[Texgreen] The three ring circus of American justice

[Roger Baker]

This incredible silly BS speaks for itself.  -- Roger

                
**************************************************************

<http://blog.washingtonpost.com/benchconference/2007/07/ 
post_39.html#more>


Gonzo on the Hill: A Comedic Tragedy

Forget about the politicization of the Justice Department. Forget  
about the falling morale there. Forget about the rise in violent  
crime in some of our biggest cities. Forget about the events leading  
up to the U.S. Attorney scandal and the way he has handled the  
prosecutor purge since. Forget about the Department's role in  
allowing warrantless domestic surveillance. Forget about the  
contorted and contradictory accounts he's offered before in his own  
defense.

Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales deserves to be fired for his  
testimony Tuesday alone; for morphing into Jon Lovitz's famous  
"pathological liar" character (or maybe just one of the Marx  
Brothers) as he tried to dodge and duck responsibility before the  
Senate Judiciary Committee not just for his shameful leadership at  
Justice but also his shameless role in visiting an ailing John  
Ashcroft in the hospital to try to strong-arm him into renewing the  
warrantless surviellance program. Can anyone out there remember a  
worse, less-inspiring, less confidence-inducing performance on  
Capitol Hill? I cannot.

No reasonable person watching Gonzales' tragically comedic  
performance Tuesday's on Capitol Hill-- especially his miserable  
exchange with Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) in late morning-- can any  
longer defend his appalling lack of competence, courage and  
credibility. And no one who hears him say that he is what's best for  
the Department right now should forget that on the eve of his  
testimony (and a few days after he urged his subordinates to work  
diligently to regain their morale) the nation's top law enforcement  
official reportedly left work early to go for a bike ride Monday  
afternoon-- at about 3:50 p.m.

I am running out of words to describe how inept this public servant  
is and how awful is the message our government sends to the nation  
and to the world by allowing him to continue to represent us. So I'll  
just turn it over to Sen. Schumer. Here is part of the exchange  
between the two (they are discussing the contradictions between what  
Gonzales had previously said about L'Affair Aschroft and also about  
under-oath discrepancies between Gonzales' version of events and the  
version offered by former Deputy Attorney General James B. Comey, We  
pick up where Gonzales is trying to yet again weasel out of his prior  
statements on the topic):

SCHUMER: I'd like to just pick up where Senator Specter left off,  
about the TSP program. Just a few preliminaries.
First, I take it that there was just one program that the president  
confirmed in 2005. There was not more than one.

GONZALES: He confirmed one, yes, intelligence activity. Yes, one  
program.

SCHUMER: Thank you. OK. Now, you -- and you've repeatedly referred to  
the, quote "program," that the president confirmed in December 2005.  
Let me just -- I'm going to put up a chart here. Here's what you said  
before this committee on February 6th of 2006. You said, quote,  
"There has not been any serious disagreement about the program the  
president has confirmed. With respect to what the president has  
confirmed, I do not believe that these DOJ officials that you were  
identifying had concerns about this program." This was in reference  
to a question I asked you, "Was there any dissent here?"

This was before Comey came to testify. It was in February. But we had  
some thoughts that maybe that happened. And now, of course, we know  
from Jim Comey that virtually the entire leadership of the Justice  
Department was prepared to resign over concerns about a classified  
program. Disagreement doesn't get more serious than that. And what  
program was the ruckus all about? And this is the important point  
here. At your press conference on June the 5th, it was precisely the  
program that you testified had caused no serious dissent. You said,  
"Mr. Comey's testimony" -- and he only testified once -- "related to  
a highly classified program which the president confirmed to the  
American people some time ago."

SCHUMER: These are your words, right? You don't deny that these are  
your words. This was a public press conference.

GONZALES: I'm told that in fact here in the press conference I did  
misspeak, but I also went back and clarified it with the reporter.

SCHUMER: You did misspeak?

GONZALES: Yes. But I went back and clarified it with the reporter...

SCHUMER: When was that? And which -- what was the reporter's name?

GONZALES: At The Washington Post two days later.

(CROSSTALK)

GONZALES: Dan Eggen was the reporter.

SCHUMER: OK. Well, we'll want to go follow up with him. But the  
bottom line is this: You just admitted there was just
one program that the president confirmed in December...

GONZALES: The president...

SCHUMER: ... just one. Is that correct, sir?

GONZALES: The president talked about a set of activities...

SCHUMER: No, I am just asking you a yes-or-no simple question, just  
as Senator Specter has. And just like Senator Specter and others  
here, I'd like to get an answer to that question. You just said there  
was one program. Are you backing off that now?

GONZALES: The president...

SCHUMER: Was there one program or was there not that the president  
confirmed?

GONZALES: The president confirmed the existence of one set of  
intelligence activities.

SCHUMER: Fine. Now let's go over it again, sir, because I think this  
shows clear as could be that you're not being straightforward with  
this committee; that you're deceiving us. You then -- then you said  
in testimony to this committee in response to a question that I  
asked, "There has not been any disagreement about the program the  
president confirmed." Then Jim Comey comes and talks about not just  
mild dissent, but dissent that shook the Justice Department to the  
rafters. And here, on June 5th, you say that Comey was testifying  
about the program the president confirmed. You, sir...

GONZALES: And I've already said...

SCHUMER: Sir.

GONZALES: ... I have clarified my statement on June 5th. Mr. Comey  
was talking about a disagreement that existed with respect to other  
intelligence activities.

SCHUMER: How can we -- this is constant, sir, in all due respect with  
you. You constantly make statements that are clear on their face that  
you're deceiving the committee. And then you go back and say, "Well,  
I corrected the record two days later." How can we trust your  
leadership when the basic facts about serious questions that have  
been in the spotlight, you just constantly change the story,  
seemingly to fit your needs to wiggle out of being caught, frankly,  
telling mistruths? It's clear here. It's clear. One program. That's  
what you just said to me. That's what locks this in. Because before  
that, you were, sort of, alluding -- in your letter to me on May  
17th, you said, "Well, there was one program," -- you said there was  
the program, TSP, and then there were other intelligence activities.

GONZALES: That's correct.

SCHUMER: You wanted us to go away and say, "Well, maybe it was other"  
-- wait a second, sir. Wait a second.

GONZALES: And the disagreements related to other intelligence  
activities.

SCHUMER: I'll let you speak in a minute, but this is serious, because  
you're getting right close to the edge right here.
You just said there was just one program -- just one. So the letter,  
which was, sort of, intended to deceive, but doesn't directly do so,  
because there are other intelligence activities, gets you off the  
hook, but you just put yourself right back on here.

GONZALES: I clarified my statement two days later with the reporter.

SCHUMER: What did you say to the reporter?

GONZALES: I did not speak directly to the reporter.

SCHUMER: Oh, wait a second -- you did not.

(LAUGHTER)

OK. What did your spokesperson say to the reporter?

GONZALES: I don't know. But I told the spokesperson to go back and  
clarify my statement...

SCHUMER: Well, wait a minute, sir. Sir, with all due respect -- and  
if I could have some order here, Mr. Chairman -- in all due respect,  
you're just saying, "Well, it was clarified with the reporter," and  
you don't even know what he said. You don't even know what the  
clarification is. Sir, how can you say that you should stay on as  
attorney general when we go through exercise like this, where you're  
bobbing and weaving and ducking to avoid admitting that you deceived  
the committee? And now you don't even know. I'll give you another  
chance: You're hanging your hat on the fact that you clarified the  
statement two days later. You're now telling us that is was a  
spokesperson who did it. What did that spokesperson say? Tell me now,  
how do you clarify this?

GONZALES: I don't know, but I'll find out and get back to you.