« I Guess He's STILL Not Up to a Sunday Show | Main | A Chance to Unpack Novak's Spin about Something Besides Plame!! »

April 15, 2007


I have eight specific questions that need to be answered first

why was each individual US Attorney fired ???

let's get this lying weasel pinned down on what his "NON-IMPROPER" reason is for each firing

after that, we can discuss the definition of "IMPROPER"

but first, abu gonzo has to provide the proper reasons for each firing

he claims there were no "Improper Actions", so he certainly knows all of the details of each firing

tuesday is gonna be fun to watch

When people in the Justice Department do their jobs with competence, integrity, and according to the law, there is no reason to summon documents of their performance, for they offend no one but the crooked. Gonzo has not delivered service of the highest order as overseer of one of the most important departments of government, nor has he delivered the documents or testimony requested of him since he came into his position. To whine at this point that he can't deliver all that is wanted by the various committees is quite astonishingly wimpy.

Last night I watched All the Presiden't Men,and realized that we are living through something much, much worse, and far more dangerous than even Nixon was able to imagine.

Thanks for the questions. :)

My Senator is on the Judiciary committee and I'll be calling his office with the permalink to your list.

I'd go with even simpler ones: How much time did you spend rehearsing your appearance here today? Why did it take so much time for you to learn how to tell the truth? Who do you recall being present at those rehearsals? Did any of them ever criticise you for saying something that was not accurate? If so, what?

I have only a single question. If you (Abu G.) were unaware of all this, how do you justify collecting your salary? Even a janitor emptying wastebaskets would probably know more that you admit to.

Prophylactic comment: I was meaning that anybody reading the trash would know more. I was a bit clumsy in my wording.

Heh, heh. Excellent questions EW.

I would posit "You terminated David Iglesias for being an "absentee" leader of his office and said that it was not acceptable to delegate leadership to assistants. In light of your position on Iglesias, how in the world do youy justify your statements here that you were not that involved in the firing of over ten percent of your lead US Attorneys, don't really recall details, and effectively delegated the entire matter to your inexperienced assistants?"

Although I would certainly want to know the answer independently before asking it of Gonzales in a public forum, I get the impression that Gonzales has never been involved in a jury trial, much less a criminal one, and would like to know if that is true (being appointed to sit on a Texas appellate panel for a couple of years doesn't count). After establishing that AG had no, or pitifully little, courtroom experience, especially in the criminal field; I would ask why he thought it was good management and in the best interests of the American people to install similarly inexperienced, poorly credentialed, young theocrats as his senior assistants and advisors.

Marcy, do you think it's significant that in his written statement, Gonzales states his denial so narrowly? He says. "I did not, and would not, ask for a resignation of any individual in order to interfere with or influence PARTICULAR [my emphasis] criminal investigations for illigitimate reasons." Later, he says he wouldn't "...interfere with or influence a PARTICULAR prosecution for partisan political gain."

I get suspicious when denials are so specific.

Why "particular"? Maybe a good question would be: Did you attempt to influence or interfere with any general, or category, or group, or type of investigation or prosecution? I'm sure the committee's legal staff could pin this down with better wording, but he shouldn't be allowed to skate on this one.

Suggested post topic: Why were the RNC e-mails deleted?

I think that the two biggest theories (1. To cover up the betrayal of Valerie Plame, and 2. To cover up the White House's involvement in the USA firings) are both wrong. I think it was done to cover up the fact that everyone knew they were lying us into the war.

yo, bmaz, you want the poor bastard's head to explode, don't you ???

I probably have more courtroom experience than abu gonzo, and I've only ever defended myself

I wanna pin this POS down to a few specific statements, and then let the dissembling begin

first you tie the noose, and then abu sticks his head in it, that's how it works

asking your question is a sure fire recipie for disaster. abu would never understand the connection between his own absenteeism and Mr Iglesias absenteeism

cuz, you know, abu is a patriotic and important American, and Mr Iglesias is just a lowly grunt

the rules only apply to the little people who actually defend the country and stuff

Thank you for responding to my last request.Can anyone, kindly, provide a complete list(or a link containing details) of Department of Justice officials alluded to,in following passage:

"I recall telling Mr. Sampson that I wanted him to consult with appropriate Justice Department senior officials who would have the most relevant knowledge and information about the performance of the U.S. Attorneys. It was to be a group of officials, including the Deputy Attorney General, who were much more knowledgeable than I about the performance of each U.S. Attorney."

Information about their official position ,seniority and current status will be helpful.
Thank you.

Frank - I think all three are the case, and more. I think the Plame investigation may have been the trigger to "scrub" the trail, but I think at that point they attempted to do so for certain key players, ie Rove, Cheney and Bush, on a whole host of types of malfeasance.

Gonzales will try his tried and true trick, which goes back to the Texas days. Reframe the issue to the narrowest point, and then claim there was no crime. Too bad he is up against experienced prosecutors. It's not exactly the youngest trick in the book. Tuesday should be fun. I'm trying to get as much work done tonight and tomorrow to watch it. I see no reason why Leahy should not destroy him tomorrow, morally, mentally, and indirectly, physically. After all, the Geneva Convention is 'quaint'.

Since, as TPM points out, it is curious that the lead article today connecting Iglesias's firing to Bush fairly conclusively, has not generated a response from the WH or DoJ I'm wondering whether DoJ/WH will attempt to come full circle and return to 'they serve at the pleasure of the president' mantra.

At this point that train has lost its whistle, but its still a train.

Q: Abu G, how it is possible for the fired prosecutors to have "simply lost [your] confidence" -- as your wrote last month in a USA Today op-ed, if you were not involved in deciding which prosecutors to fire?

Q: Abu G, how do you know that nothing improper happened if you were so uninvolved in the decision-making process? How can you shield yourself from knowledge about the process, and then say that you are "certain" that nothing improper happened? How can we accept your word that nothing improper happened when you are claiming that you have no idea what happened?

Q: Abu G, was Monica Goodling's e-mail stating that you had asked for a chart summarizing the alleged underperformance of the fired attorneys correct? Did she in fact show you that chart?

Q: Abu G, were you aware that Karl Rove's deputy for political affairs was in constant contact with Mr. Sampson?

Q: Abu G, when you were White House counsel, were you aware that Karl Rove sent and received the vast majority of his e-mails on an RNC e-mail account?

Q: Abu G, what steps did you take to ensure that Mr. Rove and others in the White House using RNC accounts complied with the Presidential Records Act?

Q: Abu G, did you have an RNC e-mail account? Do you still have one? What do you use it for? Have you produced e-mails on that account to the Committee? Who else in the DoJ has such an account? Have they produced their RNC e-mails to the Committee?

Q: When you were White House counsel, and you were supervising the White House response to Mr. Fitzgerald's subpoenas in the CIA leak case, did you order White House to preserve any e-mails sent on their RNC account that might be responsive to the subpoenas? If not, why not?

I wish I could question him. It would be sooooooooomuch fun......

Above post was from litigatorMOM!

That would be McNulty, Moschella, and possibly Goodling.


Excellent point. While in the case of Iglesias and McKay, they seem to have been responding to particular non-indictments, with Lam they may well have been referring to the investigation into the whole kit and kaboodle.


I think another reason--a very important one--is the Abramoff investigation.


Here's a good place to start.


Damn. I should have left it to the professionals.

But one more question I'd ask:

You say Kyle Sampson briefed you. Did he communicate to you exclusively in person? Did he bcc you emails? Did Monica Goodling act as a go-between between you and the decision makers (particularly those at the WH). Why is there no record of your involvement in this matter?

here's a question from the wapo comments pages attached to gonzo's unbelievable mea culpa (sorta mea culpa, nada mea culpa, whateverthefuckitis)

if you're scoring at home, I've been thru about half of what is now 50 pages of responses to gonzo's wapo spiel, and pro-gonzo comments are as scarce as hen's teeth

here's the question from page 17

(you say)** Furthermore, I have no basis to believe that anyone involved in this process sought the removal of a U.S. attorney for an improper reason. **
Do the names Domenici, Wilson, and ROVE, ring a bell
Gonzales? You are toast, Mr. Torturer General. Bush will throw you under the bus.

gonzo migh be sticking a toe in the water with this article

if so, it's a toe he don't have any more

I live in Texas, and I have written John Cornyn and included the link to this discussion. While I think the chances of him daring to question anything to do with what has been going on are slim and none, maybe he will wise up... One can only hope!

Tuesday should be interesting...

even if Gonzo resigns tonight, he doesn't get a pass on his close-up with Leahy on Tuesday. All his resignation would mean at this point is that it's no longer a Constitutional showdown to arrest him and drag him in front of Congress, becuase he would be a private citizen again.

And he won't resign, becuase he's just following Bush's orders.

Frank: I think it was done to cover up the fact that everyone knew they were lying us into the war.
I must be confused, Citizen! It sounds to me like you're accusing the folks in the White House of a conspiracy to commit treason! FWIW I agree with you, as far as you go and further. Rove had his fingers in a lot of pies, and I bet he used email to keep track of all of them.

If someone can get Tim Russert to say "treason" on the air, I'll eat my hat.

I just passed this post on to Sen. Feingold's office. I hope they have a chance to read this and include these questions in the hearings on Tuesday!
Way to shine a light on all that is wrong in the WH!

Here is a question for AG. "Monica Goodling was a Senior Assistant Attorney General and your personal legal counsel at the Department of Justice, correct? Ms. Goodling has certified to this Congress that she will not give testimony on her duties in relation to her job as your assistant and counsel, because to do so would implicate her involvement in criminal activity; what criminal activity is she basing this claim on?" After AG says he doesn't know, the follow up is "What efforts have you undertaken to investigate the criminal activity Ms. Goodling claims occurred in the performance of her duties?" "What are the results, if any, of those efforts and investigation?"

Abu G told me the answer to your question. Here it is:

"I have no basis to believe that Ms. Goodling was actually involved in, or knows anything about, any criminal activity in the DoJ. A person is entitled to claim the protections of the Fifth Amendment without admitting his or her guilt, so it would be wrong for me to infer that her fear of self-incrimination means that she's guilty of any wrongdoing. And even if her fear of self-incrimination had some basis, I wouldn't know about it because I trusted Ms. Goodling and Mr. Sampson to carry out the performance review diligently and in good faith. Trust means never having to say, 'What the fuck are you doing?'" My responsibility as their boss was simply to delegate authority to them, and then hope for the best. That's what all good managers do. Isn't it?"

Litigatormom - I couldn't muster the energy to read his mini novel; but assumed that is basically what he would say. Hard to believe anyone would find it credible not to do a complete investigation though, and there is not a chance in hell that he did. AG is boxed in; there just is not a good answer for him to several questions like this. It is hard to see haw Bush can keep him on; but Bush is boxed in as well. I kind of fear the repercussions of impeachment, and have consistently not favored talk of it; but it is getting to the point at which I think it is simply Constitutionally derelict not to remove this group from power.

Mr. Attorney General, you said:

We further should agree on a definition of what an “improper” reason for the removal of a U.S. Attorney would be. As former Acting Solicitor General and Assistant Attorney General Walter Dellinger has stated, an improper reason would be: “The replacement of one or more U.S. attorneys in order to impede or speed along particular criminal investigations for illegitimate reasons.”

Would you admit that there are other improper reasons? For example, would it be improper to replace a USA in order to skew the outcome of an election?

Good Q, anwaya: that cite looks just like an attempt to tighten the definition.

My Qs: Kyle Sampson said that he made no decisions about who went on the list. Do you know who was making those decisions? Who, in your department, would you consider to have the authority to make such decisions?

Marcy, I'm going to print out your list of questions (and those of some others here @TNH) and have them with me while I watch the hearing tomorrow, to see if any of our dear Senators have been reading their mail -- or the internets.

Mauimom - It is always interesting to see which congresscritters actuall spend their time asking questions for the record as opposed to making some blathering statement that wastes precious time and could be easily placed in the record elsewhere without wasting the precious hearing time.

Gonzales states his denial so narrowly? He says. "I did not, and would not, ask for a resignation of any individual in order to interfere with or influence PARTICULAR [my emphasis] criminal investigations for illigitimate reasons."
My question is, if 'HE' didn't ask for these resignations, 'WHO' did?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Where We Met

Blog powered by Typepad