DCDL

I’m amazed that Matthew Yglesias and Ezra Klein are only now hearing that Bush’s nickname for Gonzales is “Fredo”, but no doubt there are hundreds of things they think are common knowledge that I’ve never heard of. The important question is, of course, what meaning this Godfather reference has.

My theory is that the explanation is simple: there is no Godfather reference. Bush simply thought in the early days of their relationship that the man’s name was Alfredo, not Alberto (and perhaps he still thinks so). Mystery solved!

I’ve been halfway following online the House Judiciary Committee’s questioning of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Here are a few disorganized thoughts:

• Ranking Republican Lamar Smith of Texas (known to us as the guy who tried to sabotage the DC voting rights bill by adding an amendment repealing DC’s gun laws) lobbed a bunch of softballs to Gonzales, but Gonzales couldn’t even manage those very well. For example, when asked whether the White House had pressured him to fire US attorneys to interfere in ongoing investigations, rather than strongly denying the possibility, he said “Not that I recall.” Shouldn’t that be something he’d absolutely recall if it happened, or are corrupt orders from the White House just so common that he can’t keep track of them all?
• Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) said that Gonzales was not under oath. Why on earth are we still having people testify before congressional committees without swearing them in? Shouldn’t that just be a standard part of the process rather than something that needs to be decided anew every time? If it always happens, then no one needs to take offense when they’re asked to swear.
• The Republicans questioning Gonzales, including Howard Coble (R-NC) and Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), are obsessed with intellectual property laws (when they’re not obsessed with illegal immigration). Apparently there are networks of people counterfeiting Gucci bags to fund terrorist attacks, so we need to prevent people from using TiVo and listening to Internet radio, or something.
• Later on, another Republican asked a question very similar to Lamar Smith’s, and again Gonzales gave an answer that wasn’t a simple, flat denial.
• Gonzales refused to answer a lot of questions out of concern for “the integrity of an ongoing investigation”. It’s too bad that similar concerns didn’t prevent him from firing US attorneys when they’re in the middle of ongoing investigations of Republicans.
• A frequent theme from the Republicans was that conducting this hearing kept the attorney general away from his job at the Justice Department, where he has important work to do protecting us from terrorists, illegal aliens, child predators, pornographers, and trademark violators. Apparently oversight is just a waste of time. But Gonzales has already established that he isn’t very involved in the running of the department, so how does his spending the day on Capitol Hill really make any difference?
• I’m surprised that at this stage the Republicans are supporting Gonzales and Bush so wholeheartedly. There’s none of the harsh Republican criticism of Gonzales that I remember from the Senate hearing several weeks ago. They’re raising all sorts of long-debunked bogus defenses, including the ever-popular “Clinton did it too!”