‘We simply cannot stand for this any longer’

July 26, 2007

Dems, and more than a few Republicans, have made it clear for quite some time that Alberto Gonzales should not be the Attorney General, but after the AG’s ridiculous appearance this week before the Senate Judiciary Committee, in which Gonzales appears to have lied rather recklessly, Senate Dems are taking their frustrations to the next level.

Senate Democrats called for a perjury investigation against Attorney General Alberto Gonzales on Thursday and subpoenaed top presidential aide Karl Rove in a deepening political and legal clash with the Bush administration.

“It has become apparent that the attorney general has provided at a minimum half-truths and misleading statements,” four Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee wrote in a letter to Solicitor General Paul Clement.

The group was composed of Sens. Chuck Schumer, Dianne Feinstein, Russ Feingold, and Sheldon Whitehouse, who wrote a joint letter to Solicitor General Paul Clement asking for the immediate appointment of “an independent special counsel from outside the Department of Justice.”

Schumer added the soundbite at a press conference: “[Gonzales] took an oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Instead he tells the half truth, the partial truth, and everything but the truth. And he does it not once, not twice, but over and over and over again. His instinct is not to tell the truth, but to dissemble and deceive….. We simply cannot stand for this any longer.”

Just so we’re clear, these Dems want a special counsel, not because of the U.S. Attorney purge (though that may not be a bad idea), but specifically because they believe the Attorney General has lied repeatedly under oath about a variety of misdeeds (DoJ disagreement over the TSP, witness coaching with Monica Goodling, Patriot Act abuses). The senators, obviously, believe Gonzales has perjured himself, and want an investigation.

And then, there’s the other side of the argument.

I’ve been looking, intentionally, for someone coherent who’s willing to defend Alberto Gonzales on all of this, and I found James Joyner, a conservative whose opinion I respect.

Now, I should note that Joyner is apparently not fond of Gonzales, referring to him as “both an incompetent administrator of his Department and a really bad liar.” He added that Gonzales “should have been fired long ago and President Bush’s insistence on sticking by him is baffling.” These aren’t exactly the words of someone on the AG’s Christmas Card list.

That said, Joyner isn’t on board with the current Dem strategy.

Oddly, however, Senate Democrats are now seriously pursuing a perjury probe over what seems, on the surface at least, among the least significant contradictions in his testimony and one that would be the hardest to prove. The dispute over which classified intelligence program was briefed to Congress three years ago strikes me as trivial. The smoking gun documents which allegedly contradict his testimony don’t prove much of anything.

Moreover, as unpopular as this administration is, the politics of this make little sense. This matter is incredibly complicated and convoluted, owing to the classification and technical nature of the programs in question, the long timeframe over which all this has evolved, and the intermingling of so many other issues. Indeed, having read the major news stories on the latest charges this morning, I’m not sure I quite understand them. And I’ve been paying far, far more attention to this than Joe Public.

This sounds reasonable enough, except for a few things. First, I don’t think the story is that complicated. In defending a legally dubious surveillance program, Gonzales said the program was not controversial among Justice Department leaders. The evidence is overwhelming that Gonzales’ comments were false, and he knew it. The details get a little complicated, but the basic fact pattern is fairly straightforward.

Second, the perjury is not just about one lie, but rather, a series of lies that occurred under oath.

And third, what choice do Dems have? Gonzales keeps lying during public testimony, and the evidence is quite strong that he’s perjured himself. Bush won’t fire him, and he won’t do the honorable thing. Of course Dems are going to demand a special prosecutor; I don’t see how Gonzales has left them any other choice.

NPR’s analysis yesterday took an interesting tack, and then the mouthpiece for the Republican argument (I forget which Member it was) showed himself to be a moron, to nobody’s surprise.

The correspondent likened the proceedings over the contempt charges to two parents arguing over how to deal with a misbehaving child – the entire executive branch in this case. The Dem argument was presented as more or less, “deal with this once and for all, or it will only get worse.” The GOP side was unbelievably stupid, in a nutshell, “if we have this showdown and the White House wins, then we won’t be able to reign them in.” The implication was that it is better not to check the bad behavior or else THEN they’d be out of control.

I’m with you, CB, what other choice do Dems have but to attempt to enforce the rules when they are so flagrantly being broken? Never mind how zealously the other side has pursued baseless nonsensical investigations in the past.

  • The group was composed of Sens. Chuck Schumer, Dianne Feinstein, Russ Feingold, and Sheldon Whitehouse, who wrote a joint letter to Solicitor General Paul Clement asking for the immediate appointment of “an independent special counsel from outside the Department of Justice.”

    Noticeable in their absence are Senators Clinton and Obama. Some leadership I say.

    I guess they have better things to do, like argue in the media about their staged answers to staged questions at the most recent “debate.”

  • Gonzales claims the approval of the gang of eight, the okay of the ethics guy but not of the one guy who approves of his actions, George Bush.

    Our system is showing some real weaknesses against a manipulative political party determined to screw with the constitution.

  • Joyner appears not to have read the letter. The scope of inquiry the Senators suggest in their last paragraph includes testimony related to the replacement and removal of USAs and the implementation of the Patriot Act relative to USAs, and authoriation for the NSA wiretapping program. Earlier bullet points include his conversation with Goodling, in addition to the Gang of Eight meeting Joyner did seem to pick up on. This isn’t a one trick pony.

  • The group was composed of Sens. Chuck Schumer, Dianne Feinstein, Russ Feingold, and Sheldon Whitehouse, who wrote a joint letter to Solicitor General Paul Clement asking for the immediate appointment of “an independent special counsel from outside the Department of Justice.”
    Noticeable in their absence are Senators Clinton and Obama. Some leadership I say.
    I guess they have better things to do, like argue in the media about their staged answers to staged questions at the most recent “debate.”
    Comment by JKap

    I respect your point but there are a lot of people who didn’t sign that letter. Kucinich for one. So it’s hard to draw too much meaning from the absence.I’d be interested to see who was invited to sign the letter but chose not to.

  • Oh lets not forget the lessons of Kenneth “you ought to be a” Starr. You appoint the special counsel becuase Gonzo seems to have been telling tall tales. One the person is on the ground turning over rocks you get a much broader case. I realize Libby is the most recent example but I have a feeling Bush got away with that one once but barely. What did he say “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, we won’t get fooled again?” I wonder if the Who can sue for copyright infringement?

    Either way it is time to start rooting around and letting the sun shine in on this most evil cabal of conservatists.

  • I don’t know, I partially agree with Joyner. I think we are actually giving AGsquared a break by (a) focusing on a single fault rather than the cornucopia of failings and (b) starting a process all but assured to allow him to run out the clock.

    I haven’t done the research as to whether the “high crimes and misdemeanors” standard applies to Gonzo like it would the Prez, but it seems to me a stronger case, a faster resolution, and likely a better sell with the public would be to skip the special prosecutor and criminal investigation and pile on all of AG’s issues to get to this:

    “Alberto Gonzales is a shameful blemish on the idea of ‘justice’ and law enforcement in the people’s government. He has politicized a once trusted and independent department, costing good prosecutors their careers, and casting doubt on every federal prosecution in the same way one gambling NBA referee unfortunately makes people question the integrity of the entire system. As a manager, his tenure has been a disaster – the agency is essentially non-functional right now, and it is too critical a department to let that situation go on without rememdy. And he has clearly been less than honest with this Congress, showing contempt for a co-equal branch of government, showing he cannot be trusted. In that testimony he has also shown himself to know shockingly little about the operations of Justice, which lead us to find he is unfit for this task. Finally, the substance of his legal advice is well outside of the mainstream and ot the detriment of our nation. His defense of torture outside of the Geneva Conventions has placed our own uniformed heroes at great risk should thy, God forbid, be captured. Any of these failings should be enough that a reasonable administration would ask for his resignation. The total of all of these problems and shortcoming is simply beyond defense. The Congress, the press, current and former members of his own agency, our allies, and most important the American people have all lost all confidence in his leadership and fitness for duty. This cannot be allowed to continue indefinately. We hereby initiate prceedings to remove Alberto Gonzales from the office of Attorney General by impeachment.”

  • The WH is likely to commit more impeachable offenses trying to cover for Gonzales if it interferes and will end up forcing congress to impeach them. It is becoming increasing apparent that they are all lying about lying about the WH”s and the DoJ’s abuses of power and now they have no choice but to continue to deceive and suddenly enough becomes enough.

    Everyone knows things are just not right with this WH or this DoJ.
    Now we are finding out why.

  • Noticeable in their absence are Senators Clinton and Obama.

    Neither of them is on the Judiciary Committee.

  • #2 jKap and #5 Dale

    Settle down, folks!!!

    The letter to Clement was only signed by 4 Judiciary Committee members, that’s why Obama & Clinton are absent. Even chairman Leahy was absent.

    And Dale, Kucinich will impeach the whole Bush cabal if only YOUR congressmen signs on.

    In fact I like it that even Leahy is playing good cop, by saying he will give the AG a week before approaching the Justice IG (or something like that). The Judiciary Committee is handling this with poise, and I like it.

  • Like Zeitgeist, I would have preferred impeachment. Unlike legal proceedings with standards such as “beyond a reasonable doubt,” impeachment really comes down to Senators voting one way or the other. No appeals, no pardons, and investigation would be open — at least those parts not involving classified information.

    Still, this is something.

  • Joyner: “Indeed, having read the major news stories on the latest charges this morning, I’m not sure I quite understand them.”

    CB: “First, I don’t think the story is that complicated.”

    Absolutely (to CB)! If Joyner really has trouble understanding the story, he’s as dumb as Gonzales is dishonest. If he doesn’t have trouble understanding the story, he’s as dishonest as Gonzales.

  • Re: Jim Parish @ #10
    Neither of them is on the Judiciary Committee.

    I stand corrected. Still would like just a ‘hint’ of leadership from those two ‘Senators’ regarding the integrity of our Constitutional Republic.

    How about a public condemnation from Clinton & Obama of Harriet Miers for breaking the law? It’s in vogue to pile on Mike Vick, but not much objection about Congressional subpoena-scoffer Miers.

  • I respect your point but there are a lot of people who didn’t sign that letter. Kucinich for one.

    Ummm, IIRC, Kucinich is not in the Senate; he’s a member of the House.

  • I might be to JKap as David Brooks is to me. But he’s right on this one. It’s disgraceful that none of the “top tier” Democrats are talking more about this administration’s serial violations against our Constitution.

    Chris Dodd has become my #2 choice in this race–I know he doesn’t have a prayer–largely because he’s actually made a point to talk about these issues. More broadly, I’m sympathetic to both Dodd and Biden because I worry that a “celebrity” candidate–and yes, I’m mostly talking about Sen. Clinton here, given that Obama came up through the state legislature–will be too favorably inclined toward the Bush/Cheney view of Executive SuperDuperPowers.

  • Jim Parish,

    Neither of them is on the Judiciary Committee.

    Good point. however, Biden is and IIRC he is runnig for the Dem primary.

    I’m with Dale on this point:

    I’d be interested to see who was invited to sign the letter but chose not to.

    And I’d want that list to include both sides of the aisle, by the way.

  • Good discussion. I’m more interested in who is better at battling the Republicans and protecting our constitution than in relatively minor differences between the candidates. I wish they made the whole primary campaign about the Bushocracy from Day One.

  • I agree that congress can’t let this go unanswered, but what do we do when Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas & Kennedy find in favor of the Executive Branch? I really, truly hope it doesn’t come to pass, but I would not be at all surprised.

  • I don’t necessarily agree with Democrats. That being said, I’d just like to point out to the concerned on this thread that oversight and investigation are efforts that work backward. Presidential campaigns are efforts that work forward. The Democratic frontrunners are not served by braying into this Constitutional crisis. That should remain within the pervue of the HJC and the SJC, neither of which any of the Democratic candidates are members of, at least to the best of my knowledge. -Kevo

  • I think the issue of trying to nail Gonzales on a ‘trivial’ issue is beside the point. The idea is to get rid of him by whatever means possible, and hitting an opponent from an unexpected direction is pretty good strategy generally speaking.

    Remember, Al Capone wasn’t convicted for any of the many murders and other heinous crimes he committed. He was convicted of tax evasion, a relatively trivial charge but it worked just as well.

  • But if Rove ever shows up to testify, I will eat my hat. Better yet, I’ll eat Jack Abramoff’s hat.

    Comment by Ohioan — 7/26/2007 @ 1:54 pm

    If Rove ever shows up to testify, I’ll eat Jack Abramoff.

    (OK, not really, but the sentiment is there.)

    • Comments are closed.