Is Alberto Gonzales going to be indicted over this?
By John Amato Thursday Sep 25, 2008 7:00pmMurray Waas, has a new piece out in the Atlantic that doesn't look real good for the President Bush or his former Bushie AG---Alberto Gonzalez:
The Justice Department is investigating whether former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales created a set of fictitious notes so that President Bush would have a rationale for reauthorizing his warrantless eavesdropping program, according to sources close to the investigation. <>
In reauthorizing the surveillance program over the objections of his own Justice Department, President Bush later claimed to have relied on notes made by Gonzales about a meeting that had taken place the day before (March 10), in which Gonzales and Vice President Cheney had met with eight congressional leaders—also known as the “Gang of Eight”—who receive briefings about covert intelligence programs. According to Gonzales’s notes, the congressional leaders had said in the meeting that they wanted the surveillance program to continue despite the attorney general’s refusal to certify that it was legal.<>
But four of the congressional leaders present at the meeting say that’s not true; they never encouraged the White House to sidestep the objections of the attorney general and continue the program without his approval...read on
Forgeries for FISA....
Login or Register to post comments.
Pardons R
UsThey.Is Alberto Gonzales going to be indicted over this?
Are you kidding?
Mislead the People, Mislead the Sheeple
-Wackiavelli
.
Nothing like a good War Crimes trial...
.
When pigs fly. The Bushies know they can't let Gonzo get in trouble, he'd rat them all out to save his own sorry hide. And we already know nobody in the House or Senate has the stones to go after the Chimp-in-Chief so this is a waste of time for now.
Yes, we exist in a rule of law. These laws are who we are, why we are and how we are. This should be a priority for the federal law enforcement. Oops, they are the criminals; never mind.
scapegoat?
.
Hummm...
What's the charge again for conspiring to subvert the Consitution...
... TREASON?
.
Is Alberto Gonzales going to be indicted over this?
uh...No.
moot point as gonzo will be pardoned before bush exits.
Don't go holding your breath.
come on, little buddy, you know nobody ever gets punished or reprimanded in this adminstration. that just wouldn't have the smell of mission accomplished.
All these turds just floating around in the bowl stinking the place up.
Will the last Republican who leaves office please hit the FLUSH Valve.
(oh .. forgot, they don't like to be called Republicans now, they like GOP-Party instead, kinda like dirty diapers)
Speaking of Family Values earlier, gotta love those preacher's daughters.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article1736666.ece
LOLz!
The prosecutors will face a heavy burden of proof in establishing that Alberto Gonzales can write.
LOL! You guys are cute. There will be no indictments. This is a relay race, not a wrestling match. Thank you.
it's time to debate!
Come one, come all, to the greatest show on earth.
I'll bet he could write an interesting book.
Pfft! Who cares. Have you seen the NOTE on George Bush's refrigerator?
Things to do JAN 19:
1. Pardon Dick.
2. Pardon Gonzo.
3. Pardon Abramoff and DeLay.
4. Pardon Rummy.
5. Send Turdblossom a set of striped pajamas and a jar of Vasaline for his stay in prison.
6. Short sheet all the beds, and put grape Kool-Aid powder in the shower head.
Casus Belli @ 16:
Actually this is a political blog. Remove your foil. It's safe now.
They found a homeless guy to die for Ken Lay, I'm sure they can find someone for Alberto.
Indicted for what? Unless it's an international (war crimes) indictment, it won't matter. We all know it's gonna rain pardons in January.
Speaking of past crimes I kind hope McLame gets asked about the Keating 5 during the debate tonight. Or maybe Obama could work it in somehow -- something like, "I know my opponent has a lot experience dealing with bank failures having been directly involved with 1980's S&L problems while one of the members of the Keating 5".
He's probably too classy to do something like that but it would be fun to see Johnny-boy's head explode in response or just listen to the stammering while he tries to think up a lie (or a rehashed talking point).
Pericles @ 19:
Ya think? No pardon for him? Why not?
The Congress couldn't catch a cold let alone a Republican who has committed treason
I'm not sure they' have enough time to indict and convict Gonzales in time for a pardon. He may have to allocute and plead guilty to catch the train before it leaves for Crawford.
ontheleftcoast @ 23:
Damn! That reminds me. It's almost SHOWTIME!!!!!
ontheleftcoast @ 23:
Maybe he will do in the debate tonight what he did at the White House yesterday and keep his mouth shut.
Here's how you get an indictment. It's really not very hard. Someone in the legislative branch with some stones (Leahy perhaps, or Feingold) has to send a REGISTERED LETTER to A.G. Mukasey demanding that charges be filed, or at least that a grand jury be convened.
The letter should cite 18 U.S.C. § 241. That statute provides as follows:
It is a felony to conspire to deprive any citizen of their Constitutionally protected rights. The previous Attorneys General are not immune, nor is the current A.G. Mukasey would have to be denser than the material of a neutron star not to recognize the implication. By choosing not to pursue Gonzales in a clear transgression of 18 U.S.C. § 241 he himself would become part of the conspiracy, and subject to prosecution by a future administration. I'm betting he would sacrifice Gonzales to keep his own head off the block.
Be warned however that there are so many people in the current administration and Republican party (and many in the Democratic party as well) flagrantly guilty of this offense that it would clog the courts for decades. You'd have to legalize marijuana or something just to make room on the dockets for them.
11 minutes ago
ANCHORAGE, Alaska - Seven of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's top aides defied subpoenas for their testimony Friday into possible abuse of power by the governor.
Palin's Chief of Staff Mike Nizich and six other aides failed to appear at a legislative hearing into whether Palin abused her power when she fired her public safety commissioner this summer.
Cons are above the law right?
Peter G @ 26:
Ford pardoned Nixon and he had not been charged or indicted. You can give a Presidential pardon to anyone even if that person does not seem to need one.
Word is now that the McCain Campaign is going to say he was too tired from rushing to the aid of the country to have done well in the debate tonight.
xoites defends Constitution @ 31:
But can a president pardon someone BEFORE they have been charged with something?
I hope they wait to fry Gonzo until Jan 21st.
xoites defends Constitution @ 25:
Pretty much agree with you there xoites. Cold feet, yes. Anything beyond that, no. Hell, I realize with Joe LIEberman they don't have a real majority in the Senate. But Pelosi, what is wrong with that woman?! Damn her. They make a lame half hearted attempt at passing a real piece of legislation and the clear minority calls their bluff every time. Two party system my ass, it's a monopoly for the thugs.
Is C-SPAN.org the best place online to watch the debate?
I don't have a TV.
SwingingJohnson @ 33:
Yes, he can.
It would be worded something like this: "I pardon Mr. X for any crimes he may have commited while serving the President of the United States."
Peter G @ 26:
The prez don't have to wait for indictments. He can issue preemptive pardons as Ford did for Nixon.
Chuck @ 35:
Probably. May be some other networks streaming.
L.A. Confidential @ 38:
I'll give it a shot. http://debatehub.c-span.org/
Nobody will be indicted. It's like Leona Helmsley's defense, only replace the object "taxes" with "laws" so we then have: "Only the little people obey laws."
SwingingJohnson @ 33:
GotRights @ 37:
I seem to recall there was no actual legal precedent for that action. Sorry, I was only 12 at the time. But I thought it became moot once they decided what really wanted to do was simply get Tricky Dicky out of office. If they decided to actually try him for a crime the pre-emptive pardon wouldn't have had more legal standing than a Kleenex.
President Ford's Pardon of Richard Nixon
"Now, therefore, I, Gerald R. Ford, President of the United States, pursuant to the pardon power conferred upon me by Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, have granted and by these presents do grant a full, free, and absolute pardon unto Richard Nixon for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from July (January) 20, 1969 through August 9, 1974."
Chuck @ 35:
I'm habing trouble loading the c-span feed; their servers must b e pretty busy. MSNBC.com will netcast it too:
Nice example the Republicans set for Americans.
"Mommy, why isn't that criminal in jail?"
Where's the debate thread!!! C'mon guys! I got my booze...and my anticpation for a McCain loose bladder moment!
ontheleftcoast @ 42:
I was 17 but i never heard that. All i heard was that America needed to forget, that the Republican Party was dead and everything would get better.
LOL!
I agree with those who say to prosecute Alberto Gonzalez after January. That way there cannot be a pardon issued.
Other than that, I'm on pins and needles as I watch this debate. :(
I've been on pins and needles all day. :(
xoites defends Constitution @ 44:
Just because he said it doesn't make it so. That's the fun part of legal decisions. Facts and logic can get tossed out when a judge (in this case it would have to be the Supreme's) decide to make a ruling. And we know the Nine never make controversial or biased decisions (cough, choke, barf). Historically the concept of a pardon was only given after a conviction. Since the act of granting one before the conviction had never happened before there was no legal standing to refer to. My sister is an attorney, they live for this kind of crazy minutia in case law.
GotRights @ 24:
Just to be a brat. That's the kind of guy he is. :)
Naturally, Cheney was smack-dab in the middle of it all. Just like a bad penny, he's always nearby.
These creeps will probably never be indicted, but one can always hope.
A pardon is for a conviction ,text book definition.
Of course the criminal republican think they ,by their divine blessing, can do no wrong.
Challenge this shit, no one is above the law.
Round 1, McCain.
Lock him up and see if he sings.
Lol why would they indict him?
The White House is full of admitted war criminals and traitors right now, and noone other than Kucinich has made any move to hold them accountable.
Why on earth would anyone go after Gonzales? It's not like he would ever see jail time.
This country is run by criminals, and honestly I really don't think any of us should obey any laws until it changes.
I believe it was Mukasey who said "All violations of the law are not crimes".
Whats good for the goose, good for the peasants.
Unlike the stereotype, it's gonna come out in the next months and years that W. was very involved in a number of major illegal and immoral decisions.
Seriously, if we indicted and convicted all of the freakin' criminals who've been in the Cheney/Bush administration, we'd have to open the cells at Attica and let all the other murderers out.
I think we should round 'em up, take 'em to Gitmo, and waterboard 'em for two minutes, every hour on the hour, for the rest of their stinkin' lives.
Is Alberto Gonzales still in the country?
I thought Bush shipped him off to Gitmo?
In Bush world, no republican goes to jail unless we want them to.
Come on, fabricating evidence is not against the law if you are the Attorney General in a Republican administration. It's just a work product that has executive privilege.
Amitola @ 58:
Make that three minutes of waterboarding. The brain doesn't start to die until four minutes.
This demands a Special Prosecutor, to investigate the criminal allegations! NOW
abarts @ 9:
Isn't A Conviction on the charge of Treason committed during a time of war punishable by, dare I say it, death?
wrong link above, here is the correctly referenced comment
Embittered & Anti-Republicrat - Max-Hussein-1 @ 8:
Isn’t A Conviction on the charge of Treason committed during a time of war punishable by, dare I say it, death?
tr @ 10:
Thats exactly why no charges should be brought against anyone in this criminal adminstration at this time. Wait till prez fucksupalot is no longer president; THERE WILL BE NO PRESIDENTIAL PARDONS WHEN HE'S OUT OF OFFICE!! HE CANT PARDON ANYONE BEFORE THEY'RE INDICTED.
Be patient. It will be a whole new ballgame when Obama is president!
Even though John Edwards screwed the pooch, (LITERALLY), I still think he would be a great attorney general.
Login or Register to post comments.