Comments (19)

Trent wrote on December 10, 2007 2:49 PM:

I just can't stand Alberto being railroaded just because he is hispanic.
He has not been charged - he hasn't been found guilty of anything.
Surely the Democratic congress would have done so if there was anything untoward that had gone on.
But the Democratic congress brought no charges.
I am a democrat and I stand with these decisions that congress did nothing.

Pat wrote on December 10, 2007 3:07 PM:

It reminds me of the episode of Law and order where Richards Brooks character (Robinette) said he had to decide If he was "A black man who was a lawyer, or a lawyer who happened to be black". Only for Gonzo, the choice was "am I a Hispanic man who is a lying, incompetent, embarassing failure as Attorney General of the United States, or a lying, incompetent, embarassing failure as Attorney General of the United States who just happens to be Hispanic?"

Seriously, If you think Gonzo got "railroaded" because of his race you're high, foolish or criminally misinformed. Look through the archives here before you post tripe like that.

cynical jim wrote on December 10, 2007 3:11 PM:

re: #1 from Trent.
It is not up to the Congress to charge a sitting Attorney General. However, Gonzalez' incompetence and malfeasance were very well documented. He hasn't been found guilty of anything because the Department of Justice is still rife with hyper-partisan flunkies of the White House who never want to investigate, let alone prosecute any senior member of the bush presidency.
No one. No one was railroading him because of his hispanic heritage.

Whether the fired US Attorneys are doing better financially is not the point. The point is that they were serving their country and were dismissed to satisfy Karl Rove's and george bush's Political ends.

Publius wrote on December 10, 2007 3:58 PM:

Further, it is worth drawing a distinction between criminal conduct and poor, even outrageously poor, performance. The former requires evidence of a specific violation of law, and it is not clear that any such evidence exists related to the firing of the U.S. Attorneys. The second is, perhaps, more important, as it touches on the essense of Congressional oversight, which is designed to ensure that the Executive Branch is performing appropriately. This confusion is particularly invidious, as the Administration used it to blunt the issue, repeatedly insisting that they absense of evidence of criminal activity made this a non-story. That, in my view, was deliberate. Mr. Gonzales may, or may not, have violated the law, but the clear weight of the available information shows that he damaged the functioning of the Department of Justice. That is bad enough.

Indignant in the bario wrote on December 10, 2007 3:58 PM:

Didn't the President before Bush fire a bunch of Att. Generals? You mean that descision was completly pure and not remotely political?Were the positions filled with the same ratio of progresives to neocons? I still think this is a case of the Man trying to keep the non Wasp from suceeding!!

totallynext wrote on December 10, 2007 4:04 PM:

Who ever the Dem's President is, they should appoint either DAvid Ingleis or Fitzpatrick as Attorney General.

Show the word - who the partisan hacks are and that Democrats will rise to the top and appoint "Great Americans" who get it regardless of "party.

totallynext wrote on December 10, 2007 4:08 PM:

Indignant in the bario wrote on December 10, 2007 3:58 PM:

OMG - that talking point has been rebuked for like a year. You need to get out of your hole a little more.

The attorney's were replaced BECAUSE OF A CHANGE IN ADMINISTRATION - i.e. A new President was elected, and they appoint USA usually from their "party".

Bush did the same thing when elected - that is why all the Republicans were fired. They fired these people strickly to get rid of lawsuits against their cronies and because they were pissed that they USA did not bring false cases against Democrats.

Grow up - get educated, and stop being a stooge.

Bob wrote on December 10, 2007 4:27 PM:

I have no confidence in Democrats to do the right thing on this issue.
I will stand with republicans this time because I am a christain and Huckabee is
really my only choice. I trust in god that he will make the religios decision regarding these past fired attorneys.

Publius wrote on December 10, 2007 4:33 PM:

To be clear: it is common for an incoming President to ask for the resignation of the US Attorneys (who are the chief Federal prosecutors in the various federal districts), and then nominate replacements, usually of his own party. What is not common is for a sitting President to ask for resignations in such number in the midst of his term. The eight U.S. Attorneys fired were not Democratic-era holdovers: they were Bush appointees.

The issue here is that this episode is a departure from the tradition (not the law) that US Attorneys, once appointed, are to be generally left alone by the Administration. It is a policy matter, not a question of breaking rule: the policy has been that preserving independence of the people who decide when to bring charges is worth giving up some political control. This administration rejected that policy.

I cannot tell if "Indignant" is serious about his allegations that the demise of Attorney General Gonzales is due to anti-Hispanic prejudice. I, for one, have seen no evidence of that.

Curly wrote on December 10, 2007 4:48 PM:

"Bush did the same thing when elected - that is why all the Republicans were fired. They fired these people strickly to get rid of lawsuits against their cronies and because they were pissed that they USA did not bring false cases against Democrats." (totallywhacked)

You can prove this how?

So what only Waxman is alowed to bring bogus cases and waste millions of hours and dollars?

litigatormom wrote on December 10, 2007 4:54 PM:

As I Latina, and as a lawyer, I for once am mortified by the performance of Alberto Gonzales as White House Counsel and Attorney General. He was not railroaded because he was Hispanic; he resigned under deserved pressure for being either incompetent, or venal, or both.

His life story sounded like something from an inspirational Horatio Alger-type story, but the fact of the matter is, Gonzo threw in his lot with George W. Bush, and ultimately he paid the price for telling Bush whatever he wanted to hear. To my mind, the price wasn't high enough. I only wish his boss had had the decency to resign as well.

Indignant in the barrio wrote on December 10, 2007 5:19 PM:

Publius-thanks for yout post and for your civil tone (a rarity here).
Perhaps these 8 were not the type of men they presented themselves to be at an earlier time (competent,stooges,men of integrity, you decide)
It seems the main lesson is that the Executive branch should be more careful in their appts.Thanks for the clarification.

Steve5117 wrote on December 10, 2007 5:32 PM:

Indignant in the barrio:

"It seems the main lesson is that the Executive branch should be more careful in their appts."

Are you kidding, this administration has gone to great lengths to find the best loyal bushies money can buy. Have you encountered any recalled product (toys, meat, pet food, etc.) this past year?

Curly wrote on December 10, 2007 5:53 PM:

Steve - during the Democratic adminstrations did you just have you head up your "abruti"

julimac wrote on December 10, 2007 7:07 PM:

Ooh, lots of trolls today. Must be something going on.

bp wrote on December 11, 2007 7:06 AM:

Litigatormom: You make a very worthwhile point. Abu Gonzales is Hispanic and that is not an issue: it was his competence, his capability and his integrity that is being questioned.His roots having nothing to do with his performance before the committees. He is simply a man who was unable to do his job.

Indignant in the barrio: You deserve to be treated civilly. Not an issue in this place. But you have to stop pushing tripe. You leave yourself open to ridicule.

Anonymous wrote on December 11, 2007 8:15 AM:

First, I do appreciate the civility from all. I agree -- it is possible that the firing were a result of a determination that the original appointments were an error -- that the men (actually, men and woman) were "not what they appeared to be."

However, the evidence thus far made public seems to cut against that. In fact, it is to answer that question that the Congress has sought to investigate. On its face, the unprecedented numbers of firings, the fact that the performance evaluations of the fired attorneys were very positive, and some of the testimony, all support a conclusion that the firings were not based on lack of integrity or competence, or even finding that there was a fundamental difference in law enforcement policy; rather, that the firings were to specifically and generally send a message to the U.S. Attorney's as a class (there are 56 of them) that there tenure in office would be based in part on how they handled specific cases. Worse, there is indication that the handling of cases touched not on traditional prosecutorial skills (good lawyering, good office management, and a sense of justice and fairness), but on how prosecutions could effect elections.

If true, this is a terrible development. Until recently (in the mainstream -- I recognize that some on the left, and right, would disagree, but I think I am right about the breadth of this particular mainstream) lawyers usually did not worry about whether a prosecution was brought for political reasons. Now, I fear, it is in fact a real possibility.

Do not underestimate the potential power of prosecutors -- they can (and have) been a dangerous arm of the Government. It is because of this potential danger that both political parties have traditionally steered clear of politicizing the prosecutors in the Department of Justice. The information now available strongly supports the view that, for the first time, this position was abandoned.

Less indignant wrote on December 11, 2007 10:17 AM:

"Do not underestimate the potential power of prosecutors -- they can (and have) been a dangerous arm of the Government. It is because of this potential danger that both political parties have traditionally steered clear of politicizing the prosecutors in the Department of Justice. The information now available strongly supports the view that, for the first time, this position was abandoned."(Anonymous)

Is this not the same type of issue we see in regards to Henry Waxman's unprecedents politica hunting? I guess this is ok because it is the legslative branch and not the Judiciary.

Also how does this differ (other than scope) from the litmus tests that Charles Schumer (and probably some GOP's) have stated in regard to Spreme Court nominees?

And Yet... wrote on December 12, 2007 10:32 AM:

"Also how does this differ (other than scope) from the litmus tests that Charles Schumer (and probably some GOP's) have stated in regard to Spreme Court nominees?"

Applying a political litmus test to the hiring of line US attorneys in the manner Monica Goodling admitted to in her SJC testimony is breaking the law. IT"S ILLEGAL.

Remember this? "I crossed the line," Ms. Goodling admitted.

All are allowed their own opinions, just not their own facts...