Source: National Public Radio Link: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=12185245 Title: "Attorney General Has a Second Date with Congress" Date: July 24, 2007 Is this merely a grudge match, as one GOP lobbyist claims? Or is it a vital new round in a building scandal that threatens the rule of law, as at least one Democrat has suggested? Attorney General Alberto Gonzales goes to Capitol Hill on Tuesday morning to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee .... .... Back in April, Gonzales had another hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Most people said his job would depend on his performance at that hearing. But everyone except the president panned his performance, and Gonzales kept his job. Now, three months later, Gonzales goes into another hearing where he is expected to perform in more or less the same way. This time, however, nobody thinks his job is at stake. Republican lobbyist Ed Rogers says he is not particularly impressed with the attorney general, but he doesn't see the point in Congress holding this hearing, either. "Nobody thinks this is consequential," Rogers says. "Nobody thinks the attorney general's job is on the line, so it's just kind of going to be more of the same, and the Democrats and their sympathizers will have more to snicker about, but nothing will come of it." Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) defends his decision to call the attorney general to testify again. Leahy said in an interview, "I would not be doing my duty if I didn't get to the bottom of this and hopefully point out enough so the next attorney general, whoever he or she might be, will never make these mistakes again." After the last hearing, Leahy criticized Gonzales for repeatedly answering questions with, "I don't know," and, "I don't remember." This time, Leahy sent Gonzales a list of questions in advance. "He's had plenty of time to look them over," Leahy said, "so there'll be no excuse for saying, 'I don't know, I don't remember.'" (NPR.org) One of the issues that will be raised is the integrity of AG Gonzales' prior testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee. In his prior hearing, Gonzales asserted that he had never talked to witnesses about the firing of U.S. Attorneys, but later testimony from a former White House liason cast doubt on that assertion: "It made me a little uncomfortable," said liaison Monica Goodling during her controversial tetimony, "I just did not know if it was appropriate for us to both be discussing our recollections of what had happened." (See also, AP/Seattle Times) Additionally, senators are expected to question Gonzales about his testimony concerning the National Security Agency's domestic espionage program. Gonzales had previously given descriptions of the process as not being controversial within the Department of Justice. Former Deputy Attorney General James Comey, however, described a confrontation around the hospital bed of former Attorney General John Ashcroft. According to Comey, Bush administration Chief of Staff Andrew Card and White House counsel Alberto Gonzales harangued ailing Attorney General John Ashcroft for a signature that Ashcroft refused to give, and believed he no longer had the authority to give. (See also, Washington Post, NPR.org) How senators will handle the apparent contradictions is still a matter for speculation; Gonzales could, perhaps, explain that he did not think of the incident in Ashcroft's hospital room was controversial, or even a dispute. Gonzales may deny the incident entirely. Harvard professor David Barron told NPR that despite the fuzziness, there is still merit in the SJC hearing. "If you have very serious questions about the rule of law and the confidence in the department, and the president simply disregards them," Barron says, "for no one to continue pushing and to make it clear that a certain standard is expected of the department would, I think, be a very serious loss for the country." (NPR.org) Stay tuned. Even if tomorrow isn't a bang, it will still be an impressive fizzle. ____________________ Notes: NPR.org. "Attorney General Has a Second Date with Congress". National Public Radio, July 24, 2007. See http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=12185245 See Also: Kellman, Laurie. "Ex-aide contradicts Gonzales, says he discussed recollections". Associated Press/SeattleTimes.com, May 24, 2007. See http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003719647_attorneys24.html Eggen, Dan and Paul Kane. "Gonzales Hospital Episode Detailed". Washington Post, May 16, 2007; page A01. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/15/AR2007051500864.html Shapiro, Ari. "Former Justice Deputy Describes Political Clash". National Public Radio, May 15, 2007. See http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10192754
Update on Gonzales hearing Update on Gonzales hearing In the topic post, I noted: "How senators will handle the apparent contradictions is still a matter for speculation; Gonzales could, perhaps, explain that he did not think of the incident in Ashcroft's hospital room was controversial, or even a dispute. Gonzales may deny the incident entirely." Initial press reports suggest the boldfaced portion above describes the route chosen by the Attorney General as he responded to inquires from the Senate Judiciary Committee today. Specter asked Gonzales, given Comey's version of events, how Gonzales could say there had been no disagreement about the program. Gonzales said that the visit to the hospital was not about the terrorist surveillance program but rather, about other intelligence activities. The sentence had barely left Gonzales' mouth when Specter jumped in, "Mr. attorney general, do you really expect us to believe that?" Gonzales said that he went to Ashcroft's hospital room to get the surveillance program reauthorized only after top Republicans and Democrats from the House and Senate said they supported the program. "We had had an emergency meeting in the White House situation room, where the congressional leadership told us to continue going forward with this very important intelligence activity," he told the committee. Gonzales said he had gone to Ashcroft's hospital room to let him know where the leadership stood on the issue. He hadn't gone there to pressure him. (NPR.org) It is a bold claim, given that Gonzales faces broad bipartisan skepticism. Vermont Democrat Sen. Patrick Leahy told Gonzales, "I don't trust you." BBC News online reports that there is talk of a special prosecutor being appointed to continue the investigation: Senator Arlen Specter, the committee's senior Republican, suggested that Mr Gonzales appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the sacking of the eight federal prosecutors. He said such a move might be necessary to ensure congressional oversight of the Bush administration. "The constitutional authority and responsibility for congressional oversight is gone," he said. "If that is to happen, the president can run the government as he chooses, answer no questions." (BBC News) Senator Specter, according to Bloomberg, also told the Attorney General, "Your credibility has been breached to the point of being actionable." Perhaps the most curious twist, though apparently involves internet gambling and an exchange with Arizona Republican Senator John Kyl. According to CasinoGamblingWeb, Alberto Gonzalez said that he agrees with Kyl's views on the issue and that there is money laundering going on heavily in the industry and that Internet gambling is highly addictive .... .... Fact, is a Harvard University study of over 40,000 participants that found conclusively that only 0.4% had, or were prone to develop gambling problems as a result of easy access to gambling online. Fact, is that the majority of major Internet gambling operations are run by publicly traded companies in the United Kingdom. They are run and licensed by governments in Germany, France, Italy, and yes the small island nations of Antigua & Barbuda, the Isle of Man, Curacao, Costa Rica, etc. By Gonzales' standards he is accusing those countries of laundering money to fund terrorism. (Hartman) What? We can still have a chuckle about all this, right? In the end, Gonzales seems to face such opposition in the Senate that one might be suprised to consider that his prepared remarks at the advent of today's discussion focused on pitching to Congress the Bush administration's preferred expansion of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. And, yes, we can still chuckle at the size of Gonzales' stones. _____________________ Notes: Temple-Raston, Dina, and Ari Shapiro. "Gonzales Denies That He Pressured Ashcroft". NPR.org, July 24, 2007. See http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=12197844 BBC News. "Gonzales testifies in firings row". July 24, 2007. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6914196.stm Rowley, James. "Gonzales Comes Under New Bipartisan Attack in Senate (Update 4) ". Bloomberg.com, July 24, 2007. See http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=amoeIdSanAzw&refer=home Hartman, Bob. "Alberto Gonzales Lies in Hearing About Internet Gambling". CasinoGamblingWeb.com, July 24, 2007. See http://www.casinogamblingweb.com/ga...in_hearing_about_internet_gambling_46802.html Gonzales, Alberto. "Prepared Remarks". PRNewsWire.com, July 24, 2007. See http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/07-24-2007/0004631512&EDATE=
I marvel as much at the GOP spinner who attempted to describe this as some kind of unfair persecution or "grudge" event. Reality has left the building, at GOP headquarters. How blatant does this shit have to get, before someone gets impeached, held in contempt, something - - these guys don't even get fired.
That's just my characterization of the quote from Ed Rogers in the first article citation. Nonetheless, I, too, marvel at it. I think of how the GOP howled about Clinton and wonder where all that furious pride in America and the Constitution has gone. I will stand by the characterization, though.
