  |
|
| |
|
|
|
 Impeaching Alberto GonzalesPosted on Aug 2, 2007By Joe Conason While politicians of both parties have repeatedly denounced Alberto Gonzales for public mendacity and abuse of office, a few of them finally have stepped up to do what must be done. On July 31, Rep. Jay Inslee, D-Wash., and several colleagues—including four former prosecutors—filed a resolution directing the House Judiciary Committee to open an impeachment investigation of the attorney general. The logic of Inslee’s initiative is inescapable to anyone who has been listening to the congressional complaints about Gonzales. If legislators from both branches and both parties believe that the attorney general has repeatedly deceived Congress and the public about matters of importance, if they believe that he has committed those deceptions under oath in the Capitol, and if they believe that the president will do nothing to remedy these wrongs, then impeachment is their only serious response. So far, the Democratic leadership—and the Republicans who likewise suspect the attorney general of grave offenses—have carefully sidestepped this obligation. Instead they urge the appointment of a “special counsel” to probe the accusations of perjury against him. For anyone who remembers the awful excesses of the Clinton impeachment and the punishment inflicted on the Republicans in the next election for their pernicious zealotry, such caution is understandable. But the burden of confronting the attorney general’s abuses cannot be shifted onto the White House. George W. Bush will take no action against his old pal “Fredo,” who retains his confidence (and who knows far too much about this president and this administration to be discarded anyway). Despite Democratic reluctance, the prospect of a Gonzales impeachment has loomed for months and has only become more urgent with every prevarication he utters—and every new revelation of the partisan misuse of the Justice Department under his command. It is the culmination of a process that began with his confirmation hearings in January 2005. That was when Sen. Russ Feingold asked whether Gonzales, the former White House counsel, agreed with a legal memorandum suggesting that the president can authorize unlawful acts by his subordinates (such as torture). “Does the president, in your opinion, have the authority, acting as commander in chief, to authorize warrantless searches of Americans’ homes and wiretaps of their conversations in violation of the criminal and foreign intelligence statutes of this country?” the Wisconsin Democrat inquired. At first Gonzales declined to answer a “hypothetical.” But when pressed, he agreed that “the president is not above the law. ... It is not the policy of this president to authorize actions that would be in contravention of our criminal statutes.” Then Feingold asked whether, as attorney general, Gonzales would “commit to notify Congress if the president makes this type of decision, and not wait two years until a memo is leaked about it.” “I will advise the Congress as soon as I reasonably can, yes sir,” he replied, knowing that by then the White House had authorized wiretaps without warrants for three years. Eleven months later, that fact was disclosed on the front page of The New York Times, giving ample proof that Gonzales had lied to the Senate. That probably wasn’t the first time and surely wasn’t the last. Since that defining moment, his credibility has sunk so low that he cannot appear on Capitol Hill without being called a liar to his face. The White House would like to pretend that this congressional fury is mere party politics, but honest Republicans, too, are rankled by the Gonzo spectacle.
Senate Republicans may or may not share Democratic suspicions over the strange firings of several United States attorneys; they may or may not worry that the attorney general has turned the Justice Department into an extension of the White House political machine. But they all listened to Gonzales last spring when he claimed that he could not remember any of the details of those firings. According to The Washington Post, his recollection failed more than 60 times at a single hearing in April, when he said that he could not even recall “a final, high-level meeting in his office at which the dismissal plan was formally approved.”
Joe Conason writes for the New York Observer. © 2007 Creators Syndicate Inc. Previous item: The Uncounted Casualties of War Next item: The Unflappable Speaker Elsewhere: . CommentsAre you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig. Add Your Comment |
|
Email
Print
Share
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Ma.gnolia
Newsvine
Reddit
StumbleUpon
Yahoo
Jump to Comments
Copyright © 2008 Truthdig, L.L.C. All rights reserved.
By ardee, August 5, 2007 at 8:07 am #
#91940 by farmertx on 8/03 at 6:47 am
(143 comments total)
Have any of us considered that until the lure of big money is removed from politics, not one thing will change?
Have you considered that, once the power of special interest money is removed from the decision making of our legislators, power will be restored to its proper place, the voting public. I believe that this is the one key to our restoration of the US to its proper course.
#92113 by THOMAS BILLIS on 8/04 at 3:21 am
Thomas,
One usually doesnt start a task with the most complex problem but with the steady progression from simple to complex. Usually one follows the Watergate strategy and seek an underling, threatened with jail time, who will then roll over on those above him. That worked very well indeed.
Perhaps your logic follows the course that this differs from Nixon’s time because Bush is very willing to pardon or commute as he cares not a fig for justice, legality or honor. But then impeachment of he or Cheney will simply lead to more lies and unproven allegations in the end, with an even more divided nation resulting. Impeachment would not be successful unless one can absolutely prove impeachable offense. in order to do that one must, perforce, start from the bottom and work up.
I just wish they would darn well start!
Report thisBy THOMAS BILLIS, August 4, 2007 at 3:21 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Why would you impeach Fredo when he was just carrying the water for the real heads of the Bush crime syndicate.The solution is in the Constitution it is called impeachment and it should be used against Bush and Cheny.Unfortunately when God was giving out balls the democrats thought he said malls and they did not want to go shopping.This may sound partisan, they got Clinton and now we must get their guy.When you get conservative Bruce Fein calling for impeachment of Bush Cheny it stops being a partisan issue and becomes an American issue.Of course the democrats rather than thinking of the country are thinking about political gains in 08 have taken impeachment off the table.Is there any major party that puts country above party?Aren’t we all Americans and with such illegality is it not the responsibility of all elected officials to put country over party.A third party cannot run fast enough for me.I hope there are many more out there like me who want to get our country back.
Report thisBy jbart, August 3, 2007 at 6:39 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
# 91708 Desertdude
Report thisRIGHT ON, BROTHER!!
Get this guy into a position of “released guilt”. He knows what went on, by who, and what was done in retaliation/answer to those ocurrences. Bring the guilty into the light of “LAW”. My opinion, of course.
By farmertx, August 3, 2007 at 6:47 am #
Have any of us considered that until the lure of big money is removed from politics, not one thing will change?
Report thisWhat would be wrong with requiring donors to political campaigns to be registered voters, eligible to vote for that candidate, limiting the amount to $2000. With prison time, say 144 months plus foreiture of the money for violators (candidate and donor).
That would remove lobbyist’s, big corporations, trade groups, unions and PAC’s/527’s from the equation, putting more control back into the hands of the voter’s.
Also, eliminating the Electoral College and going back to 1 man 1 vote, regardless of where he lives.
Think about it.
By hippy pam, August 3, 2007 at 4:48 am #
LAWS-----We are supposed to live by them.HOW COME THEY APPLY TO YOU AND ME BUT NOT “THE BUSH BUNCH”?
Report thisHow can these people invoke “executive privilege” in order to be “ABOVE THE LAW”?When or if I am called to testify in a case I MUST GO AND TESTIFY....I DO NOT GET TO HIDE BEHIND ANYONES MONEY AND POWER>>>
China sent a message when they executed the WRONGDOER.What message did we send to OUR YOUTH and THE WORLD when the"BUSH BUNCH"is allowed to thumb their noses at the laws of this country.What message is sent when “Hiding in the bush” is allowed to Pardon SCOOTER LIBBEY?????
By ardee, August 3, 2007 at 4:38 am #
http://commonsense.ourfuture.org/challenging_rights _obstruction_strategy?tx=3
Challenging The Right’s Obstruction Strategy
Submitted by Robert Borosage on August 2, 2007 - 8:59am.
“The strategy of being obstructionist can work or fail ... and so far it’s working for us.”
—Senate Minority Whip Trent Lott, R-Miss.
Roll Call, April 18
A partisan minority in the U.S. Senate has blocked legislation that would lower the price of prescription drugs for seniors, invest in alternative energy sources while cutting subsidies to oil companies, require U.S. soldiers get adequate rest and training at home between tours in Iraq, and empower employees to join together to form unions at work. Each of these enjoyed the overwhelming support of the American people, and majority support in both the House and Senate.
In all, Senate Republicans have launched 43 filibusters in the first seven months of the Congress, on a pace to triple the previous record. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has brazenly announced that every “controversial measure” will face a filibuster in the Senate, trampling majority rule to require 60 votes to cut off the filibuster. No longer can reforms be passed on a clean up-or-down majority vote in the Senate.
...edit…
and:
The Republican minority in the Congress is now planning to use this August recess to rail against the “do-nothing” Congress. Sen. John Kyl, R-Ariz., has reportedly distributed talking points about the failure of the Congress to get things done. Already the House and Senate minority leaders are trotting out laugh lines about the “post-office Congress” that does nothing but name post offices and launch divisive witch hunts against the administration.
This is akin to someone mugging the postman and then complaining that the mail isn’t delivered on time. In fact, the Bush White House and Republican minority have pursued a systematic and openly admitted strategy of obstruction.
Report thisBy purplewolf, August 2, 2007 at 5:08 pm #
When I was a correction officer the most important thing we were taught that you could loose was your creditibility, the second was you life. This administration and its corral of incompetents has no creditibility. Impeaching is fine, but that doesn’t get them out of office, they have to be fired also. These bimbos lying to the public should be fired just their own stupidity alone. How anyone who cannot remember as many things as Alberto Gonzales claims he cannot must be brain dead. Time to bury him. This arrogance has to end. This administration has been an embarassment to all thay once was decent about America. We need to correct this problem and start to clean up the tarnish that has covered everything touched by these dishonest leaders who claim they are beyond the law.
Report thisBy KYJurisDoctor, August 2, 2007 at 5:07 pm #
Talk of impeachment is unwise—at least at this time!
http://OsiSpeaks.com or http://OsiSpeaks.org
Report thisBy ardee, August 2, 2007 at 11:38 am #
I somehow doubt that this is the reason for a reluctance to impeach.If anything it should lend an aura of “paybacks are a bitch” to the proceedings.
An optimistic but not necesarily factual version might be the ongoing investigations lend hope to impeachable disclosures that would persuade enough Republicans to climb on board the impeachment train.
More probably those who count votes in the Democratic Party see no realistic chance of gaining the necesary ayes to move impeachment forward, also not a reasonable excuse as simply publicizing the proceedings would help educate the public, many of whom are still unbelievably in the dark as to the machinations in our Capital.
All in all the two party sysrtem was a great thing, while it lasted.
Report thisBy Bill O'Reilly, August 2, 2007 at 11:24 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
.
Send all your letters to:
William J. O’Reilly and Maureen E. McPhilmy-O’Reilly 33 Shore Drive Manhasset, NY 11030
.
Report thisBy Lou, August 2, 2007 at 9:48 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Yes the the Democrats have failed us. Now the Demochickens want to go the Full War Monty and show how tough they are - like Mr. Hillary Clinton, Bomb’em Obama, Mitt Gitmo and Fred “Where’s The Camera?” Thompson.
Report thisBomb Iran - and bomb Pakistan - and lets have perpetual war… broadcast 24/7 for full cable ratings boost.
By desertdude, August 2, 2007 at 9:38 am #
The Democrats talk a lot, but they do not have the courage of their convictions. They ran on getting us out of the war, but we are still there. They talk about honor and doing the right thing. Pure talk is all it is. Just lilke the Republicans say they want to change course in Iraq. All it is is talk. Make the people think you are really doing something, when really it is about getting elected.
Report thisBy QuyTran, August 2, 2007 at 9:27 am #
Re#91624 * by Marjorie L. Swanson
That guy isn’t a man of integrity and patriot. He is a criminal who buries Bush/Cheney administration in deepest trouble ever. Stop dreaming that he will resign for good of his party. He would only step down when the river’s flowing backward !
Report thisBy Slave, August 2, 2007 at 8:13 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Almost agree with you Marjorie, with the exception of the use of “integrity” and “patriot.”
I would argue a person with “conscience” would have resigned. A person with “integrity”, that is, a whole moral soundness, would have taken action to expose illegal activity. “Concience” is inherent in all except the pathological. “Integrity” is the evolution of counscience to a mature and introspective state where the individual comes to see their silence or lack of action as potentially immoral.
There appears to be many in this debacle with conscience, but sadly, few with integrity.
Report thisBy mackTN, August 2, 2007 at 7:59 am #
The idea of impeaching Gonzales requires little thought. He is clearly a conflicted department head, torn by his loyalties to his maker and his loyalties to his maker.
I believe he wants to resign, would have long ago except his loyalties force him to stay put--which is the Bush way.
Wouldn’t it be wonderful if Gonzales broke down and confessed everything. In fact, if he actually turned on his boss and called him an undercover fascist. Would this be breakng news or what!
Clearly a story for The Onion.
Report thisBy KISS, August 2, 2007 at 7:12 am #
The dimmos are chicken to do the right thing, impeachment is a scary process to Pelosi and Reid. How glorious and righteous they sounded when running the elections, how pompous they were. Now with the power they cowardly hide from impeachment proceedings. K street went from red to blue and no one was paying attention. The only alternative for the voters is to throw out every incumbent running...good with the bad. Voters than would show the politicos who really does own the government. Independents would be a good choice today. Poor K street would have to work overtime.Heh.
Report thisBy Ernest Canning, August 2, 2007 at 7:06 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
One of the gravest wounds inflicted by the sham impeachment of Bill Clinton is the creation of a reluctance toward the appropriate application of the Impeachment Clause of the Constitution when the very survival of the Republic is threatened by executive lawlessness. If you could go back in time and place even an abbreviated list of this administration’s crimes and abuses of power before the framers of the U.S. Constitution, there is no doubt that they would tell you that this is precisely what they had in mind.
Both laws and executive orders are now in place that would permit a declaration of a “national emergency” as a result of a new “terrorist incident,” opening the door to martial law, cancellation of the next election and a permanent Cheney-led police state. But the so-called “Democratic Leadership,” focused solely on trolling for corporate dollars for the next election, is blind to the danger.
With blanket assertions of executive privilege matched by executive orders that the Justice Department take no steps to test those assertions in court, impeachment may be the only legal avenue left to Congress to block the final destruction of the rule of law. Yet, to this day, it remains “off-the-table.”
Report thisBy farmertx, August 2, 2007 at 6:53 am #
A person of integrity in this administration was Colin Powell. And we all saw how he was treated; as a means to an end.
Since Powell left, there has been no one of integrity willing to associate with Shrub and company.
But this all misses the point. Why go after the Brown One? Shrub will just appoint another politically reliable person. Remember when politically reliable was used to describe someone in power in Russia? Now Shrub has introduced that here.
Get the Shootist out and then remove the Shrub.
Granted Pelosi isn’t the best choice for President, but at least she won’t go starting wars for an ego trip, unlike Shrub.
As usual, the Congress Critter’s are missing the point.
Report thisBy osage, August 2, 2007 at 6:20 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
If the Democrats are unwilling and or lack the political will to hold a government official accountable for his/her perceived violations of law, they are aiding and abetting his/her crimes as well as eliminating the deterrent that laws are intended to exert. The only thing worse than evil is those who do nothing to discourage, prevent, stop and punish it.
Report thisBy 127001, August 2, 2007 at 6:12 am #
It’s about time.
And to #91624 ... there are none with integrity or patriots in this Administration. Unfortunately, the ambivalence and complacency throughout the country is also far too prevalent.
Report thisBy Fadel Abdallah, August 2, 2007 at 6:10 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
I am sick and tired of all the hollow and meaningless talk about impeaching this or that. If any one deserves to be impeached it would be the source of all evil, Bush and Cheney. However, the first thing that Nancy Pellosi said after the last so-called Democratic victory is, “Impeachment is out of the table.” This was a deal of the powerful against Americans.
In fact, I strongly believe that under the current U.S. justice system, Americans are not capable or willing to impeach even a dead rat, let alone poweful, cunning and satanic politicians who know all the loopeholes of the system.
Since the election of Bush-Cheney for a second term, everything in America has been going in a regressive backward movement in regard to justice, accountability, democracy and moral standing. In fact, in regard to these issues America was formally welcomed into the club of the third world countries the day Bush-Cheney and gang were elected, or bought their election, for a second term.
I strongly and pessimistically believe that America has run its course in the progression of civilization; it’s a matter of years before everything will become clearly visible for everyone to see.
Sad… sad ... sad!
Report thisBy Marjorie L. Swanson, August 2, 2007 at 3:58 am #
Any man of integrity or any patriot would have long since resigned for the good of his country and his party. That says all that needs to be said about Gonzo, his pal the president and this entire criminal administration.
Report this