Gonzales flack?

DasBoot

Moderator
What's the deal with all the hoopla around the DA firings?
Doesn't the A.T. have the right to fire anyone he wants if the DA's aren't folowing orders?
The Dems are all over this and, unless I'm missing something, it's a non story.
Didn't Clinton fire something like 90 Da when he took office?
What's going on?
Or is this nothing more than partisan bs on the part of the Dems?
Someone enlighten me.
 
If firing the DAs is within the AGs scope of power, why would he lie about being involved in it in the first place?
And so what if they were politically motivated.
If these guys were not performing according to the administrations wishes, what's the problem with firing them?
 
Clinton fired all 93 US Attorneys in 1993 - the first time that had ever been done (all the other presidents waited until the 4 year terms the attorneys serve were up and replaced them at that time). The president has the absolute authority over firing any US attorney. It's a non-story; the dems will do anything to get at Bush.
 
If firing the DAs is within the AGs scope of power, why would he lie about being involved in it in the first place?
Technically, they serve at the pleasure of the president, not the AG. Though I nimagine he can pass that power onto the AG. Well, except that both the President and the AG have denied being involved in the decision.

Why would they lie? That is exactly the crux of the question and the motivation for the investigation by congress.

"Justice Department officials at first gave no reasons for the firings, then cited performance problems with the prosecutors, and, finally, acknowledged that performance could not be cited in each of the cases as the rationale for the firings." -- from the NYT 3/25/07

Don't like the New York Times? Ok, I get that.. here's a right wing blog perspective:
"One cannot support an Attorney General who misleads Congress, allows his staffers to mislead Congress, and deceives the American people, regardless of whether an R or a D follows his name or the majority control of Congress."

And so what if they were politically motivated.
Depends on how much you want to keep politics and justice separated. On one side are USAs working independently deciding which cases to prosecute based only on the evidence, and on the other are USAs working under the direct direction of an administration who then has the ability to let anyone he wants to get off free and harass his enemies. Though both extremes are unrealistic caricatures, I know which side I would prefer to lean towards.

If these guys were not performing according to the administrations wishes, what's the problem with firing them?
Two sides of this coin: 1) There may or may not be some responsibility on behalf of an employer to disseminate the wishes before firing someone "for cause", and 2) It is not clear that wishes were the problem when loyalty lists are being made.

There are enough scandals for Gonzales to be handling right now. This particular one is almost purely political and serves to show the white house in a poor light.
 
Last edited:
Depends on the definition of "political"

If "political" means "using prosecutorial discretion to help or harm a political party," everybody should have a problem with that. I don't care what your voter registration is. If US Attorney's were fired for prosecuting too many Republicans or for not prosecuting enough Democrats, I've got a problem with that. If the situation were reversed, I would also have a problem with it.

If "political" means that, while the attorneys in question were doing well in terms of conviction rates, but that they were not focusing their attention in line with Administration priorities, I might be OK with that, or not, depending on what the priorities in question actually were.

When you're talking about, say, Carol Lam, who prosecuted Duke Cunningham, and was getting close to some other powerful Republican lawmakers and donors, "political" starts crossing into "obstruction of justice." Which isn't an accusation, at least not yet. But there's a line between those two points, and some of these firings are close enough to it that I'd like to know more about it.

The fact that the Administration can't seem to get their story straight, capped off by these ridiculous claims of privileges they don't have, and the latest talking point, that Congress has no oversight authority over the Executive at all, makes me very nervous.

And Clinton? Give that one up. Political appointees lose their jobs when new Presidents come in, especially when the office changes parties. That's not what's at issue here, and you know it. It's a red herring. Try again.

--Shannon
 
DasBoot said:
What's the deal with all the hoopla around the DA firings?
Doesn't the A.T. have the right to fire anyone he wants if the DA's aren't folowing orders?

Easiest way to understand this issue is simply this: Democrats are entering that period where they become the Investigative Arm in order to score political points against Republicans... Last week some Dem held hearings on Spy Master Plame for no reason and this week they are holding hearings on Attorney General firing of political appointees. There is no guilt here simply Democrats holding hearings to score political points... expect a lot of this as we proceed in Lame Duck Administration's final year and a half. Dems could make no headway cutting and running from Iraq and surrendering so expect them to try to find fault in every action by Executive Branch.

In the case in point, Attorney General Gonzales, Democrats have wanted him fired from the get go! Nations first Hispanie Attorney General did not sit well with Dems... they want his head. Makes no differnce that he has done no wrong....
 
1. The admin can do as they please with the DAs.

2. The admin is so concerned about keeping secrets that they don't know when to tell the truth. Gonzales was a complete moron to say he had no part in this when he was documented at a meeting discussing it. All the idiot had to say was "I knew about it and have no comment." MORON!

I don't think this admin can handle anything from a PR standpoint without screwing it up. I know the left is out to get them at every turn but they do not have to constantly hand them ammunition.
 
I was going to stay out of this one and I hate to quote people but....

In the case in point, Attorney General Gonzales, Democrats have wanted him fired from the get go! Nations first Hispanie Attorney General did not sit well with Dems... they want his head. Makes no differnce that he has done no wrong....

I think what he did wrong was fire judges that didn't toe the "dubya" party line, cover it up and then lie about it as part of a bigger scandel. Is he guility of lying about it? I'm think its been show he is. Has he been convicted of any thing yet, no. But are the Dems doing this because he's Hispanic? I don't think so. Are the Dems making a show? To an extent yes, but dubya hasn't exactly played to the letter of the law with Congress, Senate or the voters. I think up until the election, the political jousting is only going to get worse, especially if more and more scandals surface with this president.
 
It's not a non-story. According to Republican John Sununu, and everyone else with any integrity, in the know, it's the worst kind of unsavory politics -firing people because they won't unfairly taint their own prosecutorial judgment to favor a white house friend, or prosecute a white house enemy. Much ado SHOULD be made out of this shady deal, and Gonzalez needs to resign - he has sucked from the get-go.
 
Good post, FF...

And, of course, if it were a Democratic administration doing this, everyone here would be leaping to their defense. Right? Right???

<crickets></crickets>

Oh, that's right...

IOKIYAR. I forgot.

--Shannon
 
The President has the constitutionally guaranteed right to fire US DAs for any whatsoever, or for no reason at all. Remember seperation of powers? Congress has no business "investigating" this at all. Even if it is partisan, even if it is ugly, it is his right. This is nothing more that a Democratic version of "gotcha" politics, something to keep in the media to make the other side look bad. Again, the President's right to fire US DAs is spelled out in the Constitution. He, nor anyone in his administration, should have to answer to anyone for doing it.
 
The President has the constitutionally guaranteed right to fire US DAs for any whatsoever, or for no reason at all. Remember seperation of powers? Congress has no business "investigating" this at all. Even if it is partisan, even if it is ugly, it is his right. This is nothing more that a Democratic version of "gotcha" politics, something to keep in the media to make the other side look bad. Again, the President's right to fire US DAs is spelled out in the Constitution. He, nor anyone in his administration, should have to answer to anyone for doing it.

Not quite. The president, by firing a USA, could be obstructing justice. Reference [Nixon and "Saturday Night Massacre"] in google. So, the "any reason whatsoever" argument is out.

The situation with Lam in San Diego is enough to justify an investigation all by itself.
 
Different situation...

Not quite. The president, by firing a USA, could be obstructing justice. Reference [Nixon and "Saturday Night Massacre"] in google. So, the "any reason whatsoever" argument is out.



Archibald Cox was a special prosecutor charged with investigating a crime in which members of the Nixon administration (and Nixon himself) were involved. Also, he was fired by Bork AFTER he had issued a subpoena to the President, thus making Nixon a direct object of the investigation. Nixon faced the prospect of obstruction of justice charges only after the new special prosecutor, Leon Jaworski, filed a federal lawsuit against the President that ultimately ended with a unanimous decision by the Supreme Court ordering Nixon to turn over his office tapes. Those fired by Attorney General Gonzales were not special prosecutors like Cox, they were not investigating the President nor anyone in his administration, had issued no subpoenas, and were serving at the pleasure of the President. Thusly, they could be fired just because he felt like it. NO explaination needed.
 
If a US Attorney was fired

to stop an investigation, that's obstruction. Regardless whether the subject of the investigation was the President, Duncan Hunter, or the clerk at my grocery store.

Obstruction of justice also encompasses interference to start or hurry an investigation, not just stopping one.

The President's power to hire and fire Executive branch employees does not allow him to commit felonies.

Did that happen here? I don't know, and neither do you. But some of these firings raise questions, questions that deserve answers. Getting those answers is completely within Congress' purview.

--Shannon
 
Well Gonzales had his turn on the shovel digging the hole....

It was for performance
no it was not performance related
the white house had no involvement
emails to the white house showing involvment
I didnt attend any meeting about it
e-mails said he did

dont chum the water in DC before you take a swim :eek:

Don,t know if there is anything there or not..but he didnt help his case much.
 
to stop an investigation, that's obstruction. Regardless whether the subject of the investigation was the President, Duncan Hunter, or the clerk at my grocery store.

Obstruction of justice also encompasses interference to start or hurry an investigation, not just stopping one.

The President's power to hire and fire Executive branch employees does not allow him to commit felonies.

Wrong. The Office of US Attorney was created by the Judiciary Act of 1789. There is no provision in the Judiciary Act or any other later piece of legislation that places any limits or restrictions on the President's right to fire US DAs. None. If a US DA was investigating Barbara Bush (the elder) and George Bush (the younger) decided to fire him/her, it is still perfectly legal. There would be a huge political price to pay, and the next US DA would probably pick up right where the first left off, but no crime would have been committed by the firing. None. Therefore, no "felony" exists. It's a fantansy. Even the New York Times and a former Clinton Justice Department official (who now works on an ABA task force on prosecutorial ethics) agree that no crime has been committed.

As a legal matter, at least, that means the Justice Department was within its rights in the recent dismissals, said Rory Little, a former Justice Department official in the Clinton administration who is on an American Bar Association task force on prosecutorial ethics.

“It has always been a patronage position,” Mr. Little said. “Can the president fire a U.S. attorney for any reason at all? The answer is yes.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/18/w...tml?ex=1175313600&en=cf34a9c5756c4f9b&ei=5070
 
Back
Top