DoJ Issues Another Meaningless Smokescreen On Gonzalez Unconstitutional Conduct
Gonzaelz has vioalted the Constution and been complicit with war crimes and grave breaches of Geneva.
DoJ today issues another frivolous attempt to engage in a media relations effort to explain away his Geneva violations. Mark your calendars when you think Gonzalez will be adjudiated for war crimes.
I've read too many lawyers non-denial-denials to smell a rat. Let's consider some of the unreliable words in the above statement which TPM has been nice enough to share.
"clarified his statements" -- Untimely, rejected.
"explained in a recent interview" -- out of court inconsistent statements are fatal to the Attorney General. Other perjury before Senate Judiciary in re FISA violations at odds with DOJ IG findings.
" something that would confirm" -- Vague.
"process was ongoing." -- DoJ doesn't work under "processes" -- they have workflows which are documented.
"the interview" -- No, it is evidence; it was recorded and can be introduced as evidence to impeach Gonzalez as a witness.
"the Attorney General stated" -- meaningless
"was never focused on specific concerns about United States Attorneys as to whether or not they should be asked to resign." -- Not supported by evidence showing Miers asked about a specific name.
"as the Attorney General has already explained," -- not credibly
"his discussions with Mr. Sampson were focused on" -- not credible
"ensuring that appropriate people were aware of and involved in the process." -- Then why did Gonzalez deny his involvement if this was "appropriate"? NO answer.
"the Attorney General explained"
"consistent with Mr. Sampson’s testimony" -- not consistent with other testimony, we reject AG Gonzalez assertions.
"he directed Mr. Sampson to lead the evaluation process" -- no evidence has been given to assert that this was correctly described. Burden on DOJ.
"kept aware of some conversations during the process" -- Should’ve known all of them, or kept rack of all of them. Failed in fiduciary duty in oversight role of an attorney-subordinate Attorney Standard of Conduct issue.
"he approved the recommendations" -- he had the ability to ensure the Constitutionally required appointment process was followed, but ignored them illegally. Gonzalez made a decision to support an unconstitutional agenda, and has violated his oath of office to defend the Constitution. This is illegal activity.
"to seek the resignations of select U.S. Attorneys." -- The record does not support that the US Attorneys were asked to resign; but they were fired using threats, intimidation, and a plan that is not consistently explained.
Original snip from TPM:
The Attorney General recently clarified his statements from a March 13 press conference, as Mr. Sampson stated during the testimony. The Attorney General explained in a recent interview on March 26, 2007, "[f]rom time to time, Mr. Sampson would tell [him] something that would confirm in [his] mind that that process was ongoing." During the interview, the Attorney General stated he "was never focused on specific concerns about United States Attorneys as to whether or not they should be asked to resign." Rather, as the Attorney General has already explained, his discussions with Mr. Sampson were focused on ensuring that appropriate people were aware of and involved in the process. Furthermore, the Attorney General explained -- consistent with Mr. Sampson’s testimony today -- in an interview on March 14 that he directed Mr. Sampson to lead the evaluation process, was kept aware of some conversations during the process, and that he approved the recommendations to seek the resignations of select U.S. Attorneys.