My Blog

As our AG Alberto ‘Ears’ Gonzales goes before the Senate Judiciary Committee today, let us consider Senator Russ Feingold’s accusation that Gonzales misled the Committee in January 2005. This story comes together without aid from the narrator, so read along with me kids and turn the page ever time you hear a muffled cry of "4th Amendment":

Part 1: Definitions
From the Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Hypothetical
Function: adjective
: being or involving a hypothesis : CONJECTURAL <hypothetical arguments> <a hypothetical situation>

Hypothesis: Etymology: Greek, from hypotithenai to put under, suppose, from hypo- + tithenai to put
1 a : an assumption or concession made for the sake of argument
   b : an interpretation of a practical situation or condition taken as the ground for action
2 : a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences
3 : the antecedent clause of a conditional statement

Part 2: Assumptions

a. "In fact, the president did secretly authorize the National Security Agency to begin warrantless monitoring of calls and e-mails between the United States and other nations soon after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks." Washington Post Article on Jan 31, 2006

b. As White House Counsel at the time of the Sept 11 attacks and Attorney General since Feb 2005, there exists a statistically insignificant probability that Mr. Gonzales did not know about the warrantless wiretap program. In short bitch knew what was up.

Part 3: Conversation

Excerpt from a Jan 6, 2005 transcript of a senate judiciary committee hearing. (all emphasis added by me)

Sen. Feingold: And I also would like you to answer this: does the president, in your opinion, have the authority acting as commander in chief to authorize warrantless searches of Americans’ homes and wiretaps of their conversations in violation of the criminal and foreign intelligence surveillance statutes of this country?

MR. GONZALES: Senator, the August 30th memo has been withdrawn. It has been rejected, including that section regarding the commander in chief authority to ignore the criminal statutes. So it’s been rejected by the executive branch. I categorically reject it. And in addition to that, as I’ve said repeatedly today, this administration does not engage in torture and will not condone torture. And so, what you really are — what we’re really discussing is a hypothetical situation that –

SEN. FEINGOLD: I — Judge Gonzales, let me ask a broader question. I’m asking you whether in general the president has the constitutional authority, does he at least in theory have the authority to authorize violations of the criminal law under duly enacted statutes simply because he’s commander in chief? Does he — does he have that power?

MR. GONZALES: Senator, I — you — in my judgment, you phrase it sort of a hypothetical situation. I would have to know what — what is the — what is the national interest that the president may have to consider. What I’m saying is, it is impossible to me, based upon the question as you’ve presented it to me, to answer that question. I can say, is that there is a presumption of constitutionality with respect to any statute passed by Congress. I will take an oath to defend the statutes. And to the extent that there is a decision made to ignore a statute, I consider that a very significant decision, and one that I would personally be involved with, I commit to you on that, and one we will take with a great deal of care and seriousness.

Part 4: Advise

Poor Judge Gonzales, loyal minion of the Dear Leader, how does he defend his honor against this unpatriotic and treasonous attack from apple pie hating, godless liberals. He could play word games, after all Clinton got away with reclassifying blow job’s as non-sex (and could not seem to comprehend the meaning of ‘is’). Yet I doubt Gonzales could keep afloat the shenanigans of the Teflon coated Slick Willy.

He could pull a Bush and have selective amnesia and complete forget about ‘Weapons of Mass destruction’, but that might be rather difficult at a Senate Committee hearing. Yet there is a way out. Senor Gonzales, may I suggest a technique that has gotten many an immigrant out of a speeding ticket….

The “no habla inglés” defense

This entry was posted on Monday, February 6th, 2006 at 9:18 am and is filed under Current Affairs. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.