| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"A Veteran" |
| Date: |
23 Jul 2007 03:10:29 PM |
| Object: |
alberto comes clean? |
Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), weary of fighting to get honest answers
out of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales in the political firings of
eight federal prosecutors, took the unexpected step last week of
sending Gonzales a list of the questions he should expect when he
appears before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday.
Leahy, the committee's Chairman, sent a letter to Gonzales on July 17
pointing out the number of times the embattled Attorney General said
he could "not recall" in response to previous direct questioning on
his department's operations and saying that he "would like to avoid a
repeat of that performance."
"When you last testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on
April 19, 2007, you often responded to questions from Senators on both
sides of the aisle that you could 'not recall,'" wrote Leahy in his
letter to Gonzales. "By some counts, you failed to answer more than
100 questions, by other counts more than 70, and the most conservative
count had you failing to provide answers well over 60 times. As a
result, the Committee’s efforts to conduct oversight were hampered."
So Leahy sent questions in advance hoping to give Gonzales a week to
think about some better responses to the questions surrounding the
U.S. Attorney firings, National Security Letter abuses and the White
House's warrantless domestic spying program.
According to Leahy's office, the Judiciary Chairman "put the Attorney
General on notice that the Committee would expect answers on
inconsistencies in the Attorney General’s public statements and
testimony involving the firing of several U.S. Attorneys as well as
the President’s warrantless wiretapping program" including the
following:
* "On April 19, you testified to the Senate Judiciary
Committee that you had not spoken with anyone involved in the firings
about that process because you did not want to interfere with the
investigation. Again, on May 10, you testified to the House Judiciary
Committee that you had not spoken with anyone involved in order to
protect the integrity of the investigation. Then on May 23, Monica
Goodling testified under oath before the House Judiciary Committee
that she had an 'uncomfortable' conversation with you during which you
outlined your recollection of what happened and asked her for her
reaction to your version. Is Ms. Goodling’s testimony accurate, and if
so, how do you account for your previous, uncorrected testimony to
this Committee?"
* "On April 19 you testified before this Committee that your
former Chief of Staff Kyle Sampson was responsible for putting
together the list of U.S. Attorneys to be fired. But on May 15, the
day after Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty announced his intention
to resign, you said that the firings were largely Mr. McNulty’s
responsibility. Mr. McNulty has said that he had very limited
involvement in the decision of which U.S. Attorneys to fire. Please
describe all of your interactions with Mr. McNulty related to the
replacement of the nine U.S. Attorneys and your understanding of his
role in deciding which U.S. Attorneys would be fired. Why has your
description of who made the decisions, and who was most involved in
the decision-making process, changed over time?"
* "When you were asked on February 6, 2006 if any senior
Justice Department officials, including your former deputy, James
Comey, expressed concerns about the Bush Administration’s warrantless
electronic surveillance program, you testified: 'I do not believe that
these DOJ officials . . . had concerns about this program.' Mr. Comey
subsequently testified on May 15, 2007 that on March 9, 2004, he
informed you, as White House counsel, and others including the Vice
President, that the Justice Department had concluded that the
Administration’s warrantless electronic surveillance program did not
have a legal basis. He testified that you and former White House Chief
of Staff Andrew Card tried to circumvent him, in his role as Acting
Attorney General, by rushing to the hospital bedside of ailing former
Attorney General John Ashcroft to try to persuade him to certify the
program. Please provide a full explanation for the legal authorization
for the President’s warrantless electronic surveillance program in
March and April 2004."
You can also expect some tough questioning from Russ Feingold (D-WI)
who has long been in Gonzales's face about the illegal domestic spying
program and was a leader in trying to secure a no-confidence vote on
the Attorney General last month.
"I voted against Alberto Gonzales to be the Attorney General because I
was not convinced he would put the rule of law, and the interests of
the country, above those of the President and the Administration,"
said Feingold in June. "Unfortunately, those concerns have been
realized over and over. He has failed in a very significant way. He
should resign."
We'll see if the hearings on Tuesday move us closer to that point.
Bob Geiger
--
when you believe the only tool you have is a hammer.
All problems look like nails.
.
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
