US Attorney General Gonzales resigns

[Janett_Reno]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/gonzales_resigns

[dude1394]

The witch-hunt bagged one.

[mcsluggo]

Originally Posted by dude1394

The witch-hunt bagged one.

uh, sure. If you really want to believe that....

[dude1394]

Well I do quite honestly. He did nothing illegal, the firing of the attorneys was completely within the prez's rights.

In fact the prez made a mistake not firing them all like bubba did in the first place. It's obvious that in washington you cannot allow anyone from the other party to be in place or you'll get this kind of junk.

[DevinFuture]

worst attorney general in American history. Good riddance.

[Mavdog]

nothing illegal? how about perjury?

the clinton remark is a ruse, it's traditional for a new president to have all the justice dept prosecutors leave, some get reappointed, others do not. there is no comparable instance when a president fires prosecutors half way thru their term, and most importantly, fire them not for lack of performance in their position but rather based solely on a political basis.

gonzalez was complicent in politicizing the dept of justice unlike any ag in our country's history.

there was no "witch hunt", gonzalez made his bed, his resignation shows that he had to sleep in it.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

nothing illegal? how about perjury?

the clinton remark is a ruse, it's traditional for a new president to have all the justice dept prosecutors leave, some get reappointed, others do not. there is no comparable instance when a president fires prosecutors half way thru their term, and most importantly, fire them not for lack of performance in their position but rather based solely on a political basis.

gonzalez was complicent in politicizing the dept of justice unlike any ag in our country's history.

there was no "witch hunt", gonzalez made his bed, his resignation shows that he had to sleep in it.

No perjury...nada...that nyslimes was a slime-job.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by DevinFuture

worst attorney general in American history. Good riddance.

Yea heaven forbid he should prosecute terrorists and get information to save our lives.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

No perjury...nada...that nyslimes was a slime-job.

you are very uninformed....

he was not truthful about his hospital visit with ashcroft...

he was not truthful about meeting on nov 27 06 with his chief of staff to initiate the firings, denied it and then when shown it was on his calender admitted it.

he was not truthful about a meeting with bush to discuss the firings (bush admitted they met, and then gonzalez had to backpedal).

for some inexplicable reason, gonzalez felt he could get away with being dishonest in his testimony to the senate committee. now he is paying the price of being caught.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

you are very uninformed....

he was not truthful about his hospital visit with ashcroft...

he was not truthful about meeting on nov 27 06 with his chief of staff to initiate the firings, denied it and then when shown it was on his calender admitted it.

he was not truthful about a meeting with bush to discuss the firings (bush admitted they met, and then gonzalez had to backpedal).

for some inexplicable reason, gonzalez felt he could get away with being dishonest in his testimony to the senate committee. now he is paying the price of being caught.

Wrong...you are listening to the smear job.

For example.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/018389.php

Today the New York Times filled in the blanks on Alberto Gonzales's testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee. As we discussed in detail here and here, Gonzales testified that he had visited John Ashcroft in the hospital to try to resolve a legal dispute that had developed over an intelligence program, but that the program in question was not the "terrorist surveillance program" that had been confirmed by President Bush, i.e., the interception of international communications where one participant is associated with al Qaeda. About that program, Gonzales said there had been no serious legal question.

This testimony was met with incredulity by the Senators. "Do you expect us to believe that?" Arlen Spector asked. Committee members Schumer and Leahy flatly accused Gonzales of lying, and called for a special prosecutor to carry out a perjury investigation. One thing I could never understand was why anyone cares: what difference would it make if Gonzales's hospital visit related to the "terrorist surveillance program," or to some other intelligence activity? And what reason would Gonzales have to lie about that fact?

Today the Times confirms that Gonzales told the truth. The legal dispute that broke out in 2004 was about the NSA's "data mining" project, in which databases of telephone records were reviewed for patterns suggestive of terrorist cells:

A 2004 dispute over the National Security Agency’s secret surveillance program that led top Justice Department officials to threaten resignation involved computer searches through massive electronic databases, according to current and former officials briefed on the program.

It is not known precisely why searching the databases, or data mining, raised such a furious legal debate. But such databases contain records of the phone calls and e-mail messages of millions of Americans, and their examination by the government would raise privacy issues.

What's comical about the Times' reporting is that the paper can't bring itself to acknowledge that this means Gonzales has been vindicated:

If the dispute chiefly involved data mining, rather than eavesdropping, Mr. Gonzales’ defenders may maintain that his narrowly crafted answers, while legalistic, were technically correct.

[Mavdog]

this powerline entry conveniently ignores the testimony of robert mueller.

[dude1394]

That one did but this followup did not.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/018349.php

The Democrats are going completely insane over Alberto Gonzales. Today four Democratic Senators released a list of items of false testimony that they claim Gonzales gave to various committees, and called for the appointment of a special prosecutor and a perjury investigation.

The centerpiece of the Democrats' claims is Gonzales's testimony earlier this week that the subject of disagreement inside the Justice Department that gave rise to his visit to then-Attorney General John Ashcroft in the hospital was "not about the terrorist surveillance program that the president announced to the American people," but rather was about "other intelligence activities." Earlier today, FBI Director Robert Mueller seemed to contradict Gonzales when he testified before a House committee that his impression was that the hospital visit did relate to the terrorist surveillance program. This was hearsay on Mueller's part, since he was not present at the interview, but arrived shortly after. He apparently got the impression that the TSP program was involved from Ashcroft.

Mueller's testimony was actually rather equivocal:

"Did you have an understanding that the conversation was on TSP?" asked Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas in a round of questioning that may have sounded to listeners like bureaucratic alphabet soup.

"I had an understanding the discussion was on a NSA program, yes," Mueller answered.

Jackson sought to clarify: "We use 'TSP,' we use 'warrantless wiretapping,' so would I be comfortable in saying that those were the items that were part of the discussion?"

"The discussion was on a national NSA program that has been much discussed, yes," Mueller responded.

I have no idea whether Mueller knows the difference between one NSA program and another; Gonzales may well be drawing a distinction between the "program that the President announced to the American people" and a second, perhaps related but still-secret program. It strikes me as extremely unlikely that Gonzales is lying about this, although he may be drawing a distinction that Chuck Schumer would consider subtle. There are two reasons for this: first, other individuals and documents would definitively answer the question, so it would be foolish to lie, and, second, I can't see any reason why it would make a difference. Who cares whether the hospital visit was about the NSA terrorist surveillance program that President Bush made public, or another NSA terrorist surveillance program that the President didn't make public? The idea that Gonzales would commit perjury on this point seems ludicrous.

The Senators' second example of Gonzales's supposedly false testimony in the linked article has to do with the firings of several U.S. Attorneys. Gonzales testified that "I haven’t talked to witnesses because of the fact that I haven’t wanted to interfere with this investigation and department investigations." Monica Goodling testified that she had a brief conversation with Gonzales in which he related his recollection of the relevant events. If there were evidence that Gonzales had conversations with a number of DOJ employees who were involved in the U.S. Attorney matter, it would be a plausible inference that Gonzales lied. But as far as is known, the only such employee was Goodling, and the context was her telling Gonzales that she was leaving his staff. Reminded of this exchange, Gonzales said on Tuesday that he was simply trying to console a distraught employee. That is consistent with Goodling's interpretation of the conversation:

I think, in all fairness, that he was just talking to someone on his staff and I was distraught and I was asking for a transfer.

And I think he was being kind.He's a very kind man.

This is not, to put it mildly, the stuff of which perjury investigations are ordinarily made. More broadly, the Democrats' attack on Gonzales resembles the Scooter Libby prosecution, in that there was no underlying wrongdoing. The President replaced eight or nine U.S. Attorneys who had served out their terms with other qualified nominees. U.S. Attorneys are political appointees who serve at the pleasure of the President. That's really all there is to that story. But it became the pretext for a fishing expedition by the Democrats, and as soon as they found a conflict between testimony by two witnesses--something that inevitably happens in just about any investigation--they started howling for a perjury prosecution.

These are dark days in Washington, and not because of Alberto Gonzales.

[Mavdog]

not a very compelling defense....."gonzalez MAY be drawing" and "the idea seems...ludicrous".

this is golden tho:

But it became the pretext for a fishing expedition by the Democrats, and as soon as they found a conflict between testimony by two witnesses--something that inevitably happens in just about any investigation--they started howling for a perjury prosecution.

uh huh..."inevitably"? in "any investigation"?

excuses, excuses.

[dude1394]

Certainly as good as your(and the dems) already decided opinion that he committed perjury, while he was at the inquisition.

[DevinFuture]

It is true that Gonzalez is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law...It's just very amusing that this is one of those rare times that republicans actually claim to believe that about a person.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by DevinFuture

It is true that Gonzalez is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law...It's just very amusing that this is one of those rare times that republicans actually claim to believe that about a person.

crock

[DevinFuture]

Originally Posted by dude1394

The witch-hunt bagged one.

crock

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by DevinFuture

crock

see above..."crock" defended..

[DevinFuture]

If you can call that right wing drivel a defense, then there's nothing I could say to convince you of anything. But Gonzalez' actions and legacy are clear to all but the extreme right partisans.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by DevinFuture

If you can call that right wing drivel a defense, then there's nothing I could say to convince you of anything. But Gonzalez' actions and legacy are clear to all but the extreme right partisans.

Son if you think the powerline guys induldge in right wing drivel then you are sorely lacking in the ability to recognize drivel.

[Mavdog]

it appears the allegation of gonzalez committing perjury is so real his own department of justice is investigating.....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Justice Dept. Investigating Gonzales's Testimony

By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, August 30, 2007; 1:28 PM

The Justice Department is investigating whether departing Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales gave false or misleading testimony to Congress on a broad range of issues, including the Bush administration's warrantless surveillance program and the removal of nine U.S. attorneys last year, the lead investigator said today.

The disclosure by Inspector General Glenn A. Fine shows that internal investigations that began with the prosecutor firings have widened substantially to include a focus on Gonzales's actions and statements.

Gonzales announced Monday that he was quitting the Justice Department after seven months of sustained conflict with Congress over the prosecutor dismissals and other issues. He told aides that he had decided his credibility with lawmakers had been too severely damaged to continue in the job.

In a letter today to Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), Fine said his office "has ongoing investigations" related to Gonzales's testimony on several key issues, including the prosecutor firings and allegations of improper hiring; the National Security Agency's Terrorist Surveillance Program; the FBI's use of national security letters; and allegations that Gonzales sought to improperly influence a witness who was under investigation by Congress and the Justice Department.

Gonzales's often contradictory remarks and his repeated assertions that he could not recall key events drew fire from lawmakers of both parties and contributed to his dwindling support on Capitol Hill.

Previously, Fine had confirmed only that the part of his inquiry concerning Gonzales involved whether the attorney general had sought to influence the testimony of a witness, aide Monica M. Goodling, before she testified to Congress.

Leahy had asked Fine earlier this month to include Gonzales's testimony as part of his internal investigation. Fine indicated today that the subjects already were under examination by his office and the Office of Professional Responsibility, which are working jointly on a probe of the prosecutor firings and allegations that political views were considered in the hiring of staff attorneys.

"We believe that through those investigations and other OIG reviews we will be able to assess most of the issues that you raise," Fine wrote to Leahy.

Leahy said in a statement that he was "pleased" investigators were examining Gonzales's testimony, which he said had "eroded the public's trust and undermined morale" at Justice.

"The current Attorney General is leaving, but these questions remain," Leahy said. "It is appropriate that the Inspector General will examine whether the Attorney General was honest with this and other Congressional committees about these crucial issues."

The White House has launched its search for a replacement for Gonzales, who is leaving Sept. 17. Solicitor General Paul D. Clement will serve as acting attorney general.

Leahy and other top Democrats have urged the Bush administration to include them in the search process and have vowed to continue aggressive investigations of Gonzales's tenure at Justice, including his handling of the prosecutor firings, hiring practices and other issues.

The White House has indicated that while President Bush may consult with some Democratic leaders, he is committed to nominating a solidly conservative attorney general and has not ruled out a confirmation battle if necessary.

The White House said today that Bush is unlikely to choose a nominee until after he returns from a trip to Australia in September.