Should Gonzales step down?

[madame_zora]

I'm not expecting he will, at least not voluntarily, but is this level of corruption something the American people are willing to tolerate?

When we have the president's personal legal advisor now as our Chief Supreme Justice, is it really any surprise that he has been found to have fired eight judges with no explaination? These judges allege they they were fired for refusing to go after democrats on trumped-up charges.

If JUDGES serve at the pleasure of the president, and the president wants to be a monarch, we're fucked. If we allow the president to become a monarch, we deserve what we get.





March 13, 2007— Attorney General Alberto Gonzales responded to increasing criticism over last year's firing of eight U.S. attorneys by accepting the blame for his department. "With respect to this whole process," Gonzales said, "like every CEO, I am ultimately accountable and responsible for what happens within the Department."

The embattled attorney general, trading his usual calm for a shaken-up appearance, blamed a communication breakdown, saying "I accept responsibility for what happened here, and I regret the fact that information was not adequately shared with individuals within the Department of Justice, and that consequently, information was shared with the Congress that was incomplete." Gonzales, blasted by several key members of Congress today, still said he believes the Senate does have an important role in the process, "and would in no way support an effort to circumvent that constitutional role."


In a quick volley from the Senate floor after Gonzales' press conference, Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) took a shot at the attorney general, saying "He misconceives his role because he still sees himself as counsel to the president, his previous job, where you rubberstamp everything the president does… but when you're attorney general, you swear to the constitution to uphold it and defend it. That's his role."


ABC News: Attorney General Responds to Questions Over Firing of U.S. Attorneys

 

[B_NineInchCock_160IQ]

Either that or give him the medal of freedom.

 

[DC_DEEP]

He should not step down, the Congress should fire his ass.

Madame Z, this is sort of a continuation of my "Partisan Politics and Corruption; business as usual" thread.

 

[B_RoysToy]

. . . the president wants to be a monarch, we're fucked. If we allow the president to become a monarch, we deserve what we get. . . .

Speaking of being fucked, when we let the Republicans sway the 2000 presidential election and hand it to George, the country was already fucked! Thanks to those like you, madame_z, we will survive!

 

[JustAsking]

"Should Abu Gonzales step down?"

Yes, after a number of long and painful hearings.

 

[B_JQblonde]

I'm not expecting he will, at least not voluntarily, but is this level of corruption something the American people are willing to tolerate?

When we have the president's personal legal advisor now as our Chief Supreme Justice, is it really any surprise that he has been found to have fired eight judges with no explaination? These judges allege they they were fired for refusing to go after democrats on trumped-up charges.

If JUDGES serve at the pleasure of the president, and the president wants to be a monarch, we're fucked. If we allow the president to become a monarch, we deserve what we get.





March 13, 2007— Attorney General Alberto Gonzales responded to increasing criticism over last year's firing of eight U.S. attorneys by accepting the blame for his department. "With respect to this whole process," Gonzales said, "like every CEO, I am ultimately accountable and responsible for what happens within the Department."

The embattled attorney general, trading his usual calm for a shaken-up appearance, blamed a communication breakdown, saying "I accept responsibility for what happened here, and I regret the fact that information was not adequately shared with individuals within the Department of Justice, and that consequently, information was shared with the Congress that was incomplete." Gonzales, blasted by several key members of Congress today, still said he believes the Senate does have an important role in the process, "and would in no way support an effort to circumvent that constitutional role."


In a quick volley from the Senate floor after Gonzales' press conference, Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) took a shot at the attorney general, saying "He misconceives his role because he still sees himself as counsel to the president, his previous job, where you rubberstamp everything the president does… but when you're attorney general, you swear to the constitution to uphold it and defend it. That's his role."


ABC News: Attorney General Responds to Questions Over Firing of U.S. Attorneys

He didn't fire 8 judges , he fired 8 US attorneys.

 

[Freddie53]

Should Gonzales step down?

Does a cat have an ass?
Do polar bears fuck on ice?

But on the other hand, he fits in quite well. Corruption is an attribute in this administration.

 

[B_JQblonde]

Should Gonzales step down?

Do polar bears fuck on ice?

quote]
Not according to Al gore.:biggrin1:

 

[Male Bonding etc]

Just Asking is right. As much as I want him (and a long list of folks) gone, just walking away wouldn't be as helpful as getting blasted in front of news media.

 

[B_big dirigible]

US Code, Title 28, Part II, Chapter 35, § 541 -
US CODE: Title 28,541. United States attorneys
for convenience, copied here in full -

§ 541. United States attorneys

(a) The President shall appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, a United States attorney for each judicial district.

(b) Each United States attorney shall be appointed for a term of four years. On the expiration of his term, a United States attorney shall continue to perform the duties of his office until his successor is appointed and qualifies.

(c) Each United States attorney is subject to removal by the President.


Part (c) seems to cover this situation, like it or not.

And from part (a) we see that the AG offices are patronage appointments. So there's no real cause for surprise when we find that appointees are expected to be loyal to the President or to the party. It's not pure patronage, as the appintment is subject to Senate approval. Note that the "advice" part of "advice and consent" didn't survive George Washington's first term. The Senate at that time wanted to get into foreign affairs, and kept demanding "all papers" involved in negotiations with foreign powers (France, Spain, Britain, Canada, the Netherlands, the Barbary states, and similar annoyances). In that pre-Xerox era, such demands were obviously untenable, and Washington never paid them much heed. But anything he delivered orally to the Senate had a certain inevitable way of turning up in the press the next day. The foreign powers with which Washington was negotiating expected that secret negotiations would be secret - that's how they did those things in Europe. So it became customary to just not talk to the Senate about negotiations until an actual treaty was due to be ratified. A direct consequence was that there was little practical opportunity for "advice" until it was all a done deal.

Appointments of U.S. attorneys isn't much like negotiations with sovereign powers, but the same custom - ignoring the Senate until the end - seems to have been followed for the past two centuries. So it's possible that it's not really really Bush's fault this time.

Even the "consent" part doesn't apply to interim appointments. That's what "interim" means. However, I don't have the text of that provision handy.

 

[SCbi]

they were US Attorneys not judges........well by your standard what should Clinton and janet Reno have done......one of his first acts as prez was to fire......come guess how many? 8? 10? no try ALL US Attorneys...over 300......so that he could appoint those he wanted....so.....what is his penalty?

 

[B_big dirigible]

The Interim Question.

Apparently there is pending legislation in the 110th Congress (H.R. 580; S. 214). This is the current Congress which convened Jan 4, 2007. The legislation seem to be about extending the system of interim appointees which was in force from 1986 to 2006. Under that system the AG can appoint interim U.S. attorneys for periods of 120 days. After the expiration of the 120 day terms, district courts can appoint U.S. attorneys until such time as the President nominates, and the Senate confirms, a regular replacement. I have not read the House or Senate bills and don't know if the President (or the A.G.) can fire the court appointees.

 

[B_JQblonde]

I don't the issue is the firing of the attorney's per se.
It's more about whether Gonzales lied about the reasons for doing so.

 

[DC_DEEP]

they were US Attorneys not judges........well by your standard what should Clinton and janet Reno have done......one of his first acts as prez was to fire......come guess how many? 8? 10? no try ALL US Attorneys...over 300......so that he could appoint those he wanted....so.....what is his penalty?

Are you really sure you want to post something like this?

That seems to be the partisan answer to every misdeed and every corruption: the other side did it first, so I should be able to do it without retribution.

That's an idiot response. Not to mention that the idea of firing them all was suggested by Harriet Miers when she was presidential advisor.

The problem is before us. Don't dredge up something from over a decade ago. We should not tolerate this type of partisan politics to harm our nation now. We should not tolerate it to harm out nation in the future. Apologizing for the actions of the AG and the DoJ by pointing out that it has been done before really doesn't move us forward, does it?

 

[LambHair McNeil]

As big dirigible's cut-n-paste shows, they are patronage appointments who serve at the favor of the President, whether that be the President that appointed them or his successor.

Bush and his people/minions are good at 2-left-feeting many things of a procedural nature. And, who knows where this story will ultimately head or unfold, but denying recorded statutes and past precedents have a place in the teeth gnashing makes them seem like inconvenient truths.

 

[madame_zora]

I think the sticking point is that bushco did not wait for their appointments to run out and then just fail to renew them- they were fired during their term, which is not the usual procedure. We'll see where it goes, but if something underhanded hadn't been done, I can't understand the apologies.

JQBlonde, thanks for pointing out my error, I was watching the news and reading an article at the same time, and I just misposted. It's not really necessary to requote an entire post to drop a one liner though.

DC, sorry about the duplicate thread, sometimes I'm too fucking eager.:tongue:

 

[DC_DEEP]

As big dirigible's cut-n-paste shows, they are patronage appointments who serve at the favor of the President, whether that be the President that appointed them or his successor.

Bush and his people/minions are good at 2-left-feeting many things of a procedural nature. And, who knows where this story will ultimately head or unfold, but denying recorded statutes and past precedents have a place in the teeth gnashing makes them seem like inconvenient truths.

This seems to be a big part of the problem, don't you think? Since it is a patronage appointment, it would seem to be detrimental to the (supposedly impartial) judicial process in every single US Judicial District. Perhaps it's time for us, as citizens, to pressure The Congress to remodel the way US Attorneys are seated. Ironic, isn't it, that the "conservatives" like to scream about activist courts when the courts rule one way, and they call the courts "wise and just" if they rule another way... then they fire the "activist US Attorneys and judges" and put in activists to replace them... just activist in the other direction.

 

[Full_Phil]

Even a very pro-Bush person I was with last night finally agrees, after seeing the stuff on the tube about the e-mails re: the supportiveness of Bush's agenda by the ousted, that the White House is in such a damage control mode that the right hand is oblivious of what the left is doing. This is getting to be what the Nixon White House must have been like.

 

[madame_zora]

Even a very pro-Bush person I was with last night finally agrees, after seeing the stuff on the tube about the e-mails re: the supportiveness of Bush's agenda by the ousted, that the White House is in such a damage control mode that the right hand is oblivious of what the left is doing. This is getting to be what the Nixon White House must have been like.

Aye, I remember Nixon well. He was actually quite popular until the last couple years. Some of the advances he made with Kissinger on foriegn relations were hailed as brilliant by many. It seems he actually did pop a gasket of some sort toward the end.

I don't believe anyone will be looking back on the bush administration for doing anything good at all for America, but we'll see. I think historians will see an overwhelming stack of evidence to its greed and corruption, and not much more.

 

[ETA123]

they were US Attorneys not judges........well by your standard what should Clinton and janet Reno have done......one of his first acts as prez was to fire......come guess how many? 8? 10? no try ALL US Attorneys...over 300......so that he could appoint those he wanted....so.....what is his penalty?

Over 300?? Really? Are you SURE about that? Considering there are only 93 US attorneys, that's a pretty nifty trick.

Guess what. . . Bush also fired almost every US Attorney when he took office. It's not unheard of for a president to fire the appointees of his predecessor when he first takes office, in fact, it's fairly typical.

The situation here is entirely different, these US Attorneys were fired by the same president that appointed them, under the guise of poor performance, yet after receiving positive reviews. They were fired for not sufficiently following the party line.

Don't believe me?

Check here:

McClatchy Washington Bureau | 03/13/2007 | Current situation is distinct from Clinton firings of U.S. attorneys

"While that's true, the current case is different. Mass firings of U.S. attorneys are fairly common when a new president takes office, but not in a second-term administration. Prosecutors are usually appointed for four-year terms, but they are usually allowed to stay on the job if the president who appointed them is re-elected.


Even as they planned mass firings by the Bush White House, Justice Department officials acknowledged it would be unusual for the president to oust his own appointees. Although Bill Clinton ordered the wholesale removal of U.S. attorneys when he took office to remove Republican holdovers, his replacement appointees stayed for his second term.



Ronald Reagan also kept his appointees for his second term.



"In some instances, Presidents Reagan and Clinton may have been pleased with the work of the U.S. attorneys, who, after all, they had appointed," Kyle Sampson, former chief of staff to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, speculated in a 2006 memo outlining Bush's alternative approach. "In other instances, Presidents Reagan and Clinton may simply have been unwilling to commit the resources necessary to remove the U.S. attorneys.""

False testimony called 'mistake'*-*Nation/Politics*-*The Washington Times, America's Newspaper

"Incoming presidents often dismiss all 93 U.S. attorneys, as did President Clinton in 1993."

Guess who else fired all 93 US Attorneys when he took office . . . Ronald Reagan AND GEORGE W. BUSH:

Analysis: Bush Can't Hide From Woes - washingtonpost.com

"When the party in the White House changes hands, it is common for the new president to fire all the sitting U.S. attorneys, as Ronald Reagan did in 1981 and Bill Clinton in 1993. By contrast, Bush allowed some to stay on the job for several months when he took office in 2001, although all were replaced eventually."

Once again, the problem here is NOT that US Attorneys were fired, but that they were fired for not sufficiently following the president's whim. The refused to engage in behavior they deemed unethical or just not legally tenable.

If you are going to use already overused talking points, you should also, at the very least, research the background of them.

Hell, even Karl Rove knows that the Bush admin replaced all US attorneys when they took charge: Think Progress » Gonzales Chief Of Staff Rebuts Rove Claim That Clinton Purged Prosecutors Too

Even Gonzales chief of staff acknowledges that this is NOT the same thing as took place under Clinton: "In recent memory, during the Reagan and Clinton Administrations, Presidents Reagan and Clinton did not seek to remove and replace U.S. Attorneys to serve indefinitely under the holdover provision”"