Comments (26)

Michael wrote on October 10, 2007 4:46 PM:

I look forward to the day when I see this criminal in an orange jumpsuit with cuffs. It will be a great day for our democracy. Hopefully, he will be joined by the rest of his buds in the administration. They can have a group photo together, sell it, and then donate all proceeds to the dead americans and iraqis due to their criminal policies.

Larry Geater wrote on October 10, 2007 4:56 PM:

He will never see a day in jail unless Bush is impeached before the trial. President Bush is warming up his pardon machine as we post.

chisholm wrote on October 10, 2007 4:56 PM:

Does anyone have any background on Glenn Fine? I have a very hard time imagining a member of this DOJ as "fiercely independent." His office is prime real estate for a party apparatchik, to boot.

Long Memory wrote on October 10, 2007 5:00 PM:

Don't hold your breath, Michael. The Criminal-in-Chief will flat-out pardon this guy, and you know it.

OhioProud wrote on October 10, 2007 5:05 PM:

The investigation(s) must wrap-up on,
oh say 01-20-09! Then read the verdict!

Sorry Mr.Bush you and your cabal are off
to the Hauge.

anon wrote on October 10, 2007 5:13 PM:

I can't remember, can Bush issue blanket pardons to people who haven't been charged?

GRinFL wrote on October 10, 2007 5:49 PM:

I've never posted here (or any other blog, for that matter) before. And I'm not really certain why I'm doing it now, or adding to this particular article. It's just that, in reading this article, I felt so tired...had such a feeling that there are so many atrocities and felonies committed by this administration that, even if we started arresting them for their known crimes now, we would never, ever get to the bottom of even one of them! Because, as we've seen over the last 10 months, the DEMOCRATIC Congress isn't going to do it, and, as far as I can see, that was our last chance!

That said, I keep thinking of Jefferson's quote concerning the Tree of Liberty. We certainly know who the tyrants are...are there (and this includes me!!) any Patriots out there?

Carolyn, Simi Valley, CA wrote on October 10, 2007 6:22 PM:

GRinFL,
Just to make me feel better, I have been sending faxes expressing my opinions on various issues. I even sent an article about blackwater from Huffington, to make sure they knew how the Iraqis feel. (Tongue in cheek, of course. They know, just don't give a ....) To get their fax numbers go to google and type example: Senator Reid fax number. and click. Without explicitly requesting the fax number it's hard to ferret out sometimes. Some of the websites seem designed to confuse. Ha! Try Pelosi. She doesn't want to hear from you unless you're from her district. I am considering moving. What pleasure to come in and "throw" my democrat vote.
Good luck. Sure is helping me to express myself to those lost souls.

Dee Illuminati wrote on October 10, 2007 6:22 PM:

To chisholm,

Glen Fine is a consumate professional, not "left" or "right" but instead a Republican whom took his oath to the constitution.

I think that if you have a problem with Glen Fine you have a problem with the gal with the blindfold and the scales.

Alguien wrote on October 10, 2007 6:46 PM:

To Dee Illuminati wrote on October 10, 2007 6:22 PM:

"Glen Fine is a consumate professional, not "left" or "right" but instead a Republican who took his oath to the constitution.
I think that if you have a problem with Glen Fine you have a problem with the gal with the blindfold and the scales."

Well, my dear, the fact that Mr. Fine is a Republican that respects the Constitution does not exclude a potential problem with the gal with the blindfold and the scale...
Former Atty. General Tom Ashcroft proved to be a staunch defender of the Constitution and yet, as you may remember, he had a REALLY BIG problem with that gal.
So big, indeed, that for his first a speech at the DoJ, he spent $9,000 in a blue velvet curtain because he did not want to be photographed next to a TOPLESS statue!!!!
[If you ask me, a simple bra would have done the job equally well, for a fraction of the price..!!!]
This is well documented. Check it, if you don't believe me.

Dennis wrote on October 10, 2007 6:50 PM:

Several thoughts:

Assuming he couldn't get a presidential pardon, if faced with prison, would Gonzales roll over on anybody?

It is correct that Nancy Pelosi is dodging all communication with voters outside of her district. I'm one who tried.

But, you can always contact the Democratic National Party and have your say. If you don't like the topics they offer, just create your own.

http://www.democrats.org/contact.html

You don't have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

spamonwry wrote on October 10, 2007 7:08 PM:

We all know that no shrubbie worth his salt will ever see any kind of confinement. The white house has already hired dozens of clerical staff and purchased high-speed printers for the pardons which will be forthcoming. Gonzo won't ever see the inside of a courtroom. He has waaaaayyyyy to many secrets - & probably documentation (any good stoolie keeps info to incriminate his cronies) hidden away somewhere. His criminal activities will see the light of day, but he'll never answer for them.

The only ones who have even the remotest chance of any kind of trial are shrub, Darth Cheney, Rummy & mebbe 1 or 2 others. The most likely possibility is a war crimes trial for each at the Hague, which probably won't be covered by any kind of Presential Pardon. Can Bush pardon himself???? A wonderful Constitutional question, and given the makeup of the SCOTUS, a ruling that he can will likely be forthcoming....

urbino wrote on October 10, 2007 7:13 PM:

"I can't remember, can Bush issue blanket pardons to people who haven't been charged?"

It's the new Bush Doctrine: preemptive pardons.

TheraP wrote on October 10, 2007 7:24 PM:

"preemptive pardons" - is it part of preemptive war?

jvill wrote on October 10, 2007 7:29 PM:

anon wrote on October 10, 2007 5:13 PM:

"I can't remember, can Bush issue blanket pardons to people who haven't been charged?"

That's a good question. If these investigations were to continue past Bush, they can't get pardoned by Shrub, right? You can't pardon someone BEFORE they are charged, correct?

Maybe there's something to dragging out these investigations...

Steve Hoots wrote on October 10, 2007 8:03 PM:

The precedent for preemptive pardons was established long ago. President Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon even though no charges had been brought against Nixon.

Dan wrote on October 10, 2007 8:06 PM:

Dick Nixon was pardoned before being charged.

Dee Illuminati wrote on October 10, 2007 8:58 PM:

To Alguien

I remember the incident well, and recall some remarks on that at FreeRepublic to the effect that he could not pass a stone statue without getting excited, etc.. and his embarrasment that night at the state of the union speech.

But to be candid.. as a Republican I think that Ashcroft calling Yoo "Dr. Yes" and saying no to the abuses leaves him as a fine candidate whom if he ran for office I would support.

History will exonerate this man as the sound mind in the room, and keep in mind that like Glen Fine we often label people without fully understanding them.

I still have a photo of him with the naked statue behind him... but if he ran for office??? I honestly would vote for him. He is proven under fire.

wordvarc wrote on October 10, 2007 9:55 PM:

'LAWYER DOWN'

Detain w, cheezy, gonzo, rummy, woo, idefinately with no rights to an attorney in 'Gitmo.'

Use w's signature
'interrogation methods' to get them to admit to the 'charge of the day.'

Then send them to The Hague for international war crimes trials.

.

Iron Gator wrote on October 10, 2007 10:05 PM:

>>> ...can Bush issue blanket pardons to people who haven't been charged?

Ford did, so there's precedent.

numi wrote on October 10, 2007 10:24 PM:

GRinFL:

Yes, there are some patriots out here. Many of whom still take their military oaths from long ago very seriously. That part about "protecting and defending the Constitution" still has meaning for many of us.

I would recommend fully exercising your Constitutional rights and arm yourselves to the teeth, citizens. These Republicanite fascist rat bastards and their spineless Dem fellow travelers will not go easily. They never do.

And for those counting on a change next November at the polls, just what makes you think there will even be an election?

Anonymous wrote on October 10, 2007 11:39 PM:

It would be interesting to get some detail on when Gonzo originally spoke with counsel; whether, as AG, he was using outside counsel instead of DoJ Staff counsel. Not convinced Gonzo "just hired" outside counsel. Issue: How much was he talking to counsel, how long, and what other legal issues is he most likely talking about.

Reason for the question: Recall, after DoJ counsel were implicated with rendition, they were widely reported to have talked to outside counsel. If Gonzo was "talking to OUTSIDE counsel" then this means he doesn't/wasn't relying on GOVERNMENT counsel; raising the question: If he really believed that his conversations between him, as AG, and US government counsel were "privileged", did Gonzo really believe this as Miers/WH counsel assert; or does he take the view that the conversations with US government counsel, unless they involve the President, would not be privileged.

Working backwards: Based on the dates that Gonzalez was REALLY talking to counsel, we could then discuss whether the claims of Miers and other WH/DoJ counsel in re privilege were real; or wehther there were ruse assumptions about privileges, and there was no protection; and they should have discussed this with outside counsel.

Once you look at the timing of Gonzo's discussion with counsel, raises questions about state secrets claims; WH counsel privilege; and AG-Potus-WH counsel discussions: Where they discussions under privilege for the President; or were they really discussions about methods to engage in illegal activity which the AG should have known cannot be protected by privilege. Yet...despite all the above possibilites, is the Supreme Court improperly deferring to the President's apparent claim of executive privilege/state secrets, when the Supreme Court -- by Gonzo's discussions with outside counsel -- should rule the opposite: Gonzo and others knew the activity was not lawful; the discussions were not related to the President; and they are part of a bigger effort to improperly hide evidence Gonzalez well knew his activity/actions/legal opinions were related to Geneva-FISA violations.

My view: Gonzo and others well discussed these legal problems with private counsel well before the disclosed date; the Supreme Court has improperly deferred to the President on evidence that cannot be legally shielded; and Gonzalez and other WH-DoJ legal counsel shold have well known, as with Nixon precedent, that discussions with counsel (other than private counsel) are not protected, but evidence the public has the right to examine. Translation: Althought the Supreme COurt blocked the CIVIL review of the rendition issue on "state secrets claims," the rest of the evidence which WH-Gonzo-DoJ counsel discussed is not protected for purposes of a CRIMINAL indictment of Gonzalez for war crimes.

DallasNE wrote on October 11, 2007 12:12 AM:

On last nights debate Mitt Romney revealed that he needs a good attorney to help him decide whether to start war with Iran. Since Alberto Gonzales is now available maybe Mitt needs to ring him up. Surely that would keep the Justice Department from filing criminal charges against Gonzales, killing two birds with one stone.

chisholm wrote on October 11, 2007 12:28 AM:

Here's a question maybe someone can answer:

The DOJ has refused to give Congress any number of documents concerning any number of issues. As part of his investigations, can Fine demand them and actually get them? Can those witholding the documents also withhold them from the OIG? If so, on what grounds?

Dee: Dick Cheney, George Bush and Alberto Gonzalez also took oaths to uphold the constitution and the document has never been in greater peril. Your point would be?

J. R. Cram wrote on October 11, 2007 5:42 AM:

GRinFL wrote:
Because, as we've seen over the last 10 months, the DEMOCRATIC Congress isn't going to do it, and, as far as I can see, that was our last chance!

Dear GRinFL, Carolyn in Simm Valley et al.
No, the Democrats in 2006 were the penultimate chance, Ron Paul in 2008 is the ultimate chance to throw a monkey-wrench into the neocon machine which has captured both parties. Please listen to what he is saying in the debates...he actually believes in things like habeus corpus, a limited executive, the bill of rights etc.. If you like what he is saying then please quit the Dems, Greens, Libertarians, whatever or get off your Independent duff, join the GOP and work for his nomination.

I know, I know, it's real hard...
"Paris is worth a mass."--Henry of Navarre

E.M. wrote on October 11, 2007 8:53 AM:

Amazingly, Mr. Gonzales remains an active member of the Texas Bar Association, in good standing, no less. Accordingly, there is another way to address this matter: file a grievance against him with the Texas Bar. At GrievanceProject(dot)wordpress(dot)com is a post specifically addressing Anybody can file a grievance against any attorney. The Gonzales post at the Grievance Project includes everything you will need to file a grievance against Mr. Gonzales, including the Texas Bar's application and a detailed analysis of his conduct.

E.M.