THE ALBERTO GONZALES DEFENSE

Is it unreasonable to say that for the recent 2000 or so years, society has been preoccupied with the perceived immorality of men or women having sex outside of marriage?

Society also frowns, or in fact becomes outraged, when a man is having sex with another man, or a woman is having sex with another woman.

At the same time, we have been accustomed to accepting authorized and sanctioned killing and destruction when and wherever we consider it acceptable to do so for our own reasons.

It seems to be an everyday "ho-hum" event when our soldiers are killed and maimed in Iraq, and that event probably will not be mentioned on the local or network news broadcasts.

When it is reported that a Senator makes a homosexual contact with another man in a restroom, society goes absolutely bonkers.

I expect that it is probably naïve to repeat the mantra of "no one died because Clinton lied" but I will anyway. To me he was a great President, with a series of shortcomings that did not affect his ability to lead. Many of my most respected friends take issue with my saying that. He was/is a great intellect and a natural born leader of men and women.

Had President William Jefferson Clinton been prescient, he could have easily prevented his impeachment trial.

How could he possibly have done that you might ask?

He could have used what will become known as "The Alberto Gonzales Defense." When asked by the Grand Jury about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky or Paula Jones, he could have said: "I do not remember if I had sex with that woman" instead of what he did say in a rather awkward technical denial of the events. I just love the "I don't remember defense," and in the future, when asked by any woman what I did do last night I can safely respond, "Dearest, I just don't remember."

While it would not be completely accurate to say that Clinton was "railroaded," it would not be inaccurate either. This is the dictionary.com meaning of the word railroaded: "To convict (an accused person) without a fair trial or on trumped-up charges."

As I once again hear the old charges wheeled out that "it is not about sex, it is that he LIED about sex," I want to SCREAM!

I am invariably drawn to events less then a decade ago concerning the impeachment of President Clinton.

When Kenneth Starr was appointed, it is said that it was an impeachment in search of a crime. Having investigated Whitewater, TravelGate, FileGate, the Foster Suicide, and a number of other artificial scandals, and having failed to find a crime and come up empty, Starr was running out of things to investigate.

He set about to create a "perjury trap" that involved the deliberate use of a judicial proceeding to secure perjured testimony.

A perjury trap is created when the government calls a witness before the Grand Jury for the primary purpose of obtaining testimony from him in order to prosecute him later for perjury. Since this was clearly a "Perjury Trap," the next question is how this could have happened in our country.

Having sex is neither a criminal act nor an impeachable offense. However, it is extremely embarrassing and it is something that most of us, including me, would tend to lie about. In fact, we as a society have a lot of sexual phobias and because Americans can not face our own sexuality, (the heterosexual and homosexual type,) we as a society, (including myself,) deal with it by lying about sex.

Perhaps it is because I identify with the problem of lying about sex that I am sympathetic about the issue having done it more then once. I may not have spoken lies, but I have been told that transgressions not spoken about are as bad as lying about them.

These events resonate today as a reflection of those in our country who will stop at nothing in order to "have their way" with society, and keep Hillary Clinton out of the White house." After almost 7 glorious years with George Bush as President, HOW CAN THEY POSSIBLY OBJECT TO a Hillary Clinton Presidency? Is it because she is Bills wife, (which is bad enough) and will follow a liberal agenda? Or is it that she is, (an adversarial bonus,) a WOMAN!

I found this quote that was written many years ago, and wish I had written it myself:

"As a result, the President (Clinton) has made evident that our system of government is vulnerable to attack by people who would undermine the Constitution and impose their will over the will of the people. Our system of government and our freedoms are under attack by right wing extremists who would take away and undue 220 years of freedom and democracy and replace it with a government where the few enslave the masses. This battle we fight isn't over who is going to be president for the next two years. This is over the issue of allowing our freedoms to be sold out to the right wing extremists, and it is important that the will of the people prevail."

Wanna talk about "PRESCIENT?"

Norman Horowitz

Comments

[tcagle]

Here is the Gonzales defense:
Why would a Wookiee, an eight-foot tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of two-foot tall Ewoks? That does not make sense! But more important, you have to ask yourself: What does this have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense! Look at me. I'm a lawyer defending a major criminal enterprise, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca! Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense! None of this makes sense! And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room deliberatin' and conjugatin' the Emancipation Proclamation, [approaches and softens] does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense! If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests.

[dryfactoidobotanoid]

"Society also frowns, or in fact becomes outraged, when ... a woman is having sex with another woman."

WHAT PLANET DO YOU LIVE ON??

[Dap]

Dear Brother Norman,

Well, all I can say about your essay/post is, that's why I heart ya, eloquently expressed, eloquently expressed indeed. Agape.

[BillZBubb]

We are in asymmetrical judicial warfare.

The Alberto defense will work for RepubliCONs, because the Democrats, the corporate media, the right wing noise machine, and the RepubliCON domininated judiciary will tolerate it.

But, the Alberto defense will not work for Democrats. The RepubliCONs, the corporate media, the right wing noise machine, and the RepubliCON dominated judiciary would not tolerate it.

[PatriotActor]

"He could have used what will become known as 'The Alberto Gonzales Defense.'"

... except that this is already known as "The Reagan Defense." Reagan used it since at least 1962 (http://www.moldea.com/ReaganGJ.html). Ever since the Iran-contra scandal, it has been a highly effective Republican tactic.

[anon004]

I went back to Nixon, but I skipped over Reagan. You're right about all the "forgetting" around Iran-Contra. The freakishly creepy loyalty was there, too. (Haldeman, Erhlichman, Liddy, Ollie North, Scooter Libby, and Alberto. Wow, there's a group of poster children for mental health research!)

[cautionbug]

i wonder if the GOP has somehow found a way to inject high-ranking members with Alzheimer's or something. Seems there's at least one round of forgetting in court for every Republican administration in the past couple generations.

[maddogbitesback]

I would say you're right but I don't remember what I read.

[anon004]

Wasn't the Alberto Gonzales Defense also the Richard Nixon Defense? (Or was that everyone who worked for Nixon?) Until he (and they) was (were) caught red-handed by his own taping system, that is. My favorite thing in the last few months has been watching all the right-wingers justifying the pardon of Scooter Libby by saying that he shouldn't have been convicted of perjury because their was no "underlying crime." (Of course, because of his perjury, we'll never know if there was an underlying crime, but that's another issue.) We know for sure that Bill Clinton's behavior that led to him not being honest when he testified was not a crime, but all the Republicans responsible for impeaching and nearly convicting him were constantly beating the drum for, "it's the perjury that's important here." (Draw your own conclusions about their personal behavior that didn't look too "moral" in the light of day, i.e., Gingrich's and Livingston's adultery.) It's just an on-going Hypocrisy Fest with the Republicans, isn't it?