Town Square

Even conservatives want AG out

Original post made by SkepticAl on Apr 17, 2007

To hear the conservative voice online here, you'd think that all the fuss about US attorneys and Attorney General Gonzales was politics as usual, just a bunch of liberals trying to take down a Bush official. Now that a leading conservative legal group has issued a call for Gonzales to step down, I wonder if the issues of his ineptitude and ethical shortcomings will seem less partisan.

Web Link


Posted by sarlat, a resident of Crescent Park
on Apr 17, 2007 at 1:40 pm

Gonzales's ineptitude, unethical shortcomings and lack of qualifications for this very important job should have been enough for any thinking citizen to demand his dismissal. However, the issue goes way beyond simple ineptitude, which seems to be a pre-requisite for serving the Bush administration. 6 of the 8 US prosecutors were fired because they were investigating Republican flim-flam that could have resulted in a number of Republican legislators going to jail. The other 2 were fired because they wouldn't prosecute Democrats suspected of wrong doingsA, particularly before the 2006 mid-term elections. These firing were nothing but obstruction of justice, and even some conservative groups can't stomach it anymore.

Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of Midtown
on Apr 17, 2007 at 2:43 pm

Shall we bring back Reno?
While Gonzales may not be the sharpest spoon in the drawer, there is little evidence he is much different that previous occupants of that office. [Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

Posted by Draw the Line, a resident of Stanford
on Apr 17, 2007 at 3:43 pm

No, he is no worse, and at least he is a minority in an administratation that is the most diverse of any administration ever!

If he were a Democrat and Republicans were after him, we would be hearing cries of racism.

No, I support him. Still can't find what "conservative legal group" is against him. Please provide the link.

Posted by anonymous, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 17, 2007 at 3:52 pm

conservatives have wanted bush and crew gone for some time, in case you have not been
following the news.. he is not considered to be a traditional conservative by any means, as many of his policies have shown...there have been many books and articles written on this one, and thus should not come as a big suprise. Gonzales is a disgrace to the practice of law, and any citizen who supports him is apparently okay with giving up their rights, such as the habeus corpus, the first amendment, and the fourth amendment, to name just a few. To suggest that this man is only slightly better than his predecessors only reveals a true lack of knowledge and respect for the constitution of this nation. Plain and simple.

Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of Midtown
on Apr 17, 2007 at 6:48 pm

Most of the conservatives I know are aware of the term of office of the presidency and of the havoc were we to disrupt that. They are used to being disapointed by republicans, See Swartzneger for example.
To preserve my right of habeas corpus I do not make war on my nation thus changing my status to enemy combatant and subjection myself to different, time honored rules for that classification. Ask Imus about who infringed his First Amendment rights, and as for forth Amendment rights, if you are not phoning bin Laden yours are as safe as they always were.

Posted by Albert, a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Apr 17, 2007 at 7:06 pm

Gonzales was appointed to his position for the same reason Condi was appointed to her two positions in the Bush regime:both are highly unqualified individuals who are extremely obedient, never question their master and will do whatever their master wants them to do regardless of ethics or common sense. Gonzales behaves as if the Constitution is some marginal piece of paper he's not sure he ever read. To him, the only elements of the Constitution that apply to the citizens are those his master decides on. He behaves like an attornet general in a banana republic who bends the laws to fit the jefe's whims.

Posted by ANONYMOUS, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 17, 2007 at 8:22 pm


Posted by SkepticAl, a resident of Ventura
on Apr 17, 2007 at 8:29 pm

to Draw the Line - Please read more carefully. I did provide the link at the outset.

Posted by Mystified in PA, a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Apr 17, 2007 at 8:41 pm


What are you talking about? No one infringed Imus's 1st Amendment rights.

Tell me why a US citizen arrested in the US as an enemy combatant should have no habeas corpus protection in Bushworld, but an espionage suspect is protected. Is the president free to designate anyone an enemy combatant? What are the limits?

Posted by anon., a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 17, 2007 at 9:02 pm

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

Posted by Retlaw, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 17, 2007 at 9:10 pm

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

Posted by Draw the Line, a resident of Stanford
on Apr 17, 2007 at 10:33 pm

Sorry SkepticalAl, I missed it since it wasn't in the body or "pointed" to. Spoiled, I guess.

GREAT link, GREAT article. I can't wait to follow up on it and study it some more.

Thanks for the link. I really hope, honestly, that what this alludes to isn't true, or that he is being scapegoated.. I really like "minorities" to succeed. But, if true...well, throw the bum out.

Posted by SkepticAl, a resident of Ventura
on Apr 17, 2007 at 11:40 pm

Draw the Line - we (not just you and I) should be able to agree on lots of instances of "throw the bum out." If we're not willing to call 'em like we see 'em and send corrupt or ineffective people packing, regardless of party, then we lose all credibility to criticize.

Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of Midtown
on Apr 18, 2007 at 7:38 pm

I'll try again. If you enlist in an army waging war on the United States you are renouncing your citizenship and the rights thereof, in return for the rights of a combatant. Combatants have no habeas corpus.

Posted by Draw the Line, a resident of Stanford
on Apr 19, 2007 at 7:17 am

Researched it and Walter is right. The references are to those who have decided to use violence against the US to try to bring our government down.

That used to be called treason and was death by hanging.

We are free to use words to persuade, not violence.

I have no problem with the laws. I stand by my support of Gonzales.

Posted by anon., a resident of Fairmeadow
on Apr 19, 2007 at 1:24 pm

if you are comfortable relinquishing your rights, that's your decisiion,
i think it's unamerican to do so, that's all.

Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of Midtown
on Apr 19, 2007 at 5:28 pm

What right is that, the right to make war on your own country? Which number is that?

Posted by Just me, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 19, 2007 at 5:36 pm

Did you listen to the hearing today where AG had to answer questions by senators on what has happened under his watch ?

The issue is not Gonzales's view or what he advocates, the issue is that he has meddled with the judiciary for political reasons while the judiciary (the third branch of government) should be independent, and not governed by politics. In other words the Attorney General serves the American people, not the White House, and has not right to fire district attorneys because he does not like their views or the investigations being conducted by them.

Alberto Gonzalez needs to go. Prominent Republicans on the Judiciary Committee even said so, or, in the case of Arlan Specter, implied as much.

Posted by Albert, a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Apr 19, 2007 at 6:13 pm

What even some conservatives senators have noticed and acknowledged while listening to Gonzales's answers, was that he was lying. His answers were inconsistent with his earlier statements, with the statements of his top 3 aistants, all of whom have resigned and with his own records.One of them called on him to resign and the senator from Texas stop just short of that, but was obviously very upset with him. He still couldn't explain why the eight were fired and couldn't explain why he denied discusing their firing with Bush in November, while Bush acknowledged that fact. This guy is a disgrace and a serial liar, as well as someone with very limited intelligence, whi disgraced himself again today even after rehearsing for weeks.I really hope that Bush won't fire him, because keeping him would mean additional2-3 senators and 10-12 house members for the democrats in 2008, on top of the huge gains they will have anyway.

Posted by The Cohen brother, a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Apr 19, 2007 at 6:30 pm

Gonzales is now in a classic catch 22. he can't admit the truth, which is that the US attorneys were fired because they were investigating and close to indicting Republicans. If he tells the truth, it would amount to obstruction of justice by the attorney general, a felony punishable by many years in jail. If he continues lying, he gets himself entangled more and more in the web of his own lies and may end up being criminally prosecuted anyway.

Posted by Curt, a resident of Charleston Meadows
on Apr 19, 2007 at 7:01 pm

I don't think I've ever seen a worse performance by a cabinet member appearing before the US senate. You could feel the Republican members of the judicary committee getting angrier and angrier at the AG, who was clearly lying through his teeth. There's no doubt that in a few days, a group of influential Republican lawmakers will meet with Bush and tell him that Gonzales has to go.

Posted by SkepticAl, a resident of Ventura
on Apr 19, 2007 at 11:13 pm

Gonzalez just put the last nail in his own coffin. Evasive, confused, forgetful, disingenuous.... I heard one conservative guy on MSNBC trying to defend Gonzalez by saying that he was unfairly accused and that the burden of proof should not be on the "accused." Wait a minute - he's not on trial. He's a public servant being held accountable for his own actions. Sorry pal, when it comes to performance assessment the burden of proof IS on the performer. Wow - if a cabinet member has to fall back on "well there's no proof of wrongdoing" to defend his/her job performance...

some relevant quotations (with reporting by L.A. Times)

"But even conservative Republicans expressed outrage at how Gonzales had handled the issue, putting his continued tenure at risk. Sen. Thomas Coburn (R-Okla.) asked the attorney general, "Why should you not be judged by the same standards you judged these U.S. attorneys?" When Gonzales said, "We all make mistakes" and asked for time to correct his failings, Coburn replied, "Mistakes have consequences."

"Disavowing allegations of partisan motive in the firings -- "I know that's the politics of the blood sport that we're playing," he said -- Coburn argued, "The best way to put this behind us is your resignation."

"And Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.), a conservative Republican, told Gonzales: "You have a tremendous credibility problem with many members of Congress."

"Graham also said he did not buy the attorney general's argument of "limited involvement" in the decision to fire the attorneys, believing instead that the eight had "personality conflicts" with officials in Washington and that "you made up reasons to fire them" afterward."

--- But good ol' Orrin Hatch said "Democrats" were going after Gonzalez without basis.

Posted by Karen, a resident of Community Center
on Apr 20, 2007 at 6:59 am

Well, I can foresee a scenario in which Congress (both houses) may have enough investigations and hearings to come... that Gonzales may not be able to get anything else done. What with testifying and preparing to testify, and then testifying again, etc., etc.

Of course, for the rest of us, that may have its benefits. Less time for him to spend trampling all over the Constitution.

Posted by Dave, a resident of College Terrace
on Apr 20, 2007 at 7:04 am

After his disastrous appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday morning, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales -- the clueless, hapless figurehead aptly nicknamed "Fredo" by President Bush -- may soon be gone. Or the President may stubbornly cling to Gonzales, despite his manifest incompetence and dishonesty, which are plainly no obstacle to service in the Bush administration.

Whether the Decider turns thumbs up or down on his pal, however, this must become an accountability moment not only for the attorney general but for all of the ranking Justice Department officials who apparently lied to Congress about the firing of eight U.S. attorneys. For senators of both parties, many of whom have already expressed their disgust with the misconduct of Gonzales and his aides, there could be no greater insult to the integrity of their institution.

The only way to redress that insult -- and to uphold the constitutional balance of powers -- is to demand the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate the crimes that may have been committed in the firing of the eight U.S. attorneys and the cover-up that followed.

Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of Midtown
on Apr 20, 2007 at 7:10 am

Time for another hearing. "Senator, did you really always love the Yankees? Answer yes or no."
The jobs are at will and no reason is required by law.

Posted by Dave, a resident of College Terrace
on Apr 20, 2007 at 7:10 am

It is obvious that the Bush administration has pursued a strategy of deception and stonewalling. Already one former Justice Department employee, Melissa Goodling, has taken the Fifth Amendment in order to avoid testifying about her role, while the White House insists that none of the actual authors of the firings and cover-up, notably deputy chief of staff Karl Rove, will testify. Millions of e-mails were erased or never logged, in clear violation of the law.

By Friday, the House Judiciary Committee may have voted to grant Goodling immunity in order to obtain her testimony. But members of Congress ought to think carefully before they start immunizing potential witnesses like Goodling, and they should think carefully as well about how they intend to deal with this administration's lawlessness and defiance of its oversight responsibilities.

The answer to Nixonian misconduct is no different now than it was during Watergate. Force the appointment of a special prosecutor and then put all of these public servants under oath in front of a grand jury.

Posted by sarlat, a resident of College Terrace
on Apr 20, 2007 at 8:14 am

beyond the obvious and pathetic lying and sheer incompleteness that Fredo Gonzales exhibited during his disastrous appearance before the senate judiciary committee, the most depressing thing for me was the overwhelming realization of the contempt that this administration has for the American people. I think that they really believed that they could send the AG up, have him lie through his teeth and the senate and the public would just shrug and let it slide. Everything about this administration has been based on lies since the 2000 elections:the lie that they actually won those elections, the lies about the reasons for invading Iraq, the lies about events surrounding 9/11, about their response to Katrina,about the firings, the disappearance of e-mails and documents whenever they are invistigated,'Brownie, you're doing a great job', evrything is just lies, lies, deception and more lies.

Posted by Albert, a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Apr 20, 2007 at 9:15 am

Yes, the contempt this administration holds for the American people and those lected to represent them is astounding. Just think about Gonzales intially denying he was involved in the firing, contradicting his top 3 aids and the justice department records. Then he changes that version and claims, under oath, that he was involved, it was his decision to fire them, but he can't explain why he fired them. Of course he can't, because he was ordered by Carl Rove to do it and when carl orders, Fredo jumps and does what Carl tells him to do. Miraculously, all he e-mals and phone logs pertaining to his communcations with Rove regarding this matter have vanished. Miracles apparently still happen. This guy should have been arrested right after his appearance before the committee and charged with lying to the US congress under oath.

Posted by A Boomer, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 20, 2007 at 12:35 pm

Rove got Shrub into office by manipulating thought in such a way that gullible people bought it hook line and sinker, and enough other people in effect gave Shrub the benefit of the doubt. Such heinous tactics work well perhaps in winning elections, but clearly they have done serious damage when it comes to running the country. Katrina did more to reveal the Wizard of Oz like character of this administration. Had the storm occurred just one year earlier, Kerry would be President today.

If Rove is Tweedledum, Cheney is Tweedledummer. His appalling comments immediately after the Democrats won Congress back last November, to the effect that Iraq was moving along just splendidly, thank you, and it made no difference what Congress did or wanted, the Shrub Administration would do as it saw fit anyway, were the height of irresponsibility and contempt for the electorate.

Other than Bob Gates, who in the semior Cabinet is a person of stature and integrity in this administration? People of good character and conversant with the ways of how government works are getting as far away from these Texas cronies as they possibly can.

There are a couple of Republican Senators who displayed true statesmanship yesterday by putting their country and our justice system ahead of their party and its pathetic titular head. Meantime, Shrub was quoted as saying that he was pleased with how Gonzales did yesterday. While I doubt that is actually the case, the man clearly lost whatever touch he may have had with reality some time ago. Talk about the emperor's wardrobe missing, along with a few marbles above the neck.

Posted by sarlat, a resident of Crescent Park
on Apr 20, 2007 at 2:18 pm

One of the most amazing and frightening aspects of this scandal is that bush and his cronies really believe that the Justic Department is and should be an arm of the Republican party. They confuse having the right to appoint Republicans to serve as US Attorneys with the notion that Justice is funded by the American people and is suppose to serve all Americans, be indpendent of politics and not be an arm of the party in the white house.Just examine what happened:all 8 fired were Bush apointees. The one from San Diego investigated and put in jail a corrupt Republican house member and was investigating alleged voter fraud that had put another Republican, who trailed badly in the polls a day before the special elections to replace him in the House. The one in New Mexico wouldn't indict a Democrat before the 06 elections despite intense Republica pressure. The other 6 were investigating alleged Republican voter fraud in the 2004 elections. Does anyone see a pattern here? If Bush is able to continue having Justice function as a branch of the Republican party, we may as well declare him President For Life and give up our rights under the Constitution.

Posted by Dave, a resident of College Terrace
on Apr 20, 2007 at 3:01 pm

Gonsales's testimony was what is called ' the Idiot Defense': I can't recall anything, I don't remember, Who, me? I wasn't there and if I was I can't remember being there'. It seemed to have worked only on Orin Hatch and I think even he didn't believe one word of it, but being a hardline conservative he felt he had to try and save Fredo.

Posted by natasha, a resident of Meadow Park
on Apr 20, 2007 at 3:06 pm

Yeah, Orrin. After Senator after Senator, Republican and Democrat alike, grill him with hard questions and express disappointment, disgust and concern with his pathetic and inconsistent responses, Good ole Senator Hatch gets up and says, "I think there was no impropriety in what you did. Do you?" and "I don't think you had to hve a reason to fire these US Attorneys. Did you?" and "If you did have reasons you can't remember, and all of us forget things after all, they weren't politically motivated, were they?" It was embarrassing, actually. Even more embarrassing was that Fredo barely seemed able to realize he was being thrown a lifeline and attempted to answer the questions in what almost at times seemed to be a defensive way! hahahahahaha.

Posted by Dave, a resident of College Terrace
on Apr 20, 2007 at 3:37 pm

And the way he kept wanting to have the last word with Arlene Spector, the one serious Republican who deperately wanted to get him off the hook. Fredo was like the 9 year old kid that always has to be in the teacher's face and talk back to her. The thought that such a spineless brown-nosing idiot is the highest law enforcement official in the land is so chilling, I had many nightmares last night. I keep thinking that this administration is just a terrible bad dream, but I wake up and they are still there.

Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of Midtown
on Apr 20, 2007 at 5:26 pm

Time for democrats to put up or shut up.
All of this bullying and all they come up with is disagreement about process. File criminal charges or go pass a budget. The AG is a political officer, and he is a republican. As Squeeker Pelosi stated the other week, elections have consequences.

Posted by Albert, a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Apr 20, 2007 at 5:49 pm

No Wallie, all they come up with is that lied through his teeth, under oath, to a seante committee which is a felony, that he used his job for obstruction of justice and as a political arm of the republican party. Others would be prosecuted by his office for the same ofenses and end up spending many years in a federal jail and he's entitled to the same honor.

Posted by Dave, a resident of College Terrace
on Apr 20, 2007 at 6:56 pm

Isn't this a miraculous administration? As it became apparent that the e-mail correspondence and telephone log records of the communication between Fredo and Carl Rove were going to be subpoenaed by the Senate Judiciary Committee, they miraculously disappeared.

Posted by SkepticAl, a resident of Ventura
on Apr 20, 2007 at 11:58 pm

The argument about the attorneys being political appointments is a sign of how much this administration has twisted our values and expectations. Sure, technically and legally the executive branch has the power to make these moves, but doing so in this unprecedented way suggests that the pres. and his cronies view the NATION'S prosecutors as partisan servants - and every GOP Senator except for Hatch can see the problems with having this incompetent AG compounding the problem with lies. (Yes - lies. Does anyone believe this former judge and top attorney has memory problems like that?). Everyone who is going to jump up and say "but other presidents did it" - spare us. Other presidents did not fire their own appointees in the middle of a term with a "paper" trail that questioned the attorneys' personal loyalty to the president, and with a spread sheet that had been circulated to keep track of the attorneys' personal political affiliations.

Posted by Gerald, a resident of Barron Park
on Apr 21, 2007 at 7:08 am

This administration is the first bolshevik administration in our history. Appointees are picked only for their loyalty to the party and president and are expected to tell the president only what he wants to hear, regardless of reality. Just like in Stalin's days, when anyone attempting to tell him what he didn't want to hear would be executed, Bush's appointees a well as military officers are fired, removed and forced out when they tell him what reality is like. No one is appointed based on talent. Gonzales as AG has been a joke and national disgrace from day 1.

Posted by sarlat, a resident of Crescent Park
on Apr 21, 2007 at 8:26 am

Yes, Bush is completely divorced from reality and has surrounded himself with sociopaths who tell him only what he wants to hear. In most other countries, he would locked up in a room with padded walls and have frequent electric shock therapy. In our country he's the commander in chief and has his finger on the nuclear trigger.

Posted by Draw the Line, a resident of Stanford
on Apr 21, 2007 at 9:32 am

I thank God every day we have the freedom to express any political view we wish in this country..the only country in the world, including Europe, that has no limits to such a right.

It lets everyone show themselves and their agenda, which is good.

Posted by sarlat, a resident of Crescent Park
on Apr 21, 2007 at 10:16 am

Practically all conservative colomnists and rabid Bush supporters have described Fredo's testimony as disastrous and embarrassing, yet Bush's spokeswoman claims that Bush was very satisfied with it. Why is this parallel universe happening again? Simple, as always, he never watched Fredo's catastrophic performance. One of his sociopaths told him what he wanted to hear:that Fredo did just fine and now bush, insulated and completely lost in his fantasy world, is convinced that he has weathered another storm.

Posted by Wile E. Coyote, a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Apr 21, 2007 at 3:40 pm

Assuming that Mr. Gonzales is lying for a reason, he is lying to cover up acts that are either politically embarrassing or illegal (or both).

The prosecution and conviction of Georgia Thompson in Wisconsin is an abomination. If this incident is representative of how the DOJ operates under Bush and Gonzales, everyone should be scared.

Web Link

Posted by Albert, a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Apr 21, 2007 at 5:57 pm

Of course Gonzales is lying for a reason. He was ordeed by Carl Rove to fire US attorneys who were investigating Republican election fraud in 2004. All emails and phone records between Rove and Gonzales have vanished. This could bring down Rove and if Rove falls, the bush administration falls. Unfortunately for Gonzales, not being very bright or perhaps being a poor liar,he kept contraticting himself and his top aids and generally made a mess of it. Now the conservatives hope that his resignation would stop the march toward Rove, but this time I believe that Rove can't slither away from this mess.

Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of Midtown
on Apr 22, 2007 at 7:32 am

There is a law that prohibits the transaction of party business over government computer nets, and so a parallel net was used for political discussions. There ias a legitimate question as to whether the private party discussions are public records. I seem to recall a recent event when some democrat party business was inadvertantly made public and democrats went hyper. The complaintant about the loss of ability to sift through party deliberations comes from the same people who object to listening to Bin Laden's phone calls. During the campaign to open up all the Nixon tapes one set of tapes was permanently sealed away - the tapes of democrat phone conversations. In the rule of law, the same standard should apply to all parties. Make up your minds.

Posted by sarlat, a resident of Crescent Park
on Apr 22, 2007 at 9:37 am

No Wallie, the orders a political operator(Carl Rove) gives to the AG of the USA to fire US prosecutors because they are investigating Republican election fraud and apparently getting close to indictments is not party business at all. It has an entire different name:Obstruction Of Justice, a very serious felony. The Justice Department is a US government agency. It maybe infested with Republicabs, but it cannot be an arm of the Republican party and obstruct the same laws it's supposed to uphold.

Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of Midtown
on Apr 22, 2007 at 3:49 pm

If that order was a political order it was within the authority of the president or his designated agent to issue. Are you willing to apply the same standards to both major parties? That is the reason people keep bringing up Clinton, because you hold him to different standards than Bush. When you call any action criminal you are obliged to cite or refute precidence. And tell us about those 900 tax returns. One tax return got a republican years in prison.
I believe in equality under the law. Equality even for some I have distaste for. Explain Scooter vs Sandy. Or just take your selective outrage out to the compost pile.

Posted by sarlat, a resident of Crescent Park
on Apr 22, 2007 at 7:18 pm

No Wallis, I know you are confused, but I'll try to explain it very slowly. Justice and it's head, the AG, are actually in place to uphold laws and not to break them. Unlike fasscist and stalinist states, the department of justice was actually created to make sure laws are followed, not broken, and it is not a branch of the political party holding the white house. Obstruction of justice is actually a very serious crime, and it's actually assumed in our system that the AG isn't involved in committing crimes, although it seems like a new concept to this administration. I know that it's very difficult for this criminal administration to get used to the idea that they should actually try to uphold laws instead of breaking them so often, but they should at least try. All you had to do was ask.

Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of Midtown
on Apr 22, 2007 at 8:31 pm

What law was broken? What justice was obstructed? I don't recall any mention of cases being dropped, and I do recall that Dianne Feinstein filed a written complaint about the performance of one of the fired attorneys. There is no there there. While you are at it, look up cabinet. [Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

Posted by Red Herring, a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Apr 22, 2007 at 8:59 pm

Bill Clinton? Sandy Berger? Tax returns? Nixon?
I thought this was a discussion about Gonazales.
Mr. Wallis can you stay focused?
Try substituting Concerta for the sildenafil.

Mr. Wallis still can't seem to explain why a stream of lies coming from the Attorney General and his staff isn't disturbing and indicative of an even larger problem.

Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of Midtown
on Apr 23, 2007 at 11:33 am

Gee, I thought this was a discussion of acceptable standards of behavior, in which examples of ommon practice are always helpful.
You are to be commended on your focus on Bushhate that has warped your world view.

Posted by Jay, a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Apr 23, 2007 at 12:56 pm

Mr. Wallis, since when is appearing before the senate judicary committee for 5 hours and lying to it for about 99 percent of the time is acceptable standard behavior.

Posted by Albert, a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Apr 23, 2007 at 2:02 pm

There can be only 2 options here.
1. Gonzales has lied, something that his department's own records and the statements by his own top 3 aids indicate. In that case he goes to jail.
2.We suspend belief, take leave of our common sense and accept his explanations that his initial statements had all been wrong because his mind just went blank and couldn't remember anything about the matter of the fired prosecutors. In that case, he is suffering from a very advanced case of amnesia and he needs to resign for medical reasons. Either way, he can't be the AG of the US any longer.

Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of Midtown
on Apr 23, 2007 at 2:07 pm

The question to which he supposedly lied was a general question requiring a general answer. Kinda like "Gee, where did those records on the kitchen table come from?"

Posted by Albert, a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Apr 23, 2007 at 2:58 pm

No wallis, he was originally asked why the attorneys were fired and he replied that he was never involved in their firing, never attended any meetings in which the firings were discussed, never discussed the issue with anybody and didn't even remember signing off on their dismissal. Then, when the records and his 3 top assistants contradicted everything he had said, he suddenly 'remembered' that he had actually been involved very closely, he had discussed their dismissal, he attended all the meetings he originally denied attending. Now he says that maybe they shouldn't have been fired in the first place, yet he still can't explain why he fired them in the first place.

Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of Midtown
on Apr 23, 2007 at 8:36 pm

Or it is possible that he was not the primary decision maker for the firing. But what difference does it make? The firings were legal and the questions were inapropriate, and the response was a non sequitor.
And why are you avoiding Berger and Reno? [Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.] "I thought this was a discussion about Gonazales."
You wish!

Posted by SkepticAl, a resident of Ventura
on Apr 23, 2007 at 10:37 pm

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

Posted by sarlat, a resident of Crescent Park
on Apr 24, 2007 at 7:02 am

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of Midtown
on Apr 24, 2007 at 8:23 am

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

Posted by eric, a resident of Mountain View
on Apr 24, 2007 at 9:56 am

Is it 'legal' for the AG to dump US Attorneys? Of course. Leave it to the right wing to plug in a good talking point.

Fact: this is virtually unprecedented (discussing the normal purge by a new or re-elected prez is an attempt to distract and will be ignored, because rational people know better, including those making the arguement).
Fact: Gonzales is in hot water for lying to congress about his role. THAT aint legal.
Fact: an appropriate and available response to the legal-but-unethical firing of US attorneys for purely political cause (and then lying about same) is impeachment of the AG. If Gonzales doesnt step down this week, it is my hope that there will be a bipartisan effort to do just that.

Posted by SkepticAl, a resident of Ventura
on May 17, 2007 at 4:11 pm

Going... going....

Web Link