Alberto Gonzales Makes Hasty Exit From News Conference

By Jeralyn, Section Other Politics
Posted on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 10:07:18 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

When the going gets tough, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales gets going.

A scheduled 15-minute news conference with Atty. Gen. Alberto Gonzales was quickly cut short in Chicago on Tuesday, with Gonzales leaving the room after just three questions about the controversial dismissal of a group of U.S. attorneys.

He answered a few questions about PurgeGate, but when it got to Monica Goodling, the heat must have been too much, and he left.

Gonzales then was asked how that push for cooperation squares with the decision by his senior counselor Monday not to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Monica Goodling invoked her 5th Amendment protection against self-incrimination at the advice of her attorneys.

"I'm not going to comment on the decision by an employee of the department to exercise her constitutional rights," Gonzales said.

How many questions did he answer about the topic before splitting? Three.

< Judge Pulls Out a Handgun in Court | Travel Day, Open Thread >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Alberto Gonzales Makes Hasty Exit From News Conference | 14 comments (14 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

a reason for impeachment (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by chickens on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 11:46:55 PM EST

if pres bush does not fire goodling, he should be impeached.

So, who exactly is cutting and running now? (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by scribe on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 09:25:29 AM EST

Goodling Cartoon (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by Rob Tornoe on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 09:30:40 AM EST

I'm a cartoonist from New Jersey, and here's a toon I came up with about Monica Goodling and her decision to pleade the fifth amendment to protect her from the "legal jeopardy" she faces if she were to give accurate testimony.

To view my cartoon, click here

I know why the caged Gonzo flees (4.00 / 1) (#12)
by scarshapedstar on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 09:54:18 AM EST

He was trying to avoid a colossal whoopsy-daisy like this:

I was not involved in the deliberations over whether or not the US attorneys should resign...
I know why I asked these United States attorneys to leave and it was not for improper reasons...

: Ooh, I almost forgot (4.00 / 1) (#13)
by scarshapedstar on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 09:56:36 AM EST

Bonus points for Bush-grade schizophrenia:

I know why I asked these United States attorneys to leave...
I should hope so. I mean, I know why I do a great many things. You might call it a requirement for rational thought.

Exit, stage left (none / 0) (#1)
by MPhilip on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 10:25:08 PM EST

It is not surprising that he was unable to take questions or stand there for any period of time to defend himself.

There are so many allegations surfacing at such a rapid pace, that staying there would be a bigger mistake than leaving, and we can see the fear is starting to set in deep and to the bone. What were the media questions going to do, break his leg? "The wicked flee when no man pursueth, but the righteous are as bold as a lion."

It must have been so much fun for Gonzales to come all this way as the dutiful attorney or supreme court justice doing the then Governor of Texas', and now President's bidding.

He always felt protected by the most powerful guy around, and he was eager to please, while dreaming of becoming a United States Supreme Court Justice.

He has a come a long way on the tail of a man who he thought he could count on, only to be left with this feeling of abandonment of late.

No matter what Bush states, he knows he's got to go. It is just a matter of time when he can psychologically give up despite the protestations of his tailor-in-chief.

He is way over his head and has been so, since the day of his appointment. At every hearing he has testfied at, one could see this tiny smirk on his face, which I read to mean: "what in the world am I doing here?" or "I have no clue what the law is, or why we adopted such a policy, I was just following orders;" or, "I'll get back to them, when someone tells me to from the White House."

He is a super lightweight holding power for others. He knows it, we know it, and soon he will be gone.

Sometimes the correct thing happens, even if late in the game.

priceless cable tv quote on this. . . (none / 0) (#2)
by the rainnn on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 10:27:39 PM EST

a poli. sci. professor at chicago's
roosevelt university, whose name
i unfortunately missed, nailed gonzales'
performance on the podium today -- which
was beside fitz, for an extra helpin'
of irony -- with this perfectly-pitched
turn of phrase:

"mr. gonzales is a high fly ball
heading toward waveland avenue. . ."

more here.

Compare and contrast (none / 0) (#3)
by scarshapedstar on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 10:39:54 PM EST

Clinton, faced with unexpected hostile questions: Stands his ground, wins handily.

Gonzales, faced with pretty obvious hostile questions: Cuts and runs, pearls tightly clutched.

Remind me which is the Daddy party and which is the Mommy party. I get confused sometimes.

Heck, sometimes I'm not even sure if the terrorists are scared of a guy who's too chickensh*t to talk. Since, as I seem to recall, he's the I must be missing all the super-hyper-manliness inherent in the National Security Party.

Whoops, there I go again, spouting verbatim propaganda from His Infernal Majesty, MarKOS Moulitsellini...

whoops (none / 0) (#4)
by scarshapedstar on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 10:47:07 PM EST

That's supposed to be "he's the Field Marshal commanding the Home Front in the War on Terror."


Somewhat OT but... (none / 0) (#6)
by LarryE on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 12:33:14 AM EST

...I wish people would stop using variations of the phrase "clutching his pearls."

It's a phrase meant to attack and demean a man by suggesting he's acting weak and/or flighty. "You know, wearing pearls. Like a woman. Get it?"

I think the expression is very sexist and it makes me cringe whenever I read it.


: Who knew?? (1.00 / 1) (#7)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 08:15:05 AM EST

Hmmm
I always thought the expression was referring to other parts of his body...

: Forgive me (none / 0) (#11)
by scarshapedstar on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 09:51:35 AM EST

There's a more specific blogo-definition pioneered by The Poor Man which refers more specifically to feigned outrage over liberal incivility. See also, "bring out the fainting couch". Which might seem rather sexist in its own right, but when you consider that fainting due to wearing a corset was essentially self-induced suffocation, it's a pretty apt description. People do inexcusable things and then get indignant when they're called on it. And then David Broder starts concern-trolling about how if we try to question them about it, we're being just as mean an' bad as the Republicans were to Clinton, even though Broder never once spoke ill of Ken Starr at the time.
It's not so much about femininity as a general pathological ridiculousness.

more gonzo news (none / 0) (#8)
by zaitztheunconvicted on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 09:10:33 AM EST

The news on some conservative Christian websites now is that Gonzo and the DOJ put a stop to a justified indictment of a sexually abusive fellow working for the Texas Youth Commission, who roused groups of the minor inmates in the middle of the night, for various kinds of "sex parties." Apparently the news of the indictment would have come out during the most recent Texas governor's race and that led to quashing the indictment. Moreover, after the feds dropped their intended indictment, they apparently did so in a way that left the local prosecutor little help in pursuing the matter, though I don't know why the local DA would need such help. . .

Allegedly, the reasoning given for not pursuing the indictment was manifold:

the juveniles (who were being held within Texas Youth correctional facilities) who were "sexually assaulted" or "assaulted" did not report physical pain and maybe they were willing or seductive consenters . . .
that the minors who were sexually used did not explicitly stated they resisted . . . although it appears from the factual record done by investigators that they did in fact resist in many instances their sexual use

When I first saw this reported, it was only on one seemingly insignificant montana newspaper blog, and I wondered if it was some crazy thing. Now, it is on worldnetdaily and huffingtonpost links to it. For some reason, no one seems to be asking Gonzo about it, although he is touring the country to tell everybody about the new DOJ initiative to protect "the kids" from the Internet dangers and to crack down on child porn.

Someone want to help me figure this out?

: the worldnetdaily exclusive news (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by zaitztheunconvicted on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 10:09:03 AM EST

Here is the scoop, it seems.
There were several bad actors in the TYC. One bad actor named Ray Brookins with a history of disciplinary and/or psychological problems working as a corrections officer in the Texas Youth Commission. Petty criminal history of Brookins went back 21 years and disciplinary problems included viewing adult nude photos of males and females on work computers during work time.
A Texas Ranger (Ranger's name was Burzynski)report concluded that administrators would rouse boys from their sleep for the purpose of conducting all-night sex parties.
Worldnetdaily says, "Burzynski presented his findings to the attorney general in Texas, to the U.S. Attorney Sutton, and to the Department of Justice civil rights division. From all three, Burzynski received no interest in prosecuting the alleged sexual offenses."
In July of 2005, Burzynski received a letter from assistant US attn Baumann stating reasons for which there would be no prosecution. These reasons included there being no "bodily injury" as required by federal law, and insufficient evidence of the "use of force." The letter states that the incarcerated minors may have been willing participants in the all-night sex parties.
(Note to NAMBLA, consider this attorney for criminal defense.)
The letter of Baumann goes on: "In order for the government to be successful in a criminal prosecution, it would be essential for us to show that the victim was in fact victimized."
(Actually, this sounds like something I might say re the morality of nudes of minors--e.g. Stephen Yurick and many others--and the government, if questioned on the morality of its law, is usually insisting that no harm need have been done and that the production of any such photos per se constitutes abuse by camera.)
Some fellow named Angle claims that the US attn for Texas or that district had in fact prepared indictments, but declined to hand them down on instructions from the Washington DOJ, allegedly because of the negative publicity it would create in the Texas governor's race. . .
So, is worldnetdaily making this stuff up, or, is Gonzo's conduct even worse than we've been thinking?