Please visit the new home of Majikthise at bigthink.com/blogs/focal-point.

« Helen Mirren is a goddess | Main | Great Thai food website »

July 28, 2007

The perjury case against Gonzales

Anonymous Liberal, a lawyer and former guest-blogger for Glenn Greenwald, reviewed Alberto Gonzales' entire testimony and summarized the perjury case against the Attorney General.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c61e653ef00e3981d83dd8833

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The perjury case against Gonzales:

Comments

Impeaching Gonzales now is a constitutional obligation for Congress just to uphold its dignity and to keep from setting a precedent that such flagrant contempt does not go without consequences. But of course, it also helps that impeaching Gonzales is also politically widely supportable from nearly all sides, if not inexorably in demand; and that it will deprive Bush of one of his most vital retainers and enablers, and ensure that the Department of Justice finally gets the adult supervision it so desperately needs.

It would help to have a special prosecutor open an investigation into Gonzales in the meantime (Fitzgerald Strikes Back?!) although Bush has already made clear he will try to block such an appointment from even being made - not sure how that will pan out yet.

But even if they don't get anywhere with the special prosecutor, they need need need to pass a bill of impeachment against Gonzales, and let any members of Congress who vote against it, go home and defend that choice to all their constituents who saw Dr. Gonzo's Fear and Loathing on Capital Hill. (This invaluable "best of Gonzo" reel was put together by TPM - it is an absolute must-see.)

Let them at the very least pay the political price next fall, when Gonzo and his crew are on the way out anyway. Personally I would love to see Norm Coleman at a campaign stop here in Minnesota try to explain how he could vote not to impeach.

I like Alberto Gonzales. He proves that anyone, even mendacious real estate lawyers, can become one of the most powerful men in the country.

Bush will never accept his resignation, though I think Gonzo could hypothetically resign without that acceptance.

What Gonzo needs from Bush is a presidential pardon, since the statute of limitations for perjury and other crimes does not expire before January 20, 2009, unless I am mistaken.

What Bush needs from Gonzo is for Gonzo to squat his wide ass (disclosure: mine is wider) upon the pile of incriminating and impeachable information, documents and other evidence which Gonzo is now blocking over at Main Justice and elsewhere. A successor would have to root that material out to save his own skin, and a successor would not take the job without making "cover my ass" Job #1 (not that that priority is anything new in Washington, but here very pointedly so.)

This entire piece of stupidity was avoidable. Had Gonzales simply told the truth - the president has political issues on his agenda and was pursuing them - none of this would have happened. Oh maybe a few bloggers or late-night hosts would be joking about people going to visit Ashcroft in intensive care but that's it. It's not self-evidently illegal for the Justice Department to hire disproportionately from one law school, including a level-4 theocratic diploma mill.

The reason Bush won't fire him is because Gonzalez know where the bodies are buried.

Isn't Mr. Gonzales the guy who looks for loopholes in the U.S. Constitution all the time? Boy, I'll bet that Constitution must really get on his nerves sometimes. Stupid old Constitution!

crooksandliars says it better than me:

"Alberto Gonzales should not only be impeached for his willfully obtuse interpretations of the Constitution, he should be disbarred."

Heck everybody looks for loopholes, but willfully obtuse and lame is another matter. Especially for the Attorney bleeping General.

This entire piece of stupidity was avoidable. Had Gonzales simply told the truth - the president has political issues on his agenda and was pursuing them - none of this would have happened.

I don't agree. Perhaps he could have just said that the firing of the 8 attorneys was politically-motivated, and that would have been a minor blip. But there's a lot more going on here than just the firings. There's the way the illegal wiretapping program was instituted and continued, the fact that he told Congress that there had been no FBI abuses of the Patriot Act, and Goodling's testimony that she regularly violated the Hatch act in hirings. Or are you saying that none of this would have come out if he hadn't lied about the attorney firings? I know Goodling was only called to testify because of the firings, but I can't remember why Comey was called.

It's not self-evidently illegal for the Justice Department to hire disproportionately from one law school, including a level-4 theocratic diploma mill.

Sure, but that's not what this is about.

We'll see whether Rep. Jay Inslee (D. Wa) has any luck with regard to making the case for impeachment. I certainly wish him well. It will take this sort of precedent to begin moving the snowball from hell that will eventually gather up Veep Cheney (or "Robespierre Lite" as he is known Out West) on its return trip... ^..^

The comments to this entry are closed.