The Attorney General Is A Big, Fat Liar
March 24th, 2007 | by Ken Grandlund |Telling lies is like laying a mine field behind you as you walk down your driveway. Odds are you’ll be walking back that way again, and if you forget where you laid all the mines you just may end up losing your life, or at least having your foot forcibly shoved down your throat.
Such is the situation Attorney General Alberto Gonzales now finds himself in. After denying last week that he had any real involvement in the US Attorney purge, newly released documents reveal that he did in fact attend a planning meeting last November with at least five other DOJ officials to develop a five-step plan for firing the prosecutors.
“I knew my chief of staff was involved in the process of determining who were the weak performers — where were the districts around the country where we could do better for the people in that district, and that’s what I knew,” Gonzales said last week. “But that is in essence what I knew about the process; was not involved in seeing any memos, was not involved in any discussions about what was going on. That’s basically what I knew as the attorney general.”
Can any one say Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire?
The documents were released by Kyle Sampson, the recently resigned chief of staff for Gonzales, after he agreed to testify before the senate next week. What they seem to show is a deeper willingness to lie to the Congress and the American people by senior Bush Administration officials, even after the house of cards comes crumbling down around them. And if it’s not bad enough that we have a government led by bald-faced liars, we have a president who continues to stand by them as they lie their asses off. And yet some people out there still defend almost everything these guys do or have done.
Conservatives, including the president himself, have described the Attorneygate firings investigations as nothing more than a “political witch-hunt.” I don’t think that is the case at all. I think that we finally have a congress who will take the task of exposing the slimy underbelly of this president’s reign over America. But even if the investigations were brought forth with some undertones of payback, in light of this newest contradictory information, we’ve learned proof positive that the highest law enforcement officer in the country is a petty liar.
In other words, this isn’t any longer purely partisan (if it ever was to begin with). And this time the purge will reach to the AG himself. You can take that to the bank.
[tag]Alberto+Gonzales, liar, Attorneygate, Kyle+Sampson, CNN, politics, Bush[/tag]
13 Responses to “The Attorney General Is A Big, Fat Liar”
By Lazy Iguana on Mar 24, 2007 | Reply
Come on now. Be fair. The Attorney General is NOT fat.
Everything else you said is true
By manapp99 on Mar 24, 2007 | Reply
From the article you linked:
“The attorney general has made clear that he charged Mr. Sampson with directing a plan to replace U.S. attorneys where for one reason or another the department believed that we could do better,” Roehrkasse said. “He was not, however, involved at the levels of selecting the particular U.S. attorneys who would be replaced.”
Gonzales this week directed the Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility to investigate the circumstances of the firings, officials said. The department’s inspector general also will participate in that investigation.
Nonetheless Democrats pounced late Friday.”
He was involved in a meeting discussing the firing of prosecutors in general, not these prosecutors specifically. The last line says it all “nonetheless Democrats pounced” But of course they did. Damn the truth, commence the pounce!
By Jersey McJones on Mar 24, 2007 | Reply
mannapp - wanna buy a bridge?
JMJ
By manapp99 on Mar 24, 2007 | Reply
“mannapp - wanna buy a bridge?”
Hellofva pithy comeback JMJ, your argument has convinced me. I am now a liberal. Where do I pick up my aluminum foil hat? You guys got all the cool gear. Really like the “scandal revealing” x-ray glasses you got from the back of the Superman comic books.
By Ron on Mar 24, 2007 | Reply
That wasn’t an argument. More like a joke about your gullibility.
By manapp99 on Mar 24, 2007 | Reply
Ron:
“That wasn’t an argument.”
My point exactly Ron.
By Ron on Mar 24, 2007 | Reply
I imagine Jersey doesn’t see any point in arguing with someone who believes that an internal investigation will suffice for a rendering of the truth.
Would you read Sanskrit to a pony?
Virtual beer for the first person to get the reference.
By manapp99 on Mar 24, 2007 | Reply
Ron, the proposal from the WH is that key members of justice and the administration be sent to congress to explain the facts to some of the dimwitted congress persons that seem hell bent on twisting the facts. They are making available over 3000 documents. No investigation, internal or external is merited when political appointess are fired. The truth here is, there is no scandal but this will not stop Harry, Chucky and CO from pouncing. With the aid of the MSM, they do not need or desire the truth, they only need the issue.
Did Lou shave his legs before or after the reading to a pony?
By Craig R. Harmon on Mar 24, 2007 | Reply
It seems to me that the crux of the question of whether AG Gonzales lied when he said:
“I knew my chief of staff was involved in the process of determining who were the weak performers — where were the districts around the country where we could do better for the people in that district, and that’s what I knew,” Gonzales said last week. “But that is in essence what I knew about the process; was not involved in seeing any memos, was not involved in any discussions about what was going on. That’s basically what I knew as the attorney general.”
Later, he added: “I accept responsibility for everything that happens here within this department. But when you have 110,000 people working in the department, obviously there are going to be decisions that I’m not aware of in real time. Many decisions are delegated.”
Perhaps in Gonzales’s mind, “was not involved in any discussions about what was going on” meant nothing more than that he was not involved in choosing who was to be fired, which we don’t have any evidence yet that he was. However that’s a pretty cramped interpretation of “was not involved in any discussions about what was going on”. The more natural interpretation of his statements is that he’d been told that discussions were going on led by his chief of staff but that he’d had no discussions on the matter. If, as evidence shows, he was present at an hour long discussion of the matter, that would seem to be a contradiction. His only defense is, “I don’t recall the conversation and didn’t recall it when I made that earlier statement”. The only question, then, is, does anyone believe his memory was that faulty that he forgot his participation in an hour long discussion on these matters.
Also, “[T]here are going to be decisions that I’m not aware of in real time”, hinges upon “I’m not aware of in real time”. If the decision to fire those US attorneys wasn’t made at the only meeting in which we have any evidence that Gonzoles was at, that is, if the decision was made prior to or after that meeting, then Gonzales was not aware of the decision in real time. That is, the decision was made and he learned of it at some other time. That seems to be a defensible statement.
It seems clear, however that, in spite of his protestation that he “was not involved in any discussions about what was going on” cannot be sustained. He was involved in a discussion, an hour long discussion, about what was going on. Lie or faulty memory or he said something that he really didn’t intend to say (i. e., he misspoke when he said he wasn’t involved in any discussion about what was going on; perhaps he meant merely to say that he wasn’t actively involved in deciding who should be replaced). I don’t see how else one can interpret this.
In any case, the President can’t be pleased with the AG’s performance in all of this.
By manapp99 on Mar 24, 2007 | Reply
Craig, the first line of the quote from Ken’s post was:
“I knew my chief of staff was involved in the process of determining who were the weak performers —”
This would indicate that he had information in general about the prosecutors. The hour long meeting may have had only five minutes dedicated to this subject. It would be interesting to see the minutes of that meeting. His statement later in that same quote:
“But that is in essence what I knew about the process; was not involved in seeing any memos, was not involved in any discussions about what was going on. That’s basically what I knew as the attorney general.”
Is not inconsistant with having knowledge of the process but not the details. It would not be uncommon to have delegated this, as is alleged, to his assistant. There is no indication that the meeting was dedicated to the firing.
By Craig R. Harmon on Mar 24, 2007 | Reply
Manapp99,
From the article:
This was not a meeting about other things that contained a five minute summary. This was an hour long conversation focussing on the issue at hand.
The conversation was about the plan to fire US attorneys. He cannot plausibly say that he was not involved in any conversations about the matter…not in my opinion anyway. I stand by my earlier comment.
By 4Truth on Mar 24, 2007 | Reply
Even when they are caught - they lie. I HATE being LIED to my face.
What a President MORAN, LIAR & FOOL. Each day GWB becomes the BIGGEST JOKE in HISTORY.
At the meeting, aides said, Gonzales approved detailed “roll out” plans for the firings. That plan involved notifying Republican home-state senators of the impending dismissals, preparing for potential political upheaval, naming replacements and submitting them to the Senate for confirmation.
Notify Republican Home-State Senators - How Dirty can you get?
By Lazy Iguana on Mar 24, 2007 | Reply
So only liberals have scandal x-ray glasses huh? I guess that is true.
I say this because the Republicans investigated Clinton almost from day one of his administration, and all they could find was a chubby chick in a blue dress. But they investigated EVERYTHING and EVERYONE!
But the Democrats, with their magical scandal revealing x-ray comic book glasses - what would they find if they did 1/10 the investigations into what Bush has done? Huh?
My guess would be more than a chubby chick in a stained dress. If only the Republicans had such equipment in the 90s, they could have used less trawling nets for their fishing trips.
PS - is the 12 billion in cash shipped to Iraq still missing? How about we just investigate that?