Comments (80)

sid58 wrote on May 1, 2007 4:05 PM:

Could be he's been advised to skip the I Don't Recalls and replace them with No Habla Anglaise.

Bearpaw wrote on May 1, 2007 4:10 PM:

I wonder if he'll remember to attend the hearing.

(Heck, how does he remember to zip his fly? Has he delegated that job to an aide?)

Mark Richards wrote on May 1, 2007 4:16 PM:

There are a ton of other tales to tell, which should keep the witness chair warm for quite a number of hours.

Among the missing answers are those closer to home, such as how is it that an innocent traveler (and Canadian citizen) was "detained" by the Homeland boys at Kennedy airport, kidnapped, and sent to Syria for torture? He was eventually released when it was discovered that the US under Gonzales had made a colossal mistake. The fallout was mostly in Canada, where the head of their RCMP (equivalent to our Homeland boys, only saner) resigned in disgrace.

This victim, despite being cleared of any "terrorist" ties, is not allowed back in the US.
Why? Could it be that he would serve as a P-R embarrassment to the current mal-administration?

I believe Senator Lahey came out of his chair a while back on this, and at one point I thought that the Good Senator was about to go into vapor lock, or grab the current AG by the throat (which given the circumstances would have been wonderful to behold).

This issue remains, to put in in a pun form, "hanging". Inquiring Americans would like to know who - here - will be paying for this (and all the other) crime.

Nina wrote on May 1, 2007 4:17 PM:

I don't remember Alberto Gonzales testifying before Congress two weeks ago!

I mean... I now have remembered THAT I WATCHED IT but I don't REMEMBER HAVING WATCHING IT.

Where do I sign?

JMarra wrote on May 1, 2007 4:18 PM:

He'll do a Condi, of course: "I already answered those questions."

bordersmuggler wrote on May 1, 2007 4:19 PM:

If he's stuck on a reply, he could ask Senator Spectre Amendment to help him with the answer.

Nina wrote on May 1, 2007 4:20 PM:

Abbott: Who signed the orders allowing Sampson and Goodling to hire/fire?

Costello: That's right.

Abbott: What's right?

Costello: No, What gave the order from the WH to have Iglesias fired.

Abbott: Who?

Costello: What's the guy you're talking about.

cindy wrote on May 1, 2007 4:21 PM:

I don't remember Alberto Gonzales testifying before Congress two weeks ago!

I mean... I now have remembered THAT I WATCHED IT but I don't REMEMBER HAVING WATCHING IT.

Where do I sign?

HAH!

security code SOUND as in the whole thing smells.

dotsright wrote on May 1, 2007 4:24 PM:

It should be very interesting watching the AG come up with answers to the questions the Committee will inevitably be asking.

Why weren't we informed of this memo in the first place? Why was this memo not included in the documents provided by DOJ? Have you lost your friggin' mind?

Smartypants wrote on May 1, 2007 4:25 PM:

Not only does someone else zip his fly, his entourage includes staffers to hold it, shake it off (only two shakes - any more than that would be kinda gay), sprinkle on baby powder and tuck it back in his pants.

overqualified wrote on May 1, 2007 4:27 PM:

Congressman, I have signed thousands of documents during my tenure as AG. I also have multiple appointments on my calendar, literally every day. I know some people say I signed it, and so I must have, but frankly, I have no recollection of it. I have searched my memory with my memory searcher device and nothing registers. I am sorry. But I committed to restoring your trust in my ability to do the important work this job requires that I do, even if I can't ever remember what the hell it was I've been doing.

mlaw230 wrote on May 1, 2007 4:27 PM:

It would seem that the delegation of authority is designed to insulate Gonzales in the event that the underlings fire an AUSA who was investigating matters that implicated Gonzales. If there wasn't a problem, no-one would ever seethe order, if there was a clear conflict then he says that he essentially recused himself from the process. That is the only reason the director of department would cut himself out of the loop.

unpoetaloco wrote on May 1, 2007 4:28 PM:

Was Gonzales really even Attorney General? Did he execute any of the powers or responsibilities of his position? Was he just occupying the office (literally the physical space) just to make it look like there was an attorney general?

Is Karl Rove (and his flying monkeys) running the whole friggin' circus?

Duckman GR wrote on May 1, 2007 4:30 PM:

They might want to ask him what he was doing too, to earn his salary, since he wasn't supervising his staff, and wasn't working on a lot of things overly memorable.

Alana wrote on May 1, 2007 4:32 PM:

A-GAG doesn't have the stones to come forth and say "I can't recall" another 71 times, does he?

Either he's devoid of decency or believes in the neocon crap en toto. Does he really think it isn't a matter of time before he's out on his ass?

IMPEACH A-GAG ASAP !

Vulture Breath wrote on May 1, 2007 4:33 PM:

Is Comey still scheduled for this week?

cervantes wrote on May 1, 2007 4:33 PM:

The way to say "I don't speak English" in Spanish is "No hablo Inglés," not "No habla Anglaise." "No habla" means "He doesn't speak," and Anglaise is French.

Puhleeze.

phil james wrote on May 1, 2007 4:37 PM:

I think its a good bet he will not be there on the 10th. He may have to postpone his appearance because of new issues that have come to light. This will cause another month's delay. The important thing for Gonzo right now, in fact the only reason he is still part of the Bush cabinet, is to stall, stall, stall, stonewall, obfuscate, stall, obfuscate, and then, finally, say he cannot recall. His appearance if it ever occurs will be a farce, just as his others have been and just as the appearances of his cohorts in crime have been. This is all fun to watch of course, but it produces nothing of value except the ever deepening conviction that nothing will be forthcoming from Bush/Rove co-conspirators until some kind of special prosecutor is appointed (does the AG have a say in that?) or impeachment papers are prepared.

Anonymous wrote on May 1, 2007 4:37 PM:

In response to Overqualified... A Typical Thursday Phone Call from GSA:

LURITA and ALBERTO

Lurita: Alberto, is that you?
Alberto: Lurita?
Lurita: Alberto?
Alberto: Didn't you call me?
Lurita: You just called me... how can I help you?
Alberto: No, you called me!
Lurita: I called you yesterday... but honestly, I can't remember if I called you yesterday.
Alberto: I have searched my memory and can plainly recollect that I called you yesterday, but now that I remember, I recall that I don't know why.
Lurita: Why what?
Alberto: Oops gotta go. Talk to you tomorrow.
Lurita: Bye, Karl
Alberto: Who's Karl?

Nina wrote on May 1, 2007 4:39 PM:

Alberto: That was from Nina.

bordersmuggler wrote on May 1, 2007 4:43 PM:

How does Arlen Spectre get a free pass in all of this, sitting on Leahy's panel and wasting valuable hearing time asking asinine questions, when there is as much muck on his hands as on the Torturer's.

Duckman GR wrote on May 1, 2007 4:44 PM:

He's devoid of a conscience, a la Heinrich Himmler, to use an analogy that actually makes sense (for Glenn Beck who needs the help).

RandyR wrote on May 1, 2007 4:47 PM:

Next question, how many appointments were made under this order? Who? How many fired? Who?
Who provided the candidates for appointment?

But, of course he won't remember and even if he could he wouldn't tell them. I wonder if the Committees are continuing to bring Gonzolas forward is to extend the time of the investigation. If you look at the revelations that come forth every week; if I were the president I would cut a deal. But he ain't to smart either.

Security code: warm But it isn't a warm seat it's the hot seat.

Punchy wrote on May 1, 2007 4:50 PM:

So...should we assume he's going to spend the next 10 days hard at work preparing to say "I dont recall", thus NOT DOING HIS JOB and therefore simply stealing paychecks?

If AG used 3 weeks prepping his testimony, doesn't that about max out his vacation time? He surely didn't do all that prep while on the job, did he? How much vacation days does the AG get?

jinny wrote on May 1, 2007 4:51 PM:

Who is it who is appearing on Thursday - is it Monica Goodling or James Comey?

So many, its difficult to keep track - we need a diary of court appearances.

phil james wrote on May 1, 2007 4:52 PM:

Question: When (not if) Leahy and company tire of the Gonzo farce, what is the next step they can take to force actual disclosure of the information they seek? Anyone...?

bordersmuggler wrote on May 1, 2007 4:59 PM:

Senator Patrick Leahy should ask Arlen Spectre to recuse himself from the hearing on May 10, because of the obvious conflict of interest. The episode of the firing of the eight US attorneys would not have proceeded when it did were it not for the insertion into the Patriot Act of the provision for interim appointments by Arlen Spectre, Rove's mole in Congress.

Anonymous wrote on May 1, 2007 5:02 PM:

Not only did Gonzales first claim that he wasn't involved in the process of determining which USAs should be fired/asked to resign before he "clarified" that untruth by accepting full responsibility for the flawed process and final approval of their firings, we can now expect him to further "clairfy" that different untruth by claiming he'd forgotten he'd delegated that responsibility to Kyle Sampson and Monica Goodling, which is why he first claimed he wasn't "involved" in the discussions of their being fired.

I wonder, did Kyle Sampson inform the committee that it had once been proposed that he and Goodling have the authority/responsibility to fire USAs with or and without Gonzales' final/rubber stamp approval? Did he inform the committee that despite the fact that Gonzales had delegated the authority/responsibility to determine which USAs would be fired/asked to resign to HIM, WHY did HE not know where the names of the USAs HE was responsible for firing/asking to resign came from?

Chris wrote on May 1, 2007 5:08 PM:

I think it is unfortunate to use a clearly racist comment like, "No habla Anglaise", in this context. Who cares where his family came from? Other than certain parties on the Right. We don't want to be associated with that kind of behavior, do we? Oh, and in French it is "Anglais", as in a masculine word, in addition to your Spanish grammatical mistakes. If you are going to make a racist/culturalist comment, I applaud the fact that you made it appear to come from someone very ignorant of at least 3 languages. It was sarcastic, right?

BinGA wrote on May 1, 2007 5:08 PM:

Code=warm, as in warm mulligan stew.

Seriously, how many mulligans does this guy get?

JRoyale wrote on May 1, 2007 5:28 PM:

>I wonder if he'll remember to
>attend the hearing.

>(Heck, how does he remember to zip
> his fly? Has he delegated that job to an aide?)

I'm surprised he has enough brain power to remember to breathe.

Anyway, the Senators should ask him why he deliberately moved himself outside of the hiring/firing loop. Not that we don't already *know* the answer, but it would nice to have it on the record.

nellieh wrote on May 1, 2007 5:30 PM:

There is no doubt in my mind that these cretins get together after testifying, Gonzales, Lurita et al, and discuss their success in screwing the public just as the energy distributors at ENRON did to California. Peas of a pod. Code word - memory - as in they have none that would'nt expose them as criminalds.

Leta wrote on May 1, 2007 5:31 PM:

There has got to be ONE good American in this bunch at the DOJ. One good American who could not hold his nose any longer. One good American that will have the balls to stand up, produce the evidence and bury the bastards.

Jaywrite wrote on May 1, 2007 5:35 PM:

Congress should hold the AG in contempt. "Mr. Gonzales, you've had several weeks now to investigate the record and refresh your memory. Either give this committee a real answer or be held in contempt."

Can Congress impeach him?

Anonymous wrote on May 1, 2007 5:36 PM:

Picture caption:

" I was this close to getting off scott free"

Mickey wrote on May 1, 2007 5:38 PM:

There has got to be ONE good American in this bunch at the DOJ. One good American who could not hold his nose any longer.

Reckon it was Michael Battle?

TheraP wrote on May 1, 2007 5:47 PM:

JMarra @ 4:18

How about this? If Alberto should even TRY to tell the committee, "I already answered that question," I wish the committee members would say, "Gee, I can't recall you answering that." And perhaps Leahy could then tell him, "AG AG, as you see: The committee has searched its memory and cannot recall you answering that. So, tell us your answer - again."

faris wrote on May 1, 2007 6:08 PM:

"Senator, that's a good question........I don't really recall that I remembered........er, Senator, I honestly have no recollection of reviewing any requests that might have required my signature.....during the period that may or may not have been relative to the reviews of said attorneys....no sir."

bjobotts wrote on May 1, 2007 6:09 PM:

Rally, Is it a crime to assign power over to underlings to do unlawful acts so that later you can say I was not involved, I did not know they were doing these things, I was not actively included in the discussions? Suspect, arrest without telling anyone or letting him call anyone, then torture the truth out of him...Gonzales's 'quaint' justice. Can he honestly say "I did not do anything improper" now? How can he dare to claim competence? Still, resigning is not enough. He should be jailed for the damage he's done to the DoJ and the country's voters. (code word: expert-ha

Dennis wrote on May 1, 2007 6:10 PM:

Anyone who has been watching the revelations of corruption in this administration and in the Republican party can see just how much this administration "truly cares" about this country.

Not that I intend to uphold the Democrats, either, but presently, not too much has been revealed about their corruption.

For my part, I wish the Democrats would start hitting a little harder and louder about these corruptions and quit what appears to me to be almost shadow boxing.

You don't have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

Katherine wrote on May 1, 2007 6:12 PM:

Maher Arar (referenced above) was actually sent to Syria during John Ashcroft's tenure as A.G. But Gonzales maintains that it was legal, based on arguments that are incredibly incredibly easy to discredit. He's also not been seriously questioned on his Department's utter failure to prosecute prisoner torture cases--they were all sent to a special committee in E.D.Va. under Paul McNulty (before his promotion to Deputy AG), which is 0 for 17 in bringing charges despite some cases with compelling evidence.

It's blatantly obviously what went on there. Unfortunately I'd be shocked if the Democrats pursued this.

faris wrote on May 1, 2007 6:15 PM:

PICTURE CAPTION OPTION #2:

"Senator......if I may, I'd like....I'd like the distance between my hands to reflect the length of my memory."

phil james wrote on May 1, 2007 6:33 PM:

Jaywrite:
Yes Congress can impeach him. But I believe they would pursue something short of that first if it would be at all productive. Certainly the current hearings are not likely to produce anything of substance. Someone suggested holding him in contempt of Congress. Anyone know what penalty they could impose? Seems to me some kind of Special Prosecutor needs to come in at some point.

bob voso wrote on May 1, 2007 6:35 PM:

Oh, the heartbreak of Gonzalzheimer's Disease

phil james wrote on May 1, 2007 6:37 PM:

Q: Is Karl Rove (and his flying monkeys) running the whole friggin' circus?

A: Yes, from day one.

phil james wrote on May 1, 2007 6:37 PM:

Q: Is Karl Rove (and his flying monkeys) running the whole friggin' circus?

A: Yes, from day one.

Hank Gillette wrote on May 1, 2007 6:42 PM:

I'd just like to point out that the article says Gonzales will be appearing before the House Judiciary Committee, not the Senate Judiciary Committee, so all the references to what Senators should do are irrelevant.

faris wrote on May 1, 2007 6:42 PM:

Caption # 3:

"Attorney General Gonzales.......I assume by the position of your hands.....that do remember it is bigger than a breadbox.....is that what you're indicating?"

Dave wrote on May 1, 2007 6:44 PM:

I'm sure AG will use the same tactic...

I don't remember a thing.

But I'm sure the final decision I made was 100% correct. The decision shall stand and it will stand.

(Gee, I just realized Gonzales' initials AG are the same as the abbrev for Attorney General. Interesting. Maybe he was born for the position.)

Basharov wrote on May 1, 2007 6:47 PM:

"They might want to ask him what he was doing too, to earn his salary, since he wasn't supervising his staff, and wasn't working on a lot of things overly memorable."

C'mon, he remembered that he had attended a conference called "Meth Awareness Day." He's a busy fellow and can't be expected to remember every little detail.

faris wrote on May 1, 2007 7:03 PM:

Gosh, Hank Gillette.....you get a gold star and an "A" for your 'attentiion' to detail. Or does the "A" really refer to 'anal?' How about a new word for today.....'anality'. (Perhaps 'analitous?')

Anyone?........anyone?.....Bueller?

Anonymous wrote on May 1, 2007 8:16 PM:

No answers. No money.

whidbeygrl wrote on May 1, 2007 8:59 PM:

Q: "Is Karl Rove (and his flying monkeys) running the whole friggin' circus?"

The really scary piece, to me, is learning the idealogy of the Neo-cons, which goes back to the 50's, is so very strong still today.
Thus Rummy and Cheney ( and Wolfowitz, et al.)
have shared in the creation of the social/global monster that now threatens us.
Rove is a relative newcomer to the fold, but does have his own rigid dominatin view., as we all know.
And they *all* truly madly deeply believe they are entitled to decide what is best for the whole planet, that most humans are just irrational impediments to their grand schemes..
Best synopsis of Neo con history and thinking is in The Power of Nightmares documentary. I thihnk it is still viewable on Google video.
Chilling....

pointus wrote on May 1, 2007 9:13 PM:

When will congress show some 'muscle' and APPOINT A SPECIAL PROSECUTOR??

starwheel wrote on May 1, 2007 9:24 PM:

The Bush Administration has turned the Justice Department into a tragic joke. Frankly, anything Gonzales says at this point is irrelevant.

I just want to know what the next steps are to get Condi's defiant ass in front Congress.

bohdi wrote on May 1, 2007 9:25 PM:

As predicted, peanut balls will stay. No question. AT this juncture in the decaying history of the Empire/republic the legislative branch has little or no real power. The players in the Executive know this and are cackling under their breath and rightfully so. They are going to gum this so hard it will be like granny taking her teeth out to do the old house dog.

Regardless time is on their side the Media will forever remain on their side and continue to co opt all of the issues by ventilating harmless degrees of discovery and outrage but never engaging serious discussion of underlying concerns such as treason or impeachment. And finally by far the most competent and masterful of all the participants, the one himself who rivals Professor Moriarty in his ability to move others around on his own chess board as if they were pawns, the worlds most skilled fatman himself, K. Rove is playing for and largely running the Executive. Checkmate.

bohdi wrote on May 1, 2007 9:29 PM:

As predicted, peanut balls will stay. No question. AT this juncture in the decaying history of the Empire/republic the legislative branch has little or no real power. The players in the Executive know this and are cackling under their breath and rightfully so. They are going to gum this so hard it will be like granny taking her teeth out to do the old house dog.

Regardless time is on their side the Media will forever remain on their side and continue to co opt all of the issues by ventilating harmless degrees of discovery and outrage but never engaging serious discussion of underlying concerns such as treason or impeachment. And finally by far the most competent and masterful of all the participants, the one himself who rivals Professor Moriarty in his ability to move others around on his own chess board as if they were pawns, the worlds most skilled fatman himself, K. Rove is playing for and largely running the Executive. Checkmate.

tekel wrote on May 1, 2007 9:43 PM:

perhaps the time has come to talk of seppuku. Alberto, we're going to ask you to fall on your sword, literally, in front of the committee and on live television. Do be a good chap and make sure to leave your guts in a pile on the rubber sheet.

Seriously. If this guy was a soldier, someone would have shot him in the back by now. Or even in the face.

whizkid wrote on May 1, 2007 10:07 PM:

Simply placekick this Amway salesman thru the goalposts.
And if Bush says he was impressed this time, then get him under psychiatric care.

Richard L. Adlof wrote on May 1, 2007 10:46 PM:

bjobotts @ May 1, 2007 06:09 PM,

The name of crime you are inquiring about is Conspiracy - Specific underpinning charge probably would be Obstruction.

Both are felonies plus his comtempt and giving false testimony . . . All which fall under the 'High Crimes' clause for impeachment.

Gonzales is pooched anytime both Houses of Congress decide to pull the trigger. Right now it is gettiing duck in a row time AND looking to nail members on the Administration time.

We should all take the time to enjoy the ride. Justice takes time. Nailing the door shut on Fascist Plutocrats needs to be sold to the 29 percenters.

Ye

craig wrote on May 1, 2007 11:27 PM:

My favorite part of the Senate hearings was when c-span let the cameras roll on at the end and after Schumer was talking you here a faceless female voice say "...how was he able to pass law school?...". Best point made. I think contempt charges would definetely be in order if he has the nerve to try it again.

Mark wrote on May 1, 2007 11:42 PM:

I think the court should order Mr. Gonzalez to remove that dinky little American flag from his lapel, then the Chairman should drive it into his forehead with the heel of his shoe.

Anonymous wrote on May 2, 2007 12:03 AM:

Remember back when Gonzo was claiming he would not respond to the initial hearing subpoenas because he was too busy and did not have time?
I got an instant picture of the White Rabbit...scurrying came to mind.
Thankfully he apparently has lots and lots of free time now.

craig wrote on May 2, 2007 12:10 AM:

It is way more than contempt-it is conspiracy and treason plus a violation of their oaths of office to uphold and defend The Constitution of the U.S.Bush, Cheney, Rove and the others all need to be brought up on charges. Its too bad we don't have a true two or more party system so someone would actually do it. (hey Dem party you awake!)

Anonymous wrote on May 2, 2007 12:30 AM:

Could be he's been advised to skip the I Don't Recalls and replace them with No Habla Anglaise.
Posted by: sid58
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! The first comment is a winner! Cheap joke but still cracked me up. Anyway, I hope they nail the son of a bitch to the wall this time. The last time was one of the most memorable verbal beatdowns I've ever seen but I want this time to be even greater. He's gonna be feeling some confidence- so when he lets his guard down nail him! I hope the Dems are working overtime preparing.

Anonymous wrote on May 2, 2007 1:15 AM:

Someone gave a link over on kos to a tv station's website in Indianapolis:
http://wishtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=6453076
He was in town pimping all the great work he's done preventing school violence. Riiiiight. Anyway, check out the following quote (I'm convinced his IQ has dropped big time in the last few years):
(In reference to the newly disclosed order giving Goodling/Sampson power)
Gonzales said in the morning conference he had not seen the document, but in the afternoon one of his aides told 24-Hour News 8 Gonzales had seen it.
"I was reminded that it was shown to me yesterday. I haven't studied it. Let me study it. And I don't want to comment on it, but I was reminded that it was shown to me. But I didn't study it and so before commenting on it I'd like to have the opportunity to study it and find out what happened here because again I need to look at it."

Anonymous wrote on May 2, 2007 1:18 AM:

So did he or didn't he ever see it?
Security Code: good
Gonzales is a shitty liar, not a good one.....at all.

Sara wrote on May 2, 2007 1:24 AM:

This will be a most important hearing, because it will be Conyers Committee that will, if necessary, do the Impeachment Hearings on Gonzales a few months from now. It will be this committee staff that will back up the investigation and ultimately frame the charges.

I see two: Contempt for refusal or failure to respond to Subpoenas for testimony and documents, and they can begin to lay the grounds for this in specific terms on Thursday. The second charge, Conspiracy to obstruct the Oversight Committee is more complex, but again look for elements of this on Thursday.

A final charge could be perjury or some version of false statements. Of course all this failure to remember anything is a way to avoid lies -- but both under oath and in public forums he has said enough that both are possibilities. I will be looking for committee members to set questions that focus on such sworn statements or public statements.

The step after Thursday is whether or not members of the House step up to the hopper and drop in resolutions of impeachment against Gonzales. To make it work we need multiple writings of such resolutions. The process starts when these get referred to the Judiciary Committee.

K Ols wrote on May 2, 2007 1:31 AM:

I do believe Gonzo appears before the Senate Appropriations Committee May 9 and before the House Judiciary Committee on May 10.

It's going to be a hot time at the O.K. Corral next week.

Surely they will not let him get away with I don't recall this time.

Contempt of Congress charges are the responsibility of the U.S. Attorney so I think the only recourse is to impeach. The problem with impeachment is the House impeaches, but the Senate convicts and that would require 67 votes plus the Veep is over any trial in the Senate.

It is possible they could get 67 votes, but I doubt it. I think even many Repugs want him gone.

Maybe a Special Prosecutor is the only option left. How many on the judiciary committee would approve it? Or in the Senate? However that would work.

litigatormom wrote on May 2, 2007 1:47 AM:

Check this out (from http://wishtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=6453076):

"The Associated Press obtained a Justice Department order this week in which Gonzales gave two staffers authority to hire and fire more than 100 politically appointed Justice Department employees.

Gonzales said in the morning conference he had not seen the document, but in the afternoon one of his aides told 24-Hour News 8 Gonzales had seen it.

'I was reminded that it was shown to me yesterday. I haven't studied it. Let me study it. And I don't want to comment on it, but I was reminded that it was shown to me. But I didn't study it and so before commenting on it I'd like to have the opportunity to study it and find out what happened here because again I need to look at it.'

Gonzales said he will likely comment on the order when he appears in hearings before both the House and Senate next week."

Translation:

"I forgot when I told you earlier that I never saw the document that I had seen the document yesterday. I was reminded that I was shown the document yesterday. It is the document in which I delegate hiring and firing power to two wingnut pipsqueaks. I now understand that I not only signed this document, but also approved an earlier version that would have delegated even more authority to the pipsqueaks. I now have no independent recollection of having seen or approved of any version of the order, but I know that I was not involved in delegating my authority and that I did nothing improper in doing so. I do not need to recall the actual delegation in order to be sure of that. Which is a good thing, since I still don't recall."

Dan wrote on May 2, 2007 8:31 AM:

I wawsn't going to comment since this thing has been pretty well parsed out, but the code word I have this morning is "shame", and it's too good to let go.

Shame on the Bushies. We all know why.

Shame on the rest of us. We all know why.

Peter Duffy wrote on May 2, 2007 9:35 AM:

I hope he remembers to appear before the committee on May 10.

Perhaps TPM should give him a wake up call.

wrc wrote on May 2, 2007 10:54 AM:

Mr. Gonzales will embarrass himself and the President again. President Bush's devotion to loyalty above competence is giving the phrase "serves at the pleasure of the President," a "Nero-like" meaning.

ohiomeister wrote on May 2, 2007 11:11 AM:

The answer to #3, and quite possibly to #2 as well, seems to me to most likely be for plausible deniability. They all knew these schemes were dirty and didn't want to be tied too closely to them.

The reason WHY they ran the whole scheme is fairly obvious, I think. They wanted tighter control over the Justice Dept. and the entire Federal bureaucracy. Rove knew that Reagan had managed some "regulatory capture" during his presidency, in which the fox runs the henhouse and the oil/mining/timber interests decide environmental policy, such as with James Watt at the Interior Dept.

Rove probably wanted to expand on Reagan's success. This would basically involve turning the entire Federal bureaucracy into nothing more than an arm of the Republican party. That also helps to explain the presentations to the political appointees across the government. It certainly explains these attempts at making every single political appointee entirely beholden to Rove and the White House. Each one of them would have to think about the Republican party before deciding what to do in any given situation, putting it before the best interests of the American people or any other criteria they might otherwise use to decide.

It's despicable, but now that they've done it once, we should assume that it will be the new baseline, the status quo for the next GOP administration. Another reason why we have to work harder to explain these transgressions to the American people and explain why they matter so much. It seems we also have to explain them to D.C. pundits, who think it's all a game and don't seem to care one whit about honest, clean government.

latedave wrote on May 2, 2007 11:36 AM:

I'm old enough to remember Watergate and young enough to still remember Watergate.

At a hearing, John Dean was asked a long, convoluted question about White House conversations of some months earlier; the questioner at a certain point stopped--"ground to a halt" is more accurate--then asked to have the question repeated from the transcript as a courtesy. Dean said that was unnecessary, quoted the Senator(?) vertbatim, then proceeded to answer the question in detail, adressing every point.

John Mitchell, at his trial, repeated answered virtually every question "I can't recall."

Both went to jail.

Anonymous wrote on May 2, 2007 1:46 PM:

"I was reminded that it was shown to me yesterday. "

Yesterday, for god's sakes. he forgot something he saw yesterday !!!!
and just who is this "reminder" person? Does he have someone tagging after him filling his memory hole every hour?
does he spend anytime at DOJ or is he living in the WH.
Certainly does not appear to be living on any
world we live in. Well, ok, we take that for granted for all the Neo-Cons.
But for heaven's sake, Gonzo, if you trying to pass as an earthling you DO have to fake at least the basic day to day skills.
And your use of language could be a bit more precise.
Unless you took lessons frm Rice, of course.

Whistler wrote on May 3, 2007 7:21 AM:

The real question is: while GoshAwful Gonzo is in the hot seat - and therefore, out of his office; and therefore, not able to actively, personally interfere with the business of the Injustice Office ... how many other Republicans get raided? Or arrested? Or named in the HookerGate scandal?

ahem wrote on May 9, 2007 1:50 PM:

"Yesterday, for god's sakes. he forgot something he saw yesterday !!!! "

He's Alberto Goldfish.

martin KANE wrote on May 10, 2007 3:37 AM:

GONZALES...is not answerable to the President, he is answerable to the Constitution,as is Bush,Cheney,Woliwitz,Pearle. Lieberman,Tenet and every person responsible for the deliberate war on Iraq. Impeachment for treason would be my preferance.

martin KANE wrote on May 10, 2007 3:39 AM:

GONZALES...is not answerable to the President, he is answerable to the Constitution,as is Bush,Cheney,Woliwitz,Pearle. Lieberman,Tenet and every person responsible for the deliberate war on Iraq. Impeachment for treason would be my preferance.