NY Times calls for Attorney General's dismissal.

[FlaSoxxJim]

So, how did Abu G do at today's hearing?

 

-CNN’s Dana Bash:

Loyal Republican after loyal Republican in this hearing room, and more specifically, in private to CNN today have made it clear that they are frankly flabbergasted by how poorly they think the attorney general has done in this hearing. … During the lunch break, in private, several very loyal Republicans made it clear to CNN that they were really dripping with disappointment.

CNN’s Suzanne Malveaux:

[White House officials] believe Gonzales is in trouble. … Two senior White House aides here describing the situation, Gonzales’ testimony, as “going down in flames.” That he was “not doing himself any favors.” One prominent Republican describing watching his testimony as “clubbing a baby seal.”

45!!

45 = the number of times Alberto Gonzales “testified that he could not recall events he was asked about,” according to an AP article that hit the wires at 3pm ET.

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) to Gonzales: You should resign.

COBURN: Mr. Attorney General, it’s my considered opinion that the exact same standards should be applied to you in how this was handled. It was handled incompetently, the communication was atrocious. It was inconsistent. It’s generous to say that there was misstatements, that’s a generous statement. And I believe you ought to suffer the consequences that these others have suffered, and I believe the best way to put this behind us is your resignation.

 

Tough crowd, eh Gonzo?

Edited April 19, 2007 by FlaSoxxJim

[Texsox]

It appears that the Republicans are distancing themselves from the White House and basically allowing a feast on the Attorney General. I am feeling he is being the fall guy for a bunch of people who really want to take a bite out of our President's ass, but can't. These issues, while serious in their own right, are just the tip of a sword.

[Texsox]

Bush = Carter with less body bags.

[Rex Kickass]

Don't you mean more body bags?

[Texsox]

Don't you mean more body bags?

 

Carter had less body bags, I'm not certain how I should have written that.

[Soxy]

Bush = Carter with less body bags.

Do you mean just in terms of popularity? Because I think Carter had a much better approval rating from other world leaders and (other than the Iran Contra mess) had better international policies. He just couldn't handle domestic issues.

[Soxy]

That old liberal bastion the Chicago Tribune also calls for A-Go to, well, go go go.

 

EDITORIAL

The man who was not there

 

Published April 24, 2007

 

In his appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee last week, it was sometimes hard to recall that Alberto Gonzales is the attorney general of the United States. More often, he sounded like an outside consultant, with no operational authority at the Justice Department and only a limited knowledge of what was going on in the offices around his. The difference is that when outside consultants are no longer of any use, they move on.

 

Alberto Gonzales has not, and it's time he did. His handling of the firing of eight federal prosecutors last year, something believed to be unprecedented at this stage of an administration, has been incompetent at best. Nothing he has done since the controversy erupted in January suggests he recognizes how he went wrong, how badly he failed or what to do about it. President Bush would be doing himself and the nation a favor to ask that his attorney resign and make room for someone who is interested in actually doing the job.

 

At the outset, we gave Gonzales the benefit of the doubt. We argued that there was only thin evidence that the U.S. attorneys were fired for improper reasons and that Congress had a duty to hear what Gonzales and his former chief of staff, Kyle Sampson, had to say before drawing any conclusions. Now, those two have been heard, and what they said confirms that the dismissals had little to do with improving law enforcement.

 

Getting rid of poorly performing employees is the obligation of any boss, and that is what the attorney general says he was doing. But Gonzales didn't seem to know -- or care -- whether the people he axed were good or bad.

 

Asked why he fired Margaret Chiara, after a meeting with an aide, he pleaded ignorance: "I don't recall the reason why that I accepted the decision on Dec. 7." Asked about a prosecutor whose dismissal was considered but rejected, he said: "This was a process that was ongoing that I did not have transparency into."

 

It would be unreasonable to expect the attorney general to undertake personally a review of all U.S. attorneys, but no one else appears to have done so either. There was no systematic process for evaluating the people in these jobs, and several of those who were removed had gotten good performance reviews in the past. Gonzales, based on his testimony last week, fired them without bothering to find out why.

 

An alternative view is that he knew very well why he was getting rid of at least some of these prosecutors: for naked partisan motives. David Iglesias landed on the list after Sen. Pete Domenici (R-N.M.) called Iglesias to complain about his failure to indict Democrats suspected of corruption -- and after the senator repeatedly complained to Gonzales as well. John McKay of Washington state was criticized by local Republicans over his refusal to pursue voter fraud allegations in a governor's race narrowly won by a Democrat.

 

It's not yet clear whether unsavory political motives played a role in the dismissals. The Judiciary Committee hopes to get testimony from White House senior adviser Karl Rove and former White House counsel Harriet Miers to help resolve that important question.

 

But whether the decisions originated in the White House or the Justice Department, it is clear that Gonzales was largely a figurehead. When the important responsibilities of his office were being discharged, he was effectively absent.

 

In apologizing to the eight U.S. attorneys, he said, "They deserved better from me." They did, and the American people deserve someone better as attorney general.

[Texsox]

What a great country we live in that we can have this sort of investigation and potentially an orderly transfer of that position. Once again our system works.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Meh, Gonzo isn't going anywhere, Turd Blossom isn't going anywhere, Wolfowitz isn't going anywhere. And I'm past the point of caring about it. Every time W expresses his "complete confidence" in these incompetent and/or repugnant people it speaks volumes about how adrift and utterly detached from reality our Commander In Chief really is.

 

25% approval rating, here we come. Wheeee!

[Balta1701]

So, it's time to link some more fun to this story.

 

One of the fired attorneys is David Iglesias, the guy who was illegally called by a Republican Senator to try to bring pressure on him to bring cases favorable to the Republican election efforts.

 

Yesterday, it was announced that an investigation had begun into Karl Rove, for potentially having advised government employees to do things specifically benefiting one party, including some of the U.S. attorneys.

 

The man who it seems tipped off the Office of Special Counsel about Mr. Rove's actions? David Iglesias, who filed a Hatch act complaint with the Feds about Mr. Rove.

[FlaSoxxJim]

So, it's time to link some more fun to this story.

 

One of the fired attorneys is David Iglesias, the guy who was illegally called by a Republican Senator to try to bring pressure on him to bring cases favorable to the Republican election efforts.

 

Yesterday, it was announced that an investigation had begun into Karl Rove, for potentially having advised government employees to do things specifically benefiting one party, including some of the U.S. attorneys.

 

The man who it seems tipped off the Office of Special Counsel about Mr. Rove's actions? David Iglesias, who filed a Hatch act complaint with the Feds about Mr. Rove.

 

Iglesias apparently doesn't know how to take it lying down and not make waves like a Loyal Bushie is supposed to do. Good for him.

 

I still worry that the OSC investigation led by the already-under-investigation Scott Bloch will just end up being a whitewash job. But like I said, I don't think any of the Top Goons are going anywhere because Bush is stubborn to the point of shooting his administration and his party in the foot rather than making necessary changes that lawmakers and American citizens on both sides are calling for.

 

W is not content to merely go down in history as the worst president in US history. He wants to outdo the rest of the pack by an order of magnitude. And at this on thing at least, he is proving wildly successful.

[Texsox]

Do you mean just in terms of popularity? Because I think Carter had a much better approval rating from other world leaders and (other than the Iran Contra mess) had better international policies. He just couldn't handle domestic issues.

 

Popularity, not getting much done, etc. I think Bush, at his core, is a good, decent man. He just ain't Presidential timber. I can't wait to see how Jeb does.

[FlaSoxxJim]

This will certainly make things interesting.

 

Breaking: Gonzales Aide Goodling Granted Immunity

 

The House Judiciary Committee voted moments ago to grant immunity to Monica Goodling — former counsel to Alberto Gonzales and the Justice Department’s liaison to the White House — and issue a subpoena compelling her to testify. Yesterday, fired U.S. Attorney David Iglesias said he believes that Goodling holds the “keys to the kingdom” in terms of uncovering the roots of the U.S. Attorney purge.

[FlaSoxxJim]

So it goes.

 

New evidence is emerging that the Justice Department fired the U.S. attorney in Arizona, Paul Charlton, for investigating a land deal involving Rep. Rick Renzi (R-AZ).

 

Last week, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales told the Senate Judiciary Committee that Charlton was fired because of “his poor judgment in pushing forward a recommendation on a death penalty case.” But as Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-SC) pointed out, this explanation appears to be a “made up reason.” Documents show that even after Charlton was ousted, Justice Department officials were still “trying to settle on a complete explanation” for his firing.

 

In different drafts of an undated Justice Department memo prepared this year and released Tuesday, some possible reasons for Charlton’s ouster were crossed out, including a reference to obscenity prosecution, and others were added later.

 

Additionally, two weeks after he was fired in December, Charlton sent an e-mail to the Justice Department asking them how to deal with press questions that his firing was retribution for the Renzi investigation.

 

I mis-spoke earlier. It's not that I am past the point of caring. It is that I am past the point of believing any new revalations would be enough to make Gonzales and the White House think they need to be accountable for anything. Nobody will be shocked if/when these allegations are shown to be true, which is unbelievably sad.

[Balance]

What a great country we live in that we can have this sort of investigation and potentially an orderly transfer of that position. Once again our system works.

Well, it hasn't worked yet. It won't work until Gonzales is out of a job, and Rove is indicted.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Well, it hasn't worked yet. It won't work until Gonzales is out of a job, and Rove is indicted.

 

It has been said before, but cutting Gonzo loose woll be, sadly, little more than putting lipstick on this ugly, vile pig of an administration.

 

Still, it's good to see Leahy and Specter are not going to accept "I don't remember" 60+ times as acceptable testimony.

 

-- ". . . we ask that you promptly supplement your testimony of April 19 with answers to those questions for which you responded that you could not recall or did not know."

 

 

It won't matter, but thanks for at least trying to hold Abu accountable.

Edited April 25, 2007 by FlaSoxxJim

[BigSqwert]

The Colbert quote in your sig is priceless.

[Damen]

Still, it's good to see Leahy and Specter are not going to accept "I don't remember" 60+ times as acceptable testimony.

 

It won't matter, but thanks for at least trying to hold Abu accountable.

 

[southsider2k5]

Personally I thought either

 

"Alberto lied and nobody died"

 

or

 

"It was just some firings"

 

would have been apt...

[Texsox]

So far I have been very impressed with the GOP in their handling of this. I know it's easy when we have a President with low approval rating. Still, they are doing the right thing to the best of their abilities.

[kapkomet]

Look, if there were so much gas on this fire, I would think that the said attorneys that were fired would have been running as fast as they could for a camera to tell their stories. Since none of them did, this is nothing further then a witch hunt to get rid of people that they all hate. I'm not saying they haven't given reason for it, but that's what's happening.

 

Gonzo has done a TERRIBLE job of handling this from day 1, and it has turned into a political s***storm of epic proportions instead of just being up front in the first place.

 

The day the firings happened, it should have been: 8 people were dismissed. They serve at the pleasure of the president, and we decided to move in a different direction. We thank them for their service. Questions?

 

If that would have happened, none of this would matter. Even when these people have nothing to hide, they act like they have something to hide. That makes them stupid asses and incompetent in my book, not criminals like those on the left are trying to paint.

[Texsox]

Look, if there were so much gas on this fire, I would think that the said attorneys that were fired would have been running as fast as they could for a camera to tell their stories. Since none of them did, this is nothing further then a witch hunt to get rid of people that they all hate. I'm not saying they haven't given reason for it, but that's what's happening.

 

Gonzo has done a TERRIBLE job of handling this from day 1, and it has turned into a political s***storm of epic proportions instead of just being up front in the first place.

 

The day the firings happened, it should have been: 8 people were dismissed. They serve at the pleasure of the president, and we decided to move in a different direction. We thank them for their service. Questions?

 

If that would have happened, none of this would matter. Even when these people have nothing to hide, they act like they have something to hide. That makes them stupid asses and incompetent in my book, not criminals like those on the left are trying to paint.

 

And the President has bosses also. When he handles something incorrectly, he too should be held accountable for his actions and for those who report to him.

 

Politically motivated firings can be a serious threat to our nation.

[kapkomet]

It happens every day.

[Balta1701]

The day the firings happened, it should have been: 8 people were dismissed. They serve at the pleasure of the president, and we decided to move in a different direction. We thank them for their service. Questions?

I understand where you're coming from, but here's a potential response. If these people were fired for not sufficiently politicizing their offices, or in other words to basically slow down/stop investigations of Republicans and encourage investigations of Democrats in order to try to win the 2006 election, would you have a problem with that? Most specifically, if the attorney prosecuting the Duke Cunningham case was fired so that the investigation in that case would not touch any higher-ups in the CIA, Pentagon, or administration, would you have a problem with that?

 

I doubt that the law is clear on the last matter, but that is running awfully close to obstruction, and that seems to be a genuine part of this case.

[Damen]

I don't understand can joke about Gonzalez' "I don't recall" performance, and still seem to think the reasoning behind all this is perfectly innocent.

 

Who really thinks Gonzalez just 'forgot' all of these conversations, and the White House just 'forgot' to use the correct email system, and then, when they were notified of that, all those emails just mysteriously disappeared?

 

How can you look at that evidence, combined with what happened to David Iglesias and Carol Lam, and still convince yourself that nothing improper happened?

 

True, there's yet to be a smoking gun, but that's only because all the direct evidence has either been forgotten, deleted, or shielded by the 5th ammendment.