« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Leahy to Gonzales: Start Trying to Remember Now
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales isn't scheduled to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee until next week. But given Gonzales' abysmal performances before the committee earlier this year, Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT), ever the gentleman, wants to throw Gonzales a line. So he's sent a list of questions to Gonzales in advance of the hearing. He writes:
When you last testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on April 19, 2007, you often responded to questions from Senators on both sides of the aisle that you could “not recall.” By some counts, you failed to answer more than 100 questions, by other counts more than 70, and the most conservative count had you failing to provide answers well over 60 times.....I would like to avoid a repeat of that performance. In order to assist you in your preparation, I send you the following questions in advance of your July 24 appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Now, get remembering!
The full letter is below.
The letter:
July 17, 2007The Honorable Alberto Gonzales
Attorney General
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20530Dear Attorney General Gonzales:
When you last testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on April 19, 2007, you often responded to questions from Senators on both sides of the aisle that you could “not recall.” By some counts, you failed to answer more than 100 questions, by other counts more than 70, and the most conservative count had you failing to provide answers well over 60 times. As a result, the Committee’s efforts to conduct oversight were hampered. Senator Specter and I wrote to you after that hearing to ask you promptly to supplement your testimony on April 19 with answers to those questions for which you responded that you could not recall or did not know. In your cursory response, you did not supplement any of your answers.
I would like to avoid a repeat of that performance. In order to assist you in your preparation, I send you the following questions in advance of your July 24 appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
1. On April 19, you testified to the Senate Judiciary Committee that you had not spoken with anyone involved in the firings about that process because you did not want to interfere with the investigation. Again, on May 10, you testified to the House Judiciary Committee that you had not spoken with anyone involved in order to protect the integrity of the investigation. Then on May 23, Monica Goodling testified under oath before the House Judiciary Committee that she had an “uncomfortable” conversation with you during which you outlined your recollection of what happened and asked her for her reaction to your version. Is Ms. Goodling’s testimony accurate, and if so, how do you account for your previous, uncorrected testimony to this Committee?
2. On April 19 you testified before this Committee that your former Chief of Staff Kyle Sampson was responsible for putting together the list of U.S. Attorneys to be fired. But on May 15, the day after Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty announced his intention to resign, you said that the firings were largely Mr. McNulty’s responsibility. Mr. McNulty has said that he had very limited involvement in the decision of which U.S. Attorneys to fire. Please describe all of your interactions with Mr. McNulty related to the replacement of the nine U.S. Attorneys and your understanding of his role in deciding which U.S. Attorneys would be fired. Why has your description of who made the decisions, and who was most involved in the decision-making process, changed over time?
3. While Bradley Schlozman was Acting Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division at the Justice Department, he approved pre-clearance of a voter photo identification provision from the state of Georgia that has become the focus of extensive criticism about the management of the Department’s voting section. He authorized a National Voter Registration Act suit against the State of Missouri, over the reservations of Todd Graves, then U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Missouri, who argued that the case lacked merit. This case was later thrown out of court. Mr. Schlozman admitted before this Committee that he had bragged about hiring Republicans to the Civil Rights Division, and he reportedly advised candidates with Republican political affiliations to remove them from their resumes before applying to the division.
a. Were you aware of these issues when Mr. Schlozman was appointed interim United States Attorney in the Western District of Missouri? How did they affect your decision?
b. After Mr. Schlozman was appointed interim U.S. Attorney in Missouri, he brought indictments against people affiliated with ACORN, a group that supported Democratic candidates and that registered voters, on the eve of a closely contested midterm election in Missouri, despite the contrary policy expressed in the Justice Department’s guidebook on “Federal Prosecution of Election Offenses.” Were you aware of this pre-election indictment decision? What was your role in the decision?
4. Recent documents obtained through Freedom of Information Act lawsuits and reported in the Washington Post indicate that you received reports in 2005 and 2006 of violations in connection with the PATRIOT Act and abuses of National Security Letters (NSLs). These violations apparently included unauthorized surveillance, illegal searches, and improper collection of data. These reports were significant enough to prompt reports to the Intelligence Oversight Board. Yet, when you testified under oath before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence in April 2005, you sought to create the impression that Americans’ civil liberties and privacy were being effectively safeguarded and respected, saying “[t]he track record established over the past 3 years has demonstrated the effectiveness of the safeguards of civil liberties put in place when the Act was passed.” Earlier this month, in responses to written questions I sent you on behalf of the Senate Judiciary Committee about when you first learned of problems with NSLs, you, again, did not mention these earlier reports of problems. Would you like to revise or correct your misleading April 2005 testimony to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, or your July 6, 2007 response to this Committee’s written questions related to these issues?
5. According to news reports and briefings provided by the FBI, the FBI has been conducting an internal audit of its use of National Security Letters that has confirmed the findings of the March 2007 Inspector General report that there was “widespread and serious misuse of the FBI’s national security letter authorities.” Is it your view that there has been widespread and serious misuse of the National Security Letter authority?
6. When you were asked on February 6, 2006 if any senior Justice Department officials, including your former deputy, James Comey, expressed concerns about the Bush Administration’s warrantless electronic surveillance program, you testified: “I do not believe that these DOJ officials . . . had concerns about this program.” Mr. Comey subsequently testified on May 15, 2007 that on March 9, 2004, he informed you, as White House counsel, and others including the Vice President, that the Justice Department had concluded that the Administration’s warrantless electronic surveillance program did not have a legal basis. He testified that you and former White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card tried to circumvent him, in his role as Acting Attorney General, by rushing to the hospital bedside of ailing former Attorney General John Ashcroft to try to persuade him to certify the program. Please provide a full explanation for the legal authorization for the President’s warrantless electronic surveillance program in March and April 2004.
7. Last year, the Iraq Study Group found that the Iraqi police "cannot control crime, and they routinely engage in sectarian violence, including unnecessary detention, torture, and targeted execution of Sunni Arabs civilians.@ They also found evidence of serious police corruption. They called for the Department of Justice to take the lead role in training the Iraqi police force. In January of this year, you reported to the Judiciary Committee that the Department was overseeing hundreds of police trainers in Iraq and Jordan. Last week, the President reported that the Iraqi police had failed, yet again, to meet the Administration's own benchmarks for progress. On the same day as this report, U.S. troops engaged in a gun battle with Iraqi police on the streets of Bagdad, where six Iraqi policemen and seven Shiite gunman were killed defending an Iraqi police lieutenant. On July 13, USA Today reported that a previously undisclosed investigation by the army shows that Iraqi police were directly complicit in a complex insurgent attack on a government compound in Karbala in January that killed U.S. soldiers. What have you, as Attorney General, done to improve the Department’s programs for training Iraqi police over the last six months, what steps have you taken to combat improper political and sectarian influences within the Iraqi police, and what grade would you give yourself for this effort?
8. This Committee recently became aware of a memorandum dated July 10, 2007, and signed by Steven G. Bradbury as “Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General” for the Office of Legal Counsel. It contends that Harriet Miers, who is a former White House Counsel, is “immune from compelled congressional testimony.” Pursuant to what legal authority did Mr. Bradbury issue this memorandum, and how is Mr. Bradbury’s issuance of this memorandum consistent with the Vacancies Act? At the end of the last Congress, Mr. Bradbury’s nomination to serve as the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel was returned to the President.
9. The Department’s July 9, 2007, report on its data mining activities raises many questions about the impact of these programs on American’s privacy and civil liberties. In the Judiciary Committee’s hearing earlier this year on privacy and civil liberties implications of government data mining programs, several witnesses concluded that data mining programs are not effective tools for combating terrorism. Has the Justice Department conducted audits or studies demonstrating that its data mining programs, such as the STAR program, are effective tools for identifying potential terrorists?
10. In 2003, Congress unanimously passed the Hometown Heroes law to extend federal survivor benefits to the families of firefighters, police officers, and emergency workers who die of heart attack or stroke in the line of duty. The legislation was intended to create a presumption that the heart attack or stroke was caused by work in the line of duty, unless there was clear evidence to the contrary. However, more than three and a half years after Hometown Heroes became law, the Justice Department has approved only six claims and denied 48 claims out of nearly 260 applications. Many families have been waiting for a decision from the department on their claims since the bill became law in December 2003. Why has the Justice Department taken so long to decide Hometown Heroes claims? Why is there only a three percent acceptance rate for Hometown Heroes claims?
11. Given the Administration’s resistance to congressional oversight, its misleading and self-serving statements, its having denied security clearances to Office of Professional Responsibility investigators reviewing actions taken in connection with the President’s warrantless electronic surveillance program, and the ineffectiveness of other internal review mechanism, such as the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board and the Intelligence Oversight Board, why should Congress or the American people have any confidence in your recent announcement implementing “a significant new national security oversight and compliance effort”?
12. Other Inspectors General can investigate misconduct throughout their agencies. Apparently, the Department of Justice Inspector General suffers under a limitation that restricts his ability to investigation misconduct by you, the Deputy Attorney General, and other senior Department lawyers. Will you agree to the removal of this limitation on the Department of Justice Inspector General so that the Inspector General may investigate misconduct by you, other senior Department of Justice officials, lawyers, and law enforcement agents?
I remind you that any testimony you wish to submit is due at least 48 hours before the hearing. I look forward to your testifying on July 24.
Sincerely,
PATRICK LEAHY
Chairman
Comments (92)
The REAL Jake D. wrote on July 18, 2007 2:33 PM:If I sent you a question in advance, to something you honestly did not remember, how are you supposed to "get remembering"? Obviously, the good Senator can use anything he likes to attempt to "refresh the recollection" of the witness. If Gonzales honestly does not remember something, what are you going to do, waterboard him?
where wrote on July 18, 2007 2:44 PM:8. This Committee recently became aware of a memorandum dated July 10, 2007, and signed by Steven G. Bradbury as “Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General” for the Office of Legal Counsel. It contends that Harriet Miers, who is a former White House Counsel, is “immune from compelled congressional testimony.” Pursuant to what legal authority did Mr. Bradbury issue this memorandum, and how is Mr. Bradbury’s issuance of this memorandum consistent with the Vacancies Act? At the end of the last Congress, Mr. Bradbury’s nomination to serve as the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel was returned to the President.
This appears to be a new revalation.
apodaca wrote on July 18, 2007 2:48 PM:I'm pretty sure the Attorney General doesn't have anything available to refresh his memory. Why would he have a personal calendar, a secretarial log of calls, or notes/drafts concerning meetings & issues under consideration? I mean, it's not there's an entire Office of the Attorney General filled with the AG's Counsel, Chief of Staff, Deputy Chief of Staff, or other personnel whose job it is to keep track of matters on the AG's plate.
Nope, expecting him to consult anything beyond his failed memory would just be absurd.
apodaca wrote on July 18, 2007 2:49 PM:I'm pretty sure the Attorney General doesn't have anything available to refresh his memory. Why would he have a personal calendar, a secretarial log of calls, or notes/drafts concerning meetings & issues under consideration? I mean, it's not like there's an entire Office of the Attorney General filled with the AG's Counsel, Chief of Staff, Deputy Chief of Staff, or other personnel whose job it is to keep track of matters on the AG's plate.
Nope, expecting him to consult anything beyond his failed memory would just be absurd.
Anonymous wrote on July 18, 2007 3:03 PM:Jake D.:
The AG could easily look through his calendar, his private notes, talk with others that have helped brief him in the past, etc. These he can't do while answering questions in the Senate but can do in advance, in his office and on his own time.
Powkat wrote on July 18, 2007 3:19 PM:Of course the troll proposes torture as an alternative to telling the truth - it doesn't know the difference.
Martiki wrote on July 18, 2007 3:20 PM:Responding to a troll accomplishes what he intends....it disrupts the dialogue. Please don't aid the troll.
Sojourner wrote on July 18, 2007 3:21 PM:Item #8 is certainly interesting... Does that mean that Gonzales (and the rest of the Executive Branch) consider Congress to be of no importance in what it wants to do?
Tom wrote on July 18, 2007 3:34 PM:Jack D.
Waterboarding is, after all, a tactic that Gonzales approved. Hell,let's do it.
johnnydoughey wrote on July 18, 2007 3:38 PM:If I ever am called to testify in court concerning any misdeeds and /or illegalities, I would hope thaat I am given an equal opportunity to go over the questions which will be asked in advance.
Of course, I would still be at a disadvantage, considering I am not one of the fortunate folks who can call on a couple hundred attorneys, all paid for by the good taxpayers of this country, to respond to those questions in a manner that, even if falsely answered, could not legally, put me in any jeopardy.
Roberta wrote on July 18, 2007 3:47 PM:I think that pretty much covers it, Mr. Leahy.
Now what will you and the committee do when Mr. Gonzales refuses to answer most, if not all, of your questions? Unless you're confident that the USA of DC is willing to risk his present position to safeguard the DoJ's future and redress the past, what's Plan B?
I let myself hope that enough Senate Republicans had jumped off the Bush bandwagon to make some progress, but the vote on the Iraq amendment this morning shows business as usual. Therefore, it's doubtful that there would be enough support to impeach Mr. Gonzales.
I truly hope that now, with what should be a solid foundation, it's time for charges of contempt and a move towards ousting Gonzales through other methods. A contempt judgment could pave the way.
By the way: Has anyone taken a look at the articles by Vikram David Amar entitled "With a Potential Supreme Court Nomination At Stake, Questions of The Filibuster's Constitutionality Linger" (June 13, 2003)
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/amar/20030613.html#continue;
and "Can the Senate Bind Itself So that Only a Supermajority Can Change Its Rules?" (June 27, 2003) http://writ.news.findlaw.com/amar/20030627.html?
Amar, a Constitutional scholar and former clerk to Harry Blackmun, lays out an argument that because the Senate cloture rule is not "expressly" included in the Constitution, it may be "implicitly" excluded. If so, the "supermajority" rule would not apply to filibuster. It's not a slam-dunk, and the issue extends to the ability of each Senate's session to change rules set down by previous Senates.
However, if the Dem Senators could compel this interpretation of the 60-or-more vote requirement for filibusters, it could change everything. Thinking for the future, something has to stop the logjam in Congress and allow majority votes to count for something.
Mojotron3000 wrote on July 18, 2007 3:49 PM:In his previous testimony Alberto Gonzales promised to do better in the future; I, for one, am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and a chance, but it appears that Jake D. is calling him a liar and saying that he will not do any better. For shame, Jake D.
melior wrote on July 18, 2007 3:57 PM:Like the troll, I recommend waterboarding Abu Gonzales as the only possible way to get tough on crime, and secure the national defense.
Do it for the children.
Rodney Lamprey, jr. wrote on July 18, 2007 4:02 PM:I'd like to hear Gonzales' real answer to #7 about the Iraqi police training. Was the DOJ training program a matter of giving the Iraqi policeman a Bible and having him swear allegiance to Bush, and promise to make false arrests of Democrats in swing states?
Anonymous wrote on July 18, 2007 4:04 PM:"If I sent you a question in advance, to something you honestly did not remember, how are you supposed to "get remembering"? Obviously, the good Senator can use anything he likes to attempt to "refresh the recollection" of the witness. If Gonzales honestly does not remember something, what are you going to do, waterboard him? "
*******************************************
Since this is critical information, he can do (or have his COS) some research. It's obvious that he can get the information. It was clear to me that the purpose of sending him the questions in advance (the last hearing) was so he would be prepared and be able to provide the answers. Obsiously, he didn't do his research and prepping again!
That isn't rocket science!
dm wrote on July 18, 2007 4:20 PM:If anyone is interested, I believe that this is where you can find provisions of the Vacancies Act referenced in the letter:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode05/usc_sup_01_5_10_III_20_B_30_33_40_III.html
My quick guess is that Leahy is suggesting that Bradbury is in office beyond the 210 days allowed after his nomination was returned by the Senate. Therefore, his service would be contrary to 3348b1, and consequently his opinion in defense of Miers has no legal authority under 3348d1.
Any thoughts?
dm wrote on July 18, 2007 4:24 PM:Sorry, should have mentioned that the 210 time limit comes from 3346b1.
mark wrote on July 18, 2007 4:47 PM:"If Gonzales honestly does not remember something, what are you going to do, waterboard him?"
kaye2 wrote on July 18, 2007 4:57 PM:Sounds like a reasonable idea to me.
Did Leahy send him the answers, too? That's the ONLY way Gonzo could respond with anything other than "I don't recall" cause Gonzo hasn't the ability to say anything else.
I'm sure someone gave him the answers so he could pass the Bar Exam, college, high school, middle school, elementary school, kindergarten, nursery school. Hell, the doctor probably had to tell him to breath when he was born.
Anna S. wrote on July 18, 2007 5:41 PM:I think dm is right on target with the swipe at Bradbury in #8.
The question now is, what did Leahy hope to accomplish with this? Other than seeding the story in the media by handfeeding them the points on which Gonzalez will continue to fail to provide information, what exactly does this letter do? Everyone and his dog on Capitol Hill knows that the AG has been briefed on these and other questions, and that his famously faulty memory will continue to sprout mysterious black spots to protect his handlers. So since Leahy and Gonzalez both know that this letter is nothing more that Leahy getting frustrated, why send it?
Why play the game when you won't change the outcome?
regular lurker wrote on July 18, 2007 5:55 PM:It's so embarrassing that Gonzales is the Attorney General. Gonzales is inept and in way over his head.
Hardheaded Liberal wrote on July 18, 2007 5:57 PM:to dm:
I think you're right on the money as to Leahy's reference to the Vacancies Act! Thanks for the link. Are there criminal penalties for violations of the Vacancies Act? [Inquiring minds want to know.]
to mark & others snarking about waterboarding:
"If Gonzales honestly does not remember something, what are you going to do, waterboard him?"
Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, & Gonzales expressly authorized this method of interrogation for thousands of innocent people who did not even have anything to remember.
Even though it would be poetic justice to give Gonzales a swallow of his own medicine, this is NOT a matter to joke or snark about.
AS TO Trolls:
Should TPM consider a policy of screening [or blocking] posts by known trolls? Responses to the trolls are amusing, and reading the responses can be amusing, but responding to trolls can lead down corrupting paths, like the snarking about waterboarding.
wrb wrote on July 18, 2007 6:03 PM:What do you bet that Gonzalas doesn't show?
wrb wrote on July 18, 2007 6:04 PM:What do you bet that Gonzalas doesn't show?
Mrs. K8 wrote on July 18, 2007 6:11 PM:So, how is it that Steven Bradbury continues to draw a paycheck? His position is legally invalid -- of course it figures that Junior's crew would just blow this off, they get more outrageous every single day in thumbing their noses at the rule of law.
But does anyone know - What office is responsible for payroll?
Anonymous wrote on July 18, 2007 6:21 PM:EVALUATING ADEQUANCY OF AG RESPONSES TO CONGRESS
[Oversight Issues/Concerns of Congress]
Alleged perjury: "would you like to revise or correct your misleading"; "Why has your description of who made the decisions . . .changed over time" [Responses do not trace back to the workflows]
Internal DoJ auditing: "Has the Justice Department conducted audits or studies demonstrating" [Would be useful if DoJ provided copies of the workflows supporting this effort, with copies of the GAAS internal audit checksheets, and other SAS review checklists]
External Auditing: "Will you agree to the removal of this limitation" [IG knew about problems, but AG blocked review of his misconduct]
Responsiveness: "Why has the Justice Department taken so long to" [Funds still expended despite no progress; these budgets could be zeroed]
Credibility: "why should Congress or the American people have any confidence" [Grand Jury pool is from the American pbulic]
Management: "Were you aware of these issues/decisions" [Adequacy of internal deliberations, management workflows, and resource allocations/responses during day to day oversight]
Management Competence: "What have you, as Attorney General, done to" [Would be helpful to poitn to specific workflow accomplishment; and point to specific work completed by contractors, internal personnel, and provide a time sheet of the DOJ STaff working on these projects. Please explain why DoJ Staff was working on these issues, while the FISA warrant requirements were not met.]
dm wrote on July 18, 2007 6:29 PM:Hardheaded Liberal,
I didn't see any criminal penalties for a violation of the Vacancies Act, but of course I'm no expert.
I think more intruiging is the portion of the statute that says Bradbury's actions (including the memo stating that Miers could legally fail to appear) have "no force or effect". Maybe Leahy is trying to kill any mistake of law defense to Miers' failure to appear. 2 USC 192 (failure to appear criminal statute) requires that the failure to appear be "willful", and perhaps Miers could argue that her failure to appear did not satisfy that element because she acted pursuant to a DOJ legal opinion and therefore made a justifiable mistake of law.
In Townsend v. US, 95 F.2d 352 (D.C. Cir 1938), the defendant appeared for a hearing and then suddenly walked out. The court found that the defendant's mistaken belief that the committee was not authorized to conduct the hearing was not relevant and did not excuse him from the contempt citation, because:
"There is nothing in the excluded evidence to indicate that appellant submitted the question of his duty to attend the committee hearings to an attorney and acted honestly upon that advice, relying upon it and believing it to be correct. There is nothing in the excluded evidence to indicate that there was any uncertainty in the mind of the appellant as to the law or as to his duty to attend. In other words, there is nothing in the excluded evidence to take the present case out of the general rule regarding mistake of law, or to bring it within the exceptions stated in the Williamson and Murdock Cases. Consequently there was no reason to send the evidence to the jury upon the ground of good faith or honest belief."
Again, I'm not familiar with the applicable law here, but I interpret that to mean that Miers perhaps could avoid conviction if, while planning her conduct, she relied on an official statement of the law from an organization like the DOJ. If DOJ's opinion lacked legal authority, then I guess that defense would be substantially weakened.
Cheryl wrote on July 18, 2007 7:59 PM:What is Leahy doing about Ms. Miers?
Time to go court, but is Leahy doing NOTHING?
I would like Sen. Leahy to be less of a gentleman and more of a pitbull prosecutor - I wish Sen. Webb had Leahy's position.
I have to wonder did Sen. Leahy EVER successfully prosecute anyone???
shaker o salt wrote on July 18, 2007 8:32 PM:Anna S: "Why play the game when you won't change the outcome?"
Guess you can't see the major snark in this letter to Gonzales.
Hee hee
JNagarya wrote on July 18, 2007 11:06 PM:If I sent you a question in advance, to something you honestly did not remember, how are you supposed to "get remembering"? Obviously, the good Senator can use anything he likes to attempt to "refresh the recollection" of the witness. If Gonzales honestly does not remember something, what are you going to do, waterboard him?
Posted by: The REAL Jake D.
Date: July 18, 2007 2:33 PM
How many times does a witness have to claim, "I don't recall," and "I don't remember if I recall," before one begins to form one of the following conclusions:
1. The witness is a liar; or,
2. The witness is not competent to hold the job about which he recalls -- and knows -- so little?
And having formed either of those conclusions, calls for the person to resign because -- in essence -- not competent to hold the job?
JNagarya wrote on July 18, 2007 11:17 PM:Jack D.
Waterboarding is, after all, a tactic that Gonzales approved. Hell,let's do it.
Posted by: Tom
Date: July 18, 2007 3:34 PM
Doubtless Gonzales is a Christian who unequivocally believes in the principle "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." But being a lawyer, Gonzales would likely distinguish the matter by claiming that those he has waterboarded are not, unlike him, authorized to enforce the law with him as the subject of the enforcement
JNagarya wrote on July 18, 2007 11:20 PM:.
Responding to a troll accomplishes what he intends....it disrupts the dialogue. Please don't aid the troll.
Posted by: Martiki
Date: July 18, 2007 3:20 PM
1. Silence is assent.
2. The greatest threat to democracy is tolerance of its enemies.
JNagarya wrote on July 18, 2007 11:25 PM:If I ever am called to testify in court concerning any misdeeds and /or illegalities, I would hope thaat I am given an equal opportunity to go over the questions which will be asked in advance. . . .
Posted by: johnnydoughey
Date: July 18, 2007 3:38 PM
The letter from Leahy to Gonzales is technically a deposition. It is a means of getting him "on the record," and will be compared to hard evidence which Congress already has, including transcripts of Gonzales' prior testimonies.
JNagarya wrote on July 18, 2007 11:32 PM:"If I sent you a question in advance, to something you honestly did not remember, how are you supposed to "get remembering"? Obviously, the good Senator can use anything he likes to attempt to "refresh the recollection" of the witness. If Gonzales honestly does not remember something, what are you going to do, waterboard him? "
*******************************************
Since this is critical information, he can do (or have his COS) some research. It's obvious that he can get the information. It was clear to me that the purpose of sending him the questions in advance (the last hearing) was so he would be prepared and be able to provide the answers. Obsiously, he didn't do his research and prepping again!
That isn't rocket science!
Posted by:
Date: July 18, 2007 4:04 PM
Recall that "Jake" initially claimed to be a retired lawyer? Were that the fact, he'd know the answer to his own (irrelevant) question. Instead, being an asshole, he treats Constitution and rule of law as a joke; with ridicule.
Among the possible options Congress has is to cite him for contempt for yet again not providing answers to which Congress has an unquestioned right.
I'm looking forward to the questions of him concerning the frauduent Siegelman prosecution -- beginning with his suggestions as to how Siegelman should be compensated for the deliberate damages done him and his reputation.
JNagarya wrote on July 18, 2007 11:39 PM:"The question now is, what did Leahy hope to accomplish with this? Other than seeding the story in the media by handfeeding them the points on which Gonzalez will continue to fail to provide information, what exactly does this letter do?"
It is technically a deposition, and puts Gonzales on the record concerning matters about which he has not yet been questioned.
"Everyone and his dog on Capitol Hill knows that the AG has been briefed on these and other questions, . . . ."
They do? Where's the evidence for that assertion?
". . . and that his famously faulty memory will continue to sprout mysterious black spots to protect his handlers. So since Leahy and Gonzalez both know that this letter is nothing more that Leahy getting frustrated, why send it?"
Leahy is a former prosecutor, thus knows that pinning down a liar is painstaking and time-consuming.
In addition, Leahy is the Chair of the Committee, not the entire Committee. That letter was not written by him alone.
"Why play the game when you won't change the outcome?"
Building a case continues, regardless whether a principle or witness cooperates.
Posted by: Anna S.
ralph489 wrote on July 19, 2007 2:19 AM:Date: July 18, 2007 5:41 PM
I am wondering: If the AG doesn't provide serious answers to these questions, isn't that automatically contempt of congress, given that he has a week to prepare?
ardyjay wrote on July 19, 2007 2:22 AM:"If Gonzales honestly does not remember something, what are you going to do, waterboard him?"
Finally, a Republican with a sensible idea.
smitty werbenmanjensen wrote on July 19, 2007 5:09 AM:If Gonzales honestly does not remember something, what are you going to do, waterboard him?
Well, Gonzales says it's OK, so .....
wallygator wrote on July 19, 2007 9:34 AM:After watching these hearings I had to reevaluate
nellieh wrote on July 19, 2007 9:39 AM:my feelings on the use of waterboarding during
questioning.I've decided it is inhuman and should
never be used.
Instead of torture for answers lets declare them
enemy combatants,intent on doing harm to our country,and send them to Gitmo.
No charges.No trial.No PARDONS!
Hey REAL JakeD! I like your thinking! although Gonzales would thimk it "quaint." Code word; degree. As in,'give him the third degree.
JF wrote on July 19, 2007 9:52 AM:re: No. 8 -- why do we think Steve Bradbury wrote the (still unreleased) July 10 memo? The prior Justice Department memo (June 27) sustaining the White House's executive privilege claim was written by Solicitor General Paul Clement. Could it be that Clement would not put his name on such a broad and unprecedented executive privilege claim?
Curious
Georgesimian wrote on July 19, 2007 10:00 AM:Why are there no questions about withheld documents? Or how about something like this...
Can we count on the DOJ to enforce simple and clear laws, or are they going to continue reinterpreting the Constitution so that President Bush remains without any oversight at all?
JF wrote on July 19, 2007 10:00 AM:re: No. 8 -- why do we think Steve Bradbury wrote the (still unreleased) July 10 memo? The prior Justice Department memo (June 27) sustaining the White House's executive privilege claim was written by Solicitor General Paul Clement. Could it be that Clement would not put his name on such a broad and unprecedented executive privilege claim?
Curious
C.W.S. wrote on July 19, 2007 10:08 AM:Miers failed to appear before a House Committee, not a Senate committee, so Leahy can do nothing directly about her. That responsibility falls to John Conyers.
Johnsnottoodistracted wrote on July 19, 2007 10:13 AM:What is this guy the ag of anyway?Everyone has no brain cells and he is the head?
Matt wrote on July 19, 2007 10:22 AM:That is real trickledown.
Gonzales can get up there and explain that he doesn't remember. Or maybe he will not appear at all.
jedermann wrote on July 19, 2007 10:43 AM:Congress can't do anything about it.
Just like they can't do anything to Miers.
So the TROLL has a point in this regard.
Waterboarding is a great idea! I have long thought that this should be the standard government interviewing technique. It is harmless and 100% effective. Reportedly, no one has ever held out for more than two and one-half minutes and you always get a result. Why go through all this cajoling and wheedling when the solution is at hand that has been thoroughly tested in the field? They could design special bibs so that no one's clothes get wet and there's money to be made for some enterprising Republican businessman (Dems need not apply) producing portable waterboarding kits that could be provided to local governments by the DHS at very little cost to the taxpayer. And just think of the entertainment value! People might take an interest in government again.
JIMMY F wrote on July 19, 2007 1:36 PM:
parrot wrote on July 19, 2007 1:36 PM:7-19-2007
HI EDITOR,
THIS COLUMN ON MR. LEAHY'S LETTER IS A SIGNIFICANT PUBLIC SERVICE. THANK YOU FOR IT.
I WHISH THERE COULD BE MORE REPORTING LIKE THIS.
I ALSO THANK MR. LEAHY FOR WRITING THIS LETTER AND I AM INTERESTED IN WHAT MR. GONZALES' ANSWERS TO THESE QUESTION ARE GOING TO BE. I HOPE YOU CAN PUBLISH THEM VERBATUM?
ALL THE BEST AND GOD BLESS YOU AND YOURS AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND EVERYONE EVERYWHERE.
Can we just skip that hearing and go straight to impeachment, please? I and the rest of the country are sick and tired of the criminality in the DOJ and the White House. It really is that simple.
cmtueqhr lztug wrote on August 3, 2007 1:26 PM:upadm noiywuc vepcwm uybfnlj mbydi uasdf ruakm
twexsagpv vimawzo wrote on August 3, 2007 1:29 PM:xuiva oahygp owyk mnuwpekhr jpvei vlfdgc jbnyzemw wbhielxa aqcetyfun
twexsagpv vimawzo wrote on August 3, 2007 1:30 PM:xuiva oahygp owyk mnuwpekhr jpvei vlfdgc jbnyzemw wbhielxa aqcetyfun
cxodhrt lknxie wrote on August 3, 2007 1:34 PM:tykare njzckrxi eymuri ezkipcst cfextpko chqaben hropt [URL=http://www.crxe.kwgcbf.com]lbhmk hcefzpq[/URL]
cxodhrt lknxie wrote on August 3, 2007 1:35 PM:tykare njzckrxi eymuri ezkipcst cfextpko chqaben hropt [URL=http://www.crxe.kwgcbf.com]lbhmk hcefzpq[/URL]
oitw jmokstnug wrote on August 3, 2007 1:37 PM:mybpiafkv pcfqxkn dkcsiofv ekhdrv mrxaoefuz divnb ugzle [URL]http://www.pfljvg.jebx.com[/URL] todviy prvxd
2002 gmc truck headers wrote on September 21, 2007 7:50 AM:Nice site. Thank you!!!
2003 honda accord forum wrote on September 21, 2007 3:07 PM:Cool site. Thanks:-)
2003 honda accord forum wrote on September 21, 2007 3:08 PM:Cool site. Thanks:-)
2005 mini cooper wrote on September 22, 2007 5:46 AM:Cool site. Thanks!
256 p2 n531 ax wrote on September 23, 2007 10:39 AM:Nice site. Thank you:-)
4 tft monitor wrote on September 23, 2007 2:34 PM:Good site. Thanks!
4 tft monitor wrote on September 23, 2007 2:35 PM:Good site. Thanks!
5900 fx geforce nvidia xt wrote on September 23, 2007 5:53 PM:Nice site. Thanks!!!
a light house is located on a small island wrote on September 24, 2007 1:06 AM:Nice site. Thanks!
a light house is located on a small island wrote on September 24, 2007 1:06 AM:Nice site. Thanks!
advertising guaranteed site web wrote on September 24, 2007 3:57 PM:Cool site. Thanks.
advertising guaranteed site web wrote on September 24, 2007 3:58 PM:Cool site. Thanks.
angry kid phone downloads wrote on September 25, 2007 5:17 PM:Very good site. Thank you!!!
angry kid phone downloads wrote on September 25, 2007 5:18 PM:Very good site. Thank you!!!
anniston engagement ring wrote on September 25, 2007 6:40 PM:Good site. Thank you!!!
anti virus and spyware wrote on September 25, 2007 8:50 PM:Cool site. Thanks!
anti virus and spyware wrote on September 25, 2007 8:50 PM:Cool site. Thanks!
arizona broker estate real wrote on September 26, 2007 6:01 AM:Good site. Thanks!!!
art chicago institute museum shop wrote on September 26, 2007 9:01 AM:Cool site. Thanks!
art chicago institute museum shop wrote on September 26, 2007 9:02 AM:Cool site. Thanks!
athena institute wrote on September 26, 2007 3:12 PM:Good site. Thank you!
bales company wrote on September 27, 2007 12:03 PM:Very good site. Thank you:-)
best video camera for churches wrote on September 28, 2007 2:19 PM:Cool site. Thanks.
between rounds wrote on September 28, 2007 3:55 PM:Good site. Thanks!
blackberry 7510 cannot load contacts from ms outlook wrote on September 29, 2007 2:54 AM:Cool site. Thank you!
blow fantasy gay job wrote on September 29, 2007 5:13 AM:Good site. Thank you.
boots sluts wrote on September 29, 2007 3:31 PM:Very good site. Thank you!!!
boots sluts wrote on September 29, 2007 3:31 PM:Very good site. Thank you!!!
bracelet silver watch wrote on September 29, 2007 8:39 PM:Very good site. Thanks:-)
bulk long stem roses wrote on September 30, 2007 10:03 AM:Good site. Thanks:-)
cockshutt wrote on November 21, 2007 3:59 AM:Very good site. Thanks:-)
cockshutt wrote on November 21, 2007 4:00 AM:Very good site. Thanks:-)
seven mens jeans wrote on November 22, 2007 12:51 PM:Nice site. Thanks!
valentines day wrote on November 22, 2007 6:06 PM:Cool site. Thanks!!!
usa world wrote on December 9, 2007 11:39 PM:Cool site. Thanks!!!
usa world wrote on December 9, 2007 11:40 PM:Cool site. Thanks!!!
cell phone reverse directory wrote on December 20, 2007 6:18 PM:wca6e3ly5rg2 cell phone reverse directory cell phone reverse directory