ALBERTO GONZALES -- Still In Denial, Still Lauding Bush, Still Covering His Ass, Still Not In Jail!
Kyle Schwitters
dumber than Bush!
Now he's "teaching" dumb Texas Tech students -- what else -- political
science!
------------------------------
"Alberto Gonzales, Esq., on cool times and Abu Ghraib"
By Al Kamen
The Washington Post
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Keeping up with a perennial Loop Favorite . . . Alberto "Fredo"
Gonzales, the former attorney general, is now contentedly ensconced in
his poli-sci teaching gig at Texas Tech in Lubbock. Gonzales is one of
about 20 people -- including former U.N. nuke inspector in chief
Mohamed ElBaradei, Yao Ming, Robert Caro and Jerry Lee Lewis -- who
help us reflect on weighty matters in Esquire's ninth annual Meaning
of Life issue, the January edition, out next week.
"I guess I would use my son's word: cool. It was cool to work in the
White House," he says, noting: "I really enjoyed my time in state
government. . . . I had a different experience in Washington." Much of
that experience involved investigations into torture of terrorists and
the firing of several U.S. attorneys.
"The notion that what happened at Abu Ghraib was a result of the
policies of the Bush administration I just think is totally
ridiculous," Gonzales says. "You do the best you can, looking at
precedent, in trying to anticipate where the Supreme Court is going to
draw the balance between the protection of civil liberties and
protecting the national security, and in some cases we guessed wrong."
Has he heard from former President George W. Bush? "He called me my
first day of class here. First thing he said: 'Hello, Professor.' "
On life: "This may sound egotistical, but to me it is important that
when I leave this earth, I would have made a difference -- that people
would know Al Gonzales lived, he touched lives, he made a difference,
he left a mark."
On the fired prosecutors: "Of course the White House was consulted
about these decisions [on the firings], because these were
presidential appointees, and of course Karl [Rove] would have some
kind of role in that. But the decision was made on what I believed to
be the consensus recommendation of the department leadership."
"The media will say" that in his sworn Hill testimony, " 'Al Gonzales
said he didn't know 12o times,' " Gonzales told Esquire. That was
because he often got "asked the same question and the reason you get
asked the question is because these senators are so busy -- I guess
they're busy -- and they leave the hearing room, so they don't know
the question has been asked." (And we're not going to speculate about
what's apparently been keeping some of them so busy.)
"We should have," Gonzales says in hindsight, "abandoned the idea of
removing the U. S. attorneys once the Democrats took the Senate.
Because at that point we could really not count on Republicans to cut
off investigations or help us at all with investigations. We didn't
see that at the Department of Justice. Nor did the White House see
that. Karl didn't see it. If we could do something over again, that
would be it."
So remember that lesson learned: Before you do something really cool,
make sure no one can investigate you. Especially useful advice in this
town.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/08/AR2009120804122.html
John Fahrtlington Poopnagle
CORPORATE CROOKS! "
Scurrilous Bush justices make it seem like your White House War
Criminal never left office!
-------------------------------
"Court weighs limiting 'honest services' law or labeling it vague"
"Arguments come as justices issue first opinions of term"
By Robert Barnes
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
A federal law that makes it a crime to deprive the public or one's
employer of "honest services" is a favorite of prosecutors on the hunt
for corrupt politicians and self-dealing corporate honchos.
But it found few admirers Tuesday at the Supreme Court.
From one end of the mahogany bench to the other, and across the
court's notable ideological divide, justices took turns criticizing
the 1988 law that makes it a crime to "deprive another of the
intangible right of honest services." The most frequent complaint was
that it is so vague that it is impossible for the average person to
know what is being made illegal.
"Perhaps there are 150 million workers in the United States," Justice
Stephen G. Breyer told the government lawyer defending the statute. "I
think possibly 140 [million] of them would flunk your test."
By the end of two hours of oral arguments, the decision seemed to be
whether to attempt to limit the reach of the law or to simply declare
it unconstitutionally vague.
Justice Antonin Scalia, the law's chief critic, said he did not "have
the heart" to try to find a way to save it. "Why should I turn
somersaults," he asked, to help render constitutional a law he
considers "inherently vague."
The arguments came as the court issued its first opinions of the term,
including the inaugural decision written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor.
It was a low-key and noncontroversial decision that upheld a lower-
court ruling about when an order implicating attorney-client privilege
can be appealed.
All the justices agreed with the outcome, although Justice Clarence
Thomas disagreed with part of the reasoning.
To decide the honest-services law, the court has taken three cases,
including one from convicted newspaper tycoon Conrad M. Black. He
argues that he should not have been convicted without the government
proving that his unusual pay arrangement cheated the company he once
headed.
Black's case was heard Tuesday, along with that of former Alaska state
representative Bruce Weyhrauch. The ex-lawmaker says he should not be
the subject of federal prosecution because no state law required him
to disclose that he was looking for legal work with an oil services
firm at the same time the company was lobbying him on a tax bill.
In the spring, the court will hear an appeal from former Enron chief
executive Jeffrey K. Skilling, who contends that the government needed
to prove he was trying to line his own pockets with the fraudulent
accounting scheme that brought down the giant company. Skilling says
his actions were to save the company.
The cases raise distinct issues with which the court could limit the
law. But Miguel Estrada, Black's attorney, told the justices that
there is no "elegant out to the morass that the lower courts have been
confronting" and that as "an essential matter, this statute cannot be
saved."
The justices offered fanciful thoughts on what kind of behavior --
playing hooky from work to attend a ballgame, for instance -- might be
swept up under the law. Breyer offered a somewhat dated-sounding
scenario of a deadbeat employee complimenting his boss's hat to get
rid of him, and then turning his attention to the Racing Form.
But Deputy Solicitor General Michael R. Dreeben said history shows
that prosecutors have not abused the malleable language in the law.
"The statute covers bribes, kickbacks and undisclosed conflicts of
interest by an agent or fiduciary who takes action to further that
interest," he said.
Congress enacted the honest-services language in 1988, after the
Supreme Court limited the mail fraud statute, saying it "does not
refer to the intangible right of the citizenry to good government."
The ruling said that if Congress intended otherwise, "it must speak
more clearly than it has."
After withering criticism from Scalia that it had not, Dreeben said,
"I think we would all agree, Justice Scalia, that had Congress taken
your counsel, I would not be here today defending what the Congress
attempted to do."
To which Breyer said, "I thought there was a principle, that a citizen
is supposed to be able to understand the criminal law, that was around
even before Justice Scalia."
To which Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. upped the ante, saying such
an unclear law "is invalid."
Declaring the statute unconstitutional would raise "a very good
question" about what should happen to those who were convicted under
its provisions, said Andrew Wise, a Washington lawyer who specializes
in white-collar crime.
Those with active appeals of their convictions could use the decision
to their advantage, he said. But even those with final judgments
"could have pretty good grounds to go back to the trial court and say,
'My conviction has to be overturned because what I was convicted of
was not a crime,' " Wise said.
The cases argued Tuesday are Black, et al v. United States and
Weyhrauch v. United States.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/08/AR2009120804410.html