Comments (49)

Jebzus wrote on April 20, 2007 12:26 PM:

Keep the bugger.

conniptionfit wrote on April 20, 2007 12:27 PM:

Doesn't Mark Corallo work for Karl Rove?
code snake=the jokes just make themselves up.

Rusty Austin wrote on April 20, 2007 12:30 PM:

The guy who ought to resign is Bush. THAT wwould give us a fresh start.

designrchap wrote on April 20, 2007 12:39 PM:

20 April ‘07

Incompetence as Strategy:

Ok, you’ve got your marching orders from the White House. You’re gonna fire these eight USA’s.

It’s taken a while to compile the list. Political considerations have been examined in microscopic detail. “Fitzgerald, nah, too dangerous. It’d be like Nixon’s “Saturday Night Massacre. A fucking firestorm of press coverage. We need to keep this under the radar as long as possible”.

“Lam, get rid of the bitch; look what she did to “Duke.” She’ll be crawling right up our ass next. Iglesias, gone. I’m sick of hearing from Domenici plus he can’t get with the program for shit. Biskupic, maybe, take him off for now. He’s learning to follow orders.” So it goes.

Simple really. Bush and Rove compile the list, give it to you and you designate a flunky to make the calls. Until it isn’t. That asshole over at some wise ass BLOG, TPM, Josh Marshall, begins making a big deal out of it. And, he won’t let up. Day after day insisting something is really, really rotten in D.C.

The comatose MSM finally picks up on it and even they begin to smell blood in the water. Pat Leahy and Arlen Specter are pushed into hearings. What the fuck?

You’ve covered your ass three ways from Christmas, setting up DOJ search committees, hammered a “consensus of top level executives,” dreamed up plausible reasons to fire most of them and still the shit hits the fan.

Time to fall back on the proven Bush Administration strategy: THEY CAN’T INDICT YOU FOR INCOMPETENCE. They can’t impeach you for stupidity. Subverting the Constitution, obstructing justice, abuse of power; not so good.

The Hearing: You can’t rat out Bush/Rove so you’ve got to sit there and dumb it. The names “just appeared”. “Consensus, consensus, DOJ consensus”. No way to tag an individual with that. “I take full responsibility”. For what? No person did anything, except Battle who made the calls, Sampson who “aggregated” the list. It goes all day. Good theater but for what? Impeach the bastard ‘cause till you do, Bush ain’t gonna fire him.

Anonymous wrote on April 20, 2007 12:44 PM:

I'm confused. Please help clarify this for me. I thought that Gonzo can be Impeached by the Senate? Why is every talking head saying that there are only two people who decide Gonzo's fate: Shrub & Gonzo.

Andrew wrote on April 20, 2007 12:47 PM:

Not to worry. As soon as the WH finds a new job for Gonzo in some conservative think tank or Haliburton or even K street, he'll be gone.....:)

TheraP wrote on April 20, 2007 12:49 PM:

When did bush ever think about the good of the country?

When did gonzales think about the good of anybody except bush (and himself - the clone of bush)?

Threegoal wrote on April 20, 2007 12:50 PM:

I think our attention needs to shift to Alberto's boss.

The talking point is how this whole matter shows Bush's fundamental contempt for good government -- the equivalent of a middle finger aimed at America coming from the White House.

Gandhi wrote on April 20, 2007 12:51 PM:

For many Republicans the only reason why Fredo should resign (or be fired) is the next election.

Their philosophy is: remove all known crooks on time and the new crooks will not be known by November 08.

dogjudge wrote on April 20, 2007 12:51 PM:

I hope that Bush keeps him on.

That will just make continued investigation into all of this that much easier.

If Gonzales resigns, there will be a lot of pressure to stop the investigation from proceeding any further. A lot of comments along the lines of any further investigation being a fishing expedition, as opposed to the fact that the Democrats are trying to really find out what happened here.

DrBB wrote on April 20, 2007 12:55 PM:

Designrchap pretty much covers it. As I was going to put it: whay is everyone suddenly acting like the whole investigation now comes down to the question of whether Abu-G gets fired or not? His competence is NOT and never was the issue. He is acting like the firewall here.

Lindsay Graham's quote in today's NYT lays the strategy out pretty clearly:

“I don’t believe that you’re involved in a conspiracy to fire somebody because they wouldn’t prosecute a particular enemy of a politician or a friend of a politician,” said Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina. “But at the end of the day, you said something that struck me: that sometimes it just came down to these were not the right people at the right time. If I applied that standard to you, what would you say?”

A "devastating question," the Times says, and they're right, very dramatic, and perfectly calculated to get slip in that initial clause ahead of the "but" and get them to gulp it down unchewed. "No conspiracy here; just Abu's incompetence. Resign and 'let's move on.'" I'm seeing echoes of that strategy all over, and it's critical not to let it pass. This isn't about Abu G, it's precisely about the question Graham is pushing off against in order to put the focus on the "competence issue." They see the opening and they're taking it.

Crust wrote on April 20, 2007 1:06 PM:

Good question @12:44. Why no talk of the possibility of impeaching Gonzales? Of course, that require "high crimes and misdemeanors". So what crime? Maybe perjury? Perhaps violations of the Presidential Records Act with RNC accounts, but Gonzales may not be the right target there. I don't think there's an airtight case, at least not based on what we now know, for obstruction of justice in firing Carol Lam.

Of course, there's plenty of material in Gonzales' history, e.g. approving the "Terrorist Surveillance Program" in apparent violation of the criminal law (FISA).

Crust wrote on April 20, 2007 1:08 PM:

The phrasing a "group of conservatives with ties to the White House" is misleading in my view. Saying "prominent conservatives" would be fine, but I don't think there are many people in the White House who would be returning a phone call from e.g. Bob Barr or Bruce Fein.

gregor wrote on April 20, 2007 1:10 PM:

They should make him the War Czar. There is no more room for fucking that up.

Paula wrote on April 20, 2007 1:11 PM:

Like others, I think Bush might retain Gonzo if only to spite those - especially Dems - calling for his ouster. He really is like a spoiled child.

Plus, as a Bush loyalist, Gonzo knows where all the skeletons are buried, so maybe Bush thinks he can't afford to cut him loose.

Rich wrote on April 20, 2007 1:11 PM:

Add Adam Putnam - per CNN

bill wrote on April 20, 2007 1:12 PM:

I must say that with all the dogpiling yesterday, I was impressed yet again at the decency and fairness exhibited by Lindesy Graham. I'm not Republican, but when Graham basically said, "Look, Al, come clean, didn 't you guys just want to can these people and just sloppily made up reasons later you don't want to admit," it was a breath of fresh air. How can we have a real conversation about the delicate balance of trust necessary for USAs to do their job if both sides are basically dishonest: the Dems, many of them former USAs themselves that launched their careers from their DOJ posts, don't want to admit that these posts are in reality extremely political, and Gonzales and the WH won't sdmite they screwed up and exceeded the unwritted rules of when you can fire these guys. Specter threw them a lifeline by suggesting that they reinstate the USAs, but Bush and co. are so genetically unable to admit mistakes that they have just dug in. They should have grabbed the preserver: the defeat of giving Lam & co. back their jobs is nothing compared to the defeat of what they have to deal with now: NO USAs can get canned for the next 18 months.

larry wrote on April 20, 2007 1:13 PM:

Very interesting -- full article below:

Democrats in Arizona have suggested Charlton was fired on Dec. 7 because his office had opened investigations before the 2006 election into the Renzi land deal and a camping trip retired Rep. Jim Kolbe, R-Ariz., took with two former pages.

************

full article:

Renzi takes leave from House committee amid federal probe
Daily Star, Tucson, Arizona

PHOENIX - U.S. Rep. Rick Renzi, R-Ariz., is temporarily stepping down from the House Intelligence Committee amid an ongoing federal investigation.

In October, Justice Department officials confirmed that Renzi was the subject of an inquiry into a 2005 land swap that would benefit a friend and business associate.

Renzi has denied any wrongdoing.

In a statement issued late Thursday from Washington, Renzi said "the FBI came to my family's business to obtain documents related to their investigation.

"I view these actions as the first step in bringing out the truth. Until this matter is resolved, I will take a leave of absence from the House Intelligence Committee. I intend to fully cooperate with this investigation."

Renzi, elected to his third term last November, did not elaborate on the federal probe.

The Arizona Republic reported that FBI agents raided an insurance agency owned by Renzi's wife in Sonoita, a town near Sierra Vista.

Calls to the FBI and U.S. Attorney in Phoenix were not immediately returned Friday.

Renzi referred all questions to his Washington-based attorney, Laura Miller, who was not immediately available Friday morning.

Thursday's developments came after Attorney General Alberto Gonzales spent the day testifying to the Senate Judiciary Committee about the firing of eight U.S. Attorneys, including the top federal prosecutor in Arizona, Paul K. Charlton.

Democrats in Arizona have suggested Charlton was fired on Dec. 7 because his office had opened investigations before the 2006 election into the Renzi land deal and a camping trip retired Rep. Jim Kolbe, R-Ariz., took with two former pages.

Anonymous wrote on April 20, 2007 1:14 PM:

Crust,

Perhaps as part of a criminal conspiracy to obstruct multiple ongoing criminal investigations - As I believe that Senator Whitehouse was alluding to yesterday in the hearings. Which sounds like what DrBB is saying.

Redshift wrote on April 20, 2007 1:15 PM:

conniptionfit -- Yes, Corallo was a Rove spokesman at least as recently as last July. There are lots of recent news references calling him "the Justice Department's chief spokesman from 2002 through 2005," and it's as dishonest as referring to Libby as a "former Hill staffer."

Will, can we update the reference, and remember this for future lists?

(Code word: shame)

Redshift wrote on April 20, 2007 1:16 PM:

Link to Corallo as Rove spokesman:
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/07/14/cialeak.lawsuit/index.html

powkat wrote on April 20, 2007 1:22 PM:

Bush can't cut Gonzales loose. If he does he will have to appoint a new AG. Another Bush loyalist will not make it thru confirmation. An honest person who can win confirmation will turn over all the rocks and tell the truth to Congress. Bush is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.

curiousgeorge wrote on April 20, 2007 1:25 PM:

My guess is, only reason Hatch didn't come down hard on Abu too is he thinks it'll look better when he applies for Abu's job.

Crust wrote on April 20, 2007 1:31 PM:

Anon @1:14 re "criminal conspiracy to obstruct multiple ongoing criminal investigations" as grounds for impeaching AGAG. If you have the proof, that would obviously do it. But at this point we have a lot of circumstantial evidence in the Carol Lam case, but that's it. I still think:
1. perjury
2. surveillance in violation of FISA and
3. not enforcing the Presidential Records Act
are all better possibilities based on what we now know. We could probably dig up a lot more in AGAG's history, e.g. in handling of detainees.

Tom wrote on April 20, 2007 1:31 PM:

Yesterday on one of those early-prime shows (5-6 pm, not CNN or Fox, I can't remember which), Saxby Chambliss was asked about AG's resignation. On that show, Chambliss basically agreed that Gonzales should resign. He qualified his endorsement of Gonzales' resignation by insisting that he would wait for all the evidence tome come forth before making a decision on the matter. Yet he conceded that the current evidence in the public sphere looks fairly damning -- I think his words were "troubling" and "discouraging," but I can't recall.

Looks like another GOPer for the Roll Call (certainly less confrontational than Specter yesterday but ultimately no less equivocating). Could someone verify so that we can put it on the list?

Jillian wrote on April 20, 2007 1:37 PM:

To DrBB: whether or not Gonzalez resigns, the issue has already been raised of where the firing list came from.

Gonzalez resigning is only an admission- already politically indisputable- that there was wrongdoing of criminal proportions. Gonzalez, Sampson, Moschella, Elston, and Battle deny having originated the list, and it won't have come from any lower level inside DoJ, and its only compelling purposes are White House/RNC level interests, i.e. from above. Conveniently, the DoJ upper tier communications with the White House (Miers/Rove) are 'missing' (withheld by the WH) or being withheld by the RNC, and Miers/Rove are likewise 'being prevented' from testifying.

The DoJ is breached as a defensive barrier and getting the Gonzo Crew fired and resigning is the dirty, but in most ways secondary, mop-up operation. (DoJ turns out to have been a mere 2 or 3-month obstacle, however.)

The next element of the Administration containment strategy is the 'executive privilege'/'privacy of communications'/'national security' game. They've prepared for this by hiring a pile of subpoena-fighting lawyers for the White House, reading up on Watergate case law, and stacking their DC Circuit Court of Appeals and various relevant US Attorney offices with their pals.

Democrats, however, have smart lawyers, Watergate precedents, public embarrassment, and weak Republican hold left in the public going for them. And a back door inquiry network throughout the federal government letting disgust with the White House work for them- and some having seen all this sh-t before in 1973-74. Residual Republican support is key, and in a period of fervent orthodoxy: cracking and bleeding as reality hammers them, fighting it with all the rage, delusions, and excuses they can summon. They can't keep it up more than a few more months.

Anonymous wrote on April 20, 2007 2:07 PM:

BRUCE FEIN, FMR. ASSOC DEP. U.S. ATTY. GEN: Thank you. HARRIS: Bruce, did you and other conservatives send a letter to the president, was it Monday, calling for the resignation of the attorney general?

FEIN: Yes, we did, myself, David Keene (ph), Richard Vigary (ph), Bob Barr (ph), among others, insisting that he has abandoned conservative credentials, the rule of law is a conservative cornerstone of the Constitution.

http://cnnstudentnews.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0704/19/cnr.02.html

pastor agnostic wrote on April 20, 2007 2:18 PM:

Poor Alberto. Sitting alone, except for Dick and George. I first wondered whether he was being devious and deceptive, dumb and dumber or distant and disengaged as the top law enforcement officer of the country.

After watching the entire proceedings yesterday, I was convinced. He was being deceptive. And dumb. AND disengaged. All at the same time.

The Bush crew and the personal staff who continue to support Gonzo are missing a very important part. The longer this man stays in charge, the more the enemy (Meaning, the majority of rational Americans) become disgusted at the politicization of the DOJ. That impacts every individual, even every corporation. Even if a federal charge is brought without any taint, any defense attorney worth his salary will investigate and pursue political taint or pressure as a possible defense.

It doesn't stop there. Every juror will think, boy, if they read my e-mails, will they come after me, too? What happens if they bug me or pressure me to convict? or punish me if I don't?

Every single step the entire crew of Federal Prosecutors take is subject to questioning. And frankly, they are reasonable questions.

One even scarier thought is the destruction of the professional cadre of prosecutors was deliberate; that Gonzo's promotion was done intentionally in ORDER TO destroy it. That way, they can push out all career pros, and replace them with political warriors like those Regent Grads. Or worse, destroy the DOJ so their corporate fiends and partners can be even more greedy and destructive.

The longer he stays on, the worse it gets for Bush. the boy king ends up looking stubborn, stupid, and just plain foolish.

Duckman GR wrote on April 20, 2007 2:23 PM:

bill, I hope you're being sarcastic, but if you are, you need to work on that a bit. If not, then consider that Lindsey Graham's bs about not getting along with those people is a total crock, a desperate attempt to hide the ugly truth with soft spoken pablum, to divert attention and personalize and emphasize the incompetence angle while denying the real angle, the political dimension.

trank wrote on April 20, 2007 3:23 PM:

graham is mushmouthing as usual- while criticizing gonzales, his characterization of what happened was still that the white house had personality/character issues with the fired prosecutors.

djcrow22 wrote on April 20, 2007 3:23 PM:

Call the White House and demand Gonzo's resignation, it only takes a minute...
202-456-1111

While you're at it, give Orrin Hatch a call, 202-224-5251, and thank him for his courageous support and incomparable defense of Gonzo as well as his gutsy "apology" via Tim Russert's asscrack, to Carol Lam for his shameless, opportunistic and patently false personal smear on national television of a legal professional that could do either of their jobs blindfolded, with a significantly superior degree of excellence, dignity and class. To even mention Hatch as a possible replacement for Gonzo as the U.S. Attorney General is hiddeous and obscene. Hatch was second only to Gonzo with his disgraceful, partisan performance at yesterdays hearings with Jon Kyl bringing up the rear. How can anyone even shake hands with him afterwards? What an awful human being.

Hermagoras wrote on April 20, 2007 3:46 PM:

I say keep him as long as possible. The longer he drags it out, the worse it is for Bush.

Security code: "meat." As in, dead.

Mike wrote on April 20, 2007 3:46 PM:

You need to add Newt Gingrich to your list of prominent Republicans calling for Gonzalez's resignation.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/04/08/fired.prosecutors.ap/index.html

parrot wrote on April 20, 2007 4:07 PM:

Hatch seems to represent Utah for good...and ill.

Dave wrote on April 20, 2007 5:05 PM:

I think you guys are missing the big picture. With the shift in power to the executive branch Law enforcement,in this country has become rotten to it's very core from your city meter reader all the way to the Attorney General of the US. It has rotted from the bottom up and watching the AG lie to the Senate in front of the whole world signals that Law Enforcement is over. I would think that any criminal,politician or not, caught perjuring himself can now use the excuse,"I wasn't lying, I simply mis-spoke." I don't see how he could be convicted anymore. We are no longer a nation of laws. The supernaturalists have won.

Richard M. Mathews wrote on April 20, 2007 5:25 PM:

Yes, Gonzo can and should be impeached by a 50%+1 vote in the House, and then he can be tried and removed by a 2/3 vote in the Senate. As articles of impeachment, I would include at least lying to Congress, obstruction of justice, and gross mismanagement (the last is not criminal, but it does qualify under the broader "high crimes and misdemeanors" -- Judge Pickering was removed in part for drunkenness, and Judge Claiborne was removed in part for bringing disrepute to the judiciary).

psyberdawg wrote on April 20, 2007 7:42 PM:

Hey, don't forget Tancredo!

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/03/tancredo_calls_.html

Of course, his main reason is probably that he thinks Gonzales is too sympathetic to "the wetbacks."

nrglaw wrote on April 20, 2007 7:44 PM:

12:44. Here is your answer. Article 2 of the Constitution states that "The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." "Civil officers" include federal judges and cabinet members, but do not include Senators and Representatives, (the Senate and House deal with misconduct by their own members).

lemmecaution wrote on April 20, 2007 9:11 PM:

Does anyone else get the suspicion that all of this started as an attempt to get rid of that pesky Patrick Fitzgerald because of the fear that he would indict Rove? There was some talk (this from the DOJ e mail dump) that early on the administration wanted to dump all of the USA's, including, of course, Fitzgerald. That idea seems to have been dumped because of the obvious parallels with Nixon and the Saturday Night Massacre. IT seems quite plausible tha tthe idea got whittled down to replacing US A's who weren't playing ball on a host of other issues.

Mike wrote on April 20, 2007 11:13 PM:

I think they should have bent Gonzo over the table and taken turns buggering him one by one in front of the cameras. Oh wait, they did.

Good. Now send his fuckin' ass to Gitmo and let's move on....

whizkid wrote on April 20, 2007 11:22 PM:

Bush is like a starting pitcher losing 33 to 0 in the seventh.
I had a dream last night. No impeachment articles had been brought. He just simply resigned. Him and the whole lot.
The Speaker came in for the next 20 months.
She brought our troops home.

Did I say this was a dream?

Wretched Refuse wrote on April 20, 2007 11:43 PM:

Bush can't cut Gonzales loose. If he does he will have to appoint a new AG. Another Bush loyalist will not make it thru confirmation. An honest person who can win confirmation will turn over all the rocks and tell the truth to Congress. Bush is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.

Posted by: powkat
Date: April 20, 2007 01:22 PM

powkat,
As par for the course, and replacement for Abu G will be a recess appointment probably during the dummer break. This is the MO for these theives and scumbag motherfuckers.

PJ White wrote on April 21, 2007 1:58 AM:

Congress can subpoena Miers, Rove, Cheney, Bush, anyone it wants. They may or may not come after month's of stalling and obfuscating on the part of the WH. If they DO appear, they will all do the Lethe Dance. ` I do not recall that.` This tactic works really well. In a sense, Gonzales did a very good job. He withstood the heat and TOLD THEM ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. Not one thing. That is what he was supposed to do. That is what he practiced doing for 3 weeks. Take the heat, say nothing. That is why Bush was delighted with his performance. He didn`t roll on anyone. He gave away no secrets. He did not lay it at Rove`s door. The `I don`t recall` tactic is very difficult to counter. How do you prove that someone DOES recall? Sure, it makes him look like a moron. But can they charge him with perjury? If they could charge him with perjury and he is convicted by a DC US Attorney, who is a loyal Bushie BTW, he would lose his license to practice law. Then he would no longer be qualified [ahem] to be AG. But that seems a long row to hoe. He will NEVER roll on Bush. Never.

SC=mine, as I wish the decision were mine. I would send them all into the salt mine for life.

Sally wrote on April 21, 2007 9:03 AM:

A new organization has formed. Called RAG --Republicans Against Gonzales.

code: soap -- they have washed their hands of Gonzo.

Kevin wrote on April 21, 2007 3:51 PM:

I think Gordon Smith has backed down from the quote in that USA Today blog post from March. Or USA Today may have gotten it wrong in the first place.

After the hearings I noticed that the AP story was saying, "before Coburn today, Sununu was the only Republican senator to have called for Gonzales to step down." And Friday the LA Times had the same thing.

I thought they had left out Smith, and wanted them to correct it in updates if it was incorrect, so I called Smith's office to check.

The staffer I spoke to on Friday said, "No, he hasn't. He's said it's not healthy," but that Sen. Smith hasn't called for AG to step down.

It may be immaterial now that you have Sessions, Coburn, et. al. There's no question a significant number of Republicans have said so.

westcoast wrote on April 21, 2007 6:35 PM:

"Democrats in Arizona have suggested Charlton was fired on Dec. 7 because his office had opened investigations before the 2006 election into the Renzi land deal and a camping trip retired Rep. Jim Kolbe, R-Ariz., took with two former pages."
Posted by: larry
Date: April 20, 2007 01:13 PM

Larry, there was a 2 part investigation of Mr. Renzi. One through Charlton and one through the FBI. The FBI raided Renzi's wife's office. So there is still hope to remove yet another Republican criminal from office.

Kimber wrote on April 21, 2007 7:12 PM:

If Abu does see Jezus and decide to step down - Shrub won't have much luck with a recess appointment - word from the hill is, the Senate will not recess until Bush's next 2 years are over - come hell or high water, someone will be there working! They are soooo pissed after this last recess appointment, that it will not happen again. Period.

ithejury wrote on April 26, 2007 3:13 AM:

likeomigawd, you valley girls don't get it, do you?

the foxy democrats (such few as there are) don't want to see po lil alFredo shot in the head and quietly dumped in Lake Tahoe; quite the contrary -they want bush and the republicans to keep Fredo up front and center as a highly visible bleeding sore on bush's lip. It's like Old Morley from A Christmas Carol, Gonezales becomes another heavy link in the long Chain of Shame (Rumsfeld, Brown, Libby, DeLay, Feith, Miers, Abramoff, etc) that bush is forced to drag behind him everywhere he goes.

What could be better for the Democrats? Gonzales remains a constant public reminder of bush admin cronyism and incompetence (u-pick-it either way: was gonzales acting as a political hack or was he really THAT inept and disconnected from what was going on in his department?) and it's not like the now totally demoralized Justice Department is likely to accomplish anything of merit before the next election with gonzales (who is obviously a coupla tacos short of a full combination plate) at the helm, eh?

leaving gonezales on public display is exactly what any foxy democrat wants.

it's like the good old days back when they hung somebody or chopped his head off in the Tower of London -- they put his body on display in an iron cage on London Bridge for the birds to peck at as a message to the masses.

and yep, all the voters have to do is look up and see lil fredo swinging in the wind squealing, "i don't recall, i don't recall..."

smooth move bush & rove -- about on par with that firing of rumsfeld a week AFTER last november's slaughter.

Crust wrote on May 16, 2007 2:59 PM:

This needs updating, e.g. Hagel is missing:

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003230.php