And So It Begins: 'Dem calls for Special Prosecutor to investigate Gonzales' lies to Congress'

[Blackhatjack]

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Gonzales_told_of_FBI_abuses_claimed_0710.html

"A Democratic Congressman called for Alberto Gonzalez's resignation and said he wants an independent prosecutor to investigate reports that the attorney general misled Congress in denying knowledge of civil rights abuses by the FBI.

"Attorney General Gonzales has shown an apparent reckless disregard for the rule of law and a fundamental lack of respect for the oversight responsibilities of Congress," said Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y. "The man entrusted with enforcing our nation's laws must also abide by them - and Mr. Gonzales has apparently failed in that duty."

Tuesday's Washington Post reports that Gonzales was given at least a half-dozen reports detailing FBI abuses of power in the three months before testifying to Congress where he sought to renew the Patriot Act. In front of the Senate Intelligence Committee, on April 27, 2005, he claimed he knew of no wrongdoing or abuse of power, and that the Patriot Act was free of problems, despite the reports of numerous violations of the law and FBI protocol.

The report detailed acts of unauthorized surveillance, improper searches, and other procedural and legal breaches of civil rights and privacy laws. Gonzales was also briefed on the abuse of an anti-terror tool known as the national security letter as early as 2005, well before the Justice Department's inspector general made these violations public."

MORE

Special Prosecutor -->Impeachment of Gonzo

[yodermon]

1. I nominate Fitz, n/t

[dancingme]

15. I second that nomination

Fitzmas!

[garybeck]

21. Why, so he can indict one of Gonzalez' subordinates for perjury and let Gonzo go? n/t

[yodermon]

26. The only reason Fitz didn't indict Dick was because Scooter Obstructed.

Fitz needed Scooter's testimony to convict Dick.
Fitz would not seek an indictment for which he couldn't secure a conviction.
Would you have preferred if he'd indicted Dick only to have him acquitted?

[cui bono]

31. According to Jonathan Turley or John Dean...

I think it was one of those two on Countdown, Fitz really didn't act very aggressively on this case.

[tiptoe]

42. Possibly we'll learn from Fitz himself, should he testify before Leahy's &/or Conyers' committees...

Fitzgerald May Testify on Prosecution of Libby Case, Leahy Says

Source: Bloomberg

July 8 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. attorney Patrick Fitzgerald may be called to testify about his prosecution of former vice presidential aide Lewis ``Scooter'' Libby, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy said.

Leahy and Arlen Specter, the ranking Republican on the panel, indicated they want to discuss sentencing guidelines in light of President George W. Bush's commutation of Libby's sentence and also to quiz Fitzgerald on his handling of the case.

``I still haven't figured out what that case is all about,'' Specter said. ``There are a lot of ramifications that I think we ought to go into. Why were they pursuing the matter long after there was no underlying crime on the outing of the CIA agent? Why were they pursuing it after we knew who the leaker was?''

Leahy, appearing with Specter, of Pennsylvania, on CNN's ``Late Edition,'' noted they both are former prosecutors and said he has ``some of the very same questions in mind.'' Smiling, he added: ``You might find it to be an interesting hearing.''
...

[cui bono]

43. I look forward to that. :) nt

[DeeDeeNY]

46. That will definitely be interesting

[MrPrax]

48. That's an understatement....

Was it the best prosecution strategy to place peripheral players in jail while the whole time HOPING that the guilty parties will step forward and take down the Presidency?

The goal was always minimalist anyway -- the actual claim itself was Intel-doctored forgery...the whole case for war was a forgery and the press, while being the biggest cheerleaders, certainly didn't 'sex' up or invent the initial claims.

None of the ringleaders ever even came close to an uncomfortable moment under private testimony...the whole reason for the Office of Special Plans was routinely ignored in the investigation and it was very narrow to say the least.

[garybeck]

56. I don't buy that.

Libby's lawyer, in the trial, admitted that Cheney "might have" told Libby to tell the media about Plame. What else do you need? It's right there in the trial. enough to make Libby's jury want to put Rove behind bars more than Libby himself. there was a lot of evidence, with or without Libby, on cheney and rove. Other experts including Turley and Dean have said there was more than enough.

think of this, how often does a prosecutor stop his investigation because one of the people is lying? Isn't it his job to week through the lies and figure out what really happened? What does it say about the prosecutor when he never even indicts a person for the original crime. It says he LOST. He failed. If you buy your own story, you're saying that the bad guys won and the good guys lost, just because one of them lied, to get away with a very high crime.

if it were murder, wouldn't you think it a little strange if the prosecutor just gave up because one of the people he was investigating lied to him? He never should have ended the investigation until he indicted someone for the original crime.

[John Q. Citizen]

29. I'm with you. Anyone who read "Triple Cross" would have to wonder about

Fitz' judgement.

[Missy Vixen]

33. Anyone who takes Mr. Lance's word for what happened

obviously has not done their homework.

Mr. Lance's "sourcing" for his highly touted National Geographic Channel special on the subject was so shaky that the National Geographic Channel completely cut the segment.

Julie

[bvar22]

41. Or wonder about his true allegiances.

Any way you look at it, Fitz's whole investigation yielded little results, but ate up a lot of the clock.

Bread & Circuses?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

30. I nominate Larry Flynt.

:thumbsup:

[aquart]

2. MY congressman. MINE. Buttons bursting.

[rubberducky]

3. Who appoints a special prosecutor?

[KharmaTrain]

9. The First District Court Oversees It...

Now I don't know the specifics since the I.P. law was allowed to lapse several years ago, thus I'm not sure even if that statue applies, a new one or older one is in effect or some new one will have to be drawn up.

In the old process...IRC, the case would be sent to a three judge panel who would determine the merits of an IP and then determine the mandate. In this case, I would think the I.P. would be nominated by the House or Senate Judiciary who would then pass along the request to the district court.

No matter what the First District is going to get involved...any contempt citation has to pass through there. The good news for booshie is that there many of the judges are his own appointees or that of Raygun or his poppy. The bad news is this is the court he pissed off with his Libby commutation. I don't think he made any friends...and Gonzo is such a pathetic character, he's just begging to be ripped to shreads.

[rubberducky]

22. Thanks!

[blogslut]

4. kicked

and recommended!

[babylonsister]

5. Good, and can he/she make it snappy? Time's awastin'... nt

[snappyturtle]

35. Did someone call? n/t

[formercia]

6. It wasn't illegal

ipso facto. :sarcasm:

[malaise]

7. Bring em on Dems

The gig is up.

[BrainGlutton]

28. I think you mean "jig"

. . . though what an Irish dance has to do with a criminal conspiracy has never been clear to me.

[SemperEadem]

49. it's an idiom

however, the word "jig" is also a fisherman's lure with one or more hooks that is jerked up and down in the water... that may be from where the idiom was created.

[malaise]

52. No we say gig n/t

[Mandate My Ass]

8. He didn't mislead. He lied and committed perjury

on numerous occasions. He is a criminal and conspirator with the criminals in the WH. Period.

[BlooInBloo]

10. Of course he did. But you have to let the fiction of the hypothetical innocence go at the start...

... so the ball can get rolling.

[knight_of_the_star]

14. We can't PROVE perjury

All we can prove is Gonzo has a bad case of amnesia.

Now if the IP finds evidence to PROVE perjury then we're getting somewhere, but so far all the proof has been conveniently disappearing.

[ThomWV]

34. I believe the operative phrase is "knew or should have known"

And that to a date-time stamp for when it arrived in his office and you have the makings of an Attorney General in need of a new job.

[SemperEadem]

50. seems pretty clear to me

that he knew of the FBI abuses days before he gave testimony that he didn't know about it--sounds like lying under oath to me.

[wiggs]

11. There we go. Get 'em. nt

[wiggs]

12. Of course, we'll have to impeach GWB to avoid the pardon of Gonzales. nt

[DeSwiss]

13. That would be a "criminal complaint"....

...if I'm not mistaken. Hmmmm, Fredo in convict orange. I think it's a look he can easily get away with, as long as he wears it from 20 to life...

K&R!!!

[formercia]

16. Pink Panties and red pumps

for his coming out party.

[DeSwiss]

17. With emphasis on....

...the "coming."

:rofl:

[formercia]

23. You mis-speeled it...

methinks.




Perhaps he can get sponsorship tattoos.

damn speel checker...

[spanone]

18. K&R

[jazzjunkysue]

19. Calls are nice. Now, when does it happen? And who was it? n/t.

[bullimiami]

20. fitz waded into a whole den of theives and found no way to prosecute.

im not so quick to sing his praises now.

[Disturbed]

24. Gonzo committed Perjury at least four times by my count.

Hard to prove? Unless Congress destroyed the Videos, the evidence is on tape.

[KAT119]

25. K&R! Thank you....

[Vidar]

27. Applauding Congressman Jerry Nadler.

[lovuian]

32. Well its about FREAKIN TIME

and lets get the show on the road gang

[snappyturtle]

36. K&R This is great news...bless Nadler! n/t

[Disturbed]

37. Why waste money on a Fed Prosecutor?

Move right to Impeachment! Yes, an AG can be Impeached.

[snappyturtle]

38. Whatever is most expedient!!! n/t

[jazzjunkysue]

39. As the Cardassians say: Innocent people don't need trials, and

putting the guilty on trial is a waste of time and money. :evilgrin:

[Johnny Noshoes]

45. That's it

Gull Ducat for Special Prosecutor! :evilgrin:

[frogcycle]

40. he said "verified" cases

he's going to use that to try to squirm off the hook
he had seen allegations, not yet proven in court

so he might get by with not having "lied" but Congress could sure hold him in contempt for obfuscation with intent to deceive

[me b zola]

44. Yeeehaw!

Let justice be served!

:kick:

[mmonk]

47. So they want the Department of Justice to investigate itself.

Impeach him and impeach Cheney.

[BrainGlutton]

51. Presumably it would work like the appointment of Fitzgerald.

See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_prosecutor#Federal_government

[CRH]

53. Just more Grand Standing, ...

They have enough to impeach and convict Gonzales now, so what good is it ito investigate a new angle, except to distract the public from what they are not doing?

How many are aware the 'high crimes and misdemeanors' clause was written vague, and can mean just about anything the congress wants it to. Simply lying to the public, defying treaties, defying Geneva Conventions, defying the balance of powers set forth in the constitution with overt contempt of congress through using signing statements, refusing to defend the constitution ... ; are all impeachable crimes, if the congress so desires. There are no shortage of impeachable crimes of this administration that have been already proved, but the will to act on both sides of the isle, is not present. The decision has been made, to let this lawless administration slide, to let this administration set the lowest standard of integrity, as acceptable governance.

The ultimate corruption of the federal US government has been reaffirmed over and over again, in the past seven years, with one party operating with reckless disregard for human rights, law and order, the principles in the constitution, international law, and more; while the other party, the democrats, have aided and abetted these debasings through silence, inaction, cross voting, and protecting the worst of the offenders from prosecution, impeachment, conviction, and social disgrace, while allowing the distortion of history to be written.

It is sad to believe these new low standards have been accepted by nearly all federal politicians, that there are no actions or policies so vile, as to warrant impeachment and conviction, a non criminal punishment. Impeachment and conviction simply removes the reptiles from office, nothing more, and yet they still are unwilling.

These last four congresses have traveled well beyond contempt. Nothing short of an open season on federal politicians, will remedy the problem. And no, I am not recommending domestic terrorism or assassinations, but as a tactic one has to realize, it is one of the few solutions left to opposition. When realistic potential for change is denied the public through corrupt campaign finance and a fixed two party system of subversion of democratic alternatives, the system itself, restricts the possible peaceful solutions. I wonder if the federal politicians realize how dangerous their neglect of impeaching corruption could be, if some serious underground revolution forms to institute a new government to effect their safety and happiness, one way or the other. The weathermen, black panthers, students for a democratic society (SDS) were all relative small but socially very disruptive. They all found expression in a time of lawless government and corruption, and provoked measured effect in social awareness; that below the simmering emotion of sometimes violent revolt against 'the establishment', were profound reasons very similar to the protestations of our founding fathers and their documents.

One could make a case that the niggardly actions of the federal politicians of today, to address the corruption and defend the constitution, is self corrective, and could very well foment similar forces, forces that in this time, might not stay small.

edit: corrected a plural spelling

[Yukari Yakumo]

54. They couldn't get a "Vote of No Confidence" past cloture

What makes you think impeachment and conviction will fly now?

[CRH]

55. It is respecting the process and the rule of law, ...

that is most important. To try and fail, but to make everyone responsible for their vote in the record, is far better than never attempting corrective action. If the integrity of government rests solely on passable measures today, without any personal accountability in the record, then no one will ever stick their neck out to correct actions.

How did your Senator vote on the second Patriot Act? Can you find a vote record in the voice vote of the appropriations bill it was attached to? Can you now hold your representative responsible for his/her vote?

You do prove my point though, and I don't say this in a combative manner. The congress has neglected their duty to defend the constitution. If after 'all' that has happened, with a daily reminder of the consequence of the illegal invasion of Iraq on administration fabricated lies, the congress still cannot muster cloture on a 'vote of no confidence', then it seems pretty obvious that no conduct is so vile as to represent an impeachment offense. And if this is the case, the federal politicians are not protecting and defending the constitution, they are allowing the corruption, by not using the tool written into the constitution to prevent the runaway abuse of unbridled power. It is with bi-partisan obstruction, 'no confidence' could not find cloture.