Alberto Gonzales: End of An Error
Alberto Gonzales, a legal lightweight and dull-witted apparatchik whose name was once floated as a possible Supreme Court justice, leaves in shambles a Justice Department that he willingly helped the White House to transform into a branch of the Republican Party.
President Bush repeatedly stood by Gonzales even as he faced increasing scrutiny for his abysmal leadership of the department and bipartisan calls for his resignation, his role in the dismissals of nine U.S. attorneys and whether he testified truthfully in numerous appearances before Congress. To do otherwise would have been to acknowledge that this longtime colleague and helpmate was not up to the job, and that was not about to happen in an administration where politics trumps policy and loyalty, not honesty, is the greatest virtue.
Gonzalez, as it turned out, had sworn allegiance to the president and not the Constitution.
When asked about the storm clouds surrounding Gonzales, the president’s typical answer has been: “Why would I hold somebody accountable who’s done nothing wrong?”
Whining to the end that he has been treated unfairly and (isn’t this rich) was being hounded out of office by partisan politics, Gonzalez leaves an extraordinary legacy:
A disdain for the rule of law — whether it had to do with torture, civil rights or fair elections — that bordered on the obsessive.
Obdurate to the end, Gonzalez denied through his press spokesman that he was leaving through this morning although he had told Bush of his decision on Friday. Sources say the president initially rebuffed Gonzalez’ decision but relented after a face-to-face meeting in Crawford, Texas, yesterday.
Gonzalez would not explain why he was turning in his badge at a brief press conference this morning and refused to answer questions, although in a reference to being the first Hispanic AG, he said “I have lived the American dream. Even my worst days as attorney general were better than my father’s best days.â€
I would say it was more like screwing up the American dream.
The president later praised Gonzalez as “a man of integrity, decency and principle.”
Michael Chertoff is said to be the leading choice as a successor. What better way to honor his service as the sycophantic Homeland Security czar on the second anniversary of Hurricane Katrina? And if Chertoff is the prez’s pick, doesn’t it just speak volumes that there seem to be so few people who qualify as Cabinet-level department heads under the president’s special standards that he seems to keep picking the same people from the same small pool?
(Solicitor General Paul Clement will be interim AG after Gonzalez steps down on September 17. The safest bet for the White House would be to stick with Clement, who has not been dragged into the U.S. attorney scandal.)
In any event, do not expect wholesale changes at main Justice, and the successor will spend the next 15 months doing damage control and dealing with the various investigations that he inherits.
Gonzales’ greatest achievement?
He made John Ashcroft and even Janet Reno look good.
While the departure is welcome and long overdue, it’s not like Bush and Dick Cheney are packing their bags anytime soon, so the sound you hear is one hand clapping.
It also removes some of the urgency from the various Democrat-led investigations into Gonzales’ mischief. For another, it sets up the specter of another distracting and time consuming knock-down drag-out over confirming a successor.
* * * * *
A final thought: Josh Marshall, who singlehandedly broke the U.S. attorney scandal at Talking Points Memo and rode it hard until the MSM finally took notice, deserves a victory lap.
The blogosphere is very much and always will be a work in progress, but Josh showed the Big Boys a thing or three about doggedly staying on a story in the face of world-class stonewalling, as well as using his readers as citizen journalists to help in his investigation.
40 Responses to “Alberto Gonzales: End of An Error”
Interesting. Chuck Hagel predicted that Gonzales would resign a few weeks ago while speaking at the Panetta Institute lecture. I covered it at Donklephant and Divided We Stand United we Fall.
In the same lecture he was predicting the President would begin changing Iraq strategy before year end. This is consistent with the trial balloon sent up by Gates on Meet The Press a few weeks ago.
I agree with you re clapping with one hand.
Gonzales may go, but his leagacy remains. Despite all the outrage about Karl Rove’s tactics, he is admired and, whenever possible,emulated, even by his enemies.
Even with a different president, the relationship between the WH and the Justice (or any other) Dept. is largely a ‘word of honor’ deal. It takes something very unusual to happen to draw attention and elicit.scrutin.y . The next crew might well just concentrate on preventing anything unusual from happening publicly.
It’s like redistricting. One party does it in one state, and it quickly snowballs into everyone doing it everywhere.
Chertoff is just another loyal yes man, IMO. As for his competence, he was among those embarrassingly slow to find out that Katrina had destroyed New Orleans. Just basic keeping informed would be one sign of competence, no?
Yet, all the sign readers point to him as the logical successor.It will be the same old, same old, only with a different name, if that happens.
I’m not breaking out any champagne over this.
This article from the Washington Post might give readers a sense of the ethical problems involved in the US Attorneys’ scandal.
You might also want to look at the archive on the scandal at TPM Muckraker. They also have an extensive timeline of the events of the US Attorneys’ scandal.
Thanks for the pointer, Shaun!!
Simon, like others on the right, must resort to ad hominem attack and positive affirmation when the facts don’t match his assertions! I happen to enjoy Shaun’s POV, and have seen him attack both sides for governmental failures. Yes, he’s anti-war on Iraq and anti-Bush- but as 70% agree with him, I don’t think he belongs in the far left blogosphere. The administration’s actions over the last 7 years, which specifically aimed policy initiatives that pleased the far right base of the Republican party, have turned off many moderates, and pushed them leftward.
kritter:
Except the facts do match my “assertion[].” My assertion is that nothing illegal was involved in the firing of the U.S. Attorneys, a point elaborated on if you actually clicked the link. For your benefit: not only is the firing of a U.S. Attorney unquestionably within the inherent Article II powers of the Chief Executive, see Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52 (1926); Humprey’s Executor v. United States, 295 U.S. 602 (1935); Wienar v. United States, 357 U.S. 349 (1958), it is expressly authorized by statute, see 28 U.S.C. § 541(c), and “[w]hen the President acts pursuant to an express or implied authorization of Congress, his authority is at its maximum, for it includes all that he possesses in his own right plus all that Congress can delegate.” Youngstown co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 635 (1952) (Jackson, J., concurring).
There is no serious argument that anything illegal took place, and the arguments that something unethical took place are also quite dicey (this paragraph also serves as a response to George). The WaPo piece that George linked to suggests that Sen. Domenici might have violated “violate[d] congressional ethics rules … [by] communicat[ing] with a federal prosecutor regarding an ongoing criminal investigation.” So that buys you nothing, unless you buy into the subtle hint that readers ought to infer that Iglesias was fired at Domenici’s behest, an allegation that isn’t proven and contradicts the line that people hostile to the administration have been selling for years, i.e. that Congress is supine before the executive, not vice-versa. The other allegation “reported” by the story – “Democrats allege that the Justice Department was sacking qualified prosecutors to reward political cronies” – ought to raise similar red flags. As Dahlia Lithwick – no apologist for the Bush administration she – has pointed out, “[t]he Justice Department is a deeply political institution, and so it should remain.” When law enforcement agencies tackle near-limitless challenges with limited resources, they must choose how to allocate resources by prioritization. Only a complete clot would try to suggest that these prioritization choices are not inherently political, and since “‘[t]he Constitution requires that the President must retain ultimate authority over all executive branch activity … [and] [e]xecutive branch actors are intermediaries for the executive power, … surrogates for the President in whom that power is vested by the Constitution,’” that means that (Dahlia again) “the president sets the agenda when it comes to criminal priorities.” It raises no ethical concerns per se to fire a prosecutor who doesn’t share the administration’s priorities. (To be clear: there might be circumstances in which ethical concerns are implicated, but that cannot be the default assumption; the burden of proof rests on those who suggest malfeasance, but they have simply assumed that there must have been impropriety.)
That’s fine, but Shaun’s POV – to the extent that, contra Scott Adams, ignorance is a point of view – is anything but moderate, in voicing or contemplation.
Except most of the signature Bush administration policies – NCLB, the prescription drug benefit, their preferred form of immigration reform – has been squarely and publicly at odds with “the far right base of the Repulbican party.” Like all administrations, this one has advanced policies that it believed to be beneficial for the country – even when the “far right base” didn’t like it. You might think that they were wrong (as in some cases do I), but it’s apparently not enough for you to disagree: for some reason, you have to discredit their motives. why is that, Kritter?
If everything was on the up-and-up, then why did Gonzo give such a pathetic and dishonest performance at the Judiciary committee hearings? After which, of course, President Bush praised his performance, and expressed full confidence in him. Also, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that FISA laws were willfully violated, and that the DOJ was being filled with loyal Bushies, dedicated to politicizing the system.
Lying to Congress is a crime, circumventing the FISA laws is a crime, and interfering in criminal investigations for political purposes is a crime. But, you just go on drinking the Kool-aid.
Yes, some of Rove’s strategy did not work out- the initiatives you mentioned were not popular with the base- but Bush’s judicial picks, tax cuts, veto of embryonic stem cell research,oppostion to legalized gay marriage, veto of CHIP, and strategy for the GWOT were exactly what the base wanted.
AR-
There is nothing to prevent criticism or discussion of Shaun’s views.
Name calling and ranting attacks (ike Simon’s), however, only seem to be acceptable to the moderators if they don’t come from those bad, bad “lefties.’
BTW, Shaun’s opinion of Gonzales is shared by many conservatives and many Republicans. Maybe you and Simon could share your thoughts with them.
Oh my!!
Let’s say your party controls the Executive Branch. You want your party’s politician re-elected in New Mexico? Why not have a political appointee from the Justice Department indict her opponant?
I mean, why stop at New Mexico? Well, maybe to see how much you can away with!!
I am not a lawyer, but I am completely certain that it’s a bad idea to allow the President or other members of his party to pursue prosecutions for political reasons.
So God bless Josh Marshall!!
And you know, it’s okay with me if God gives Shaun a little pat on the head, too.
Feel free to call me a partisan hack if you want, though.
Life’s a cabaret.
Simon,
Robert Bork’s saturday night massacre was also not at all illegal.
Of course, he had to wait until his two senior officials were tossed before he got the opportunity.
And I’m sure that to this day, you defend Nixon’s right to do so. I mean, it wasn’t illegal right?
Talk about the soft bigotry of lowered expectations.
Pathetic.
Carol Lam succesfully prosecuted an admitted felon who also happened to be a sitting US congressman.
For that, she was asked to resign.
The Special Agent in Charge of San Diego’s FBI office stated the case clearly.
I’ll bet Duke wishes Bush had acted faster.
domajot – It’s a “ranting attack” to point out that Mullen is completely wrong in this case (and is persistently so) and speaks in a tone that is completely inapposite in a site that bills itself “the moderate voice”? Mullen’s post is a rant; mine pokes a hole in its factual premise that despite a lot of smoke and noise from a couple of commenters has not been patched (indeed, cannot be). As to Gonzales, I think I made my view on him pretty clear in my first comment.
kritter:
Good question – if you get an answer, do let me know. I notice that you’ve not even attempted to refute the point (i.e. the lack of illegality in firing the U.S. Attorneys) – instead you pivot to FISA and the TSP (which is a wholly different issue), perjury before Congress (which is a wholly different issue) and a vague assertion of “interfering in criminal investigations for political purposes,” which is too vague to know if it’s relevant or not. None of which gets you off the hook, viz., that no matter how much you, Shaun, or anyone else, asserts that there can’t be smoke without fire and that there was vague bad stuff going on by this bad administration, there was nothing illegal about the firing.
I see. So when Bush advances policies that he believes in that are popular with the base, he’s playing to the base, but when he advances policies that he believes in that are unpopular with the base, then he is following his own instincts? (And by the way, so far as I’m aware, Congress hasn’t even passed the CHIP reauthorization; Bush had threatened to veto it, but he threatens lots of things.)
Believe me, if I wanted to gratuitously insult Shaun, I would not be as polite as I’ve been.
Simon–
I’m perfectly willing to have my arguments judged by the readers of the Moderate Voice.
That is the reason why I go to the trouble of constructing them.
Just as you’re free to go to the trouble of declaring yourself the champ.
Viz. Indeed.
BDS? Is that Bush Defense Syndrom?
I certainly hope so, because if it’s Bush derangement syndrome, it’s reached pandemic proportions here in the US.
But hey, it’s a really easy way to avoid the substance of criticism and simply attribute it to a psychological phenomenom most refer to as Sentience.
Seriously, look it up.
Simon,
‘Moderate’ does not mean uniform. All who post present a point of view, sometimes passionately.
If a commenter thinks a post steps over a boundary, he is free to say so, as I have done.
Calling the author an idiot, however, is not something that I could get awary with, and I think it’s a shame that you think you can, and, appaently are.
This is an argument about ideas. Both sides present reams of evidence, selectively chosen. At some point, interpretation is what determines an opinion.
You choose to interpret events one way; others interpret them differently.
Whatever ‘evidnece’ you brought up was however, cancelled out by your name-calling style, as far as I’m concerned.
I agree wtih Shaun that the Gonzales appointment has been a disaster for the ocuntry. Note, please, that I don’t call you names while I do so.
George, with all due respect – where have you advanced an argument in this thread? Kritter has advanced a couple of arguments, and I’ve disagreed with them. You’ve not advanced an argument, unless you think the hanging implication in your 11:20 comment is an “argument.” Well, okay, let’s take that comment seriously. Distilling an argument from what seems more like conspiratorial muttering, as far as I can tell you’re asserting that an indictment was handed out to benefit a candidate’s opponent. In the first place, the argument rests on an assertion, not a proven fact. But even stipulating as much, you need to ask at least one more key question: was the indictment valid (“valid” in the sense dicussed below)? Because only if it wasn’t does that uncover malfeasance. What you need is evidence that a U.S. Attorney pursued a meritless charge acting on political motives or that they failed to persue a meritorious charge acting on political motives. If the indictment was colorable – that is, reasonably ajudged, if there was evidence of wrongdoing sufficient to prompt an indictment, even if that indictment didn’t ultimately lead to a conviction – you haven’t established unethical behavior.
A wee update amidst the ideological food fight:
I include 10 identifiably right-of-center blogs on my own blogroll. As of 3:40pm EDT, the silence from most of these blogs over Gonzo’s resignation is deafening.
Captain Ed equivocates. Michelle Malkin says good riddance to bad rubbish, but most of this quick-to-attack the Evil Kos crowd is . . . I dunno, maybe they’re all at the beach.
I know that’s where I’d rather be.
If that proved anything (and it doesn’t: I often read liberal blogs, but that doesn’t make me a liberal), it wouldn’t be a proof of what you’re advancing it for, since ten “identifiably right-of-center” blogs on a blogroll numbering ninety entries buys you nothing. Context, context, context, Shaun. Omitting it’s a handy way to distort almost anything.
First off I think you can speak with the bile Shaun does about the Bush adminstration and still be a moderate. Dubya is so brazen about his screwing of the people and the laws of this land that I think anyone who cares about it, right, left or middle, should be howling from the rooftops. Bush is guilty of the single most horrific error a head of state can make. He started a war without cause. The list of his other offenses and deeds of tireless incompetence run on for pages and pages and don’t need to be gotten into here.
Second, some folks seem to be hung up on the fact that the president is allowed to fire prosecutors. Duh. The why matters in the firing, and as much as many on the right would have us believe it was some whim pulled from the ether, a mere exercising of his presidential privileges, the fact is those attorneys got fired for a reason and we want to know why. A CEO has the right to fire people too. But not if its because an underling refuses sexual advances. The WHY of it is something we wish to know, have a right to know, and Bush as usual doesn’t want us to know. I’m sure he has his reasons. Of that I have no doubt whatsoever.
NOTE TO ALL: Please refrain from personal attacks. SIMON: I have been away and to be very blunt you might not like what Shaun writes but your comments basically lash out at him. Also, if you read the stories about Gonzales, I don’t think most news stories are going to say the U.S. attorneys controversy was just a figment of Democrats imagination and had no merit and has no questions unanswered. That being said, get back to ISSUES. I advise everyone to read our comment policy below. If you do not like a post, then detail WHY. As for comment moderation, people have complained about us moderating comments so it’s actually a bit funny to see a comment now wondering where it is. Actually it is needed now because this thread is way off the subejct of Gonzales.
SIMON if you wish to comment and explain why you feel he is wrong then make an argument and list the reasons why. Sorry, we have people who post center right (and we get complaints about them for being closet conservatives) center left (and we get complaints about them being close liberals) and center (we are told they/we are mushy, weak moderates who can’t make up their minds or have no principles). Any opinion poll shows you that moderates, centers and independents do not all agree — and most of them are in fact quite passionate about issues connected with the Bush administration, no matter on what side they are.
SORRY but calling a writer here an “idiot” violates our policy. Also, I can never understand on the internet why when people disagree they have to do in in a screaming, angry way. That NEVER changes a mind and is more therapeutic to the writer than a way to convince others.
Yes, our moderator is not around today but I urge him and others to be patient on comments.
And to those of you who suggest TMV is Kos or Blogs for Bush you perhaps need to explore those sites. We link to them all because we respect their analysis as well.
Again: stop the insults and stick to the issues. The issue is MR. GONZALES.
Comments are NOT going to insult our writes. Another thing that interests me: I’ve gotten emails from conservatives upset at the “tone” of some TMV comments as being very liberal and insulting.
But what do we see HERE? So much for the people that emailed me from without TMV and inside of it about how TMV’ comments were liberal and over the line and conservatives were so much more thoughtful.
It’s also interesting to me, Simon, that you say you won’t link to TMV because of one writer. If you haven’t noticed we have some 20 people signed up and many of them write center-right posts. It sounds as if you prefer that we only offer on view (yours) and sorry we won’t do that and if you don’t link to us for not doing a site that agrees 100 per cent with you we will just have to live with that — as we CONTINUE to link to, blogroll and quote weblogs from many different viewpoints and run Guest Voice posts from people of all viewpoints who have ideas and seek to present them here.
Please halt attacks on post writers. Further such comments will be removed.
If you have a complaint, send an email. But unless you’re new to this site, we have lots of people with differing views — and we intend to leave it this way. Read John Avlon’s book The Independent Nation and you’ll see that centrists and moderates a)are passionate and b)don’t always agree with each other. John worked for Bill Clinton, was wit Giuliani during 911, did a column for the New York Sun and is now on Giuliani’s staff.
PLEASE DO NOT leave comments about writers that insult them. No, he has not quit. Please note that I will be deleting any comments I see in the future that violate our policy about writers on this site. You can disagree with what they write and explain why.
Those who leave comments about tmv writers that violate the comment agreement will see them gone. If I have to do it too much, I have to arrange to keep their comments off the site.
Simon–
I’d tell you I advanced an argument in comment #10, but you seem to have found it once you looked.
Your counter-argument seems to be, as they say on the internet, moving the goalposts. Originally you claimed
You seem–it’s a little hard for me to tell in all that obfuscatory language–to be conflating what’s legal with what’s scandalous. Let alone with what’s ethical.
I think any non-lawyer might tell you, the real scandal is often what’s legal.
Joe,
I did detail why. More than once.
And no, the issue os not just Gonzales – it’s how you can justify having such a blatant partisan water carrier writing on a site that holds itself out as “the moderate voice” – you can’t choose your commenters, but you do choose the people you select as posters. As Jason wrote a couple of days ago,
This thread has perfectly exemplified it. You have a flagrantly partisan post that fits into an unbroken train of flagrantly partisan posts by that author, at least part of which rests on a demonstrably false premise.
And as for this:
Joe, that is a cheap shot, and it’s lame. I don’t demand agreement, and for FWIW, I don’t agree with Michael on a lot of stuff, too. You’re blatantly misrepresenting my position.
George, my argument throughout this thread is that there was nothing illegal about firing these U.S. Attorneys. If it wasn’t illegal, and it didn’t implicate serious ethical problems, then there’s no “scandal.” The only scandal is how the administration has been so incomprehensibly incompetent as to permit this to snowball into the appearance of a scandal.
SIMON: Your criticism has been received and please return to the issue of Mr. Gonzales. I have gotten complaints about virtually everyone who has posted on tmv over the years and very bitter criticism, usually coming from people who don’t agree with them politically. Your feelings are communicated but comments will not be the place for them any more on this thread. I’m not going to spend my day rewriting the same comment — which is the same one I had to write a few weeks ago when conservative readers were all upset about the tone of liberal commenters on TMV and how they were not respectful of conservative writers.
P-l-e-a-s-e m-o-v-e o-n.
Simon- The reason that we do not know the truth about the US attorneys is the WH’s choice to disallow the sworn testimony of Karl Rove and Harriet Miers in front of the committee. So there is suspicion of wrongdoing, but no proof of it. We do know that Justice officials lied about WH involvement and Gonzales lied about his own involvement. There is a body of evidence that points to the dismissal of several of the attorneys because they prosecuted Republicans too vigorously and failed to indict Democrats at election time- which even Ashcroft viewed as unethical. The WH is stonewalling Congress with the help of Fred Fielding. So, the possibility exists that we will never learn the real reason, though it appears to be blatant politicization of the Justice Dept, which would fit the pattern of what the Bush administration has done with other agencies. But if you want to think there’s nothing there, go right ahead, I don’t expect someone with such a partisan viewpoint to see it.
“If it wasn’t illegal, and it didn’t implicate serious ethical problems, then there’s no “scandal.â€
Thats the rub Simon right there. There were some pretty serious ethical problems raised by the firings. No one is saying the president didn’t have the legal right to fire them. Seriously, find me one person that cares about that and I’ll find you a true leftwing crackpot thats probably illiterate as well.
What I will agree with you is that the left just blindly wanted Gonzales gone without doing the smart thing which is keep going till we find out what actually happened. For a minute there I thought the dems were onto something and actually cared about the real problem, the utter secrecy this administration operates under. But now that Gonzo is out all investigations will stop because the Dems have what they wanted. It was in fact just a witch hunt. A new appointee will fill that role and the cycle will continue.
What we the people want is the why of it. We deserve to know and all this closed door activity from this administration should be an outrage to any citizen that cares about America. Congress needs to quit bending over for the Oval Office. Both parties need to snap the presidents leash hard and get this country back on track.
But you can’t say that definitavely. There are laws against obstruction of justice you know. And firing a federal prosecutor is a very effective way to halt ongoing investigations.
And since we have the SAIC for the FBI saying that Lam’s firing did just that, hinder ongoing investigations (in at least one instance, and investigation of a US Congressman) there’s smoke.
Add in the refusal of subpeonas, and the mockery that has been Gonzales’ testimony to congress, and your assertion that nothing illegal occurred begins to look, well, to use your own phrase, idiotic.
So, the absence of evidence is itself the evidence….
Bizarro logic.
BTW, I forgot to add that the resignation of more than a dozen top justice officials in less than 6 months offers more evidence that Shaun and Marshall are not going over the top by calling the attorney firings a scandal.
All who were fired were top performers, and had received glowing reviews from the Dept. So, quite obviously, Gonzo’s claim that they were fired for performance reasons was untrue. It makes much more sense that Carol Lam was fired just as she was widening the probe on defense contracting to include senior members of Congress, McKay was fired because he wouldn’t indict Democrats for voter fraud to overturn a Washington state election, and Iglesias wouldn’t indict Democrats close to the election to give Heather Wilson a better chance of reelection.
cosmoetica -
Not just his politics, but his tone and approach. He has no place on a site such as this, as this post further exemplifies.
I’ve seen no evidence of that.
Sam -
The illegality of it was the upshot of Mullen’s post as I read it. And again: to have a scandal in the absence of illegality, you need to adduce serious ethical problems, and there is no serious indication of that.
Davebo said,
Oh, please. That really is absurd: if you’re so desparate for some legal hook that you’re going to assert that the firing violates obstruction of justice, you’re going to be specfic about it: here’s chapter 73. Which provision did the firing violate?
And I didn’t say – you either misrepresent or misunderstand me – anything so broad as “that nothing illegal occurred” – what I said was what you quoted: that firing the U.S. Attorneys was not itself illegal and moreover could not have been: it was authorized by statute, if there were no statute the President would have inherent authority to fire executive actors, and if there were a statute to the contrary, it would be unconstitutional. Indeed, according to Sam, you’re no one, since – Sam’s words not mine – “[n]o one is saying the president didn’t have the legal right to fire them” and that seems to be the upshot of your comments.
This is a FINAL NOTE to people on both sides. The NEWS STORY is the resignation. Do you REALLY want to waste seconds of your lives debating who is more “moderate” than others when that definition means different things to different people. Just a NOTICE that no matter what the other content, if I see insuling attacks on writers on this site from the center, center left and center right, they will be deleted. If you open your eyes, you see that someon doesn’t like Shaun…he’s “immoderate.” Someone does like jason or me “immoderate:” The ISSUE is the resignation.
I don’t have the time for this and don’t want any more of this on the site so some comments after this one will disappear.
Tully says
No, it is not bizarro logic. The reason for a lack of evidence is purposeful stonewalling of an investigation of who was responsible, what their motives were and when decisions were made. Since the White House and Gonzales have done nothing but obstruct investigations then a lack of evidence and a deep suspicion of the legality of the firings based on motivations is reasonable. It is therefore quite reasonable and logical to believe that the stonewalling is its own kind of evidence of wrongdoing.
“And again: to have a scandal in the absence of illegality, you need to adduce serious ethical problems, and there is no serious indication of that.”
No indication? You can’t be serious. Several prosecutors who just happen to be working on cases involving republicans get fired despite having solid records. The AG has sudden and complete memory lapses, and the president himself steps in to prevent witnesses from testifying under oath. A good deal of upper level DoJ folks take off in the ensuing crapstorm and none of this, not any part of it, strikes you as suspicious? I really just don’t know what to say to that.
Frankly, I expected Gonzo to stick around for the duration. Guess the heat was getting to him.
Jim, consider this.
And yes, I said much the same thing when Clinton was being pursued by the rightwingnuts.
Simon–
I’m completely satisfied with the argument I’ve been making here–that politically motivated prosecutions are a bad thing. I provided some links in support of my argument.
There’s been plenty of other discussion of issues like obstruction of justice and stonewalling.
If you’re satisfied with your argument, that’s okay with me.
And thanks to Joe Gandelman for providing this forum!!
Tully,
When no other evidence is readily available, circumstancial evidence becomes less, as you put it, ‘bizarre’. .That’s why there is so much emphasis on the APPREARNCE of propriety, in addition to actual propriety in situations where trust is tantamount.
Trust is often the yardstick by which a leader is rated as successful or unseccessful. Nowhete is ti more important to establish trust than in governement. Otherwise, what happens is exactly what is happening. now. suspicons and circumstncial evidence erode the institutions of society.
‘There is no evidence’ just doen’t cut it after the circumstantial evidence rises to a certain level, and society is torn apart by suspicions.
This isn’t a Dem/Rep issue. It’s an issue of a governemtn not being trusted by the people it governs. That’s serious for any sociey, and it would be foolhardy to dismiss it lightly, IMO.
BTW, “Guilt’ and ‘innocence’ are legal cncepts, and don’t necessaritly reflect actual guilt or innocence. In fact, savvy practioners can use laws to obscure truth, as well as discover it.
Sometimes, occasions arise where the’truth’, that old-fashioned concept, really matters, Sometimes it matters enough to forego “there is no evidence’ in favor of using whatever means there are to hunt for the “truth’.
I have no way of knowing what the truth here is.
When I think about the kind of country my gandchildren will inherit, though, I’d sure like them to know more than just ‘there was no evidene’. I would like them to be able to trust.
What a disaster of a comments thread. I was away all day, I handled this thread as soon as I saw it.
I have deleted all the comments on this thread where people were calling other people names. Those who don’t like Shaun posting on “The Moderate Voice” get the same answer as those who don’t like me posting on “The Moderate Voice” or who don’t like David, Michael, or Dr. E. posting on “The Moderate Voice”: TOUGH. Live with it. Or not. It is Joe Gandelman’s exclusive decision who is allowed to post on TMV. If you disagree with a person’s posts, feel free to express your disagree with their ideas. If you think that there is an imbalance on TMV, that is also fair ground (though some may not be interested in discussing it), but it is not fair to go the next step into calling names and pasting labels on individuals. You are not free to call people “idiots”, compare them to nazis, or spew any of the other garbage comments that infested this thread for some inexplicable reason.
If there is further name-calling or further attempts to argue that name-calling is justified, then the comments will be deleted without any further warnings and the accounts responsible may be banned. To those who think this policy unfairly infringes on their “right” to keep carping about individual TMV contributors that they dislike, bummer. That’s the way it is. Your complaints about individual TMV contributors that you do not like have been heard, considered, and rejected. Now you can either move on or move out.
Enough. It’s done. Comment on the story itself (Gonzalez’ resignation) or do not comment further on this thread.
Tully,
If it were solely Democrats that had problems with Gonzalez and distrusted his testimony on this you would have much more of a point. But it isn’t. The firings of Lam after her prosecution of Cunningham (And the fact that the investigation of who else might be involved was ongoing.), Iglesias and Graves for refusing to file weak voter fraud cases where they would have been politically advantageous and the appointment of the truly underqualified Schlozman in an end run around Congress to take Graves’ place all point to questionable if not illegal motivations in the case.
There is no such thing as an illegal motivation, Jim, only illegal acts. They’re political appointees and can be fired for any reason, or none. Firing a USA has little to no effect on ongoing cases at all. They are for the most part administrators.
Barring a substantive showing that someone was prosecuted on orders from above who really shouldn’t have been, or that on orders from above someone failed to be prosecuted who really should have been, there’s nothing there but policy disagreements and partisan posturing.
There has been no substantive showing of criminality. Had there been, it could go directly to the court system. Instead we get to watch the usual hyperbolic partisan attempts to force technical process crimes through demagogic hearings that are devoid of the normal protections and checks of the judicial process. Herings designed more for pot-stirring campaign purposes than anything else. But without a showing of criminality (and I have yet to see anyone cite a statute along with evidence that would indicate same has been violated) it’s just another damn political multi-ring circus, with separate dog & pony shows for each committee chair.
And I could run through eight years of similar observations from the Clinton years, when the GOP was doing the same damn thing, often starting from more solid (but still frivolous and partisan and non-criminal posturing) ground. I knocked it then too.
Nope, those who want to attack will always pick up the nearest handy object to do so, which is the point of my piece that I linked, originally written over a decade ago, during the Clinton years.
Tully is of course possibly incorrect on the motivation issue. If the reason someone is being put into an office is to violate the Hatch Act or being removed because they refused to violate it then it becomes a much more interesting question. Is it a crime to conspire to violate the Hatch act?