CommunityFDL Main Blog


YouTube of Bill Moyers and Jon Stewart discussing AG Gonzales’ and his casual, passing acquaintence with honesty back in April of 2007.  So true then, and more true now…

Looks like the Paulie Walnuts of the Bush Administration may be in some doo doo for his omerta tap dance on Tuesday.  AP via USAToday.  (From C&L):

Documents show that eight congressional leaders were briefed about the Bush administration’s terrorist surveillance program on the eve of its expiration in 2004, contradicting sworn Senate testimony this week by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

The documents, obtained by The Associated Press, come as senators consider whether a perjury investigation should be opened into conflicting accounts about the program and a dramatic March 2004 confrontation leading up to its potentially illegal reauthorization.

A Gonzales spokesman maintained Wednesday that the attorney general stands by his testimony.

At a heated Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Tuesday, Gonzales repeatedly testified that the issue at hand was not about the terrorist surveillance program, which allowed the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on suspects in the United States without receiving court approval.

Instead, Gonzales said, the emergency meetings on March 10, 2004, focused on an intelligence program that he would not describe.[..]

Here’s a tip for Bush Administration cronies:  if you are going to lie under oath, on the record, with a video camera in your face, don’t lie about something for which there is documentary evidence directly contradicting your statements.  It makes you look unprepared, panicked and sloppy.  Even petty thieves get their stories straighter than this in magistrate courts across the nation.  Juries still find them guilty, and see right through their lying skeezeball stories, but at least they have enough pride in their thievery to put a little work into covering their own asses.  It’s especially pathetic when you are given a number of the questions in advance.

Which brings those Fred Fielding continuing demands of no transcript, off the record, no further subpoenas, no oath and not in public for Miers, Rove and Bolten and other Bush WH cronies into much sharper focus, now doesn’t it?   Note to Congress:  just say no.  The public deserves to know what they are working so hard to hide.

There is a reason the Bush Administration is issuing directives to prevent its own USAttys from enforcing the laws — only for Bush Administration cronies, though.  Via Alterman:

Is not the administration’s position that they would not permit the U.S. Attorney to prosecute a Congressional Contempt referral an implicit admission that they allow politics to impact prosecutions? They are admitting that they would interfere with the independent judgment of a prosecutor on a specific case. I suggest that this is precisely what the firings of the U.S. Attorneys are ultimately about. Yes, they serve at the pleasure of the president, but they do not prosecute at the pleasure of the president….  (emphasis mine)

Is it time to impeach him, yet?  Because Gonzales’ disrespect for both the spirit and the letter of the law is on my last nerve.  And it disqualifies him for his post as the Attorney General of the United States in my book.  How about you guys?  It is way past time for some accountability.  

The contempt citations for Harriet Miers and Joshua Bolten had better just be the tip of a very well-thought-out, well-planned series of steps toward overall accountability and restoration of the rule of law and balance of powers.  Or this is going to be one pissed off citizen. 

Don’t make me pull over this blog.

Is the Gonzales silence protecting Junior President Bush?  Or Tony Vice President Cheney?  Or both?  And shouldn’t we find that out…pronto?  And isn’t it time the folks in the media started taking a fresh look at all the public statements, op-eds, and ranty bits from all the hypocritical, bloviating Republicans who now say that obstructing justice by claiming a nonexistant, overly broad executive privilege is a-okay? 

Why exactly is it that President Bush is being given a pass on the question of obstructing justice to cover his own assagain?  While I’m at it, why exactly is the American taxpayer still paying Karl Rove’s salary, anyway?  And do we even want to know how imbedded the politicization of the US government has become under his tutelage?

Let’s get a move on folks.  We have a Constitution to save!

Previous post

Have they done this sort of thing? Send an Amb to answer a question?, Part One

Next post

I'm all over Dear Leader's Internets...

Christy Hardin Smith

Christy Hardin Smith

Christy is a "recovering" attorney, who earned her undergraduate degree at Smith College, in American Studies and Government, concentrating in American Foreign Policy. She then went on to graduate studies at the University of Pennsylvania in the field of political science and international relations/security studies, before attending law school at the College of Law at West Virginia University, where she was Associate Editor of the Law Review. Christy was a partner in her own firm for several years, where she practiced in a number of areas including criminal defense, child abuse and neglect representation, domestic law, civil litigation, and she was an attorney for a small municipality, before switching hats to become a state prosecutor. Christy has extensive trial experience, and has worked for years both in and out of the court system to improve the lives of at risk children.

Email: reddhedd AT firedoglake DOT com