Comments (45)

anonymous wrote on April 19, 2007 4:27 PM:

So, if disobeying DOJ policy, as is claimed for Lam, gets you canned, why wasn't Bradley Schlozman canned for violating DOJ policy?

More importantly, why isn't any Democrat (or Republican, other than Hatch and Cornyn of course) asking this question?

DF wrote on April 19, 2007 4:29 PM:

Specter is a snake. He will not call for resignation, or for another round of questioning. He says Gonzales is incompetent and damaging our Justice System, but if George wants to keep him he doesn't think he should get involved.

He just said that Gonzo did a good job in his testamony. What??????

Specter, you just lost a vote. We will remember.

Node of Evil wrote on April 19, 2007 4:32 PM:

Good point about communications between the White House and the A.G.'s office regarding ongoing cases. I hadn't thought about that issue before; what _did_ the White House know about ongoing criminal investigations and who told them?

Yeah, Gonzales, you do want to be careful about what you say.

EAE wrote on April 19, 2007 4:36 PM:

Codeword: crime, as in Specter's been complicit in them for eons.

As an assistant counsel to the Warren Commission, Specter authored the ridiculous "single bullet theory" that violated basic laws of physics to "prove" only 3 shots were fired (the most Oswald could have discharged in the time that elapsed). He's been a political lapdog for 4 decades, so why is anyone surprised now?

seedyrum wrote on April 19, 2007 4:36 PM:

I want Gonzo the Dumbo gone. However, if he isnt there will always be a cloud over the DOJ, the White House, and Karl Rove. Thats bad for all entities. A scandla that keeps on giving and giving and giving. Although, they may clean up theri act and include more Republican conrriuptions in their cases ( well to make it look non partisan) but but but these are ideologues so chances are any cases brought will be lost as these attorneys are unproven and not gotten their jobs on MERIT.

I want to know now Bush thinking is any different from Radical Islam?

Bush has managed to tear up the Constitution, Democracy ( the same Democracy he wants to put in place in Iraq, "give me a break"), the judicial system.

In Bush's mind he thinks he is right as do the Islamic terrorists.

What is different between the two

Bush wants to torture, they torture
Bush wants to spy, they spy.
Bush wants to attack attack attack, they want to attack attack attack.
Bush wants to tear down Democracy, they dont want Democracy
Bush thinks his way is the the want and the only way, They think their way is the way and the only way.
I ask what is the difference between the two??
Ideologoe is still Ideologue.

Bush is going against the will of the majority of Americans

bobh wrote on April 19, 2007 4:37 PM:

Schumer: Step down.

Gonzo: De De De De You make me!

eric wrote on April 19, 2007 4:37 PM:

Schumer says bye-bye. It's too easy, though. They need to forcefully compel answers to some of these questions. Who put the names on the list? Why?

C Turner Joy wrote on April 19, 2007 4:43 PM:

Is Specter about to fall asleep while talking?

anon wrote on April 19, 2007 4:45 PM:

WTF is Specter talking about? The President has the "appointer"? Etc. Weird.

bobh wrote on April 19, 2007 4:49 PM:

One prominent Republican describing watching his testimony as “clubbing a baby seal.”

from: http://thinkprogress.org/

C Turner Joy wrote on April 19, 2007 4:52 PM:

As far as I can tell Gonzales keeps his job. He took a beating but that's about it.

Anonymous wrote on April 19, 2007 5:10 PM:

Along the same lines of why Bradley Schlozman wasn't fired for violating DOJ policy, but in the opposite nature, how can Iglesias be fired for not pursuing voter fraud right before an election since that would have been a violation of that same policy?

So, Schlozman complies fails to comply with DOJ policy by bringing a prosecution on the eve of an election and keeps his job, while Iglesias complies with that policy and refuses to bring a prosecution on the eve of an election and gets canned.

Why aren't the Dems pressing Gonzales with this contradiction?

just john wrote on April 19, 2007 5:54 PM:

A different Brad, Brad Friedman, has a post up at HuffPo reminding us all about the Republican "non-partisan" group that helped push the "voter fraud" thing and their contacts with Rove.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brad-friedman/gonzalesattorneys-hearin_b_46304.html

Wish HuffPo had posted it yesterday.

Punchy wrote on April 19, 2007 5:55 PM:

"He took a beating but that's about it."

That's about it for TODAY. Tomorrow they look into other shit he's done. If he even ATTEMPTS to fire anyone else, it'll draw the biggest magnifying glass ever seen. If he tries to write a new policy, it'll be scrutinized like never before.

In other words, he's under suspicion for EVERYTHING he attempts. He's dead weight. THey cannot sneak anything thru anymore without red flags. He's OJ Simpson--techincially "innocent", but so tarred and scarred that his career is ruined.

Dover B wrote on April 19, 2007 6:03 PM:

This was my highlight of the day, too. It really sums up the entire day. Not just because his answer was clearly false, but it wasn't even an answer to the question posed.

He was asked why his department had focused so much on voter fraud, but not voter intimidation, which is a significantly larger problem. He didn't even try to explain why he hadn't been investigating voter intimidation; he explained that his department tried not to be intimidating while investigating the (bogus) fraud issues.

Completely evasive AND false. Plus, for a bonus, the race card. Sensational!

P J Evans wrote on April 19, 2007 6:07 PM:

That one was a wonderful evasion of the question. He was asked about voter intimidation, and goes into this song-and-dance answer about growing up poor in Texas and how sensitive he is.

This is the best guy they could find for the job after Ashcroft left?

rex applegate wrote on April 19, 2007 6:17 PM:

I think we are entirely missing the point here. Gonzales is "appearing" to try and keep his job (repeat "appearing.") While in fact, his true intention and his orders are not to divulge a single clue (if possible) that leads to Rove and the White House. Hence a 100 I don't knows (where it's damn sure that he knows). This makes perfect sense when you take into account the CNN inside the White House comments regarding his "going down in flames" and that they were "flabbergasted" at his performance. That means his time is up and that have to keep the firewall maintained. They already knew what he "would not say" and basically the whole performance was not saying something important. Therefore, to the public he failed to keep his job, where in reality he kept Rove's, for the moment at least!

jimmy wrote on April 19, 2007 6:22 PM:

as a fellow latino, seeing gonzales claiming he stands for the voting rights of minorities makes me sick. still, not a lot of insight on gonzales in mainstream media from fellow latinos. for us it's a complicated issue. on one hand, pride in this first mexican american in the upper tier of cabinet posts, shame at his policies and actions. check out this post out for a different kind of perspective: http://brownstate.typepad.com/ken_burns_hates_mexicans/2007/04/you_can_call_me.html

Phill wrote on April 19, 2007 7:03 PM:

Gonzo says that the USAs were not fired for political reasons but, at least in some cases, because they didn't emphasize voter fraud cases. However, voter fraud is ONLY a Republican "issue" - a very, very political one. People who are truly concerned about election irregularities focus on election fraud, not voter fraud. So these USAs were admittedly fired for political reasons related to voter fraud but at the same time not for political reasons (supposedly).

billyjoe wrote on April 19, 2007 7:49 PM:

"Voter Fraud." We all remember the 2000 election and what happened in Ohio in 2004.

Same ole Bush/Rove mojo:

Accuse your opponent of doing what you're really guilty of doing yourself.

Juan wrote on April 19, 2007 7:50 PM:

I, too, am an Hispanic who finds Gonzo's behavior nauseus. He's a hack of the first order, a lackey and a man without an ounce of self-respect.
He would shine Bush's shoes if asked.
He must fall on his sword. He's an embarassment.

semanticleo wrote on April 19, 2007 8:05 PM:

"As far as I can tell Gonzales keeps his job. He took a beating but that's about it."

Brave words, Cecil.

Big Jim wrote on April 19, 2007 8:08 PM:

rex applegate hit the nail on the head:
Gonzo is the firewall between Rove and Bush.
He'll take the hit for the team, get rewarded down the line for his loyalty.
I cannot believe I was so naive.

midwestblue wrote on April 19, 2007 9:22 PM:

I, too, agree with rex applegate. He's kept that wall up for the time being. He's doing exactly as he's been coached to do, and in Bush's eyes, this hearing was a success.

yathink wrote on April 19, 2007 9:57 PM:

I cannot stand listening, let alone watching any Bushie do their performances, although I try. Why is it that I can spot a liar from 2000 miles away but those in DC can't see one across a table or in front of a microphone? Bushco's agenda is to lie, their policy is politics, and they want to destroy this government. I only hope the esteemed Senators can tell the rest of the country what has really happened throughout DOJ. Then impeach them all.

jess wrote on April 19, 2007 10:53 PM:

Does he use Stuart Smalley's mirror every day? I'm dedicated, I'm smart enough, I'm good enough to be AG.

code: nation. save it.

RandyR wrote on April 19, 2007 11:46 PM:

The longer Gonzales stays the more intense the investigation becomes. If Gonzo resigns the investigation will lose its momentum. Let him stay, a new Bush AG will be the same old shit, but with Gonzales still there, the committee will continue to be hot and will keep the public interested.

He still has to stand for FISA, Civil Rights, Voting Rights, the FBI, signing statements, emails and all the failed political prosecutions. If he quits it means that they got away with it. More people were interested in this hearing than anything the Senate has done in years, we don't the goat to leave, we want him to stand and take it.

Gonzales is Congress's admission ticket to the White House because he served there for so long but now as AG he has to come every time Congress calls. Even if he doesn't crack and spill the beans he still will yield much evidence through his staff.

As the great Meyer Baba once said, "Don't worry be happy."

Austin Cooper wrote on April 20, 2007 2:16 AM:

RandyR has a good point -- but Gonzales himself will never "crack". Gonzales is 'loyal' to the Sainted Leader. If the Leader finally bowed to Republican Congressional pressure and fired him, Gonzales still wouldn't talk. He'd 'take one for the team' -- as Harriet Miers did, as Rummy (finally) did, as lil' Scooter did.

But Gonzales may not need to for the investigation to continue. Things have reached the point where a physician has walked into the room, with a grim expression -- and the GOP Congressional Leadership is frightened to death that the doctor will say, "We're sorry, but even if you agree to removing Gonzales, this has spread so far it can't be contained. Conventional methods of treatment will not work. The patient won't live past the Fall of 2008."

This is what they're most afraid of -- that, and the slow, building momentum of the American public behind a final identification of Bush, Rove, Cheney and their whole rotten crowd, with failure and misery, imcompetence and deceit.

It isn't (sadly) that the country has become suddenly Blue; people have finally seen enough reality with their own eyes, primarily over Iraq, to brand the administration as screw-ups, as *losers*. If it were American Idol, all these murderous clowns would have been sent home long ago.

Even if Fredo goes, there's no stopping the progression of those connections in the public mind. And the Republicans know it.

What they don't know, and what frightens them even more, is that *they don't know what new aspect of the disease will pop up next*.

Bill Mitchell wrote on April 20, 2007 2:37 AM:

I think his responses today were pathetic.

bjobotts wrote on April 20, 2007 2:50 AM:

Proving that 'anyone' can be an AG. Just listening to him respond one becomes totally aware that he should be on the bottom wrung of the ladder at the DOJ. I suppose that being a loyal 'Bushie' just assumes incompetence and disregard for the rules. They must consider themselves "special". After all, Bush gets away with incompetence and disregard for the rules on a daily basis. One question I haven't seen asked is: if Rove is a political adviser to the president, why is he even involved in discussions about anything with the DOJ directly? The most obvious question however is: how can the American public possibly trust anything coming from the DOJ now? Gonzales has cast a cloud of suspicion and ineptitude nation wide and still can't see any reason he should resign...which is exactly why he should.
What I want to know is how we go about reversing the purge of minority voters so they can vote this time? How do we restrain the republicans from manipulating the voter rolls aimed at eliminating
minority voters?

Anthony wrote on April 20, 2007 7:58 AM:

http://www.pressrelease365.com/pr/government/federal/graves-attorney-general-gonzales-1275.htm

Kansas City, MO 04/09/07 - Medical Supply Chain founder Samuel Lipari unearthed a US Department of Justice memo revealing the Office of the Attorney General had targeted not eight but ten US Attorneys including the former attorney for the Western District of Missouri, Todd P. Graves. The documents were obtained during Medical Supply Chain's discovery related to the civil antitrust action Medical Supply Chain, Inc. v. Novation LLC, et al, Western District of Missouri case #05-210-CV-W-ODS filed on March 9, 2005.

The e-mail dated January 9th, 2006 from Kyle Sampson, chief of staff for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, to Harriet Miers and William Kelley at the White House, shows the ten U.S. Attorneys that were first selected to voluntarily resign or face termination. Attorneys that resigned were redacted. Todd P. Graves of Missouri resigned March 24, 2006.

Bradley Schlozman replaced Todd Graves.

Anthony wrote on April 20, 2007 8:01 AM:

Samuel Lipari became concerned that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales was using the firing of appointed US Attorneys and senior assistant US Attorneys to obstruct justice in investigations involving public corruption on October 18, 2004 when white collar crime prosecuting Assistant US Attorneys Leonard Senerote, Michael Uhl and Michael Snipes were fired from the Ft. Worth Texas office of the US Attorney that had issued subpoenas in an ongoing investigation of Novation LLC and other hospital suppliers for anticompetitive practices. Samuel Lipari was especially concerned over the firings in the Ft. Worth office where the chief US Attorney responsible for Medicare fraud, Thelma Louise Quince Colbert had been found dead in her swimming pool on July 20th, 2004 and the Ft. Worth office Senior US Prosecuting Attorney that had signed the subpoenas, Shannon Ross (formerly of Kansas) was found dead in her home on September 13th, 2004. Shannon Ross's investigation of Novation LLC sparked the New York Times article "Wide U.S. Inquiry Into Purchasing For Health Care" on Saturday August 21, 2004.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales used a little known provision of the USA PATRIOT Act to replace Todd P. Graves with Bradley Schlozman. Bradley Schlozman failed to prosecute public corruption related to the Medical Supply Chain litigation and failed to enforce civil rights laws related to the Novation LLC defendants success in getting Medical Supply Chain's counsel Bret D. Landrith disbarred. Samuel Lipari raised these concerns before the US Court of Appeals for the Eight Circuit. On January 16, 2007 Attorney General Gonzales tried to quell criticism of the mass US Attorney firings and the misuse of the USA PATRIOT Act by announcing John Wood would be taking Schlozman's place in Kansas City.

Anthony wrote on April 20, 2007 8:12 AM:

Texas is a rough place. Is this AG from Texas?

Anthony wrote on April 20, 2007 8:14 AM:

Replacing Bradley Schlozman changed ongoing prosecutions. I wish the Senators had this on their finger tips yesterday.

tomg wrote on April 20, 2007 9:25 AM:

hopefully as the rug gets pulled back more of this crap will start to show up. Getting rid of Gonzales will not solve the woes at DOJ. I say leave him there and as the stink pile grows he get the to become the face over and over again of the incompetence for this administration.

Blue Patriot wrote on April 20, 2007 9:41 AM:

Wow. That kind of dishonesty is usually reserved for people with multiple personalities... He really assumes that the senators on that pannel are as stupid as he is...

How did we get here?

The GOP must be dissolved into it's component parts- the crazy capitalists, the crazy christians, the slightly racist, and the spineless conservatives. Give them all their own party, and end this national nightmare.

Security Code: Waste, as in Wasting his breath.

chris wrote on April 20, 2007 1:05 PM:

"Is this AG from Texas?"
Is the Pope Catholic?
So are Rove and Miers...and many, many more (incompetent) loyalists.

Anthony wrote on April 20, 2007 1:15 PM:

I knew that. That was actually a rhetorical question.

crd wrote on April 24, 2007 9:19 AM:

That article you linked states:

"Schlozman brought four voter fraud indictments against members of an organization representing poor and minority people."

That characterization is simply incorrect. The individuals indicted were not "members" of the organization, but rather, as I noted above, employees who were being paid to register voters and who, by submitting fraudulent registrations were defrauding their employer, ACORN, as well as undermining our democratic system. Indeed, ACORN turned them in to the Feds.

ACORN itself released a statement which read:

Leaders of the community group ACORN today applauded the FBI for the steps it is taking to investigate individuals suspected in several cases of possible voter registration fraud that the group reported to authorities during a recent ACORN voter registration drive in the Kansas City area.

The individuals under investigation were temporary workers, hired--and later fired—by Kansas City ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) to help in its large-scale voter registration drive, which helps thousands of Kansas City residents register to vote.ACORN took the initiative on October 11 to contact the Kansas City Board of Elections and the Jackson County Prosecutor when the organization’s standard review process identified suspicious voter registration applications. ACORN provided to the Board and the prosecutor a letter with the name and contact information of the former employees who had collected the suspicious application. ACORN then facilitated the subsequent FBI inquiry by providing internal records documenting ACORN’s suspicion and other information as requested. ACORN will continue to provide its full support and cooperation in the investigation.

"When we caught this misconduct, we reporter [sic] it to the authorities. Now we want to see these folks prosecuted to the full extent of the law, because they have defrauded our organization, and, worse, detracted from our mission of ensuring that citizens in our community participate in the democratic process," said Claudia Harris, Chairperson of Kansas City ACORN

"Like the FBI, ACORN considers any interference in the voting process to be a very serious matter," Harris continued. "Across the state our attorneys today reached a settlement with the St. Louis Board of Elections to issue a retraction of the intimidating letter they sent out to thousands of voters we registered. Vigilance is needed to make sure that Scott Leindecker's St. Louis Board of Elections does not engage in any other dirty tricks to suppress the African American vote."

http://www.pubdef.net/2006/11/4-acorn-workers-indicted-in-kc.html

Accordingly, I find the Joe Rich article to be suspect at best.

The article also states

"This blatantly contradicted the department's long-standing policy to wait until after an election to bring such indictments"

Again, I'd like to see a more detailed citation to this policy referenced. It would seem unjust and contrary to the ends of our system of laws to hold off indicting persons for political reasons. The pursuit of justice should be above political machinations -- indeed, isn't that precisely what this Gonzales/Rove attorney firing fiasco is about?

Martell wrote on September 24, 2007 2:53 AM:

Work from home, earn decent income and forget about your money worries forever. The Canadian marketer tells you how to build your online empire on a tight budget.

Gehl wrote on September 30, 2007 4:14 PM:

What is email marketing? The effective method of getting new leads for your business.

Jack wrote on October 11, 2007 3:57 AM:

How do you think about passing a drug test. Is it easy or not?

Eagles wrote on December 12, 2007 4:41 PM:

sale@mp3.com

Eagles wrote on December 12, 2007 7:02 PM:

sale@mp3.com

little nymphets wrote on January 25, 2008 9:59 AM:

I have just found an interesting forum on this theme
http://groups.google.com/group/nymphets-studio/web/nymphets-2