Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Impeach Gonzales. Now.

By

Before yesterday, Congress already had ample basis to impeach Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.  The reasons were laid out pretty well at the ImpeachGonzales website.

Yesterday really should be the straw that breaks the camel’s back.  Here’s the AP:

Documents indicate 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.

And the WaPo has more.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick J. Leahy threatened yesterday to request a perjury investigation of Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, as Democrats said an intelligence official’s statement about a classified surveillance program was at odds with Gonzales’s sworn testimony. The latest dispute involving public remarks by Gonzales concerned the topic of a March 10, 2004, White House briefing for members of Congress. Gonzales, in congressional testimony Tuesday, said the purpose of the briefing was to address what he called “intelligence activities” that were the subject of a legal dispute inside the administration.

Gonzales testified that the meeting was not called to discuss a dispute over the National Security Agency’s controversial warrantless surveillance program, which he has repeatedly said attracted no serious controversy inside the administration. But a letter sent to Congress in May 2006 by then-Director of National Intelligence John D. Negroponte described the congressional meeting as a “briefing on the Terrorist Surveillance Program,” the name that President Bush has publicly used to describe the warrantless surveillance program.

Gonzales, in other words, appears to have been caught in a bald-faced lie to Congress, a lie that was no doubt intended to cast doubt on ex-Deputy AG James Comey’s shocking story of Gonzales and Andy Card trying (unsuccessfully) to bamboozle a drugged-up John Ashcroft into reauthorizing the warrantless surveillance program shortly after major surgery.  But, unfortunately for Gonzo, the documents show that Comey’s story was accurate.  [UPDATE: FBI Director Robert Mueller confirms Comey’s version, and contradicts Gonzales.]

So, Democrats, what say you?  The ball is in your court.  If you didn’t have enough to impeach Gonzales before, you certainly do now.

If the Democrats allow this kind of contemptuous behavior to go on with no serious response, they have only themselves to blame for what’s to come — and rest assured, there will be more. 

Gonzales must be impeached.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  2. would pay more attention to some of the important things like health care and the outrageous energy costs that the “new” Congress promised they would address when they came to power. I think a lot of people (I know I am)are tired of the vendettas, witch hunts and enormous amounts of money, time and energy being wasted on things that most people don’t care about. The legal intrigues and subplots may well be of great interest to lawyers but doesn’t help address the everyday concerns of the little guy in the slightest. The view from here is Washington grid lock and non productive political business as usual. What a disappointment.

    • …we should just allow the Executive bracnh to fragrantly violate the law and weaken the Constitution. Civil rights don’t effect the little guy at all.

      • I’m stuck at the physiological level worrying about how I’m going to be able to afford to stay warm this winter. Maybe when(if) I can move up towards self-actualization, I can begin to worry about a bunch of Washington layers and partisan politicians attacking each other.

        • …your heating costs are connected to the Adminsitrations Middle East policy which is connected to the domestic spying case which is one of the things topisc on which AG Gonzales perjured humself?

          <

          p>
          I’m not a lawyer, but I can connect the dots. I’m not saying that impeaching Gonzales will lower your heating costs, but I do feel that the Constituton, democracy, and the civil rights are worth protecting; by protecting such things now, it will cost us much less, financially or otherwise, down the road.

          • just burning the paper that has been generated on this vendetta( 478,000 pages,I heard)…. let alone what it has cost the taxpayers in legal fees etc. Millions? for what???

            <

            p>
            The new vendetta modus operandi is:

            <

            p>
            1. Demand a special prosecutor be appointed for the “inquisition”
            2. Demand that the “victim” be summoned/subpoenaed  to testify
            3. Put the victim in the “hot seat” and grill him endlessly and mercilessly about some fabricated travesty until his memory fails him and he contradicts some statement made weeks /months before in some previous interrogation.
            4. Invoke the perjury crime charge and then demand prison and huge fines.

            <

            p>
            The Libby travesty is a classic example of a prosecutor that absolutely knew the guy was innocent from day one BEFORE the trial even began yet pursued it anyway in the hopes of entrapping the “victim” for something else.  Unbelievable! This prosecutor belongs in a cell next to Nyfong

            <

            p>
            And you’re OK with this kind of crap?
            Frankly , it makes me sick.

            • and inquisition must be the new frame, the new buzzwords, the new bon mots to describe Congressional oversight and Constitutional protections. 

              <

              p>
              Gonzo is toast and should be run out of Washington on a rail with the rest of this corrupt and ethically bankrupt administration.  These people wouldn’t know the truth if it spit in their faces.  And I’ll save you the trouble:  but Clinton. 

                • Clinton got a blowjob. And all we heard was that it was some kind of vendetta by the GOP. But it was $70 Million of taxpayer money well spent getting to that Blue Dress! Thank God for moderates like Lieberman. And where’s a real persecutor like Ken Starr when you need him? Sniff. Comey & Fitzgerald? Please. We really should move on from all this partisan nonsense. Clinton got a blowjob I tell you!

                  <

                  p>
                  So the highest law enforcement official in the country is lying through his teeth, protecting Bush and the illegal warrantless wiretapping of Americans. Big Deal. Did I mention that Bill Clinton got an actual blowjob?

                  <

                  p>

              • as long as they address what my initial post was all about… namely, what are they going to do about $2.80 /gallon heating oil ??? Health care? Incredible inflation for the oldies like me. That’s what I care about.  They made a lot of promises when they got the “mandate”. They haven’t done squat other than stoke up a bunch of partisan shit storms that don’t help anybody.

                • Geez, it’s not as if they need 60 votes in the Senate every time they want to do something more than change shoes, because the Republicans are on track to make this the most obstructionist Senate in history.  Or as if the President vetoes stuff like that, which he has threatened to do to about 25 bills already passed!

            • Ken Starr really had no basis for continuing with his investigation of the Clintons.  So based on your outrage about two situations in which there was (Libby), and is (Gonzo) a basis for prosecution, you must have been really peaved about the Starr investigation. 

        • This administation acts in both a fragrant and flagrant disregard for the law.

          <

          p>
          [D’oh!]

    • This is more than just vendettas, and these are issues that a lot of people care about very passionately.  Gonzales, Bush, Cheney, Rice, Tenet, Powell, and others have to be held accountable for what they’ve done.  600,000 dead in Iraq, sanctioned torture, endangered civil liberties, less security than before 9/11, numerous lies and fabrications, Katrina, and possibly irreparable damage to American democracy and freedom in general.  These are not just little things that we should “move past” and “get over” without answering them in the strongest way possible.

      <

      p>
      OTOH i don’t trust the Democrats to do it.  The Democratic Party establishment has made it increasingly clear that they are going to take the approach that scores them the most political points.  They seem generally content to have the war continue until the election (what’s another pile of body bags after all?) so that it is a fresh issue.  They hold spectacles like the all-night Senate session while voting to re-fund the war.  Where’s the USAPATRIOT Act repeal?  Substantive response to warrantless phone tapping?  It’s been months, and nothing has been done on any of this.

  3. is a appalling.  His shuck-and-jive routine would be too  embarrassing to watch were it not so egregiously outrageous. 

    <

    p>
    Impeach him.  Now.  He’s a disgrace. 

  4. they just impeach him. He deserves jail time for this nonsense. Do not blaim the people trying to enforce the law because someone else broke it. If lying to Congress isn’t important than ask them to repeal the law. Otherwise, they have all taken oaths to upload the law and the constitution, so do not be surprised when they do…

    • there will be no jail time, because in the unlikely event that they can find a federal prosecutor to go after him, he will be pardoned before the proceedings even get going.  Impeachment is the only proceeding over which Bush has no control.

      • there will be no jail time, because in the unlikely event that they can find a federal prosecutor to go after him, he will be pardoned…

        <

        p>
        …but that raises the question.  What is the federal statute of limitations on perjury?  Even if it’s two years (usually longer for most federal crimes) it might be possible for the AG of the next administration to bring an indictment against Speedy Gonzales.

        <

        p>
        Of course, that would be a waste of time if Bush pardons all of the malefactors in his maladministrations–something like Gerald Ford run Amok.  It will be interesting to see the set of people that Bush pardons as he leaves office.  Speedy will certainly be one of them.

  5. Impeach Speedy Gonzales all you want.  You aren’t going to get the 2/3 vote in the Senate to remove him.  You’d almost have to prove that he killed his mother for that to happen.  When was the last time that a federal official was removed from office?  Alcie Hastings (sp?) the black federal judge from southern Florida who had been convicted of a federal crime (and was subsequently elected to Congress).

    <

    p>
    If the Democrats really want to play hardball (which they don’t) they would in the next appropriations bill for the Justice Department, leave out a line item for the Office of the Atty General, and leave the other line items in place.  The Democrats aren’t going to do that, of course, because they want to have the “well, the Repubicans did it, too” to fall back upon, when they do the same thing.

    <

    p>
    You have him as AG for the next 18 months.  After which he’ll get a cushy position somewhere.  Just like Tony “Lapdog” Blair did recently, after he removed himself from the British PM’s position.  BTW, does anybody know for whom Blair is the near-east envoy?  Who is he representing, and, more to the point, who paying his salary?

  6. In the attempted vote to end the GOP filibuster against the motion to declare “no confidence” in AG the AG, the pro side only got 53 yes votes out of a needed 60.  Now, Dodd, Biden, and Obama were all out on the campaign trail, so let’s presume those are 3 yesses.  Imagine they get Tim Johnson in there to vote yes.  We’re left with 10 votes to reach 2/3; below is the list where you’d have to find them.  (These are the recorded votes on the cloture motion…a “no” was against ending the filibuster)

    Alexander (R-TN), Nay  Allard (R-CO), Nay
    Bennett (R-UT), Nay  Bond (R-MO), Nay
    Brownback (R-KS), Not VotingBunning (R-KY), Nay
    Burr (R-NC), Nay  Chambliss (R-GA), Nay
    Coburn (R-OK), Not Voting  Cochran (R-MS), Nay
    Corker (R-TN), Nay  Cornyn (R-TX), Nay
    Craig (R-ID), NayCrapo (R-ID), Nay
    DeMint (R-SC), Nay  Dole (R-NC), Nay
    Domenici (R-NM), Nay  Ensign (R-NV), Nay
    Enzi (R-WY), Nay  Graham (R-SC), Nay
    Grassley (R-IA), Nay  Gregg (R-NH), Nay
    Hatch (R-UT), Nay Hutchison (R-TX), Nay
    Inhofe (R-OK), Nay  Isakson (R-GA), Nay
    Kyl (R-AZ), Nay  Lieberman (ID-CT), Nay
    Lott (R-MS), Nay  Lugar (R-IN), Nay
    Martinez (R-FL), Nay McCain (R-AZ), Not Voting
    McConnell (R-KY), Nay  Murkowski (R-AK), Nay
    Roberts (R-KS), Nay  Sessions (R-AL), Nay
    Shelby (R-AL), Nay  Stevens (R-AK), Present
    Thune (R-SD), Nay  Vitter (R-LA), Nay
    Voinovich (R-OH), Nay  Warner (R-VA), Nay

    Do you see ten votes there?

    • “No confidence”?  Where the hell am I, in Great Britain? In Parliament?
      What does a meaningless “no confidence ” mean in our form of government? Another incredible “farce for show”..this now almost laughable. Listen to Raj, he’s got it right. Gonzo’s not going anywhere. The only loser here is the American people having to fund this bullshit while their real needs and business go unattended.
      Perhaps another sleepover will help? This is ridiculous

        • it went right over my head. I actually didn’t get it?
          Could you clarify this brilliant piece of subtlety?
          Thanks

          • Simply reverse-engineer the process whereby trying to get a vote on bringing the troops home from Iraq at some point becomes a “sleepover”, and apply it to my comment.  VoilĂ !

            • makes sense in a parliamentary government.  It makes no sense in the governmental structure in the US, which is not parliamentary.  A vote of no confidence brings down a government and forces a new election.  That is not possible in the US.

              <

              p>
              It is, as the Germans would say, “so einen Schmarrn, ein grosses Theater.”  In other words, horse manure and meaning nothing other than a big theatrical production. 

              • This was all beat to death a while ago, which is why I wasn’t interested in re-hashing that dead discussion.  I’m familiar with the place of a “vote of no-confidence” (I spent most of my time in university studying the Canadian government), but I used that roll call vote as the best indicator of how Senators would vote in terms of an impeachment.  The vote of no-confidence is clearly a political statement similar to censure.  I don’t think anyone’s under any illusions about it.

                • this non productive “theatre” is detracting from the reason we send these partisan A -holes to Washington to begin with…. to conduct the peoples business…again… energy costs /solutions, affordable healthcare, global terror… get it? The “important stuff”!
                  The people could care less about the legal gymnastics and “gottcha’s of a bunch of lawyers that are making millions perpetuating this meaningless bullshit…enough already.People are sick and tired of the nah na na nah nah na nah crap from both parties. Sickening

      • Even if it fails because the Democrats do not have a super majority.  As a former member of the Justice Department and as a lawyer, Gonzo’z actions disgust me.  His actions not only reflect badly on the very hardworking career attorneys in the DOJ, they reflect badly on all lawyers.  He has no integrity and he clearly does not understand the rule of law.  He should be impeached and then disbarred. 

        • He should be impeached and then disbarred.

          <

          p>
          …are separate processes.  Speedy can be disbarred whether or not he is impeached (and removed–which is again a separate process).

          <

          p>
          I’ll point out something that may not be obvious.  The Attorney General is a political position.  The AG doesn’t have to be a lawyer admitted to the bar, at least under the constitution.  Maybe the US Code requires that, but I haven’t looked for any relevent sections.  Does anybody know?

          • I probably should have said he should be impeached and found guilty, then disbarred.  It would be easier to disbar him if he is found guilty. That is why I put them in the order I put them in. 

            <

            p>
            Whether there is a statute or not, I doubt the Senate  would confirm anyone as an attorney general who is not a lawyer.  In any event, the AG’s job is to advise the President and other Executive Branch departments and agencies on the law amd he supervises other attorneys in the DOJ, so he has to be a lawyer.  In addition, the DOJ requires that all DOJ attorneys have to be licensed in at least one jurisdiction, which I assume applies to the Attorney General as well. 

    • First, I think it’s important for the Dems to take a meaningful stand, and impeachment is the only one I can think of.  If they don’t convict, it will be (after the Senate trial, in which Gonzales will be shown unequivocally to have perjured himself) because Republicans are backing a liar.  I can live with that.

      <

      p>
      Second, here are some possibilities.

      <

      p>
      Coburn has called on Gonzales to resign.
      Grassley has made public comments complaining about the USAtty firings.
      Lugar, Alexander, and Warner occasionally show signs of common sense and independence from BushCo; also, Warner is retiring.
      Domenici is implicated in the USAtty business, and is not in a particularly safe seat.
      Kyl has refused to back Gonzales publicly, plus he was mad that the AZ USAtty was fired.
      Bond has made noises to the effect that Gonzales should go; also, he requested that one of the fired USAttys be allowed to stay on but was ignored.
      Ensign also was publicly unhappy about the handling of the USAtty business.
      McCain might see it as beneficial to his campaign to distance himself from a crook like Gonzales.

      <

      p>
      None of these is a shoo-in — not by a long shot.  But it’s not completely impossible to cobble together 67 votes to convict, especially assuming that the trial goes well so that there’s no way to easily explain why you’re voting to acquit.

      • I was considering the “sane Republican” caucus, but so many of them talk right and vote wrong.  Voinovich has occasional moments of sanity as well.  Is Lieberman a lost cause?  And why did Stevens vote “present”?

        • All of which only strengthen my view that impeachment should go forward.  It’s surely a less than 50% chance that he’ll ultimately be convicted and removed from office.  But there are lots of moving parts here, and in any event the trial would be a worthwhile exercise in painstakingly documenting Gonzales’s misdeeds.

Archives