Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales should be the first official impeached, convicted and removed.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
seafan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-10-07 01:16 PM
Original message
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales should be the first official impeached, convicted and removed.
In my humble opinion, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is the very first individual to be removed from power.

He greases the skids for Bush and Cheney like no other, feeding and sustaining this criminal enterprise that poisons our country.

Gonzales is purging US attorneys and inserting political hacks; he is blocking vital Congressional investigations; he inserted legal language to protect Bush when he authorized torture of prisoners; he enables Bush as he claims dictatorial powers as he wiretaps Americans; AG Gonzales now claims that Americans have no right to habeas corpus if they are swept up at the whim of a criminal executive.



From the article at American Prospect:

By Barbara T. Dreyfuss
Web Exclusive: 02.09.07


The Justice Department Legal Counsel's office recently held meetings with lawyers of other departments to discuss strategy for responding to congressional requests for documents and hearing appearances. In January, Senator Grassley charged at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing that the DOJ has started running training "events" for other offices of the executive branch, teaching them how to handle congressional inquiries and hearings. Grassley's office says they were tipped off to this by someone in the Justice Department worried about this new program.
Grassley voiced concern that the new training sessions are "lessons to stiff-arm Congress." He said he drew this conclusion from the "unnecessary hurdles and roadblocks from the department" he encountered in his recent efforts to investigate the FDA, the FBI, and the SEC while chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. Responding to Grassley at the hearing, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales denied there was any "coordinated effort to try to coach them about how to answer questions." Rather, he said, "it's to make sure that we are providing the appropriate level of cooperation, because we do have an obligation -- to try to accommodate competing legitimate interests."



Grassley's exchange with Gonzales occurred during the first Judiciary Committee oversight hearing held by its new Democratic chairman, Patrick Leahy of Vermont. Leahy has expressed concern repeatedly over the years about DOJ's unresponsiveness to his questions. In December, the Justice Department rebuffed a request from him for documents on the detention of suspected terrorists. Leahy, Charles Schumer of New York, and other senators clashed with Gonzales at last month's concerning the DOJ's lack of cooperation with congressional inquiries into DOJ's own controversies, including charges of illegal wiretaps and sending detainees abroad to be tortured. Grassley criticized the DOJ for refusing for years to brief Congress about its investigation into the 2001 anthrax attacks, and accused it of "thumbing the nose at congressional oversight."




But Grassley moved beyond those issues in demanding to know if the Justice Department was also teaching other agencies to be evasive and stymie congressional inquiry through its training sessions. The senator was particularly concerned that some training sessions are being run by the Office of Legislative Affairs, which, he charged, was "the source of unnecessary and inappropriate foot-dragging in many of my oversight efforts over the years."
Before the hearing, Grassley had requested materials the DOJ was using in the training sessions, in order to question Gonzales about them. But the Attorney General claimed he had never received the request. Gonzales promised to find out why the documents weren't delivered. Grassley says he still hasn't received any materials from the DOJ and questions whether Justice is really making a "sincere effort" to respond. .......
An activist Democratic Congress may give added back-up to several investigations, launched by both Grassley in the Finance Committee and Arlen Specter in the Judiciary Committee, that have provoked resistance from the DOJ. Grassley has conducted high-profile hearings on the FDA over the past several years, featuring a number of whistleblowers, and previously lambasted the DOJ for attempting to stall or frustrate his investigations of FDA and HHS.
Last summer, the Finance Committee was looking into the role of falsified clinical data in the FDA approval of a drug. After Grassley accused the Justice Department of working with HHS to obstruct that investigation, finance committee staff were blocked from interviewing FDA investigators by the Justice Department. Grassley took the extraordinary step of going directly to FDA offices to speak with FDA personnel, but was still not allowed access to them.




In a December hearing of the Judiciary Committee, just before Congress changed hands, Grassley and the panel's then-chairman, Specter, uncovered further evidence of Justice Department collusion in efforts to thwart congressional inquiry and intimidate whistleblowers. This involved the unheard-of step of subpoenaing confidential discussions between a whistleblower and congressional staff.
That hearing focused on charges, by former Securities and Exchange Commission attorney Gary Aguirre, that an investigation into insider trading by one of the largest hedge funds was squelched by SEC officials. Aguirre had wanted to take testimony from a prominent Wall Street figure, who was also a major fundraiser for President Bush. When he pressed the point, he was not only prevented from doing so -- he was fired.


After Aguirre wrote a letter to SEC Chairman Christopher Cox in September 2005 exposing these events, the Inspector General of the SEC, Walter Stachnik, conducted a cursory investigation into Aguirre's accusations. Without even questioning Aguirre, but only talking to the SEC officials he had accused, the IG dismissed the allegations. Last week, in an interim report on their investigation into the entire matter, Grassley and Specter castigated the IG for a "seriously flawed" investigation.
After the IG's whitewash investigation, Aguirre went to the Senate Judiciary and Finance Committees, which began a serious investigation. Committee staff reviewed thousands of pages of material and questioned numerous witnesses. Under intense congressional scrutiny, the SEC reopened its inquiry into the hedge fund and the Inspector General renewed his review of SEC officials.
But the IG went further, much further, than merely reopening his investigation into SEC actions. He issued a subpoena to Aguirre, which went beyond a request for documents supporting his charges. It included an extraordinary demand, unheard-of by Grassley and his staff, for communication between the whistleblower and Senate investigators.
The Justice Department, acting as the IG's lawyer, attempted to enforce the subpoena. They did that even after Aguirre had provided 250 pages of details supporting his allegations.



Grassley and Specter raised "constitutional objections" to the subpoena with the Justice Department. They saw it as a direct attack on Congress's role as watchdog over the executive. Grassley told the Prospect that "if whistleblowers know that we would give out information that came to us, we're not going to have any whistleblowers come to us anymore. They have to trust us."
And Aguirre says the subpoena also punished whistleblowers -- he says he has "had to spend thousands of dollars on an attorney."
Specter, in releasing the interim report on the SEC investigation, labeled the subpoena a "preposterous" action. He emphasized that Congress has "constitutional oversight responsibilities, and we obviously cannot conduct those responsibilities if the information we glean is going to be subject to somebody else's review," He and Grassley made clear they intend to pursue it further.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-10-07 01:19 PM
Response to Original message
1. I couldn't agree with you more.
K&R :kick:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NV Whino Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-10-07 01:22 PM
Response to Original message
2. The second
Cheney has to go first.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seafan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-10-07 01:28 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. It looks as if Mr. Fitzgerald is already looking at Mr. Big Time. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bananarepublican Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-10-07 05:17 PM
Response to Reply #4
21. Could Cheney really be in Fitzy's cross-hairs? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NV Whino Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-10-07 06:37 PM
Response to Reply #21
26. I believe he is.
Fitz has had to approach it in a 'round about way, but he's getting there. He seems to be a very thorough fellow.

That said, let's impeach Gonzolazes in the mean time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bananarepublican Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-11-07 12:10 AM
Response to Reply #26
28. Once Gonzo is gone, Cheney and Bush won't have him running interference.
The penny has finally dropped on your get Gonzo first approach. Doh!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dogday Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-10-07 01:23 PM
Response to Original message
3. Damn right, I have been waiting for this one.................. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peacetalksforall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-10-07 01:30 PM
Response to Original message
5. Agree. Ashcroft seems like an honor guard for angels compared
Edited on Sat Feb-10-07 01:31 PM by higher class
to this pathetic excuse for a human being.

Why do we have to have Attorney General's who are political? Why can't we have an Attorney General for the people?

This is a very sick arrangement, it seems.

It certainly reflects the sickness that is this administration - a people's disease and the cure is in the distance, if it's not too late.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-10-07 01:57 PM
Response to Original message
6. Agree....he smirks his way through hearings and thumbs his nose
and requests for more information. I don't know if an AG can be impeached but it's long past time he was forced to step down.

Thanks for the link to the article.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seafan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-10-07 02:12 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. Yes, impeachment applies to "all civil officers of the United States."
According to John Dean in Refocusing the Impeachment Movement on Administration Officials Below the President and Vice-President

December 15, 2006


The Constitution's Impeachment Clause applies to all "civil officers of the United States" - not to mention the president, vice president and federal judges. It is not clear who, precisely, is among those considered "civil officers," but the group certainly includes a president's cabinet and sub-cabinet, as well as the senior department officials and the White House staff (those who are issued commissions by the president and serve the President and Vice President).



Gonzales is, hands down, the Enabler in Chief.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grasswire Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-10-07 02:03 PM
Response to Original message
7. squeeze that weasel big time
If they really put the screws on him, he might even flip.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HCE SuiGeneris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-10-07 02:15 PM
Response to Original message
9. Corrupt criminal as our head law enforcement officer.
Fuck! Who are we... in that we allow this shit? :mad:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bonhomme Richard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-10-07 02:19 PM
Response to Original message
10. Get rid of Gonzales and the whole.............
house of cards falls because the justice department will not be running interference for them anymore.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seafan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-10-07 02:24 PM
Response to Reply #10
13. Exactly. He covers Bush and Cheney for their crimes while they plunder, rape and murder.
Gonzales must be removed immediately.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bananarepublican Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-10-07 05:19 PM
Response to Reply #10
22. Who would replace him? I guess the replacement's confirmation...
... hearing would be a little more thorough than last time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Swamp Rat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-10-07 02:21 PM
Response to Original message
11. ... not Darth Cheney???
:yoiks:



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seafan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-10-07 02:33 PM
Response to Reply #11
15. 30 minutes after Gonzales' removal would still be a respectable *second place* for Big Time.
That graphic is creepy!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Swamp Rat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-10-07 02:38 PM
Response to Reply #15
17. yes... creepy...
:yoiks:



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Olney Blue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-10-07 02:33 PM
Response to Reply #11
16. So many impeachable criminals. so little time......
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
unblock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-10-07 02:23 PM
Response to Original message
12. if you can't impeach this faux intellectual weasel, who can you impeach?
he is a walking, talking personification of the disgraced republican philosophy of confidently and authoritatively espousing complete and utter crap.

as if all there is to legal discourse is coming up with any old bu**sh** argument, no matter how idiotic, and mouth it confidently.

he is a complete and utter disgrace to the nation, the legal profession, and whatever schools have the ignominy of having conferred his degrees.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Edweird Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-10-07 02:26 PM
Response to Original message
14. Sure, why not
He is another of the dirtbags destroying our country. Just as long as we do it by Wednesday. Cheney on Thursday. Fartknocker on Friday. Party on Saturday.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Felinity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-10-07 02:57 PM
Response to Original message
18. Kicked, Rec'd & Bookmarked
Alberto Gonzales is an embarrassment to human intelligence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
havocmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-10-07 03:02 PM
Response to Original message
19. Sounds good, except...
if he goes first, the other bozos are still in position to pardon.

Think Dick should just invite him out hunting instead :evilgrin:

Isn't today Shoot a Lawyer Day?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seafan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-10-07 04:27 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. If he was impeached, removed and then pardoned, he could not retake his old job.
...as I understand it, according to John Dean.

If impeached and convicted, Gonazales would be barred from further government service.



Lowering the aim of an impeachment effort to focus on those who have aided and abetted, or directly engaged in, the commission of high crimes and misdemeanors, would have all the positives, and none of the negatives, of going after Bush and Cheney. It would not be an effort to overturn the 2004 election, but rather to rid the government of those who have participated, along with Bush and Cheney, in abuses and misuses of power; indeed, many among them have actually encouraged Bush and Cheney to undertake the offensive activities.

Many of these men (and a few women) are young enough that it is very likely that they will return to other posts in future Republican Administrations, and based on their experience in the Bush/Cheney Administration, they can be expected to make the offensive conduct of this presidency the baseline for the next president they serve. Impeachment, however, would prevent that from happening.

It will be recalled that Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution states: "Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States." (Emphasis added.) After any civil officer has been impeached, under the rules of the Senate, it requires only a simple majority vote to add the disqualification from holding future office.

In addition, it is likely that the impeachment process of any official in a position below that of the president or vice president, would be treated the same as the impeachment of federal judges. The work is done in both the House and Senate by special subcommittees, so it does not consume the attention of the full bodies until the final votes.





Yes, I wonder how James E. Baker III's brother-in-law is feeling these days...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
havocmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-10-07 05:47 PM
Response to Reply #20
23. Yeah, but would he go back to being bush's personal lawyer?
He never really stopped bein that anyway. He sure as hell isn't America's attorney. ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seafan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-10-07 06:31 PM
Response to Reply #23
24. Undoubtedly. Even El Diablo might need *representin'* sometime...
....very soon.

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madokie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-10-07 06:33 PM
Response to Original message
25. You'll get no argument from me
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-10-07 06:52 PM
Response to Original message
27. ok.
Edited on Sat Feb-10-07 06:52 PM by LWolf
I don't have a preference for order; I just want to start convicting and evicting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat May 04th 2024, 08:03 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC