I, for one, am happy with this result. The man clearly had no control over his department and revelled a little too much in novel legal theories rather than hard analysis.
Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales announced his resignation today, ending a controversial cabinet tenure that included clashes with Congress over the firing of nine U.S. attorneys and over the use of warrantless wiretaps in the war on terror.
[...]
In a brief statement from an airport tarmac in Waco, Tex., President Bush praised Gonzales as “a man of integrity, decency and principle.” The president also asserted that his attorney general had been unfairly maligned.
“It’s sad that we live in a time when a talented and honorable person like Alberto Gonzales is impeded from doing important work because his good name was dragged through the mud for political reasons,” Bush said.
As with all spin, there is a grain of truth to what the President says. Gonzales has been unfairly maligned in my opinion, even though he should have resigned many months ago. The whole Attorney-Gate fiasco is a political boondoggle, designed to do nothing more than weaken the Bush Presidency.
The very idea that there is a Congressional investigation into whether political appointees were fired for political reasons illuminates just how pointless that exercise has been. However, while I eschew the means, I won’t lament the ends. Gonzales needed to go, not least because the evidence against him, even when viewed in the best light, evinced a total lack of competence on the part of the AG. And that’s without considering the clear violation of the law that occurred under his watch with respect to the Immigration Judges, as revealed by Monica Goodling’s testimony.
The investigations into Gonzales’ tenure will go on, although I’ll bet they will peter out for the most part, resulting in a watered down excoriation of the ex-AG, primarily because the Democrats, sensing they will win back the White House in 2008, won’t want to tie the hands of their own President. Hopefully, the investigation having to do with the IJ’s will bear more fruit, since there seems to be some serious problems there.
In the meantime, Paul Clement takes the helm and a new appointment is waiting in the wings. Michael Chertoff, former 3d Circuit Judge and current Home Land Security czar, is the most prominent name floated so far. Most likely, Bush will not want a serious confirmation fight this late into his lame-duck presidency, but if he nominates Chertoff he then has to make a second appointment. Clement, on the other hand, is not assured an easy appointment, as he is considered a Bush loyalist who will undoubtedly be subjected to tough questioning and a rough ride towards being confirmed. Expect the lame-duck to opt for the least path to resistance.
Chertoff would probably be confirmed for AG, so despite the double confirmation specter I’m guesing he will be the nominee. In that case, Bush needs to nominate someone equally confirmable to the HLS position. Off the top of my head, Peter Pace seems like the most viable candidate. He would have to resign from the military, of course, but that may be in the works anyway. As a former CJS Chairman he is already in line for further political appointments. His military career does not have anywhere near the same boundlessness as far as I can see, so taking over the HLS duties may just be the kind of job he’s looking for. Plus, given the latest testament to his forthrightness, he would probably sail through his confirmation hearing.*
Regardless of who the new AG is, Gonzales’ resignation is good news to more than just those who suffer from BDS. The man has nary a political bone in his body, and his management skills leave much to be desired. As I said at the beginning, I’m don’t much like the machinations that forced him from office, but I’m not crying about the result.
* Although, the reports on Gen. Pace’s recommendations appear to have been, a bit hasty:
The Times reported Friday that Gen. Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was expected to advise Bush to reduce U.S. force levels next year by almost half because of the strain on the military.
But Pace on Friday said, “The story is wrong, it is speculative. I have not made or decided on any recommendations yet.”
[tags] Alberto Gonzales, Attorney-Gate, Monica Goodling, Attorney General, Bush Administration, Attoreny General, Paul Clement, Michael Chertoff, Home Land Security, Department of Justice, DOJ, resignation [/tags]
Oh jeez… Here we go…
You do realize that the Attorney-Gate fiasco itself was a political boondoggle designed to weaken the Democrats and strengthen the Republicans?
It’s kinda’ funny really. All these Right wing hacks wailing like children, “How dare the Dems try to politicize the fact that the Republicans were politicizing US attorneys.”
Yeah, no irony there.
Well whatever gets the job done.
But I don’t see how you can dismiss the serious nature behind firing US attorneys merely because they didn’t want to favor the political whims of certain Republicans. It’s serious because it affects greatly the credibility of the Dept. of Justice.
If we know that certain prosecutions are pursued and others are not because politician X wants his political opponent Y prosecuted or the attorney would be fired, doesn’t that stand to reason to question the motive and legitimacy of the prosecution?
Thereby questioning its credibility?
I imagine myself sitting on a jury, and I know that the defendant is a member of the opposite party of the one in power. And I now know that the prosecuting attorney may have been forced to prosecute for the sake of his job, mustn’t I question immediately that we’re all in court for the sake of some politician’s agenda?
Does the administration have a right to sack political appointees for political reasons? Sure it does.
Does simply having the right to do so make it the right thing to do? Again, I know my answer. I’d love to know yours.
That is what seems to be missing from most of the summaries I’ve been witnessing from conservatives.
They seem to condemn Gonzo for tactical reasons. He’s not a good manager, he’s not handling the controversy well, he looks a fool. Though they may be good reasons to condemn the man, what about the foundations for the controversy? Why are these questions largely ignored when addressing the situation?
Is it right to politicize the positions in question at the Dept. of Justice?
Well whatever gets the job done.
Cheers.
It would do you well to try and actually understand the issues at hand rather than mouth lefty talking points.
You do realize that the USAG’s are political appointments who serve at the pleasure of the President, don’t you?
Pogue: Well whatever gets the job done.
Interesting rebuttal.
Certain prosecutions are supposed to be pursued based on the political agenda of the President. That’s how political appointments work. Although there has been a great deal of hullaballoo about prosecuting political opponents there has not been any evidence presented that such was the case, save for one istance — David Iglesias was asked if he was going to bring a case against a Democrat running for office against Pete Domenici, by Pete Domeneci (who, you will note, is neither a member of the DOJ or the Bush Administration).
Again, the whole fiasco was a political boondoggle.
Oh, I see. Political appointmentees should only be fired for the “right” reasons, and if the “wrong” reasons are used then a full-scale Congressional inquiry should ensue. What utter hogwash, Pogue. The Constitution vests the President with certain powers. It doesn’t place some ephemeral justification process on the use of that power. That’s what elections are for.
Well, I’m not going to hold your hand and lead you through this, Pogue. If you look, you will find what you seek.
According to the Constitution it is. What part of “political appointees” don’t you understand?
That’s rich coming from you.
You actually believe that I’m taking a queue from lefty talking points? You are indeed thick.
I have legitimate concerns regarding the credibility of the Dept. of Justice. And so should you. Yet because this is spearheaded by media-whoring Democrats, you promptly and predictably fall on the side of a government official who has proven time and time again to be selective in the application of the law, simply because he is a Republican.
Figures.
You blockhead, you answered your own question by quoting me,
“Does the administration have a right to sack political appointees for political reasons? Sure it does.”
But obviously to you, serving at the pleasure of the president should mean: We’ll use the power of the government to further our own political agenda, despite equal application of the law. Which seems kind of odd for a libertarian… but wait, I forgot, you’re a neolibertarian. Sorry, my bad. You’re forgiven.
Which brings us to this unforgettable gem,
Hogwash, my ass.
ABSOLUTELY. Any “appointmentee” should be fired for the “right” reasons, not “wrong” ones. I don’t know about you, but I wish for my government to be correct and just. Sorry, I know it might be a pipe dream, but it is a longing that I cannot seem to shake.
You have either abandon that dream, or you have embraced corruption.
In my opinion, the very definition of neolibertarian.
You act as though this is wholly an apparition conjured up by plotting Democrats, which couldn’t be further from the truth. There are many Republicans voicing the same concerns, as well as many other non-partisan opinion makers.
Yeah right, but it’s just us crazy “lefty’s” making hullabaloos out of molehills.
You blind fool
Is it really that hard to understand, that one wouldn’t wish for the Dept. of Justice to be used as a political tool?
I honestly don’t care if they have the right to do it, they shouldn’t do it.
You’ll remember that these are people who prosecute and sometimes push for executions for everyday citizens. And their credibility should be beyond approach.
Though you may not believe that there is significant evidence that the AG and his officers did such a deed, tell me again who is resigning with disgrace under mounting pressure from members of both political parties.
You keep it up. And we’ll see you in ’08. I’ll pass along your compliments to President Hillary Rodham Clinton.
All for what?
This guy?
F*ck that guy and his motives.
“Mouth lefty talking points”
Whatever man.
Pogue, it’s pretty obvious that you have no idea what you’re talking about. “Political appointments” are just that; POLITICAL. USAG’s are appointed to carry out the agenda of the Executive Branch. In fact, that’s why there are career prosecuters in the DOJ — you know, the ones woh really try the cases — so that there is not a lasting political affect. That’s also why it rather routine to see all of the USAG’s fired upon the change of an administration. Is that “right” in your eyes?
Yeah, right. As a brick. Moving on.
I’m not falling on the side of anyone. If you’ll remember, I was more than happy to see Gonzales go. In fact, I predicted he would be gone at the beginning of the summer. Personally, I would rather have seen him go for the far more serious infractions concerning the hiring of IJ’s — which are career hires, and are not supposed to be picked based on political considerations, unlike USAG’s. Your “legitimate concerns” are based on a fundamental misunderstanding of how the DOJ works.
Again, you write the words but seem to have a complete and utter lack of understanding with respect to what they mean.
First of all, that is what “political appointment” means; i.e. they will be used to further political agendas. It’s always been that way and it always will. Why you would suddenly be so upset about is bewildering since, as you say, you’re not just mouthing lefty talking points. Funny how they do seem to match up though, huh?
Secondly, “equal application of the law” has nothing to do with this. That is the basis of our legal system in that every citizen should be subject to the same laws regardless of any other factor. How political appointees are hired or fired is not even relevant to that ideal. The Constitution gives the President the power to appoint, and the SCOTUS has said innumerable times that also includes the power to fire, for any reason or none at all. One thing simply has nothing to do with the other.
That may be your wish, but is not reality, nor is it the way the system is set up. Who gets to decide what the “right” reasons are, Pogue? The way it works now, that decision is left up the voters and they have one recourse — elect someone new. If the actions taken are legal ones, what other cosequences would you want to see? It seems as though you want to see legal actions criminalized if they are deemed by someone (presumably you) to be “wrong.” Is that really what you want? Have you thought that through? The idea of criminalizing legal actions is perverse in my opinion. Do you find it to be “libertarian”? No wonder you’re so confused.
I’m not acting, I’m just calling it like I see it. Getting all indignant and huffy because political appointees were fired for political reasons is pure political theater.
So what? Republicans are now virtuous beings beyond reproach? Ever consider the possibility that Congressional Republicans have their own agenda? But, I’m the fool. Right. Next.
Once again, your wishes are irrelevant. The Constitution provides the power to do what the President did. If you don’t like it, suggest an Amendment. I suppse you could wish for one, but that will have about the same effect as wishing that reality was different than it is.
And therein lies the rub. Why “shouldn’t” they? Because you don’t like it? Because of your inability to comprehend how the system works? That’s a pretty poor reason if you ask me.
Frankly, it’s the career prosecuters who are supposed to do that. The USAG’s are supposed to manage their departments, in which a goodly portion of the duty involves pursuing the direction of the President’s agenda. So, for example, if the President decides that corporate hucksters (e.g., Enron, WorldCom and Tyco) need to be purued, the USAG makes those types of prosecutions a priority. If illegal immigration is high on the radar, then the USAG’s may be directed to pursue enforcement of immigration laws as a prioty. If the drug war is the bee in the President’s bonnet, then guess what sorts of crimes see more time in the courtroom? That’s right, drug crimes. That’s how it works, Pogue. And, like or not, that’s the way it has always worked.
Now, some USAG’s don’t always stick to that formula and spend a little too much time in the courtroom. It’s understandable, they are lawyers after all and that’s what we do. But that does not leave much time for managing the department. In fact, that was the knock on USAG Patrick Fitzgerald coming from his own career prosecuters. If he hadn’t been involved with the Libby trial, he would probably have been fired as well. That doesn’t mean he’s a made attorney (in fact, he’s a very good one). But it does mean that he was putting his own agenda ahead of the President’s. That may sit well with you and everyone else in the country, but if it doesn’t sit well with the President, then the President has every right to fire, whether you or anyone else agrees.
See, taht’s the difference between you and me. It’s not what I believe that matters, but what the evidence suggests. All the evidence that I’ve seen suggests that the Bush Administration did nothing illegal in firing the USAG’s. Note, that I didn’t say that they did nothing wrong. There is plenty of evidence that Gonzales was completely incompetent at running the DOJ, and that there was little to no due diligence done into looking at why certain attorney’s were put on the list. The selection of David Iglesias by Pete Domencici is one such example (I’m guessing you didn’t know that US Senators routinely suggest which USAG’s should be hired and fired in their states). But just because the Bush Administration is incompetent doesn’t make them criminals.
Are you scolding me? Um, where the f*(k do you get off?
As for HRC, I’m not as despairing of that possibility as many. She’s certainly the best of Democrat lot, and she’s a sight better than many GOP candidates. I think, in the very least she would win the war, and she would pretty much ensure a Republcian majority in Congress (at least the Senate) to keep a lid on her socialist tendencies. And as long as she only got to replace a Ginsburg, Stevens or Breyer, then the SCOTUS would be in good shape.
Haven’t you figured it out yet? I don’t care about Gonzales. I’m glad he’s gone.
Yeah, well I guess you showed me, didn’t you.
I’m not suggesting that the Bush administration did anything illegal, I never did. I’m suggesting that what they did via Gonzo wasn’t right. And apparently, I’m not alone.
Again, simply because they had the right to do it, doesn’t mean that what they did was right. Why is that so hard for you to understand? That’s what I’ve always said, then you accuse me of mouthing lefty talking points. So yeah,… whatever man.
One request.
Explain this for me please?
Followed by,
So, according to you… this whole fiasco was designed to weaken the presidency, but Republicans are doing it too. So what gives?
Are these Republicans trying to weaken the Bush presidency?
That would be quite an accusation.
One last thing,
Well, they shouldn’t because it would be the right thing to do. Not because it’s what I want them to do.
You see, the real difference between you and I is that you don’t mind seeing the DoJ being used as a political tool against their political opponents. I do.
I have never suggested what they did was “right” only that it wasn’t illegal. So why are you pushing this?
Is it really news to you that some Republicans find it politically expedient to take positions that are opposed to an unpopular President?
Ans what is the difference between those two things, Pogue? What makes it the “right” thing to do? Who gets to decide that? You? Me? A random assortment of noble beings? Who?
See, the reason we have laws is so that what’s right and what’s wrong is left up to elected officials, who can be voted out of office if the categorize in way that does not please the voter. Criminalizing behavior that is legal and yet, to some, “wrong” is a scary proposition in that light.
No, the real difference is that I comprehend when the office is actually being used that way through my ability to read and investigate. You are unfortunately reliant on whatever you hear from the lefty grapevine, all of which you seem to take as verbatim truth without even a modicum of questioning.
I don’t want to see the DOJ used as a tool against political opponents, which is exactly why I have big problem with the way that the way that IJ’s were being hired under this Administration. What I don’t mind is that the the DOJ serves as the Executive Branch’s policy arm with respect to its duty to see the laws of the land faithfully executed. I have a big problem with many of the laws enacted, and with which the Executive is charged to execute. But I don’t have a problem with the President (any President) doing things that aren’t illegal.
My mistake then. I assumed too much I guess. But you’ll forgive me if I construed that thought after reading this,
I admit, sometimes you are a mystery to me, Michael.
Like this curious statement:
Because it’s one thing to distance oneself from an unpopular president, it’s quite another to actively “weaken his presidency.” Especially when those same Republicans are such allies with the President on many other issues, namely foreign policy. It would seem quite odd to indefatigably support a president’s policy on such an important issue like war and terror, only to turn around and actively weaken the presidency on something as simple as the firings of USAGs.
Don’t you think that’s odd?
I can’t help you there. Except to say that Gonzo is leaving for more substantial reasons than those merely being the victim of hostile Democrats and some Republicans, or merely being shot down by those powerful “lefty talking points”.
And my concerns might mirror some of those that you consider “lefty”, but I assure you that my opinions are my own.
I would have thought you would realize that by now… after all we’ve been through together.
When expressing my opinion, I admit that I can sometimes be horse’s ass. But those opinions are always the product of my horse’s ass.
Cheers.
I will offer two hopefully clarifying remarks.
First, what makes the investigation a boondoggle Pogue is that it was an attempt to act as if, and take action upon that notion, that what was done was illegal. If congress had just said “we don’t agree that the fired prosecutors should have been fired,” then what the hey. The voters now know that this President fires USAG’s at his whim and could ask that the next one not do it either.
The issue of political influence of prosecutorial priorities is silly. That will obviously reflect the President’s priorities. Resources are scarce, the decision will be made. Somebody will not like them.
Pogue, you seem to think Michael is defending something he is not, unjust political prosecutions of the President’s enemies, which is not the Attorney-Gate fiasco. If some particular prosecution of an enemy was unjust, please bring that up and Michael could address that. The attorney gate fiasco was about firing of attorneys. Poorly handled, but hardly illegal aor all that problematic. They were not reflecting the priorities of the administration, and therefore it was perfectly reasonable that they should be fired, though as Michael pointed out, they did a poor job of handling it and doing the due diligence.
Like Michael, I’m not partial to holding hands. Seek and ye shall find.
Look, it’s quite simple. Allegations are that USAGs were fired for not prosecuting Democrats and fired for prosecuting Republicans. There is plenty of evidence, albeit circumstantial, that this occurred.
This is highly improper. And I for one, am not afraid of congressional investigations. I don’t care if Democrats are politicizing it. What do I care, I’m not a Republican. In fact, I’m thrilled that there are investigations. I would love to see everyone in Washington investigating each other.
Sunlight, my friend. Sunlight!!
And if certain politicians are using this to grandstand, so be it. I can see through it. Seeing through politicians is a skill that everyone should have. But let the testimony proceed. Boondoggle or not. Illegal or not.
The constant “I don’t recall” from Gonzo, coupled with the constant inconsistencies from all those involved, suggest that something is foul. The DoJ is supposed to be, and has traditionally been, a non-partisan institution meant to uphold the law. And if we are to understand that USAG’s are hired and fired not on their merits, but on their willingness to prosecute members of one political party and not the other, we should abandon the thought of any justice and simply rename it the Department of Power.
If were all about pursuing a particular policy from the administration, and the USAGs were not doing so, then this would not be a big deal. But that’s not what I’m concerned with.
Your wrong. It is most problematic. It affects the CREDIBILITY of the DoJ. And that is something that you and Michael should be concerned with.
I’ll repeat what I said earlier just in case you missed it, or if you simply ignored it.
I imagine myself sitting on a jury, and I know that the defendant is a member of the opposite party of the one in power. And I now know that the prosecuting attorney may have been forced to prosecute for the sake of his job, mustn’t I question immediately that we’re all in court for the sake of some politician’s agenda?
If the DoJ is perceived to be merely a tool for the party in power, I must then consider the fact that the prosecution may be politically motivated, and not what it should be. Motivated by the law.
I find it disturbing, that both you and Michael don’t see the ramifications of a DoJ with no credibility.
Your increasing ease with just accepting whatever the administration says, and your lack of desire for accountability, should shake every libertarian bone in your body.
I don’t care if the Democrats are using this to grandstand. And neither should you. You should be concerned with perceptions that the DoJ is just a political tool.
Also, if it is all hunky dory like you say it is, then why is Gonzo and everyone else giving testimony, seem to be stumbling all over themselves to hide whatever took place.
Why don’t they come out and say it: Yeah, we fired them for political reasons… Go stuff yourselves. But they’re not. It is obvious that they are intentionally misleading their questioners. And if it were all fine and dandy what they were doing, then why not just say it?
I know why. It’s like what you said,
And they will. Again, say hello to President HRC.
Which in my mind, is also why you have a decent amount of Republicans voicing the same concerns.
But Michael doesn’t think so. He thinks that they’re all out to weaken the President. Which I’ll say again, seems kind of odd for Republicans to do.
That reasoning just doesn’t make any sense.
Cheers.
It hasn’t been in my experience, certainly Republicans howled that Clinton was using the DOJ and the IRS to harass Republicans.
That being said I agree with that. Michael however was referring to the firing of prosectors, not allegations, associated or not, of selective prosecution. If that was going on certainly that should be looked at. That was not what the original complaint was about, that firing political appointees was wrong. That is why I am asking for specifics of what you are complaining about. For example, if targeting people for not aggressively prosecuting immigration law violations was the particular issue, then I have no problem with it. That is what the presidents policy concern was, that is what he has a right to do. If however, they were specifically targeting such laws by Democrats and not Republicans, that is an issue and you can hound them all you want. Michael was specifically talking about firing people because of their not following the priorities of this administration. That investigation was a boondoggle and a fishing expedition. That it turned up other issues which could have been investigated separately is something Michael specifically said he he had no problem with. Those problems are a legitimate source of concern (though whether they are targeting Democrats is still an open question for me, I have not followed the latest stuff.)
So as far as I can tell you are accusing Michael of being okay with things he has not claimed to support. maybe I am misreading him, and he can set me straight if so, but that that is what I see.
That is not what he is saying, which is why he is being testy with you, at least not as I read him.
Didn’t Michael specifically argue one of the reasons he must go is that his behavior has done just that? Why I think he did and you took him to task for only being worried about the perception, when he in fact was worried about that, management and particularly some illegal activities with the IJ’s. You are confusing the firing of attorneys for political reasons and firing of attorneys for not doing something illegal or improper. Politics is proper, unjustly applying the law is not. Michael expressly said what he and all of us should understand as the proper role of politics. You are claiming he is saying the improper role of politics is acceptable and confusing them by acting as if it is politics that is the issue rather than the improper actions motivated by politics. The original outrage was that he fired them for reasons other than poor performance, that was a misplaced complaint and that is what Michael was talking about.
Finally, stop telling me what I am concerned about. I am talking about what Michael wrote. It has nothing to do with libertarianism or neo-libertarianism or anything else. For me to explain where I think you are misreading Michael in no way implies anything about my own beliefs on the matter. So I am not okay with the things you are talking about, and I get a bit tired of you claiming positions you have no basis for assuming I have.
My own opinion is that as long as it isn’t illegal we can vote them out of office. I have no problem with people being upset or forcing from office people who abuse their power for selective prosecutions. I don’t find it in any way new, but I am all for drawing the line now since we can’t go back and draw it in the past.
It does however call into question any support for HRC since she specifically did much more in that area than this investigation is claiming Gonzales as having done. For just one example, the travel office firings. I have no problem with the firings, but she was unable to just do what she had the power to do, ask her husband to fire them, she and he insisted that there had to be a “non-political” reason. So she used the FBI and the justice department to prosecute them for reasons that to this day seem only apparent to them. The courts, after lives were tossed upside down, ended the nightmare for Billy Dale because they saw this for what it was.
So HRC as an escape from this kind of thing is a bit rich. So far I have not seen anything similar, but if there is, bang away. I will still hold forth the opinion that the mere act of firing them because they wanted people in the positions more amenable to their political priorities is not only okay, it is proper. We elect Presidents to set priorities, that is why we have the political appointees so that the career guys don’t just ignore those priorities, but do their job, which is represent our government in court.
In case the single (and there were many) example I came up with escaped your notice I give you this bit below. So the allegations you are claiming happened (and I plead ignorance of them) are not new, nor especially disturbing to me. Attack away on any such things going on now, I have your back. The firings however do not bother me at all, just as they didn’t in the Travel Office:
The “scandal” is what I stated. That certain USAs were being targeted for dismissal because they failed to prosecute Democrats in the way that the WH wanted them to, or they went after Republicans. Those were the allegations and they were backed up with convincing circumstantial evidence. Certainly convincing enough to warrant an investigation.
Then the WH along with Gonzo and his minions in the DoJ, did everything they could to impede the investigation.
Then they made a habit out of misleading the questioners.
They made a habit of not recalling anything.
Dude, THIS is the scandal. This is the scandal that I’m referring to. If you or Michael are talking about whether or not the WH has the right to fire political appointees for not pursuing policy… then knock yourselves out. I don’t think that anyone else is talking about that.
My original complaint with Michael’s post, was that he thought that Gonzo was being unfairly maligned. I call bullsh*t.
He’s getting everything he deserves.
There are several laws that were potentially broken, in addition to perjury.
THIS IS SCANDAL, whether you guys like it or not.
Oh, and as far as some sort of witch hunt or fishing expedition… would you be kind enough to explain to me why there were a substantial amount of Republicans that were right there with the others?
If this is a Democratic witch hunt, then why are there so many Republicans on board?
I’ll keep asking that question. And next time I’ll use all CAPS. I swear I will.
Cheers.
BS. That is what was being talked about. That they were not politically loyal enough to the President and were fired. The rest came later. As a whole it was a political boondoggle. Michael says he wants something to come of other allegations, and I didn’t read anything in there which said he was being unfairly maligned on everything, just that he has been. Given the post maligns him about several things, I don’t think I am going out on a limb in making that distinction.
Many Republicans are on board for a variety of reasons, kind of like Michael being on board for his own reasons. He is on board and still believes many of the allegations are a bunch of hooey. He has pointed out the ones which he thinks are not, and in fact urges that those be investigated. He also has castigated Gonzales for his handling of the investigation for some of the same reasons you do, though I will point out that being evasive when accused of something is pretty common, not least from the preceding administration, when called to the carpet in front of congress. Like the Clinton’s he didn’t just want to admit that they were political and say, “our prerogative,” no he had to make excuses and smear the attorneys. Kind of Clintonian without the legal witch hunt to legally destroy the fired employees. You can be more offended by Gonzales’ behavior than I, I find it garden variety mismanagement and weaselly, you find it some crises of government. Fine, but don’t act as if I or Michael has to view such things as all that given our history.
At least you have dropped all the stuff about how “in the past” the DOJ was all so non partisan until the Bushies came in. Talk about a load of crap.
Would some of those reasons be what Michael thinks they are, you know… “To weaken the Bush presidency”? Because that’s his claim.
I never said “until the Bushies came in”. You wanna damn the Clintons for the same type of shenanigans, go right ahead. No skin off my nose.
What can I say… I must have a wide stance.
That was your claim, that was what I was responding to. Nowhere does he excuse that.
From Michael,
Now notice, look at the paragraph above that. Notice he doesn’t say the boondoggle was all on the part of Democrats, he is pointing out the boondoggle included sins of the DOJ. You seem to have missed that in your haste to assign the remark a more simplistic claim.
You repeatedly make comments like that, while ignoring the actual areas Michael claimed were the appropriate areas for politics to enter into things. You are asserting motives not in evidence and then use it to slam the term neo-libertarian, as if there is some connection, but there isn’t.
Michael does think some substantial reasons underlie this. You built a strawman and continue to whack away to show that Michael is reflexively protecting a man he has said needs to go and for some very substantial reasons. Many of the reasons Gonzales is going are not substantial but a bunch of frothing, and yes, lefty talking points.
The answer is yes. They are not being politicized, they are political and always have been. When Michael states that you go on a bender and claim it means he wants them to abuse the position, which is not the same thing. As Michael and I have stated repeatedly, the political nature is desirable because that is how the priorities of the administration are carried out. That is why they were elected, to set certain priorities. They are not supposed to abuse that with selective prosecution according to party affiliation. Notice that Michael tries to point out that those are two separate complaints which you then promptly conflate again. The investigation started about the first issue, and that was a boondoggle.
If, and I have seen no compelling evidence that that was why most of the people were fired, the other issue has legs it is because they found that later. That was not the foundation for the investigation. Hence early on the questions were all about whether the prosecutors were doing a good job, How dare he fire them without sufficient cause, etc.
You were the one acting as if the Bush administration has “politicized” the department. They didn’t. If they did, then the stuff on the Clinton’s has merit. If you withdraw the claim that they are politicizing it, and acknowledge it always has been, then the stuff has no purpose. You were the one acting as if it was justification for HRC, not me. I am pointing out that if this is justification for HRC, or Democrats in general, then it is a rather bizarre one.
Michael and I are glad he is gone. The Iglesias matter seems pretty serious to both of us. He was sloppy in his management and we don’t like how the firings were handled, even though they seem for the most part to be legal, they are not how we would like such things handled. Finally, we don’t like how he behaved in the hearings. The only difference between us and you is you are acting as if some real descent into criminality was taking place instead of typical DC BS, and that it shows something special about Gonzalez and the President by which people such as HRC are made to look good (did I mention the rolling ball of mismanagement that Reno was? She made Gonzales look rather good if you ask me.) The other is you take seriously all the talk about how they were fired for not attacking Democrats, which as far as I can tell is mostly an excuse for dragging this on. If it isn’t, please explain to me why I should believe otherwise. I am persuadable, though it would not change my point that that was not the foundation for the complaint no matter how hard you flog that horse.
Read my first post again, Lance.
I politely took issue with one sentence…
Which seems to me to be quite odd, considering the amount of Republicans that also took issue. At first, it may have been a motivation, but it had evolved and revealed something I considered to be much more detrimental. Thanks to these investigations that if I remember correctly, involved the Dems not wanting the DoJ to hire attorneys without Senate approval. Which would seem like typical inside the beltway game of pong.
The investigations revealed something more to that. This “fishing expedition” actually had quite a good catch.
That’s not how I read it.
MichaelW: Although there has been a great deal of hullaballoo about prosecuting political opponents there has not been any evidence presented that such was the case, save for one istance — David Iglesias was asked if he was going to bring a case against a Democrat running for office against Pete Domenici, by Pete Domeneci (who, you will note, is neither a member of the DOJ or the Bush Administration).
Domeneci is indeed neither a member of the DOJ or the Bush Administration, however, he did use the WH to get rid of Iglesias. Which amounts to more than just a “hullabaloo”. You may be better at reading between the lines with Michael than I am, but it seems to me he’s not too concerned about that. Nor does he, and you for that matter, seem to take into account the mounting circumstantial evidence, along with the – sigh, again – constant memory lapses and inconsistencies by Gonzo and others.
You guys just simply ignore them.
Oh I see, since it wasn’t their original foundation for the investigations, then there is no reason to get all worked up over the rest of the muck they raked up.
Interesting.
I don’t know what you mean. I’ve never considered any of this as justification for HRC or the Democrats. I think a HRC presidency would be a disaster.
It was a warning and prediction, not a desire.
Is that true, Michael? I know your probably done with this thread, but can at least answer that one question? (and if you have time, enlighten me as to how Republicans want to “weaken the presidency”)
Well, if there were any evidence to show that attorneys were removed to hamper investigations into Republicans, there would be a real case for obstruction of justice.
Here’s a question for you Lance. If there really wasn’t anything wrong with what Gonzo and others did at the DoJ, then what’s with all the “I can’t recall” and the inconsistencies that could be easily described as lies?
Cheers.
Heh, that is pretty funny.
First of all, Michael and I do expect a movie review from you soon. That is a piece of business that in my long absence I haven’t gotten back to. My apologies. It was a bit thoughtless, but I was really swamped.
Except, he did note that, and has said that it is an issue, as have I. He, nor I, see any other evidence that that was done in the other cases, and that one instance was part of a boondoggle designed to embarrass the administration for doing something completely legal. The next time people get fired or any action is taken, does that mean the investigations automatically take place, just because they might find something eventually. Isn’t that the problem with endless investigations. Haven’t we seen enough of that? As much as I distrusted Clinton, didn’t we learn about the nonsense that leads to? The corners everybody gets painted into? Especially if there wasn’t a crime to start, why start the merry go round? Certainly something will turn up. In fact, why have any pretext at all. If we have congress investigate everything they will undoubtedly turn up plenty. Nor is Domenici asking about it, a case of the DOJ doing anything about it, though circumstantially that could be argued.
Uh, we have mentioned them, repeatedly.
No, we explicitly are bothered and have said he needs to go. How many times are you going to say that when manifestly it isn’t true? We just are not as upset as you and think the whole thing is a political boondoggle.
You misunderstand, which is my fault (as opposed to your other issues.) I only meant that you are claiming it should make her look good, but if this can be used as a justification, it is rather bizarre. I didn’t mean to imply that you wanted that to happen. I do mean to imply that when you act as if this is some kind “politicization” of the office, as opposed to pretty tame stuff in the history of the office, and ignoring that the office is political, then you help create a sense that someone such as HRC or the Democrats have some special grievance against the Bush administration which they should exploit. You call the Iglesias matter a good catch, I call it a minnow, and it may not even be his fish, except as to his lack of managerial oversight, though hey, since he is leaving we can just assume its his doing as far as I am concerned.
We didn’t say that, which is why, though our reasoning may differ as to some aspects, we both are happy he is gone. Strawman again. Not being as horrified as you doesn’t make it not an issue. Iglesias might be something Gonzo is guilty of, though surely Dominici is, and Michael has written a good bit on the clearly illegal conduct with respect to the IJ’s, and he wants him fired. How you can continue to translate that to we don’t care, or endorse abusing the prosecutorial power (which from what I can see wasn’t done) is beyond me, but that is a matter of evidence, not a matter of caring. Whatever, I am done. You can’t just disagree, you have to act as if what we say means what you want it to. We don’t see a violation (and you will not provide any evidence of it) so we must approve. We see something as less of an issue, it means we think it is fine and dandy. It is as if I just stuck to the argument (which I didn’t intend to make, but it is an example) that you really did want HRC as President no matter what you said, because I thought it was the only explanation of why we disagreed. At some point you have to listen and stop arguing. I have tried to explain. If I haven’t done a good job, you have not even bothered to try and grasp a few simple aspects of it (or if you have, maybe those are the points you have stopped arguing rather than saying “I see.”)
So good night and sleep well.
While searching for Blogs about A Second Hand Conjecture » Gonzales Finally Resigns I found your site. Thank you for the effort you have put in.
It sounds interesting but I am not sure that I agree with you completely.