This would be so wonderful.

October 26, 2007

Alberto Gonzales’ legal troubles may just be beginning. - By Dahlia Lithwick - Slate Magazine

“John McKay, one of the U.S. attorneys allegedly fired for improper political reasons, suggested just this in a speech last week before the Federal Bar Association. McKay claimed that Gonzales may be facing criminal prosecution, and soon. Describing an eight-hour meeting he had last June with investigators from the DoJ’s Office of the Inspector General, which may file its report to Congress before Thanksgiving, McKay predicted that the investigators will recommend criminal prosecution of Gonzales for lying under oath.

The article goes on to mention that this might just be wishful thinking on the part of McKay, who is undoubtedly bitter about his dismissal from the DoJ.

It’s definitely wishful thinking for me. I would love, love, to see Gonzales charged with lying under oath. If the Republicans could get Clinton charged with lying under oath in order to commence with his impeachment, and all he lied about was a sexual assignation in his office, then we should at least hold the frakkin’ Attorney General just as accountable for his actions.

I just can’t believe it took this long for people to start talking about Gonzales being charged with perjury. It was obvious that he committed perjury. His testimony (when he was saying something other than “I don’t know” or “I don’t recall”) constantly contradicted the testimony of other witnesses during the whole US Attorney scandal. He should be charged with perjury if only because he was so grossly stupid enough to think that he was above the law.

And then, of course, there is this idiot. Good ol’ Senator Larry Craig. I don’t begrudge him his chance to fight the Constitutionality of his arrest, but I don’t think he’s doing himself any favors in the court of public opinion by refusing to let the matter just die.

My initial reaction to the Sen. Craig scandal was the same as most intelligent people–the evidence was alarmingly circumstantial and would have been very difficult to prove a case against him in court. My opinion was that he didn’t want to take the matter to trial because all sorts of skeletons come out of the closet during such trials, and I’ll bet he’s got all sorts of skeletons hidden away (some of which have already started to come out).

But he chose to enter the guilty plea. His petition to have it reversed was correctly shot down in Appeals (no way was he under duress, or unable to understand what he was doing when he wrote and submitted that plea). Now he wants to challenge the Constitutionality of his arrest. Which should be interesting, since the AP article discusses the fact that the ACLU has already stated that Craig’s arrest violated his First Amendment rights.

I just don’t understand how two people can be so incredibly stupid. One would assume that the Attorney General would have enough brains to not perjure himself before Congress. One would also assume that a Senator would understand what it means to file a guilty plea rather than going to trial.

I obviously make far too many assumptions regarding the intelligence of our elected, and appointed, officials.

(PS: I have a Bruce concert entry almost ready to post. Along with another entry about how I might have shingles and how much fun it was to tell Devin that I was being tested for herpes. The bizarreness of my life never ceases to amaze me.)

Posted in Dispatch