Leahy Demands Straight Answers From Gonzales On Tuesday

[Bob Geiger]

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.

You can read more from Bob at BobGeiger.com.

[msongs]

1. Leahy will get NOTHING from Gonzales, nothing. so leahy, what will u do about it? nt

[Doctor_J]

2. yup, the whole exectuive branch in now above the law,

including congress. What can be done about it?

Not a fucking thing.

[woodsprite]

3. All these peopl;e shouldn't have to be sworn in, they should have

sodium pentathol IV drips going the whole time they're testifying.

[tularetom]

4. Leahy is by far the biggest ineffective windbag in the senate

He's been making these threats for months and they've been flipping him off by ignoring everything he says. His response? Make more threats. And the threats aren't even good threats. There are never any consequences either stated or implied. Just threats. The bush crew has figured out there is nothing to be lost by ignoring Leahy's threats so that's just what they've done.

Leahy more than anyone else, even Harry Reid, symbolizes to me why people have no respect for senate Dems. It's long past time to replace his ass.

[global1]

5. That's Right - Give Him The Questions In Advance So He Can Make Up Good.....

lies.

It seems to me all this accomplishes is it gives a chance for Gonzo to weasel out by concocting explanations for all of these questions. Even though they may not be plausible - he will give the explanations and then say that he answered all their questions.

[KoKo]

6. According to artcile in today's WaPo...Gonzo's Reply to Leahy is F**k OFF...I'm Staying...

no mention in this article about Leahy's letter ...but what do you expect fromt the stenographers at the WaPo?

Hat Tip to DU'er 'Burt Worm' for this post:

--------


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...

By LARA JAKES JORDAN
The Associated Press
Monday, July 23, 2007; 12:04 PM

WASHINGTON -- Attorney General Alberto Gonzales says he's staying at the Justice Department to try to repair its broken image, telling Congress in a statement released Monday he's troubled that politics may have played a part in hiring career federal prosecutors.

The attorney general's comments came in 26 pages of prepared testimony that was released on the eve of his scheduled appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee. He is expected to face detailed questions Tuesday about the firings and conflicts between his earlier statements and the testimony of a former aide.

After months of critics calling for his resignation, Gonzales appears to have weathered the political furor that began with the firings of eight U.S. attorneys last year and subsequently revealed a Justice Department hiring process that favored Republican loyalists.

In his written testimony, Gonzales touted the department's focus on terrorists, violent crime and even aid to the 2005 Hurricane Katrina victims. He made no reference to the fired U.S. attorneys and only briefly mentioned the controversy that has torpedoed morale at the Justice Department and has called the fairness of its attorneys' into question.

"Reinforcing public confidence in the department is also critical, and will be one of my top priorities as attorney general for the remainder of my term," Gonzales said in the prepared statement.

[defendandprotect]

7. Leahy is adorable -- BUT IMPOTENT . . ..

When you look back to the Clarence Thomas/pervert hearings . . ..
It is Biden who is chiefly responsible for his getting thru --

Leahy puts up a little fight -- and I think later has a stroke!!!!

If Leahy was ever anything but a cute picture of a Senator . . . he is meaningless now and helping the GOP make a mockery of government. We have so many weaklings in the party because the Democratic Party has been so destroyed by Republicans from INSIDE THE PARTY/DLC --

AND FROM OUTSIDE --

If you don't have representatives who can handle the job, then you will lose your rights --