Forums

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Did Alberto Gonzales lie in his confirmation hearings about helping to get then-Gov. Bush out of jury duty? I wouldn't know, but that's the gist of this story in Newsweek by Michael Isikoff. "The judge and other lawyers in the case last week disputed a written account of the matter provided by Gonzales to the Senate Judiciary Committee. 'It's a complete misrepresentation,' said David Wahlberg, lawyer for the dancer, about Gonzales's account."

• While Gonzales's account tracks with the official court transcript, it leaves out a key part of what happened that day, according to Travis County Judge David Crain. In separate interviews, Crain—along with Wahlberg and prosecutor John Lastovica—told NEWSWEEK that, before the case began, Gonzales asked to have an off-the-record conference in the judge's chambers. Gonzales then asked Crain to "consider" striking Bush from the jury, making the novel "conflict of interest" argument that the Texas governor might one day be asked to pardon the defendant (who worked at an Austin nightclub called Sugar's), the judge said. "He [Gonzales] raised the issue," Crain said. Crain said he found Gonzales's argument surprising, since it was "extremely unlikely" that a drunken-driving conviction would ever lead to a pardon petition to Bush. But "out of deference" to the governor, Crain said, the other lawyers went along. Wahlberg said he agreed to make the motion striking Bush because he didn't want the hard-line governor on his jury anyway. But there was little doubt among the participants as to what was going on. "In public, they were making a big show of how he was prepared to serve," said Crain. "In the back room, they were trying to get him off."

By getting excused from jury duty, Bush was able to avoid disclosing his 1976 DUI arrest and conviction.

What a fucked-up world, that this story has a better chance of scuttling Gonzales' nomination than does his support of torture.

I read that and didn't really see the issue vis a vis his testimony.

I'm a dumb transactional guy, but aren't chambers discussions confidential?