Impeach Gonzales

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Law Related
Posted on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 04:38:15 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

As usual, but particularly on this, I speak for myself only. My views are not necessarily shared by TalkLeft or its contributors.

What Hunter said. Of course, if the Senate had listened to the Big Orange Hate Filled Site back in January 2005, we would not be in this Gonzo mess in the first place:

We oppose the nomination of Alberto Gonzales to the position of Attorney General of the United States, and we urge every United States Senator to vote against him. . . . With this nomination, we have arrived at a crossroads as a nation. Now is the time for all citizens of conscience to stand up and take responsibility for what the world saw, and, truly, much that we have not seen, at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere. We oppose the confirmation of Alberto Gonzales as Attorney General of the United States, and we urge the Senate to reject him.

< Grand Jury Refuses to Indict Dr. Pou | Surprise! Gonzales Caught In Another Fib >

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.

Impeach Gonzales | 40 comments (40 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Count Me In (5.00 / 5) (#1)
by squeaky on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 04:45:42 PM EST

He is a stain.

You may speak for me on this topic. (5.00 / 5) (#2)
by Molly Bloom on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 04:47:11 PM EST

Gonzo is a disgrace to lawyers and to the American Constitution. I realize the Constitution is now considered "quaint"....

If anyone ever deserved it (5.00 / 6) (#3)
by andgarden on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 04:51:22 PM EST

It's Gonzo. I'm skeptical about 67 votes, but I think it might matter less in this case.

It matters less (5.00 / 5) (#6)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 05:02:07 PM EST

Moreover, I think the appointment of a special prosecutor to prefer charges of perjury on Gonzles would be in order.


The last thing we should want, is (5.00 / 2) (#8)
by scribe on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 05:15:10 PM EST

an "independent prosecutor".

Clement is in the Solicitor General's position (where his main job is vetting the Government's appellate arguments for (1) consistency and (2) adherence to policy) for one reason - fealty to Bushism.

Too many people get distracted by the memory of a special prosecutor, a snarl in his voice and blood dripping from his fangs, chasing Willie through the jungles of Arkansas and Paula Jones' stories to find the grail of a stained blue dress. Remember, too, that Starr had been for a long time - like 10 years previous to his witchhunt - a favorite of those making "short lists" of potential Repug Supreme Court nominees. He was selected by the very partisan Repug judges on the D.C. Circuit, to carry out the duties of the "independent counsel".

Nooo. If Clement appoints a special prosecutor, he'll be a Repug lapdog who will find nothing ever wrong at all here, sometime in March 2009.

Specter was throwing Gonzo and his Repug buddies a lifeline today by suggesting a special prosecutor. Believe it.

Impeachment now is the only answer.


So your argument is (5.00 / 3) (#10)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 05:18:18 PM EST

removal first, then prosecution.

Ok, I am convinced. Your plan is better.


: Double Dip The Guy (5.00 / 2) (#11)
by squeaky on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 05:21:34 PM EST

He is unabashedly making fun of Congress and the Rule of Law.

Yes, Yes, Yes (5.00 / 2) (#9)
by squeaky on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 05:16:41 PM EST

He lies with impunity. The worst...


Impeach... (5.00 / 5) (#4)
by desertswine on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 04:57:39 PM EST

NOW.

job or fetish? (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by Sumner on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 05:40:52 PM EST

In this previous post I contemplated the amount of time that Alberto Gonzales was spending on the war on sex:

It is not hard to imagine Alberto Gonzales spending the bulk of his waking hours poring over sexually related material, much like Edwin Meese III.

So I watched the entire hearing to see if he might divulge a clue as to his total time spent in this area. He did. He declared he is engaged in this area "PERMANENTLY".

How Priapistic (none / 0) (#17)
by squeaky on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 05:47:00 PM EST

Doesn't seem like he is suffering too much though.


It might explain his (5.00 / 1) (#28)
by Edger on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:36:26 PM EST

vacant smile.


Link "Forbidden" (none / 0) (#31)
by squeaky on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 09:14:57 PM EST

bad link?


Strange, it works fine for me. (none / 0) (#32)
by Edger on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 09:39:52 PM EST

Give me a minute. I'll put the picture on photobucket and post a new link.


This (none / 0) (#33)
by Edger on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 09:42:47 PM EST

should work.


: Yes (5.00 / 1) (#36)
by squeaky on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 10:42:51 PM EST

A mask.

ha (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by taylormattd on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 06:00:59 PM EST

who wrote that well-thought out piece at teh Orange back in 2005?

I dunno (5.00 / 2) (#22)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 06:06:20 PM EST

but we should have listened to him.


: btw (5.00 / 2) (#23)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 06:07:45 PM EST

Kid Oakland had a big hand in it.

In our dreams! (none / 0) (#5)
by caramel on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 05:01:47 PM EST

Let's have a collective dream for sure but honestly I can't imagine Gonzo on his way out... The man is an insult to justice and should have been ousted ages ago but W likes his friends and stands by them.

We can hope but I think this will only happen in our dreams!

Perhaps (5.00 / 3) (#7)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 05:03:18 PM EST

But it does not interfere with our other agenda items, the country will supoort it, and a important principle will be upheld.

And not necessarily least, it will be excellent politics.


Sure (none / 0) (#12)
by caramel on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 05:26:25 PM EST

It doesn't interfere but where does it get us?? A Criminal Justice department that is criminal and has very little to do with justice? This has been going on for years now, even during the Clinton administrations. Justice and politics don't mix well and certainly shouldn't mix at all... It's just another piece of the big American lie, appearances, nothing but appearances.


As opposed to? (none / 0) (#16)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 05:46:36 PM EST

No downside and at the least you state publicly your objection is the worst it gets.

On the up side, maybe you get rid of him.

This is not impeachmnet of the President.


: Get rid of him (none / 0) (#24)
by caramel on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 06:19:42 PM EST

Well maybe, if the chance is thin, still who will replace him?? A Gonzcroft?

impeach gonzo? (none / 0) (#37)
by womanwarrior on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 11:20:11 PM EST

But, BTD, how will you get enough Rethug votes? And won't it distract from ending the war in Iraq?
Sorry to be sarcastic,but I still don't get why this should be different from getting Cheney and W out of their before they bomb Iran. WW


: Well (none / 0) (#40)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 25, 2007 at 12:09:10 PM EST

I suppose you are intent on not seeing how it is different so why should I bother trying to explain to you why it is?

CO's Senator (none / 0) (#13)
by Zappatero on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 05:28:29 PM EST

Salazar could have been instrumental in having AbuG's nomination rejected. The execution memos were exhibit 1 for me, and many more of Alberto's failings and weaknesses were well known by all. This could have been prevented.

well, not exactly... (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by scribe on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 05:35:29 PM EST

the problem is, Bushie was looking for a lackey when he named his new AG. For all his manifold flaws (name a crime, terrism or legislative policy), Ashcroft had some leaven of independence in him. Bush needed a lackey.

If it hadn't been Gonzo it would have been someone else with the same, or worse, traits.


: Lacky? (none / 0) (#30)
by squeaky on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 09:12:13 PM EST

He is practically family.... a made man.

So... (none / 0) (#18)
by aj12754 on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 05:56:44 PM EST

today is the first anyone's heard about the OVP office and staff having access to DOJ deliberations? This revelation seems like a much bigger deal to me than any other thing we heard today -- it was the only line of questioning that seemed to perturb Gonzo at all.

Isn't it about time that the SJC asked John Ashcroft to testify? I'd sure like to know if anyone asked him about including the VP's in the expanded access to DOJ when he wrote the first memo.

I agree (none / 0) (#19)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 06:00:18 PM EST

I was lazy and didn't research the story.


: Don't you just really really (none / 0) (#29)
by aj12754 on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 09:12:07 PM EST

want to know who is the Deep Throat of the DOJ?

Sen. Whitehouse is onto something (none / 0) (#21)
by magster on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 06:02:25 PM EST

Has the OVP been monitoring and having access to Libby's grand jury testimony? Was the purpose of this memo to allow Cheney to get inside the Libby case? Did the OVP write the memo for Gonzales, since it was clear that Gonzales had no recollection of the document (even though he signed it)?

The lawlessness of this administration is staggering.


: Marcy Wheeler over at next hurrah (none / 0) (#38)
by aj12754 on Wed Jul 25, 2007 at 07:21:24 AM EST

thinks this may have more to do with the Carol Lam investigations into Cunningham/Wade/Wilkes/Foggo and MZM. I think she's on to something there.

problem (none / 0) (#25)
by pyrrho on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 07:53:48 PM EST

Hunter is always wrong... e.g. he said the gang of 14 deal would ensure mean the filibuster WOULD be used on bad SCOTUS nominees, and the TANG memoes, and ...

I suppose the reason is it's legally good, and I think it should happen, but it's politically stupid compared to going after Bush, a name and person Americans have some framework to understand.

You might as well have impeached Libby.

not that it matters, blogs are not where impeachment is coming from... that's obvious... really arrogant of them to suddenly try to convince people the wisdom of something they've previous-wise been banning over.

"free speech"!

Bbanning over? (none / 0) (#27)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:20:13 PM EST

Last I looked, Meteor Blades and KagroX were impeachment central.

Oh by the way, Ic alled for Gonzo's impeachment in January. You can look it up.


I remember (none / 0) (#34)
by pyrrho on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 09:52:17 PM EST

what I don't know is why you don't see that Hunter on the bandwagon, e.g., is not a sign that they've "got it"...

as far as banning, of course, who knows why they ban, it's all secret and stuff... so one speculates, but yes, I know of people chased off dkos for "impeachment porn".

I know, I know, we're supposed to think theirs is just "good timing"... as if we would have gotten here if everyone shut up about it when they said.


: I dunno (5.00 / 1) (#35)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 10:37:23 PM EST

I am just focused on the issues now.

Is beheading (none / 0) (#26)
by Edger on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 07:58:11 PM EST

ok in this case?

DOJAG (none / 0) (#39)
by nellieh on Wed Jul 25, 2007 at 08:43:49 AM EST

This was another Democrat blunder. A filibuster could have prevented this but they were afraid of the 'nuclear option'.Many Democrats were opposed to the Gonzales nomination because of his stand on the Geneva Convention and Constitutional interpretation to give Bush any answer he wanted. I believe this abomination can be laid at the feet of Lieberman. If ever there was a sanctimonious hypocrit it is he. The Republicans and their 60 vote rule will preclude Congress from any meaningful legislation so they may as well cut Lieberman from his committee chair and let him switch allegiance and they can be 'obstructionists'. It will insure his demise in Congress although I believe he has already with the Connecticut voters. The Republicans got him elected this time but I doubt they will be able to do it again.