The average observer might be wondering what do the discussions that then White House Counsel, Alberto Gonzales might have had with then, John Ashcroft, have to do with the firing of prosecutors which was the focus of the U.S. Senate investigation seven months ago.At that time, the scandal was whether Alberto Gonzales had anything to do with possible firing of U.S. Attorneys.
The two issues appear to be irrelevant unless it impacts upon an alleged pattern of deceit and credibility on the part of the US Attorney General.
The Senate Judiciary initially started to probe into whether Alberto Gonzales was involved with any possible firings of attorney generals for political reasons.
On Thursday, the debate switched to whether Alberto Gonzales had a hospital conversation with John Ashcroft over a controversial surveillance program.Gonzales said they did not have the conversation.FBI chief Robert S. Mueller said they did.
Now, the Democrats see blood and are calling for the testimony of Karl Rove, want a special counsel on the Gonzales matter.The White House is claiming Karl Rove is off limits and is covered by executive privilege.
Senator Majority Leader, Harry Reid feels that Gonzales is lying.
In many ways, the entire ordeal is reminiscent to the Clinton days when suddenly Whitewater became Paula Jones.
Obviously, it is important that the Chief Law Officer be clean as a whistle and that his office not be tarnished.Yet, somehow, there is the scent of politics in the air as there was a strong odor present when President William J. Clinton was the target by republicans.
Folks: for all this heavy breathing about George III and this "scandal" to be remotely correct, y'all have to either demonstrate that (1) Smith was wrongly decided almost 30 years ago or (2) that the situation has changed such that new law on these same facts changes the outcome or (3) that you can somehow distinguish these facts from Smith. I don't think you can do any of the three. (If you can think of a fourth way around Smith I'm all ears.) Andrew McCarthy, NRO last year. QUOTE There's nothing new about [data mining]. Here's how the Supreme Court analyzed the matter nearly three decades ago in Smith v. Maryland (1979):
[W]e doubt that people in general entertain any actual expectation of privacy in the numbers they dial. All telephone users realize that they must "convey" phone numbers to the telephone company, since it is through telephone company switching equipment that their calls are completed. All subscribers realize, moreover, that the phone company has facilities for making permanent records of the numbers they dial, for they see a list of their long-distance (toll) calls on their monthly bills. In fact, pen registers and similar devices are routinely used by telephone companies "for the purposes of checking billing operations, detecting fraud, and preventing violations of law." … Electronic equipment is used not only to keep billing records of toll calls, but also "to keep a record of all calls dialed from a telephone which is subject to a special rate structure." … Pen registers are regularly employed "to determine whether a home phone is being used to conduct a business, to check for a defective dial, or to check for overbilling." … Although most people may be oblivious to a pen register's esoteric functions, they presumably have some awareness of one common use: to aid in the identification of persons making annoying or obscene calls…. Most phone books tell subscribers, on a page entitled "Consumer Information," that the company "can frequently help in identifying to the authorities the origin of unwelcome and troublesome calls." … Telephone users, in sum, typically know that they must convey numerical information to the phone company; that the phone company has facilities for recording this information; and that the phone company does in fact record this information for a variety of legitimate business purposes. Although subjective expectations cannot be scientifically gauged, it is too much to believe that telephone subscribers, under these circumstances, harbor any general expectation that the numbers they dial will remain secret. UNQUOTE
Written by Kelly Haggar
on 7/30/2007
Tremendous post about what the essence of this whole business is. Clinton had an affair and tried to cover it up and that was all that that was. OTOH what this current regime has been trying to do has been to act against our basic rights as citizens and act against the basic checks and balances set up in the Constitution. They want to either have people removed from the voter rolls or else discourage them from executing their fundamental right, all in all to reduce the turnout of groups which don't usually vote Republican, while also be able to continually duck Congress' oversight and do things like eavesdrop and conduct torture. Anyone can easily see the difference. I agree in that we may never know the whole extent of all of it and probably won't but as more is revealed the more shocked people, provided that they're sentient beings as opposed to these kool-aid drinkers. This crew makes Nixon's transgressions look like small potatoes although that concept as Nixon's tenure embodied before the scandals brought him down is exactly what they've been looking to emulate as in re-establishing the "imperial presidency." You have to hand it to them; they've really taken things to a whole new level. The founding fathers have got to be rolling in their graves. Even Bush the father has to be ashamed. Bush the son, however, will not become a trusted "elder statesman" when he leave office.
Written by Richard P.
on 7/29/2007
Perhaps you should read this article in the NYT Mining of Data Prompted Fight Over Spying
The New York Times, by Scott Shane and David Johnston.
Again it is not whether a crime was committed or not; it is the seriousness of the accusations. It is not whether someone (I mean a Republican) lied or not; it is the seriousness of the accusation.
Schumer it all and their games will cause us to pay a serious price probably sooner or later. They are diverting attention from what we need to be doing to attempting to bring down this President no matter the cost. Fishing expeditions and backward looking investigations are an expensive and ineffective way to govern.
Written by Sharon
on 7/29/2007
Ralph, get used to it. A lot of people on this blog don't want to understand the comparisons or the facts. They don't seem to remember that Clinton was the master of using his "executive privelege". He did not go to Congress or the UN when he wanted to launch missles or use the military. He believed (and I agree) he did not have to under the War Powers Act. As for lying under oath, he did it more than once. They all say that it was just about sex and did not count. I wonder how they would feel if Paula Jones or Juanita Brodwich (sp) was their daughter or sister? Gonzales is restricted by classification issues as to what he can or cannot say. All of this is a political game of "gotcha". But according to these people here only Republicans lie.
Written by Sharon
on 7/29/2007
I can't help but wonder how President Bush's defenders are going to feel when the next Democrat in the White House weilds the powers Bush has assumed, larglely unchallenged, during the past six years.
Written by Bill
on 7/29/2007
What on earth does this scandal have to do with Clinton? It is beyond absurd that every time this administration screws up, the apologists brings up the same sad Clinton/Monica nonsense. Torture prisons? Monica. Illegal war? Monica. Dishonest Attorney General? Monica. Let's get real here.
Written by dph
on 7/29/2007
In washington its always politics.. the city reeks of it but thats just how it is. You have two opposing political sides and everything will always have a different hue depending on you political leanings. With that said...you have to admit Gonzo is a liar and a very bad liar at that. Its too bad he's the top law enforcement dude. I mean... he's supposed to be over the dept of justice where your business is being squeeky clean. When you listen to his testimony and all the different individuals who have testified so far its pretty much a farce that we have the AG of this country still at that job and the fact that this president still supports him gives off the impression that dubya either has major things to hide or he doesnt care much about the justice dept and its place in our government. Its a slap in the face of the whole rule of law. Its so sad that there are people can't see what is happening. Blind faith, blind loyalty... who knows but so far this administration has been hypocrital to everything that they have said they will do from day one.
Written by Vince
on 7/29/2007
You guys don't really get it! The Clinton impeachment was NOT about sexual dalliance. It was about lying in an affidavit submitted to the court in the Paula Jones case and then lying to a federal grand jury. For this, he had his Arkansas law license revoked, was fined $75,000 and barred from practicing before the Supreme Court. Try getting the salient facts through your heads if that's not too difficult!
Written by Ralph Foden
on 7/29/2007
You are wrong, the odors are different. In Clinton's case it was always about sexual dalliances. While one might rightfully believe that Clinton was wrong in engaging in them it was a private matter that did not influence his job performance as president. In Gonzales' case this issue is closely related to his work, his integrity as a lawyer, judge and attorney general. No functioning democracy can afford or should tolerate a chief law enforcer who is clearly lying when testifying in front to congress under oath about issues related to his job. It is despicable that republican lawmakers who publicly and privately say that they are convinced that Gonzales is lying do not have the spine and guts to force the president to finally fire his buddy. Where are the republicans with conscience and integrity like Goldwater?
Written by Simon
on 7/29/2007
The difference is that the Clinton thing was in regard to Clinton's moral behavior. No wars were declared. No one died. No one's vote was discounted, discarded or barred.
The Gonzales inquiries raise questions of the Bush administration's quest to use the US attorneys' offices within key battleground states through judicial political appointees within the DOJ's Civil Rights division to destroy voting protections for minorities.
There is ample evidence in emails and other written records, testimony of subordinates and statements of former department lawyers on and off the record, that the Bush administration was aided by Justice Department Bush appointees in pursuing aggressive legal efforts to restrict Democrat voter turnout in key battleground states to favor Republican candidates since before 2001 and worsening in 2004 and 2006.
Voter fraud and caging lists are illegal. More so when targeting specific ethnic groups.
Virtually every significant judicial decision by these appointees have affected election balloting since 2001, with the division's Voting Rights Section deciding on the side of Republicans, notably in Florida, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, Washington, and other states where recent elections have been decided by narrow margins.
We will soon be seeing more come out of this than than voter fraud as Congress digs deeper. I don't believe we'll ever know everything... (do we ever?) However, when executive privilege is finally discounted and some truths are forced to be laid bare, people, who have been drinking the kool-aid will be outraged for being so deliberately deceived.
Today the cost of the war in Iraq was $447 billion. The US military death count in was 3646. The Iraqi civilian death count was almost half that just for the month of July. A 19-year-old boy from my county was killed there this week, not in gun-blazing glory of combat, but blown up with three others by an IED.
Thanks to GW Bush and the neocons who have been trying to hijack our country, the Republican Party has truly become the "Party of Death - Party of Debt."
Clinton's sins of the flesh ultimately pale in comparison.
To
Buzz Right Back on this article