Gonzalez may have lied to Congress; Dem calls for special prosecutor

I have hesitated to make a strong statement on this issue for a number of reason, not the least of which was concern over personal consequences; in real life I work for a federal contractor that has dealings with the Department of Justice, and although those relationships are not with the AG himself or his senior staff, I was worried that some revelation might nonetheless have some negative impact.

However, in light of the mounting evidence that Gonzales has lied under oath, I feel it would be dishonest to continue to remain silent on this point.

Gonzales should resign, be fired, or be impeached (in order of decreasing preference) and the question of his perjury should be submitted to a grand jury.

It is absolutely unconscionable that the nation’s chief cabinet officer for law enforcement have such disregard for the rule of law.

Nothing.

It would be a continual litany of “I don’t recall” and “I would have the judge the situation on its merits”.

Unless you actually think that there hasn’t been a single (potential) Supreme Court Justice with an actual opinion on abortion?

-Joe

But he still has the confidence of the President! So everything’s peachy.

Point is, Dem senators would use the confirmation hearings to spotlight everything wrong that’s been done in the DoJ under Gonzalez and ask the nominee what he/she would do to fix it. Regardless of how the nominee answers, W doesn’t want that.

There is no virtue that cannot become a vice if overused.

President Bush has proven that “loyalty” is no excpetion to that rule.

Since no one else has done it, I’m going to commend Bricker for stepping out from behind the lectern and calling a spade a spade for once.

Thanks for saying that.

I think it’s time for a bipartisan group to stroll down Pennsylvania Avenue and explain to Bush that if Gonzo’s not gone by the time they return from the August recess, impeachment proceedings re Gonzales will start soon afterward. Hopefully that will give Bush time to exercise one of those first two options, rather than Congress having to exercise the third one.

Doin’ a heck of a job, Gonzo.

I’ve been convinced for some time that this is why Gonzales is still employed. If Bush has to replace him, all the options are bad: if he hires another political hack, the likelihood of confirmation plummets. But if he hires a non-hack, the DoJ might actually do its job, with attendant consequences to the Administration.

So unless Bush can find a hack with an undeserved reputation as a straight shooter…

FBI Director Contradicts Gonzales

Here’s a good commentary on the issue of “other intelligence activities” Gonzales falsely testified about, and the continuing failure of the DOJ to reveal what these activities (which were “so wrong and illegal that the Attorney General [Ashcroft] and FBI Director and various deputies all threatened to quit” over them) were.

If Bush were loyal to anyone but himself, I might go along with you.

Fine to say that now, innit? Where were you when he was finding ways to authorize torture, by dismissing the Geneva Conventions as quaint and obsolete? Boosting him to us as a laudable nominee for the Supreme Court, as I recall.

You’re too many years behind the rest of us, but at least you seem to be catching up. Now, what do you propose be *done * about this situation you now find unsconscionable? Or about the executive(s) who keep it in place? Can you join us in saying the I-word, or limit yourself to simply deploring the problem?

It’s right here, Elvis:

What Squink said. On this one, Elvis, I can’t see any daylight between Bricker’s position and my own.

Dunno if that’s a sign of the impending apocalypse or what, but keep your flashlights, duct tape, and life preservers handy, kids…

There’s one person who can make any of those three happen. He can make them happen immediately.

I wonder what Bricker feels the consequences should be for a man who not only appointed this pathetic toady, but continues to give his full confidence and support.

You love the law, Bricker, and the man to whom you’ve shown your slavish devotion continues to amply demonstrate what he thinks of it. Maybe if he were to literally wipe his ass with the Constitution?

-Joe

Thank you, Bricker. I think I understand how difficult a conclusion that must be for you.

Sorry if this is piling on, but…

Do you find the president’s actions in this matter to be unconscionable as well? The president has the power to end this fiasco, but he chooses to condone the AG’s actions with his public support.

If the AG’s actions warrant his removal, why isn’t the president’s removal also warranted? The AG’s mendacity and the president’s support of it, seem to leave but one reasonable conclusion…that the AG’s actions have been taken at the behest of the president.

If there were more direct evidence of the president’s role in this mess at the Justice Department, would you then support his removal?

[Captain Terrel] I’m afraid that it’s even harder than you think, doctor. [/CT] He did get the questions in advance. Supposedly, Bush is so loyal to Gonzo because Gonzo saved Bush’s bacon in the DUI case.

He’s loyal to Gonzales because Gonzales is the only person who can keep the truth from coming out. If AG steps down, the next AG nominee has to be approved by the Senate, and there’s no way another Bush-loyal stonewaller is going to pass Senate muster. Without Gonzales in the DoJ, some actual investigating might be done and then it’s bye-bye Bush 43.

Gonzales is the linchpin of the whole administration right now.