PFAW - Gonzales Should Resign or Be Removed - TalkLeft: The Politics Of Crime

PFAW - Gonzales Should Resign or Be Removed

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Law Related
Posted on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 10:07:15 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

PFAW:

People For the American Way, which two years ago helped lead opposition to the confirmation of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, today called for his resignation or removal as the first step toward holding the White House and Department of Justice accountable to the rule of law, and urged Congress to expand its oversight of the administration.
“Each scandal sheds new light on the Bush administration’s abuse of power, violation of Americans’ civil liberties, and contempt for the Constitution,” said People For the American Way President Ralph G. Neas. “Our nation’s top law enforcement official is in the middle of it, showing greater fidelity to the political interests of President Bush than to the public interest and the rule of law.”
. . . Neas said these are just the most recent in a series of developments that demonstrate Alberto Gonzales has failed to live up to his oath of office and act as the people’s lawyer, not the President’s. “The Attorney General has demonstrated time and again that Americans can’t trust him—or this administration—to follow the law, or to uphold the Constitution,” said Neas. . . . It is in the nation’s best interest for the Attorney General to resign, and if he fails to do so, President Bush should remove him from office.”

And if not that, then the Congress should impeach him. Sign the petition.

Just my opinion, not that of Talk Left.

< Latest WH Lie: All U.S. Attorneys Suspect for Not Investigating Voter Fraud | John Solomon >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

PFAW - Gonzales Should Resign or Be Removed | 27 comments (27 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

What LAWS. (5.00 / 2) (#4)
by Edger on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 10:16:47 AM EST

Law? What Law? (from Larisa at-Largely)

The Bush administration may have just impeached itself or at least its AG. I am not an attorney, but apparently neither is Alberto Gonzales.
Think about the following for a moment and see if there is not grounds to file criminal charges against -at minimum - Alberto Gonzales. Mind you, I am only talking about one example where the Attorney General abused his power, just one, out of thousands and maybe more.
The Unitary Executive:
Remember the argument Nixon made that if the President does it, then it is legal? Remember how well that went over with legal scholars?
Now let's take one crime committed by Alberto Gonzales and see how that one crime has authored other crimes and still other crimes. I am talking about just one signing statement that the AG advised the President on, just one, not the over 700 others.
...
The President was advised by Alberto Gonzales that it was within the President's authority to disregard the safe-guards put in by Congress.
...
By declaring his intention to not follow the law, the President effectively ordered the Department of Justice and the FBI to also disregard the law. In other words, he authored a direct order for illegal conduct. It can, however, be argued that the President was advised that this was legal, and he was. But Alberto Gonzales can claim no such defense.

MORE...

More from Larisa's article (5.00 / 2) (#17)
by Edger on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 11:00:23 AM EST

The FBI - as one would expect - followed the President's edict and violated the rights of countless Americans by snooping through their bank records, medical documents, and all sorts of fun stuff, even WHEN THERE WAS NO REASON OR AN INVESTIGATION. In other words, the FBI was found to be acting illegally. So what does Alberto Gonzales now say?

WASHINGTON - The nation's top two law enforcement officials acknowledged Friday the FBI broke the law to secretly pry out personal information about Americans. They apologized and vowed to prevent further illegal intrusions."
Sorry if I find it a bit strange that the Attorney General would admit to acting illegally, when he is in fact the one who misled the President to give him the authority to act illegally in the first place.
This man has lied to Congress, to the public, and to the President of the United States and he says "oops?" Are you kidding me? We don't need investigations, we need for Mr. Gonzales to be immediately removed from office

Is there Verifiable/ Independent Proof that Law(s) (1.00 / 1) (#7)
by TearDownThisWall on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 10:21:38 AM EST

were broken as it relates to the firing of the attorneys?


: READ the links (5.00 / 2) (#11)
by Edger on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 10:26:44 AM EST

What Specific Law did Atty.General Gonzolez break? (1.00 / 1) (#1)
by TearDownThisWall on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 10:10:48 AM EST

in this matter?
thanks-

Law against perjury (5.00 / 2) (#2)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 10:12:07 AM EST

for one.


Where/ How....Perjury committed? (1.00 / 1) (#3)
by TearDownThisWall on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 10:13:42 AM EST

Specifically....
Thanks


When he specifically LIED (5.00 / 3) (#6)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 10:19:22 AM EST

to the Congress under oath about why the US Attorneys were fired.

I am answering your specific question about THIS incident. Gonzo committed perjury on numerous other occasions.


What exactly did he say?...what was specific Lie? (1.00 / 1) (#9)
by TearDownThisWall on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 10:23:31 AM EST

If you have the actual Lie, he committed-
Thank you very much


: He said the firings were performance related (5.00 / 2) (#10)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 10:26:39 AM EST

and did not involve political concerns, that they came from the Justice Dep't and not form outside sources.
Than ks very much if you actually read about the story before you decide to try and play Devil's advocate.

i'll agree (none / 0) (#5)
by Deconstructionist on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 10:18:27 AM EST

he should resign or be fired. I see no gain to anyone in attempting to impeach him.

looking at the petition itself (none / 0) (#8)
by Deconstructionist on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 10:22:52 AM EST

PFAw makes no call for impeachment either, simply resigno or be fired by bush. I think PFAW has a more mature and realistic perspective.

: To be clear (5.00 / 3) (#12)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 10:28:19 AM EST

Talk Left does not support impeachment either.
Thsi is my personal opinion.
As for what is the mature view, I do not care to get into that type of debate with you.
I have my views and I express them. That seems mature to me.

Well since you don't want to debate that (none / 0) (#13)
by Deconstructionist on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 10:37:22 AM EST

I won't state expressing immature views is not mature.

I'm also curious, as is the other poster, what specific sworn testimony you identify as a false assertion of fact.

I'd not be surprised at all if you can actually identify such testiony, but it does not suffice to say "he lied about __" in a criminal or civil proceeding.

Impeachment is a whole differernt game. it is essentially a political process where the Congress can define use almost anything if it has the votes because it gets to decide what is "malfeasance." However, since we know (a) impeachment, let alone conviction is a non-starter we should focus on making the case for his departure in a way that does not come across as shrill political hacks screaming.

It's not necessary to do that and it detracts from the good case.

Heh (none / 0) (#14)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 10:46:07 AM EST

A good illustration of why a debate on that wouild be sterile.

Rubber and glue seemed not far away.


well (none / 0) (#15)
by Deconstructionist on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 10:51:41 AM EST

then make YOUR case.

Why would attempting impeachment when we know it won't happen (let alone a 2/3 vote many months later for conviction in the Senate) be a good idea as opposed to placing ALL the pressure on Bush right now?

Knowing when not to overplay a hand is important---especially when you can win with the hand you have if you play it smart.

I'm also interested in what testimony you identify as constitutiong perjury. As I said, I wouldn't be surprised if some exists, but theburden is on the person making the charge to identify it.

Because (none / 0) (#16)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 10:57:02 AM EST

by raising the REALISTIC Specter (pun intended) of an impeachment proceeding, Gonzo is more likely to go.

The art of negotiation.


Yeah, "negotiation" (none / 0) (#18)
by Deconstructionist on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 11:13:32 AM EST

really seems your strong suit. Most of the time I'm "negotiating" with people i find calling them names and making transparently idle threats is not helpful. To the extent such tactics don't simply cause "negotiations" to end, they often force the other side to become defensive and make stands on things which they might otherwise relent.

The desire for emotional gratificaction often has to be subordinated to doing what actually helps meet the objective. I'd say we could start a pool for naming the date of his demise and the more the focus is kept solely on making Bush do it and do it now, the more likely the earlier guessers will win. It might lack the drama but isn't that the goal?


Hmm (none / 0) (#19)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 11:16:33 AM EST

That's a view.

You'll find in real life I think that the best negotiators are the most unreasonable ones.


i have no doubt ... (1.00 / 1) (#20)
by Deconstructionist on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 11:18:36 AM EST

YOU think that. You wear your heart on your sleeve.


Ok (5.00 / 1) (#21)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 11:32:12 AM EST

closing in on rubber glue territory again.


no (1.00 / 2) (#22)
by Deconstructionist on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 11:37:30 AM EST

I am mocking you, but there is substance to my mockery which you cannot address. I'm sure you believe the most unreasonable approach is the most effective because your every word is consistent with that belief. In the world where it was true you would be King. In this world your a pompous blogger with no infulence.


a pompous blogger? (5.00 / 3) (#23)
by Edger on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 11:39:51 AM EST

Takes one to think he knows one.


See? (5.00 / 2) (#25)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 12:01:01 PM EST

I told you there was rubber glue territory.


: Heh. (5.00 / 1) (#26)
by Edger on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 12:09:11 PM EST

I was going to link to an picture, but it was a bit too.... well.... apt, you know?

: Thanks for the heads up about PFAW today... (5.00 / 1) (#27)
by Edger on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 12:10:19 PM EST

maybe... (none / 0) (#24)
by Deconstructionist on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 11:56:14 AM EST

but it also takes a little more than that as evidenced by your swallowing his Bs with a spoon.