No More Secrecy In DC

Avoiding Secret Testimony

The House Judiciary Committee has begun conducting closed-door interviews with some of the key officials involved in the Bush administration’s purge of United States attorneys. The interviews may be harmless as long as they are merely a first step in the investigation. But they must not become a substitute for what this investigation really requires: sworn public testimony under oath by Karl Rove, the presidential adviser; Harriet Miers, the former White House counsel; and everyone else involved.

It seems to me that there are far too many closed-door interviews, testimonies, and revelations occurring in Washington. Bush and company seems to believe in secrecy, shadow government, and not testifying under oath. Now it seems that the congress critters, even under the Dems' leadership, is set on enabling Bush's secrecy, and under-the-radar maneuvering that has become the norm for those politicians set on manipulating us and/or screwing us over. Funny thing is that our forefathers, framers and founders wanted everything except the utmost sensitive concerns of government--genuine national security issues--to be discussed, debated and processed in the open at all times. Even today's Bob Scheiffer interviews had members of congress agreeing to arrange testimony before congress regarding the Gonzalez fiasco without taking an oath or assuring that the testimony can be verified.

John Conyers, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, announced an agreement with the Department of Justice to have at least eight current and former employees sit for transcribed interviews behind closed doors with House and Senate investigators. The first interview, yesterday, was with Michael Elston, the chief of staff to Paul McNulty, deputy attorney general. Mr. Elston made a call to one of the fired prosecutors that might have been intended to threaten him into keeping quiet.

I really appreciate the fact that AG Gonzo Gonzalez has been caught in the same situation that Wild Willie Clinton was caught in, but isn't being taken to task in the same manner as was Clinton. Gonzalez has made public, private and testimonial statements that have been contradicted by some of those that were loyal to him and Bush... but now see things differently:

Gonzales Defends Firing Prosecutors

Let the lies, spin and ducking for cover begin.

US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales defended his role in the firings of federal prosecutors Friday, admitting that there has been some confusion but that his involvement in the matter was limited to signing off on recommendations made by his former chief of staff Kyle Sampson. Gonzales told reporters that his motivations for the decisions "were not based on improper reasons." Sampson, who resigned earlier this month, told the Senate Judiciary Committee Thursday that the prosecutors were fired for political reasons rather than for poor performance as the Justice Department has claimed. Sampson also said Gonzales did more than merely follow his recommendations, and that Gonzales and former White House counsel Harriet Miers [official profile] were deeply involved in the firings.

In Friday's White House press briefing White House spokesperson Dana Perino contradicted earlier speculation, and told reporters that despite any reports to the contrary, the President has "100 percent confidence" in Gonzales.

It would seem that neither Gonzalez nor his boss know the truth when the participate in it. Not only is there evidence offered by Sampson, but there are some reports of a paper trail within the DOJ... and some reports that some of those that will soon be called before congress have copies of the paper work. We will have to wait and see.

Mr. McNulty; Michael Battle, a former senior Justice official who told the prosecutors that they were being fired; and Monica Goodling, Justice’s liaison to the White House, are also among the eight. Ms. Goodling said that before the agreement was announced that she intended to invoke her right against self-incrimination.

While I respect the rights provided by the Fifth Amendment, I do not believe that an official of the US government is covered by these protections for actions and activities taken while holding office. I do not believe it was the intent of our founders and framers to empower government officials to duck and cover under the Constitution. Just like when someone joins the military, certain protections are inherently modified for the good of the nation and for the proper operation of the government. If we can remove certain protections from those that serve our nation via the military, I believe that the same standards and conditions should apply to those serving our nation in elected or appointed positions within the government.

Secret interviews are not a good idea. They do not help the public learn what happened or judge whether there were abuses. They could also become an obstacle to the investigation moving forward. The White House may argue later that Congress got the information it needed, and only wants to conduct show trials, as President Bush put it recently.

But secrecy is the tool of scammers, scum and bums... and it appears that we have a lot of these things occupying our highest political offices and positions. When are we going to act as smart as we are supposed to be?

It is critical that Congress makes clear that these interviews are just the beginning of the inquiry. Justice Department documents and the public testimony of Kyle Sampson, the former chief of staff to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, strongly suggest that Mr. Gonzales and other top officials have made false statements about the purge. They also provide evidence that prosecutors might have been dismissed to interfere with criminal investigations or for partisan political reasons.

Amen!!!

Congress has a duty to get to the bottom of the firings and remove the dark cloud that hangs over the Justice Department. That will happen only with testimony done in public, so the American people can watch and listen.

Congress also has a duty to get to the bottom of many more issues and occurrences under the Bush banner... My call for impeachment stands.