House Judiciary Committee Interrogates Alberto
By G. Robert
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
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
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.