BCT Editorial – 4/27/07

This page was last updated on April 28, 2007.

Amnesia; Editorial; Beaver County Times; April 27, 2007.

This is at least the third editorial on this subject. Two previous editorials were “Missing” and “Wrong turn.”

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“President Bush’s ability to ignore what others see and hear is astonishing.

“When asked about Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’ appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Bush said, ‘The attorney general went up and gave a very candid assessment, and answered every question he could possibly answer - honestly answer - in a way that increased my confidence in his ability to do the job.’

“He also added that ‘as the investigation, the hearings went forward, it was clear that the attorney general broke no law, did no wrongdoing. And some senators didn’t like his explanation, but he answered as honestly as he could.’”

[RWC] The editorial failed to note even Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee concede there’s been no evidence of illegal or unethical behavior in this “affair” despite all the testimony and evidence collected.

“Really?

“In his sworn testimony last week, Gonzales told the committee 71 times he could not recall meetings, memos or other details about the firings.

“That’s not honest testimony, that’s a very convenient case of amnesia.”

[RWC] I admit I didn’t watch Mr. Gonzales’ inquisition or read the transcript, but I suspect the “71 times” comment is a bit misleading even if it turns out to be technically accurate. You see, the editorial wants us to believe Mr. Gonzales answered “I don’t remember” or the equivalent in reference to 71 unique questions, “meetings, memos or other details about the firings.” I’ve seen enough of these hearings to know hostile senators ask the same questions over and over (usually asking the questions in different ways) in an attempt to get different answers to the same question. If a person gives different answers to the same question, it allows his opposition to claim he’s lying. How many of the “I don’t remember” answers were to unique questions or about unique documents, et cetera? I don’t know. All I know is that it’s somewhere between one and 71. It’s also useful to remember these answers occurred over the course of seven hours of testimony.

For context, let’s look at Bill Clinton’s testimony during a deposition in the Paula Jones case. According to the Washington Times, Mr. Clinton said, “I don’t remember” or the equivalent 267 times. “I don’t remember” or its equivalent was also a prominent part of Hillary Clinton’s testimony during the Whitewater investigation. As a reminder, both of these were criminal investigations.

“The American people know the difference.

“It’s too bad their president doesn’t.”

[RWC] It’s so bad for Democrats, committee member Chuck Schumer (D-NY) has stated the presumption of innocence doesn’t apply. Mr. Schumer has repeatedly said, “the burden of proof is on the attorney general” to prove his innocence.

There are two obvious problems with Mr. Gonzales proving his innocence.

First, it’s usually exceedingly difficult to prove you didn’t do something. For example, if I accuse you of calling someone an SOB, can you prove you didn’t? That’s why our system of law assumes innocence until guilt is proven.

Second, Mr. Gonzales hasn’t been charged with any violation. As noted above, even the guys attacking Mr. Gonzales concede they have no evidence of wrongdoing by anyone, including Mr. Gonzales.