If he has nothing to hide then he can testify under oath.

Oh, and where are those emails?

Wade

If there is nothing to hide
let them testify under oath and disclose everything.
After all there is nothing to hide, right?

If there is nothing to hide
let them testify under oath and disclose everything.
After all there is nothing to hide, right?

The only time he (or Wolfowitz come to think about it) will have nothing to hide is when it's all been found out.

When any kind of political or semi political figure tells you that he has nothing to hide, it's because you're getting closer to the many things he's trying to hide.

It's already been proven that his previous testimony on this subject was riddled with lies (they originally said no lists were kept, the AG said he wasn't involved, they said Rove wasn't involved, etc)... why on earth should anyone believe him now?

He should've resigned two months ago, so we could begin to put this matter behind us. But no, the White House stands by him, because he's loyal and that's more important than competence and honesty.

Good for him, but it seems strange that someone who has nothing to hide would have to spend two weeks rehearsing his upcoming testimony. You don't need practice to explain the truth. Maybe Rove will follow his lead.

The he should have no problem telling us where he and Rove hid the 3 million missing emails.

Where are the Repugnuts?

I'm still waiting to hear just what criminal law was violated on these firings.

Typical Democrat party 'create-a-scandal.'

If no laws were violated, why the investigation and demands for testimony?

Help us out, leftists, cite the laws violated (without implicating Clinton's dismissal of attorney's as well, of course).

He has nothing to hide??

Then why has he spent two weeks cramming for his testimony? How hard is it to tell the truth?

maybe Gozales doesn't think he has anything to hide but his I'm taking the 5th ex-staffer certainly did!!

Lefties once again, are trying to exterminate yet another member of Bush's appointees - You haven't been able to do this without trying to: Smear, Lie
Accuse Without Facts, get ANOTHER investigation going. It seems you Dems wouldn't be happy unless
you could besmearch Each and Every one of the Presiden't people. You salavate over the thoughts
of "getting Rove", Cheney, etc....You can't win elections without these tactics, and you WILL NEVER WORK IN ANY BIPARTISAN EFFORT, BECAUSE YOU HAVE ALWAYS BEEN SUCH A HATEFUL, SPITEFUL, AND WHINNING LOT.

You WISH you could eliminate Bush, etal, with your
Gestapo tactics and bullying. You need to be met
with some Republican Rath for a change, that would tell you, the GOP will not just lie down and cringe at your inane tactics.

Well lets see Lew. To begin with we have the chief law inforcement officer in the country who either can't tell the truth, doesn't know what the truth is or is so throughly incompetent and out of touch that he has to cram for his testimony.
We have a judiciary which is supposed to be independent hijacked by policy operatives and staffed with graduates of the lowest ranked law school in the country. We have the 2nd in command quit, testify and then have his testimony contradicted by his emails. We have the 3rd ranking member plead the 5th and then quit. We have a senator contacting a USA at his home to inquiry about an on going investigation. We have the use of an RNC sever to conduct official business which is a clear violation of White House rules, along with "lost" emails. Do you want me to continue? Criminality? Technically perhaps not, but trust and confidence trump law breaking especially with an administration that has minimal creditability to begin with. Perhaps if they haven't operated in so much secrecy, were more forthcoming and had a history of cooperation and policy successes this might not be as big of an issue as it has turned into. When Arlen Spector and Lindsay Graham are skeptical, I'd say theres'
trouble a brewin'!
Do yourself a favor and go to Law.com and read what a 25 yr veteran of the Justice Dept has to say. For once, be informed 1st and take a stance 2nd. This isn't an "us vs them" issue. This is the justice department being used to further a political parties desire to remain in power. How much more un-American can one get?

RE: "If there is nothing to hide let them testify under oath and disclose everything. After all there is nothing to hide, right?"

A person, George [I cannot tell a lie] Washington, or even a Saint with a perfect photographic memory, would have to be a complete fool and total idiot to voluntarily testify under oath in that situation and under those circumstances.

Gonzales will be testifying before an extremely hostile group of blood thirsty Democrats who have already admitted they are out his job... and much more if they can get it, to include anything they can "allege" which will embarrass or harm President Bush and the Republicans, or an the slightest way implicate Karl Rove! The Democrats already have testimony from many others as well as stacks and volumes of documents provided by the Administration, and probably even more (factual or fabricated) provided by salivating ultra-left-wing bloggers and other Democrats who would and will do anything they can to nail him.

Many lawyers, lawmakers, their staff, and others will have scoured every document and word of testimony, deliberately looking for anything that could "trip up" Gonzales. And if Gonzales says anything that is contrary to what someone else said or what might be inferred from a document, Gonzales will be presumed to be guilty -- no if's, and's, or but's! The Democrats won't question the other person's memory or version, or admit that Gonzales may honestly recall something different. The Democrats and the liberal media will twist, spin, and word any issues to place Gonzales and what he might say in the worst light they can in their efforts to try and convict him by public opinion.

Gonzales has been involved in thousands and thousands of meetings, conversations, and phone calls. He has seen thousands and thousands of documents. The Democrats will presume that he precisely recalls each and every word of each and every one of those. Anyone who has been in a job even remotely similar to his knows that it is totally impossible to accurately recall every conversation, meeting, or document. They would know that many conversations and meetings likely occurred where Gonzales was present, but where he may not have paid attention to or even heard each and every word. Side conversations occur. He may have been working signing or working on anther document at the same time. He may have been thinking about another action. He may have left the room early or for to discuss another topic. Gonzales will certainly not have read each and every word of each and every paper, document, or even e-mail that may or may not have crossed his desk... But the Democrats will presume he did and that's the story which will be repeated by every liberal news outlet.

Gonzales won't have all of his notes there to check before he answers. He won't have an army of researchers, experts, and lawyers feeding him the answers the same way Democrats will be have handing them the leading questions! I don't recall anything about Gonzales having a perfect photographic memory... even if he did hear each and every word of each and every conversation which Democrats will say he attended. I certainly wouldn't! I don't believe Gonzales will remember each and every word of each and every document or e-mail which Democrats will say he saw, read, and understood. I certainly wouldn't.

Gonzales will likely have a different recollection than others of many conversations he heard, meetings that he attended, and documents he may or may not have read. Each person tends to concentrate on and take from conversations, meetings, and documents the recollection and memories that are important to that individual. Another person could have heard or read the same thing, and very honestly and very truthfully, remember it differently or not at all!

But none of that will matter. Anything that Gonzales may say differently from someone else, or that Democrats can construe and take differently from what another person said, or from what a written documents may contain will be judged a LIE! It won't matter if what he says is honestly and truthfully what he remembers, it will be hailed by the Democrats as a LIE, perjury, and grounds for yet another years-long Inquisition in preparation for a hanging.

Further, with all of their prior preparation for Gonzales' Inquisition, Democrats will quickly seize upon and pursue any path where Gonzales may recall something differently or be unclear or vague in his recollection. In their efforts to skewer and convict Gonzales, Democrats will follow-up with more "related" questions designed to amplify any of those differences -- whether they are relevant or not! The Inquisition will be Gonzales and his personal memory against teams of lawyers, legal experts, and every Democrat working to figure out a way to trip him up.

If the Democrats can force Gonzales to testify under oath, they will be on their way to convicting him of perjury because his memory of events is different from another persons or what Democrats want to construe as the truth. He won't be given the opportunity to go back and think about the questions and try to recall the details. He won't be allowed to go back and review his notes and refresh his memory about something that may or may not have happened months ago.

Gonzales will be yet another Democrat victim, spending hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars to defend himself in the courts. Even if he is found innocent, Democrats will have achieved their goal. There won't be any reimbursement for the time and money he spends to defend himself. There won't be any apology for the character assassination, ruined life, and destroyed career! There won't be any liberal news media coverage to tell the real truth, other than perhaps a footnote on legal announcements page. That will all be lost in history as the Democrats move on to their next victim!

Yet another case where the Democrats methods and means justifies their end!!!

AAR

oh boo-hoo ARR. They will be hostile to him.. Hmm Perhaps if this administration made was more open, less arrogant, and more open to the realization that they could possibly be wrong they wouldn't have backed themselves into such a hostile situation.

Perhaps if Gonzales hadn't lied to them. Gonzales believes the Geneva conventions are outdated and quaint - so he should have no trouble with a little tough questioning in the senate..

If Gonzales had
a) not gone after people for political revenge
b) not lied to everyone about it - as has been proven by his own emails
c) not been incredibly dismissive to the suggestion that they might be wrong

if he truly never did anything wrong, never lied about it, he has nothing to fear. Contrary to your assertions getting an independent council to spend years on your prosecution and convincing a jury of his guilt is not something that can be done on a drop of a hat...

The truth will set you free AAR. Regardless of your windy rant. It sounds like in your mind he has already been removed from office. As well he should because: he either doesn't know what the truth is, has contradicted his own statements, his statements have been contradicted by Sampson (whose own statements are now under question) or lastly, he was so out of touch with what his own staff was doing that he cannot continue to be an effective boss. The Ken Lay excuse won't work here.
However, as I said, the truth doesn't need coersion does it? If he tells the truth then he has nothing to fear, correct?
Unless the AG fears the truth, which I am afraid, he does. Hence the stumbling and fumbling in this matter.
You are like Lew and Keefer. Rabid, knee jerk defense. Facts be damned!

tomjeffairplane,

Saying it ain't so doesn't make it so!

You prove my point exactly!

You, as do your Democrat friends already believe Gonzales is guilty and Democrats will be doing everything they can to convict and destroy him exactly as I said.

Democrats have only one goal... to destroy people. That suits their purpose, cements their followers, and serves as the foundation for their ideas!

kblack77,

For a self-proclaimed college educated person, you sure do have a problem understanding! I think it's that college education that did you in!!!

And, my explanation wasn't for people like you and airplane. It was for other people who might really like to know why a truthful and innocent person would not and should not volunteer to testify under oath during your Democrat Inquisition, Witch Hunt, and Character Assassination!

AAR

AAR:
I have repeatedly stated, I am not a democrat nor am I a cultural stereotype. It is unfortunate that you paint with such a broad brush. Employing your logic, I suppose you would try to use a screwdriver to change a flat tire.
Let me ask you this hypothetical. If (in this case) the AG robbed a bank, or murdered someone and claimed he was innocent, would you defend him?
I am going now. The Sopranos are on.

tomjeffairplane,

If it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, what should I call it?

If the AG is tried and found guilty of robbing a bank, he or she should be jailed accordingly. Of course, the ACLU will be working with some liberal judge to get him or her acquitted or their prison term limited to time served!

When did the AG rob a bank? When was he convicted?

As for using a screwdriver to change a flat tire, that is exactly what I would need to remove the wheel on my wheelbarrow. As for a car, if I lost my lever to pump up the jack, I would certainly try and make do with a large screwdriver in place of the tire iron to pump up the jack. Now, that also supposes it's the type of jack you pump up and down to raise as opposed to one which employs a special tool using a "crank" type motion to raise it!

AAR

Lew,

I love it--you ask for cites of laws broken, and tom Al-jeffie comes up with his b/s opinions. But no cites.

tom Al-jeffie, you and your boyfriend should stop head-butting one another. It's affecting your inabililty to reason. Yes, I said inability, on purpose, you wanker.

we need to ignor the bs from the anti american left who say the are americans but talk like ignorant aliens...

I don't think this investigation needs a criminal offense to be justified. It is simply improper to fire people for political revenge. The Bush administration has clearly tried to purge the government of anyone who has any disagreement with them. Thats not the America I want, and it shouldn't be the one you want? When the republicans loose in 2008 would you like the democrats to do the same?

Very good AAR. Your thinking is creative. Now share how you would remove the lugs nuts using a screwdriver. No cheating!

OK Keefer, I will provide an example of criminality.
According to the AG, David Iglesias was fired for being (in the AGs' own words) "an absentee landlord".
Want to know where he was? As a captain in the Naval reserve he was teaching foreign military leaders the finer points about (get this!) the global war on terror!!
This firing is in clear violation of the USERRA which prohibits job discrimination based upon military service.
Hmmm. How about that?
Can't wait for Tuesday! How about you?

From the Houston Chronicle (originally from the Los Angeles Times):

" ...[following] Watergate, President Carter directed Attorney General Griffin Bell to prepare legislation that would make the attorney general an appointed post for a definite term, subject to removal only for cause. ...to ensure that the Justice Department's authority would never again be abused for political purposes..."

"...Bell refused. [explaining that] ... Any law that restricted the president's power to remove the attorney general -- and, by inference, to fire any U.S. attorney -- would likely be found unconstitutional. The president, Bell reasoned, is held accountable for the actions of the executive branch in its entirety, including the Justice Department; he must be free to establish policy and define priorities, even in the legal arena. 'Because laws are not self-executing, their enforcement obviously cannot be separated from policy considerations,' Bell wrote."

"Bell anchored his reasoning on Supreme Court precedent, especially Chief Justice William Howard Taft's opinion in Myers vs. United States (1926). Congress enacts different types of laws, the chief justice opined. Some laws require close supervision by the president, while others draw upon the expertise found within the specific agencies of government. Much law, however, generally empowers the executive, and when subordinates perform these functions, 'they are exercising not their own but [the president's] discretion,' the court said. 'Each head of a department is and must be the president's alter ego in the matters of that department where the president is required by law to exercise authority.'"

" [while specific prosecutions cannot be obstructed for partisan reasons] ... the court also held that a president can remove any appointee from office for a particular prosecution 'on the ground that the discretion regularly entrusted to that officer by statute has not been on the whole intelligently or wisely exercised.'"

"...[while the Senate can inquire into whether the administration sought to improperly influence a particular case] ... it does mean that the Senate has no legitimate basis to object if it turns out the U.S. attorneys were removed because they failed to bring the cases the president or his attorney general sought to give emphasis..."

"Belatedly, D. Kyle Sampson, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' former chief of staff, made the same point in his Senate testimony last week. The U.S. attorneys who were dismissed had been evaluated not just on their professional skills, Sampson said, but also with respect to their relations with other law enforcement and government leaders and their support for the president's priorities..."

"When Gonzales appears before the Senate Judiciary Committee on April 17, history, precedent and the Constitution will be on his side..."

AAR

kblack77,

RE: "...It is simply improper to fire people for political revenge. ...would you like the democrats to do the same?"

From The Wall Street Journal (OpinionJournal.com) March 14, 2007:

"Congressional Democrats are in full cry ... that the Administration's decision to fire eight U.S. Attorneys originated from--gasp--the White House. Senator Hillary Clinton joined ... blaming President Bush for 'the politicization of our prosecutorial system.' Oh, my."

"...we'd suggest she call herself as the first witness--and bring along Webster Hubbell as her chief counsel."

"As everyone once knew but has tried to forget, Mr. Hubbell was a former partner of Mrs. Clinton at the Rose Law Firm in Little Rock who later went to jail for mail fraud and tax evasion. He was also Bill and Hillary Clinton's choice as Associate Attorney General in the Justice Department when Janet Reno, his nominal superior, simultaneously fired all 93 U.S. Attorneys in March 1993. Ms. Reno--or Mr. Hubbell--gave them 10 days to move out of their offices."

"...President Clinton presented the move as something perfectly ordinary: 'All those people are routinely replaced,' he told reporters, 'and I have not done anything differently.' In fact, the dismissals were unprecedented: Previous Presidents, including Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter, had both retained holdovers from the previous Administration and only replaced them gradually as their tenures expired. This allowed continuity of leadership within the U.S. Attorney offices during the transition."

"Equally extraordinary were the politics at play in the firings. At the time, Jay Stephens, then U.S. Attorney in the District of Columbia, was investigating then Ways and Means Chairman Dan Rostenkowski, and was 'within 30 days' of making a decision on an indictment. Mr. Rostenkowski, who was shepherding the Clinton's economic program through Congress, eventually went to jail on mail fraud charges and was later pardoned by Mr. Clinton."

"Also at the time, allegations concerning some of the Clintons' Whitewater dealings were coming to a head. By dismissing all 93 U.S. Attorneys at once, the Clintons conveniently cleared the decks to appoint 'Friend of Bill' Paula Casey as the U.S. Attorney for Little Rock. Ms. Casey never did bring any big Whitewater indictments, and she rejected information from another FOB, David Hale, on the business practices of the Arkansas elite including Mr. Clinton. When it comes to 'politicizing' Justice, in short, the Bush White House is full of amateurs compared to the Clintons."

AAR

Amazing, Tomjeffairplane, I ask a simple question, that should be relatively easy to answer and all I get is verbiage. Can't you cite any criminal law violated?

Any thoughts on the 35 who left under the Clinton administration, above and beyond the mass firings when he first occupied the White House?

Democrats new game, 'create-a-scandal'

kblack - It is simply improper to fire people for political revenge.

While it may be unethical, political revenge seems to be the order of the day with the Democrat party.

Perhaps you could explain the 'retirements' of the following;

Frederick W. Thieman (W.D.PA) (8/1/97). He had just indicted some bigwig Democrat donors on 7/18/97

Kent B. Alexander (N.D.GA) (8/15/97). He was responsible for prosecuting the Centennial Olympic Bombing case;

John W. Raley, Jr. (E.D.OK) (8/15/97). Raley was a George H.W. Bush appointee who was reappointed by Clinton. He supposedly retired;

Gaynelle Griffin Jones (10/10/97). According to some reports, she may have been subject to an internal DOJ probe regarding her handling of local investigations.

Can't wait for Tuesday! How about you?

Don't really care, tom Al-jeffie. I wasn't a big fan of Al Gonzo when he was appointed. IMHO, this type of thing has been Bush's biggest problem. He's too loyal to his friends.

You, on the other hand, look forward to good people having their reputations ruined for political purposes. I'll bet you were disappointed when they dropped those charges down in Durham. That's the difference in me and you, tom Al-jeffie--I don't let the fact that my party isn't in power affect my happiness. I didn't suffer from CDS when Slick was in office; I sure won't suffer from it if the beyotch in pants wins in '08 either. I'll just sit back and enjoy the bumpy ride. Maybe I'll visit a few lefty blogs and act all pissed like you, just for kicks.

Yes, tom Al-jeffie, I know--you're a registered Republican. And monkeys fly out of my arse, too...

kblack, you are a moron.
These folks were political appointees and serve at the presidents pleasure.

He can fire them for almost any reason or no reason at all and he does not need to explain it to you or me or the congress or his mother.

Seems to me the problem is the Bushies seem to have forgotten that they can tell congress to STFU.

Where did you all go school anyways, Sears?

I agree that under the current law the President can fire any US Attorney he wants, even for political purposes.

Then why did the AG lie and say they were fired for performance related reasons?

Thats what I dont get. If these terminations were on the up and up, then why all the half-truths and constantly shifting reasons for terminations?

once again people seem to miss the point that even if you have not done anything wrong, if you give the 'perception' that you have done wrong, then you are going to have problems.

Anyone that disagree's with that last paragraph, try lying to your wife about something minor and see what happens.
It will take you years to build up trust with her again.

The AG may not have broken any law, but lordy he sure is incompetent. At best he allowed a staffer to give him false information and then didnt fire him. That in of itself is reason for the AG to resign.

Attention all you wingers. If you disagree with these people, you truly are beyond any reason, rational or rehabilitation.
American Freedom Agenda. Click on latest news. (At the bottom.)

Attention all you wingers. If you disagree with these people, you truly are beyond any reason, rational or rehabilitation.

Attention all you moonbats: If any of you agree with tom Al-jeffie, you truly are brain-dead parrot lemmings.

Tom Al-jeffie, what's the rest of your day like, once The View goes off?

www.americanfreedomagenda.org