Hunter has a post at DKos that lays this whole sordid tale out in the plainest English I've seen yet. It's certainly a story that's far to byzantine and labrynthian to ever be explained in detail on the nightly news, and given that nobody ever goes beyond paragraph 4 in any newspaper article, there's no way this travesty of justice could be imparted to the masses through the newspaper. So, this is real, and it's serious. I give you Hunter:
Alberto Gonzales has lost a wide swath of his underlings to scandal
already; he himself remains only because he has maintained himself within a
fortress of supposed stupefying ignorance as to their actions. His department
has unequivocally been politicized, certainly in violation of Department of
Justice policies and quite probably in violation of federal law: the prime
remaining questions revolve around how it happened and how far into the White
House the decisions went, not whether it happened. Under his direction, his
department is refusing to cooperate with congressional investigative and
oversight efforts into any of the failures and scandals within his department:
that in and of itself represents a breach of the public trust that cannot stand.
His department has even been blocked from enforcing the will of Congress, by
preemptively announcing that the department will not prosecute contempt charges
leveled against administration officials refusing to testify about the scandal
within his department.
Amidst all of it, the Attorney General sits before a body of the
legislative branch and is self-professedly unable to offer any insights or
explanations. He cannot explain the workings of his own department, the actions
of his own deputies, or the meaning of papers with his own signature on them. He
is in the very best case scenario, an incompetent; in the worst, he is a
perjurer, an unapologetic political apparatchik, and a corrupter of the laws he
has been tasked with upholding.
Here are just two tastes of today's duplicitous, arrogant, smirking testimony by Gonzales:
SCHUMER: I'll let you speak in a minute, but this is serious, because
you're getting right close to the edge right here. You just said there was just
one program -- just one. So the letter, which was, sort of, intended to deceive,
but doesn't directly do so, because there are other intelligence activities,
gets you off the hook, but you just put yourself right back on here.
GONZALES: I clarified my statement two days later with the
reporter.
SCHUMER: What did you say to the reporter?
GONZALES: I did not speak directly to the reporter.
SCHUMER: Oh, wait a second -- you did
not.
(LAUGHTER)
SCHUMER: What did your spokesperson say to the
reporter?
GONZALES: I don't know. But I told the spokesperson to go back and clarify
my statement...
SCHUMER: Well, wait a minute, sir. Sir, with all due respect -- and if I
could have some order here, Mr. Chairman -- in all due respect, you're just
saying, "Well, it was clarified with the reporter," and you don't even know what
he said. You don't even know what the clarification is. Sir, how can you say
that you should stay on as attorney general when we go through exercise like
this, where you're bobbing and weaving and ducking to avoid admitting that you
deceived the committee? And now you don't even know. I'll give you another
chance: You're hanging your hat on the fact that you clarified the statement two
days later. You're now telling us that is was a spokesperson who did it. What
did that spokesperson say? Tell me now, how do you clarify this?
GONZALES: I don't know, but I'll find out and get back to you.
And then there's this exchange with Arlen Specter (as liveblogged at FDL):
S: How can you get approval from sedated Ashcroft?
G: Can I
continue?
S: No, answer my question.
G: Obviously there was concern about Ashcroft's condition. There are no rules governing when Ashcroft decides he is
well enough.
S: He had given us AG duties.
G: We knew he was ill...
S:Not making progress. Moving on. Do you think constitution govt can survive if
Pres has unilateral authority to reject congress inquiries for Exec Privilege
and prevent prosecution of claim?
G: Ongoing matter, I am recused, I cannot
answer.
S: I am asking about constitutional law.
G: You are talking about an on-going issue.
S: No. Answer.
G: I won't answer - it is ongoing
controversy and I am recused.
LEAHY: Calls for decorum (room is
protesting).
S: Won't pursue. This is hopeless. You are not just AG, you are
a lawyer. This is a fundamental issues separate from USA resignations. Other
subject. Do you have a conflict regarding the firing of US AGs?
G: Yes.
S: Do you have a conflict of interest about Miers?
G: Yes. I won't
answer.
S: Let's find one you will answer. How about death penalty case?
Charlton contacted your office and said case was not appropriate for dp.
Testimony that AG spent 5-10 minutes on the issue...is this accurate?
G: I have no specific recollection of this case. But we have a detailed process for
capital case review.
S: I am not interested in that. I want an answer to my
question. You don't remember a case regarding a man's execution?
G: I have no
recollection of the conversation.
S: Do you disagree with the
testimony?
G: I can't agree or disagree.
It's time to impeach Alberto Gonzales. Now.
UPDATE: Here's a Youtube clip of Gonzales and Specter.
Shorter Alberto Gonzales:
"There are no rules."
No comments:
Post a Comment