United States Constitution
Declaration of Independence
American Spectator
CNS News
Conservative Voice
Defense Dept
Drudge Report
Fam. Security Matters
Fox News
Intelligence Summit
Mich News
National Review
New Media Journal
Patriot Post
Real Clear Politics
Stars & Stripes
Washington Times
World Net Daily
Captain's Quarters
Free Republic
Lit Green Footballs
Michelle Malkin
Power Line


House Judiciary Committee Interrogates Alberto Gonzales
By G. Robert Dieckmann
Editor, GreatAmericanJournal.com
May 12, 2007

Thursday's House Judiciary Committee hearings on the Firing of 8 Federal Prosecutors was a joke. Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales was not just the only witness appearing before the committee, he was the punching bag and target of unsupported allegations, fantasy speculation, and worthless liberal dribble by Democrats on the Committee. They didn't want answers from Gonzales, they wanted only their turn in front of the cameras to spread their idiocy and further smear the Bush Administration and the Justice Department.

The only questions Gonzales was actually allowed to answer were questions asked by Republicans on the Committee. Democrats were too concerned about having their face on camera for their full 5 minutes of allocated time to share the spotlight with Gonzales. This was clear from statements made on many occasions by Democrats when after giving Gonzales 5 seconds to respond, they would interrupt with "I only have limited time" and then go right into another “question”, or should I say allegation.

As usual with Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX), whether it's in a tv debate or on the floor of a House Committee, she never stopped running her mouth until after her time ran out. She never asked a question of Gonzales, just engaged in one continuous 5 minute run-on sentence, and before he could get a word in edgewise, she was back into her rant about "the constitutional rights" of convicted felons in Federal Prison.

What constitutional rights of convicted felons? And what has that got to do with the firing of 8 Federal Prosecutors? I can only guess that the election of this moron to the House represents the intelligence and mentality of her district in Texas.

Then there was Maxine Watters (D-CA) who fired the same wild accusation at Gonzales repeatedly. Each time he denied the allegation she would interrupt his answer and repeat it becoming more and more hostile each time. She wasn’t going to take “no” for an answer.

Committee Chairman, John Conyers (D-MI), never intervened to caution Waters about badgering and disrespecting the witness, not Waters, not any of them. That issue had to be brought up by Republicans on the committee. On a couple of occasions, Conyers did in effect, ask a committee member to shut up long enough to allow Gonzales to answer.

Isn’t the purpose of interviewing a witness to gain information from that witness? Obviously, this was not the intent of Democrats on the committee. They didn’t want to hear it. “The facts don’t matter, it’s the allegation that counts”. That’s the protocol of the left as we see time and time again.

Committee Republicans did not disagree that the fired US attorney’s were good and competent prosecutors, only that they failed to prosecute cases of voter fraud and other crimes that should have been pursued.

One example brought up was the case of Rep. William Jefferson (D-LA), who was caught red handed with $90,000 of bribe money in his freezer. Others involved in the bribe have already been prosecuted and convicted. Republicans wanted to know why Jefferson has still not even been charged.

Through hours upon hours of wild accusations, disrespect, and insane allegations, Gonzales never lost his composure and in fact at times, seemed to be enjoying the utter nonsense being thrown at him by Democrats. His frustration showed only when he was not permitted to answer their questions without being interrupted and cut off.

But then he surely realized, just as any intelligent viewers did, that his answers didn't matter, that wasn't what it was about. What it was really about for each Democrat on the committee, was the same thing the entire hearing was about. Another chance in front of the cameras to dump their wild allegations on the American public and to silence any opposing views such as Gonzales's responses.

Democrats continued going of in all different directions while Republicans, from time to time, would have to bring the hearing back to reality and ask the one question that the hearing was supposed to be all about: "Were there any political considerations from the Justice Department or the White House in the firings of the 8 US Attorney's?" Of course the answer was always the same; "No".

At the end of the day, Democrats had still not presented any evidence to support their partisan, false allegations that the attorney's were fired for political reasons, or that the White House was involved beyond what the Constitution permits.

In his closing statement, Conyers said "we are still not getting the cooperation we need to get to the bottom of this… We, as a committee, have a serious duty to press forward with this investigation", as though there was something still hidden that no one could find. After all, the whole reason for this hearing was to try to find something improper on the part of the White House and Democrats are determined to find it whether it exists or not.

In fact, they were at the bottom of this but refused to admit it. They had been scratching at the bottom since the hearing began with nothing more than speculations by partisan Democrats that there must have been a crime committed by someone. The information and facts brought out by Gonzales and the Republican members showed conclusively that no crime was involved, in spite of Democrats insistence that there must have been one in communication between the White House and the Justice Department.

Or perhaps it’s those “bread crumbs” that Democrats are trying to turn into loaves of bread. “The bread crumbs we referred to earlier seem to be leading to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave”, said Conyers, in his closing statement. That pretty much says it all right there. That is precisely what they were hoping for but failed to produce any evidence of. That is what this whole investigation is about, accusing the President of wrong doing without any supporting evidence - again.

Conyers is letting his imagination run away with him if he thinks anything brought out in this hearing was leading to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. If Conyers wants to continue to pursue this charade, perhaps he should ask Patrick Fitzgerald how best to proceed. Fitzgerald could give Conyers all his pointers on how to create a crime when non exists.