Alberto Gonzales, White House Enforcer

They said it couldn't be done, but here it is: Gonzo has outdone himself.

You will recall that Gonzo couldn't recall if he was particularly responsible for the firing of at least nine federal district attorneys? Now Gonzo is more or less saying, oh, yeah, I remember now, the guy responsible for firing those DA's wasn't me, it was my deputy, Paul McNulty. I just signed the walking papers.

Warming to his theme, he added, I don't really remember specifically approving those particular firings, even though I might have. I disremember. I now understand that the papers were, in fact, signed and the federal attorneys were fired, maybe by me, but maybe by Sampson. No, wait a minute, it was McNulty. Yeah, McNulty; he's the guy. I'm just his boss.

Bear in mind that I'm not strictly going by the transcript here, but more or less winging it on what I believe the truthiness of the event was. Just like Gonzo, come to think of it. But wait! there's more.

Former Deputy Attorney General James Comey (now shit-canned), testified on the Hill yesterday that when Gonzales was the White House counsel to the Prez, Gonzo tried to strong arm a sick and drug-addled AG John Ashcroft while he was in hospital recovering from a serious gall bladder infection [circa March, 2004] into giving his (Ashcroft's) blessing on a seriously illegal domestic wiretapping program that the Prez had the NSA running. (To their credit, the NSA geeks were acutely nervous about the legality of the program.)

Comey, knowing the past history of Gonzo's weaselly consigliere relationship to the Shrub, ran like a raped ape to Ashcroft's bedside to prevent the kneecapping that Gonzo was surely going to administer to a (presumably) helpless Ashcroft. En route, Comey apparently called FBI Director Mueller, told him what was up, and Director Mueller ordered the on-duty Special Agents at Ashcroft's bedside to make sure that Comey was not barred from entering Ashcroft's room. In other words, that Gonzo and sub-goon Andy Card not be left alone with Ashcroft to do what thugs like G. do to uncooperative colleagues, usually with baseball bats.

[I know this stuff sounds like a bad plot line lifted from a Robert Ludlum spy novel. You ever read any of his books? His plots are as sick and twisted as a Kama Sutra sculpture and just as improbable, but there it is: sworn testimony in front of the fricking Congress.]

What Comey is telling us is that he was sure that Gonzo and the Card were going to smack Ashcroft around until he signed off on the NSA warrantless spying program that was exposed by the New York Times the previous week, the very program admitted to by the Shrub in front of God and everybody else. (Most of us non-MSM types out here beyond the Beltway already knew about the wiretapping, but it took the NYT to announce it "for the record").

This was pure madness, of course, as Gonzo surely knew that what Ashcroft had to say wasn't worth spit; Ashcroft had turned over the AG's office to Comey for the duration of his recovery. Constitutionally, Ashcroft had no standing in terms of proper legal advice while in that hospital bed, especially since he was as wired as a smack slut at the time and knew it. It's that whole "incompetency in office" thing. On the other hand, the Shrub wanted somebody that he respected to give him a pass on the wiretapping program, and Ashcroft was that authority figure. Even George knows that Gonzo is a toadying weasel and his legal advice isn't worth dog vomit.

Ashcroft, while he may be a Holy Roller awaiting the Rapture, is a moral man. To prove it, when Gonzo confronted him and requested his blessing on the dubious - strike that - illegal wiretapping program, Ashcroft said "No, and furthermore, fc*k no." Or words to that effect, according to Comey.

Bitterly disappointed but resolute and undeterred, the Shrub kept the program running anyway, and here we are.

So, Gentle Readers, that's this week's installment of "Washington Does Deadwood," complete with gratuitous profanity.


current-events

Why I Hate Him So, Part the Umpteenth

"The only thing worse than a politician is a child molester."
-- Rip Torn, in "Extreme Prejudice"

For those of my Gentle Readers who may still support Bush - and by extension his appointees such as Alberto "Gonzo" Gonzales - and wonder why I rant and rave about his incompetency (and obviously despise the man), it is fruitful to dig into the actual workings of his administration. This is not accomplished by watching Fox News. One is forced to seek alternative news outlets, even if they might seem a little, well, leftish. But leaving no stone unturned in the search for the truth about the corruption of this administration, I bring you this cut-and-paste from the decidedly left-wing blog, DailyKos. Draw your own conclusions.

The Chart of Injustice
by Devilstower
Sat Apr 14, 2007 at 04:20:16 AM PDT

Kos readers got a preview of this story in drational's diary, and now that chart for selecting US attorneys is getting some scrutiny from the Associated Press. Far from being the kind of politics-free evaluation of prosecutorial competence that Bush, Gonzales, and crew had maintained, the document encapsulates the real motivations behind the firings.

The Justice Department weighed political activism and membership in a conservative law group in evaluating the nation's federal prosecutors, documents released in the probe of fired U.S. attorneys show.

The political credentials were listed on a chart of 124 U.S. attorneys nominated since 2001, a document that could bolster Democrats' claims that the traditionally independent Justice Department has become more partisan during the Bush administration.

To sharpen the damage caused by this document, there's an accompanying note that completely demolishes the argument that Gonzales was either duped by his underlings or merely asleep at the wheel.

"This is the chart that the AG requested," Monica Goodling, Justice's former liaison to the White House, wrote in a Feb. 12 e-mail to two other senior department officials. "I'll show it to him on the plane tomorrow, if he's interested."

Alberto Gonzales requested a chart showing the political activism of the USAs and their membership in the Scaife-funded Federalist Society. Any notion that he was only interested in their success in prosecutions is now completely lost. Explaining that when Gonzales gets on the stand next Tuesday should be very, very interesting. In fact, a better question might be whether Alberto Gonzales will actually be AG by Tuesday.

Permalink

[An interesting companion piece is here, concerning an interview with former career Justice Department attorney Daniel Metcalf.]

This seems to be typical of the Bush administration and everybody, and I mean everybody, that he has appointed or had appointed. Every one of them is driven by an agenda that is definitely partisan to a degree not seen since Louis XIV said, "L'etat, c'est moi."

That's French, a vile language, but very poetic. Translated, the expression means, "The nation, that's ME."

One of the problems that I have with Bush and all his buddies is that they have this idea that the authority of the government - their idea of government - that that authority and power flows from the Constitution, from the institution, in other words.

This is why they feel comfortable in trying to establish Republican rule in America, with all their actions designed to establish a one-party stranglehold on the reigns of power. Gonzo made this clear a short time ago when he was testifying before the senate Judiciary Committee. He is on record as saying, (in reference to Habeas Corpus"), “There is no expressed grant of habeas in the Constitution..."

Whoa, there, Gonzo! This is upside down.

The Constitution is a legal document designed to prevent the usurpation of the authority and rights of the sovereign people, and doesn't grant anything to anybody. Rather, it limits the government's authority over the people.

As the Founding Fathers made plain (in writings, speeches, and action) all rights derive from the people. The people are sovereign (as in self-ownership, a concept also referred to as the sovereignty of the individual). The elected officials work for the people, fulfilling as best they can the wants, needs, and desires of the people.

As any reasonable person can quickly discover upon entering a neighborhood bar of a Friday after work, the people have a lot of differing points of view about the issues of the day.

Most recently, an overwhelming majority of the people decided that they had had enough of the President's war, whether it is right or wrong makes no difference, and they elected a new Congress to get them out of it. The Congress is directly elected by the people, as the President is not; as Chief Executive it is his job to fulfill the desire of the American electorate and Execute a speedy exit from Iraq.

But fire Gonzo first.

On Gonzo's loose management style

Alberto "Gonzo" Gonzales, erstwhile Attorney General of the whole United States - as opposed to his previous job as personal attorney to George W Bush - has once again muddied the waters by claiming that while he did his job properly in signing off on the recent firing of a group of federal attorneys, he didn't know who or why he was firing them. All he did was "review" the list of targeted federal prosecutors and approve those firings.

“I didn’t focus on specific concerns about individuals,” he said. “My primary focus was insuring that the White House was kept advised of what we were doing and that Kyle [a lower-level flunky] was consulting with the appropriate D.O.J. senior officials who knew about the performance of the U.S. attorneys.”

[By implication, Gonzo has no idea about the performance of his employees. How's that for a management style?]

He said, “at the end of the process, Kyle brought recommendations to me. I considered them his recommendations as well as recommendations of senior officials he consulted with.”

He said that he signed off on the recommendations and the implementation plan, and “that was the extent of my involvement.”

If what he is saying is correct, the "extent of [his]involvement" is the career termination of highly prominent federal officials. The impression that Gonzo is leaving (at least in my mind) is that he didn't ask who these people were or why they specifically were being recommended for termination. Additionally, their actual firing seems to have happened more or less magically. I mean, who does the actual firing? Gonzo again leaves the impression that he has washed his hands of the termination of these rather important federal prosecutors.

And based on what? He "didn’t focus on specific concerns about individuals." What criteria did he use? Did he have concerns? Criteria? What? Or did he just say, "Hey, our budget is tight so let's lose some prosecutors, and I don't care about the who they are?"

If the latter is the case, then Gonzo is derelict in his job on yet another

Worst Legal Mind Ever

At a recent congressional hearing, Gonzo demonstrates how he will strangle the Constitution

Back in November of 2004, Alberto “Gonzo” Gonzales was up for nomination for Attorney General of the United States. I had been an on-again-off-again follower of Gonzo’s career for some time and had formed an intense dislike for the man. What really fried my cookies was Gonzo’s signing off on Bush’s state-sanctioned murder of 1) a mentally retarded man, and 2) a couple of men later proved to be innocent.

That Gonzo, who never argued a case before a jury in his life, was to become the nation’s highest law enforcement officer was appalling to me. My response was to start this blog and join the “reality-based” online community. Along with many others of the Indy Weblogs (Independent Bloggers Against the Confirmation of Alberto Gonzales), I emailed, phoned, faxed and telegraphed my (and other) senators with all the reasons why Gonzo should not take the AG’s office. Unfortunately, the dark gods who are in charge of this era of American government saw fit to give Gonzo the green light. The results speak for themselves, or would, if we could get them out of the many undisclosed locations that they have been “extraordinarily rendered” to.

True to form since confirmation, Gonzo has been monumentally inept, if not criminal. He has been disingenuous to members of Congress and plainly out of his depth when questioned about basic things like the meaning of “probable cause” as opposed to “reasonable suspicion.” He’s even on recent record as saying that the Constitution doesn’t say what it plainly says, indicating that he either can’t read or just hasn’t bothered to read the Constitution of the United States. Here’s a recent turn at explaining (or ‘splaining’) his take on the writ of habeas corpus from ThinkProgress.org:

“…during Senate Judiciary Committee hearings (Jan 18, 2007), Attorney General Alberto Gonzales claimed there is no express right to habeas corpus in the U.S. Constitution. Gonzales was debating Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) about whether the Supreme Court’s ruling on Guantanamo detainees last year cited the constitutional right to habeas corpus. Gonzales claimed the Court did not cite such a right, then added,

GONZALES: I will go back and look at it. The fact that the Constitution — again, here is no express grant of habeas in the Constitution. There is a prohibition against taking it away. But it’s never been the case, and I’m not a Supreme — "

[Say that again, Gonzo?]

GONZALES: “There is no express grant of habeas in the Constitution.”


SPECTER: Now, wait a minute. Wait a minute. The constitution says you can’t take it away, except in the case of rebellion or invasion. Doesn’t that mean you have the right of habeas corpus, unless there is an invasion or rebellion?

GONZALES: I meant by that comment, the Constitution doesn’t say, “Every individual in the United States or every citizen is hereby granted or assured the right to habeas.” It doesn’t say that. It simply says the right of habeas corpus shall not be suspended except by —

SPECTER: You may be treading on your interdiction and violating common sense, Mr. Attorney General.

GONZALES: Um.

“Um,” is right, Gonzo.

There you have it, Gentle Readers. Gonzo’s lack of common sense and his willingness to avoid actually reading the Constitution of the United States, plus his legal hair-splitting over readings of Geneva Convention protocols as well as his support of John Woo’s hair-raising theories of extra-constitutional presidential powers make him unique in American legal history, and right up at the top of the list of Worst.Legal.Mind.Ever.

Alberto's take on Habeas Corpus

This is the kind of thing that prompted me to start this blog in the first place. Way back when Alberto Gonzales was first nominated for the post of Attorney General I could see he was a word weasel with no scruples, and he continues to surpass his original weaselness with every breath he takes.

Here's his latest over-the-top reinterpretation of the US Constitution, offered during today's Senate hearing, Arlen Specter asking the questions:

Specter: Now wait a minute, wait a minute. The Constitution says you can't take it away except in the case of invasion or rebellion. Doesn't that mean you have the right of habeas corpus?

Gonzales: I meant by that comment that the Constitution doesn't say that every individual in the United States or every citizen has or is assured the right of habeas corpus. It doesn't say that. It simply says that the right of habeas corpus shall not be suspended.

So who says that the Constitution is not a living, breathing document, meant to be reinvented with every generation? Not Alberto, heavens no.