Some Quick Thoughts About Alberto Gonzalez
March 13th, 2007 | by steve |Okay… I have been sitting in a hotel watching CNN all day as I do some work before a meeting.
It seems every 5 minutes or so, CNN Headline News, replays Alberto Gonzalez’s apology for the whole “let’s lay off 93 Special Prosecutors employed by the government” thing.
Okay… If this were to happen or if we hear later on that Cheney (or Scooter Libby) is in on it, I would finally declare the Bush Administration a Fascist Regime and press my congresspeople for impeachment of GWB!
What the fuck were they thinking? Time to make Alberto Gonzo!!
Any thoughts? (And no, I have not OD’d on my meds. I swear on the Book of Mormon!)
24 Responses to “Some Quick Thoughts About Alberto Gonzalez”
By Dusty on Mar 14, 2007 | Reply
Steve..there is evidence that karl rove was in on this..how does that work for ya?
By steve on Mar 15, 2007 | Reply
Well Dusty, when the Executive Branch starts fucking with the Judicial Branch… I don’t know if I am keen on that no matter who the President is.
For Christ’s sake, Dusty, I am a Republican and not an idiot.
By Craig R. Harmon on Mar 15, 2007 | Reply
Who was messing with the judicial branch?
By Craig R. Harmon on Mar 15, 2007 | Reply
Wait a minute…Special Prosecutors? Are you sure you don’t mean federal prosecutors? So far as I know, Fitzgerald was the only special prosecutor. Am I missing something?
By ken grandlund on Mar 15, 2007 | Reply
Craig is right- the Judicial Branch is pretty much The Supreme and Federal Courts that Congress may create as needed. (US Constitution Art III, Sec 1) BUt it the president who is charged with “appointing ambassadors, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for. (Art II, Sec 2.1)
So technically we’re not talking with encroachment on the Judicial Branch per se. What we do have is a White House conspiracy (with or without Bush’s knowledge) of a plan to fire federal prosecutors for politically motivated reasons and then refill those positions with political cronies who are more willing to follow orders and bow to pressure.
The ramifications of these actions could have far reaching effects, especially under a power hungry administration that helped orchestrate such vaguaries into the extended Patriot Act that could classify most anyone as an enemy of the state. With the ‘right’ prosecutors in place, securing convictions against most anyone using the secrecy guidelines in the Patriot Act would be a snap.
So in a sense you are right- the judicial process is being subverted. Just not the Judicial Branch- which is really the judges of the various courts. And they have a habit of not always being easily controllable.
By Dusty on Mar 15, 2007 | Reply
I am sure steve misspoke when he said “special prosecutors”..he meant, I think..the US Attorneys..since that is the bru-haha that is currently going down around Uncle Al.
They are part of the judical branch however…part of the DOJ.
By Craig R. Harmon on Mar 15, 2007 | Reply
Well, US Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President. He appoints them, he can remove them for any reason or for no reason at any time.
By ken grandlund on Mar 15, 2007 | Reply
Dusty- keep in mind that the Constitution provides for no specific branches other than Legislative (Congress) Executive (President) and Judicial (Supreme and lower federal courts).
There is no Department of anything in the constitution- they’ve all been created by congressional acts or by presidential order. So while the DOJ walks hand in hand with the Judiciary, they are still technically under the auspices of the executive branch.
Fine points to be sure, and they do not diminish the odiousness of the US Attorney purge, since it has been unequivocally shown to be a pure political power ploy. But the AG and the federal prosecutors do serve at the whim of the executive. The subversion of justice comes when the executive fills those positions with pepople who are not concerned with upholding the law, but rather with subjugating it for political gain. In a perfect world, a president would make his selections, who are confirmed by congress, who then distance themselves from the executive branch as much as possible so they can’t be used for political gain, but only for enforcing the laws.
By Craig R. Harmon on Mar 15, 2007 | Reply
Dusty,
US Attorneys are a part of the Executive branch. Per Wikipedia:
Although they interact with the judicial branch in courts, they are a part of the law and order interest served by the Executive.
By Craig R. Harmon on Mar 15, 2007 | Reply
Er, well, Ken beat me to it.
By Dusty on Mar 15, 2007 | Reply
Its not rocket science to declare they serve at the whim of the Decider-in-Chief Craig..its why and how he canned the Great 8..after pushing in a little amendment to the Patriot Act which was totally self serving AND removed congressional oversight..aka congressional approval process. In otherwords..once again he took power from one branch and gave it to himself.
That sir. is whats wrong with what the Shrub did.
By Craig R. Harmon on Mar 15, 2007 | Reply
Its not rocket science to declare they serve at the whim of the Decider-in-Chief Craig..its why and how he canned the Great 8..after pushing in a little amendment to the Patriot Act which was totally self serving AND removed congressional oversight..aka congressional approval process. In otherwords..once again he took power from one branch and gave it to himself.
That sir. is whats wrong with what the Shrub did.
I think the why is conjecture. The how, I agree ought not to have been done. I’m just saying that he’s broken no laws here. First of all, the Patriot Act was passed by Congress. I’m really sorry if they pass bills that they don’t read and think about but that’s the Congress’s job to deliberate before they act. If they passed the Patriot Act without knowing what they were passing, bad on them. You don’t have to like the President “pushing” and “removing” anything but it’s Congress that let you down, not the President. This wasn’t so much the President taking power from Congress as Congress giving it up, either knowingly and willingly or through neglect.
My only point is, Steve was willing to impeach the president for messing with the Judicial Branch. I thought it important to note to him that the President did no such thing, that what he did was both legal and constitutional and, therefore could not be used as the basis for impeachment.
By ken grandlund on Mar 15, 2007 | Reply
Craig said, “First of all, the Patriot Act was passed by Congress. I’m really sorry if they pass bills that they don’t read and think about but that’s the Congress’s job to deliberate before they act. If they passed the Patriot Act without knowing what they were passing, bad on them.”
All well and true- but who wrote the little insertions that weren’t read or deliberated on? The White House, that’s who. As such, the administration is at least guilty of trying to subvert the basis on which our government operates. That they got away with it does not excuse their culpability in trying to pull a fast one.
So bad on Congress to be sure, but bad on the executive branch for taking such advantage as this. In neither case are the best interests of the nation being considered.
By Craig R. Harmon on Mar 15, 2007 | Reply
I don’t agree, Ken, at least I don’t necessarily agree. People around here may not agree with me but I think the so-called GWOT is one that is of such a nature that requires a strong executive branch that can work quickly, react to secret intel right now, follow leads that may go nowhere on the chance that they might lead somewhere. Congress, for all it’s good qualities, ain’t the body equipped for fighting terrorism. If they can’t even be trusted to know what’s in an important bill before them, there’s no way they should be slowing down the Executive branch in the pursuit of terrorists. As it happened, the IG’s report concluded that the errors that were committed with NSLs were unintentional error and did not lead to actual abuse. At least that’s what I got from what I read. They did not simply not report, for example, they failed to report some 20%. They filled out some of the forms wrong or failed to get the right signatures or authorities correctly cited. Not good but hardly democracy destroying stuff if what I’ve read is accurate. I don’t see this as an attempted (or successful) subversion of anything. He asked the body that he should have asked for the authority he thought he needed to protect the country. The body he asked and who had authority to give what he asked, gave it to him. They should have read it. If they thought it was too much authority, they should have removed that or provided stronger safeguards. We see this differently. No surprise there.
As I see it, the Executive needs to have power and flexibility in a time when people are trying to do our nation harm and any President is going to seek to get the authority and flexibility that he thinks he needs. The President isn’t responsible for Congress’s failure to read, if failure it was. Congress is. That’s my opinion, anyway.
By ken grandlund on Mar 15, 2007 | Reply
And I grant that your opinion is valid, so far as opinions go. My broader point is that in many cases (and especially this one) legislation is purposefully confusing or so long as to not be able to be read before a rushed vote occurs. Were legislation created in easy to understand terminology, and of reasonable lengths so that legislators actually had time to read the bills (imagine having to read a 900+ piece of legislation and catching all the nuances with only a few days from the time you get it to the time you have to vote on it) perhaps we could foist more blame on the congress. As it is, they do share the blame but are not responsible for all of it IMO.
Of course, both parties have purposefully created the way business is done. It is a shameful statement of what democracy should be about I think. Doing business like that only ensures that poor laws are passed or abuse will occur.
Felxibility is one thing. Playing to the faults of a system to gather more power for yourself is quite another.
By Craig R. Harmon on Mar 15, 2007 | Reply
I see your point.
By Dusty on Mar 15, 2007 | Reply
steve..here is an ABC exclusive..gasp..showing Rover was behind the idea to can all the attorneys..NOT Harriet Meiers as the WH has suggested..oooh…it gets more murky as we go along evidently…my question is..why in the blue hell would they lie about this?
Two independent sources in a position to know have described the contents of the e-mail exchange, which could be released as early as Friday. They put Rove at the epicenter of the imbroglio and raise questions about Gonzales’ explanations of the matter.
The e-mail exchange is dated early January 2005, more than a month before the White House acknowledged it was considering firing all the U.S. attorneys. On its face, the plan is not improper, inappropriate or even unusual: The president has the right to fire U.S. attorneys at any time, and presidents have done so when they took office.
What has made the issue a political firestorm is the White House’s insistence that the idea came from Miers and was swiftly rejected.
Things just get curiouser and curiouser..
By Dusty on Mar 15, 2007 | Reply
Also, CBS News has another exclusive(god, they are tripping all over themselves on this) from John McKay, one of the fired attorneys:
CBS News obtained McKay’s most recent performance review, conducted just three months before his firing. In it, he was described as “effective, well-regarded and a capable leader.”
McKay’s office convicted the “millennium bomber” who was planning to blow up the Los Angeles airport and won a conviction against James Ujaama, who was planning to build an al Qaeda training camp in Oregon. He was also lauded for cracking down on drug smuggling from Canada.
By Craig R. Harmon on Mar 15, 2007 | Reply
Curious, indeed!
Dang. Why lie when, as you’ve said, the President replacing US Attorneys is neither improper, inappropriate or even unusual? Is it just reflex? That’s what I can’t get. It’s nuts.
By Dusty on Mar 15, 2007 | Reply
It is unusual to fire them midterm Craig. It might of raised some flags for some folks..like anti-bush folks like me..lol..but still..if everything was above board and the idiots said they wanted new blood in the positions..who could argue with that?
The whole thing is now..the lies are snowballing bad..this could get real ugly for BushCo every quickly…all because they werent’ smart enough to tell the truth.
By Craig R. Harmon on Mar 15, 2007 | Reply
Dusty,
Well, okay, but I was really just quoting your last source, stating that it isn’t unusual. But be that as it may, who ever initially suggested it, it wasn’t what they settled on so why lie about it? Totally blown.
By Dusty on Mar 15, 2007 | Reply
Goodness, we found two areas of agreement today..the sky is gonna fall in Craig. :>)
By Craig R. Harmon on Mar 15, 2007 | Reply
Agreement Is Good!
That’s my new bumpersticker.
By Dusty on Mar 15, 2007 | Reply
How about this one..Agreeing is less stressful than arguing. blogging is about mostly opinion..All our blogs are bascially OpEd columns..We try to get breaking news out there..but then we add our speculation or editorial bent.
Its hard to write a piece that doesn’t reflect in some way, my POV on the subject. I do it for another forum I write on..and it drives me nuts sometimes.