Gonzales’ date with the Senate Judiciary Committee

January 9, 2006

When the Bush White House decided it would no longer seek warrants for its surveillance efforts, the president and his top staffers wanted approval from some lawyers. Any lawyers. Ashcroft and the DoJ balked; the administration bypassed the National Security Council’s “lawyers’ group,” which review top-secret intelligence programs; and the decision ultimately went to Alberto Gonzales, then White House counsel, who gave Bush the green light.

It’s not surprising, therefore, that when the Senate investigates the warrantless-search program in earnest, Gonzales will be the key witness.

The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee said Sunday he has asked Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to testify publicly on the legality of warrantless eavesdropping on telephone conversations between suspected terrorists and people in the United States. […]

The committee chairman, Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., said senators will examine that issue and other legal questions in hearings scheduled for early February. Gonzales’ testimony is being sought because he is the principal spokesman for the administration’s position, Specter said. […]

Asked on CBS’s “Face the Nation” if Gonzales had agreed to appear, Specter said, “Well, I didn’t ask him if he had agreed. I told him we were holding the hearings and he didn’t object. I don’t think he has a whole lot of choice on testifying.”

Specter’s surprisingly candid comments are welcome, not just because they show Snarlin’ Arlen in a no-nonsense mood, but also because it suggests the Senate Judiciary Committee is moving forward with scheduled hearings. Last week, Time reported that the White House hopes to convince Specter to forgo Judiciary Committee hearings and defer the matter to the Intelligence Committee (and Chairman Pat Roberts). In fact, Time quoted a GOP official saying that the White House is “going to lean on Specter very hard not to hold hearings.”

From the way Specter sounded yesterday, he doesn’t seem convinced. And with three of the 10 Republican members of the Judiciary Committee already criticizing Bush on domestic spying (Specter, Graham, and Brownback), the hearings should make for some compelling television.

We’re still a few weeks away, but I just wanted to throw something out there: what if Gonzales pleads the 5th during the hearings?

January 9, 2006 at 11:28 am

I don’t always agree with my senior senator, but he is a former prosecutor (and a pretty good one). I think if he gets his dander up about the rule of law being flouted, the administration could be very sorry he chairs that committee.

Gonzalez won’t plead the 5th, he’ll just refuse to comment on ongoing intelligence matters.

I thought the fifth amendment as grounds for refusal to testify only applied when you (or perhaps your spouse) was named as defendant. AFAIK Gonzales isn’t condsidered a defendant at this time and for that matter I’m not sure that offering bad advice to the President of the US is necessarily illegal so there really isn’t much reason to believe that he’ll be named as a defendant in this matter at a later date.

Dukkop

I agree, if Gonzalez even deigns to show up at all. The Bush Administration has written in two signing statements that it considers itself the arbiter of what laws it must obey. I suspect they might take a similar tack when it comes to testimony: they only have to talk about what they want to talk about. Call it the Letters of Transit strategy: their powers “cannot be rescinded, not even questioned.”

Of course they can refuse all they want. Then it will be up to the Judiciary Commitee to decide how serious they want to be about this. I assume they can decide that anyone who refuses to testify is in contempt and can proceed accordingly (jail until testimony is provided?)

I believe the 5th amendment can be used anytime any testimony may prove incriminating against a person in respect with that person having possibly violated a law. This is applicable regardless of whether one is the target in a proceeding or a defendant or if the law even relates to the matter at hand.

I do not think he would plead the 5th–that would really tick off a whole lot of Senators, and would probably be the final nail (one of many still to come) in the coffin of the Bush presidency with the American public. Although it would be very interesting to see–and then have the Senators grant him complete immunity, only to have Gonzo refuse even with immunity.

They would precipitate a showdown over executive privilege loooong before they would consider pleading the 5th. Any administration that claims a right to ignore Congress’s laws will certainly have no qualms about asserting an absolute right to refuse to comply with a congressional investigation. Take that one to the bank.

Lindsey Graham talks a good game, but he ultimately serves the administration. I wouldn’t put much credence in claims about the rule of law that he made on CBS yesterday. I think it is more about the American people’s perception about the rule of law which concerns him not the actual rule of law, as this passage reveals, “Well, number one, we have to resolve this issue to build confidence in the American people
that we’re a nation of laws, not outcomes.”
When he was asked about Congressional hearing he said,”I would like to see the Intelligence Committee and other people who are the appropriate folks to provide oversight look into it.”Keep an eye on him during the Specter hearings. His goal is likely to punt to the intelligence Committee where Pat Roberts can cover for the Administration.

Gonzalez is as ill equipped for the AG job – as he was for his last job. The next president and AG are gloing to have some serious cleaning up to do.

Boy, payback is a B*&^h, ain’t it? Just a year ago, they were threatening Spector’s chairmanship… I’ll bet it never occurred to them at that point that he might have a long memory, and some patience (Kind of like we saw an old Speaker of the House show up to put a couple of extra knives in Delay’s back in the past couple of days).

Gonzales won’t testify to anything of substance on the basis of attorney-client privilege. In this instance, when AbuTortureGonzo is on the federal payroll, and it involves the President’s public responsibilities, then the “attorney-client” dodge is just that, a tactic to try to avoid submitting to the Constitutionally-mandated Congressional oversight.

Let’s see if any Rethug in the Senate still has any balls left with which to finally stand up to the tryrant in the nation’s White House. I fear that Spector has become a paper tiger, just as has Lugar in the Foreign Relations Committee (remember his pathetic performance with the Bolton nomination?) and the now-craven Pat Roberts of the Select Committee on Intelligence.

Additionally, despite Spector’s tough talk about Alito and defending a woman’s right to reproductive freedom, the fix is in and Alito will be confirmed. With him in place, along with Roberts and the abominable Scalia and Thomas, it is only a matter of time before we have no civil liberties or rule of law left. We will have an American Taliban, with Bush and his successors serving as our Mullah Omar (remember him?).

God help us, because our democracy/economy/government have broken down and are slowly, inexorably, being flushed down the crapper. The odds are less than one in ten that we can save ourselves let alone the rest of the world.

Can anyone refute this, or give me any sound reason for hope (much less optimism)?

Nice and very smart blog! I came across your blog by pure accident but thought whilst i was here i could tell you about this Law Practice site i found.

Check it out when you have time as i’m sure you could find all kinds of info to suit your needs some time.

Comments are closed.