Good Bye Gonzo, You Horrible, Horrible Man.
Spin, spin, vomit.
I feel there needs to be a rebuttal to George.
Al Gonzales is a man of integrity, decency and principal.
Except for lying to Congress, trying to get a barely conscious Attorney General to sign a a Constitution destroying document while in his hospital bed and making the Justice Department a partisan branch of the White House.
Al Gonzales has played a critical role in shaping our policies in the war on terror.
By drawing up briefs that legalize torture and defending the legalization of domestic warrant less wiretapping.
Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act and other important laws bear his imprint.
Yes, Al, thanks for not letting the Constitution get in your way.
Under his leadership the Justice Department has made a priority of protecting children from Internet predators.
By pressuring telecommunications companies to break the law by turning over databases of their customers Internet activities, without warrants.
He made enforcement of civil rights laws a top priority.
By shifting the focus from crimes against minorities to helping religions spread the word of Jesus. He even took on a case to help the oppressed white voters in Mississippi.
He aggressively and publicly pursued public corruption.
By firing 9 US Attorneys who refused to falsely prosecute Democrats before the 2006 elections and also because they were aggressively pursuing prosecutions against corrupt Republicans.
As Attorney General he helped to play an important role in helping to confirm two jurists in Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito.
He helped them evade questions and lie to Congress. Exactly what the Founding Fathers feared.
He went on to become the 100th Texas Secretary of State.
Where he narrowed the possibility for clemency of inmates facing the death penalty and made sure George didnÂ’t have to serve on a jury because he would have had to answer questions about past drug use and his DUI.
He became a close friend.
That is nothing to brag about.
After months of unfair treatment that has created a harmful distraction at the Justice Department.
WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA. Welcome to oversight, you sniffling little bitch.
ItÂ’s sad that we live in a time when a talented and honorable personÂ…is impeded from doing important work.
Like busting state legalized pot stores in California and fighting porn.
Because his good name was dragged through the mud for political reasons.
Yes, this is true. His name was dragged through the mud because he politicized the Justice Department, which cannot function if it only aids one party. The Department is now a shell of its former self, entirely undermined by one man and his partisan actions.
Blah blah blahÂ…until a nominee has been confirmed by the Senate.
OH SWEET JESUS! That is going to be awesome! What asshole will you put forth to be beaten and battered around by an angry Congress?
Feeling lonely yet, George?
This should not be the end for Alberto. He should still be prosecuted for lying to Congress. At the very least he should be disbarred.
Does Even Alberto Gonzales Hate Todd Goliath?
I know, I know, it sounds crazy, and I bet you're thinking Alberto Gonzales probably doesn't even know who Todd Goliath is, much less hate him! But tell me, what other explanation can there be for the Attorney General, along with the rest of our fine Justice Department, suddenly up and vowing to crack down harder than ever on nefarious intellectual property bandits?
The Justice Department is pledging to get even tougher on copyright violators and other intellectual property thieves, saying it has already boosted convictions and lengthened prison sentences.
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said Monday he was sending a bill to Congress--the Intellectual Property Protection Act of 2007--that would toughen penalties for repeat offenders. He also said he would "hit criminals in their wallets" by boosting restitution and ensuring all ill-gotten gains are forfeited, as well as any property used to commit the crimes.
Wow, that's harsh! Even so, I can't think of anyone whose wallet I'd rather hit right now (and by wallet, I mean groin) than Goliath. Dude needs to be smacked upside the head with that Intellectual Property Protection Act but good. I'm not so sure about a prison sentence, though. The proliferation of his "art" is annoying on a Thomas Kincade level, and his level of success is insulting to real struggling talent, but I'm not sure it's really enough to be punishable by a prison stay.
Come to think of it, I'm really actually kind of surprised that, given our current administration's penchant for laissez-faire economics, the attorney general would be so bloodthirsty for Goliath, who basically said, "Screw everyone else, whatever it takes to make me a millionaire." One would think they would, if anything, hold him up as a shining beacon of intrepid entrepreneurship.
But, wait a second. This is about that kind of intellectual property theft, isn't it? This isn't just another way to chip away at the same tired old Viacom hates YouTube problem again, is it? Because if all "tougher on intellectual property thieves" means is "suing people who upload clips of Kids in the Hall and making it so that I can't post the 'Girl Drink Drunk' sketch on an internet message board because it won't be making certain people more money that way," I am going to be very angry indeed.
TV and film piracy has been a big issue in the conversion to digital, with Justice pledging to boost the number of attorneys trained to prosecute intellectual property (IP) crimes and to encourage more international cooperation in investigations.
Universal Chairman Bob Wright has argued that getting a handle on that piracy is not only critical to the digital TV conversion, but the whole U.S. and even global economy.
"These crimes, as we all know, also have a direct impact on our economy, costing victims millions of dollars and, if left unchecked, diminishing entrepreneurship," Gonzales said in announcing the bill.
Oh, god damn it!
StumblinÂ’ BumblinÂ’ RumblinÂ’Â…Gonzo!
Today Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is spending his day in front of the House Judiciary Committee and it is going pretty much as expected. Gonzales appears to be a bumbling fool who was not at all in control of his department. At least, that is the picture he is trying to paint, in a bizarre attempt to make himself look incompetent rather than a criminal. The only upshot seems to be that his appearance was so awful in front of the Senate that he cannot come across looking worse.
It is a spectacularly insulting event to anyone with a brain. When Gonzales was in front of the Senate Committee last month he said “I don’t know” over 70 times. Today he has cleverly replaced, “I don’t know” with, “You would know more about that than I.” Masterful!
The hearing started off with a simple questionÂ…
Please just say something.
He did occasionally give a bit.
Yes, the Attorney General of the United States just said, "I think I may be aware of that." Very impressive.
How about a beat down?
Gonzales summed up how todayÂ’s experience has been for him.
"This process is somewhat liberating."
Uh, okay.
Alberto Gonzales Has Poor Hiring Skills
Alberto Gonzales couldnÂ’t manage his way out of a paper bag. In fact, his administrative abilities are so poor that the entirety of his staff seems to be either on their way out or incompetent or both. Were he the lead key at Jack In The Box, this would be bad. But Big AlÂ’s the Attorney General of the United States and head of the Department of Justice. So it becomes a bit bigger issue.
First Alberto fired eight US Attorneys for political reasons. Then his chief of staff, Kyle Sampson, resigned amidst the furor. Sampson then testified under oath that his boss was lying about the firings. Now comes a double human resources headache for Big Al.
First came the news that four Assistant US Attorneys in Minnesota took a voluntary demotion rather than work with one of his toadies.
ItÂ’s a major shakeup at the offices of new U.S. Attorney Rachel Paulose. Four of her top staff voluntarily demoted themselves Thursday, fed up with Paulose, who, after just months on the job, has earned a reputation for quoting Bible verses and dressing down underlings.
First Assistant U.S. Attorney John Marti is just one of the people dropping themselves in rank to simply a U.S. Attorney position. Also making the move are the heads of PauloseÂ’s criminal and civil divisions, James Lackner and Erica Mozangue, respectively. All three, according to a spokeswoman for Paulose, have "decided to go back to being prosecutors."
Reportedly, the office's top administrator, Tim Anderson, also has given up his management role.
The move is intended to send a message to Washington – that 33-year-old Paulose is in over her head.
Well, we know how good the Bush Administration is at getting messages! IÂ’m sure theyÂ’ll take the hint.
While Paulose has not yet been implicated directly in the firing scandal (yet), sheÂ’s certainly got some strong connections to it.
She was a special assistant to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, worked as a senior counsel for deputy attorney general Paul McNulty and is best buds with Monica Goodling – the assistant U.S. Attorney who recently took the Fifth rather than testify before Congress.
Which brings us to Fun Big Al Managerial Story #2 for the day. The aforementioned Goodling just resigned. Boy, does he know how to pick ‘em!
Goodling was among the senior Justice Department officials who participated in meetings and e-mail exchanges about the planned dismissals. She went on paid leave as the controversy grew.
In a brief letter to Gonzales, Goodling gave no reason for her resignation but said it would be effective Saturday.
"I am hereby submitting my resignation to the Office of the Attorney General, effective April 7, 2007. It has been an honor to have served at the Department of Justice for the past five years," Goodling wrote.
"May God bless you richly as you continue your service to America," she wrote in the letter.
Yes, Alberto. May God bless you richly as you continue your shitty, shitty service to America. Amen.
Justice Department More Likely to Investigate Dems then Repubs
Part of the purpose of the US Department of Justice is to investigate elected officials suspected of participating in illegal actions like election fraud and bribery. As such it is an indispensable component of the federal government, since an impartial and effective Justice Department means that any elected representative considering wrongdoing knows that there is a reasonable chance of being caught and potentially jailed. It keeps politicians honest. Well, provided they're Democrats. Republicans' notorious hatred of government oversight apparently also includes scrutiny of themselves.
A study of reported federal investigations of elected officials and candidates shows that the Bush administration’s Justice Department pursues Democrats far more than Republicans. 79 percent of elected officials and candidates who’ve faced a federal investigation (a total of 379) between 2001 and 2006 were Democrats, the study found – only 18 percent were Republicans. During that period, Democrats made up 50 percent of elected officeholders and office seekers during the time period, and 41 percent were Republicans during that period, according to the study.
"The chance of such a heavy Democratic-Republican imbalance occurring at random is 1 in 10,000," according to the study's authors.
The vast disparity came not from the more high-profile investigations of state-wide or federal officeholders (the disparity there was 55-44 Democratic), but from the far more numerous investigations of local officials. The study found that 85 percent of the 309 local officials and candidates who faced investigation were Democrats.
The study, based on press reports of federal investigations, was conducted by two retired professors, Dr. Donald C. Shields, Professor Emeritus from the Department of Communication, University of Missouri-St. Louis, and Dr. John F. Cragan, Professor Emeritus from the Department of Communication, Illinois State University, who have been collecting the data over the past several years. An earlier version of the study was presented to the National Communication Association in 2005. The latest summary of their data (through the end of 2006) was provided to us by Dr. Shields.
It is telling that the difference is with rank-and-file representatives rather than more high profile targets. Certainly more visible cases of fraud like William Jefferson (D-LA) are likely to garner a disproportionate amount of investigating, regardless of party affiliation simply due to the greater potential for embarrassment by the government. But outside of columns in local papers, these small-time investigations and subsequent convictions are unlikely to garner much press coverage, and it is therefore even more important to keep investigative pressure from the DoJ on lower ranking officials as nonpartisan as possible, so that lower ranking officials don't begin to believe that they are above the law simply because their party is in power. Unless of course, that is true, which is the unfortunate direction at which the study points.
Attorney General Doesn't Believe Habeas Corpus is a Right
During his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Commitee last week, attorney general Alberto Gonzales spoke on a variety of subjects, including the Bush administration's role in wiretap authorization for suspected terrorists and the FISA courts that oversee granting warrants for wiretapping. One choice comment that he made that has thus far been widely overlooked my major media outlets, however, was when he directly asserted that the constitution does not grant the right of habeas corpus to individuals being tried for crimes.
Alberto Gonzales: “There is no expressed grant of habeas in the Constitution; there’s a prohibition against taking it away."
Arlen Specter: “Wait a minute. 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?”
Alberto Gonzales: “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.”
Arlen Specter: “You may be treading on your interdiction of violating common sense."
So, while there is an explicit prohibition against the government violating habeas corpus, that doesn't necessarily imply a similar right to it? Lincoln explicitly suspended habeas corpus several times during the civil war, and while his assassination may have cut short any attempt to impeach him over it its constitutionality remains dubious, and the necessity for authorizing its suspension depends on "rebellion or invasion." The Supreme Court has upheld its status as a fundamental right, citing it as "one of the centerpieces of our liberties." That it would be so casually cast aside by the man who is supposed to be safeguarding constitutional liberties as his primary job is bordering on absurdity.
Hey Justice, Fuck You!
It seems both the Wall Street Journal and the Pentagon know a thing or two about justice, namely who deserves it (America's corporations) and who doesn't (detainees at Guantánamo Bay).
In an opinion piece appearing in Friday's WSJ entitled "The Gitmo High Life" (only available online to paying subscribers) Robert L. Pollock says:
Corporate C.E.O.Â’s seeing this should ask firms to choose between lucrative retainers and representing terrorists.
Pollock is talking about an interview Pentagon official Charles D. Stimson, deputy assistant secretary of defense for detainee affairs, gave to Federal News Radio this week where he shared these words of wisdom:
"As a result of a FOIA request through a major news organization, somebody asked, ‘Who are the lawyers around this country representing detainees down there?’ and you know what, it’s shocking." The F.O.I.A. reference was to a Freedom of Information Act request submitted by Monica Crowley, a conservative syndicated talk show host, asking for the names of all the lawyers and law firms representing Guantánamo detainees in federal court cases.
Mr. Stimson, who is himself a lawyer, then went on to name more than a dozen of the firms listed on the 14-page report provided to Ms. Crowley, describing them as “the major law firms in this country.” He said, “I think, quite honestly, when corporate C.E.O.’s see that those firms are representing the very terrorists who hit their bottom line back in 2001, those C.E.O.’s are going to make those law firms choose between representing terrorists or representing reputable firms, and I think that is going to have major play in the next few weeks. And we want to watch that play out.”
Right. So every detainee is already a "terrorist" and I guess we should all just forget about the rights of the accused and due process and being innocent until proven guilty. There are currently hundreds of detainees being held at Guantánamo Bay, with almost as many lawyers providing defense to them pro bono. Given that every person who stands accused of a crime has the right to a fair trial, I find this more than a little upsetting. I'm no fancy-pants lawyer, but it looks like I'm not alone in my feelings on justice for all.
Karen J. Mathis, a Denver lawyer who is president of the American Bar Association, said: “Lawyers represent people in criminal cases to fulfill a core American value: the treatment of all people equally before the law. To impugn those who are doing this critical work—and doing it on a volunteer basis—is deeply offensive to members of the legal profession, and we hope to all Americans.”
Even Alberto Gonzales, not one of my favorite people, had something to say about the situation:
In an interview on Friday, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales said he had no problem with the current system of representation. “Good lawyers representing the detainees is the best way to ensure that justice is done in these cases,” he said.
Last time I checked America was a democratic nation, yet we are holding other human beings prisoner on an island where the government claims no international or US laws apply, and that's scary--oh wait--didn't we already do this once before? Why have we learned nothing? Collective-amnesia sure is a powerful thing, isn't it?