« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Today's Must Read
You can look at it two different ways:
1) Alberto Gonzales has been revealed to be at best an incompetent amnesiac and at worst an apparatchik determined to cover up the White House's total control of the Justice Department. He's lost even the confidence of administration loyalists on Capitol Hill and is nothing but a ghost with the title attorney general.
2) Alberto Gonzales has run the gauntlet. And he won! He doesn't have any credibility left to lose.
You can guess what the Gonzales way of seeing the world is. "[Gonzales] has told aides he believes he has weathered the storm," reports The New York Times.
Of course, the Justice Department is in a shambles, but President Bush just won't waver. The expressions of support keep coming, getting even fuller, wholler. The latest from Tony Snow: the president “still supports the attorney general fully and wholly.”
Meanwhile, the Times reports, a division has occurred in the Justice Department "between Gonzales loyalists and backers of Paul J. McNulty, the deputy attorney general." The AG's backers fault McNulty for blowing their cover; McNulty's backers "have faulted Mr. Sampson for misleading Mr. McNulty and other officials about the origin of the dismissals and the extent of White House involvement." McNulty is reportedly considering whether to step down "soon," says the Times. But Gonzales is staying put.
Perhaps the most amusing bit in the piece is the assertion that Karl Rove is pushing for Gonzales' removal:
A Republican strategist familiar with Mr. Rove’s thinking said that Mr. Rove, the president’s chief political adviser, “believes it’s in the best interest of the president for Gonzales on his own to resign.” But, this person said, Mr. Rove and other like-minded aides have concluded that “there’s nothing they can do — it’s about the relationship between Gonzales and the president.”
Right.
Maybe this might explain Rove's feeling of helplessness:
Yet there are reasons White House aides are content to see Mr. Gonzales stay put. First, they say they believe that if Mr. Gonzales were to step down under pressure, it would empower Congressional Democrats to set their sights on others, including Mr. Rove, who has acknowledged complaining to Mr. Gonzales and the president about several prosecutors.And removing Mr. Gonzales would pose another set of complications: finding a candidate who could be confirmed by the Senate and risking replacement of a loyalist with someone who might be more independent.
Comments (43)
Anonymous wrote on May 10, 2007 9:43 AM:Holy shit! The gloves have come off. FINALLY! Conyers has had enough and is not gonna take it anymore! It's gonna be a long day for Gonzo.
Nestor wrote on May 10, 2007 9:45 AM:Yeah, weathered the tiny little tempest in a teapot of yesterday, only to be swallowed up by the huge 'perfect storm' of today.
Rove, keep your head down; it's going to be a bumpy ride!
Anonymous wrote on May 10, 2007 9:47 AM:Jesus, Gonzales looks like a beaten man. Seriously. Just looks at his eyes. I think the info that came to light last night has shell shocked him. He really looks like a beaten man.
Beth wrote on May 10, 2007 9:50 AM:I thought about calling in sick today and watching Fredo go down in flames, but couldn't justify it. But will I be getting any work done today? doubtful. maybe the teevee thingy is on in the conference room . . .
Daniel A. Greenbaum wrote on May 10, 2007 9:51 AM:Instead of worrying about the meaningless impeachment of Bush or Cheney it might be time to impeach Gonzales. Not only has he besmirched the Justice Department but it will be very hard for either DOJ or the White House to deny documents to the House or the Senate.
Anonymous wrote on May 10, 2007 9:53 AM:Sorry Conyers- you would have heard about it first from TPM, not the Post.
Anonymous wrote on May 10, 2007 9:57 AM:Oh Lord, it's really gonna be a long day. Gonzo is sticking to the script from last time- no mention at all of the 9th attorney in his opening statement even though Conyers gave him additional time to address it. This could be one of the greatest meltdowns in Washington history. Damn.
Candyce wrote on May 10, 2007 9:59 AM:Code word: fear
You can see the fear in Gonzo's eyes. He knows he's fucked. Gotta love the way he keeps hyping up his defense of "the children". BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! What a prick.
Here we go. Conyers isn't going to fool around with this clown.
brianm0122 wrote on May 10, 2007 10:00 AM:"[Gonzales] has told aides he believes he has weathered the storm,"
Another example of how disconnected these guys are. They live in an alternate reality they have created to shelter themselves from things that conflict with their comfort zone.
Self-dulusion, denial, call it what you will.
code word= blood.
Michael in Park Slope wrote on May 10, 2007 10:12 AM:Here's my thought about Gonzales staying: It's probably a GOOD thing. The AG's office is now somewhat weakened and certainly is under constant surveillence (from the public, the press and the blogosphere). This should make it a lot more difficult to make "mischief."
-MS
Martin in Puerto Rico wrote on May 10, 2007 10:26 AM:The one question I would like someone to ask is:
Do you understand it is perjury to say you don't remember something when you do remember it?
I think Gonzales believes "I don't remember" is an all-purpose escape just because it is difficult to prove otherwise. He'll either answer yes, he does understand and look like a perjurer for claiming to forget all the key meetings or (God help him) he'll try to argue the point.
Bush LIPS sink ships. wrote on May 10, 2007 10:26 AM:Gonzales looks like sh!t.
Mother.
Stash wrote on May 10, 2007 10:27 AM:There have got to be enough votes to impeach the AG by now. What's stopping them?
SteveW wrote on May 10, 2007 10:28 AM:Okay, so why the hell does Karl Rove still have an f%#@#@# job! It's incredible how much damage this one fat prick has caused, all the laws he's likely broken, yet he skates along pleasuring the president...oh, I mean 'working at the pleasure of the president'...right:)?
This Bush gang are a bunch of clowns and the sooner the Dems follow the path of Henry Waxman and stepping on their collective throats, the better.
The Democratic Party and us/the base need(s) to learn how to go for the jugular...and now is the time.
Sometimes I wonder if anyone in the Democratic Party has ever participated in serious organized sports, because when an opponent is down, that's the time to stomp on them and finish it.
What would Karl do if he were on our side?
slb wrote on May 10, 2007 10:34 AM:"Weathered the storm," huh? Isn't that what they were saying in New Orleans about the time the levees broke?
Red State Blues wrote on May 10, 2007 10:36 AM:Ack, hearing's not on C-Span 1 or C-Span 2. Is it being televised?
SteveW wrote on May 10, 2007 10:37 AM:It's on C-Span 3 c-span.org
Anthony wrote on May 10, 2007 10:39 AM:IMHO, Gonzo stays put. Remember members of this adminstration cares nothing about their standing in the eyes of the public. All they care about is their standing in the eyes of the Bush and Rove. Their loyalty is not to the American people, but to Bush. Gonzo is playing defense for the white house. The only way Gonzo might go is if enough public pressure is brought to bear against enough red district Repulican lawmakers, and I just don't believe that's going to happen to the Foxnews crowd.
SteveW wrote on May 10, 2007 10:39 AM:It's on C-Span 3 c-span.org. So far the Dems are being far too polite...again, not going for the jugular...at least so far.
SteveW wrote on May 10, 2007 10:40 AM:It's on C-Span 3 c-span.org. So far the Dems are being far too polite...again, not going for the jugular...at least so far.
SteveW wrote on May 10, 2007 10:40 AM:It's on C-Span 3 c-span.org. So far the Dems are being far too polite...again, not going for the jugular...at least so far.
jeffgee wrote on May 10, 2007 10:53 AM:Ohhh, domino.
JTL wrote on May 10, 2007 11:01 AM:It's an interesting situtation to be sure. So much of this oversight is predicated on the assumption that the Administration would do the right thing becuase they care about looking bad.
But how does that work when they have no sense of shame or responsibility?
Doggie wrote on May 10, 2007 11:03 AM:How many Bush appointees must destroy institutions' credibility with their personal vanity? Tobias at least resigned from USAID for personal reasons after he came into Washington's elite circles. Maybe Gonzo and Woflie should take a cue from Tobias and resign for personal reasons so that they can claim that their professional failure was not the reason for their resignations.
Nina wrote on May 10, 2007 11:20 AM:Tell me it isn't so that Rumsfeld, Tenet and Goss are the more honorable men...
Bugboy wrote on May 10, 2007 11:23 AM:Weathered the storm? These guys don't seem to know which way the wind blows.
The only question now is where the 'wingers are going to roost once they've destroyed GOP.
Code word is brain as in lack thereof.
Jazzbo wrote on May 10, 2007 11:40 AM:Disbarred and Weathered, as in
torcher aint sport wrote on May 10, 2007 12:14 PM:Tarred and Feathered
Steve W: Like Rove participated in competetive sports? I understand your reasoning, I just don't completely agree with it. For example, Bill Bradley and Jack Kemp were the most celebrated former athletes to serve in congress in the last 25 years, and they had quite different styles. It's much harder to find people who are both advocates for the poor/downtrodden/forgotten/etc. and blood-thirsty. They're out there, just a rare breed. Liberals are more conciliatory by nature. That's got a lot to do with why the public tends to view us as weak or wimpy. We want solutions, they want domination. Waxman is a rare bird. RIP Paul Wellstone...
torcher aint sport wrote on May 10, 2007 12:20 PM:Whoops: forgot about Largent and Jim Ryun (though most people have long forgotten his contribution to track and field); and JC Watts was a football hero in OK. On the Dem side, Tom McMullen is another former NBAer who served in congress as well, and he was pretty soft-spoken for a 6'10" guy. Oh, Wellstone did wrestle in high school (not sure about college). As a Redskins fan, it's hard to call Heath Shuler a former NFL player, but he's more likely to be tougher than most of his partisans; we'll see.
Eric Ferguson wrote on May 10, 2007 12:43 PM:I too have a hard time believing Rove wants Gonzales out, but don't underestimate the personal connection between Gonzales and Bush. There might be no one closer to Bush, Rove included. If Gonzales goes, that's not a step to exposing Rove, but a huge defeat for Bush in itself. I think impeachment of Gonzales would not only pass the House, there might be a conviction in the Senate. There would also be a re-legitimization of the impeachment process, an important thing since many Democrats are still spooked by the repercussions to the GOP for impeaching Clinton.
parrot wrote on May 10, 2007 1:20 PM:>It's gonna be a long day for Gonzo.
Sam W wrote on May 10, 2007 1:41 PM:It's actually a long day for people waiting for impeachment articles. Conyers needs counsel questioning AG AG. For some reasons, the Dems seem to be dealing with this with kid gloves and the stonewalling is continuing. It is extremely difficult to watch. Very frustrating.
As enjoyable as it may be to watch Gonzales slowly wither under the scrutiny of Congress, the desired outcome should be very clear. The best outcome, both politically and substantively, is that he should step down or be impeached and removed from office. As stated above, his removal clears the way for an AG who will do the job. There is an added benefit in that others can start feeling the heat. But the bottom line is that incompetence and mendacity at this level must be dealt with. Period.
Vulture Breath wrote on May 10, 2007 2:07 PM:So Sampson and Goodling are gone. Chuck Rosenberg (Sampson's replacement) has left. McNulty is on the way out. We know Gonzales doesn't do sh*t all day. Who is running things? Mercer, I assume? A guy who can't get confirmed because he's now radioactive?
Schumer's comment at the end of the article is brilliant:
"One Democrat argued that Mr. Gonzales’s fate was not all that significant.
“There’s virtually no one outside the White House who believes he can run the department,” said Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, who has led the investigation into the dismissals. “Whether he stays or goes, it really doesn’t matter anymore. Someone else will be running the department.”
torcher aint sport wrote on May 10, 2007 2:13 PM:Can we please stop this impeachment talk now, before it gets out of control (if that's even possible). The president's cabinet really does "serve at the pleasure of the president." This isn't just some mild sexual-innuendo contrivance; that's actually how the U.S. constitution provides for non-constitutional administration offices. My understanding is the only impeachable offices are POTUS, VPOTUS, and Article Three federal judges (where that line actually is beyond the federal appellate jurists, though, I'm not sure). Congress's role is through the senate's confirmation process. Once that's over, they can investigate, castigate, denigrate, bloviate, and outrage-state, but beyond that, it's out of their hands. Sad, but pleasuring the president is what it's all about post-confirmation.
buckles wrote on May 10, 2007 2:28 PM:More yada yada yada from the Republicans. Why don't they all just put on a pair of blinders, and paint their lips brown.
WHO MADE THE HIT LIST???
Isn't that what this all boils down to? Since Gonzo wouldn't be able to pass "his" guidelines for firing a U.S. attorney, because he knows NOTHING about what goes on in his department, and shows no desire to do so, he is either:
1. Yes, that dumb
2. Pleased to be another loyal Bushie thrown under the bus, or
3. Knows damn well who (Rove?) made the list and is protecting him for his good buddy George.
Obviously if the list came from the WH it was politcally motivated.
joseph loiacano wrote on May 10, 2007 3:03 PM:plase on some muscle. mostly thank you, thank you
joseph loiacano wrote on May 10, 2007 3:05 PM:please on some muscle. mostly thank you, thank you
bjobotts wrote on May 10, 2007 3:50 PM:Still they get away with it. Still nothing has changed the situation..Still I have hope. Get the withheld and "lost" documents and emails they are hiding. There in lies the rub. And so it goes...
Mitch wrote on May 10, 2007 5:23 PM:torcher aint sport said, May 10, 2007 02:13 PM:
Actually, that's not true. Article II of the Constitution provides for the impeachment of "all civil officers of the United States." The AG being a civil officer, he can be impeached. His cabinet status doesn't affect that, and in fact Congress has impeached a cabinet officer once before -- Ulysses S. Grant's Secretary of War.
See, http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20061215.html.
Mitch wrote on May 10, 2007 5:26 PM:Whoops... for some reason the quoted text didn't make it's way into the post. Trying again:
torcher ain't sport said, May 10, 2007 02:13 PM:
--> Can we please stop this impeachment talk now, before it gets out of control (if that's even possible). The president's cabinet really does "serve at the pleasure of the president." . . . My understanding is the only impeachable offices are POTUS, VPOTUS, and Article Three federal judges . . . . Congress's role is through the senate's confirmation process. Once that's over, . . . it's out of their hands. Sad, but pleasuring the president is what it's all about post-confirmation. <--
Actually, that's not true. Article II of the Constitution provides for the impeachment of "all civil officers of the United States." The AG being a civil officer, he can be impeached. His cabinet status doesn't affect that, and in fact Congress has impeached a cabinet officer once before -- Ulysses S. Grant's Secretary of War.
See, http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20061215.html.
torcher aint sport wrote on May 10, 2007 11:13 PM:Mitch,
I stand corrected. I happily defer to John Dean on matters of the US Constitution (particularly after having just revisited Article II Section 4 and seen the error of my writing). Now, as to whether the House will undertake such action against AG AG, I have my doubts. As Dean outlines in your referenced article, there are substantive arguments for filing articles of impeachment against Gonzales and others. However, doing so based on the US attorneys fiasco alone would be a steep hill to climb. We'll see... But thanks for setting me straight on the law.
Joe
deoyk mvkr wrote on September 3, 2007 1:08 AM:dhnwebo zigfych gukl gmwysel nctiae bvdz zpnlrhovk
deoyk mvkr wrote on September 3, 2007 1:09 AM:dhnwebo zigfych gukl gmwysel nctiae bvdz zpnlrhovk