home

Agreeing With The WH on Gonzo

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Law Related
Posted on Mon May 21, 2007 at 06:12:03 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

WH Spokesman Tony Fratto said:

As for no-confidence votes, maybe senators need a refresher course on American civics. . . . What I mean is I think you find no-confidence votes in parliamentary systems, not the American system of government.

Very true. Our system of government provides for a different mechanism:

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Speaking only for me, I agree with the White House that impeachment of Alberto Gonzales is the proper course.

< Media Laziness In All Forms | Given A Choice, The Nation Would End The Iraq Debacle >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Agreeing With The WH on Gonzo | 61 comments (61 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    no, (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by cpinva on Mon May 21, 2007 at 08:11:19 AM EST
    Uh, speaking only for me, that's not was said.

    it's what was implied.

    personally, i think impeachment is too long a process. it would be a whole lot easier, and quicker, to just take him out in the woods, and make him "an offer he can't refuse". he'll resign, in a heartbeat.

    no muss, fuss, no bother. no hesitation, no remorse.

    You mean like... (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon May 21, 2007 at 08:28:49 AM EST
    Bernie Bernbaum?

    I know the rule of law has become devalued over the last 6 years, but sheesh!



    Parent

    geez molly (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by cpinva on Mon May 21, 2007 at 02:50:11 PM EST
    lighten up, it was just a joke. really, did you think i was serial?

    if i were, i'd have suggested taking him down to the mall, tying him to a post, and giving the general public the opportunity to take one whack at him with a baseball bat. only between the neck and hips though.

    you know the guy's bad when even john ashcroft gags at something he's tried to pull. kind of like satan saying "oh no, that's just too evil!"

    Parent

    or maybe ... (none / 0) (#42)
    by Sailor on Mon May 21, 2007 at 04:28:28 PM EST
    ... he should be taken to a nice farm out in the country ... like my dog spot was.

    Parent
    Over ride President's Pardon (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Saul on Mon May 21, 2007 at 09:32:09 AM EST
    It is obvious if Gonzales does not resign then Bush will issue a presidential pardon to him right before he leaves office.  To prevent the pardon from being effective, Congress needs to impeach Gonzo before 08 election, since the constitution says that one of the exceptions to presidential pardons is cases of impeachment.

    Doesn't he have to be guilty of something? (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Slado on Mon May 21, 2007 at 02:24:38 PM EST
    If he was this would already be over with.

    Since he's not the dems are trying to remove hime thorugh political pressure and so far that's not working.

    Politically he's a suck on the president right now but Bush is the president so he gets to decide when he goes ...I'm using the old standard of innocent before proven guilty, frankly a standard often forgotten on this legal website when it comes to republicans...so other then being a mean nasty AG he's not guilty of anything yet and that drives the Dems into stupid manuevers such as no-confidence votes.

    hahahaha (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by squeaky on Mon May 21, 2007 at 02:34:45 PM EST
    That is really funny slado. Yes, in our government all one has to do is be guilty of something and they are out of office.

    Oh you did not really mean that did you because what you really meant was:

    but Bush is the president [king] so he gets to decide when he goes

    hahahahha.

    Parent

    I have an anonymous source ... (none / 0) (#44)
    by Sailor on Mon May 21, 2007 at 05:47:07 PM EST
    ... that says gonzo investigated gonzo and found gonzo didn't commit any crimes ... as far as he could remember.

    Parent
    Slado (none / 0) (#49)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon May 21, 2007 at 07:39:42 PM EST
    Letting Gonzales is like throwing someone overboard to feed the sharks. As soon as one is gone the demand will be for another. Bush should tell'em to do their best and see what happens.... and that will be nothing. Worse, from the Demos side, they will get hammered because of not doing the people's business, their treasured "oversight" will be seen as partisian attacks and bickering.

    This is a lose lose for the Demos. What Congress' rating fall in the next poll. It looks like they desperately want to elect Rudy and Thompson in '08.

    Parent

    Dude, put the bottle down ... (none / 0) (#53)
    by Sailor on Mon May 21, 2007 at 09:01:24 PM EST
    Letting Gonzales is like throwing someone overboard to feed the sharks.

    What Congress' rating fall in the next poll.
    ... and step away from the keyboard.

    Even when he's sober, taking political advice from a 28%er who has been wrong about every single thing from iraq to elections is like taking dating advice from Phil Spector.


    Parent

    Well... (none / 0) (#1)
    by Edger on Mon May 21, 2007 at 07:13:21 AM EST
    Arrgh... OK. Ahem. He's not Saddam Hussein, after all. I guess there has to be an upper limit.

    How about disbarring him too?

    BTD (none / 0) (#2)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon May 21, 2007 at 07:36:58 AM EST
    Speaking only for me, I agree with the White House that impeachment of Alberto Gonzales is the proper course.

    Uh, speaking only for me, that's not was said.

    Really? (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by scarshapedstar on Mon May 21, 2007 at 11:49:21 AM EST
    I'd say his comment was right up there with "bring it on". I feel silly explaining this, but he was pretty clearly gloating that a no-confidence vote has no real binding power in our legislature.

    If he wants something more entertaining, he's welcome to it, but he ought to be careful what he wishes for.

    Parent

    He was emulating your favorite tactic. (none / 0) (#5)
    by Edger on Mon May 21, 2007 at 08:27:35 AM EST
    Jesus, jim. Take it as a compliment.

    Parent
    Heh (none / 0) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 21, 2007 at 08:36:23 AM EST
    You are funny.

    Cuz that's what I think he said as opposed to my using what he said to make a point.

    Parent

    I agree, BTD (none / 0) (#3)
    by fafnir on Mon May 21, 2007 at 07:50:14 AM EST
    The Constitution provides a specific remedy; there's no need to invent $hit. Contemplating anything other than impeachment for Gonzo (and other members of the Bush Crime Family) not only a wastes time and money, it demonstrates the calculated lengths Democrats will travel to avoid direct confrontation with this weak White House.

    Think we have the votes (none / 0) (#8)
    by andgarden on Mon May 21, 2007 at 09:26:42 AM EST
    to Impeach Gonzo?

    No (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 21, 2007 at 09:43:06 AM EST
    But the impeachment trial in the Senate would be worth watching and good politics too.

    Let the GOP own him.


    Parent

    Well, I wonder (none / 0) (#11)
    by andgarden on Mon May 21, 2007 at 09:53:10 AM EST
    Couldn't it possibly have the negative side effect of keeping him in his job longer? Or do you assume that he isn't going to be fired anyway?

    Parent
    Ummm (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 21, 2007 at 10:45:13 AM EST
    So bush is going to fire him soon you think?

    Parent
    Long Simmer (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by squeaky on Mon May 21, 2007 at 11:03:12 AM EST
    Bush will never fire gonzo. You can tell from his smirk. And Specter is a liar, his 'premonitions' have usually turned out to be BS delaying tactics.

    Parent
    Gonzo probably has too much on Bush. (none / 0) (#23)
    by Edger on Mon May 21, 2007 at 02:37:28 PM EST
    Bush is probably hoping Gonzo will quit on his own, but you're probably right. He'll never fire him. Too dangerous. Accidents can happen though.

    Imagine Michael Corleone dumping Tom Hagen....

    Parent

    Accidents Can Happen (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by squeaky on Mon May 21, 2007 at 02:47:16 PM EST
    Good one.....
    Imagine Michael Corleone dumping Tom Hagen....
    You mean dumping him in the river with a cement overcoat?

    I could see that. But gonzo is a made man, Hagen was just a lawyer.

    Omertà

    Parent

    The East River? (none / 0) (#31)
    by Edger on Mon May 21, 2007 at 02:59:08 PM EST
    Gonzo's entire career for the past thirteen  years has been built on obsequious ingratiation to what he thought was a rising star, George W. Bush. As with most rethugs he sees the world upside down and backwards. And now George will make some supportive noises for awhile before likely dumping him like a bad habit. So much for honor among men of respect.

    Consigliere. George W. Bush's advisor in the background. Running the Department of Justice of the United States of America? Christ, I hope I don't find a horses head in my bed tomorrow morning after writing this.
    ...
    Gonzales thought he was a made man. A member of the family. Now he's finding out that he was just baggage all along.
    Gone-zales?

    Parent
    Gone-zales? (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by squeaky on Mon May 21, 2007 at 03:01:20 PM EST
    We'll see.

    Parent
    Gonzales (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Alien Abductee on Mon May 21, 2007 at 02:57:38 PM EST
    is Bush's firewall. Their fates are tied together, with him taking the hits for the WH. He won't quit, and Bush doesn't want him to quit. They both know that if Gonzales is removed the whole game will truly fall apart. They'll all hang tough and just keep stonewalling to run out the clock while pushing their agenda forward right until the very last minute of this administration. They've already said as much.

    Parent
    Yep. (none / 0) (#32)
    by Edger on Mon May 21, 2007 at 03:01:07 PM EST
    They both know that if Gonzales is removed the whole game will truly fall apart.

    Parent
    Although (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Alien Abductee on Mon May 21, 2007 at 03:06:14 PM EST
    of course, if he becomes more a liability than he's worth as a shield, he will resign. He knows what role he plays in the Family, after all.

    Parent
    There is only one way out of (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Edger on Mon May 21, 2007 at 03:25:06 PM EST
    the family.

    Parent
    Nice tie-in with the Last Season of the (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by oculus on Mon May 21, 2007 at 03:26:24 PM EST
    Sopranos, no?

    Parent
    Hopefully there's a way (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Edger on Mon May 21, 2007 at 03:33:32 PM EST
    to make him face the music. Bush will be there as long as Gonzo is, I think...

    Parent
    How Could He Be A Liability? (none / 0) (#36)
    by squeaky on Mon May 21, 2007 at 03:10:12 PM EST
    Only if he starts talking and that is not going to happen.

    Parent
    Its up to Rove. (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by oculus on Mon May 21, 2007 at 03:21:05 PM EST


    Parent
    By design (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Alien Abductee on Mon May 21, 2007 at 04:26:00 PM EST
    If the Dems actually make things too hot with investigations I can see him resigning to take as much as he can of the blame and the heat with him. A good soldier - he knows he'll be taken care of if he keeps doing what he's been called on to do, even if it means being a laughingstock for the whole country and going into the history books as an unprincipled yes-man who corrupted the DOJ and stomped on the Constitution.

    Parent
    Heh. (none / 0) (#43)
    by Edger on Mon May 21, 2007 at 04:46:04 PM EST
    The second has already happened. And the history is pretty much guaranteed by it. Whether what they call taking care of him is something he's going to enjoy is something else though.

    Parent
    Not really, no (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by andgarden on Mon May 21, 2007 at 11:03:19 AM EST
    I should learn my lesson and stop listening to anything Specter says.

    Parent
    BDT (none / 0) (#12)
    by squeaky on Mon May 21, 2007 at 10:22:34 AM EST
    You are on a roll. Hilarious and spot on.

    et al (none / 0) (#17)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon May 21, 2007 at 12:51:56 PM EST
    One small fact remains.

    First you have to have proof a law was broken.

    You folks are being ropeadoped.

    Good point, jim (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Edger on Mon May 21, 2007 at 12:59:19 PM EST
    The one you missed, I mean.

    Impeachment is a trial by the Senate to decide whether he has committed acts that warrant, in the opinion of the Senators, his removal from office.

    It is not a criminal trial and does not have the burden of proof that a criminal trial has.

    Go get some air, jim.

    Parent

    edger doesn't even know. (none / 0) (#46)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon May 21, 2007 at 07:33:51 PM EST
    The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

    First of all, impeachment is not done by the Senate, but by the House. The Senate then tries the case.

    What a dummy.

    In writing Article II, Section 4, George Mason had favored impeachment for "maladministration," i.e., incompetence, but James Madison, who favored impeachment only for criminal behavior, carried the issue. [1] Hence, cases of impeachment may be undertaken only for "treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors."

    Get some information edger.

    You guys are being ropeadoped. Enjoy.

    Link

    Parent

    Keep those insults and namecalling coming, jim. (none / 0) (#50)
    by Edger on Mon May 21, 2007 at 07:58:47 PM EST


    Parent
    edger (none / 0) (#54)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon May 21, 2007 at 10:34:06 PM EST
    You're right. I shouldn't call you a dummy.

    Hey everyone! Look at Edger! He wants to impeach Gonzales but doesnn't what he is talking about!

    But he isn't a dummy! He's just... well, he's just... well....

    Parent

    It's there (none / 0) (#45)
    by Repack Rider on Mon May 21, 2007 at 07:19:31 PM EST
    Since Gonzo has told Congress mutually exclusive stories about how he came to fire the US Attorneys, at least one of them must be a lie, although I suspect both are.

    In any event, there is no doubt he lied to Congress, and that is a federal crime.

    Now that you know Gonzo has certainly committed a rime, you want him gone also, correct?

    Clinton was impeached for a lie that wasn't made to Congress, so this must be worse.

    Parent

    Only one of Gonzales's explanations to (none / 0) (#48)
    by oculus on Mon May 21, 2007 at 07:37:45 PM EST
    Congress was under oath.  

    Parent
    Unfortunately (none / 0) (#51)
    by Repack Rider on Mon May 21, 2007 at 08:18:44 PM EST
    Lying to Congess is a federal crime EVEN IF IT IS NOT UNDER OATH.

    Look it up.

    At least you agree that he lied to congress, and that is progress.

    Parent

    The closest I can manage is (none / 0) (#57)
    by oculus on Tue May 22, 2007 at 01:23:49 AM EST

    NY Times editorial, May 22, 2007

    Where's your link?  

    Parent

    Where is yours? n/t (none / 0) (#59)
    by Repack Rider on Tue May 22, 2007 at 09:42:01 AM EST


    Parent
    Link wouldn't link, hence the citation. (none / 0) (#60)
    by oculus on Tue May 22, 2007 at 10:32:54 AM EST


    Parent
    et al (none / 0) (#61)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 22, 2007 at 01:34:50 PM EST
    Link Link

    Anybody seen the link??

    Parent

    You are pretty rude. (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by oculus on Tue May 22, 2007 at 02:22:56 PM EST


    Parent
    More like ugly rude. (none / 0) (#63)
    by Edger on Tue May 22, 2007 at 03:32:52 PM EST


    Parent
    Good political theatre, but (none / 0) (#19)
    by oculus on Mon May 21, 2007 at 01:47:33 PM EST
    what has Gonzales done that falls into the constitutional definition?  He has the authority to appoint and remove and appoint-anew US Attorneys.    

    Extreme incompetence (none / 0) (#20)
    by Edger on Mon May 21, 2007 at 01:58:32 PM EST
    and probably lying to congress.
    These guys learned from Richard Nixon. In 1973, when Nixon was getting hammered over Watergate, he threw the Senate Committee his Attorney General, a schmuck named Kleindeist. Famously, Nixon's own Rove, a devious creep named John Erlichman, told Nixon to leave the Attorney General, "twisting slowly in the wind."

    Rove and Bush are doing the Nixon Twist on Gonzales.

    Look, I have no sympathy for Alberto the Doomed. He's guilty of a crime I employed in racketeering cases: "Willful failure to know." It's a kind of fraud; Alberto was going way out of his way to not know what he had to know, that Rove and the President were toying with prosecutors.

    Gonzales is their glove-puppet. Why fire him? The nation watches these hearings and wants to kill something. But why shoot the puppet? It's time to fire the puppeteer. Eh, Mr. Rove?

    link

    Parent
    "Extreme incompetence." High crime (none / 0) (#27)
    by oculus on Mon May 21, 2007 at 02:48:40 PM EST
    or misdemeanour?

    Parent
    Either one works, I think. (none / 0) (#34)
    by Edger on Mon May 21, 2007 at 03:03:35 PM EST


    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#58)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 22, 2007 at 08:09:36 AM EST
    Incompetence is not a reason to impeach. See the constitution.

    Some links??

    BTW - The proof is in what is not being done. If the Demos could, they would have done so.

    Parent

    Learn before talking (none / 0) (#47)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon May 21, 2007 at 07:34:56 PM EST


    Parent
    Lying to Congress (none / 0) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 21, 2007 at 02:39:47 PM EST
    serially.

    Parent
    Depends on what "is" "is." (none / 0) (#28)
    by oculus on Mon May 21, 2007 at 02:49:18 PM EST


    Parent
    Inspired another question (none / 0) (#52)
    by Repack Rider on Mon May 21, 2007 at 08:22:51 PM EST
    what has Gonzales done that falls into the constitutional definition?

    What has Gonzales done that makes you want him to be AG?

    Aren't his incompetence and failure to tell the truth good enough reasons to get rid of him?  What about his support of torture and contempt for due process?

    If not, what would he have to do for you to consider him mbarrassing?

    Parent

    impeachment (none / 0) (#25)
    by chemoelectric on Mon May 21, 2007 at 02:44:55 PM EST
    impeachment. forthwith.

    Agreeing With The WH on Gonzo | 61 comments (61 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment