THE PURGE-GATE UPDATE

A lot happened yesterday regarding purge-gate-- the politicization of the Justice Department by Rove and Gonzales. Just as I was about to try to summarize the day's events, MSNBC came out with a report that somehow Gonzales got it all wrong when he said he was hands off and knew nothing about any of this stuff and all the firing was done by the terrible (now-fired) Sampson fellow. A new batch of e-mails proves two things: Gonzales was in on the whole deal from at least November 27 and... that same Gonzales is a lying sack of you-know-what.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales approved plans to fire several U.S. attorneys in a November meeting, according to documents released Friday that contradict earlier claims that he was not closely involved in the dismissals.

The Nov. 27 meeting, in which the attorney general and at least five top Justice Department officials participated, focused on a five-step plan for carrying out the firings of the prosecutors, Justice Department officials said late Friday.

There, Gonzales signed off on the plan, which was crafted by his chief of staff, Kyle Sampson.

And now the story is breaking everywhere. Today's NY Times is carrying basicallythe same story. "The previously undisclosed meeting appeared to contradict Mr. Gonzales’s previous statements about his knowledge of the dismissals. He said at a news conference on March 13 that he had not participated in any discussions about the removals, but knew in general that his aides were working on personnel changes involving United States attorneys." Schumer flipped out when he was told about this stuff. "If the facts bear out that the attorney general knew much more than he admitted, he simply cannot continue as the attorney general." I wonder if he'll claim he was sleeping and missed all the parts about firing the prosecutors. Or, I guess, he could blame Bush.

I guess this all makes Arlen Specter's ludicrous offer-- obviously unacceptable to both sides-- to allow Rove to be questioned publicaly but just by a few senators and without having to take an oath, moot. Rove lies; always. That's all he ever does. The whole idea is to make him testify under oath so he can spend the forseeable future rotting in prison for perjury. James Moore wrote in the L.A. Times today that "if Rove winds up under oath before Congress, members will get a command performance by a man with masterful communications skills. They can expect to hear artful impressions, bits of information and a few stipulated facts. But they should not expect the truth." Rove watchers know  "how skilled he is at dancing around the periphery of issues. Any answers he does deliver can survive a thousand interpretations."

In any case CNN reported on Lou Dobbs show that the Regime "flatly rejected Senator Arlen Specter's compromise for some sort of closed testimony... So the White House position has not changed when it comes to this deal. What has changed, however, is... we saw a tone that was dramatically different than yesterday, toned down, if you  will. And it is really a part of this White House's effort to cajole those members of Congress, A, to accept their deal, and B, to lay off the attorney general, Alberto Gonzales."

The National Journal thinks something good can come out of all this. Really. They think both parties should "pledge that they will never again support a nominee of either party who is as ill-qualified." Maybe they could have mentioned this before so that The Decider would have known that running the Department of Justice "is a big, big job that can be done well only be people with superior abilities and judgement, deep understanding of the law, and proven stature and independence." Of course, maybe it's the American voters who need to know this so that they're a little more careful about who they vote for in the future-- because America, unlike Alberto Gonzales (pictured above courtesy of Jesus' General)-- does have a future.


UPDATE: WINGNUT HEADS ARE EXPLODING

Gonzales is caught red-handed and the right wing apologists for fascism-- or parties to it-- are winging their hands. Here is what some of the most execrable are saying (courtesy of my pal Charles from myleftnutmeg.com):

The pathetic asslicker Jonah Goldberg at National Review thinks it may be better to not refer to Gonzales as a liar but to call him "deeply, deeply, confused, out of touch and unprepared to give a press conference which was supposed to put an end to the 'scandal' and instead poured gasoline on it at a time when his boss, the President of the United States and Commander-in-Chief, had vastly more important things to deal with. 'Maybe, just maybe, a good "CEO" would have asked his staff, 'Hey, before I unequivocally tell the world I was out of the loop, let's double check and make sure I wasn't in the loop. Okay?'"

Some kkklown who calls himself The Captain, asks "...Have we had enough yet? I understand the argument that if we allow the Democrats to bounce Gonzales, they'll just aim for more, but Gonzales made himself the target here with what looks like blatant deception. I don't think we do ourselves any good by defending the serially changing stories coming out of Gonzales' inept administration at Justice. One cannot support an Attorney General who misleads Congress, allows his staffers to mislead Congress, and deceives the American people, regardless of whether an R or a D follows his name or the majority control of Congress."

Far right blog Powerline says "politics aside, Gonzales should not continue to serve if he lacks the president's confidence. I have no idea where Bush is on this, but my confidence in Gonzales, already shaky, would diminish if it turns out that Gonzales misrepresented his involvement in the firings to the press."

Do you feel their pain?


UPDATE: FINALLY PEOPLE ARE TALKING ABOUT IMPEACHING GONZALES INSTEAD OF JUST ASKING HIM TO RESIGN OR ASKING BUSH TO FIRE HIM

Impeachment is what we need-- a good healthy dose of it to shake off the feeling that we are the inevitable victims of Bush's authoritarian little set-up. Gonzales is a good first step. And Bob Kuttner breaks the ice tomorrow at the Boston Globe.

THE HOUSE of Representatives should begin impeachment proceedings against Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.
Gonzales, the nation's highest legal officer, has been point man for serial assaults against the rule of law, most recently in the crude attempt to politicize criminal prosecutions. Obstruction of a prosecution is a felony, even when committed by the attorney general.
The firings of US attorneys had multiple political motives, all contrary to longstanding practice. In some cases, Republican politicians and the White House were angry that prosecutors were not going after Democrats with sufficient zeal. In other cases, they wanted the prosecutors to lighten up on Republicans. In still others, exemplary prosecutors were shoved aside to make room for rising Republican politicians being groomed for higher office.
It's hard to imagine a more direct assault on the impartiality of the law or the professionalism of the criminal justice system. There are several other reasons to remove Gonzales, all involving his cavalier contempt for courts and liberties of citizens, most recently in the FBI's more than 3,000 cases of illegal snooping on Americans.
Why impeachment? In our system of checks and balances, the Senate confirms members of the Cabinet, but impeachment for cause is the only way to remove them. The White House, by refusing to cooperate, has now left Congress no other recourse.