Comments (55)

JTL wrote on July 10, 2007 9:26 AM:

Who wants to bet that this will "increase" the President's confidence in his Attorney General? The time for this to go is long past. The fact he's still there just underlines how corrupt and shameless this whole system has become.

Rebel wrote on July 10, 2007 9:29 AM:

Time to remove Gonzo for criminal conduct. Perjury is more serious than that weasel in the White House believes.

And it is the constitutional thing to do.

Security Code : "Fire" his ass.

KilgoreTrout XL wrote on July 10, 2007 9:46 AM:

Nothing will come of this.

Gonzalez already knows that he can hide behind his demonstrable incompetence:
"I didn't read them", "My subordinates should have read them,", "I skim most of the stuff that comes across my desk anyways", etc...

Bush will publicly admire his incompetence.

Democrats will be all bark & no bite.

The Band will march on.

Jane wrote on July 10, 2007 9:48 AM:

Impeach, already.

My subordinates ate my homework so I don't know what's going on is not really plausible excuse and there are enough knowledgeable Republican lawyers in Congress to know that.

It is time to see if they will exercise their consciences or at least, attempt to save their seats in the coming elections.

Broken Bottle wrote on July 10, 2007 10:11 AM:

"Who wants to bet that this will "increase" the President's confidence in his Attorney General? "

Of course it will. It proves that AlGo is a "loyal Bushie" and that he's earned his pardon / commuted sentence when the time comes.

Seriously. Is there no end to AlGo incompetence? Has he made any sort of an effort to at least appear that he's not acting directly on the president's behalf at all times? Is anyone with any sort of power in this administration even attempting to work on the public's behalf instead of behaving like a bunch of thugs operating in their own and the president's best interests?

I think about Bush's 2000 campaign talking point about "restoring integrity to the oval office" and it makes me want to puke.

TheraP wrote on July 10, 2007 10:18 AM:

Yes, Jane. If government officials pretend to be less informed than we are, there are no way we are believing that!

Incompetence. Mendacity. Greed. Criminality disguised as an executive branch - trying to usurp all other branches!

We are in the muck for sure. And after spending all the money to buy this muck, we are really in a mess!

Anonymous wrote on July 10, 2007 10:30 AM:

Keep in mind that 90% of the bad actors are still in place at DOJ.

Brad "the Schloz" Schlozman
Rachel Paulouse
Brett Tolman
Alice Fisher

Vitter on the call girl list? Just a diversion.

dee illuminati wrote on July 10, 2007 10:37 AM:

AP article on new DOJ probe of domestic spying program failed to note that Bush blocked previous one

Summary: In reporting on the Justice Department's probe into the Bush administration's warrantless domestic surveillance program, the Associated Press left out the fact that President Bush had effectively shut down a previous probe -- by the department's Office of Professional Responsibility -- by denying investigators the necessary security clearances.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200611290001

It would seem to me that Gonzales perjured himself in his testimony before congress.

Maybe a pardon before the legal process ensues or is finished will clear the whole thing up?

security code 'glass' as the truth becomes more translucent each day.

howcanthisb wrote on July 10, 2007 10:41 AM:

bush dangles pardon for libby now to keep him quiet.if libby is a good quiet bushie,no books,he will get a pardon on jan20-legal blackmail.gonzo has lied to congress twice on the record and should be tried for perjury .

modmom wrote on July 10, 2007 10:42 AM:

If we lied to congress we would find our sorry butts in jail. We need congress to show the American people that they do not believe in two tiered justice, like the pResident. There should also be a higher standard for the top DoJ official. the right thing to do is to incarcerate this man.

bobh wrote on July 10, 2007 10:44 AM:

Golly...inherent contempt charges a simple majority vote in the House...drag gonzo to jail already.

bobh wrote on July 10, 2007 10:46 AM:

Golly...inherent contempt charges a simple majority vote in the House...drag gonzo to jail already.

Anonymous wrote on July 10, 2007 10:51 AM:

Gonzo: I'm not a liar...I'm just incompetent.

Scott L wrote on July 10, 2007 10:51 AM:

I know this is off subject a little but it strikes me odd how (as a rule) Republicans will send our troops anywhere around the world to fight people that disagree with our system. But these same people seem to make a full attack of our civil libertys and the Bill of Rights. To me these rights are the bedrock of our country and erodeing them destroys what we are. Try to keep in mind the old saying if you put a frog in boiling water he will jump out but if you put that same frog in cool water and boil it slowly he will sit there until he is cooked.

bholl wrote on July 10, 2007 11:04 AM:

Come on Congress. Do. Something. With. This.

Contempt. Perjury.

Throw this sorry little prick in jail...DC Jail,
where Libby should have gone. Couple nights there and he would have been throwing everyone in the corrupt Bush/Chen admin under the bus.

Its JAIL TIME, Congress!!

Caye wrote on July 10, 2007 11:07 AM:

Where are the adults? Where are the leaders? Do they just not give a *hit?

Truth, justice and the American Way--where is Superman when you need him?

Hank Gillette wrote on July 10, 2007 11:13 AM:

Who has the jurisdiction and authority to indict the Attorney General? Why isn't he or she acting?

Sparticus wrote on July 10, 2007 11:22 AM:

Is there any validity to this from Tom Flocco's blog?

Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats failed to question Attorney General Alberto Gonzales about five Texas assistant U.S. attorneys—two of whom were found dead and three fired within a space of 90 days during 2004— while they were prosecuting the same Medicare fraud and money laundering case with Kansas City U.S. attorney Todd P. Graves who announced his resignation on March 10, 2006 under pressure from the Justice Department.

mrmoa wrote on July 10, 2007 11:41 AM:

Considering how much you guys have dumped on Solomon, you could at least give him a little credit for breaking this one.

Mike A wrote on July 10, 2007 11:46 AM:

This is outrageous. When is Gonzales and this administration going to be held accountable? When will their claims of incompetence finally be inexcusable?

Anonymous wrote on July 10, 2007 11:48 AM:

"Who has the jurisdiction and authority to indict the Attorney General? Why isn't he or she acting?"

The US House may impeach, the Senate conducts a trial, then votes on whether to convict.

It isn’t happening because our Congress supports this administration. Don’t listen to a word they say, their inaction says everything about what they believe.

arkansan wrote on July 10, 2007 11:50 AM:

It is abundantly clear that they will never be held accountable. It is time for despair. There is no hope.

Sanity Now! wrote on July 10, 2007 12:10 PM:

Sanity is not a partisan witchhunt.

Truth is prior to democrat or republican.

Let reality speak, not lies!

Sagrilarus wrote on July 10, 2007 12:13 PM:

The Democratic Leaders are playing their cards well in my opinion. Cheney is becoming more and more marginalized with each passing day, Bush is powerless to do anything but fight off the siege, and there is too little time for any real change via impeachment or investigation. The Administration can essentially stonewall until the clock runs out, and a protracted battle between Congress and the Administration will be bad for the country, particularly in foreign policy matters. The president is powerless now -- Congress sets the agenda on everything but the war and that is likely only days away.

What remains is to let the Administration twist in the wind, day after day, providing an ever-heavier weight on every GOP congressman, senator, and presidential candidate. Each must choose when to jump . . . not too early . . . not too late . . .

Security code is "fear" -- you got that right.

Sag.

Anonymous wrote on July 10, 2007 12:22 PM:

The Democrats are allowing the Civil Service professional corps to be absolutely and completely corrupted by neocons. The Democrats are tolerating the rapid decline in the infrastructure, the military, and our international standing. What they are doing is assuming culpability for the administrations actions. What is happening is nothing a new election can fix. That is even if that the next electoral cycle is honest, a monumental hopeful leap, to say the least.

In short, the administration is getting every single thing they want. It won’t be long before we attack Iran. The Democrats have done nothing right, are doing nothing right and are utterly undeserving of any confidence that they will lead even competently in the future.

I refuse to vote for these enablers again. Talk is cheap.

Jay Dub wrote on July 10, 2007 12:23 PM:

If one pays close attention to everything this corrupt administration is doing and has done...it soon becomes clear..crystal clear... that they are governing by "time shifting". We never get anything comtemporaneous, in real-time, so that we can understand, interpet, analyze and prudently move forward on weighty issues to maximize our democracy. Instead, this administration buries, controls and manipulates every single pixel of information and doles it out if, and when, it deems that information to be advantageous to their cause (or at least not as damaging). Timing, "spin" and control of key information are the hallmarks of these traitorous SOBs.

JNagarya wrote on July 10, 2007 12:24 PM:

"There has not been one verified case of civil liberties abuse." Attorney Generla of the United State Alberto Gonzales.

He told the truth: it was more than one.

JNagarya wrote on July 10, 2007 12:27 PM:

Vitter on the call girl list? Just a diversion.

Posted by:
Date: July 10, 2007 10:30 AM

I'll take it as an election issue.

tomg wrote on July 10, 2007 12:28 PM:

I agree with Kilgore's post, nothing will happen and if te Dems finally grow a pair I'll be shocked!! There has been enough of this stuff over the past 6 months that has just evaporated.

JNagarya wrote on July 10, 2007 12:33 PM:

If we lied to congress we would find our sorry butts in jail. We need congress to show the American people that they do not believe in two tiered justice, like the pResident. There should also be a higher standard for the top DoJ official. the right thing to do is to incarcerate this man.

Posted by: modmom
Date: July 10, 2007 10:42 AM

Let's indict him on the evidence first, okay? I mean, if we are for the restoration of the rule of law, then we do that by both restoring the rule of law and complying with it.

Are we not other than Bushitters?

JNagarya wrote on July 10, 2007 12:37 PM:

Is there any validity to this from Tom Flocco's blog?

Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats failed to question Attorney General Alberto Gonzales about five Texas assistant U.S. attorneys—two of whom were found dead and three fired within a space of 90 days during 2004— while they were prosecuting the same Medicare fraud and money laundering case with Kansas City U.S. attorney Todd P. Graves who announced his resignation on March 10, 2006 under pressure from the Justice Department.

Posted by: Sparticus
Date: July 10, 2007 11:22 AM

He would have to know all the questions asked during closed sessions, which I doubt. And in terms of prosecutions, one must be exceedingly careful about what is said -- and asked and answered -- publicly.

But make that some three murders of Asst. AGs under Bushit, and his "disinclination" to learn who committed the murders.

EH wrote on July 10, 2007 12:40 PM:

JNagrya: One thing I haven't seen is anybody making a distinction between NSL abuses that don't rise to the level of civil liberties violations. Do all NSL abuses violate civil liberties?

These are the kinds of word-games this (and all) administration plays. We do ourselves a disservice if we don't acknowledge that Fredo could be consistent here, if sophist.

JNagarya wrote on July 10, 2007 12:40 PM:

Gonzo is a gift that keeps on giving as concerns those who want impeachment.

Otherwise, those who bash Democrats to "grow a pair": being civil is not the equivalent of being spineless, wimps, or lacking "balls".

Further: Democrats are ot the only Congressmen in the room. There are the REPUBLICANS who are foot-dragging, and on the record that they will obstruct, obstruct, and obstruct.

Wanna bash someone with a bit of reason? Then bash the Republicans.

JNagarya wrote on July 10, 2007 12:47 PM:

"Who has the jurisdiction and authority to indict the Attorney General? Why isn't he or she acting?"

The US House may impeach, the Senate conducts a trial, then votes on whether to convict.

It isn’t happening because our Congress supports this administration. Don’t listen to a word they say, their inaction says everything about what they believe.

Posted by:
Date: July 10, 2007 11:48 AM

It isn't happening, ass, because the Democrats don't (yet) have the votes to impeach.

And they don't (yet) have the votes becasue the REPUBLICANS are foot-dragging and obstructing.

In addition to which, pro-Bushit troll: the Democratic "majority" in the Senate is essentially illusion.

What matters at present are the polls: the "Saturday Night Massacre" pushed matters over the top. This latest on Gonzales will have a significant impact on the polls. However, it is only likely to be enough if over 50 per cent want Bushit impeached; over that number for Cheney isn't sufficient to also impeach Bushit.

Hank Gillette wrote on July 10, 2007 12:59 PM:

How many times does Gonzales have to commit perjury before he is impeached, indicted, convicted, and pardoned by Bush?

JNagarya wrote on July 10, 2007 1:00 PM:

The Democrats are allowing the Civil Service professional corps to be absolutely and completely corrupted by neocons. The Democrats are tolerating the rapid decline in the infrastructure, the military, and our international standing. What they are doing is assuming culpability for the administrations actions. What is happening is nothing a new election can fix. That is even if that the next electoral cycle is honest, a monumental hopeful leap, to say the least.

In short, the administration is getting every single thing they want. It won’t be long before we attack Iran. The Democrats have done nothing right, are doing nothing right and are utterly undeserving of any confidence that they will lead even competently in the future.

I refuse to vote for these enablers again. Talk is cheap.

Posted by:
Date: July 10, 2007 12:22 PM

Bushit has been in power for over six years.

Democrats have had _marginal_ control of Congress for six months.

The Democrats don't (yet) have sufficient votes to do more than they are currently doing; but they are doing what is necessary, else you wouldn't know fact one about what has been happening. And they don't (yet) have sufficient votes to do more mnot because of the Democrats but because of the foot-dragging REPUBLICANS.

And the Democrat's "majority" in the Senate is essentially illusion.

Obviously, to those not pro-Bushit trolls, in order for their to be impeachment it will be necessary to have sufficient REPUBLICAN support for it. As things are going, I would not be surprised if REPUBLICANS eventually lead the move for impeachment -- to save their own political hides. I'll take impeachment anyway I can get it, so long as done consistent with the rule of law, and not characterizable as partisan.

Meanwhile, the Democrats are doing fine. And it is clear (see John S. Koppel) that there are civil servants within the Executive which is assisting Congress in its efforts against the Bushit criminal enterprise.

It's amazing how little those who bash the Democrats know about how our system functions, including the fact that it is a sieve for leakers. Congress has not only had to investigate to find violations and get evidence; there are civil servants within the Executive branch who have alerted Congress to problems, and anonymously provided evidence.

Those with the least faith in the process are of two kinds: on one hand, the most ignorant about politics and our system of laws (the two not being the same thing); on the other, the Bushit criminal enterprise and the pro-Bushit trolls.

Anonymous wrote on July 10, 2007 1:11 PM:

Oh, well. Since the Democrats can’t win with a slam dunk, all that is left is a de facto one party system.

That makes perfect sense.

JNagarya wrote on July 10, 2007 1:13 PM:

"The Democrats are allowing the Civil Service professional corps to be absolutely and completely corrupted by neocons."

As you said, talk is cheap. In contrast, John S. Koppel isn't corrupted. In addition, the civil servie employees to which you refer are in administrative agencies -- when are in, and overseen and directed by, the Executive, not Congress.

The Democrats are doing exactly opposite you ignorant's claim based upon the basic fact that you don't even know the structure of our gov't, let alone how it properly functions.

"The Democrats are tolerating . . . ."

The Democrats are investigation and issuing subpoenas. In other words: the Democrats are conducting themselves in accordance with democratic due process of law.

You demand they be stupid-assed bullies exactly like the Bushit criminal enterprise. Put your hands on the sides of your head and pull it out of your ass -- if you can first find your ass.

". . . . What they are doing is assuming culpability for the administrations actions."

What they are doing is investigating and issuing subpoenas, in keeping with the oversight authority and obligation, and in compliance with democratic due process of law.

You clearly oppose due process of law because it is the opposite of the lawless lynch mob that is the Bushit criminal enterprise.

"In short, the administration is getting every single thing they want."

Right. They want to be investigated. They want to receive subpoenas.

". . . undeserving of any confidence that they will lead even competently in the future."

We have a _representive_ system, not a _leadersentative_ system.

"I refuse to vote for these enablers again. Talk is cheap."

Let's pretend you voted before now -- especially not having a clue about the meaning of "A system of laws, and not of men" (John Adams), or even how our gov't is structured.

Posted by:
Date: July 10, 2007 12:22 PM

Anonymous wrote on July 10, 2007 1:18 PM:

Those who believe that the supposed opposition party has no alternative but to act as an abused, miniature poodle have no concept whatsoever as to how the representative form of government was designed to function. That ignorance is more than a little ironic, because those same types are usually the first to pretend extensive expertise into the mechanics of government. A little knowledge…….

Anonymous wrote on July 10, 2007 1:23 PM:

“We have a _representive_ system, not a _leadersentative_ system.”

We do agree that our representatives are not leaders.

Anonymous wrote on July 10, 2007 1:31 PM:

RECKLESS AMERICAN LEGAL COMMUNITY

Gonzalez statement is stunning: No evidence of meeting compliance audits, SAS74. It appears reckless legal professionals like to engage in the following illegal conduct: Witness retaliation, and dissuading public commentary through the following impermissible actions:
- How do we change the subject from war crimes evidence;
- What is to be done to distract attention from legal counsel reckless complicity with war crimes;
- Is there a really "good talking point" that will inspire the world to believe -- despite the reckless inaction since 2001 -- that the legal community is doing a fine job?

Would really like to see your statements on the DC Bar rules, your legal training, and your standing the the legal community. Blogs are fun:they let you discuss your ideas, share your insights, and really promote your legal theories:
A. Should war crimes by reckless legal counsel be ignored or enforced;
B. Should legal professionals be prosecuted by Congress with impeachment on a specific day; or could it happen any day
C. When do we bring into the picture war crimes prosecutors: Before or after "all" the evidence is on the table; or "just enough" to show legal counsel has been recklessly not removing itself from illegal conduct
D.What about the briefings that WH legal counsel openly admits it attended on FISA violations, Geneva violations, prisoner abuse: Should we let that illegal activity enjoy protection, even though the evidence supports a reasonable conclusion/adverse inference/fatal conclusion that the objective of that classification was not for a lawful purpose but to hide illegal activity?
E. What do we say about "adverse inferences": Should we "make a rule" to define what is a reasonable inference; or can any Grand Jury Member or Member of the Senate review the reckless conduct by legal counsel and conclude on their own that it is reasonable to conclude legal counsel did not fully assert their oath to ensure Geneva was implemented?
F. What do we say about the media relations companies that were transferring propaganda to dissuade Members of Congress from acting on war crimes: Is that admissible?
G. What about the General Counsel's comments that they would permit the NSA open access to the facility; but then they change their position to "no comment". Tell us: Why is the "change in position" "not" admissible as a fatal problem for legal counsel?

The legal community has been reckless. Their leadership is corrupt. Look at the AG: He is lying, making inconsistent statements, and not making dependable positions. What does the AG hope to do to hide evidence of war crimes, FISA violations, and prisoner abuse? The RNC e-mails are missing. Adverse inferences can be made. The objective of that destruction was to hide evidence that legal counsel knew could not be protected or shielded: Legal counsel appear to have known that the privilege claims had no merit. Indeed, if Bush "didn't have any connection," reckless legal counsel and professional cannot explain why the Prudent could then reverse himself and "invoke" a shield to something the President "wasn't" involved with.
reckless legal counsel and professionals are on the run.

They know their arguments are fleeting, weak, and unsupportable. Their profession has failed America. They have brought discredit upon America. For that, justice must be done. On the table are the prosecutions, impeachments, and state level action to target for adjudication legal professionals who have defied their oath, permitted grave breaches of Geneva, have not ensured the laws of war were enforced, and have recklessly asserted "privilege" for things which were known to not be related to any bonafide claim of privilege. The legal community has no hope. It has been discredited. It has fatally argued against itself. It has borough discredit upon its profession. It is reasonable for the public to have a material, substantial reduction in confidence in the US Judicial System. Indeed, the reckless conduct by the American legal profession is something that can be eternally reviewed: There is no statute of limitations for war crimes; and the reckless legal community has failed to ensure the laws of war have been enforced.

Look around the country: The DOJ Staff and prosecutors see the recklessness of their leaders in the legal profession. The legal professionals have proven themselves small minded, insecure, weak, corrupt, incompetent, complicit, unreliable, apologetic. They've done everything but do what their oath of office requires: A full assertion of all options to defend the Constitution. What could possible explain this mass psychosis by those in the legal profession to assent to this reckless conduct; but then claim those who dare challenge are somehow "pro Bush". That defies reason.

Indeed, the defiance of reason is the only foundation the American legal community has: Reason is at the heart of the legal profession: But where it is is corrupted, the legal professionals show, by their conduct, that they are devoid of reason, insecure, and incapable of ensuring their legal profession remains above reproach. Look at the piles of evidence we have: Transcripts, memorandum, affidavits, destroyed evidence. The piles of evidence is mounting. What does the legal community do?

They want more evidence. There is no reason to wait for more evidence; the impeachment of legal professionals needs to start now. Look at their attorney standards of conduct: Clear requirements to remove themselves when they were aware their services were being used to support war crimes, FISA violations, and grave branches of Geneva with prisoner abuse. Yet, what have the reckless, lazy, incompetent, excuse-ridden "professionals" in the legal community done?

Just offer more excuses: "Oh, the President can do what he wants on commutation". Indeed, we the People may "do we what we want" to asset our power, lawfully target reckless legal counsel with prosecutions, and cooperate with the Grand Jury? Let's hear more -- circularly -- that the investigation should "not start," yet there is "no evidence". Tell us, legal professionals:What is to be done when the recklessness is attached to your legal profession: Do you propose inaction on your complicity with war crimes; yet a double standard when it comes to shielding evidence of war crimes? There is evidence:Destruction of those RNC e-mails, and the lack of a privilege log, is the basis to make adverse inferences. Without a log, privilege fails. Without a defense, impeachment proceeds.

Without an oath, the Constitution is not preserved. You shall be lawfully destroyed through impeachment. Congratulations: You are the target of a Grand Jury for alleged war crimes. The legal community has been reckless. There is no reason for any American to have confidence in this cess pool which ha permitted these grave breaches of Geneva and crimes against Humanity.

dixiegrl wrote on July 10, 2007 1:34 PM:

Bush crime family is proving that brazen anti-social behavior will paralyze the unprepared.
The only difference with this mafiaso admin. is they have been less circumspect about their attiitude than previous officeholders.
All we need to know is this:
actions always speak louder than words,
( watch what they do, not what they say)

and follow the money.
( Note how far Billary is ahead in funds)

which shows us that there is no significant difference between Dems and Repubs .
They both serve the money masters...and
we continue to lose as long as we remain pre-occupied with the false choice game of choosing between worse and worser.

It's gonna take a HUGE storm of protest to wake Congress up. The normal polite little weekly letters ain't gonna cut it, and Bush Co. could care less how much ink we waste on blogs.
In fact, the more we talk, the less we walk, to their advantage.

kriselda jarnsaxa wrote on July 10, 2007 2:12 PM:

Spartacus,

From looking at info online about Tom Flocco, I'd be strongly disinclined to believe much of ANYTHING he says. Just a brief look at his site shows that he sees conspiracies around every corner.

One specific article I saw referenced frequently on sites that were trying to debunk Flocco (most of which are ALSO people who seem to see conspiracies around every corner - they're just different conspiracies than the one's Flocco sees) claimed that Barbra Olson - the wife of former Solicitor General Ted Olson - who was one of the victims on Flight 77 on 9/11 - was arrested in 2005 (~4 years after her death) on the "Polish-Austrian" border. Apparently he later changed his article to say the "German-Austrian" border because Poland and Austria *don't share* a common border.

Seriously, though, without some kind of credible evidence from totally unconnected - and known-to-be-reliable sources - I wouldn't trust this Flocco guy in the least. Everything about his site just screams "crackpot" at me.

Michael Stevens wrote on July 10, 2007 2:36 PM:

This makes at least two, easily provable, Contempt of Congress charges that could be brought against Gonzales.

There are at least a dozen more statements made by Gonzo that were clear lies. But this and his testimony regarding the warrantless wiretapping are clearly provable.

So why doesn't the house file contempt of congress charges against Gonzales? The acting Attorney General (Comey) would either have to refuse to start an investigation (causing a truly MASSIVE sandal) or (more likely) wash his hands of this mess and appoint a Special Prosecutor to investigate the charges. This would result in a grand jury and eventual criminal charges.

Our congressmen aren't stupid, they're waiting for a reason, I just don't know what that reason is.
The

Wayne wrote on July 10, 2007 2:38 PM:

From Wikipedia about John Mitchell: This reads like AG's record

John Newton Mitchell (September 15, 1913 – November 9, 1988) was the first United States Attorney General ever to be convicted of illegal activities and imprisoned. He also served as campaign director for the Committee to Re-elect the President, which engineered the Watergate first break-in and employed Watergate burglar James W. McCord, Jr. in a "security" capacity.

Mitchell was born in Detroit, Michigan, and grew up on Long Island in New York. He earned his law degree from Fordham University and was admitted to the New York bar in 1938. Except for three years' service as a naval officer (Lt. JG) during World War II where he was a PT Boat commander and received two Purple Hearts for wounds in combat and the Silver Star. His naval duties during World War II included commanding John F. Kennedy's PT boat unit. In a column on Mitchell's death William Safire wrote, "His friend Richard Moore, in a eulogy, noted that near Mitchell's grave in Arlington National Cemetery was the headstone of Colonel Gregory "Pappy" Boyington, a Medal of Honor winner, who used to call Mitchell yearly to thank him for saving his life."

From 1938 until 1968 Mitchell practiced law in New York City and earned a reputation as the nation's preeminent municipal bond lawyer.

After his disastrous loss in the 1962 California gubernatorial race, Richard Nixon met John Mitchell when Mitchell's municipal bond law firm merged with Nixon Mudge Rose Guthrie & Alexander in 1967. (Vice President Nixon had already lost to Senator John F. Kennedy in 1960 and had been soundly defeated in the 1962 California gubernatorial contest.) The two men became friends, and in 1968, with considerable trepidation, Mitchell agreed to become Nixon's presidential campaign manager.

During his successful 1968 campaign, Nixon turned over the details of the day-to-day operations to the superbly organized Mitchell. After he became president in January 1969, Nixon appointed Mitchell attorney general. Mitchell remained in office from 1969 until he resigned in 1972 to manage President Nixon's successful reelection campaign. As attorney general, Mitchell believed that the government's need for "law and order" justified restrictions on civil liberties. He advocated the use of wiretaps in national security cases without obtaining a court order and the right of police to employ the preventive detention of criminal suspects. He brought conspiracy charges against critics of the Vietnam War, and demonstrated a reluctance to involve the Justice Department in civil rights issues. "The Department of Justice is a law enforcement agency," he told reporters. "It is not the place to carry on a program aimed at curing the ills of society."

Mitchell's name was mentioned in a deposition concerning Robert L. Vesco, an international financier who was a fugitive from a federal indictment. Mitchell and Nixon Finance Committee Chairman Maurice H. Stans were indicted in May 1973 on federal charges of obstructing an investigation of Vesco after he made a $200,000 contribution to the Nixon campaign. In April 1974 both men were acquitted in a New York federal court.

On February 21, 1975, Mitchell was found guilty of conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and perjury and sentenced to two and a half to eight years in prison for his role in the Watergate break-in and cover-up, which he dubbed the White House horrors. The sentence was later reduced to one to four years by United States District Court Judge John J. Sirica. Mitchell served only 19 months of his sentence, at Maxwell Air Force Base in Montgomery, Alabama, a minimum security prison, before being released on parole for medical reasons. Tape recordings made by President Nixon and the testimony of others involved confirmed that Mitchell had participated in meetings to plan the break-in of the Democratic Party's national headquarters in the Watergate Hotel. In addition, he had met, on at least three occasions, with the president in an effort to cover up White House involvement after the burglars were discovered and arrested. In 1972, he warned reporter Carl Bernstein about a forthcoming Watergate-related article: "Katie Graham's gonna get her tit caught in a big fat wringer if that's published." This implied threat against the Washington Post publisher is considered the most famous threat in the history of American journalism

Duckman GR wrote on July 10, 2007 3:00 PM:

And the Dems won't get the votes to impeach and convict by doing nothing, now will they?

Leadership sometimes involves making your case, moving forward, and hoping that there's people behind you when you turn around to look. And if you make a good case, chances are, they will be there. But if you do nothing but stand in the middle of the road like a deer in the headlights, pretty much a guarantee that nobody will follow you out there.

Look, this isn't Perry Mason. Congress decides if the evidence is sufficient to impeach and convict, not law books or legal precedent. Impeaching that little enabling fascist puts them on the defensive, and allows the story of his lies to be told over and over and over again.

What's wrong with that?

Anonymous wrote on July 10, 2007 3:05 PM:

"What's wrong with that?"

There would be nothing wrong with it if the Democrats were a true opposition party, but they aren’t, sooo….

AmericaLover wrote on July 10, 2007 3:07 PM:

That Gonzales boy is doing a heckuva job. He should get the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

Misanthrope wrote on July 10, 2007 3:24 PM:

Who cares? The bullshit dems won't do anything about it anyway. Anything short of pictures with Alberto stomping on a human infant will end with not a fuckin thing happening to him. Even if he was prosecuted for perjury Bush would pardon him.

Fuck him and fuck the congress.

Spartacus wrote on July 10, 2007 3:25 PM:

Thanks, kriselda jarnsaxa. The Flocco info seemed a bit "crackpot" to me, too, but the Rove/Cheney administration never ceases to amaze and disgust me.

NEVERvoterepublican wrote on July 10, 2007 4:43 PM:

Why are the Dems allowing this lying, cheating, stealing, common criminal Abu Gonzales to continue to be the Attorney General? He lied to Congress, it's pretty easy to tell that. I wish there was an alternative but for the time being we'll just have to keep on getting on their cases to save America from these criminals.

IMPEACH BUSH, CHENEY AND ABU GONZALES NOW!!!!

John Wilson wrote on July 10, 2007 5:42 PM:

Wow. I'm impressed! TPM has changed:
From a favorite to an essential part of my day.

Michael Stevens wrote on July 10, 2007 5:49 PM:

The fastest way to get Gonzales out of office is to indict him. No Attorney General could retain his job while under indictment for Contempt of Congress.

But the Congress hasn't tried to have him indicted. WHY?

The congressional Dems must a plan and a reason for not going forward with charges against Gonzo. I've got no firm idea why they haven't, but I do have a few guesses.

Theory 1. It could be because the Dems may be worried that asking for Contempt charges would result in the DOJ appointing a Special Prosecutor who would stall an investigation until the Bush administration was out of office.

I doubt this, because Bush wouldn't be able to select the SP, the Solicitor General would be the selector. Congress could trim the case down to a single case of lying. Making it very difficult for a Special Prosecutor to delay an indictment.

They could do this by only charging Gonzo with his lie regarding the Warrant less Wiretapping.

Theory 2. It could be because the Dems feel Gonzo is worth more to them in office than out.

I doubt this as well. I think Gonzo's negatives have been spent. He's a joke, he has hurt (past tense) the administration. But I don't think he is capable of doing much more damage, well, unless he's indicted.

And the Democratic upside of getting rid of Gonzo are sky high. It would mean a brand new Attorney General would have to get past the Senate. The Senate could insure no Bush bootlicker got the job, they could even use the Watergate precedent to make the new AG promise to appoint a Special Prosecutor to investigate all of Attorneygate.

Bottom line: Gonzo has done most of the damage he could do to the Bush administration. For the Dems, the upsides are far greater with Gonzo gone than with Gonzo in place.

So why haven't the moved to indict him?

Mark wrote on July 11, 2007 3:13 AM:

The problem isn't the Democrats now, in 2007. The problems were the Democrats in 2002 who drank the 9/11 kool-aid and allowed Bush to bully them into supporting Iraq (count Russ Feingold and a few others out, and credit Obama for opposing the war at the time; it's the American voters who voted in Republicans from 1994 on who crippled Clinton, pushed the Bush agenda and are now preventing anything from getting done, because they have a filibusterproof senate, at least for the moment; it's the mainstream media, which also drank the 9/11 kool-aid when they weren't too busy whoring for the corporate interests that pay for advertising, and the GOP politicians who do their bidding; and its Bush, Cheney, Rove and the rest of the chickenhawk GOP neofascists in congress, without doubt the most rigidly social conservative President and Congress ever . . . "elected" to office by a margin of [-500,000] votes, or by 5-4 vote, depending on how you look at it, Bush governed not from the center, but charged hard to the right, using 9/11 to fuel a right wing transformation of the government that would be awe inspiring if it weren't so evil and disgraceful at the same time, aided and abetted by the most hypocritical bunch of losers and windbags ever to serve in the Congress as Republicans.

So don't blame the 2007 Democrats in Congress - they are doing what they can against a stacked deck. A few of them could be put out to pasture, to be sure, but I can;t think of 5 republicans in the House or Senate that I wouldn't want to see replaced by a Democrat. We should elect a lot Democrats, and put an end to the GOP death grip on politics and government once and for all. The investigations are gaining traction, and you should not buy the mainstream media's slant on how this is a do-nothing congress because of the Dems. The opposite is true.

PS - We really do need to hit the streets and create a groundswell of massive protests to bring this cabal down. It's time to reverse the coup d'etat that Rove/Baker/Cheney pulled off in 2000, and put this nation back in the hands of the people and out of the hands of the corpofascists who are going to stumble into a nuclear apocalypse if we don't do something about it pronto. No place like the streets to bring down a government. Just ask the British.

OleHippieChick wrote on July 11, 2007 9:41 AM:

Albatross will probably claim that PATRIOT forbade him to speak of any abuses caused by PATRIOT. Round and round we go.