One or more of the impeachment charges against Nixon involved using government agencies for personal or political purposes. For instance, he used the IRS to persecute those on his enemies list. This White House used, or tried to use in some cases, US Attorneys to aid Republican candidates by going after Dem opponents.
"This White House used, or tried to use in some cases, US Attorneys to aid Republican candidates by going after Dem opponents." That's true and it's also true that some, like Lam, were fired for getting close to extremely embarrassing evidence. Lam was investigating Cunningham including Abramoff's poker/sex parties. "Comments on: Senator Leahy will supboena Rove" Carol Lam was investigating Duke Cunningham, convicted him and was expanding her investigation to other Repubs, when she ws then fired. ...
link
In the case of David Iglesias, Senate testimony thus far has shown that he was fired because 1) he couldn't come up with any voter fraud cases despite a two-year investigation and 2) he wouldn't bring a fraud case against several Dem officials early enough to affect the November elections. (He later got those convictions, btw.)
Joe(oh, so you are not a Rove toadie??? You're fired.)Nation
Editorial NYT
Mr. Gonzales's Never-Ending Story
Published: July 29, 2007
President Bush often insists he has to be the decider ?- ignoring Congress and the public when it comes to the tough matters on war, terrorism and torture, even deciding whether an ordinary man in Florida should be allowed to let his wife die with dignity. Apparently that burden does not apply to the functioning of one of the most vital government agencies, the Justice Department.
Americans have been waiting months for Mr. Bush to fire Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who long ago proved that he was incompetent and more recently has proved that he can't tell the truth. Mr. Bush refused to fire him after it was clear Mr. Gonzales lied about his role in the political purge of nine federal prosecutors. And he is still refusing to do so ?- even after testimony by the F.B.I. director, Robert Mueller, that suggests that Mr. Gonzales either lied to Congress about Mr. Bush's warrantless wiretapping operation or at the very least twisted the truth so badly that it amounts to the same thing.
Mr. Gonzales has now told Congress twice that there was no dissent in the government about Mr. Bush's decision to authorize the National Security Agency to spy on Americans' international calls and e-mails without obtaining the legally required warrant. Mr. Mueller and James Comey, a former deputy attorney general, say that is not true. Not only was there disagreement, but they also say that they almost resigned over the dispute.
Both men say that in March 2004 ?- when Mr. Gonzales was still the White House counsel ?- the Justice Department refused to endorse a continuation of the wiretapping program because it was illegal. (Mr. Comey was running the department temporarily because Attorney General John Ashcroft had emergency surgery.) Unwilling to accept that conclusion, Vice President Dick Cheney sent Mr. Gonzales and another official to Mr. Ashcroft's hospital room to get him to approve the wiretapping.
Mr. Comey and Mr. Mueller intercepted the White House team, and they say they watched as a groggy Mr. Ashcroft refused to sign off on the wiretapping and told the White House officials to leave. Mr. Comey said the White House later modified the eavesdropping program enough for the Justice Department to sign off.
Last week, Mr. Gonzales denied that account. He told the Senate Judiciary Committee the dispute was not about the wiretapping operation but was over "other intelligence activities." He declined to say what those were.
Lawmakers who have been briefed on the administration's activities said the dispute was about the one eavesdropping program that has been disclosed. So did Mr. Comey. And so did Mr. Mueller, most recently on Thursday in a House hearing. He said he had kept notes.
That was plain enough. It confirmed what most people long ago concluded: that Mr. Gonzales is more concerned about doing political-damage control for Mr. Bush ?- in this case insisting that there was never a Justice Department objection to a clearly illegal program ?- than in doing his duty. But the White House continued to defend him.
As far as we can tell, there are three possible explanations for Mr. Gonzales's talk about a dispute over other ?- unspecified ?- intelligence activities. One, he lied to Congress. Two, he used a bureaucratic dodge to mislead lawmakers and the public: the spying program was modified after Mr. Ashcroft refused to endorse it, which made it "different" from the one Mr. Bush has acknowledged. The third is that there was more wiretapping than has been disclosed, perhaps even purely domestic wiretapping, and Mr. Gonzales is helping Mr. Bush cover it up.
Democratic lawmakers are asking for a special prosecutor to look into Mr. Gonzales's words and deeds. Solicitor General Paul Clement has a last chance to show that the Justice Department is still minimally functional by fulfilling that request.
If that does not happen, Congress should impeach Mr. Gonzales.
Well, maybe Bush wants somebody in his administration that's a worse incompetent then himself. What other reason can there be? It's about the best diversion Bush can have at this point in his worsening term.
Tough to figure out the motivation here. But possibly it is unclear merely because the WH doesn't know what the hell to do either and is waiting for something to help them out. Or it could be that Gonzales somehow stands between the WH (however unsteadily) and legal jeopardies of a scope or seriousness which mandates he stays. Apparently (this from rightwing pundits such as Brooks and Cokie Roberts) the WH is having trouble figuring out who might replace Gonzales and pass muster in that nomination.
What? Is this country completely out of Bible college graduates already?
Joe(See if there are any more loyal attorneys in Texas.)
No. There are lots still kicking around. It's just that so many of them, back when the horizon was unlimited and filled with that heavenly red glow, went out and got stigmata tattoos or simulated callouses/bullet wounds. It will take a while before they can get those covered up with the new "George who?" gekko tattoo.
Just to recap a bit:
Mr Gonzales testified last week that there was no disagreement about the PUBLICLY disclosed program involving monitoring INTERNATIONAL phone calls and e-mails. So he was telling the truth in his testimony and Mr Mueller (FBI) and Mr Comey (acting AG while Mr Ashcroft was ill) were wrong to assert otherwise. Therefore: no perjury.
Any disagreement was about OTHER INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES. But those are classified so he (Gonzales) can't talk about them and the congress members who were briefed about them can't either.
So then comes the New York Times story (not the editorial cited above) reporting that the disagreement was about a DOMESTIC spying program being considered. And since that wasn't public, he didn't lie about the issue of any dissent.
The question that arises is who leaked this story to the Times and why.
Or maybe there was no leak. There have been rumors for some time that the government has already embarked on a secret domestic eavesdropping program.
Mr Gonzales may have dodged one bullet through clever word-choice. But it may come back to haunt him.
All legal matters seem to devolve into is-is moments.
Joe(why isn't incompetence an impeachable offense??
)Nation
The biggest problem Gonzales has, in my estimation, is that he says he needed to confirm with Ashcroft to report back to the "gang of five," but they all already knew about it.
I just read an interesting article of "dead man walking" about people who should leave their jobs, but hang on at the expense of everybody else. That's Gonzales in a nutshell.
Gonzale is trying to back-peddle now that he's been caught lying.
Gonzales admits testimony 'confusing'
By LARA JAKES JORDAN, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 56 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - Attorney General Alberto Gonzales conceded Wednesday he used confusing language when describing national security efforts during recent Senate testimony, seeking to set the record straight about the government's terror surveillance program and clear questions about his credibility.
"I am deeply concerned with suggestions that my testimony was misleading, and am determined to address any such impression," Gonzales wrote in a three-page letter to Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy of Vermont, a copy of which was sent to the panel's top Republican, Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania.
"I recognize that the use of the term 'Terrorist Surveillance Program' and my shorthand reference to the 'program' publicly 'described by the president' may have created confusion," Gonzales wrote.
Gonzales' admission comes after a week of withering criticism that he misled senators about a 2004 dispute between the White House and the Justice Department over the legality of a classified national security program. At the time, Gonzales was serving as White House counsel, and wanted to continue the program over Justice Department concerns that it was not legal.
What?
Do we not believe the NY Times?
Here is a rumor from US News. I guess the country will trade one loser for another. Chertoff may be a good lawyer, but he has been a terrible administrator.
Maybe Trading Up Soon at Justice
August 24, 2007 06:02 PM ET | Bedard, Paul | Permanent Link
The buzz among top Bushies is that beleaguered Attorney General Alberto Gonzales finally plans to depart and will be replaced by Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff. Why Chertoff? Officials say he's got fans on Capitol Hill, is untouched by the Justice prosecutor scandal, and has more experience than Gonzales did, having served as a federal judge and assistant attorney general.
Another Bush appointee "resigning for family." Who will be next?
The NY Time reports that Alberto Gonzales phoned in his resignation to President Bush on friday.
Mr. Gonzales, who had rebuffed calls for his resignation, submitted his to President Bush by telephone on Friday, the official said. His decision was not immediately announced, the official added, until after the president invited him and his wife to lunch at his ranch near here.
Mr. Bush has not yet chosen a replacement but will not leave the position open long, the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity because the Attorney General's resignation had not yet been made public.
....
Mr. Gonzales's resignation is the latest in a series of high-level departures that has reshaped the end of Mr. Bush's second term. Karl Rove, another of Mr. Bush's close circle of aides from Texas, stepped down two weeks ago.
The official said that the decision was Mr. Gonzales's and that the president accepted it grudgingly. At the same time, the official acknowledged that the turmoil over his tenure as Attorney General had made continuing difficult.
"The unfair treatment that he's been on the receiving end of has been a distraction for the department," the official said.
There have been reports that Michael Chertoff, Head of Homeland Security, will replace Gonzales.
This may be a strategy of the Whitehouse to take pressure off, in terms of congressional investigations. It is also a day when we can expect the whitehouse to sneak in some other news under the cover of this major event.
I hope that Chertoff is not the successor. While he is an intelligent lawyer, he is not an administrator. Justice is, of course, huge, and needs an administrator more than a good lawyer.
