family of redheads might think that somebody in their family was murdered, but would have no proof, and no standing in court to challenge the order.
That is where oversight is critical. Congress can say, "Hey. I like Juliane Moore. You can kill Carrot Top, but that's as far as we will go with this program". Instead, six years after the fact, congress is informed that the administration engaged in some secretive activities that may be constitutionally suspect, and congress still isn't allowed to know about the programs.
Does anybody trust Alberto and Harriet being the sole checks on Dick Cheney's wildest dreams of executive authority to disregard the constitution?
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Chicken Little, Scientists Spar On Sky's Stability
The headline today in the Washington Post reads 'Gonzales, Senators Spar on Credibility'. Once again, journalism is twisted to be "balanced" when the facts don't support any nuance. EVERY Senator taking part in discussions with Gonzales who has gone on the record, has called him untruthful about a meeting that took place. Yesterday, Gonzales tried to blame the group of bipartisan Senators for going to visit then AG Ashcroft in the hospital while Ashcroft was sedated.
Former Senator Daschle, Speaker Pelosi, and Senator Rockefeller all say Gonzales is lying. Gonzales has no credibility. The acting AG James Comey disputes Gonzales' account as well.
Spar on credibility? Our AG lies repeatedly in front of congress. He is continually contradicted by everybody who testifies. He was contradicted by Monica Goodling, Kyle Sampson, James Comey, now three powerful members of congress.
They are just sparring though. It's bullshit language that allows this criminal to stay in office. Our chief law enforcement official is a liar. The Post knows it, the congress knows it, the White House knows it, but we politely dance around the issue like it's a matter of somebody passing gas in an elevator.
No wonder out constitution is being violated repeatedly. No, check that. We are sparring over the meaning of the bill of rights.
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Gonzales Perjured Himelf In Front Of Congress
As he sought to renew the USA Patriot Act two years ago, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales assured lawmakers that the FBI had not abused its potent new terrorism-fighting powers. "There has not been one verified case of civil liberties abuse," Gonzales told senators on April 27, 2005.
Six days earlier, the FBI sent Gonzales a copy of a report that said its agents had obtained personal information that they were not entitled to have. It was one of at least half a dozen reports of legal or procedural violations that Gonzales received in the three months before he made his statement to the Senate intelligence committee, according to internal FBI documents released under the Freedom of Information Act.
The article goes on to detail the violations that the FBI had created. This is yet another example though of a journalist not speaking in plain english.
Gonzales lied.
He lied. The article states that "he was told" and then doesn't draw the conclusion. During the attorney firings hearings I read reports that Gonzales' testimony was "at odds" with the record, or "contradicts" sworn testimony, or "doesn't appear to be accurate".
He is a liar. It isn't being balanced to not just say it. I will repeat something I say often. If something is black, and somebody says it's white, it is not balanced to say things could be gray.
Monday, June 11, 2007
Once again, Joe Lieberman stabbed his former democratic colleagues in the back. While a handful of Republicans voted with the democrats to vote no confidence in Alberto Gonzales, Lieberman stood "bravely" with 38 Republicans to say "heckofa job" Abu. Leadership means doing the right thing.
Lieberman's reasoning is likely the following. Sure, Alberto Gonzales may be an incompetent manager, has acted unethically, likely perjured himself in front of congress. He has taken no responsibility for the US Attorney firing scandal but....
Alberto Gonzales believes the Geneva Conventions and the Magna Carta are quaint. Lieberman wants us to torture more than he cares about the constitution. How Harry Reid can allow Lieberman to caucus with the majority, and have the chairmanship of the Governmental Affairs Committee is beyond me. Leadership means doing the right thing.
Lieberman already broke a campaign promise to use this perch to investigate what happened during Katrina, to only right after the election say he was teasing. Leadership means doing the right thing.
A person who approves of torture, constitutional violations and incompetence has no business being aligned with a democratic majority. By condoning Lieberman's actions, it makes it hard for voters to tell the difference between Democrats and the Conneticut for Lieberman party? Is there a difference Senator Reid?
If you feel inclined to call the Majority Leader on this issue, the number for the Capital switchboard is (202) 224-3121.
Listening to the Senate debate, it's pretty amazing. Even movement conservatives have started suggesting Alberto Gonzales should be fired or resign. It's all about party now.
Nobody can say with a straight face that Gonzales is even a good manager leaving aside all the ethical problems involved in his department. What is the standard now? Does he have to be caught with a live boy or dead girl? Apparently, anything else he does is ok by Mitch McConnell.
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
That should be the highlight of Monica Goodling's testimony at the end of the day. Alberto Gonzales testified in front of congress that he didn't know who put the names on the list of fired attorneys because he didn't want to interfere with the investigation by colluding with other people who would have to testify in front of congress.
Today, Monica Goodling testified that Alberto Gonzales tried to collude on testimony with her after it was known congress wanted to speak with her. He also lied about not discussing the case with other key witnesses. This is three felonies right there.
The attorney general of the United States has committed multiple felonies.
Monica Goodling testified that Kyle Sampson lied to congress about putting Bud Cummings on the list. She testified that Deputy AG McNalty lied to congress about not being aware of white house involvement. She testified that she illegally staffed the justice department on a loyalty basis.
So far, we just have Goodling's word that one name was put on the list by one person. The AG, and his three top deputies have now all testified to congress that none of them are aware of who added the names to the list. We get cynical about politics and treat it as a sport, but Monica Goodling today in essence testified that everybody in the leadership of the justice department is a felon.
Where is Barry Goldwater? Will one Republican stand up and say we believe in conservative values of obeying the law, being honest and scrupulous in our public service, having personal integrity? Is there no-one?
A quick addendum:Other than Kyle Sampson putting Bud Cummings name on the list to be fired according to Goodling, nobody yet has taken any responsibility. All the top people at Justice have testified. They have all denied doing it, or knowing who did. Using Occam's razor, one of them is lying. Even if the White House drew up the list, they had to hand it to somebody at justice. The person would be either Sampson, Goodling, McNulty, or Gonzales. There is a lot of perjury going on.
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Yes, of course, Alberto Gonzales must go. His gross mismanagement of the U.S. Department of Justice by enabling White House political meddling in the professional ranks has ripped apart the department.
He no longer has the support of a growing number of members of Congress, including from within the Republican Party. He does not deserve the support of the American people. If he will not resign, and if the president will not fire him, Congress should begin proceedings to impeach him.
That should be just the beginning of the work of Congress, however. Based on new details that emerged before the Senate Judiciary Committee last week, more questions must be asked of Bush administration officials, including whether President Bush personally - and in contradiction of the advice of his attorney general and the Justice Department's top legal adviser - directed spying on American citizens in violation of the law.
That is from the Des Moines Register. I personally think we should call it the San Francisco Register now myself, because obviously their values are all out of whack.
Monday, May 21, 2007
President George W. Bush on Monday accused Democrats in Congress who are seeking no-confidence votes on Attorney General Alberto Gonzales of engaging in "pure political theater."
Brushing aside concerns from Republicans as well as Democrats about the effectiveness of the chief U.S. law enforcement officer, Bush said: "He has got my confidence. He has done nothing wrong."
Senate Democrats last week announced plans to offer a resolution of no confidence in Gonzales, and two Democrats in the House of Representatives introduced one on Monday. Neither measure is expected to be voted on until after Congress' week-long recess, set to begin on Saturday.
Bush on the other hand never allows politics to dictate what he does.
Saturday, May 19, 2007
In March 2004, the acting attorney general distrusted Alberto Gonzales so much that he wouldn’t meet with him at the White House without a witness. Eight months later, President Bush promoted Mr. Gonzales from White House counsel to attorney general, the top law enforcement job in the land. The president is still standing by his man, ignoring Mr. Gonzales’s efforts to mislead Congress, his disregard for the Constitution and his gross neglect of even basic bureaucratic duties.
It’s a familiar pattern: Mr. Bush sticks by his most trusted aides no matter how evident it is — even to the Republican Congressional chorus — that they are guilty of incompetence, bad judgment, malfeasance or all three. (George Tenet, the director of central intelligence; Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld; and the Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers spring to mind.)
Each time, we’re told Mr. Bush repays loyalty with loyalty. We’re told it’s a sign of character. We don’t buy the explanation. The more persuasive answer is that Mr. Bush protects his embattled advisers because they are doing precisely what he told them to do.
Although bloggers have been saying this for years, it's nice to see the Times join the party.
Friday, May 18, 2007
For the second day in a row, the Washington Post editorializes against the incident where Alberto Gonzales and Andy Card tried to get a drugged, just out of surgery, John Ashcroft to sign off on a spying program that he thought was illegal. Even in his drugged state, Ashcroft refused, but they went ahead anyways. Fred Hiatt at the Post still isn't all the way into the reality based world though.
IT DOESN'T much matter whether President Bush was the one who phoned Attorney General John D. Ashcroft's hospital room before the Wednesday Night Ambush in 2004. It matters enormously, however, whether the president was willing to have his White House aides try to strong-arm the gravely ill attorney general into overruling the Justice Department's legal views. It matters enormously whether the president, once that mission failed, was willing nonetheless to proceed with a program whose legality had been called into question by the Justice Department. That is why Mr. Bush's response to questions about the program yesterday was so inadequate.
I'm not going to talk about it," Mr. Bush told reporters at a news conference with departing British Prime Minister Tony Blair. "It's a very sensitive program. I will tell you that, one, the program is necessary to protect the American people, and it's still necessary because there's still an enemy that wants to do us harm."
No one is asking Mr. Bush to talk about classified information, and no one is discounting the terrorist threat.
I may be a nobody, but I am asking for Bush to discuss this classified information with the Senate intelligence committee. Are you kidding? The President tries to get something that even Ashcroft thinks is illegal, tries to trick him to say it's legal while he is doped up, and only back off a bit when the top people at Justice threaten to resign en masse. It might be useful to find out what the President was attempting.
It has to be really bad. Although we are at "war" perpetually it appears, classification is no excuse for lack of oversight. Perhaps, one day the Post will go the full monty and see it that way as well.
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Bush on Comey: I'm not talking about it
At a White House press conference, George W. Bush was just asked if he sent Andy Card and Alberto Gonzales to John Ashcroft's hospital room to get him to reauthorize the administration's warrantless wiretapping program. The president's response: "There's a lot of speculation about what happened and what didn't happen, and I'm not going to talk about it."
We'll take that as a yes.
The story, for those not following, is that the President and his minions wanted to do some spying that was so overboard that even John Ashcroft refused to go along with it. John Ashcroft had pancreatitis and turned over power to his deputy James Comey. Comey agreed with Ashcroft that this particular spying plan was illegal. So Andy Card and Alberto Gonzales went to Ashcroft's sick bed, the day after surgery while he was groggy, trying to get him to sign off on the proposal. They apparently hoped that he would sign anything in his drugged state.
Bush refuses to say if he sent them over to do it. I think it's kind of important that we find out. But, I am whacky that way.
Thursday, May 10, 2007
The thing that strikes me as funny is Gonzales refusing to name names, or admit he knows the individuals who put the fired Attorneys on the list. His latest excuse is that he deliberately isn't finding out who did it, because the matter is under investigation. Considering the fact that there are questions of political involvement, unfair practices in the firings, the Attorney General if he was an honest player, should want to know who did it.
That obviously isn't the case. Karl Rove is being protected. As others have pointed out before, Gonzales would rather look like an idiot than give evidence that would link Karl Rove to this scandal. President Bush is not displeased with his performance. Gonzales is doing exactly what he was told to do.
Saturday, April 21, 2007
I understand he still thinks he is President Bush's personal lawyer and all he needs to do is please Dear Leader, but his fellow Republicans have dropped enough hints over his head that he has to be playing dumb to pretend not to understand that he doesn't get that it's time to go. Why delay the inevitable anyways? It's not like his patron is exactly very popular at the moment. This is just making things worse if all possible.
Oh, and babies tend to wake up at 2am. Just saying
Friday, April 20, 2007
From the Dallas Morning News:
In his Senate testimony yesterday, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said, "The moment I believe I can no longer be effective, I will resign as attorney general." With respect, we suggest that Mr. Gonzales watch the tape of his disastrous showing in Thursday's hearing. Seeing is believing.
Senate Judiciary Committee members mauled the attorney general yesterday, but that was no surprise. Knowing that he was walking into an ambush, it was shocking to see how ill-prepared Mr. Gonzales was. His responses throughout a tough day of direct questioning failed to defend the firings, failed to explain his own role credibly and failed to establish that he is capable of running the Department of Justice.
NY Times chimes in too.
If Attorney General Alberto Gonzales had gone to the Senate yesterday to convince the world that he ought to be fired, it’s hard to imagine how he could have done a better job, short of simply admitting the obvious: that the firing of eight United States attorneys was a partisan purge.
Mr. Gonzales came across as a dull-witted apparatchik incapable of running one of the most important departments in the executive branch.
But wait. There's more. The Boston Globe gets it's licks in.
There were no bombshell revelations in yesterday's hearing, but it did provide new evidence of why Gonzales has been so deceitful about the firings. In at least some of the cases, the attorneys -- all Bush appointees -- were being canned for blatantly partisan reasons, either because the administration believed they were prosecuting Republican officeholders too aggressively or not prosecuting allegations of voter fraud by Democrats aggressively enough.
The Baltimore Sun questions Gonzales' credibility
To sum up, here's how the attorney general of the United States explained to the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday how seven U.S. attorneys came to be fired last December, joining an eighth who had been let go earlier:
He was given a list of prosecutors to fire. He didn't at the time know why they were being fired, but he trusted his staff. Since then, he's looked into it and decided that firing them was the right thing to do. He doesn't know who prepared the list, or how. He did have discussions earlier with his staff about some of the attorneys, and their alleged shortcomings, but that was unrelated to the dismissal process.
Also, there's a whole lot he doesn't recall.
And finally, here is President Bush's reaction.
President Bush was pleased with the Attorney General’s testimony today. After hours of testimony in which he answered all of the Senators’ questions and provided thousands of pages of documents, he again showed that nothing improper occurred. He admitted the matter could have been handled much better, and he apologized for the disruption to the lives of the U.S. Attorneys involved, as well as for the lack of clarity in his initial responses. The Attorney General has the full confidence of the President, and he appreciates the work he is doing at the Department of Justice to help keep our citizens safe from terrorists, our children safe from predators, our government safe from corruption, and our streets free from gang violence.
Thursday, April 19, 2007
President Bush was pleased with the Attorney General’s testimony today. After hours of testimony in which he answered all of the Senators’ questions and provided thousands of pages of documents, he again showed that nothing improper occurred. He admitted the matter could have been handled much better, and he apologized for the disruption to the lives of the U.S. Attorneys involved, as well as for the lack of clarity in his initial responses.
The Attorney General has the full confidence of the President, and he appreciates the work he is doing at the Department of Justice to help keep our citizens safe from terrorists, our children safe from predators, our government safe from corruption, and our streets free from gang violence.
That is the official press release from the White House. Did they write this crap before the hearing started? Please tell me that they did. In short, Bush is saying Heckofa job Gonzie. Actually Michael Brown is a lawyer. He couldn't do much worse at justice than Gonzales.
That was a pretty bad forecast. Ruben Navaratte, an editorial writer for CNN and San Diego Union-Tribune comes close in getting things very wrong soon enough for it to be mocked instantaneously.
Today Navarette strings a beauty together.
For some conservatives, principle lost out to practicality. Former House speaker Newt Gingrich recently said the firings had wrecked Gonzales' credibility and that the administration would be better served by "a new team at the Justice Department."
Perfect. Liberals have spent more than a month slinging mud at Gonzales, and now weak-kneed conservatives are giving in and saying that maybe the attorney general should go because: "Look, he's covered in mud!"
As it happens, some of that mud has come from the get-Gonzales faction of the Fourth Estate.
Recently, The Washington Post reported that Gonzales had "retreated from public view ... in an intensive effort to save his job, spending hours practicing testimony and phoning lawmakers for support in preparation for pivotal appearances in the Senate."
Time out. The Washington Post and the rest of the media have repeatedly insisted that Thursday's testimony is "make or break" for Gonzales. If so, why wouldn't he prepare for it?
Let me see here. Alberto Gonzales is doing a terrible job according to his critics. To respond to that criticism, he spent a month ignoring his work and preparing for his testimony, where he is just required to be truthful. He said 'I don't recall' 55 times this morning, even in cases where any reasonable person would have a recollection.
Navarette is one of the last remaining kool-aid drinkers left. To suggest that an attorney general needs a month to prepare for Patrick Leahy asking him 7 minutes worth of questions as a defense of Alberto Gonzales really isn't the great protective wall that Navarette seems to think. One of Navarette's final points buttresses his inanity.
Come again? One of the most common arguments you hear from Gonzales' critics is that he can't be effective on the job while this cloud hangs overhead. So shouldn't lifting the cloud be his No. 1 priority? And when he tries to do that, they blast him.
No, his job is to do his job. It's the attorney general. It's kind of important that the job is done. Alberto Gonzales serves the american people as the chief law enforcement officer. If Alberto needed another 5 months to prepared (which seems to be the case after today's session), should we wait for your buddy, and put the rest of the AG's work on hold until then?
During the morning session of his testimony, AG Alberto Gonzales stated he didn't recall 55 times while being questioned. Other Bush officials who have been brought before congress recently apparently have the same memory problems. My favorite time this morning was when Gonzales was reminded that Patrick Fitzgerald was given a mediocre rating and that Gonzales' chief deputy Kyle Sampson suggested that Fitzgerald be fired along with the others. This firing would have taken place during the middle of the Plame investigation.
For Alberto Gonzales to claim he can't recall if he had discussions about firing the most prominent US attorney in the country in the heat of the most talked about federal prosecution in the country is incredulous. Let's take him at his word 55 times. His memory is obviously too poor to be able to do his job.
Alberto Gonzales believes that passing along questions from congress members about immigration policy is all that is appropriate for notifying US attorneys that the Justice Department is unhappy with their immigration numbers.
Seriously. Carol Lam and Kyle Sampson both testified that nobody in the Justice Department ever talked to Carol Lam directly about any unhappy feelings about her performance. Alberto Gonzales testified that she was informed. She was informed by members of congress.
Gonzales is just simply unqualified for the job. Forget the shenanigans, forget the partisanship, the authorization of legally questionable tactics. He does not have the skill set to do the job even if he was honest.
Subscribe to:
Comment Feed (RSS)
