![]() |
Alberto GONEzales?
In the wake of the firing of US Attorneys scandal and the patriot act misuse/abuse scandal do you feel that Alberto Gonzales will be fired or step down as attorney general soon? Do you feel he should? Could congress impeach him? How do you feel about his actions as of late?
*I will add my own comments and feelings later. |
two characters
|
It looks to me like the outcry is gaining momentum and Gonzalas will be out of a job soon. In addition I think Rove might be at danger too because of the latest emails that were released.
|
If my magic lamp works, he'll be fired. Other than that, I doubt it. Someone lower will get the blame for the BS they've been pulling and Alberto "The Mexican Dubyuh" Gonzales will stay.
|
It doesnt matter if he's fired or if he leaves. He would just be immediately replaced by someone who is willing to do the exact same stuff. This administration is like a starfish. You can cut off one of the points and it will just grow back. It's not until you take a sledgehammer to the entire thing over and over and over until it is reduced to a pulp that you know it is dead.
|
Correct me if i'm wrong but wouldn't any replacement have to be confirmed by the house and senate?
|
Gonzales went through the same process, so its not going to protect us from anything. This administration will only pick people that are 110% loyal and willing to do anything they're asked. Our only solution to stop this kind of stuff is to completely remove this entire administration.
|
Quote:
|
I think some of us are missing the point. The Attorney general's job is supposed to provide counsel to the president and his lackeys. Gonezales is a stereotype of a "Yes Man". His counsel consists of telling Bush what wonderful ideas he has and that he is the greatest president ever.
He should have never made it into the office of Attorney General but given that Bush's first choice was the inarticulate dim bulb "Myers"... the Senate just gave in before Bush's next nomination was his personal trainer or some guy who plays a lawyer on tv. |
I think that Gonzales should be required to meet with every family that has been negatively effected by the BS he has shoveled. Instead of being sheltered with all his buddies, it might be beneficial if someone in government were to actually understand the consequences for their actions. The same can be said of anyone in the Bush administration, frankly.
|
I'm going to coin a term - "The Libby Defense". The definition is here:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070326/...ed_prosecutors I find it very interesting that the administration is resorting to this. It's almost an admission of guilt, at least in the mind of the great unwashed who's experience with the 5th is most likely limited to Hollywood mobsters and the like (think Dick Wolf). I'll certainly conceed that there's more to it than my over-simplification, but I think this is a mistake for everyone outside The Beltway. |
Is the reason they are pleading the fifth because they know they did something wrong or they are afraid they will commit perjury?
Pleading the 5th should only apply when asked a question that would implicate you in a crime. I don't think liying under oath would be one of these reasons. |
From the article:
Quote:
|
I just don't know if it is legal to plead the fifth in this case.
|
If I were a Senate staffer, I'd offer immunity for inadvertent perjury. However, I tend to agree with you. This might end up being an interesting test of the 5th.
|
Pleading the 5th is completely legal and it's exactly what I'd recommend anyone do after whats happened to martha stewart and lewis libby. If you keep your mouth shut, they can't get you for anything you've said.
|
As for the potential negative appearance of pleading the 5th: Isn't it better to be assumed guilty than proven guilty with inevitable consequences? It's not like it'll make them look less honest. Without a jury or stock price to prop up, I do not believe appearances are of much concern to these folks.
|
Quote:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.I believe it was as a result of the McCarthy hearings in the 50s that the Supreme Court "interpreted" the 5th Amendment to apply to Congressional investigations as well, which are not criminal investigations. |
The dangers of this precedence is anyone can avoid testifying in any case in order to avoid "self incrimination" of perjury though they themselves have not committed nor are being investigated for a crime. This could potentially bring our entire justice system to a standstill and that is why I'm questioning the legality of it.
|
I would plead the 5th at least until it was clear what crime is being investigated. I would not hold it against someone for pleading the 5th in this circumstance. Like in the Libby case, all it takes is a lapse in memory and then you face jail time. In the end I guess the Libby case did send a message - Don't cooperate.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Congressional investigations are generally "fact-finding"..they are not grand juries to determine if there is sufficent evidence that a crime may have been committed.
The best solution here may be for Congress to immunize the DoJ official, protecting her from criminal prosecution and compelling her to testify in order to determine if Gonzales and the WH conspired to fire the attorney for political reasons (not necessarily a crime, unless it was willfully to block an ongoing criminal investigation) OR if Gonzales or any WH official lied in their own testimony to Congress. Some may recall Iran-Contra hearings in Congress. Ollie North got immunity to testify before Congress and as a result several higher ranking Reagan officials were convicted of crimes. Was it worth it to let North off? |
Quote:
In this case, we already know there are inconsistencies between performance reviews and public statments on performance. I worked in a Human Resources department for a few years, and that type of inconsistency was a major problem when supervisors wanted to terminate, demote, deny increases or promotions. Everyone knows this should not happen, but it happens all the time. We also know there are mountains of emails and other documents. We know there were meetings and discussions. Unless you have perfect recall, you will be at risk for perjury given what happened in the Libby case. Quote:
Also, it seems to me that Gonzales as the right to set the agenda and pressure AG's to do what he wants. If Gonzales lied to Congress. In my opinion that is a crime. Congress should be more focused on that issue in my opinion. |
If you grant the person immunity from perjury in order to get them to testify what is to stop them from lying?
|
Quote:
By the way, Libby's problem wasn't that he made a mistake but that he tried to pass off a lie as a mistake. That's what the jury believed. He was never on trial for a mistake. He was on trial for a premeditated crime. The fact that his defense was my mythical "inadvertant perjury" theory and that the jury convicted him anyway speaks volumes about the facts of the case. Sorry guys, I know you want him to be not guilty, but he was convicted. |
Ace - what are you talking about? Libby said he didn't remember plenty of times. That was the thrust of his defense, and it's part of what got him in trouble.
|
Quote:
Quote:
But the point as it relates here is - materiality. Libby was convicted on an issue not material to an issue were there was no crime. That is why people should avoid the Libby trap. Quote:
I am not sure what you mean when you say that is in part what got him into trouble. |
Granting immunity in that situation make sense ace but in the situation here this person is not accused of any crime and congress could give immunity for any crimes she may have committed in exchange for her testimony. The problem is she is pleading the 5th not because she has committed a crime and doesn't want to incriminate her self but because she claims the very act of testifying would potentially incriminate her by her perjuring herself. I don't think the 5th should be allowed in this situation. Because the witness is not refusing to testify in order to protect themselves from incriminating themselves in a crime that has happened but instead saying if they testify they will commit a crime.
This would set a dangerous precedence where anyone anywhere can refuse to testify under a fear of perjuring themselves. Thus in any case everyone could take the 5th despite them not being involved in any crime and no one would testify any longer. |
Quote:
Of the more than 400 US attorneys who have served between 1981 and 2006, only 10 left office involuntarily for reasons other than a change in administration(dismissed for serious issues of personal or professional conduct). In one fell swoop, Bush dismissed eight for no apparent reason, based on their positive performance evaluations. As former conservative congressman Bob Barr, who served as a U.S. Attorney under President Reagan, said: ...“the integrity of the Department of Justice is being used as a political football by the administration to prove who’s the toughest hombre in all this.”There are also potential ethical violations by members of Congress (particularly a senator and congresswoman from New Mex, a congressman from Cali and a congressman from Wash) who are alleged to have contacted the US attorneys about ongoing investigations and then contacted DOJ officials (Gonzales and others) to discuss their dismissal.. These are clear violations of Congressional ethics rules, if true... and a proper reason for Congressional inquiry. |
It should also be pointed out that in the last four years the US attorneys investigated some 250+ cases involving democrats and around 30 involving republicans. The justice system NEEDs to be politically independent.
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Not anymore.... "The former top aide to embattled Attorney General Alberto Gonzales will tell the Senate Judiciary Committee Thursday that eight federal prosecutors were fired last year because they did not sufficiently support President George W. Bush's priorities" click to show |
The problem for the WH and DOJ is that their stories keep changing and they have no evidence to back up their claims that the attorneys "did not sufficiently support Bush's priorities".
First, the claim was that Carol Lam, the US attorney in Cali was not aggressive enough in investigating and prosecuting immigration violation cases. Then it turns out the Assistant Attorney General's Office had praised her work on immigration cases as recently as August. So then, last week, Bush says, "We did hear complaints and concerns about U.S. attorneys. Some complained about the lack of vigorous prosecution of election fraud cases.” And in testimony this weeK by the FBI director: Have you ever heard from your agents (who would be involved by the nature of the FBI's role in such investigations) about any election fraud case where there were no indictments when they thought that there should have been?They just keep tripping over their own lies and misrepresentations...which seems to becoming common occurences with this White House now that there is a Congress actually meeting its oversight responsibilities. |
Quote:
|
Another old saying is that it is the lies and coverups, rather than the initial action, that often gets you in trouble.
The Bush crowd doesnt seem to have learned that lesson. |
I know when the Bush team is playing political games and I will call them on it. In this situation it is also clear that Democratic leaders in Congress are playing political games. These hearings are a waste of time and our resources.
Calling the statment that the terminations were for performance, a lie, when those terminated had good performance reviews - is a stretch. In high level positions performance is not simply doing a good job, it is also a function of doing what the boss wants the way the boss wants it done. Also, activities, results, and the right results, are very different. I am sure the people terminated were active and got results. My gut tells me that when Gonzales testifies he is not going to be able to clearly articulate the differences and why they are important, and Democrats are going to pretend that they are clueless on this point. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Fitgerald wasted millions on the Plame investigation and the Libby trial. He would not get my vote for most effective US Attorney. |
All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:40 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project