Christy Hardin Smith is liveblogging the Alberto Gonzales testimony before the Senate Judiciary committee. I thought I’d share her transcript of Leahy’s opening statement this morning. It sounds like it is going to be a long day for our the President’s Attorney General.
SEN. LEAHY gavels the hearing into session.
SEN. LEAHY OPENING: Three months ago when AG Goznales last appeared before thsi committee, I said that the DOJ was experiencing a crisis of leadership perhaps unrivaled in its history. That crisis continues. The AG has lost confidence of the American public — the DOJ must be restoreed to be worthy of tis name. It should not be reduced to being a political arm of the WH — it was never intended tobe that. With the department shrouded in scandal, the DAG has announced his resignation, others have asked that their names be withdrawn rather than face a confirmation hearing. The DOJ’s chief of staff, WH liaison and others have resigned. I joke that the last one out should turn out the lights. This WH values loyalty over judgment, secrecy over openness and ideology over competence. Political considerations factored into the firing of at least nine USAttys. The list was compiled by high ranks within the WH — whether federal prosecutors were doing enough to file partisan voter fraud cases in strategic locations. The question remaining is who made the decision to fire these prosecutors. We know from testimony that the President was not involved. The evidence we have been able to collect points to Karl Rove and political operatives in the WH — the stonewalling continues to our desire to get to the truth. What is the WH so desperate to hide? This WH has ordered former officials not to appear, including Harriet Miers — the WH is asserting its claims of privilege — further than have ever been asserted in our nation’s history — and that neither Congress nor the courts can review it. Again, this WH puts itself above the law.
Discussing the Todd Graves refusal to bring a case which would have stripped a number of African American voters from the voter rolls. When Graves was fired, Schlozman was brought in — and did what the WH wanted, including filing a case on the eve of an election contrary to DOJ internal regulations. This is what happens when a responsible prosecutor is replaced by one who is politically motivated. [CHS notes: AG Gonzales is using an old lawyer trick this morning — keep yourself busy taking notes as someone is speaking so that you don’t show emotion. When he is looking upward at Leahy, it is all he can do to suppress a massive stink-eye look. Leahy’s opening is quite good thus far.]
Discussing the Todd Graves refusal to bring a case which would have stripped a number of African American voters from the voter rolls. When Graves was fired, Schlozman was brought in — and did what the WH wanted, including filing a case.
Mr. Schlozman also bragged about hiring ideological soulmates. Monica Goodling likewise admitted to crossing the line by using a political litmus test for hiring considerations. Instead of keeping law enforcement above politics, this Administration has put its political needs above the law. The lack of independence and the actions of the AG in acting as though he were the President’s own lawyer and not the AG of the United States. Leahy lists: torture memo, going to Ashcroft’s bedside to try and force him to sign off on NSA spying while he was incapacitated, and other actions taken which show that the AG was working toward the President’s interests only.
Leahy brings up the AG lying about the Patriot Act violations under oath — recently discovered through FBI testimony, not through the AG being open about having testified falsely. Leadership at the DOJ only admits mistakes when public revelations force such apology — the regrets are that we have found out about these excesses and abuses, not for the problems themselves. With no other outside check or balance — with an Administration trying to cut the courts and the Congress out of any oversight — what the WH is doing amounts to “trust us.” I am not willing to do so — you have squandered the public trust.
A tragic dimension of all of this is the undermining of the integrity of the thousands of officials and prosecutors and investigators who do their jobs and do them well. Once the government shows a disregard for the independence of the justice system and the rule of law, it is very hard to restore the people’s faith. This committee will do what it takes — both Republicans and Democrats agree — to restore the DOJ.
.
C-SPAN3
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."
Feingold is discussing his motion to censure the president for the wiretapping.
Leahy’s opening statement had everything that needed to be said to get this horse out of the gate. And all the outrage and disgust that is being mustered toward Gonzales, once again, makes you feel like we might possibly have gotten to the point where someone in this administration will be accountable for something.
But I don’t know. I’m steeling myself for another major disappointment. What mountain of evidence, pray tell, has to be unearthed to move this committee and this Congress into taking action to try and stem even one instance of the lawlessness which this administration has practiced for more than six years? If there is one question which little old me would like to pose to Leahy, Specter, Conyers and all the rest of them it is,
“When is enough, enough?”.
Many of us have waited, hoped and even prayed for six long years that the house of cards would finally came tumbling down, collapsing under it’s own weight of corruption and hubris. That finally appears to be within sight. Please, good people in Congress, do not take your eyes off the ball. Do not allow any slack in the line. Keep it taut. Much more difficult days are ahead before we can even hope to be rid of the festering cancer that this administration has brought to the body of America. If you, our elected officials, do not have the will or strength to fight this battle, then you will enjoy a legacy no better than those who have perpetrated this insanity. The vast majority of the American people have your back right now. I beg of you, please do not let us down.
.
(AP) July 24 – Attorney General Alberto Gonzales denied today that he and former White House chief of staff Andy Card tried to exploit then-Attorney General John Ashcroft’s frail condition by pressuring him to recertify President Bush’s intelligence-gathering program during a now-famous 2004 hospital visit.
Gonzales’ version conflicts with Comey’s.
“I was angry,” Comey testified in May, releasing details of the meeting for the first time. “I thought I had just witnessed an effort to take advantage of a very sick man who did not have the powers of the attorney general.”
“The disagreement that occurred, and the reason for the visit to the hospital, senator, was about other intelligence activities,” Gonzales said, refusing to say what the other program might be.
“I don’t trust you,” Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., told Gonzales.
Spectre recommends to appoint a special prosecutor in DOJ’s attempt to block Congressional oversight.
At the end there was some commotion and a demonstration with shouts of: “LIES – LIARS.”
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."
I listened to the entire hearing today. I am amused as to the laughing at the AG and how he answers some questions. He has blatantly lied and misled the congress and the American ppl and is now having to to face his judgment in front of the entire world, which is now watching. They are watching to see if especially on torture definition that if he and the WH are doing what the world and the American ppl want done in their names and how it comes to make more danger to us as Americans.
Seriously, I doubt he was really listening to the questions or he would answer outright. He tried to convoluted the questions into something else and confuse the listeners and questioners. He is good at that, if you ask me…as so all of this administration is doing and good at. To confuse and mislead is their best forte`, if not completely not answering due to security risks or ex. privilege, etc…..which has to be answered by a follow-up letter to, in closed session. What a crock of bull……