Today, Truthout is providing special coverage of Alberto Gonzales's testimony before Congress, as the embattled attorney general attempts to answer hard-hitting questions from lawmakers about circumstances behind the firings of eight United States attorneys last year.
Gonzales has stated repeatedly over the past month that he was not involved in the decisions to dismiss the attorneys. However, thousands of pages of Justice Department documents released to the House Judiciary Committee contradict Gonzales's assertions. The documents show that the attorney general took part in meetings with top officials in his office last year to discuss the firings before his chief of staff carried out the plan in December.
These are just some of the issues that members of Congress intend to grill Gonzales about this morning. Our staff of reporters and columnists will zero-in on the most newsworthy elements of Mr. Gonzales's testimony and report the details as they unfold. So be sure to hit the refresh button on your browser regularly.
Sen. Charles Schumer (D-New York) tells Gonzales that he is concerned that he has answered "I don't know" or "I can't recall" over 100 times, and he asked Gonzales to step down. - Victoria Harper
Sen. Benjamin Cardin (D-Maryland) tells Gonzales that he is concerned about voter intimidation, yet the DOJ has focused on "voter fraud" where there have only been limited issues. He questions why there has been no action on voter intimidation. - Victoria Harper
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-California) said, "I may be very slow, but I don't understand how this list was compiled." Feinstein recounted testimony by Gonzales's former chief of staff Kyle Sampson who testified there was no "list" that existed in the DOJ about the identity of US attorneys who would be fired. Last week, the DOJ released thousands of pages of documents showing that the DOJ had put together such a list. Gonzales responded by saying that he was not "familiar" with the recent testimony of other officials in his office, a recurring theme in Gonzales's testimony this morning. - Jason Leopold
Senate Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy questioned Gonzales about missing Republican National Committee emails sent by Karl Rove: "What do we have to do to obtain Mr. Rove's emails" regarding the firing of the US attorneys? Gonzales said he doesn't have the answer to that. Leahy then asked Gonzales about the policy in place while he was White House counsel where White House officials used RNC email accounts. Gonzales responded, "I have to go back and look. I think the policy was that [emails] should be preserved." It should be "forwarded to a government computer." - Jason Leopold
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) asks about Rove's lost email. Gonzales says he doesn't have an answer. He is hinting at presidential privilege. - Victoria Harper
Senators Whitehouse and Coburn have put forth those three words - "obstruction of justice" - that should make Mr. Gonzales and his administration tremble. Were these USAGs removed because they were pursuing corruption cases against Republicans? Or because they refused to pursue baseless corruption cases against Democrats? Gonzales had, of course, no answer. "That would be wrong," was the best he could do. Do you think so? It is this last line of questioning that must be pursued after this hearing, until hard answers are established. - William Rivers Pitt
Sen. John Kyl (R-Arizona) used the majority of his allotted time to "congratulate" Gonzales and his office for cracking down on Internet gambling. The senator also requested another meeting with Gonzales's office to discuss other issues the senator has been working on. - Jason Leopold - Jason Leopold
Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Oklahoma) told Gonzales that mistakes have consequences. He criticized the attorney general's leadership skills and called for new leadership skills at the Justice Department. - Scott Galindez
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-Rhode Island): "Here's what concerns me. The administration of justice in our country is controlled within the structures. Some of them are structures that are developed over time. My concern after reading your testimony is that you don't seem to be aware of those structures that this episode has caused. The two areas that you ask us to agree with you in your testimony is that US attorneys can be fired at will by the president.... It's deeply misleading. For years, for decades, there has been a tradition of independence by United States attorneys." - Jason Leopold
Gonzales was just asked how he would act differently in implementing the decisions made regarding these USAGs. He needed to ask the definition of "implementing," saying, "By implementing, you mean what to do after the decision?" Amazing. Astonishing. The man before us is as unqualified an official as any we have seen ... and boy howdy, that's saying a lot. No answers, no memory, and a 50-word vocabulary. Unreal. - William Rivers Pitt
Gonzales said he continues to stand by the decision to fire the eight US attorneys for performance reasons, despite the fact that Justice Department documents have shown the attorneys in question had positive job evaluations. - Jason Leopold
Senator Cardin just spent several minutes putting his reputation as a mild-mannered fellow to rest. I've sensed annoyance and incredulity from the other senators thus far, but Cardin is flatly furious. Gonzales, for his part, has fired off another battery of "I don't recall" answers since the break. He had no responses to Cardin of any merit or weight. - William Rivers Pitt
The afternoon session has been delayed until at least 2:39 p.m. EDT. As the morning session came to an end, at least a dozen protesters in the room shouted liar, liar and impeach, impeach. The protesters included Cindy Sheehan and Medea Benjamin. It will be interesting to see if they are allowed back in for the afternoon session. - Scott Galindez
Senators Leahy and Schumer both answered questions from the press during the afternoon recess. Leahy repeatedly said that he was not satisfied with Gonzales's answers to the senators questions. Senator Schumer went further, pointing to the numerous discrepancies in Gonzales's statements. The senator said that "he doesn't see how anyone can come away from these hearings with an opinion that Gonzales can be an effective attorney general." Schumer went on to say that, "Anyone watching these hearings has to wonder if Gonzales is less qualified than the US attorneys that he fired." - Scott Galindez
As the hearing breaks for lunch, it is fair to say that during the first three hours of his testimony this morning, Gonzales had zero recollection of the substance of any of the meetings he participated in with his staff and White House officials in which discussions to fire the US attorneys took place. Gonzales continues to defend his record as well as the decisions to fire the US attorneys, even as lawmakers call his credibility into question and insinuate that he has been less than truthful. - Jason Leopold
Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) stated emphatically that it was "clear to me that some of the [US attorneys] had personality problems with people in the White House," and Gonzales and his staff made up reasons to fire them. Gonzales said he disagreed, insisting that he has nothing to hide. But Graham said it was clear to him that the US attorneys had personality clashes with White House officials and there was no truth, in his opinion, that the US attorneys performed poorly. - Jason Leopold
Schumer told Gonzales that he "shouldn't be attorney general" if there is truth to Gonzales's assertions that he allowed his former chief of staff, Kyle Sampson, to implement a plan to fire US attorneys under questionable circumstances. - Jason Leopold
I raised concerns in an earlier post about Senator Schumer's mindset regarding these hearings. Those concerns have proven to be premature. Schumer spent his time absolutely lambasting Gonzales over the vast disparities between his testimony today and the testimony of other Justice Department officials on this matter. Pointedly, Schumer made it abundantly clear that he does not think Gonzales is being truthful in his testimony today. In reading a statement by Senator Pryor, Schumer went so far as to use Pryor's descriptive word "lying." Gonzales appeared to be visibly agitated, but had no defense. This exchange, in my opinion, makes it clear that the attorney general brought a knife to a gunfight today, and lacks the basic armaments necessary for an effective defense. - William Rivers Pitt
Senator Chuck Schumer asked Gonzales about circumstances behind the firing of Carol Lam, the US attorney in San Diego, who Gonzales claims was dismissed because she was not tough enough on immigration enforcement. Gonzales was visibly defensive in his response and contradicted his earlier testimony this morning when he stated that Lam was not informed about her alleged laid-back approach to prosecuting illegal aliens. Schumer told Gonzales, "The people that we have interviewed have contradictory statements as to what you say." - Jason Leopold
Senator Sessions (R-Alabama), a former United States attorney himself, questioned Gonzales on not being able to remember a November 2006 meeting with Sampson, Goodling, and others. Sessions pointed out that the meeting was not long ago. Leahy followed up, asking Gonzales if he remembered making the decision to fire the attorneys at the November meeting. Gonzales responded that he didn't remember the meeting; he had remembered making a decision, but didn't remember when he made the decision.... Leahy assured him that he would return to the issue later. - Scott Galindez
Senator Jeff Sessions (R-Alabama) is questioning Gonzales about contradictory statements the attorney general made publicly that he was not involved in decisions to fire the US attorneys. Documents released after Gonzales's public statements, however, show that Gonzales attended a November 27, 2006 meeting in which the dismissals were discussed among DOJ staff. Gonzales responded: "I have searched my memory, I have no recollection of the meeting.... I don't remember the contents of this meeting." Sessions told Gonzales he was concerned about the attorney general's memory "because [the meeting] was not that long ago." - Jason Leopold
The decision by Clinton to replace 93 USAGs in 1993 came under discussion, and was used as a reason to explain all of this away. A family member of mine served as a USAG in the South under Clinton and got the job after Clinton removed the Bush Sr. appointee in that district. He was removed immediately after this Bush came in, and that's how it goes. These people are political appointees, true, and serve at the pleasure of the president. But such a line of discussion absolutely avoids the main issue here. A president may hire or fire a USAG at a whim ... but if these hirings and firings were done because a USAG chose to prosecute a Republican, that's obstruction of justice on its face. If a USAG was removed for not working hard enough to disrupt election standards - as has been alleged - that is likewise illegal. Presidential privilege doesn't apply here, and when anyone in this hearing deploys that excuse, it's a smokescreen. - William Rivers Pitt
As they take their first ten-minute recess, I am still impressed by the exchange between Specter and Gonzales. Specter was clearly angry with the responses he got from Gonzales concerning the level of his involvement in the process that led to the firings. Specter asked Gonzales if he was being "candid" when he said his participation was limited. It didn't look like Specter was satisfied at all with his response. - Scott Galindez
Senator Feinstein went to the record in her questions about the firing of the San Diego USAG Carol Lam, and Gonzales had no answers of any notable substance. Feinstein reeled off an impressive list of accomplishments made by USAG Lam, augmented by words of praise from all points on the political and legal compass. Gonzales attempted to claim that Lam had been under scrutiny despite these achievements and accolades, but provided no clarity or explanation for that scrutiny. The ten-minute recess could not have come too soon for the AG. - William Rivers Pitt
When Senator Feinstein asked Gonzales about the origin of a change to the Patriot Act that gave the attorney general the ability to replace US attorneys without Senate confirmation, Gonzales made a contradictory statement: "I did support the change in the law, not in order to avoid Senate involvement, but because I, quite frankly, do not like the idea of the Judiciary [Committee] deciding who serves on my staff." This alteration to the normal US attorney confirmation process is central to the investigation. - Matt Renner
Diane Feinstein finally asks the question about who decided to insert the statement in the Patriot Act to give the attorney general the power to hire and fire prosecutors without going to Congress. - Victoria Harper
Wisconsin Senator Kohl raised the issue of election fraud regarding these USAGs, but got an unsteady verbal tap dance from Gonzales in reply. Not much light was shed on this issue in the exchange, an issue that elevates this matter beyond mere political swordplay. Hopefully, more questions along these lines will be asked. Such was not forthcoming from Senator Orrin Hatch, who provided Gonzales with soft queries far afield from the subject at hand, going so far as to ask, "Do you make decisions based on polls?" Gonzales replied, "No sir, I do not." Hatch then cooed, "No, you don't," with shaking head and feigned outrage. Who knew Senators could give such luxurious massages? - William Rivers Pitt
During Senator Brownback's time, Gonzales said that Bud Cummings "was asked to resign because there was another well qualified individual that the White House wanted to put in place there that we supported because he was well qualified." This replacement is under the spotlight by the investigators because Bud Cummings's firing made room for Timothy Griffin, a known political operative for Karl Rove. - Matt Renner
This bears repeating: It is astonishing to see how unsteady this high Cabinet official appears to be in this questioning under oath. Senator Specter offered a few good shoves in his questions, but offered nothing that should have boggled Gonzales's mind. Questions from Senator Kennedy literally set Gonzales to stammering. Senator Brownback, one of the friendlier faces Gonzales will see today, likewise appears to be shaking the AG up. Either Gonzales is deeply nervous or is as incompetently unsuitable for his position as many have alleged. He has not been able to remember what he cannot recall about what he didn't know, but is sure his decisions were sound ... or something. - William Rivers Pitt
Statement of Chairman Patrick Leahy Senate Judiciary Committee
Today, the Department of Justice is experiencing a crisis of leadership perhaps unrivaled during its 137-year history. There is the growing scandal swirling around the dismissal and replacement of several prosecutors, and persistent efforts to undermine and marginalize career lawyers in the Civil Rights Division and elsewhere in the Department.
We hear disturbing reports that politics may have played a role in a growing number of cases. I have warned for years against the lack of prosecutorial experience and judgment throughout the leadership ranks of the Department. We are seeing the results amid rising crime, rampant war profiteering, abandonment of civil rights and voting rights enforcement efforts, and lack of accountability. This Justice Department seems to have lost its way.
During Senator Kennedy's questioning, he focused on the earlier statements made by Gonzales. Kennedy pointed out that Gonzales claims that he had "limited involvement in the [firing] process." Kennedy also pointed out that the review process was "not vigorous," and that Gonzales claims he turned the process over to his then-Chief of Staff Kyle Sampson. He used this as a set-up to ask Gonzales if he had made the important decision to fire US attorneys with a full understanding of the rationale behind each firing. Gonzales replied that he was not aware of the rationale for two of the firings when he signed off on the list of eight. - Matt Renner
Senator Specter is clearly frustrated with Gonzales. After a tense exchange, Specter stated, "I want you to win this debate, but you are going to have to win it." - Scott Galindez
Senator Arlen Specter (R-Pennsylvania) confronts Gonzales on his false statements made to Congress. He goes on to provide examples of Sampson testimony that contradicts Gonzales's sworn testimony. - Victoria Harper
The "I don't recall" refrain began almost immediately. Senator Leahy asked about conversations between Gonzales and Karl Rove regarding election fraud concerns. Gonzales acknowledged one conversation, but could not recall when, how or specifically why it took place. Leahy was then forced to repeatedly ask Gonzales when he lost confidence in the performance of New Mexico USAG Iglesias. Gonzales was unable to answer with any precision and sounded remarkably unsteady for a man of his position. One also cannot avoid noting the remarkable similarity between Gonzales's speech patterns and those of Mr. Bush. Reports have these two men sharing a close friendship. Hearing Gonzales, it also appears they may share a brain. - William Rivers Pitt
Senator Schumer may have just rendered all this moot in his opening statement. He basically said that they are having this hearing not to question the legality of these firings, but the propriety and intelligence of these firings. However, it has been alleged that some of the firings happened because those USAG's were investigating Republicans in an election season. That isn't just improper, but sounds like obstruction of justice. This goes beyond impropriety and into seeming illegality. I hope the substance of this hearing rises above Schumer's statement, because otherwise, all we have here is theater. - William Rivers Pitt
Senator Charles Schumer (D-New York) gives Gonzales warning that he does not want to hear evasive answers to questions. He also states that he doesn't want to see a mantra of how the president can dismiss a prosecutor for any reason. - Victoria Harper
Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) in his opening statement emphasized that the Department of Justice should never be used as the political arm of any political party. - Victoria Harper
Senator Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, set a strong tone in his opening statement: "It appears that the Justice Department has lost its way," said Leahy. The Senator stressed that Gonzales's own top assistant contradicted the testimony that the attorney general gave "under oath" in January. Leahy repeated "under oath" twice. - Scott Galindez
Gonzales to Testify Today About Fired Prosecutors By Thomas Ferraro Reuters
Thursday 19 April 2007
US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, facing bipartisan calls to resign, makes a possible make-or-break appearance on Thursday before a Congressional panel investigating the firing of US prosecutors.
In testimony prepared for delivery to the Senate Judiciary Committee, set to meet at 9:30 AM EDT, Gonzales said he had "nothing to hide." With lawmakers asking whether the dismissals were politically motivated, Gonzales said none of the firings was an attempt to influence any particular investigation.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
