White House Complaining About Gonzales Hearing Despite Being Offered Earlier Date
White House Complaining About Gonzales Hearing Despite Being Offered Earlier Date
The White House is now complaining that the Senate Judiciary Committee won’t move up the date for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’ hearing. Presidential counselor Dan Bartlett said yesterday on CBS that the date should be changed from April 17 to next week, and suggested that senators were playing politics by preventing him from testifying earlier:
BARTLETT: If they wanted to get to the bottom of it, they would accept the proposal the president’s put forward. They would have the attorney general up there next week, having the testimony in open hearing, on the record, for everybody to see. Because the attorney general has made clear that while the explanation of what they did has not been good, that his role in this has been to sign off on the final list, participate in meetings with regards to the implementation of it.
This is a ruse. The Senate is on recess this week, virtually assuring that it couldn’t respond to the White House request. Moreover, according to a Senate aide, Gonzales was offered an earlier date and rejected it:
Last week, the Justice Department did not indicate whether the attorney general would be willing to appear earlier than April 17. He is scheduled to appear that day for a regular oversight hearing that is likely to cover other matters, including allegations by an inspector general that the FBI has been insufficiently judicious in its use of national security letters, which allow investigators to obtain individuals’ telephone, e-mail and financial records.
A Senate Democratic aide said the administration’s eagerness for Gonzales to appear is new. Senators are out of town this week on recess for religious holidays. The administration “knew this and it’s why they are apparently insistent all of a sudden,” the aide said. The aide also said that Judiciary Committee staff members had proposed an appearance the week of April 10, but the Justice Department “said no.”
In any case, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) argues that there is now a good reason to keep the current date. The committee plans to use the interim to interview other Justice Department officials and develop a “factual groundwork” before Gonzales testifies. “So, I think to rush this and then have the attorney general say, ‘Well, I don’t know,’ when if you prepared it properly you could say, ‘Well, Mr. So-and-so says you were at this meeting,’” he said. “That’s why we have to wait.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Good. Let the little jerkoff sweat like Nixon till the 17th.
April 2nd, 2007 at 8:16 amBUSH’S ADMINISTRATION = ONE HUGE RUSE!
April 2nd, 2007 at 8:32 amWe the democrats want Gonzo to regain some of his lost credibility in this easter recess.Unlike the repugs, we do not punch them while theyre down.
April 2nd, 2007 at 8:35 amBartlett reminds me of steve carell’s character, “Brick Tampland” the loyal wetherman with the 48IQin the movie anchorman… “I love lamp”… “I love desk”… “I love carpet”
“Brick, are you just pointing at things and saying you love them?” Bartlett, are you just pointing at random things with no reason to criticize the Democrats? “I hate Democrats…” “I hate April 17″ The funny thing is that after I thought of this paralell I remembered the end of the movie where they do the “where are they now” future montage and Brick becomes a Bush appointee.
OK, where’s my coffee.
April 2nd, 2007 at 8:36 am#3 – Yes, any extended period of inactivity will improve Gonzo’s median performance.
April 2nd, 2007 at 8:49 amThat Bartlett is quite a character.
April 2nd, 2007 at 8:53 amIn the spirit of the season, perhaps Karl could give Gonzo a kiss on the cheek in the garden, and let events take their course.
April 2nd, 2007 at 9:01 amIf he arises from the dead on the third day, we’ll let him go on to the hereafter, and wait for his return in say, 2,000 plus years. Give or take a millenium.
plus, the longer they make him wait to testify, the more damage the scandal does to him… it’s true – let’s admit that… though it also gives him more time to figure out how he’s going to squirm out of the position he’s in… good luck, Gonzo!
April 2nd, 2007 at 9:12 am[...] post by Nico and software by Elliott Back Bookmark [...]
April 2nd, 2007 at 9:34 amdid anyone else hear what i think i heard on FACE THE NATION?
it sure sounded like schumer was bending somewhat to WH wishes…
private testimony, but WITH transcripts, but no OATH (as testimony to congress is considered as under oath)…
i dunno… i don’t see why there would be any compromise with these criminals… send out those subpoenas…
April 2nd, 2007 at 9:35 amkaty sez:
Well, one thing Schumer has stipulated is that these informal meetings will be in addition to sworn testimony, rather than a substitution for it.
Personally, though, I’m in agreement with you. ALL of this needs to be in the public eye and under oath. The only benefit private testimony with transcripts will serve is to catch someone in an obvious lie, further justifying public sworn testimony (as if any further justification was required).
April 2nd, 2007 at 9:44 amGonzales’s testimony will be one “Sampson lied” after another. If Sampson said “I don’t know” 122 times last week at his hearing, Gonzales will have at least that many “I don’t have any knowledge of that . . .” proving that he is in way over his head as AG, which will lead us to–Gonzales: Liar or Incompetent?
April 2nd, 2007 at 10:05 amIt seems that the Bush Administration is the master of stalling, yet when the Judiciary Committee sets a date, the Administration suddenly wants what they want right now.
Keep the date where it is. Do NOT bend to any pressure from Herr Rove or anyone else. This ALL has to be out in the open.
Besides, I fantasize daily about Gonzo pacing the floors of his house, sweating about what he’ll look like in prison stripes.
April 2nd, 2007 at 10:07 amthanks, trip… i did not catch the “in addition to” part…
i was so disappointed to hear him discuss even those possibilities…
and when schieffer says “well, let’s see what arlen spector says about this” that’s when i yell out “WHO CARES WHAT SPECTOR SAYS!!!”…
yeesh…
April 2nd, 2007 at 10:08 amFor the latest news, email archives, hearings, legal filings and other essential documents on the Bush DOJ prosecutor firings, see:
April 2nd, 2007 at 11:23 am“The U.S. Attorney Scandal Documents.”
I hope the media keeps on talking about this. I am glad that the Dems are sticking to their guns on this. To bad Gonz. Ha! Ha! He needs to resign and be impeached.
April 2nd, 2007 at 12:46 pmWow—–
Senators playing politics.
What a revelation.
Of course we’re playing politics, dumb ass. Of course we’re being partisan.
I guess that firing eight dedicated, competent GOP US Attorneys for doing their jobs is being nonpartisan.
April 2nd, 2007 at 1:33 pmLooks its not just the dems who are after Gonzo’s scalp but honest conservatives are sharpening their knifes too. So Bartlett’s move to speed things up is more an act of damage control:
The National Review http://www.nationalreview.com
Time to Go
[snip]
We do not need more evidence, however, to reach a conclusion about the suitability of Alberto Gonzales for the leadership of the
Department of Justice. While we defended him from some of the outlandish charges made during his confirmation hearings, we have never seen evidence that he has a fine legal mind, good judgment, or managerial ability. Nor has his conduct at any stage of this controversy gained our confidence.
[snip]
What little credibility Gonzales had is gone. All that now keeps him in office, save the friendship of the president, is the conviction of many Republicans that removing him would embolden the Democrats. It is an overblown fear. The Democrats will pursue scandals, real or invented, whether or not Gonzales stays. But they have an especially inviting target in Gonzales. He cannot defend the administration and its policies even when they deserve defense. Alberto Gonzales should resign. The Justice Department needs a fresh start.
Reasonable observers might differ with some of the points made by The National Review. But one thing is clear: The debate over whether Gonzales should stay is no longer a left-versus-right dispute.
Honest conservatives want Alberto Gonzales to step down.
Only on-bended-knee apologists for the Bush administration’s most wretched excesses are now defending the Attorney General.
April 2nd, 2007 at 1:35 pmHonest conservatives? I thought that species was extinct.
April 2nd, 2007 at 1:57 pmBartlett and GONZO—A PEAR(PAIR) OF HYENAS IF EVER I DID SEE THEM—-LYING, OBFUSCATING, PREVARICATING, LYING, LYING, LYING, LYING, LYING——LIVING ONE BIG LIE INSTEAD OF A HONEST LIFE——-SHUNNED BY ALL AND PARIAHS OF SOCIETY——-UNCLEAN LEPERS HIDING FROM THE BRILLIANT REVEALING LIGHT OF TRUTH AND HONESTY! A SAD OBSERVATION ON THE UTTER LACK OF SCRUPLES OR MORALS AMONG THE DEPRAVED DENIZENS OF Bushland Uber Allies, FASCIST-NAZI-SOCIOPATHIC-MURDERING-LAWLESS-CRIMINAL SCUM, ALL OF THEM!!!!!
April 2nd, 2007 at 4:51 pm