Comments (53)

Anonymous wrote on April 20, 2007 1:26 PM:

Orrin Hatch for AG.

He did not rock the boat with Uncle George by sticking it to Gonzo, and did not cross the line with the Dem committee members by backing Gonzo and encouraging him to carry on.

Plus Pat Leahy did not kick the notion out of bed, when it was the subject of banter at the Sansom hearing.

Jim H from Indiana wrote on April 20, 2007 1:26 PM:

When I think of "well served" for Abu G., I'm more along the lines of 10-15 years (as in, "time well served" in prison). Of course, I can think of some cell mates for him as well!

Code: Soap. As in, there's not enough soap in the world to clean up this administration.

Anonymous wrote on April 20, 2007 1:28 PM:

Josh & TPM community:

I've been reviewing the USA Scandal Timeline section on TPM muckracker and I have an observation. There are other USA's that have left/resigned for various reasons with some suspicion. The timeline *should* include these folks and the various reasons for leaving, along with any information that adds color (i.e. LA - USA Wong was involved in Rep Lewis investigation and then left to work for law firm that represented Lewis). USA Black was investigating Abramoff. And all the other USA's that left since Bush appointed them. I think that this will help uncover additional leads. And show the complete picture, when you overlay the timeline with corruption investigations/elections.

buck turgidson wrote on April 20, 2007 1:31 PM:

These guys seem to get something that does not penetrate the skulls at the White House--by taking out Gonzo they can try to spike the entire investigation. Blame it on one loyalist and save the "movement". It may not work, but it's the kind of radical surgery that is not really a choice--it's cut-off-finger-to-save-arm time. Bush does not get it, Gonzo does not care.

Please, please, Al, stay on as long as you like! Nothing like having a giant festering carbuncle on display.

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

On the other hand, a prominent Republican Senator (Cornyn?) tells CNN that it would be worse politically for his party to dump Gonzo now, given how the confirmation hearing for his successor would be to the Dems advantage.

Personally, I hope they keep him for the same reason I wish that Heckuva Job Brownie was still in charge of FEMA and Rummy still presided over the Pentagon-- it helps set the stage for what has to be the signature issue of the '08 election, Republican incompetency.

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

Ha. They're waiting to see how the public reacts? That's rich. I thought they didn't read polls. Maybe they'll just go "poof" or something.

laura wrote on April 20, 2007 1:33 PM:

Just did a quick check on "faux" news (fox) and see that the only mention of Gonzo is almost on the bottom in small print in the latest news section. For a laugh, check out the "most popular" or most read stories and you can see why these bush fans are fat, dumb and happy.

I predict a Sunday morning headline (or even tomorrow) that Gonzo has decided to spend some time with the "family" and that "we can now move on and put this behind us."

JonR wrote on April 20, 2007 1:34 PM:

Viewing the various MSM on the Web, it appears that, with the exception of the NY Times, this story has gotten relatively little play (partly due to Virginia Tech), and what play it has gotten is not really indicative of the tenor of the hearing (again excepting the Times). I think the Bushie hope is to tough this out a few more days before deciding whether to throw in the towel. Maybe they're counting on a national mood of compassion to help this guy, and maybe the national appetite for vindication at the expense of public figures has been sated by Don Imus.

cervantes wrote on April 20, 2007 1:42 PM:

I'm afraid I can't agree that the criminal conspirators -- oh excuse, I meant to say the administration -- can stop their hemorrhaging by cutting off Gonzales and cauterizing the wound. There will, after all, have to be a new AG, who will require Senate confirmation. That means the new AG can't be a hyperpartisan hack who has promised in advance not to investigate the high crimes and misdemeanors of Rove, Cheney and Chimpy. There is far too much information within the DoJ for them to turn it over to even remotely honest leadership.

That's why Gonzo is hanging tough, that's why the so-called "president" is continuing to give him 100% backing, and that's why I will be surprised if he resigns.

But, there is a Plan B: Appoint Joe Lieberman as the new AG. The Senate will always confirm a member of the club. And, they get a double benefit: it will tip the Senate (CT Governor is R), and Lieberman can be counted on to keep his tongue firmly implanted in the Chimpoleon posterior, because he doesn't want to jeopardize his precious project of exterminating Arabs.

helmling wrote on April 20, 2007 1:44 PM:

Not sure which political game wd be better, but either way Gonzales is a red-herring: clearly these firing decisions were made by Rove. That's the ball we shd be keeping our eye on. The public shd be discouraged from thinking that the issue is whether Gonzales goes or stays. In particular Dems shdn't think that firing Gonzales is the goal. We must head off the predictable Repub'n effort to ditch Gonzales and then say "Case closed."

Predictable? For example: Lindsay Graham's clip from yesterday's hearing ("a stretch") got a lot of play: another Repub'n signalling lost confidence in Gonzales! But listen to the whole thing: Graham explains the firings as resulting from "personality clashes." Nothing political, nothing unethical. That kind of talk shd be stopped in its tracks.

Anonymous wrote on April 20, 2007 1:47 PM:

Putnam is slightly younger than Monica Goodling, I believe.

christomento wrote on April 20, 2007 1:52 PM:

I think it is horrendous for the GOP brand for AGAG to stay. The guy is like a 5 ton millstone tied their necks. As for the good of the country, I don't think it matters much, unfortunately, since an AGAG replacement would be a Bushiebot.

Security Code: have you no SHAME, agag?!!?

malcontent wrote on April 20, 2007 1:53 PM:

So true, cervantes, so true.

Lieberman is a traitor to America on par with the GOP.

Security Code: adjust, as in "adjust to your new prison cell, Abu Gonzalez."

Joel Bloom wrote on April 20, 2007 1:54 PM:

Wow -- this is probably the first time anyone has described Adam Putnam as "senior" since he was in High School! (If you don't know what I'm talking about, he looks like he still is in High School.) ;)

Anonymous wrote on April 20, 2007 1:56 PM:

"He did not rock the boat with Uncle George by sticking it to Gonzo, and did not cross the line with the Dem committee members by backing Gonzo and encouraging him to carry on."

He worships the God Republican. After Federalist Society membership, it’s the next most important qualification.

Jim M wrote on April 20, 2007 1:57 PM:

Cervantes nails it, in my opinion.

erikindo wrote on April 20, 2007 1:58 PM:

What we here folks is another example that this administration resembles Enron a few weeks before it totally imploded. This Enron attitude, "y'all just mosey along, we got our stuff handled", will not settle or sell the 82% of us who know this is one very sick administration.

Americans...how much crap will you take before you will show some outrage?

RW wrote on April 20, 2007 2:15 PM:

I don't think Hatch will be the replacement I think Bush will double down and first attempt Harriot Myers, this will back fire deeper as the hearings will involve her involvement. Then he will try Olson, but he too will fail leaving Bush no alternative but to appoint Fitzgerald

Bearpaw wrote on April 20, 2007 2:20 PM:

Um, Propagandee and others: I for one would rather not have someone as dishonest and incompetent as Gonzales continue as A.G., no matter how much his being in that spot might help Dems politically. It's not like he's some random clumsy West Wing staffer. He's the Attorney General of the United States.

Granted, there's no guarantee that BushCo wouldn't somehow manage to put someone else *almost* as bad in his place, but I doubt very much that even they could find anyone *as* bad.

observor wrote on April 20, 2007 2:20 PM:

Olson works for Gibson, Dunn, which represents Jerry Lewis. I agree with earlier comment that TPM chronology should include US Attorneys like Yang, who joined Gibson Dunn for $1.5 million as the DOJ firing lists were being assembled. Does anybody think it's a coincidence?

Redshift wrote on April 20, 2007 2:27 PM:

If he'd actually taken the blame for it and resigned a month ago, that might have ended it, but now that the subpoenas are out, congressional Republicans can't just declare it over.

Just as in Iraq, there are no good options; they're just scrambling to figure out which one is least bad so they can pretend that it's good.

vaughan19 wrote on April 20, 2007 2:34 PM:

helmling and JMM are right in keeping eyes on Rove (and even Bush too).

It's amusing to watch MS media memebers talking about how AG has to "clear things up" and today going on about how inept and evasive hes was without ever even considering for a moment the big elephant in the room: WHY?

Do they REALLY think for a second that Alberto cooked all of this up on his own? Can they really picture him rubbing his hands in glee over his diabolical sheme being pulled off? Please. It is soooo obvious that he was just saying yes to whatver he was told to do by Rove/Bush.

Yet the media seems unable to make that basic truth as they go on and on about how incompetent Alberto looked yetsterday. They marvel and snicker over 55 "I can't recalls" yet never ask the next logical question as to WHY he was so bad at remembering everything.

I would appreciate it if Josh or Greg could start flaggin reporters who DO make this obvious connection.

Paul Rosenberg wrote on April 20, 2007 2:35 PM:

House Republicans have a leadership? Who knew???

Anonymous wrote on April 20, 2007 2:37 PM:

Mr. Gonzales is a quick study. He's noticed that what's missing from discussions about Mr. Bush’s poorly phrased self-description - that he’s the Decider - is that he needn’t do anything else.

Mr. Gonzales admires that Mr. Bush needn’t understand what he’s deciding, what’s at issue, what will it cost, who will it benefit or harm and why, what would change or stay the same. In short, all the costs, benefits and risks, the things that any good CEO would want to know before exercising his or her authority as Decision Maker in Chief.

To paper over his inadequacies, Mr. Bush doesn’t just use a ruler that labels six centimeters as six inches. He redefines the role of CEO as Button Pusher in Chief. It’s only the hired help that needs to know how things work.

For Mr. Gonzales, imitation is truly the sincerest form of flattery.

Paul Rosenberg wrote on April 20, 2007 2:41 PM:

cervantes is mistaken. The Senate would remain under Dem control, per the rules it was organized under, even if Lieberman gets replaced by an overt Republican. This has been well covered already, here and elsewhere.

observer is correct. Yang definitely needs a lot more further scrutiny. According to what I've seen, her signing bonus is unprecedented.

Austin Cooper wrote on April 20, 2007 2:43 PM:

Gen. Turgidson relates that the WH doesn't seem to realize "by taking out Gonzo they can try to spike the entire investigation. Blame it on one loyalist and save the 'movement'". Bearpaw would "rather not have someone as dishonest and incompetent as Gonzales continue as A.G., no matter how much his being in that spot might help Dems politically."

It's really Hobb's Choice, isn't it? I want to see *all* of these despicable, criminal miscreants exposed, impeached, indicted in a criminal court, and punished. And I'm certain that, in the minds of many Dems on the Hill and their staffs, the idea is to pull on any loose thread in the Rethug carpet and keep doing so until it leads into Bush and Rove's offices -- and the U.S Attorney firings are the loos thread. Gonzales, Sampson, Goodling, et al. need to be pulled until something gives. I'm with Gen. Turgidson on that.

At the same time, we have to endure these creatures for *Twenty-One More Months*; they've already reduced Lady Liberty to the status of an abused wife of a brutal, spendtrhift and bankrupt drunk. That took just six years, and it will only get worse. So I'm with Bearpaw there, too: Gonzales is a criminal, a known associate and a co-conspirator, and should go.

The only bright spot is in whether the Democratic Party and its leadership is able to do both of what the country needs -- grow even more serious spine, go after these maniacs with an unbelievable seroisness of purpose... and at the same time provide leadership which translates into a Presidential and Congressional electoral victory in '08.

Right now, they're too afraid of affecting their chances next year to risk much -- but they have to see that the public responds to strong and principled 'right action' (in the Buddhist sense), and that there's a positive feedback loop already building for that. They have to plan for a future, and they have to risk in the present.

And Gonzales, because of what he is, what he's done and what he will continue to do, needs to go.

Jesus; I wish FDR was around.

Anonymous wrote on April 20, 2007 2:43 PM:

What if Bush never even signed off on the firings? Perhaps its fair to say that he heard grumblings about USA's and there is testimony pointing to this. And he told AGAG to 'take care of it'. But what if he was 'out of the loop' on the whole thing? It was all Rove's (the real prez.) project. Maybe that is the 'big' secret from the WH's perspective - what they are trying to conceal and are afraid of.

I mean, they have been hammering home that they werve at the presidents pleasure. What if they did it without his explict concent. Isn't that them a violation of the constitution/law?

I don't think that they are to worried about the voter fraud/investigation stuff getting exposed.

Anonymous wrote on April 20, 2007 2:44 PM:

I now kind of hope Gonzo stays- he makes a great symbol for the corruption of this administration. Let him stay and let him be yet one more albatross we hang around the neck of Bush and the Republicans. Let the "cloud" remain.

sailmaker wrote on April 20, 2007 2:50 PM:

How does Comey sound as a replacement? Knows more or less when to recuse himself, does not like illegal wiretapping, gave Fitzgerald pretty much everything that he asked for (that we know about).

sailmaker wrote on April 20, 2007 2:50 PM:

How does Comey sound as a replacement? Knows more or less when to recuse himself, does not like illegal wiretapping, gave Fitzgerald pretty much everything that he asked for (that we know about).

brianm0122 wrote on April 20, 2007 2:54 PM:

They'll cut him loose after the news cycle tonight. It will come as a resignation, so that Chimpie will still have the appearance of be a "stand by your man" guy.

Republicans will blanket the Sunday shows with the message "It's all over, now", Nothing to see here, move along.

Propagandee wrote on April 20, 2007 2:55 PM:

Bearpaw:

I understand. I usually default to the moral vs utilitarian position myself. But the Republicans under this Administration represents such a fundamental threat to the US constitution that their agenda to become the permanent majority party needs to be exposed, loudly and frequently.

Perhaps the best course of action would be for the House to impeach him. That would keep the investigative fires burning and hopefully re-educate Americans as to the fragile nature of the checks and balances that are at the core of our Constitutional freedoms.

Central Square wrote on April 20, 2007 2:59 PM:

Tell DOJ that Gonzo has got to go!

Here's the link to DOJ's home page.

http://www.usdoj.gov/contact-us.html

Anonymous wrote on April 20, 2007 3:17 PM:

JonR wrote -- "Maybe they're counting on a national mood of compassion to help this guy"

I think it's more likely they're counting on the cavalry. I think they're counting on their public relations machine in the press to step into the fray and smooth things out in the next 48 hours. I'm not sure they've worked out exactly what the message should be though.

anonymous wrote on April 20, 2007 3:21 PM:

My understanding is that replacing Lieberman with a Republican, or even Lieberman switching, won't change switch the Senate to GOP control.

So, not much of a benefit there to the administration.

Lieberman is much more valuable to Bush in the Senate, where he gives the appearance of a Democrat supporting the president, than as AG where there can be no confusion as to where his true loyalties lie.

swoosh wrote on April 20, 2007 3:35 PM:

Laura notes Gonzo mentioned only in fine print in the "latest news" on Fox.com. ABC's "the Note" in its current abbreviated version (post-Halperin) also has 2 Gonzo links, but inexplicably buries them under a heading marked "New Hampshire."

security code=shoe, as in shoes dropping

Karl wrote on April 20, 2007 3:43 PM:

I read no comments so far on the congressman's statement and its meaning/hinting:

"did not distinguish himself in the hearing"

This is not a statement about the in/correctness of the AG's actions. This statement is of higher political import - he's saying that Gonzales does not have the gravitas for the job.

He is like Miers, not ready for prime time. A Pal of Bush hoisted into the position as more a reward than some political agenda. Ashcroft had the gravitas, so did Reno, essentially the public wants to see the image of the Big Kahuna of Prosecutors, some one who knows how to lead (or looks so) from experiences like jury trial experience.

I know no lawyers who "care" whether Bush fired any attorneys - that is his power. If some corrupt rather than merely political purpose can be shown - go for it. But the obsession over all the firings will fling back in favor of Bush like the prosectuion of Clinton.

bc wrote on April 20, 2007 4:09 PM:

"But the obsession over all the firings will fling back in favor of Bush like the prosectuion of Clinton." So, Karl, I guess that means that Dems will win decisively in at least the next 3 election cycles. I'll take it.

Mike wrote on April 20, 2007 4:14 PM:

I'm surprised no one has mentioned Brownie!!!

SuperCOG wrote on April 20, 2007 4:44 PM:

Quite frankly, I think Gonzo did a piss poor job at the hearing yesterday. What was it - over 70 times he said he didn't recall something??

He didn't know the reasons for the firings, he didn't know who proffered those reasons, and he doesn't know who followed through and kept it rolling...but he approved it and stands behind it.

Does this make any sense? Of course not.

It's as Josh says, this operation has WH stink all over it, pure and simple. Missing emails? Yeah. Big surprise.

What I can't figure out is why more people are not up in arms about all this. The popular media is going soft on this (as expected) and Gonzo is basically saying "Sure, you think I'm incompetent...but if you don't have real proof, shove it. If you do, bring it. Until then, bash me all you want - but I'm not going anywhere."

Further pressure must be exerted on those in Congress by all of us.

Code word is "butter"....and I'm not even going to touch that one! :)

kjoftherock wrote on April 20, 2007 4:44 PM:

Has anyone found a graphic of the chart produced by Congress? Please post link! I want to plaster that all over the place...I found it to be a great illustration of how the DOJ HAS ALREADY become an arm of the WH. & for some reason most are acting like it is appropriate & acceptable.

Also a photo collage should be made of these "senior" official...who are no such thing!

littlesky wrote on April 20, 2007 5:09 PM:

It's not the first time Putnam's said as much, either. He said basically the same thing a couple of weeks ago.

He's still pissed off that Bush waited until AFTER the election to fire Rumsfeld. I guess Adam's having a hard time adjusting to a leadership role in the minority party.

nrglaw wrote on April 20, 2007 7:37 PM:

Why would Hatch want the AG job? Appointments in the second half of a second term aren't worth a box of hair.

The only argument in favor, I suppose, is that he might have the best chance of confirmation because of the whole Senators-don't-vote-against-Senators routine. In this case, I don't think that would cut much ice.

He'll stay where he is.

The Oracle wrote on April 20, 2007 7:56 PM:

I just wonder which Trinity University Law School graduate Bush will select to replace Abu Gonzales if and when Gonzo realizes that his mere presence at the Justice Department is an affront to our democracy and our Constitution?

And will the still rubber-stamping Republicans bend over again for Bush, take one for the neo-con team and try to ram through another anti-American, anti-democracy, anti-U.S. Constitution Bush nominee to be the top "rule of law" enforcement officer in the land?

Torisen wrote on April 20, 2007 8:37 PM:

How about this for a new AG: Fred Thompson!

Devil's Advocate wrote on April 20, 2007 8:51 PM:

As if Bush was going to fire his errand boy... Anyway, who would he nominate in his place who could be confirmed by the Senate? Brownoser Orrin Hatch? The man is so revolting that even Republicans will shoot him down.

Fred Thompson? I'd rather have him continue to play Arthur Branch on L&O. If he becomes Attorney General, what am I going to watch on TV? They'll pull all of the episodes in which he appears. Not that I like him, but I like L&O.

Karl wrote on April 20, 2007 9:53 PM:

BC writes

""But the obsession over all the firings will fling back in favor of Bush like the prosectuion of Clinton." So, Karl, I guess that means that Dems will win decisively in at least the next 3 election cycles. I'll take it.""

I think I see what you are getting at, but repubs. were winning election cycles before 2000, if that's the datum you are using.

My observation was smaller, and I should have explained. The matter that consistently pushed Clinton's personal poll numbers up was the impeachment. Most people saw the offence as trivial.

Sheila Casey wrote on April 20, 2007 10:05 PM:

Gonzales can not possibly be that stupid

In his testimony yesterday, Alberto Gonzales came off as an obsequious lapdog with marginal intelligence and a brain like a sieve. Can a man running an organization with 110,000 employees possibly be that stupid? I think not.

His testimony simply made no sense. He claims to not remember much of anything about why he dismissed these eight US attorneys, but is sure he did it for all the right reasons.

What is even more remarkable is that he was prepping for this performance for a month. What was he doing--practicing saying "Senator, I don't recall," over and over?

Gonzales' testimony is like a Gordian knot that refuses to untie. Blissfully unperturbed by the contradictions in his testimony, Gonzales soldiers on, with a "that's my story and I'm sticking to it," fortitude.

Only one thing can explain this: the list was compiled by the White House, possibly by Karl Rove and Harriet Miers. Rove gave the list to Gonzales (or Sampson) told them to fire these attorneys, and they did, no questions asked. So of course Gonzales doesn't know why they were axed--the decision was made elsewhere. But "of course" the axings were done for all the right reasons, for they were decreed by the Great and Powerful Rove.

Like the loyal Bushie he is, Gonzales will protect his only patron, Bush, till the end. So he twists himself into a Gordian knot attempting to justify the unjustifiable.

The Senate Judiciary Committee must push forward with subpeonas for sworn, public testimony under oath from Rove and Miers. If they're going to lie, let them do it under oath, for all the world to see.

Daryl Cobranchi wrote on April 21, 2007 5:43 AM:

Why does everyone assume that any new AG would have to go through Senate confirmation hearings? I've no doubt that the Rove/Bush administration is at least considering trying to brazen out a recess appointment.

chuckles wrote on April 21, 2007 7:08 AM:

Let us see who Monkey-Boy criticizes today on his weekly address...yes he loves the Mexican and his dogs serve at his pleasure...blah blah blah...less than 2 years of this and we can then have a relaxing 4 years of investigations....chuckle chuckle

Yehuda wrote on April 21, 2007 11:06 PM:

It is hard to fathom why Lieberman would trade a seat in the U.S. Senate, which runs through 2012, for a cabinet post which will expire with the administration in January, 2009.

trippin wrote on April 22, 2007 8:51 AM:

It would not be optimal for Gonzalez to resign.

What needs to happen is that the Democrats need to start impeachment proceedings against him immediately. There's a whole boat load of charges from illegal wiretapping to torture to denying habeas corpus -- all violations of the Constitution he swore to uphold. The investigative value of such a proceeding cannot be replaced.

Impeach Gonzalez before he resigns!!!

Oh, I forgot -- our Democrats don't have a f*cking spine. My bad.

joejoejoe wrote on April 22, 2007 6:09 PM:

Rep. Adam Putnam is a powerful member of the House GOP. I think he's chairman of the Lollipop Guild, a special caucus for members under 5'5".