The Contemptuous Alberto Gonzales

Keith Olbermann's report on Gonzales appearance

The previous evening, I constrained myself to sit through the vast majority of CSPAN's rebroadcast of AG Alberto Gonzales' grinning, bleak appearance (I won't call it declaration) before the Senate Judiciary Committee. I let it out - I shouted at the TV set. Once more.

Alberto's inconsiderate presumption, his servile refusal to answer honestly to goodness inquiries and his "I can't review" abstains were sufficiently disappointing, yet his conspicuous lying and masking were executed without even a smidgeon of disgrace. Openly. As though brave the Committee individuals to make a move. He clearly feels ensured by the Bush-Cheney intrigue. For whatever length of time that he keeps on giving them cover, he can break any lead, any law, any convention, for Bush himself has said he won't enable the Justice Department to examine or indict Alberto for anything.

In some other time, the predominant press would be everywhere throughout the account of Alberto's trickery, ineptitude and refusal to answer questions speaking to altogether lawfully protected oversight by the Congress. It would be on TV every minute of every day, similar to the Clinton stories were back in the times of Special Prosecutor Starr. Subjects would be set up to brawl, requesting activity.

In some other period, obviously, the individual filling in as president could never have designated a slug like Gonzales and absolutely would have constrained an acquiescence if the AG carried on like Gonzales. In the Bush time, be that as it may, this is negligible the same old thing - inadequacy, deceptive nature and acting exempt from the laws that apply to everyone else are ordinary, from the most noteworthy echelons of the White House on down. It's the modus operadi of the Bush organization: hostile to just, unlawful and corrupt.

Will the Congress ever achieve its utmost and hold fast against Gonzales and his mischievous accomplices? At any rate, the dialect utilized by Senators yesterday was limit without a doubt. Some Senatorial quotes from the SJC hearing gave by Dana Milbank of the Washington Post:

"The office is useless. . . . Consistently another issue emerges. . . . That is simply annihilating, Mr. Lawyer General. . . . The rundown continues forever. . . . Is your area of expertise working? . . . What believability is left for you? . . . Do you anticipate that we will trust that? . . . Your believability has been ruptured to the point of being significant."

What's more, that was simply from the best Republican on the advisory group, Arlen Specter (Pa.). Democrats needed to scramble to stay aware of the positioning part's hatred.

"I don't believe you," reported Chairman Pat Leahy (D-Vt.), who stopped, while swearing in the observer, to underline "only reality" -- as though addressing a kid.

"You just continually change the story, apparently to fit your needs to squirm out of being gotten," included Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.).

"You, sir, are in certainty the issue," submitted Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.).

What are the Senate's alternatives to get at Gonzales? The decisions are befuddling, most definitely. An extraordinary prosecutor? The Disdain of Congress or prevarication charges? Reprimand of the AG? What's called "characteristic disdain," whereby a trial would be held in the Senate and Gonzales would be seized by the Sergeant-at-Arms if sentenced? Legitimate personalities are no uncertainty working extra time to think of something that can cut the in-your-confront culpability of Bush and friends. We should trust they get some place.

In the event that the points of reference being set by this bundle are permitted to stand unchallenged, what seek would we be able to potentially have the survival of our majority rule government, constitution or common freedoms?

More video:

• Sen. Chuck Schumer vs. Gonzales
• Sen. Arlen Specter vs. Gonzales
• Chair Patrick Leahy's closing statement (and Code Pink chants to resign)
• CSPAN's complete video of the hearing