Cheney's views apparently conflict with Bush's here as Cheney disagrees with the Libby verdict entirely and Bush merely commuted the sentence. Either way, they are both completely supportive of Libby and Gonzales.
Cheney says that Gonzales has testified 'truthfully' before congress proving once again that Cheney is still covering his own ass as well as those of his friends. "I think the key is whether or not he has the confidence of the president, and he clearly does," Cheney said.
Read: Cheney Disputes Libby Verdict, Voices Support for Gonzales
Showing posts with label Alberto Gonzales. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Alberto Gonzales. Show all posts
Jul 31, 2007
Just Good ol' boys
Apr 23, 2007
What's Really Going on Here?
What's this guy got on Bush? Why does Bush insist on making an ass of himself for him?
"This is an honest, honorable man, in whom I have confidence," Bush said.
The president said that Gonzales' testimony before skeptical Judiciary Committee senators last week "increased my confidence" in his ability to lead the Justice Department. Separately, a White House spokeswoman said, "He's staying."Full Story"
Bush says that gonzales has the ability to "lead the Justice Department," yet it seems the guy has no memory, short or long term: Struggling to save his credibility and perhaps his job, Gonzales testified at least 45 times that he could not recall events he was asked about.
At least Goodling had the common sense to resign: Goodling is at the center of the controversy because, as the bridge between the Justice Department and the White House, she may be best suited to explain how deeply Karl Rove and other members of President Bush’s political team might have been involved in the firings. Congress also wants her to testify on Gonzales’ role in light of his shifting explanations.
Apr 19, 2007
Keeps Getting Worse
Executive Privilege
The privilege that allows the president and other high officials of the executive branch to keep certain communications private if disclosing those communications would disrupt the functions or decision making processes of the executive branch. As demonstrated by the Watergate hearings, this privilege does not extend to information germane to a criminal investigation.
In advance of today’s hearings with Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) warned the White House that it cannot avoid congressional oversight by using executive privilege to run out the clock.“When privilege has been claimed in these kinds of cases, it has taken months not years” to resolve, Schumer said at a press conference. “So those in the White House who think that they can somehow sort of outlast this, as the courts debate privilege, I think are mistaken. We will get to the bottom of this while President Bush is still president.”
A White House official today again raised the possibility of an executive-privilege claim on e-mails and other documents from private e-mail accounts used by senior White House officials but controlled by the Republican National Committee.
More....
Mar 25, 2007
Domestic Spying Revelations Make Impeachment Now Imperative
Paul Craig Roberts
We are faced with the almost certain fact that the two highest law enforcement officials of the United States are criminals.
While serving as President Bush’s White House lawyer, Alberto Gonzales advised Bush that the president’s war time powers permitted Bush to ignore the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and to use the National Security Agency (NSA) to spy on US citizens without obtaining warrants from the FISA court as required by law. Under an order signed by Bush in 2002, NSA illegally spied on Americans without warrants.
By spying on Americans without obtaining warrants, Bush committed felonies under FISA. Moreover, there is strong, indeed overwhelming, evidence that justice was obstructed when Bush and Gonzales blocked a 2006 Justice Department investigation into whether Gonzales acted properly as Attorney General in approving and overseeing the Bush administration’s program of spying on US citizens.
Also at issue is whether Gonzales acted properly in advising Bush to kill an investigation of Gonzales’ professional actions with regard to the NSA spy program.
We are faced with the almost certain fact that the two highest law enforcement officials of the United States are criminals.
The evidence that Bush and Gonzales have obstructed justice comes from internal Justice Department memos and exchanges of letters between the Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), an investigative office, and members of Congress. The documents were leaked to the National Journal, and the story was reported in the March 15, 2007, issue by Murray Waas, who also relied on interviews with both current and former high ranking DOJ officials.
Ten months previously on May 25, 2006, Waas broke the story in the National Journal about the derailing of the OPR investigation. [ Internal Affairs Aborted DOJ Probe Probably Would Have Targeted Gonzales By Murray Waas, National Journal March 15, 2007]
A criminal political administration has no choice but to keep everyone on a short leash in order to keep its illegal acts under wraps.
Americans have never experienced an administration so replete with crimes as the Bush Regime.
This criminal regime must now be brought to an end. Impeachments of Bush, Cheney, and Gonzales, followed by felony indictments and trials are imperative if the rule of law in the United States is to be preserved.
Jan 18, 2007
Gonzales Questions Habeas Corpus
In one of the most chilling public statements ever made by a U.S. Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales questioned whether the U.S. Constitution grants habeas corpus rights of a fair trial to every American.
Responding to questions from Sen. Arlen Specter at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Jan. 18, Gonzales argued that the Constitution doesn’t explicitly bestow habeas corpus rights; it merely says when the so-called Great Writ can be suspended.
“There is no expressed grant of habeas in the Constitution; there’s a prohibition against taking it away,” Gonzales said.
Gonzales’s remark left Specter, the committee’s ranking Republican, stammering.
“Wait a minute,” Specter interjected. “The Constitution says you can’t take it away except in case of rebellion or invasion. Doesn’t that mean you have the right of habeas corpus unless there’s a rebellion or invasion?”
Gonzales continued, “The Constitution doesn’t say every individual in the United States or citizen is hereby granted or assured the right of habeas corpus. It doesn’t say that. It simply says the right shall not be suspended” except in cases of rebellion or invasion.“Wait a minute,” Specter interjected. “The Constitution says you can’t take it away except in case of rebellion or invasion. Doesn’t that mean you have the right of habeas corpus unless there’s a rebellion or invasion?”
Man these people just keep talking more and more out of their asses!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
