Congress' Duty of Oversight of the Justice Department: Gonzales Hearing Open Thread

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Media
Posted on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 01:31:43 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

MSNBC anchor Chris Janning just said it is for the President to consider the competency of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, not the Congress. It never astounds just how ignorant television newsreaders are. But we should never let this ignorance go unchallenged. The Democratic guest on MSNBC, Debbie Dingell, did a decent job in her appearance but did not take on Janning's flatly false statement. She should have. She could have quoted Republican Senator Charles Grassley:

Prepared Statement of Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa
Senate Committee on the Judiciary

Oversight of the U.S. Department of Justice

Thursday, January 18, 2007
Chairman Leahy, thank you for holding this Justice Department Oversight hearing today. As the new Congress begins its work, there is lots of talk about renewed interest in Congressional oversight because of the new Majority. But, oversight shouldn’t be a partisan issue. Oversight should be about good government, accountability, and transparency — things both parties ought to agree on. I have been a long-time advocate of more vigorous Congressional oversight of the Executive Branch throughout my time in the Senate, regardless of whether the Administration is Republican or Democrat and regardless of whether the Congress is Republican or Democrat.

Whether Grassley fairly describes his efforts or not, is not the point. The point is it is unquestioned by anyone that Congress has a DUTY to oversee the competency of the Justice Department and the Attorney General. It is inexcusable that Chris Janning does not know this but entirely predictable.

Update [2007-4-19 14:48:44 by Big Tent Democrat]: And Grassley leads off the afternoon questioning of Gonzales. Lt's make this the afternoon Open Thread on the Gonzales Hearings.

Update [2007-4-19 16:4:30 by Big Tent Democrat]: I believe that Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) is putting the final nails in Gonzalez' coffin. She has exposed him as an incompetent and and not faithful to the truth. Devastating. At the end of Feinstein's questioning, Senator Leahy asked him if he wanted to answer Sen. Feinstein's last question. Gonzales said no. In fact, one imagines Gonzo was ready to go home and cry. He must know his career will be over soon. This is now a painful exercise.

Sen. Cardin (D-MD) asks Gonzales how would he know that nothing improper occured? What safeguards? Gonzales basically blathers with no answer.

Simply he had no way of knowing basedon his own testimony. The reality is, imo, he KNEW policial consideration were behind it. But he must pretend now he was Sgt. Schultz, he knows nothing . . .

Senator Coburn (R-OK) basically told Gonzales he should resign. "Mistakes have consequences," he said.

Senator Leahy asks Gonzales if Fitzgerald has Rove e-mails on the Prosecutor Purge, based on press reports? And if he does, will he turn them over? Gonzo says he is ignorant of that. Could be true, he recused himself from the matter.

< McCain Unplugged: Sings "Bomb Iran" | Republicans: Gonzo Going Down In Flames >

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.

Congress' Duty of Oversight of the Justice Department: Gonzales Hearing Open Thread | 16 comments (16 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Some light reading to shed some light (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by walt on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 02:59:24 PM EST

Clause 18:

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Let's see all other powers in any Department (say, the Dept. of Justice?) or Officer (perhaps the Atty General?)----could it be that's what the hearing is about??? Possibly.

Those found-ling fathers sure were thinking about the Democratic Party back then. Trouble makers.

Gonzales' Career (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by Demi Moaned on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 08:28:32 PM EST

In fact, one imagines Gonzo was ready to go home and cry. He must know his career will be over soon.

I daresay he'd like to go to a home far, far away from Washington ASAP. But I don't think he'll be granted any such relief soon. He's the decoy that deflects everyone's attention from the White House.

As for his career, it seems to me that his career is as an obedient tool to powerful and corrupt interests. His loyalty to his superiors has been unflinching and I'm sure he'll have plenty of further opportunities for highly remunerative employment.

Obligingly (none / 0) (#1)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 01:49:53 PM EST

Grassley defends the Congressional oversight process.

Did you hear that? (none / 0) (#2)
by TexDem on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 02:07:58 PM EST

Using Lam's office as a defense of the balance in DOJ.


Missed it (none / 0) (#5)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 02:27:57 PM EST

: During Cardin's Questions (none / 0) (#7)
by TexDem on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 02:32:40 PM EST

Not really (none / 0) (#3)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 02:19:14 PM EST

oversee the competency

Competency, like beauty is often in the eye of beholder.

I see nothing in the Constitution that gives Congress the right to determine competency. They do have the right of impeachment for "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

Being incompetent is not in that list.

Tell that to Grassley (5.00 / 4) (#4)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 02:23:35 PM EST

You might want to look up the Necessary and Proper Clause if you ever deign to actually read the Constitution.

Jim, stick to issues you know something about.

You have been quite foolish all day today.


Nice insult. (1.00 / 1) (#9)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 03:30:22 PM EST

You have been quite foolish all day today.

Opinions are like noses. We all have one. You don't want to know mine of you.

In the one you refer to you ignored my comment on what you had written, instead trying to move it to the Constitution. Prorities isn't in the constitution and you forget for congress to make a law the Pres must sign it or both houses pass it witha 2/3 majority.

So again. Go to that thread and show me where Congress is given the right to set the priorities of the DOJ.

You want to argue that point because it establishes a base for your claim/belief that the President must consult Congress before replacing an AG.

My point here was that Congress doesn't have the right to determine competency, and if I am wrong, I would like to see where congress has removed someone for not being competent.

I would agree that the clause gives Congress the right to oversight, that was never questioned by me, and I agree they have the right to impeach if they think an apointee's conduct has risen to that. But that has nothing to do with what I wrote.

If you give someone the right to judge competency, then you give them right to control i.e. I don't like what you're doing. You must not be competent. You're fired.


Oh stop it (5.00 / 3) (#10)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 03:37:16 PM EST

IF you stopped being foolish, this is the eight or ninth silly comment from you, I would not call you foolish.

Determining competency does not NECESSARILY have to lead to impeachment, it is part of OVERSIGHT.

OVERSIGHT. Have you figured out what OVERSIGHT means yet? And where the Congress gets the power to OVERSEE the EXECUTIVE BRANCH?

Stop being foolish.


: If you believe the (none / 0) (#13)
by Molly Bloom on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 07:21:29 PM EST

the king can do no wrong, there is no need for oversight.

: I'm still here. (none / 0) (#16)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 10:50:31 AM EST

Sorry to be late, but the real world intervened..
Big Tent. I made two comments in disagreement with you.
In neither case did you address my disagreement with you. Instead you assumed, in both cases, that you could just say "Constitution" and scare me into cowering in the corner because you have spoken.
As the late great Col Potter used to say, "Horse hockey."
I repeat my claim that the Constituton does not give Congress the right to set the priorities of the DOJ and by that action the President's control of the DOJ.
Now that is what you wrote. Now, I see your argument that by passing a law the Congress has made it possible for the President to faithfully enforce it, which he is directed to do in the Constitution. And I never disagreed with that.

But priority has an entirely different meaning. It establishes the order of doing things.
In this thread, I again note that my comment was that I did not believe Congress had the right to determine competency, but did have the right to impeach. (Remember the subject was oversight.)
I though anyone would agree that. i.e. Competency, or lack thereof, is not an impeachable offense.
Again your repsonse doesn't address what I said, but goes off on a tangent about something I didn't even say, or disagree with.
I have not said that Congress does not have the right of oversight. I just do not believe that as a result of that oversight that they have the right, acting as a committee, to determine that someone is, or is not, competent and take any action based on that beyond claiming he is, or is not.
They did have the right to rule if the person is competent when they confirmed the person in question. That's a function of "advise and consent."
Left unsaid by me. Individual Senators may make whatever claim they want.
But you ignored what I said and told me to give up, I'm being foolish, etc. (Joined by your faithful companion, edger.) All of this, of course, normally indicates that the party saying it realizes they have lost the argument.
Big Tent, as I said on the other thread, I have enjoyed this site because I learn things. In fact, I have actually moved from being pro death penalty to having serious questions. Plus I enjoy the interplay of comments between the various members, and the occasional display of a quick wit.
But if you are going to win, or even "educate," you are going to have to address the comment. You did a poor job of that. And to my fault, I may leave too many doors open. That won't happen again.
Have a nice day.

I don't believe (none / 0) (#14)
by killer on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 07:38:13 PM EST

that the constitution gives any rights, only enumerates them. If congress can override a veto, they could pass a law specifically limiting the ways in which USAs could be relieved of duty. Given that hurdle of overriding a veto, they could, in fact make USAs come before them before resigning for an "exit interview". Obviously, it would be difficult to force a USA to recind a resignation. It's not a right, it's a duty to pass laws that ensure the continuity of the republic. It's their job. I'm not sure what the vote margin is for impeachment or conviction, but vetos have been overridden before, and will be again.


Kyl filibustering (none / 0) (#6)
by TexDem on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 02:31:58 PM EST

Man, what a tool. That's called a r** a***.

I had to turn off the radio (5.00 / 3) (#11)
by Repack Rider on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 04:44:41 PM EST

when Orrin Hatch started praising Gonzales for his perfect attendance during his two years in the fourth grade.

Will SOMEBODY tell me how this moron got into Harvard, and passed the bar? That bar must be set pretty low.

Maybe he just passed a candy bar. This clown couldn't pass a kidney stone. rimshot

I'll be here all week, and under oath. Don't forget to tip the scales of justice.


: Dude (5.00 / 3) (#12)
by Sailor on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 05:23:24 PM EST

Will SOMEBODY tell me how this moron got into Harvard, and passed the bar? That bar must be set pretty low.
Maybe he just passed a candy bar. This clown couldn't pass a kidney stone. rimshot
I'll be here all week, and under oath. Don't forget to tip the scales of justice.
Apparently the Daily Show missed a writer;-) Good stuff!