PDA

View Full Version : Alberto Gonzalez resigns


Achilles
08-27-2007, 09:59 AM
U.S. officials say Gonzales has resigned.
CRAWFORD, Texas - Attorney General Alberto Gonzales resigned, officials said Monday, ending a monthslong standoff with critics who questioned his honesty and competence at the helm of the Justice Department.Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/gonzales_resigns)
Wow, I really thought that hell would freeze over before this would happen. Can't wait to see what this means.

Char Ell
08-27-2007, 10:12 AM
The question I have is: who will want the job for the next 15 months?

President Bush doesn't seem like he ever caves in to pressure to force any of his staffers to resign. I guess Gonzales really decided he had had enough.

Washington politics are vicious indeed...

Totenkopf
08-27-2007, 10:13 AM
Ahh...given his inept performance re the firing of the prosecuters, I'm not surprised. He may have been loyal to Bush, but he was also fast becoming an albatros. My guess is that if the "opposition" (read democrats) runs true to form, there will be calls for congressional investigations. Anything to avoid doing the job they were elected to do. :rolleyes:

Achilles
08-27-2007, 10:32 AM
The question I have is: who will want the job for the next 15 months?

President Bush doesn't seem like he ever caves in to pressure to force any of his staffers to resign. I guess Gonzales really decided he had had enough.

Washington politics are vicious indeed... Well if the Bush administration can stall the process long enough, I'm sure they can side step any further investigation until Bush's term is over.

John Galt
08-27-2007, 11:26 AM
Well if the Bush administration can stall the process long enough, I'm sure they can side step any further investigation until Bush's term is over.

I don't doubt it. But, if I'm not mistaken, if they find anything on Bush by then they won't have to impeach him to bring him to trial for any illegal activities they discover.

mimartin
08-27-2007, 11:39 AM
I don't doubt it. But, if I'm not mistaken, if they find anything on Bush by then they won't have to impeach him to bring him to trial for any illegal activities they discover.

I really donít see anything illegal with firing the judges. Every President fires judges for political reasons. The problem I see is the administration lied to Congress and the American people about the reasons for the firing. Saying someone is incompetent and saying they were not doing the job to your liking are two completely different things. Just like other improper actives by our government the real crime is usually in the cover up.

U.S. officials say Gonzales has resigned.
Canít really see how this will change anything as long as President Bush is free to appoint another political crony of his. Who knows the next guy could always be worse.

Achilles
08-27-2007, 12:07 PM
I don't doubt it. But, if I'm not mistaken, if they find anything on Bush by then they won't have to impeach him to bring him to trial for any illegal activities they discover. Right, assuming that Bush's goal is to avoid impeachment. Also, I'm not sure, but I don't believe that Congress can investigate private citizens (someone please correct me if I am wrong).

I really donít see anything illegal with firing the judges. Every President fires judges for political reasons. My understanding is that this runs much deeper than just the firings. I'm pretty sure that illegal survelliance and the Valerie Plame case are part of this whole circus as well.

And yes, the those attorneys can be and have been fired by the president at any time for any reason. The question is whether or not Bush helmed a conspiracy behind these particular firings. Think of it like discrimination law: in right-to-work states, an employee can be fired at any time for any reason, however an employer can still be sued for discrimination if they execute those firings on the basis of a protected class. Same principle applies here: no doubt that Bush was within his rights to fire the attorneys, but if he did so on an inappropriate basis, then he may still be in trouble.

Canít really see how this will change anything as long as President Bush is free to appoint another political crony of his. Who knows the next guy could always be worse. Again, my understanding is that whomever Bush nominates has to be approved by Congress. If Bush picks someone that he knows that Congress will fight him on, then he can ensure that the process is stalled long enough that the new guy doesn't have sufficient time to do anything once he's in place before Bush leaves. Alternatively, there might be a loop-hole (ala John Bolton's assignment to the U.N.) that would allow Bush to appoint another sympathetic A.G. So to your point, the next guy could be just as bad if not worse. To my point, we might have to live with knowledge that Bush is keeping us tied up with a dog-and-pony show while business as usual continues under Clement.

My 2 cents.

Achilles
08-27-2007, 12:36 PM
Here (http://youtube.com/watch?v=Qi6yKPrNpKE) is a clip of Bush's statement on Gonzalez's resignation for anyone that wants to see it.

mimartin
08-27-2007, 12:38 PM
And yes, the those attorneys can be and have been fired by the president at any time for any reason. The question is whether or not Bush helmed a conspiracy behind these particular firings. Think of it like discrimination law: in right-to-work states, an employee can be fired at any time for any reason, however an employer can still be sued for discrimination if they execute those firings on the basis of a protected class. Same principle applies here: no doubt that Bush was within his rights to fire the attorneys, but if he did so on an inappropriate basis, then he may still be in trouble.
Agreed I should have said impeachable offensive instead of illegal act. As to law suit you have to have the approval of the US Government before you can sue it (why the Government would give such permission is beyond me, but it not being the government official money, but ours may explain this). I donít know if this privilege is afforded a government official, but knowing President Bushís recorded if it isnít he will more than likely sign a piece of paper making it so (at least making it a legal law in his eyes).:)

Again, my understanding is that whomever Bush nominates has to be approved by Congress. If Bush picks someone that he knows that Congress will fight him on, then he can ensure that the process is stalled long enough that the new guy doesn't have sufficient time to do anything once he's in place before Bush leaves. Again the good news and the bad new is the Presidential election process has started so early for this political cycle. First I believe the position of Attorney General is important to the running of our government and should not be used for a political power struggle. If Congress holds up the Presidents nomination the Republicans could use this to paint the Democrats as undermining the authority giving to the President by the Constitution (major joke considering how much this President abused the Constitution to wrestle power from a Republican controlled Congress).

No matter whom President nominates the Democratic Senators running for President can not support him/her. Before the primaries the Dems must play to their base to achieve the nomination. Again this could help the Republican when Fox News and other Republican sources portray them as moving to the far left.

So depending on how the Democrats handle this, I actually believe this could end up being a plus to the Republican Presidential hopefuls.

Achilles
08-27-2007, 12:46 PM
So depending on how the Democrats handle this, I actually believe this could end up being a plus to the Republican Presidential hopefuls. You might be on to something here. The first primaries are only 6 months away and Giuliani and Clinton are nearly neck-and-neck. Hmm....

Jae Onasi
08-27-2007, 11:04 PM
So depending on how the Democrats handle this, I actually believe this could end up being a plus to the Republican Presidential hopefuls.

Unfortunately, I don't see Pelosi handling this with the necessary agility.

About darn time Gonzalez resigned.

Char Ell
08-27-2007, 11:42 PM
I don't think Alberto Gonzalez had developed the craftiness and cunning necessary to effectively operate in the Washington D.C. political environment. I believe many U.S. district attorneys general have been "fired" for political reasons in the past. It's just that he and/or his staffers didn't handle it in such a way so that it didn't appear the firings were politically motivated. Personally I was more disturbed by his testimony about his not talking to former A.G. Ashcroft about wiretapping authority while Ashcroft was in the hospital as other individuals involved gave contradicting testimony.

But now that he has resigned the pressure is off though he will still have to appear before Congressional committees to provide testimony if those committees want him to.

President Bush's comments on Gonzalez's resignation coming due to partisan politics were rather pathetic. Sure the Dems will take any opportunity they can to cast Bush's administration in a bad light but that didn't take a whole lot of effort to do so in Gonzalez' case.

mimartin
08-28-2007, 12:56 PM
Unfortunately, I don't see Pelosi handling this with the necessary agility.

About darn time Gonzalez resigned.

Luckily Speaker Nancy Pelosi will not have much to do with this issue. Senator Robert C Byrd of West Virginia (President Pro Tempore), Senator Harry Reid of Nevada (Majority Whip) and Senator Richard Durbin of Illinois (Assistant Majority Whip) will be the Democrats leaders on the confirmation of a new Attorney General.

Jae Onasi
08-28-2007, 10:14 PM
Pelosi won't be involved in any confirmation hearings, but as leader of the Dems in the House, she'll undoubtedly have a lot to say about Gonzalez' resignation.

@Char Ell--I don't think Gonzalez had developed the necessary ties in DC, either.

@Achilles--I didn't get to see the actual Bush speech (read snippets of it and heard part of it on the radio), so I missed the very last part of it. Up until the end I thought it was one of those 'thank you for your service, sorry things sucked in DC and it didn't work out for us' kind of speeches. I felt like the comments about integrity rang particularly hollow. Then Bush spoke bitterly about Gonzalez' name getting 'dragged through the mud', which is about as far as he can go publicly to say that he's ticked off at the Dems for making trouble for him.