It's been a long year, and right now, near midnight I don't recall why this guy is the Newsmaker of the year.

Alberto Gonzales - the 80th Attorney General of the USA. Jon Stewart Gonzales testimony

Add to My Profile | More Videos

The New York Times has found previously unrevealed torture memos written in the second term of George W. Bush. The men responsible are Dick Cheney and his new chief of staff, David Addington (after the last one, Scooter Libby, was arrested). The man who slavishly put into effect these atrocities was Alberto Gonzales. This pathetic man didn't even question his overlords as they got him to agree to one heinous act upon another.

Despite warnings that these interrogation tactics would result in our troops being tortured if they were ever caught, the White House pressed on. They absolutely insisted that the Justice Department write memos that said that obvious violations of the War Crimes Act be considered legal now. And they had their perfect yes-man in Gonzales who never objected and did what he was told.

Since I predicted exactly when, how and why Gonzales would resign two weeks ago (as you can see in the video below), I'd have to vote for Wilson's alleged suicide attempt. That one I didn't see coming at all.

I often times think I am too much of an ass for bragging about my correct predictions. But I have been too right for too long to be able to resist (see, I know I'm being an ass by saying that even if I am 3/4 tongue in cheek about it).

Anyway, here's our celebration of Gonzales's departure on Monday's show -- and the August 13the clip where I told you this was coming and why:



Now, on to Owen Wilson. Some You Tubers have accused us of treating this story too lightly. But I stand by our "analysis." Don't commit suicide when you're on top of the world. It doesn't take a rocket scientist or a legendary prognosticator like myself to figure that out. I honestly don't understand what people are getting all riled up about. And as I say in the video below, my heart goes out to him. We hope he gets better. We're just saying don't do it, because even considering suicide is nuts in a situation like his (let alone most situations).



Watch More Outrageous Young Turks Videos Here

Hot off the presses, from the New York Times:

WACO, Tex., Aug. 27 - ­ Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, whose tenure has been marred by controversy and accusations of perjury before Congress, has resigned. A senior administration official said he would announce the decision later this morning in Washington.

No video yet, but here is a related Alberto Gonzales video.
*Edit, Okay, I first posted the the James Comey testimony from from May 2007, but it's early Monday and you deserve a laugh, so here is some TDS Gonzales coverage.

Bush - August 9th 2007: "We Don't Torture"

Back in 2006 a report was filed by Canadian Justice O'Connor about the tortured Canadian Maher Arar, there was much speculation about what the government was hiding. Turns out that Canada was trying to protect America. The documents (.pdf) have been released and what the they showed was that CSIS knew that Maher Arar was being sent to be tortured, courtesy of the CIA.

Arar documents confirm role of CIA, FBI - Canada.com

OTTAWA -- A secret portion of the Maher Arar report that was finally uncensored Thursday morning confirmed that the CIA and the FBI were the American law enforcement agencies that handled his deportation to Syria and that they likely sent him there so that he could be questioned in a "firm manner."

Here is a video of Patrick Leahy snapping on Alberto Gonazales in regards to the Maher Arar case. Like most sane citizens he is appalled that a great nation like America has turned into a humanrRights violator. This case is a black eye on both Canada and America, for a more in depth discussion on this case I recommend listening to this discussion between Avi Lewis and Amy Goodman.

Here is a Mashup created by Talkingpointsmemo.com titled "Lying Liar Edition" featuring Alberto Gonzalez and his recent testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales was back in a familiar place Tuesday, on Capitol Hill testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee about the US Attorney firings. Past Gonzales hearings have been ugly, but none have compared with the ugliness of the latest round

There is a difference between how the right-wing views the press and the rest of us view the press. The radical right-wing is so divorced from reality, they think the facts that the press bring readers is made up. They claim that they do not believe the mainstream press at all, except for all the times they quote them of course.

When the New York Times quotes the US commanders on the ground in Iraq or the insurgents, they are not making it up. Those American generals and those Iraqi fighters actually said those quotes. You might not like some of the results of that reporting, but it is essentially true.

The problem that we have with the press (when I say "we," I mean people who are centrists but are now called liberals because they believe in science and the US constitution) is that they needlessly buy into Republican talking points that subtly but importantly shade the truth.

This incredible post by Andrew Sullivan (conservative blogger who no longer supports the Bush administration) explains how the Germans used what they called "enhanced interrogation" in 1937. He explains how it took on a life of its own and turned into the nightmare that became Nazi Germany.

As he carefully explains in his post, this is not to say that present day America is the same as what Nazi Germany became. That would be a ridiculous statement. It is to say that we should be careful in heading down certain paths because they lead to terrible and ugly places -- and gain momentum as time goes on.

When I see people defending torture in this country under the guise of getting tough with "terrorists" ( the Germans also used the word "terrorists" to describe some of their enemies) and when I see the audience cheering in the Republican primary debates when the candidates talk about "enhanced interrogation," I get a chill down my spine (to be fair John McCain came out strongly against torture in that debate, it was Giuliani and Romney who seemed so eager to cozy up to "enhanced interrogation techniques").

Jeff Hoard has warned that "nobody should be taking anything I say too seriously," and his post about Monica Goodling's testimony before the House Judiciary Committee lives us to that billing. As Byron York of National Review explains, Goodling's testimony was a huge let down for those who have tried to leverage the firing of eight or nine U.S. attorneys into a scandal that will bring down Alberto Gonzales and Karl Rove. When Goodling, a Justice Department aide and liaison to the White House, pleaded the Fifth Amendment rather than testify, the Dems thought they had finally found their magic bullet. They thus granted Goodling immunity and waited breathlessly for fireworks.

At most, they got a few sparklers. To be sure, there is now a conflict between the testimony of Goodling and Paul McNulty, the Deputy Attorney General. But Goodling has left the Department and McNulty is leaving, so the Dems will be unable to claim any new scalps. There was testimony about a meeting in March where Gonzales stated his general recollection about the process that led to the discharge of the U.S. attorneys. This made a Goodling "a little uncomfortable," but she was clear that Gonzales was not trying to influence her testimony. And Goodling admitted to "crossing the line" herself in processing some applications for career jobs at DOJ based on political considerations. However, there was nothing in her testimony to suggest that improper motives entered into the decisions to dismiss the U.S. attorneys and nothing new about White House involvement.

Goes well with this Young Turk Post

In her testimony today before The House Judiciary Committee, Monica Goodling admitted she "crossed the line" of the law. That was just one of the interesting highlights I found, here are a couple quick snips below for your viewing pleasure.

For those hardcore CSPAN fans out there here is a collection of clips from the testimony available on youtube.

Cenk Uygur claims that "Bush goons stalk[ed] Ashcroft in the hospital to authorize an illegal program." The "goons" turn out to be Alberto Gonzales, then the White House counsel, and Andrew Card, then the president's chief of staff. The "illegal program" was a version of NSA's system for listening to calls from terrorists outside the country to individuals inside the country -- a version that ultimately was rejected by President Bush. Gonzales and Card apparently hoped to persuade Ashcroft that he should approve this version of the surveillance program, even though his top aides had said it went too far. The account Uygur relies upon is from Ashcroft's top aide, James Comey. Here is the transcript of that account.

Unfortunately, Uygur eschews any analysis of the underlying legal issues and resorts to name calling and mere assertions that policies he disagrees with are illegal. Let's take a closer, calmer look.

The presumption, one would hope, is that top-level White House officials have the right to try persuade the Attorney General to reverse his subordinates on key issues. Here, however, the story is more complicated because the Attorney General had been hospitalized and had turned over his responsibilities to Comey. In Comey's view, given Ashcroft's condition he shouldn't have been subjected to a visit to discuss policy. But even in Comey's account, Ashcroft was able to engage the subject -- he disagreed strongly with Gonzales and Card and defended his view impressively. Ashcroft also pointedly reminded Gonzales and Card that Comey was the acting AG. However, if Ashcroft had agreed with their analysis and disagreed with Comey's, it's certainly possible that, at a minimum, he would have encouraged Comey to take another look at the matter.

The key question here is whether Gonzales and Card would have allowed Ashcroft to sign a document approving what they wanted if they had seen that he was not in condition to make a reasoned judgment. Comey says he feared they would, but nothing in his account shows that this fear was justified. (I assume that Ashcroft's signature would have been ineffective, since he had turned his duties over to Comey). It's possible that Gonzales and Card were trying to take advantage of a sick man, but it's also possible that they were trying to reason with someone they thought (apparently correctly) was capable of engaging the matter.

What about the legality of what Gonzales and Care were advocating? The only evidence Uygur cites to support his claim that Gonzales and Card were championing illegal conduct is the fact that Comey and other DOJ lawyers thought the surveillance program under consideration went too far. But these same lawyers thought that the program ultimately adopted was lawful, a view that Uygur rejects. Clearly, the view of Comey and his staff is just one point of view (albeit that of some very fine lawyers) and selective reliance on their legal opinions is no substitute for analysis.

The reality is that the NSA intercept program presented novel and complex legal issues. That's why lawyers within the administration disagreed, and why some critics disagree with both sets of administration lawyers.

The problem with some on the left is that they cannot accept the possibility that reasonable men acting in good faith can reach conclusions with which they disagree. They thus resort to name-calling. If there is thuggishness in the picture, that's where it resides.

Former Deputy Attorney General, James Comey gave some damning testimony in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee today. He explained how the White House sent Alberto Gonzales and Andy Card to the hospital to intimidate John Ashcroft into going along with a program that the Justice Department thought was illegal.

Here's how Comey described the situation in the hospital that night:

"I was very upset. I was angry. I thought I had just witnessed an effort to take advantage of a very sick man, who did not have the powers of the attorney general because they had been transferred to me."

The New York Times has the dramatic details of that night as recounted by Jim Comey. The story is complete with security details being set on alert that they might be confronted by other executive branch officials. This goes to show how little regard the Bush White House had for the law. They were told their warrantless wiretapping program was not legal and they refused to accept that determination to the point of risking an inter-executive branch standoff.

Jim Comey then contemplated whether he should resign if the Bush administration insisted on breaking the law. He told the Senate, "I couldn't stay, if the administration was going to engage in conduct that the Department of Justice had said had no legal basis."