Attorney General Alberto Gonzales faced a tough morning of questions from the Senate Judiciary Committee today... with more to come this afternoon. In an opening statement, Gonzales defended the dismissal of eight federal prosecutors, but acknowledged that the process could have... and should have... been handled differently. There were several tense moments, and harsh criticism from senators, including several Republicans. Gonzales is not only defending his particular actions in this case, but also making a broader case for keeping his job. If you've been following the testimony today, what do you think? Should he resign, or has he put those calls to rest?
Blog Of The Nation
Heck, yes, the AG should resign. He won't though, just as your commenter said, it's the wrong question. He should, however, emphatically, be REMOVED. If Bush won't do it - and I doubt he will - he needs to be impeached. He has proved himself either incompetent or a liar.
He demonstrated that well just this morning, let alone all the other evidence.
The Attorney firings are a drop in the bucket compared to the potential Obstruction of Justice charges that might be hanging over the President's head with his claiming "security issues" with Gonzales' handling of the warrantless wiretaps. Where is THAT inquiry??
AG Gonzales is following a trail he has pursued since his days in Texas as an associate of Bush. Now he is in a role that requires more independence of judgment, but he has rather little experience in fashioning a such a role or saying "no". A larger issue: I believe that ALL US Attorneys need citizen oversight. I suggest an continuing oversight board of grey eminences somewhat above the fray. One need only look to the appointment of Troy Eid as US Attorney in Denver for evidence of a partisan and sorry piece of work by the Republican controlled session of Congress before the last national elections.
Gonzales is only the visible part of this matter. The issue of prime importance is not the firings and/or whether they were partisan, BUT THAT they were done to take advantage of a little known/discussed amendment to the Patriot Act, wherein, at Gonzales and the Administrations insistence/suggestion Congress ceded their approval role over nominations/appointments to the Us Prosecuting Attorneys position in the event of a disaster or 'terrorist emergency' that disabled or killed any or all 93 of these U S Attorneys or the Congress. These 8 firings would then be an ABUSE of this ceded power as there is no specified disaster or emergency. This ceded power apparently has now been taken back by the Congress.
Gonzales is yet another example of loyalty over competence in the Bush Administration. He lacks the fundamental understanding of Constitutional law to effectively hold the position of Attorney General. Gonzales should be replaced.
I thought this was about the firing of the U.S. attorneys. Many of these recent questions have been about anything but the firings.
I agree with the gentleman from TX that said that the Senators see this fiasco as another expression of Pres. Bush's "Democratic" Dictatorship.
Adam
So far, AG Gonzalez is not giving up the info and Monica Goodling may be compelled to testify. What about Steve Parent, Acting Director of the Executive Office of the US Attorneys'? Has anyone questioned him? According to the DOJ Website, his office is the one ultimately responsible for the evaluation of the States Attorneys' Generals. It seems the likely this person should know how the fired U.S. Attorneys were put on the list.
Yes, I want to be rid of AG (I'd like to be rid of the whole Bush administration, but that's unlikely to happen), but rather than have AG resign, I think the President should fire him. Why? Because he has LIED.
Has anyone else noticed that no one in Washington seems to bat an eye anymore about lying in press conferences, interviews, etc since they're not under oath? There's always some excuse, but those are not excusable. Why should it take a hearing under oath for people to tell the truth?
I can't help but recall an event from the 1970s in which President Carter felt he had to fire his good friend, Andrew Young. Mr. Young had gone abroad on his own (Middle East??) with GOOD intentions to foster peace--but he lied about it. As I recall, President Carter had said at the beginning of his term that if anyone in his administration lied, he'd be out. Andrew Young had to go.
I recall feeling sad about it at the time, but I've always respected Jimmy Carter for his ethics and integrity. Oh, for the good old days! (sigh)
Nobody needs to spend "weeks" preparing to tell the truth. Either you tell the truth or you don't. When a man says over and over again "I don't recall" or "I don't remember", while being questioned under oath - he is either deliberately trying to hide the truth or his memory is shot. In either case, he certainly should not be sitting in the office of the Attorney General of the United States.
There is no there there, and this debate is nonsense. This has nothing to do with substance, but the president seems vulnerable these days so everyone is jumping on everything out of the executive branch. Politics aside, it is a gross over-reach by the Congress to attempt to exercise control over this function of the executive branch. Janet Reno fired all 93 US attorneys in 1993 as one of her first acts as Clinton's AG. It was defended on political grounds - we won the election, we get to put in our people. I don't recall that Patrick Leahy lost any sleep over that. Instead, the Congress appropriately sighed and noted that the executive branch has the authority to exercise discretion over those who work for the attorney general. Gonzales fired 8 prosecutors who he believed were acting out of political motivation. Of course, he could have fired them for using Crest instead of Colgate. Why should it matter? Let's move on to something more important to America, like who really fathered Anna Nicole Smith's children.
Tell Neal Conan that I found it so interesting that one TOTN segment on Wednesday was with author Cathryn Jakobson Ramin regarding memory problems, and then on Thursday we listened to Alberto Gonzales.
I bet it will turn out that someone like Rove came of up the list of those to be fired. Rove is the one who has made decisions on hiring or firing. It is very plausable that the AG office carried out the firings not knowing anything except that the "The White House" wanted it done.
Why did the Judiciary Committee tippy-toe all around what appears to be obvious: George II, Rove and Gonzalez fired US Attorneys based on the attorney's political views, and conspired to replace them with members of the Federalist Society without Senate approval. They even conspired how to handle the fallout should this effort blow up in their faces. The attorneys should be reinstated at once. Look to the Bush administration to do more of this sort of thing as a long term strategy on how to weather a possible loss of the white house in 2008, yet keep the progress towards Federalism alive and entrenched. Maybe someday we'll all thank God for the kindness, mercy and benevolence of the ruling class, aka The Carlyle Group.
I am truly amazed at how the White House officials are getting away with all this. We all know why President Clinton was impeached, yet am beginning to think that, it was nothing compared to what is going on today. If our own AG can't be truthful and open then either he or the whole Judicial System is messed up. So much for Swearing to tell the whole truth so help him God. If he couldn't recall (47 Times as per a newsource) what happened, then he shouldn't have this job. How do we know if he is going to recall that this meeting ever took place? If he has half the integrity he claimed to have then, he needs to resign (out of respect not only for himself but for those who will have to carry the weight of the mess he is creating--Such as all those promising hispanic lawyers, moving up in society or hoping to serve this country we love so much)and let all this go. Please, stop embarrassing the Justice Department and US Constitution together with its Principles. Can you imagine what the rest of the world was thinking as they were watching this?
As for the White House and its officials, something needs to be done. "Gonzalez..Wolfowitz..Iraq", are but a sample of the American policy and lifestyles. At this rate we're are the ones who are going to need help on how to govern ourselves.
I felt sorry for him for those nasty questions by the senators. He was very apologetic and looks like he himself is very honest but trying to save some big fish by sacrificing himself. It was very obvious from his testimony that I heard.
Anser Azim, Chicago
this is a very easy question, and no one seems to be able to articulate it: Should federal prosecutors be acting like they are members of a mafia? The USAs have been fired or retained based on their willingness to act as the personal mob lawyers of the President and VP and certain members of the GOP from swing voting states. If you want one-party, loyalty-based rule in the US, then by all means, keep this stuff up. If not, let's clean house.
I work for a large electronics company. My performance is rated each year against several known parameters, as is the performance of all 100,000+ employees in my company. If someone has a bad performance rating, there are known actions which must be followed in order to a)have the employee improve their performance, or b) remove the employee from the company (ultimately). There are clear guidelines which managers, employees and Human Resource people adhere to.
Do you know why this is the case? It is my opinion that it is because my company has hired a team of people called LAWYERS who have advised them on how to handle personnel issues, since things like employee ratings, and firings are very sensitive and if not done correctly could expose them to some law suits.
It amazes me that the United States Justice Department, which is made up of the top lawyers in our country, would not have the foresight to think that their firing of attorneys would not come under some scrutiny. If there were ANY records at all- if someone had shown any performance records, even a 25 question survey of all the attorneys, with some qualitative ranking of their relative skills, showing how/why the ones that were chosen to be fired were selected, that would probably have satisfied 75% of the questions. But, to have NO records, no reasons, no recollection of how the process was done, it absurd. It just shows that at these high levels, people start to actually feel "above the law", and think that they have no accountability for their actions. If a case like this went to trial, and a witness failed to produce ANY evidence or records of why they made a certain decision, I'm sure our top attorneys would crucify them. But, in a Senate hearing, it is o'k to essentially say "I don't recall having that meeting where we decided to fire Mr. A, B, C and I don't know the reasons why we fired them..." If someone asked me why I chose Car A over Car B, and I told them that I couldn't recall, and then they asked me what data or factual evidence or parameters I used to make my selection, and I said I didn't know, would they rush to put me into the US Attorney General's office?
The main point is, whatever you think about Alberto Gonzales - whether you think he lied, whether you think he blundered, or whether you admire his conduct - he simply isn't the right person for the job anymore.
The man has little credibility left, he's lost the confidence of Congress and much of America. His ability to continue advocating for the pursuit of justice has been compromised. If he has the best interests of the Justice Department at heart, he will be resigning shortly.
I note today that President Bush's comment on Gonzalez's testimony is that it made clear the AG hadn't done anything illegal, and so that should be the end of the story. Is this the minimum standard for performance for the Attorney General of the nation of laws that holds itself up as a beacon of justice to the world? Hmmmmm. That thought process may be a bit too revealing of the President's own competence to run our government. I do recall Mr. Bush proclaiming that his cabinet would be exemplars of competence and ethics. Not the first campaign promise broken by the Bushies, nor the last. Not surprising, since they value fidelity to each other over their sworn duties to the nation and people. Pity. How many days left for this administration? Count me as one of those counting the days.
Comments
Discussions for this story are now closed. Please see the Community FAQ for more information.