"For the sake of the nation, Attorney General (Alberto) Gonzales should step down," Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said Sunday on CBS’ "Face the Nation." He added that Gonzales "doesn’t accept or doesn’t understand that he is no longer just the president’s lawyer, but has a higher obligation to the rule of law and the Constitution."
Gonzales is under fire for the firing of eight U.S. attorneys and for an inspector general’s audit released last week that said the FBI improperly and illegally used the USA Patriot Act to obtain information.
Two fellow Senate Judiciary Committee members joined Schumer in criticizing Gonzales but stopped short of calling for his resignation or firing. Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., said on "Face the Nation" that "I do think there have been lots of problems." And Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., claimed on CNN’s "Late Edition" that Gonzales "has lost the confidence of the vast majority of the American people" and of Congress.
Meanwhile, when asked Sunday in Uruguay about the inspector general’s report, President Bush said that he has "confidence in" Gonzales.
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Chas on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
66 Comments
Of course the President has confidence in Gonzales, he has confidence in all his crony buddies.
They all take the fall for his bumbling.
Hey Chuckie Shumer, for the sake of the Nation, you should SHUT UP!
Poor ol’ Chucky Schumer. The Democrats are in charge of the senate and house and Chucky is the same innefectual, irrelevent, nitwit.
What he doesn’t understand is that the president gets to pick the AG and most Americans don’t know who Chucky or the Ag is.
Hank
For the sake of the nation Shumer should inevstigate this corruption fully! Even Republican Specter knows this reeks of official corruption. Just like everything else in the Bush administration!
“You’re doing a heckuva job Alberto!”
Good on Schumer!!
Dig in. There is much to find out about the most corrupt administration in history.
You cons just hate it when it’s pointed out how inept and crooked your leaders are huh?
I understand…let it out.
Maybe you’re on to something Hard tooth. But first they should investigate the former AG who gassed and burned a bunch of men, women, and children in a Church in Texas and ripped a terrifyed six year boy away from people who loved him at gunpoint and sent him back to the Hellhole of the Western Hemisphere.
You call that a CHURCH?
Man, you’re farther gone than I originally thought. We know what happened there- a whacko fundie freak (not unlike yourself) caused that, not our government.
So you support kidnapping other people’s children from them as well?
…and what would you have done about Koresh and the Branch Davidians, Mac. The man was having sex with twelve year old girls and was building an arsenal of illegal weapons. He could have ended the siege anytime by surrendering. There were legitimate Federal warrants for his arrest.
And he started the fires that killed the women and children.
As you Elion (sp) Gonzales, he was returned to his FATHER who has legal custody of him. I thought you Republicans were all about the FAMILY.
Off your meds again I see Mom.
“He is contained”He couldn’t hurt anyone else..
sound familiar
…and what would you have done about Koresh and the Branch Davidians, Mac.
Well, I wouldn’t have killed them. And as for Elion, I don’t think his Mother gave her life trying to get her son to Florida just to have him handed back to Castro and his goons.
I’m not the one sitting here supporting religious zealot child rapists.
Nice try at re-direct Chris.
And it worked.
Now let’s get back on topic.
Back on topic we are then.
Why do Democrats get a pass and Republicans must answer for stupid trumped up crap that is ginned up by the Dems and their media toadies?
P.S. Rush is knocking them dead today. God I love that guy!
“have him handed back to Castro and his goons.”
He was handed back to his FATHER, not to Castro. From recent reports by Western news organizations, he is doing just fine. His mother did not have the right to take him from his father.
As for Koresh, after 54 days and many broken promises from those inside, the Marshalls had to do something. Why blame the Goverment when it was Koresh that could have ended the siege peacefully?
I was watching those Federal Lawyers on CSpan before the sentence and a few of the things rang out quite clearly
(1) U.S. Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the sitting President.(2) All of the Attorneys present had served what is about the average time for a US Attorney to serve (4-6 years.)(3) Several were so confused that they emailed not their superiors to ask why, but their connections to the Press Corp.(4) They did not carry out priorities of the President and Attorney General such as Gun Control.
Didn’t watch the House interviews, maybe they will have a re-run.
Hey WSC didn’t you read JR’s last post. We are back on topic here.
Vernon Howell killed the people at Waco. He is dead as well; he died in his fire.
Regarding the firing of SEVEN US Attorneys by Bush. Prior to this administration, there have only been FIVE fired in 25 years FOR CAUSE.
Makes the “everybody does it” defense seem a little disengenuos.
“Excluding the current controversy, the Congressional Research Service found just five instances over 25 years in which U.S. attorneys were fired by the president or resigned following reports of questionable conduct. A Reagan-era prosecutor was fired and later convicted in federal court in connection with charges that he leaked confidential information. A Clinton appointee resigned over allegations he bit a topless dancer on the arm during a visit to an adult club following a loss in a big drug case. The CRS study did not include departures that followed a change in presidential administration, when turnover is common.”
I bet the right leave that little tidbit out of their talking points.
Again, for those on the right that think we just make up stuff…..
A link!!!!!
Associatated Press via Yahoo! News.
http://fe25.news.re3.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070306/ap_on_go_ot/prosecutors_q_a
WSClark
What Cause was sited in the firing of these seven attorneys?
Are the reasons invalid?
Just wondering.
Actually, it was eight attorney’s – but from news reports, they all had recieved good perfromance reports prior to having been fired. It was not the usual replacement of attorney’s when an admin changes.
No cause was cited. Just pressure from GOP operatives.
Thought this post from another blog site was interesting:
“Bill Clinton fired all 92/93 US attorneys in one day upon assuming office in 1993, and replaced them all with loyal Democrats (the only one not fired was a US attorney who was kept on at the behest of Bill Bradley).
You can Google for this, it is well known. This process is totally political.
Joe Conanson’s view is thus bizarre: “as a violation of American law enforcement traditions and as a triumph of patronage over competence.Democrats mostly appoint Democrats and Republicans mostly appoint Republicans, but the U.S. attorneys are usually chosen with the advice and consent of the senators from their home states, and then confirmed by the full Senate, with a decent respect for skill and experience as well as political connections….That is the best way to discourage future usurpations — and to frustrate whatever skulduggery was afoot this time..”
Again, Bill Clinton fired all the US attorneys but one, PURELY on the basis of politics. This included the US attorney in Arkansas investigating Hubble and Whitewater.
Was this Clinton skulduggery? No, it is standard political patronage.What is Conason talking about? Does he even know this?
So, when President Hillary clears house and fires ALL of the BUSH appointees in 2009…will there be screams of outrage over this?
I am willing to bet no one here will be commenting, neither will there be any reference in the MSM to “skulduggery”. “
When Bush took over in 2001 he did the same thing. The thing that makes this situation different is that he is firing them “mid-term” after they had been appointed during the normal turnover.
What this shows is that even after Bush appointed his allies to office he will remove them if they try to be professional instead of only pursuing GOP political witch-hunts.
AS the blogger from another site pointed out Mr. HardTruth, the attorneys are Political appointees that serve at the pleasure of the President. The President can hire and fire them at his pleasure, for any reason, any time and under any circumstance.
There is no “cause” or “justification” needed to replace U.S. Attorneys.
What part of Political Appointees as applying to U.S. Attorneys did you not understand Mr. HardTruth?
It is not argued that what he is doing is legal or illegal; just that it is unprecedented and smacks of corruption. What part of unprecedented do you not understand Mr. Republikhan?
Being unprecedented does not convey illegality does it Mr. HardTruth?
Explain how a process of hiring and firing at the pleasure of the sittin g President is interpreted as corruption.
What is corrupted or is discretion in a political appointment is what you consider corruption?
If discretion in Political Appointment is your standard, then there is no precedent that has been reset. It is merely the standard applied under current laws.
I never said it was illegal. What part of “It is not argued that what he is doing is legal or illegal” do you not understand?
You’re wrong Hardtooth, Bush did not ask for the resignations of the US Attorneys in 2001. He was roundly (and rightly) critizied for not doing so by some in his own party. That was back when He foolishly thought that Democrats were honorable and could be bi-partisan and reasonable.
Mr. HardTruth,
Then I must conclude since you did not reply in your following post that there is no precedent that was broken as the standard of Political Appointees at the pleasure of the sitting President cannot be conveyed to mean anything but that. That includes the time and moment when the hiring or firing is done.
No, that is not correct khan. In past years there has not been such a wholesale firing during a term. Thus Mr. Bush set a new one.
There may be nothing here, however even GOP Senator Specter says it reeks.
It is legal; nobody denies that. However, it definitely gives the appearence of corruption. Especially as the story of Rove’s involvement has come out.
Let’s see Mr. HardTruth,
Here’s a quote:”In Law, a previous decision, rule or practice which, in the absence of a definite statute, has whatever force and authority a Judge may choose to give it, thereby greatly simplifying his task of doing as he pleases. As there are precedents for everything, he has only to ignore those that make against his interest and accentuate those in the line of his desire. Invention of the precedent elevates the trial-at-law from the low estate of a fortuitous ordeal to the noble attitude of a dirigible arbitrament.” — Ambrose Bierce”
Now, examining this interpretation of the the term precedent, I can logically follow that the phrase “at the pleasure of the President” means exactly that.
If U.S. Attorneys do not perform well in the view of a sitting President and their employment is only measured by the sitting President’s pleasure, then he/she may fire or hire U.S. Attorneys at his pleasure.
Again, point out what part of the current law that assigns the President the pleasure of hiring and firing of U.S. Attorneys can be interpreted as corruption.
Not a hypothetical, but an issue that is apart from the current law.
I believe you won’t find any room for a corruption interpretation, but I’m interested on what you have to say about the matter Mr. HardTruth.
The issue is the timing of the firings, which everyone acknowledges is “legal”. The “firings” took place after the passage of the Reauthorization of the Patriot Act, which contained the amendment to the existing statute governing appointment of a replacement. The amendment provides that the new appointment may be made on an interim basis without the necessity of the advice and consent of the Senate, which, under the statute as it existed prior to said amendment, provided for Senate confirmation no more than 120 days (IIRC) after the nomination. Interestingly, the administration has signaled it would not oppose repeal of this particular amendment, and, from media reports, a bill to so do is beginning its journey through the Congress.
Interesting comments Mr. Tolle.
Perhaps you could enlighten me how “pleasure” in regards to the phrase “at the pleasure of the President” has a timing value?
Is there a chronometer on pleasure that I’m not aware?
There is no chronometer, Kahn; never said there was. What is upsetting to some is the firing of eight U.S. Attorneys, seven of whom from all reports had good job performance, at a time when the law, as amended, allowed them to be replaced by others without the Senate’s ability to exercise the advice and consent function heretofore granted it, and removed by said amendment. This gives rise to a supposition that this was for political purposes, and to consolidate control over the functions of the U.S. Attorneys offices in the DOJ in Washington. Added to that was the unprecedented contact by two members of Congress to the individual in New Mexico seemingly wanting indictments returned against certain Democrats prior to the November 8 election.
As I posted, no one debates the President’s ability to fire these political appointees. It was the timing, apparently to take advantage of the amendment which was part of the Patriot Act Reauthorization, which allowed the appointment of a replacement for an indefinite period without the approval of the Senate, as had been the case under the prior law which has caused the uproar, IMO.
Interesting Mr. Tolle,
When I watched CSPAN concerning Senatorial interviews of the interim US attorneys, a couple of points were brought up.
That is,(1) The US Attorney markers on prosecuting violent gun law felonies was very low as compared to other districts attended to by US Attorneys in other areas.(2) The US Attorneys present all agreed that they served at the pleasure of the President.
To me, it looks like the US Attorneys fired were not upholding a priority of the President. That is, their low count on taking on the prosecution of violent gun law felonies was not what President Bush had set forth in his expectations of a US Attorney as a standard.
That is a cause, not meeting a standard. It is also unnecessary as no cause is needed. I thought it was interesting to point out though.
Hey Chris, just like Clinton, Bush DID replace all of the US Attorney’s.
From Karl Rove……
Look, by law and by Constitution (sic), these attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president and traditionally are given a four year term. And Clinton, when he came in, replaced all 93 U.S. attorneys. When we came in, we ultimately replace most all 93 U.S. attorneys – there are some still left from the Clinton era in place. We have appointed a total of I think128 U.S. attorneys – that is to say the original 93, plus replaced some, some have served 4 years, some served less, most have served more. Clinton did 123. I mean, this is normal and ordinary.
VT and WS it is important to note that all presidents have this authority. The following tells about Clinton exercising this same authority. At the time this threw the justice into dissaray.
“One of President Clinton’s very first official acts upon taking office in 1993 was to fire every United States attorney then serving — except one, Michael Chertoff, now Homeland Security secretary but then U.S. attorney for the District of New Jersey, who was kept on only because a powerful New Jersey Democrat, Sen. Bill Bradley, specifically requested his retention.
Were the attorneys Clinton fired guilty of misconduct or incompetence? No. As a class they were able (and, it goes without saying, well-connected). Did he shove them aside to thwart corruption investigations into his own party? No. It was just politics, plain and simple.http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDZmMzQ5Zjg4ZGI1OTgxODA1OWM5YzFjYTRmYTlhNzk=
Politics happens. No party has a lock on it. To me this is a non subject.
Heckler, many of them were going after prominent republicans in corruption suits as well.
Bush sure does a whole lot of unprecedented things…all of which make Stalin look like he had an open government.
For Christ’s sake, Grannie, NO ONE is saying that he can’t do it and that has been repeatedly acknowledged.
The question is why, given that ONLY five in the last 25 years has been dismissed for cause, did Bush suddenly fire EIGHT?
…. and it is looking more and more likely that the Attorney is NM was fired for NOT bringing charges against several DEMOCRATS.
The US Attoney’s position is supposed to be above partisan politics. It is against Congressional ethics rules to pressure an attorney, but it looks like that was exactly what Wilson and Domenici did.
But, just for S & G, what do you think the Republicans would have said if it had been Clinton that sudenly fired eight attorneys FOR CAUSE?
“what do you think the Republicans would have said if it had been Clinton that sudenly fired eight attorneys FOR CAUSE?”Posted by: WSClark | March 12, 2007 at 06:57 PM
There would have been accusations and finger pointing just like there is now.
As I said before, hiring and firing of US Attorney’s is at the pleasure of the sitting President.
All of this uproar is a Circus sideshow and a waste of taxpayer dollars imo.
“As I said before, hiring and firing of US Attorney’s is at the pleasure of the sitting President.”
… and that was acknowledged over and over and over again.
The point was in the last twenty-five years, there have only been thirteen US Attorney’s fired for cause.
Eight of them were fired last week by George W Bush.
You don’t see that as being somewhat suspect?
“It’s worth noting, however, that the same Democrats who will be up in arms now were mum in the 1990s. President Clinton not only fired U.S. attorneys sweepingly and without cause. He also appointed high executive-branch officials, such as Justice Department civil-rights division chief Bill Lann Lee, on an “acting” basis even though their positions called for senate confirmation. This sharp maneuver enabled those officials to serve even though it had become clear that they would never be confirmed.
Reporting on Lee on February 26, 1998, the New York Times noted: “Under a Federal law known as the Vacancy Act, a person may serve in an acting capacity for 120 days. But the [Clinton] Administration has argued that another Federal law supercedes the Vacancy Act and gives the Attorney General the power to make temporary law enforcement assignments of any duration.”
What the Clinton administration dubiously claimed was the law back then is, in fact, the law right now. Yet, for some strange reason — heaven knows what it could be — Senator Feinstein has only now decided it’s a problem. Like the public, I’m shocked.”
Clarkie I assumed you would read the whole article but just in case you didn’t please digest the paragraphs above. Finestein is in a snit about the very thing that Clintonians didn’t have a problem with back in the 90’s. Didn’t say it was right or wrong. Said it was politics. Still do.
I do love that part about the AG is supposed to be above partisan politics.
“I do love that part about the AG is supposed to be above partisan politics.”
On MSNBC – the charges filed against Democrats by the Bush Justice Department outnumber charges against Republicans by a 7 to 1 margin.
Are you going to be okay with the reverse when Barack Obama takes office?
“You don’t see that as being somewhat suspect?”Posted by: WSClark | March 12, 2007 at 07:09 PM
No, I see that as Politics. Sometimes Political moves suck for the opposition.
And, the U.S. Attorneys are Political appointees.
The U.S. Attorneys that were fired are arguing that the brown bear bit them.
The color of the bears’ fur is irrelevant.
“Mr. Rove’s claims today that the Bush administration’s purge of qualified and capable U.S. attorneys is “normal and ordinary” is pure fiction. Replacing most U.S. attorneys when a new administration comes in — as we did in 1993 and the Bush administration did in 2001 — is not unusual. But the Clinton administration never fired federal prosecutors as pure political retribution. These U.S. attorneys received positive performance reviews from the Justice Department and were then given no reason for their firings.
We’re used to this White House distorting the facts to blame the Clinton administration for its failures. Apparently, it’s also willing to distort the facts and invoke the Clinton administration to try to justify its bad behavior”
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/03/08/podesta-rove/
Woof, Obama will NEVER take office, so that is a moot point.
As far as the firings, we can speculate until we are blue in the face, but unless a law was broken – there is NO CAUSE for the conspiracy theorists to start beating the drums.
GWB appointed 128 attorneys, and anyone who has employees knows that even if you hire with the best intentions – differences can crop up down the road.
Running the country is like running a business. I can promise you that if you get an office full of a dozen women – trouble will sprout.
Why can’t the same thing happen with 128 attorneys?
Interesting reading on Law.com about the firing of the U.S. Attorneys. This article from a lawyers view I think.http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1173175404660
………… and GSher, if Clinton had fired EIGHT US Attorney’s, the right would have been SCREAMING, especially since the firing in New Mexico appears to have been due to pressure from Wilson and Domenici.
………… and you folks on the Right do not see anything unusual in the fact that until last week, only FIVE Attorneys had been fired in the preceeding 25 years?
BTW – Of the attorneys, six were Republicans and two were independents. Only one, a Rep, had received a negative performance review.
Woof, still – if it’s not illegal – there’s really no story.
Bottom line – I’m sure we all agree that they were fired for not supporting the agenda of the Administration.
But, as far as I know – there is nothing wrong with that.
Now, if you can prove that they were fired for racial reasons…maybe there’ll be a story.
Re read your link mom and wsc. Rove said we ULTIMATELY replaced MOST of the 93 US Attorneys. That means that as they came open through attrition Clinton appointees were replaced with Bush appointees. It was not the demand of enmass resignations that Clinton did in 93. Frankly I don’t blame him. After 12 years of Republican Presidents it would be natural to want to replace the Attorneys. Especially since he was bringing in the “Dixie Mafia” with him from Little Rock,
Nobody is saying anything illegal happened. That’s not the point.
However shouldn’t we do something to change it? Isn’t it wrong to go around firing people who are prosecuting your buddies?
“It was not the demand of enmass resignations that Clinton did in 93″
You need to provide a link that all of the 128 appointments made by Bush up until now were the result of attrition. Every other news story proves that Bush replaced about 93 attorneys in 2001 just like Clinton did in 1993.
“Now, if you can prove that they were fired for racial reasons…maybe there’ll be a story.”
Why bring up race? No one has suggested that it was race or gender based, so why the comment?
On the firing of the U.S. attorneys, I have to agree with Repubikhan in that though it might be political it is the right of the standing President to hire or fire appointees at his leisure regardless of the timing.Be it morally right or wrong, in this it is no more right that President Clinton summarily fire the 92.
As to Gonzales, it was Gonzales as Presidential council that told Bush&Co. by changing what enemy combatants are call it would give the President and his administration a shield against later charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity. And make it arguably whether the treatment of those captured would be covered by the Geneva convention.
It was Gonzales that pushed for the Patriot act to cover not just those that were associated with terrorists but all American citizens. The above could be construed as crimes against the United States. In that case Gonzales should resign among other things.
“Be it morally right or wrong, in this it is no more right that President Clinton summarily fire the 92.”
All Presidents select their own roster of US Attorneys. All release the existing crop when they take office. All select their won candidates for Attorney General. Regardless, all candidates are approved by the Senate.
What Clinton and Bush did when they took office is not unusual, but only FIVE Attorneys have been dismissed for cause in the last 25 years.
That was until last week when Bush fired EIGHT more for cause.
That was until last week when Bush fired EIGHT more for cause.Posted by: WSClark | March 12, 2007 at 10:47 PM
And what is your point? The U.S. Attorneys fired was the choice of the President to fire. They serve at the pleasure of the President.
If the next President is a Democrat, wouldn’t you want to afford this opportunity to him or her?
Or do you want the law to change and have the next President not have that ability?
…. and if President Obama was to fire EIGHT US Attorneys for political reasons, you folks on the RIGHT would be screaming to the heavens.
Don’t even pretend that you wouldn’t.
An incoming President almost always changes the White House travel staff.
When Clinton did it, the Republicans turned it into Travelgate.
No hypocrisy there, right?
I would like to see it changed. I don’t think US attorneys should be serving based on politics at all.
“Attorney General Janet Reno today demanded the prompt resignation of all United States Attorneys, leading the Federal prosecutor in the District of Columbia to suggest that the order could be tied to his long-running investigation of Representative Dan Rostenkowski, a crucial ally of President Clinton. Jay B. Stephens, the …”
This is the same politics. Nothing has changed. It may need to be changed but to blame one side or the other is hiding our heads in the sand.
Dont you just love it that when the repukes get caught gaming the system it is time to make the scandal nonpartisan?
When bushco does dirty deeds, it is just politics as usual, and when confronted with the magnitude of the problem, they trot out the “clinton did it” meme?
hehehehehehhehehhehehehheheheheheheh
Germie is nothing if not consistant and predictable.
This new role of our government in our lives been supported by the past 3 Attorney Generals, from both parties. It’s very scarey.
As a “real” conservative, not a willey eyed right wing nut, I feel we need another Ronald “Ray Gun.” But 1st, we need to have our asses handed to us by the Dems. Give them enough rope to hang themselves, AND let our party realize that our party as it currently is scares people. It is about hate, intolerance, and ignorence, NOT small government and low taxes.
Let’s get back to our roots! WE OWE RIGHT WING EVANGALIST N O T H I N G !!!!! Totally rebuke them, ignore them, leave them no spot at our table. They are the ONE vote we are guaranteed, I mean are they going to vote for an athiest commie JUST to teach the party a lesson? I THINK NOT!
A secular conservative/pro business/small government/ low taxes Republican party!! One that insists on government transparency, severely limits its authority. I long for those good old days!
“long-running investigation of Representative Dan Rostenkowski”
So, as a result, Rostenkowski got off scot-free and went on to be a wealthy land-owner in Northern Virginia.
Oh, wait!!! That is wrong. Rostenkowski was convicted, humiliated and went to prison where he went on to a totally new career. His fellow inmates call him Monica.