Defending Gonzalez

Ruth Marcus, driving hard for the wanker of the day prize, decides that though Al Gonzalez "dissembled and misled" and he didn't commit perjury and so rather than "trying to incite criminal a prosecution that won't happen of an attorney general who should have been gone long ago," Democrats "need to concentrate on determining what the administration did -- and under what claimed legal authority -- that produced the hospital room showdown. They need to satisfy themselves that the administration has since been operating within the law; to see what changes might guard against a repetition of the early, apparently unlawful activities; and to determine where the foreign intelligence wiretapping statute might need fixes."

The possibility that if the administration continues to dissemble and mislead congress, and is told in advance that it can get off the hook for doing so, it might be difficult to get to the bottom of this matter doesn't seem to have occurred to her. Oh, well.

Comments

I agree with you most of the time, but c'mon, Matt. Gonzales told the truth. He was surely misleading, but he did not lie, and so he did not commit perjury. How does stating that truth make Ruth Marcus "wanker of the day?"

It seems to me you're using a rather narrow definition of "off the hook." Anything short of a perjury conviction is letting the administration "off the hook"? Nah.

Posted by ErnieP | July 31, 2007 12:14 PM

Dude, if you're going to go around with a Hispanic last yourself name you might as well get Gonzales' right.

Posted by Bill | July 31, 2007 12:20 PM

er, "name yourself"

Posted by Bill | July 31, 2007 12:21 PM

And as a purely legal matter, I think Marcus is probably wrong about perjury. The case looks pretty srong to me.

Posted by Anonymous Liberal | July 31, 2007 12:32 PM

Liberal dems need this one to keep going, because they have gotten nowhere on Iraq.

The problem is that Iraq will be around much longer than gonzales, as the current admin(lame duck admin) is gone in a little under 15 months. Even if the congress sought to take action against gonzales, they are wasting their time-the chance of a special prosecutor being named, an investigation proceeding, witnesses, numerous motions-yadda yadda...

special prosecutors need time, and it is not a current luxury.

there isn't enough time. Congressional dems know this, but they also know that if they don't look like they are doing something to get bush, they won't be able to hide their failure to 'fix' Iraq with their base.

recognizing expediency is a secret of good govt...the tar and feather gonzo brigade fails to understand this. It has provided exceptional cover for both the WH and congress-both sides want the froth, but fear substance.

Posted by paul | July 31, 2007 12:54 PM

Good heavens!!! Gonzalez/gonzales, does this really make a difference? When the Attorney General of the United States waffles on the truth, is contradicted by others in his office or dept., and makes wildly differing statements at different times, Why are we worried about the spelling of his name? When we cannot depend upon the truth of what the highest ranking law enforcement officer in the land,(here some fool will probably comment on the president as chief law enforcement officer), says, we have bigger problems than name spelling. We must focus on the essential instead of bickering about meaningless details. Or is bickering about meaningless details the point?

Posted by herman bringle | July 31, 2007 1:02 PM

"Anything short of a perjury conviction is letting the administration "off the hook"? Nah."

You're right. Anything short of a FISA conviction is letting the administration off the hook.

Posted by Ginger Yellow | July 31, 2007 1:04 PM

Anonymous Liberal is exactly right. The perjury case may not appear strong to non-lawyers because Gonzales refuses to answer the follow-ups. He would never survive a sustained examination by, for example, Sheldon Whitehouse, Ben Cardin or Artur Rhodes, let alone a moderately talented Assistant USA.

Further, the Rivkin Presumption is at work (see today's WSJ.) If David Rivkin is defending you, its because no one else on earth will and your cause is hopeless.

Posted by drip | July 31, 2007 1:12 PM

Okay, some people just aren't spellers. The ability to spell isn't directly associated with intelligence, writing ability, insight, any of that. Matt earned his "big media" slot through the display of all those qualities. And Matt's spelling errors have become part of his online persona, even an endearing part to some.

But I think it's time to draw the line on misspelling people's names, particularly famous (infamous) people, particularly in post titles.

I have had it with seeing Gonzales' name spelled wrong by people who should know better, and at this blog in particular. It's not cute, it's not endearing; it's sloppy and unprofessional. The fact that it goes on and on despite corrections makes it appear that Matt doesn't care how slovenly this makes him appear. Put a sticky on the monitor that says 'GonzaleS', or something -- just get it right for once!

Posted by Nell | July 31, 2007 1:18 PM

The dems couldn't even pull off a 'no confidence' vote on Gonzales, the public could care less.

arguing against gonzo with the backdrop of 'eavesdropping', when 71% of Americans want security cameras in major metro cities suggests how out of touch the whole argument has become.

Maybe 5% of the population could state the accurate reasons for such a 'no-confidence' vote to have occurred, and those 5% would be split between gop and dem operatives and fanatics.

Posted by paul | July 31, 2007 1:20 PM

It would be a mistake to look at this scandal as merely about whose political fortunes it will help or hurt.

What the hearings have already revealed is that we have a politically craven administration that has thoroughly undermined our Department of Justice. It's all of ours. And it's pretty darned clear that it is not functioning in ways that ought to profoundly disturb us.

The reason Democrats have to press on with this, and not make nice as Marcus naively suggests, is because it's a powerful counterlever on the Bush administration's abuses of power. And it's working.

Posted by clb72 | July 31, 2007 1:38 PM

Dissembled and misled but didn't commit perjury. How the fuck does she know? Has she reviewed all the committee documents? This is classic Ruth Marcus. She's Richard Cohen in training - a phony liberal who starts out with a liberal-sounding position but through the use of her level-headed reasonableness recommends doing nothing, or doing something obviously impossible, or doing whatever the conservatives want.

Posted by Bloix | July 31, 2007 1:54 PM

Coming next: pinching buttocks does not constitute sexual harrasment because buttocks are not primary or secondary sexual characteristics.

There exist damn broad statures about hindering investigations by misleading public officials. If perjury has too specific legal definition, use one of those. In any case, misleading Congress seems exactly to be a political offense that can warrant impeachment even if it does not warrant serving time.

Posted by piotr | July 31, 2007 2:22 PM

I feel the need to ask an unanswerable question: has anyone contacted John Ashcroft about what exactly happened that night in the hospital?

Posted by sheila | July 31, 2007 2:25 PM

"It would be a mistake to look at this scandal as merely about whose political fortunes it will help or hurt."

Saw the very same argument made about Clinton's willingness to lie under oath and to the american people...

didn't matter then, doesn't matter now...unless it did matter then.

Posted by indy08 | July 31, 2007 2:41 PM

I thought Ruth (Barcan) Marcus died years ago.

(groans from the audience)

Posted by sherifffruitfly | July 31, 2007 11:06 PM