Gonzales Has Strange Definition of 'Limited Involvement'

Friday, April 20, 2007 at 08:52 AM

Did you catch the odd definition that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales offered up for the concept of "limited involvement" with the firings of U.S. Attorneys in his appearance before the Senate Committee Thursday?

While being pressed by Sen. Arlen Specter on how he could claim his involvement was limited, given the role that the evidence to date shows that Gonzales played, Gonzales offered up this:

Senator, you're talking about a series of events that occurred over possibly 700 days. I probably had thousands of conversations during that time, and so putting it in context, Senator, I would say that my involvement was limited. I think that is an accurate statement. It was limited involvement.

He judges whether his involvement in something is "limited" based on the percentage of time he devoted to it. That's an awfully curious--you might say disingenuous--way of looking at it.

According to this theory, he could have been the one to identify all the U.S. Attorneys to be fired, delegate the job of creating a paper trail to justify the firings, and sign the final orders of termination, yet still claim limited involvement as long as it didn't take him very long to do those things.

This is extremely misleading, of course. The Specter questioning, and all the other contexts in which Gonzales has claimed to have limited involvement, all clearly referred to his involvement in the substance of the process by which U.S. Attorneys were chosen for termination. The best you can say for his temporal spin on the concept is that it is intentionally unresponsive. The worst you could say is a lot worse.

I wonder if he actually thinks he's helping himself by resorting to word games to make it seem that he hadn't lied earlier by claiming limited involvement. It just makes me wonder even more what the hell is actually going on here.

It's beginning to seem that the whole firing episode could be part of a broader administration policy to create the impression that voter fraud is so widespread that we need to pass tons of restrictive voting laws, like the ones that require specific forms of photo ID. But more on that later.

Comments

Once again ... what crime has been done in firing US Attorneys?

NONE! That's right ... no 'cover-up,' no crime but ...

The Democratics just can't manage to quite trying for political genocide of their opponents! They cannot conduct the business of government for ALL THE PEOPLE ... just their gang of attack yellow-dog-democratics.

Meanwhile, true corruption worth BILLIONS of DOLLARS by Feinstein in government contracts WENT TO HER HUSBAND'S COMPANIES!!!

Meanwhile Senator "Freezer" Jefferson is still on video selling his vote for cash, and the graft money hidden in his freezer -- but no investigation, indictment or news is being published to correct such gang member's CRIMES!!!

NO! The Democratics are too busy investigating NO CRIME!

What a bunch of flagrantly delicate hypocrites!

The corruption, oh ye of low gray cell count, was that in many instances, the persons fired were not doing what Herr Bushenwacher wanted, which was to pick on Dems. That's pure politics. It's using a public office for political BS. See: Watergate.

And if you want to sideswipe and play the old Who Is More Corrupt, cool, dude, I see your Feinstein and raise you a Delay, a K Street, one voting scandal, and a lying jackal who drug us into war under phoney pretenses.

Your call?

"The corruption ... that in many instances, the persons fired were not doing what Herr Bushenwacher wanted, which was to pick on Dems. That's pure politics. It's using a public office for political BS. See: Watergate."

There is no crime, period, no "corruption." It is the constitutional right of the President to fire and choose federal attorneys.

The "real crime" is the Democrats who pretend that it is, so they can revile, dehumanize and propagandize to gain political power. For instance, this 'visitor' failed to recognize that Democratics are investigating NO CRIME, while Jackson remains uninvestigated -- Feinsten remains univestigated over BILLIONS IN CRAFT and while your two brain cells are worried about NOTHING!

"And if you want to sideswipe and play the old Who Is More Corrupt, cool, dude, I see your Feinstein and raise you a Delay, a K Street, one voting scandal, and a lying jackal who drug us into war under phoney pretenses.

You actually are a bit dense, aren't you? Delay resigned on being accused. Foley resigned. Ney resigned. How about Democratics accused? Feinstein still in office (Ethics committee for a laugh!) Jefferson hasn't resigned. Reid hasn't resigned.

Two known Democratic pedophiles: Studds and Franks remained in office even though they sodomized underage males, one a House Page!!! They stayed in office and under the protection of the PEDOPHILE PROTECTING DEMOCRATS!!!

Who are the world class hypocrites of politics ... you among them!!!

"Your call?"

No, it is your crime cover-up, lying Democratic call ... have some scum pedophile to protect ... ?

BTW, Mister or Ms Troll? You and your mama's boy boss need to go look up The Hatch Act.

My call. I win.