Gonzales

[TheMercenary]

Ok, what do you all think? Monday he was basically playing word games and trying not to say that his discussion with Ashcroft in his hospital bed had nothing to do with the domestic eavesdropping program.... I think he is full of shit.

Now they, Congress, is about to issue contempt citations.

Are we headed into a full blown Constitutional crisis, or will they just stonewall for the next xteen months till the point is moot?

[BigV]

I have heard excerpts of Gonzales' testimony, and it all stinks to me too. That's really, really sad.

I think we're in that "Constitutional crisis" right now. It's happening in slow motion, like a tug of war or a wrestling match. It's not uniform or linear. But I believe it is inexorably moving in the direction of more power to the Executive and less power for the Legislative, indeed, less power for the Judicial. The branches should be balanced, our country works better with the balance, and it's out of balance now and getting worse.

I also think that the Executive will continue to stonewall, for the next xteen years. And not just forward, but backward too. I can't remember the cite right now, but sealing, extending the period under seal for records from before his time is another example of the secrecy that is corroding the public's confidence in our government. It's soooo easy to presume the worst when the facts are unknown.

[Happy Monkey]

Apparently Gonzales, despite his weaseling, managed to contradict some documented evidence and Congress is going to try to get a special counsel to investigate him for perjury. Should be interesting. I wonder how independent the DOJ's Solicitor General is.

And I disagree that it becomes moot when Bush goes out of office. Even if we can't prevent further damage, prosecuting past crime remains important.

[Flint]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

And I disagree that it becomes moot when Bush goes out of office. Even if we can't prevent further damage, prosecuting past crime remains important.

It's not a moot point on principle, but in reality, our political will extends as far as a TV news cycle. Nu-Democracy has to put asses in seats.

[glatt]

All of this couldn't be happening to a more deserving guy. We discussed him and his fucked up legal writings a bit in this thread when he was appointed to this position. I like Jaguar's quote the best.

Originally Posted by jaguar

this guy is just a bucket of slime in human form.

I've hated Gonzales ever since he was White House counsel. He's pro-torture. In my mind that's a much worse crime than lying to a bunch of senators, but if this is what takes him down, then I'm all for it.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

And I disagree that it becomes moot when Bush goes out of office. Even if we can't prevent further damage, prosecuting past crime remains important.

Add one more name to Bush's outgoing Presidential pardon list.

[tw]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Are we headed into a full blown Constitutional crisis, or will they just stonewall for the next xteen months till the point is moot?

Gonzales is nothing more than an administration lightning rod. While he remains dangled out there, the administration is probably divorcing itself of Gonzales - similar to what happened to Harvey Pitts of the SEC, Michael Brown of FEMA or John Bolton in the UN. While Gonzales dangles, then criticism is not challenging other parts of the administration. And when Gonzales is removed, blame resides with Gonzales; not the administration.

Different is what happened in Watergate. Once John Sirrica let those Watergate burglar know how severe their punishment would be, then the house of cards fell exposing the #1 crook - Nixon.

Currently one third of the nation is more interested in extremist political agendas rather than corruption in this government. Therefore another Watergate is not possible. Currently the Congress does not appear to have something equivalent to Senators Ervin and Baker.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by tw

Gonzales is nothing more than an administration lightning rod. While he remains dangled out there, the administration is already divorsing itself of Gonzales - similar to what happened to Harvey Pitts of the SEC or John Bolton in the UN.

What does "administration" mean? Isn't Gonzales a key player? Or is Bush the only member of the Administration?

[tw]

Originally Posted by glatt

What does "administration" mean? Isn't Gonzales a key player? Or is Bush the only member of the Administration?

Do you remember the Saturday night massacre? It still was not sufficient to bring down the administration. Gonzales is just another layer in a multilayer protection scheme. The administration is Cheney and his front man George Jr. Gonzales is just another expendable pawn. Easily isolated and fired as if he - not the administration - was the culprit.

Remember, Brown of FEMA then decided to not be a fall guy. What did that honesty get him? Even his boss who was guilty of mismanagement during Katrina got away unscathed even after Brown refused to take the blame. Gonzales will (probably) not be punished enough to 'give up' his bosses.

[TheMercenary]

I would disagree that Gonzales is in someway isolated from the Administration. If they can peel away the layers and get a few more to talk about the differences in the sworn testimony, most recently by the DIC of the FBI, there could be some real touble.

[tw]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

I would disagree that Gonzales is in someway isolated from the Administration.

I did not mean to imply that Gonzales is (yet) isolated from the Administration. He is not getting stunning support. But we have no reason to believe he is being cut off (coyote style?)

Gonzales is a rather interesting case. Gonzales is one of George Jr's friends from TX. Like Harriet Miers and Karen Hughes, George Jr's routine is to protect his friends. But if Cheney has had enough of Gonzales, then Gonzales will declare himself tired or leaving for personal reasons - suddenly. Being a close friend of George Jr did little for Hughes or Miers. George Jr does not make such decisions. When the real president decides Gonzales is a liability, then Gonzales will get cut off immediately like breast cancer - as quickly as Paul O'Neill was removed from Sec of Treasury.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by tw

When the real president decides Gonzales is a liability, then Gonzales will get cut off immediately like breast cancer - as quickly as Paul O'Neill was removed from Sec of Treasury.

I would agree with that much.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by tw

I did not mean to imply that Gonzales is (yet) isolated from the Administration. He is not getting stunning support. But we have no reason to believe he is being cut off (coyote style?)

A lizard's tail is part of the lizard...

[glatt]

Originally Posted by tw

I did not mean to imply that Gonzales is (yet) isolated from the Administration. He is not getting stunning support. But we have no reason to believe he is being cut off (coyote style?)

...

When the real president decides Gonzales is a liability, then Gonzales will get cut off immediately like breast cancer - as quickly as Paul O'Neill was removed from Sec of Treasury.

Cheney is supporting him, for now anyway.

Cheney also defended embattled Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, saying that Gonzales "has testified truthfully" before Congress and has performed well as head of the Justice Department.

"I'm a big fan of Al's," Cheney said in the radio interview. ". . . I think Al has done a good job under difficult circumstances. The debate between he and the Senate is something they're going to have to resolve. But I think he has testified truthfully."

Cheney said he does not agree with lawmakers, including Sens. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) and Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), who say that Gonzales's credibility has been gravely damaged. "I think the key is whether or not he has the confidence of the president, and he clearly does," Cheney said.

[xoxoxoBruce]

"I think the key is whether or not he has the confidence of the president, and he clearly does," Cheney said.

Cheney feels the key is whether Bush is happy and not that he lied. Why does this not surprise me? maybe because the last 7 years have been about what makes Bush happy, truth and justice be damned.