Comments (44)

Woodhall Hollow wrote on May 16, 2007 3:56 PM:

P-E-R-J-U-R-Y!

(code word fire--as in where there is smoke...)

EUGENE wrote on May 16, 2007 3:56 PM:

please how long is that little weasel gonna carry this crap on for
RESIGN ALREADY YOU TRAITOR!

skaren wrote on May 16, 2007 3:57 PM:

Oh my God you mean he may have lied. !!! :)

bobh wrote on May 16, 2007 4:03 PM:

it seems the SJC leahy already had something on gonzo, maybe hes shooting higher now

bordersmuggler wrote on May 16, 2007 4:04 PM:

Keep pushing until the lying machine goes TILT!

John S wrote on May 16, 2007 4:20 PM:

This is so sad. By the time this is over there will be nothing left of the Justice Department and cynicism will be even more widespread than it is now. It takes so long to build up an institution and it takes so little to tear it down.

Arlen Splecter wrote on May 16, 2007 4:24 PM:

Watch out. I might get really really mad this time.

Did you see how mad I was on Frontline last night?

Dade wrote on May 16, 2007 4:25 PM:

Karma always comes through in the end. The slow agonized collapse of the Bush house of cards is a thing of beauty to behold.

Buck wrote on May 16, 2007 4:30 PM:

..and as Rove and Co.tries to spin a tangled web through through machinations of a cleverly diabolical maze of contacts, the fifth column they don't know they created within the maze is presently sealing a fate that they can't imagine in their wildest dreams.

codeword: woman

bmaz wrote on May 16, 2007 4:31 PM:

So on exactly what basis is Griffin now serving? Or is he just a permanent undesiginated floater there? He is not confirmed; he is not Patriot Act designated; time limit for acting designation expired; that leaves one possibility. Maybe. But it has to be of record, or he has no authority.

Heh wrote on May 16, 2007 4:33 PM:

these people won't do the right thing so torture them slowly, embarrass them, hiss their every move, shout RESIGN in public places.

Cue smell, as in you stink up the rule of law

2-cent wrote on May 16, 2007 4:34 PM:

Don't understand why this is "bad news for Gonzales" if he's just going to carry on, impervious under the aegis of the WH.

parrot wrote on May 16, 2007 4:37 PM:

Correction #1:

I started reading the letter but there seems to be a tense error in the last sentence of the first paragraph: 'interviews' should be 'interviewed'.

sponson wrote on May 16, 2007 4:38 PM:

Subpoena John Ashcroft and have him confirm Comey's version of the hospital confrontation. That alone should be enough to cause Gonzales' actual resignation.

Security code: shame - no need for a comment

bordersmuggler wrote on May 16, 2007 4:38 PM:

Arlen Splecter

Are you as mad as you were when you learned about what Brett Tollman did, inserting that nasty "Splecter Amendment" to the PATRIOT Act. You were so mad at him that you had him promptly appointed as U.S. Attorney in Salt Lake City.

Don't forget to take your medication, Senator Splecter.

some dude named steevo wrote on May 16, 2007 4:39 PM:

When Gonzales testified before the Senate last month, he claimed that he'd always rejected the idea of using a Patriot Act provision to appoint handpicked U.S. attorneys

That is not true, Gonzales actually contradicted himself during this testimony. Gonzales said he did support the law when being questioned by Sen. Feinstein. But later, during Sen. Graham's question period, Gonzales said he did not support it.

a little more information

Spencer's Mom wrote on May 16, 2007 4:39 PM:

"The slow agonized collapse of the Bush house of cards is a thing of beauty to behold." - Dale

I think it's more like the game "Jenga" where you can only remove so many sticks before the whole tower comes crashing down!

Get out of the way, folks, it's on it's way down very, very soon!

PEACE

code word: waste, as in what a waste this entire administration has become.

The Bobs wrote on May 16, 2007 4:40 PM:

over the objections of the state's two Democratic senators

Sen. Mark Pryor (R-AR)

You might want to reconcile these two statements.

some dude named steevo wrote on May 16, 2007 4:41 PM:

When Gonzales testified before the Senate last month, he claimed that he'd always rejected the idea of using a Patriot Act provision to appoint handpicked U.S. attorneys

That is not true, Gonzales actually contradicted himself during this testimony. Gonzales said he did support the law when being questioned by Sen. Feinstein. But later, during Sen. Graham's question period, Gonzales said he did not support it.

a little more information

some dude named steevo wrote on May 16, 2007 4:44 PM:

sorry for the messed up posts... I apologize. Didn't know html would not be supported and no way to preview...

Here is what I meant to say:

"<When Gonzales testified before the Senate last month, he claimed that he'd always rejected the idea of using a Patriot Act provision to appoint handpicked U.S. attorneys"

That is not true, Gonzales actually contradicted himself during this testimony. Gonzales said he did support the law when being questioned by Sen. Feinstein. But later, during Sen. Graham's question period, Gonzales said he did not support it.

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/steevo/2007/may/10/gonzales_contradicts_himself_about_the_patriot_act

ww wrote on May 16, 2007 4:44 PM:

Gonzales will resign when the trops come home. i.e. Not while Bush is in office.

Impeach? Never get 2/3's. Perjury? Never get special prosecutor.

18 months to go and so much to unpack. Never happen.

ww wrote on May 16, 2007 4:44 PM:

Gonzales will resign when the troops come home. i.e. Not while Bush is in office.

Impeach? Never get 2/3's. Perjury? Never get special prosecutor.

18 months to go and so much to unpack. Never happen.

Arlen Splecter wrote on May 16, 2007 4:53 PM:

Dear Mr. bordersmuggler:

You thought I got mad about that FISA thingy or abuses of my special PATRIOT act amendment, but waaatch out my hackles are in a serious hackle and I might even make a speech on the Senate floor.

Just imagine that for a moment! A strongly worded speech on the Senate floor. Whew... getting a little light headed just thinking about it.

That'll show 'em.

Sincerely,
Arlen Splecter (L-PA)

p.s. If anybody sees my conviction laying around the Senate, please handle it with the utmost care and return it to my office. It's like Kryponite... powerful stuff. Gonzo...watch out you're Superman, but when someone finds that conviction of mine you better watch out!

Matt wrote on May 16, 2007 4:54 PM:

They won't be able to hang charges on this. Gonzales can simply testify that he had always rejected the idea in his mind, but didn't tell anyone until late December or early January.

It's like the giant piles of "I don't remember" answers - it can't be *proven* false by evidentiary standards, and criminal conviction requires evidence "beyond a reasonable doubt," not just "extremely probable."

(security code: "snake")

jdw wrote on May 16, 2007 4:58 PM:

BTW - despite Gonzo hating the Patriot Act clause, the DOJ never wanting to gum up the process, there never being the desire to use the interim USA appointment process, can anyone tell me who the current Interim USA for Arkansas is, how long he's been in that position, and whether any nomination for *anyone* to take the spot has been presented to the Senate?

I believe the answers are:

Timmy
December 15, 2006
No

Now I believe that Congress plugged that hole:

"On March 20, 2007, the Senate voted 94-2 to re-instate the 120-day term limit on interim attorneys appointed by the Attorney General. On March 26, the U.S. House overturned it as well, by a vote of 329-78."
-wiki

Is there a reason this hasn't this hasn't been sent up to Bush to sign/veto and start the 120 day clock ticking on Timmy?

Edog9 wrote on May 16, 2007 5:00 PM:

These people really hate America!

cv wrote on May 16, 2007 5:02 PM:

THis is a dead end--easily dealt with. Gonzales can say that he never considered it, but just didn't tell anybody until he finally announced his rejection. This only becomes an issue if there is evidence he ever backed such a plan. I haven't heard there is any.

united, I stand alone against collectiveism wrote on May 16, 2007 5:03 PM:

I think Gonzo may go the way of Wolfie. That is, with a lot of sound and fury, signifying nothing, forced out in the end. Had his chance to do the right thing and resign. Wouldn't know the right thing if it bit him in the ass. Which it is doing. Time to impeach the lying son-of-a-bitch.

Anonymous wrote on May 16, 2007 5:14 PM:

I've wondered about the alleged misstatements by Gonzalez and/or Sampson. In light of what appear to be Sampson-Gonzalez inconsistent statements -- and, by implication/inference allegations that one of them has lied under oath -- I have three concerns.

1. Sampson's counsel

Bradford A. Bereson has issued public statements to the effect that Sampson's testimony has been "consistent"; yet, Berenson is also -- by implication -- linked through the Comey testimony. Once Comey stated that there were disagreements within DoJ on the NSA surveillance, and that there were legal conclusions that they were not lawful -- would we not reconsider the veracity of Berenson's statements not only in re Samspon, but other issues Berenson has publicly commented: rendition, FISA [AT&T is Bronson's Client], and use of information to abuse prisoners.

2. Legal counsel duty to report misconduct

Once Sampson and Gonzalez have been shown to be making inconsistent statements, the issue arises: Who within Berenson's control at Sidley Austin would know -- or should know -- that either Gonzalez and/or Sampson were lying? Sidley Austin has over 1500 counsel around the globe; surely one of them is connected with Texas where there is a duty to report peer misconduct. What is Berenson's comment on the statements of Gonzalez; and does anyone at Sidley Austin have an explanation about what has or has not been reported to the TX disciplinary board for purposes of reviewing Gonzalez conduct? Arguably, someone at Sidley Austin would know whether it is Samspon or Gonzalez who has most likely lied; and they are in a position to provide information to the disciplinary board. Where is this report?

3. Attachment of legal counsel's conduct to client

Once Samspon's legal counsel -- by way of the White House counsel's office apparent knowledge of Comey's concerns with FISA -- is implicated, we have to reconsider whether outside counsel in re NSA and AT&T litigation has been tainted. Berenson is acting as counsel for AT&T, yet Comey's testimony suggests that the White House long knew the surveillance was illegal, contrary to apparent representations that the legal issues were classified or could not be discussed. Comey appears to have punched a fatal hole into the DOJ-AT&T defense in re FISA violations, to to mention raising the issue of what the White House was or was not aware of retaliation against Qwest for their opposition to what Comey said was illegal.
Comey's other statements -- as attached to the problem with Sampson and Gonzalez making inconsistent statements -- was that the FISA violations were known; and that these were documented. Consider what we know about the White House coordination on the US Attorney firings: Legal, political, and public affairs are involved. Despite Gonzalez not responding to Leahy's subpoena, one would think the lessons of the DoJ US Attorney e-mails [and the close coordination with the White House] that there would be some insight into the communications that should have occurred on the FISA issues, rendition, prisoner abuses, and other NSL violations which Comey Commented on.

Bringing this back to Sampson, Gonzalez and Berenson: It is within this nexus we have to consider the issue: To what extent the DoJ US Attorney Firing e-mails -- and their lack of retention -- is something that former White House counsel linked with the RNC would have known was an issue. Bluntly, these issues with Sampson and Gonzalez' inconsistent statements raise questions about what their legal counsel knew; whether they have fully done their jobs; and what other communications connected with the Comey memorandum would implicate formerly assigned White House counsel.

Because of the linkage between Gonzalez to the Patriot Act -- and his belated denial that he was using the Patriot Act to do things -- we have to consider what others things within the Patriot Act were used as blanket coverage for DoJ and the White House to engage in illegal activity: Their concerns were not contemporaneous, but retroactive and only surfaced when there were questions.

A. When did Berenson and other White House counsel discuss the rendition issues; and why did Berenson initially discuss rendition -- and the use of NSA data to support rendition -- but then change his position to something that was the opposite: That he could neither confirm nor deny the issue? Something changed and it appears there was another meeting with formerly assigned White House counsel to get them on the same sheet of music. When this occurred is of interest, and how it weaves within the DOJ US Attorney firing time line.

B. If the Patriot Act was this important as legal cover for DoJ and the White House to circumvent the Senate, when did the GOP plan to discuss their impending irrelevancy with the formerly assigned White House and DoJ Counsel; and what did the Senate hope to get in response/exchange for their complicity/silence on the use of the Patriot Act to circumvent the Senate?

C. Was there something that firms like Sidley Austin were doing for the Senators that would make their silence on these Constitutional issues worthwhile; or what was Sidley Austin promising the GOP it would do if it cooperated with the apparent plan to not ensure the GOP Senate was fully involved?

D. In light of the illegal Military Commissions Act -- which retroactively defined crimes in violation of ex post facto -- was there something going on in the DOJ that Sampson and Berenson should know about that would ensure the GOP Senate would do nothing about ex post facto violations in the Constitution?

E. What information does Berenson have about Tim Griffin -- both worked on the White House counsel team -- that would be something that Griffin would want Berenson to keep quiet about during confirmation hearings; and why would Sidley Austin and Berenson have confidence that Griffin during confirmation hearings would never be asked questions about rendition, prisoner abuse, FISA violations, or alleged war crimes linked with NSL violations?

F. Supposedly when Griffin was going to be appointed, US Senators objected. Normally if there is not home-state support the nominations die; without Senate involvement, GOP opposition to Griffin was moot. Was it the intention of Berenson, Griffin, and Sampson to inject their rendition-loving policies into the US Attorney office, and ensure that any FISA-rendition-Geneva related abuses were never prosecuted?

G. There appears to be more going on than has been disclosed. It seems a stretch to believe that one US Attorney would block action that might be taken against formerly assigned White House counsel: So what else had to be in place to ensure that formerly assigned White House counsel did not have public questions or challenges to the FISA, rendition, and war crimes issues?
G. The change in position on the Patriot Act is noteworthy. First the White House and DOJ pushed for the change in language to circumvent the Senate; DoJ e-mails wanted to preserve this option; yet Gonzalez has reversed himself suggesting that he didn't want to use this. What would explain [a] the massive support required to inject the original language in the Patriot Act to circumvent the Senate; yet [b] the apparent "we know nothing"-approach Gonzalez is taking on what did or didn't happen? It seems as though many people inside the White House, outside counsel, and DOJ would have had to have been involved with the original legislation changes to the Patriot Act: Where are these people; did they understand it was illegal; and how does Berenson and Sampson's apparent ongoing professional connection link with the speedy injection of this language into the Patriot Act, but the sudden reversal?

There are too many lawyers who have apparently contradicted themselves. It would be appropriate if we were to look at the unfolding issues not in terms of just politics and laws, but whether there are ongoing professional ethics implications to what we are finding related to current and formerly assigned White House and DOJ counsel. If there has been illegal planning and orders -- as it relates to war crimes, NSLs, FISA violations -- I have yet to hear a credible explanation how this much illegal activity could occur, yet nobody knows anything. Comey's statements cast a wide net suggesting that many formerly and currently assigned DOJ and White House counsel have some legal problems not just under FISA, but for their apparent refusal to report peer misconduct. Then again, maybe the American legal community has a hidden agreement to only pretend it is self-regulating, and defer to the "power of Congress" to impeach to resolve this mess. Impeachment's off the table; apparently attorney ethics in the DOJ and White House counsel's office is off as well.

sc: "bent" as in, "Berenson, Sampson, and formerly assigned White House counsel can get bent."

EH wrote on May 16, 2007 5:17 PM:

Eh, the argument will go something like that Griffin was not "handpicked," that "until the end of Dubya's term" does not qualify as "permanent" or "indefinite."

parrot wrote on May 16, 2007 5:22 PM:

Correction #1 page one, paragraph one:

I started reading the letter but there seems to be a tense error in the last sentence of the first paragraph: 'interviews' should be 'interviewed'.

Correction #2 page 4, : several errors around the date, including a hanging phrase.

Mark Bendig wrote on May 16, 2007 5:46 PM:

I have never seen such a slimy weasel as this little Gonzales creep. Seeing him and Bush together is enough to make me hurl. He needs to go, and go now. Why are we putting up with this crap??

Richard L. Adlof wrote on May 16, 2007 5:58 PM:

Gone-farging-lawless is a farging firewall. AG the AG is going NO-farging-where.

It is too late for an impeachment to fix anything . . . Removing Fredo will provide emotional release but do little to stop the current Administations' malfeasence. Actually, as long as the Torture Czar is collecting a paycheck for the DoJ, both house of Congress have a reason to beat the dead horse . . . Hopefully, in a year or so, even the most die-hard dittoheads will pull their heads out o' their backsides.

Until then chill a bit. Everyday George fails to fund the troops and every trip Gonzales makes up the hill means that we have to hear about Falwell w/o his hooker or Britney's beaver and not about nukes falling on Iran.

bill wrote on May 16, 2007 6:21 PM:

>>It's like the giant piles of "I don't remember" answers - it can't be *proven* false by evidentiary standards, and criminal conviction requires evidence "beyond a reasonable doubt," not just "extremely probable."<<

Nonsense. The reasonable doubt standard with regard to Gonzalas's perjury was met long ago.

Way more flagrant than the Libby case

Texlib wrote on May 16, 2007 10:31 PM:

Is it because I'm getting older that the Bush administration scandals are more difficult to keep up with than Nixon's Watergate caper or is it the Bushies do a better job of lying, spinning, and cover-up than Nixon ever thought of doing.

The Oracle wrote on May 17, 2007 1:48 AM:

Some Republicans in Congress are beginning to realize that Alberto Gonzales is an albatross hanging around their necks.

And they're trading in their rubber-stamp reading "Yes, Masters Bush and Cheney, Anything You Want" for another rubber-stamp that says "VOID," but only in relation to voiding Alberto "The Weasel" Gonzales as Attorney General.

Unfortunately, too little, too late. The damage done to our democracy by members of the worst administration in American history may be irreparable. The rubber-stamp Republicans of the previous congresses, responsible for looking the other way while our nation was being looted, should hang their heads in shame...far, far away from public office.

In the meantime, it is time for all patriotic U.S. citizens to "VOID" as many Republicans from public office as possible in November 2008. It is our duty. It is our right. They "VOIDED" their oath to our U.S. Constitution, so in November 2008 it will be up to U.S. citizens to "VOID" as many Republicans as possible from the public dole. They have betrayed us and our children. "VOID"'em, "VOID"'em all!!!

Carol wrote on May 17, 2007 4:54 AM:

If i was on jury duty, i would not convict anyone, until gonzales is gone. traffic stop, first degree murder trial, would not matter. There is no integrity in the judicial system anymore. i can no longer believe anything they say anymore.

JNagarya wrote on May 17, 2007 10:25 AM:

"Oh my God you mean he may have lied. !!! :)

"Posted by: skaren
Date: May 16, 2007 03:57 PM"

Watch it: calling a member of the Bushit-is-God administration is tantamount to calling Gos Hisself a liar.

SC = boat. As in, who's rockin' the boat?

JNagarya wrote on May 17, 2007 10:30 AM:

"Don't understand why this is "bad news for Gonzales" if he's just going to carry on, impervious under the aegis of the WH.

"Posted by: 2-cent
Date: May 16, 2007 04:34 PM" Do you like the fact that obvious liar Gonzo refuses to resign, and Bushit refuses to fire him? Neither do most of We the people.

And that's as good a reason as any to leave him there as added incentive to increase the call by We the people for impeachment not merely of Gonzo, but also of the boss who praises, and thus approves, the lying and perjury.

Frank wrote on May 17, 2007 11:14 AM:

Impeach the second generation product of illegal immigration.

Anonymous wrote on May 17, 2007 11:55 AM:

Re:
"Bringing this back to Sampson, Gonzalez and Berenson: It is within this nexus we have to consider the issue: To what extent the DoJ US Attorney Firing e-mails -- and their lack of retention -- is something that former White House counsel linked with the RNC would have known was an issue. Bluntly, these issues with Sampson and Gonzalez' inconsistent statements raise questions about what their legal counsel knew; whether they have fully done their jobs; and what other communications connected with the Comey memorandum would implicate formerly assigned White House counsel."

Gonzales, Meiers, Sampson, and other attorneys may have committed acts of simple perjury, obstruction, or conspiracy to obstruct -- but there have been more serious acts... Gonzales' and Yoo's legal basis for ordering the use of torture and rendition, for example, or the as-yet unknown aspects of a massive surveillance and wiretapping program.

No one has broken ranks, yet -- not seriously, in a John Dean manner. And they won't -- because they believe that the ultimate authority for the correctness of their acts rests with the Executive...

... And not simply the President, but anyone acting on his authority, such as the Vice President's office, the AG, the SecDef, or Karl Rove. And, persons who work under *their* authority.

It doesn't matter what the Constitution says. If *The Executive* orders a thing, then that order and all acts resulting from it are legal.

The umbrella justification for any orders from the Executive has been and continues to be the 'War On Terror'. The other unbrella is 'Executive Privilege', and both justificatons are linked in circular fashion. And the President, as the War Leader and the Unitary Executive figure, must be protected.

It doesn't matter if it involves a massive, secret wiretapping program, a botched disaster response for a major city; meetings 'energy policy'; torture and secret prisons; no-bid contracts to Haliburton; or an attempt to subvert the national Democratic process via the DoJ. All is covered by protecting The Executive, and by Executive Privilege.

There's also an ideological factor. Many of the players mask their behaviors behind the patchwork of justifications of the Right: Neocon; free-marketeers; religious, Republican die-hard... any potential violations of law or ethical breaches they've committed have been done with those beliefs as an underpinning.

But these are personal beliefs. To escape exposure and possible prosecution, they need The Executive as cover.

My point is this: In an ideal world, persons who see wrongdoing or ethical breaches will step up, for principle's sake, and speak out.

But this is the real world. Ethics and law unaffected by prejudice or power isn't fashionable in the America of the Roves and Cheneys and Gonzaleses.

Those persons with knowledge of breaches or crimes by others, who should speak out, will not -- because of their own fears. There's an excuse provided by the WOT, the "need" for a strong, 'Unitary Executive', the hatreds and prejudices of their ideological lot.

But it comes down to this: Bush, Cheney, and Rove are well-known to be vengeful men who delight in using power to intimidate and punish. So do their deputies, who ape their masters. No one wants to be targeted by people with the reflexes of sociopaths.

So, no one wants to be the first to test the justifications which they use to support their silence. To them, a lack of ethics is really just an expression of a "higher principle" -- when in truth, they know better, and are simply frightened into silence.

Austin Cooper wrote on May 17, 2007 11:57 AM:

"Gonzales, Meiers, Sampson, and other attorneys may have committed acts of simple perjury, obstruction, or conspiracy to obstruct -..."

Sorry; meant to sign that post...

MikeBee wrote on May 17, 2007 3:03 PM:

were the f*&k are those missing emails???

Sarah wrote on May 31, 2007 8:31 AM:

Who cares about powerless little Sara Taylor?! Subpeona Rove and Bush for goodness sake!