Grillin' Gonza over an open fire of Congressional Contempt

Vyan

(990 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jul-26-07 02:35 AM
Original message

Grillin' Gonza over an open fire of Congressional Contempt

Edited on Thu Jul-26-07 02:54 AM by Vyan

Yesterday's hearing was quite a show as our erstwhile Attorney General Alberto Gonzales was slowly and thoroughly roasted on an open spit in the Senate - I should've brought pop-corn.

In fact, if anything, Gonzales's ridiculous testimony made sure of one thing - that the House Judiciary Committee would have no choice but to issue Contempt of Congress citations against Harriet Miers and Josh Bolten for refusing to testify and reveal their own rolls in the ongoing Fuster-cluck that is Gonzo-Gate.

Although Congress has yet to issues similar citations against Gonzo himself, it remain abundantly clear that they hold him in the deepest of contempt.

That says that his little midnight ride to Ashcroft's bedside was completely innocent - "We just wanted to inform him of the Consensus of Gang Of Eight" that the Domestic Spying program that the Justice Department had declared illegal - which was similar too, but "not the same one the President revealed" needed to be continued despite the objection of then Acting Attorney General James Comey.

Unfortunately at least half the members of the Gang of Eight seem to disagree with that.

Jane Harmon.

That doesn�t make any sense to me," Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) said of Gonzales� testimony. She said the TSP was "the only program we were ever briefed about." "We were briefed on the operational details � period � not the legal underpinnings," Harman said.

Jay Rockefeller.

The record needs to be set clear that the Administration never afforded members briefed on the program an opportunity to either approve or disapprove the NSA program.

Nancy Pelosi.

]"She made clear her disagreement with the program continuing despite Comey�s objection."

Tom Daschle:

Between 2002 and 2004, the White House notified me in classified briefings about NSA programs related to the war on terrorism. The briefer made clear they were not seeking my advice or consent, but were simply informing me about new actions. If subsequent public accounts are accurate, it now also appears the briefers omitted key details, including important information about the scope of the program.

Even with some of the more troublesome - and potentially illegal - details omitted, I still raised significant concern about these actions. As such, I am surprised and disappointed that the White House would now suggest that none of us informed of the program objected.

So the scenario that Gonzales lays out - that he was simply going to inform Ashcroft of what the Gang of Eight thought and had "asked them to do" - is complete and total pile of crap. And what's truly amazing is that he tried to lay this story off on Members of Congress who happen to have the Gang of Eight on Speed-Dial!

Also as reported on Countdown Tonight - the AP has revealed a document that completely undercuts the "Gonzales version of the facts."

The AP reports that a four-page memo sent by then-National Intelligence Director John Negroponte in May 2006 confirms that a March 2004 White House intelligence briefing for top congressional leaders was on �the Terrorist Surveillance Program.�

How's that for getting hung out to dry?

During his questioning Senator Dodd addressed Gonzales on the issue of Torture, pointing to the recently signed executive order by Bush which has banned the CIA from using sexual abuse and nudity in their interrogations. Dodd also pointed out that the Senate had just received communications from the head JAG from each of the four primary branches of the armed forces (Army, Air Force, Navy & Marines) indicating their unanimous consensus that the use of Stress Positions, Dogs, and Waterboarding are Grave Breaches of Geneva and constitute "Torture" - yet Gonzales would not admit to agreeing with that assessment under oath, instead claiming...

I can not discuss specific techniques used, but we (America) do not torture.

Dodd astutely pointed out that if the President feels that sexual abuse rises to the level of such a heinous act that it should be specifically prohibited, the fact that he doesn't include Waterboarding on his list tends to indicate exactly the opposite - the it doesn't rise to the level of being "torture" in his eyes.

When asked specifically about the ramifications of Hamdan V Rumsfled Gonzales claimed that the Supreme Court had required humane treatment of "Enemy Combatants affiliated with Al Qaeda".

Dodd blanched.

"Does this mean that you don't believe the Geneva Conventions apply to other types of Enemy Combatants who are not members of Al-Qaeda?" (Y'know - like the Shia Militias currently engaging in Genocide in Iraq?) Gonzales refused to answer.

And as it turns out, yet again, he was wrong.

The Supremes made no specific mention of "Al Qaeda" in their ruling, they only established that person with that status of "Enemy Combatants" were indeed protected under Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions.

One of the most amazing claims made by Gonzales was that he didn't commit perjury before Congress when he claimed that he "hadn't talked to any of his subordinates" regarding the firing and replacing of 8 (or was it 9) U.S. Attorneys because they were "witnesses."

Except that he did talk to Monica Goodling, and yesterday tried to explain that he was simply "comforting a distraught young woman by explaining that nothing wrong or illegal had occurred in his opinion."

So did he try to explain why he had previously lied to Congress when he said he didn't have a conversation like this and that's why his recollection was "so faulty" on so many key details involving why these attorney's were dismissed?

Not really.

How exactly did he know "nothing wrong or illegal happened" if he didn't really know or remember what did happen? And the moment when Senator Feinstein asked him "How many U.S. Attorney's were fired for cause"

He couldn't name any. He did name examples of misconduct, such as using your official capacity to "help out a buddy".

Feinstien : "Did any of the fired U.S. Attorney's do this?"

Gonzales: "No"

Feinstein jumped on this by pointing out - "You mean to say that there attorney's were fired without reasonable justification?"

Gonzales: Uh....

Senator Arlen Specter ("D" if you happen to watch Faux News, "R" to the rest of us) may have made one of the most ominous pronouncements during the hearing.

My suggestion to you is you review your testimony to find out if your credibility has been breached to the point of being actionable," Specter said. Time reports, "The maximum penalty for being caught lying to Congress is five years in prison and a fine of $250,000 per count. Specter wryly noted to reporters during a break that there is a jail in the Capitol complex."

Amen to that.

This point was brought home by the recent Judiciary Committee report which indicates that Bush's Justice Department may have broken as many as 52 laws.

The memorandum says the probe has turned up evidence that some of the U.S. attorneys were improperly selected for firing because of their handling of vote fraud allegations, public corruption cases or other cases that could affect close elections. It also says that Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and senior Justice aides "appear to have made false or misleading statements to Congress, many of which sought to minimize the role of White House personnel."

In addition, the memorandum asserts repeatedly that the president's top political adviser, Karl Rove, was the first administration official to broach the idea of firing U.S. attorneys shortly after the 2004 election -- an assertion the White House has said is not true.

This dimbulb is a blight on our nation and our system of justice. Bush won't fire him, so he needs to be Impeached and Removed. If that isn't crystal clear by now, it never will be.

Vyan

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

sam sarrha