If you weren't keeping count Attorney General Liar said "I do not recall" 72 times in one hearing. There are only two possible explanations for the lunacy of this video. One: Alberto Gonzales is an incompetent nitwit with a severe case of amnesia, or Two: He's a perjurer. Either way he should be thrown out of his position. In my opinion its the latter case. Gonzales' credentials and past experience in his various capacities within the justice department could not be accomplished by someone as dumb as the video tells. I think Gonzales' is an intelligent man who knows exactly what he is doing. He knows what George Bush did was wrong, he knows what Karl Rove did was wrong, and he knows what Dick Cheney did was wrong (interfering with internal affairs of the Department of Justice for partisan reasons). Subsequently, him allowing the administration to influence his decisions also made his actions, as the AG, wrong as well. Some will argue that he is not a perjurer based on the fact that he didn't actually say anything of substance during the hearings, therefore avoiding any spoken slip-ups. Remember, however, that he is under oath, and responding to a question with "I do not recall" when he really DOES recall, is lying; making him a perjurer.
We all knew this was going to happen during the proceedings. His loyalty to the President outweighs the public embarrassment of looking like a complete nincompoop on national television. All this is very calculated and he knew exactly what he was doing. Gonzales' even started laughing a few times during the preceding. He wasn't laughing because he thinks its all a big joke - he understands how serious these hearings are - he was laughing because he knew how asinine his responses were to some of the questions. For example, one such exchange took place when Senator Chuck Schumer asked whether it was President Bush who sent Gonzales to John Ashcroft's bedside while in the hospital. Gonzales responded by saying "I was sent there on behalf of the President," thus refusing to answer the question. As Schumer continued to ask the same question (getting the same lack of an answer) Gonzales actually started to laugh while giving his response. He also started to chuckle to himself after he explained to Schumer that he misspoke in a press conference, then clarified his statement to a Washington Post reporter two days later, but did not know what his clarified statement was (this of course regarding his first "misspoken" statement). He knew how dopey he sounded.
I think the whole hearing can be summed up in one exchange between Senator Diane Feinstein and Gonzales:
Feinstein: Were any other attorneys asked to leave?
Gonzales: I am not aware sitting here today of any other US attorney who was asked to leave...uh...except though there were some instances of people who were asked to leave quite frankly because there was legitimate cause...
Feinstein: So you're saying that some were asked to leave because the cause was not legitimate?
Gonzales: I'm not..now, what I'm saying is wrong doing, misconduct..there may have been..in fact I'm sure there were others...
Feinstein: What kind of misconduct?
Gonzales: Well..(He pauses and looks up to the ceiling)..and I'm not suggesting any of this conduct happened..but for example, an inappropriate relationship, taking action when you have a direct conflict of interest to help out a buddy, you know, something like that I would say would constitute misconduct, and there...
Feinstein: Were those specific things involved in any US attorney that was terminated?
Gonzales: (After a long pause)...No
So then what kind of "misconduct" got the US attorneys fired? Last time I checked (and it was this morning) remaining apolitical, not showing loyalty to the President, and investigating scandals is not "misconduct," its called abiding by the law judicial officials are sworn to protect. I believe somewhere along the line Alberto and W. also took this oath. The saddest part is, there really is no action anyone can take. Harriet Miers and Josh Bolton were cited with "Contempt of Congress" for their refusal to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee. The catch is, the Attorney General is the one responsible with enforcing a Contempt of Congress. Something tells me that Gonzales won't be too quick in enforcing this citation since it would force Miers and Bolton to testify at HIS hearing. What happens when the person in charge of the laws, breaks them? I like the steps Senator Schumer is taking in citing Gonzales for perjury. We all know nothing will happen with it though. The bureaucratic hoops that elected officials have to jump through to force any accountability on the Bush administration is too much for even the most courageous representatives. All we can do is wait. We made it through 7 years, one more can't be that bad...Or so I hope.
-tg
4 comments:
Well, the nincompoop is finally gone.
I liked the post and I thought the video was hilarious. I agree with you that Gonzales was clearly lying in his testimony--the facial expressions and incoherent responses more than gave him away. He's not nearly as stupid as he sounds--he's just willing to do anything to protect the president (including looking like a moron and giving up his own job). He was loyal to the laughable end.
I just wanted to point out a minor factual error in your post. You said that Gonzales knows that what Bush, Cheney and Rove did was illegal ("interfering with internal affairs of the judicial branch as members of the executive"). This is actually not the case. The U.S. Attorneys are part of the Department of Justice and the executive branch of the federal government. The judicial branch only represents the court system, which basically means individual judges (the judge is referred to as "the court"). In terms of legality, there was absolutely nothing wrong with Gonzales firing the 8 U.S. Attorneys. The issue is more that such a move was not illegal, but completely unprecedented. Some presidents, such as Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan, dismissed nearly all of the 93 U.S. Attorneys at the start of their presidencies. However, Gonzales embarked on an effort to dismiss several U.S. Attorneys in the middle of a presidency simply because they were prosecuting Republican politicans. This type of blatant partisanship has never been seen before and while it technically does not violate the law, it completely violates the whole spirit of the law. While the executive branch can do many things to influence the political system, it is supposed to enforce the laws. Gonzales was punishing U.S. Attorneys for doing their jobs and properly enforcing the law. His actions represented a serious miscarriage of justice, and it is a relief that he is no longer our nation's Attorney General.
Parimal-
Thanks a lot for the clarification. I was familiar with what Clinton and Reagan did during their presidency, however, I did not know the networking. What Gonzales did was definitely illegal though. If for anything, he took and oath promising to protect, as you mentioned "the spirit of the law" and do what is best for the country. This clearly was not what was best for the country, and he had to have known that. I will go back and correct my post. Thanks for the fact check. Maybe I'll consult you next time before I post anyting.lol.
-tg
I'm still not so sure we can crucify Gonzales based on his oath of office. The oath he took does not mention the spirt of the law, or even the law at all. This is the oath he took:
"I (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."
I guess you could make an argument that by allowing political considerations to affect his decisions, he did not "well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office". But that argument seems legally flimsy at best. The reason Gonzales did not just admit to having fired the attorneys for political reasons was because it would embarrass the president and undermine the Bush administration by showing that they care more about politics than enforcing the laws competently.
I do agree that Gonzales broke the law in trying to cover up the motives of his actions. There was considerable evidence that his constant refrain of "I don't recall" was often not true, including the Congressional testimony of other witnesses. If Gonzales had not resigned, I think Congress would have had the legal evidence to convict him of perjury and obstruction of justice and remove him from office. Whether they would have the spine to do that is a whole another question.
It seems like we're both in agreement on this. He no doubt committed perjury thus breaking the law. My comment regarding him breaking the law before the hearings focused on the "support and defend the Constitution of the United States" which he clearly did not do in my opinion.
This was what I was referring to. It is flimsy and would not work in a legal setting but under my interpretation this was the case.
-tg
Post a Comment