Hillary Calls for Gonzales' Resignation

By Jeralyn, Section Hillary Clinton
Posted on Wed Mar 14, 2007 at 02:29:12 AM EST
Tags: Alberto Gonzales (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Hillary Clinton will be on Good Morning America today, calling for the resignation of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

"The buck should stop somewhere," Clinton told ABC News senior political correspondent Jake Tapper, "and the attorney general — who still seems to confuse his prior role as the president's personal attorney with his duty to the system of justice and to the entire country — should resign.

She has a petition for you to sign on her website. John Edwards also called for Gonzales' resignation.

More....

Today's news is only the latest and most disturbing sign of the politicization of justice under President Bush. From the abuse of investigative authority under the Patriot Act to the unconstitutional imprisonment of the Guantanamo Bay detainees and illegal torture of prisoners at Abu Ghraib and Bagram Air Force Base, this president has consistently shown contempt for the rule of law.

"Attorney General Alberto Gonzales betrayed his public trust by playing politics when his job is to enforce and uphold the law. By violating that trust, he's done a great disservice to his office. If White House officials ordered this purge, he should have refused them. If they insisted, he should have resigned in protest. Attorney General Gonzales should certainly resign now."

Where's Obama? Where is Colorado Senator Ken Salazar?

Even more important, where's Rudy? He's defended Newt Gingrigh on having an affair and is unsettled on a Scooter Libby pardon. He's a former U.S. Attorney. I'm hearing he's backing Gonzales, but I'm not reading it anywhere.

< Gonzales Has Little Republican Support | March Madness 5 - The Play-In Game and Other Important Topics >

Legal

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

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

Hillary Calls for Gonzales' Resignation | 42 comments (42 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

To those that still don't understand the process: (5.00 / 1) (#27)
by eric on Wed Mar 14, 2007 at 11:22:32 AM EST

Stuart M. Gerson:

It is customary for a President to replace U.S. Attorneys at the beginning of a term. Ronald Reagan replaced every sitting U.S. Attorney when he appointed his first Attorney General. President Clinton, acting through me as Acting AG, did the same thing, even with few permanent candidates in mind.

U.S. Attorneys (none / 0) (#1)
by spinoneone on Wed Mar 14, 2007 at 06:44:35 AM EST

Well, excuse me! Since all U.S. Attorneys are appointed by the President with the advise and consent of the Senate, they are subject to service at the "pleasure of the President of the United States," not the Senate of the U.S. Tough toe nails that Bush decided to fire some of them. No one has any right to complain, least of all the dismissed attorneys! The President is not required to give his reasons for the dismissal of ANY political appointee. The Senate has NO constitutional role in the hiring/firing process except for the confirmation or rejection of the original placement - except that they passed the Patriot Act so that Bush doesn't have to go to them now for replacements. What a joke! Hoist on their own petard are they? Oh, yeah, remember that Clinton fired the whole corps of U.S. Attorneys when he came on board just so that he didn't have to fire the two who were investigating Dan Rostenkowski and the White Water Scandal. Funny what selective memory can do to Senators, heh? Spinoneone

Actually changing of party in the white house (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by Molly Bloom on Wed Mar 14, 2007 at 08:34:22 AM EST

usually means change of all US Attorneys at that time so when President "Clinton fired the whole corps of U.S. Attorneys when he came on board" that was "normal" - Bush did the same thing, in 2001. What's not acceptable is intereference with prosecutorial duties of the office.

I know you don't want to hear that, but "thats the way it is."


Molly B (none / 0) (#7)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed Mar 14, 2007 at 09:30:39 AM EST

I don't think that Bush fired all the AG's.

Can you provide some proof?


: All presidents appoint their own (5.00 / 2) (#25)
by eric on Wed Mar 14, 2007 at 11:12:09 AM EST

Again, it isn't a matter of "firing". US Attorneys serve for four years. At the end of four, new president equals new US Attorney. It's standard practice.

Wow! (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by Sailor on Wed Mar 14, 2007 at 08:52:51 AM EST

All the rnc talking points in one little diatribe.

The Senate has NO constitutional role in the hiring/firing process except for the confirmation or rejection of the original placement -

Forgot that little advice part didn't you?

they passed the Patriot Act so that Bush doesn't have to go to them now for replacements.

yes, the WH had their lackeys stick that in w/o the author/sponsor of the bill noticing. IUt was amazing what rethugs were willing to do for these crooks.

just so that he didn't have to fire the two who were investigating Dan Rostenkowski and the White Water Scandal.

Pure rush lameballs there. BTW, are you tryting to say whitewater didn't get investigated and Rostenkowski didn't serve prison time for his crimes?


Rejection or apprval is pretty plain advice (none / 0) (#8)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed Mar 14, 2007 at 09:33:22 AM EST

As to the Patroit Act, yes, it was passed.

Looks like the Demos got beat. When they can, let them change it.

In the meantime, they should just keep whinning.


er... (none / 0) (#10)
by squeaky on Wed Mar 14, 2007 at 09:52:01 AM EST

The AG has already agreed to change the Patroit act as regards Congressional approval of US Attorneys.


Squeaky (none / 0) (#11)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed Mar 14, 2007 at 09:53:38 AM EST

Uh, I don't think the AG can just change a law...

He can say he supports the change....


: We Know (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by squeaky on Wed Mar 14, 2007 at 10:04:55 AM EST

PPJ, that abu Gonzales is a lapdog. He never says anything, or does anything on his own. If he said it, you can be rest assured that it came from the WH.

: Would YOU support changing of that part (none / 0) (#43)
by Molly Bloom on Wed Mar 14, 2007 at 07:05:25 PM EST

of the Patriot Act?

Now that's funny! (none / 0) (#29)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Mar 14, 2007 at 12:02:18 PM EST

yes, the WH had their lackeys stick that in w/o the author/sponsor of the bill noticing.

do you have anything to say? (none / 0) (#30)
by Sailor on Wed Mar 14, 2007 at 12:29:16 PM EST

being amused and having a counter argument are 2 different things. Try some facts on for size:

The provision was added to the Patriot Act renewal while staffers were working out differences in the versions of the bills that had passed the House and the Senate.
Brett Tolman, now the U.S. attorney for Utah, was then Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter's staffer handling the issue and added it at the request of the Justice Department, Specter said at a hearing last month.

In later remarks during this morning's hearing, Specter explained to Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) that he didn't know about the provision until she approached him on the floor and asked about it recently. He then asked his chief counsel, Michael O'Neill, who explained that the provision had been inserted into the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act at the request of the Department of Justice.

: More (none / 0) (#31)
by squeaky on Wed Mar 14, 2007 at 12:43:42 PM EST

In firing the prosecutors and replacing them without Senate approval, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales took advantage of a little-noticed provision that the administration and its Republican enablers in Congress had slipped into the 2006 expansion of the Patriot Act. The ostensible purpose was to allow the swift interim replacement of a United States attorney who was, for instance, killed by terrorism.
A case could be made that the US attorneys were victims of terrrorism. Political assinations by some of the worlds leading terrorists.
Terrorism is one of those words that changes depending on who is uttering it. Seems to me that such a shifty and vague word shouldn't have so much importance in our laws and policies.

Oversight (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by squeaky on Wed Mar 14, 2007 at 09:49:28 AM EST

Tough toe nails that Bush decided to fire some of them. No one has any right to complain, least of all the dismissed attorneys!

OK, but congress is mandated to have oversight on illegal activities, unethical activities and unsavory activites of the executive branch.

'Tough toe nail', seems nostalgic of the time when conress was in total control of Bush. In case you have not noticed spinoneone, that is no longer the case.

There are countries that are run like a monarchy or dictatorship with no oversight. Use google for your relocation plans.


You are missing the problem (5.00 / 1) (#19)
by eric on Wed Mar 14, 2007 at 10:50:58 AM EST

Sure he can fire US Attorneys. All Presidents do. But here, the list of those fired shows he was firing them for improper reasons. Specifically, it appears some were fired for not bringing indictments, and and least one, Carol Lam, was fired for bringing indictments.

Note that in an e-mail dated May 11, 2006, Deputy AG Kyle Sampson wrote, "the real problem we have right now with Carol Lam,". What was that problem? She was indicting Duke Cunningham and other republicans. Read all about it here.

Also, just generally, the emails show that attorneys were being judged by their "loyalty to the President and Attorney General." Loyalty? Not exactly something that is supposed to be a factor for US Attorneys.

So yes, Bush and his admin could have fired anyone or everyone, but the documents produced thus far show US Attorneys were being fired for improper reasons. That is the problem.


These are serious issues here. (none / 0) (#4)
by cal11 voter on Wed Mar 14, 2007 at 09:14:35 AM EST

There should be hearings with all the players testifying under oath. The issue should not be politicized.

Precedence (none / 0) (#5)
by JTML on Wed Mar 14, 2007 at 09:18:32 AM EST

No offense to Senator Clinton, or Jeralyn, but this item should be headed "Edwards Calls for Gonzales' Resignation", and it should contain the line that "Senator Hillary Clinton also called for Gonzales' resignation".

Continue on to describe Senator Clinton's statement, by all means, but recognize that John Edwards acted yesterday and that he avoided having his statement eclipsed by the much longer interview with Mr. Gonzales (which is what happened on "Good Morning America").

: Actually (none / 0) (#26)
by Jeralyn on Wed Mar 14, 2007 at 11:20:37 AM EST

I received the press release on what Hillary said in the GMA interview yesterday, before the e-mail arrived from the Edwards.

Debunked (none / 0) (#6)
by Che's Lounge on Wed Mar 14, 2007 at 09:27:18 AM EST

Oh, yeah, remember that Clinton fired the whole corps of U.S. Attorneys when he came on board just so that he didn't have to fire the two who were investigating Dan Rostenkowski and the White Water Scandal. Funny what selective memory can do to Senators, heh?

So did Reagan. It's SOP when the guard changes.

Che (none / 0) (#12)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed Mar 14, 2007 at 09:56:54 AM EST

Che, can you show some proof??

And remember, it should be for those in office at the start of his first term. That would be '81.

Not his second. That would be '85.


Are you kidding? (4.00 / 1) (#24)
by eric on Wed Mar 14, 2007 at 11:10:09 AM EST

All US Attorneys' terms expire every four years. A new president ALWAYS appoints his own people. There may be times when he keeps one or two around, but it pretty much goes without saying that a new president means a new US Attorney.


Show (none / 0) (#34)
by Wile ECoyote on Wed Mar 14, 2007 at 04:28:45 PM EST

where Reagan or Carter for that matter fired a number of attys.


Here (none / 0) (#37)
by squeaky on Wed Mar 14, 2007 at 04:37:56 PM EST

Is the link


: fired (none / 0) (#40)
by Wile ECoyote on Wed Mar 14, 2007 at 06:40:53 PM EST

or replaced when the term expired?

Second-term replacements (none / 0) (#13)
by sphealey on Wed Mar 14, 2007 at 10:02:17 AM EST

> Not his second.

It would be unusual for a President to replace his own USA appointments directly after his 2nd election, but it would not violate the norms of the process as they have been observed for at least the past 100 years. Would probably raise some questions but not an investigation.

It is conducting a large-scale replacement mid-term that is unprecedented.

sPh


Show (none / 0) (#16)
by Wile ECoyote on Wed Mar 14, 2007 at 10:41:07 AM EST

where Reagan fired a number of Attys.


U.S. Attorneys (none / 0) (#15)
by spinoneone on Wed Mar 14, 2007 at 10:12:46 AM EST

"Advice and Consent" refers only to the original nomination and appointment of a prospective office holder. After that, the Congress has absolutely no authority over the term of office of the political appointee. The President is not, in any way, required to inform Congress of his decision to dismiss any of his appointees; nor of the previous President's who are still inplace at the change of administrations.

Politics, by definition, are involved in any hiring or firing of any political appointee. Any hearings which the Senate might want to hold can only be seen as an assault on the authority of the Executive branch to carry out its constitutional duties.
Spinoneone

: a pattern of corruption (4.00 / 1) (#21)
by Sailor on Wed Mar 14, 2007 at 11:04:50 AM EST

they denied it, said it was 'performance issues' and that the WH had nothing to do with it.
They lied about all of those points, some in sworn testimony to congress and interfered with investigations. Those are crimes.

Any hearings which the Senate might want to hold can only be seen as an assault on the authority of the Executive branch to carry out its constitutional duties.
ha, ha! wow, regurgitating the exact spin the rnc is putting on it. just because the exec could constantly assault the constituion under a rethuglican senate doesn't mean that they can get away with it now.
gonzales committed perjury, that's a crime. Wilson, domenici and others interfered with ongoing investigations. That's a crime.
Good thing the dems are back in power and are willing to investigate these crimes.

: Irrelevant (none / 0) (#20)
by squeaky on Wed Mar 14, 2007 at 10:57:32 AM EST

Everyone knows by now, that the US Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the PResident, as they are plumb political appointees. No one is disputing your non-sequitur here.
What is important is whether or not the firings were part of unethical or illegal behavior on the part of the executive brance. That is part of COngress' job.
I don't blame you for forgetting about Congress' oversight responsibility. SIx years is a long time.

Hillary is funny (none / 0) (#17)
by Wile ECoyote on Wed Mar 14, 2007 at 10:42:09 AM EST

Holy '93 Batman,
Do what I say, not what I do.

Via C&L and Norm Solomon (none / 0) (#22)
by Che's Lounge on Wed Mar 14, 2007 at 11:07:03 AM EST

In 1993, Clinton replaced H.W. Bush's prosecutors. In 2001, Bush replaced Clinton's prosecutors. None of this is remotely unusual. Indeed, it's how the process is designed.

Every new president appoints new US Attorneys. That always happens. Always.... The whole thing is silly. But a lot of reporters on the news are already falling for it.

And apparently the usual Bush Defenders of the Faith here at TL. Are you guys really that gullible, or just so stupid you don't even bother to check your facts?

You are (none / 0) (#35)
by Wile ECoyote on Wed Mar 14, 2007 at 04:30:54 PM EST

making the jump from every new president appoints new US Attys, and equating that with every president fires attys and then replaces them. Show us who did that before President Clinton started that.


Here (none / 0) (#38)
by squeaky on Wed Mar 14, 2007 at 04:38:45 PM EST

is the link


replaced (none / 0) (#41)
by Wile ECoyote on Wed Mar 14, 2007 at 06:41:37 PM EST

or fired?


: Well (none / 0) (#44)
by squeaky on Wed Mar 14, 2007 at 07:35:10 PM EST

You are a smart guy, what do you think? Four years their term expries, the new president or existing one can either rehire them or not. And contrary to the spin, the same was true when Clinton took office.

Exactly (none / 0) (#23)
by Che's Lounge on Wed Mar 14, 2007 at 11:09:43 AM EST

gonzales committed perjury, that's a crime. Wilson, domenici and others interfered with ongoing investigations. That's a crime.

we don't know he committed perjury (5.00 / 1) (#28)
by Jeralyn on Wed Mar 14, 2007 at 11:23:11 AM EST

let's let the facts play out. He says he wasn't aware of the content and extent of Sampson's discussions and that led to those who did testify providing incomplete (false) information.

I'll agree it's a dubious claim, but let's not throw the perjury claim out unless there are facts to establish he lied under oath.


: Standard of proof (none / 0) (#33)
by Sailor on Wed Mar 14, 2007 at 02:51:59 PM EST

"Mr. Gonzales insisted today that the dismissals of federal prosecutors were not politically motivated
Yet:
The White House has admitted that another of the fired US attorneys, HE "Bud" Cummins of Arkansas, was let go solely to make room for a former Rove aide
That's politics, and seems to be evidence of lying to congress.

Clinton didn't fire the US Attorneys (none / 0) (#32)
by beefeater on Wed Mar 14, 2007 at 12:46:30 PM EST

Janet Reno did and I call for Her resignation!!

That the removals (none / 0) (#36)
by Deconstructionist on Wed Mar 14, 2007 at 04:35:08 PM EST

were perfectly legal is true. That does not mean that political consequences are not warranted and it surely does not mean political oversight is wrong. Plenty of things that are legal need to be closely scrutinized . Being legal is a pretty low standard and to be acceptable many people think a higher standard should apply to important matters affecting our system of justice.

: Especially when ... (none / 0) (#39)
by Sailor on Wed Mar 14, 2007 at 05:26:10 PM EST

... the law is changed by a last minute provision in the PATRIOT act that the exec slipped in w/o the bill's sponsor knowing about it.