It's about friggin' time! I am surprised in two ways: that he clung to power despite multiple scandals for so long, and that having hung in there all year he couldn't stay until the end of Bush's term, as many had speculated he would.
I wonder how this will effect various Congressional investigations? Maybe a special prosecutor will be appointed?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I doubt it. If anything, it'll help stonewall those investigations until the election.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
I think they waited until enough time had passed after a Gonzales-related news cycle that they could say he was leaving on his own terms.
My teenage daughter does something similar - she won't start her homework until X minutes after the last time we've told her to start.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Why Tom? Because of the likely temporary replacement, current Solicitor General Paul Clement?
I wonder if a deal was struck with Clement before the resignation/firing, to delay investigations as much as possible?
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
"Alberto Gonzales decided to give me a great birthday present this year." - Chris, my supervisor.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Word is that anyone in the adminstration after Labor Day will be there till the end of term. I think that, plus the encroaching investigations, plus the Daily Show and Colbert Report going on two-week vacation starting today all led to today's announcement.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: Word is that anyone in the adminstration after Labor Day will be there till the end of term. I think that, plus the encroaching investigations, plus the Daily Show and Colbert Report going on two-week vacation starting today all led to today's announcement.
That theory would hold if "Real Time w/ Bill Maher" hadn't just started its new season. Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
How long can they go without a Congress-confirmed Attorney General?
I really didn't think that AG was going to step down from AG because I expect that impeachment procedings will soon follow anyone who could get past the current Congress getting access to what the DoJ and the White House have been up to the last 2 or 3 years.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: Word is that anyone in the adminstration after Labor Day will be there till the end of term. I think that, plus the encroaching investigations, plus the Daily Show and Colbert Report going on two-week vacation starting today all led to today's announcement.
I've read about that Labor Day deadline as well. Plus, Congress is in recess so there's less reaction from Democrats than there would be last month or next month.
Mr. Squicky, maybe I need my morning caffeine infusion but I can't decipher the syntax of your last sentence. Are you saying Bush is bound to be impeached if the Firewall Formerly known as Gonzales resigned, or Gonzales' successor will be impeached, or what?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Sorry, I was unclear. I believe Bush will very likely be impeached if Gonzales's successor needs to be confirmed by Congress and gets access to what has been going on in the last 2+ years.
I'm wondering how long they can go without having a confirmed AG and if it is long enough so that the person who gets in won't have enough time or, alternatively, if they'll have enough time to destroy the most damning evidence.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
So the question is, what will the reason be when he goes on the inevitable talk show circuit? To spend more time with his family? Or rehab?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Plus, Congress is in recess so there's less reaction from Democrats than there would be last month or next month.
Bush might appoint someone this week, which, according to one interpretation of the recess appointment clause, would keep Gonzales's successor in office until January 3, 2009 (when the next Congress is seated).
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
So he resigned. The real question is if he's going to be able to *recall* if has resigned when he gets up in the morning about a month from now Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'd be surprised if Michael Chertoff were confirmed to be honest. John Edwards has already come out and said it's ridiculous to replace the guy who authored Guantanamo with the guy responsible for Katrina. Between that and Chertoff's support of the PATRIOT ACT, I really don't see Democrats going for it, and they can sink him.
If Bush does a recess appointment, he'd better be ready for the backlash. Congressional Democrats would be pissed. And frankly so would I, as I think it would be a blatent misuse of the Constitution. I know Democratic presidents have done it too, and I find those to be a misuse of the Constitution as well, as have Bush's past recess appointments where the appointments were made specifically to avoid the Senate. The point of that clause is to keep government moving by filling vacancies during long recesses of the Congress. It is not there to provide the Executive Branch a way to circumvent the Legislative Branch.
If Bush uses a recess appointment for Chertoff, I hope Democrats punish him for it, severely.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: So he resigned. The real question is if he's going to be able to *recall* if has resigned when he gets up in the morning about a month from now
Not under oath.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I'd be surprised if Michael Chertoff were confirmed to be honest. John Edwards has already come out and said it's ridiculous to replace the guy who authored Guantanamo with the guy responsible for Katrina. Between that and Chertoff's support of the PATRIOT ACT, I really don't see Democrats going for it, and they can sink him.
If Bush does a recess appointment, he'd better be ready for the backlash. Congressional Democrats would be pissed. And frankly so would I, as I think it would be a blatent misuse of the Constitution. I know Democratic presidents have done it too, and I find those to be a misuse of the Constitution as well, as have Bush's past recess appointments where the appointments were made specifically to avoid the Senate. The point of that clause is to keep government moving by filling vacancies during long recesses of the Congress. It is not there to provide the Executive Branch a way to circumvent the Legislative Branch.
If Bush uses a recess appointment for Chertoff, I hope Democrats punish him for it, severely.
<sigh> ...Because it would be so unlike him to abuse power that way... And the Democrats have done such a good job at standing up to him...
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
From what I read, there are rumors that Harry Reid threatened to bring the Senate in on pro forma sessions to prevent a recess appointment and used that to levarage a non-recess appointment agreement from President Bush.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Can you link that, Squick? I haven't seen more than headlines, and that kind of maneuvering always interests me.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I don't know how solid this is. As I said, I regard it on the level with rumors.
It looks like, if such an agreement was reached, it was done in early August, so the AG post was possibly not on the radar.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I hadn't heard about that measure to make the president pay for Air Force One flights on campaign trips. I think that's a fantastic idea for a law, and I'm not surprised at all that Bush would want to veto that. It's smart to wait for the Congress to come back into session so they can override a veto.
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
The Democrats DEFINITELY need to insist that the Senate confirm the new AG--nobody should stand for another recess appointment, especially on a position so important.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:Word is that anyone in the adminstration after Labor Day will be there till the end of term. I think that, plus the encroaching investigations, plus the Daily Show and Colbert Report going on two-week vacation starting today all led to today's announcement.
This is the first thing I thought, too, but more in a the-shows-are-going-to-be-so-annoyed way. Surely they (being the people involved in the resignation) can't have actually thought about this, can they?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:The saddest part about this is that in a few weeks, he's not even going to remember being Attorney General. It's like a Flowers for Algernon situation.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Teshi:
quote:Word is that anyone in the adminstration after Labor Day will be there till the end of term. I think that, plus the encroaching investigations, plus the Daily Show and Colbert Report going on two-week vacation starting today all led to today's announcement.
This is the first thing I thought, too, but more in a the-shows-are-going-to-be-so-annoyed way. Surely they (being the people involved in the resignation) can't have actually thought about this, can they?
I doubt they actually planned it specifically around the Colbert Report and Daily Show (though I wouldn't blame them, since they really do have a rather large audience and tend to lambaste the Administration on a nightly basis).
More than likely it was planned for today because of the recess starting, and because as Josh Bolten said everyone who wanted out had to be out by Labor Day. I think it had more to do with the recess, and hoping to catch less flak from Congressional leaders (while keeping the door open for a recess appointment) than with Comedy Central, I'd say it was more of a coincidence.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote: "Alberto Gonzales is the first Attorney General who thought the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth were three different things."-- Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-IL):
quote:More than likely it was planned for today because of the recess starting, and because as Josh Bolten said everyone who wanted out had to be out by Labor Day. I think it had more to do with the recess, and hoping to catch less flak from Congressional leaders (while keeping the door open for a recess appointment) than with Comedy Central, I'd say it was more of a coincidence.
I don't know, I think the White House has more to fear from The Daily Show and The Colbert Report than they do from Congress.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:More than likely it was planned for today because of the recess starting, and because as Josh Bolten said everyone who wanted out had to be out by Labor Day. I think it had more to do with the recess, and hoping to catch less flak from Congressional leaders (while keeping the door open for a recess appointment) than with Comedy Central, I'd say it was more of a coincidence.
I don't know, I think the White House has more to fear from The Daily Show and The Colbert Report than they do from Congress.
Indeed! And lets not forget the members of Congress probably watch the shows as well.
Though to be honest I really think it has more to do with congress being in recess, but those two shows could have WELL been taken into account.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I really don't think the principals involved - Gonzales and Bush - gave either show a second thought, other than lumping them in with "the media." The adminstration's PR people might be more concerned, but I don't know how much pull they have if they let Bush's Viet Nam speech go through.
I am surprised this wasn't announced on a Friday afternoon though, that's usually when they try to bury stuff to miss most of the effective news coverage. A tactic which is less and less effective thanks to the Internet and the eternal news cycle.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Surely they (being the people involved in the resignation) can't have actually thought about this, can they?
As far as I can tell, every major Administration resignation in the last year has come on the first day of a Daily Show recess.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Aaaaugh! "My family and I to begin...." *clutches head* Even in resignation, Gonzalez stuns me with his Not-Someone-Tom-Can-Respectness.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Thanks for the links, Squicky. Interesting, even as rumors. If Gonzales's resignation is effective Sep. 17, then recess appointments aren't an issue, anyway.
My best guess is that Bush will appoint an outsider to the post - someone who can't answer any questions about the internal workings of justice. A state AG, judge, or big-time U.S. Attorney.
Just a guess.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Thanks for the links, Squicky. Interesting, even as rumors. If Gonzales's resignation is effective Sep. 17, then recess appointments aren't an issue, anyway.
My best guess is that Bush will appoint an outsider to the post - someone who can't answer any questions about the internal workings of justice. A state AG, judge, or big-time U.S. Attorney.
Just a guess.
This is EXACTLY what somebody who has been tapped to fill such a prestigious position would say.
*eyes Dagonee very suspiciously*
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
edit: this was independent of Dag's recess post above, not a response to it/edit
Congress will be back in session Sept. 8. And Gonzales' letter says his resignation is effective Sept 17. So I think that makes a recess appointment impossible?
Yeah, the office won't be vacant, so no recess appointment is possible.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Yeah, it totally will be an outsider appointed AG. Any high level DoJ official would be raked over the coals in confirmation.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Any high level Administration official at all would be raked over the coals, it doesn't matter what department.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
True, but a DoJ official might have juicy info that various Congressional committees have been digging into for months/years. This would make the confirmation hearings very uncomfortable for the nominee and the administration. They have to pick someone outside the department, or at least outside of the beltway like a US attorney like Dag guessed.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:They have to pick someone outside the department, or at least outside of the beltway, a US attorney like Dag.
Fixed. Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
The White House is seemingly saying they are going to nominate Michael Chertoff. I don't see that one working out for them, but I've underestimated the pusillanimity of the Democrats in Congress before, so who knows?
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: My best guess is that Bush will appoint an outsider to the post - someone who can't answer any questions about the internal workings of justice.
Hmm. I wonder what Harriet Meyers is up to lately?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I can't tell if that's a trial balloon or someone is jumping the gun in reporting that one. From the Post:
quote:Potential candidates mentioned by officials on Capitol Hill or within the administration yesterday include former solicitor general Theodore B. Olson; homeland security adviser Frances Fragos Townsend; Asa Hutchinson, former head of the Drug Enforcement Administration; and Larry D. Thompson, who served as deputy attorney general during Bush's first term. Officials largely dismissed speculation about Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff as a possible replacement, noting that such a move could lead to two contentious confirmation hearings -- one for him and one for his replacement.
I don't consider any of that more reliable than the reports you're referring to, of course. Just throwing the additional information out there.
Someone with actual law enforcement experience (which would include Department of Justice experience) would be a nice thing to consider for the country's chief law enforcement officer.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Fox News posited Orin Hatch as a possible replacement as he has a legal background (Head of the Senate Judiciary committee) and is very friendly with the Bush Administration. He is certainly one of the more prominant Republicans around.
But that's just speculation, though I wouldn't put it past Hatch to be thinking about tugging some strings.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Here in Chicago, we are speculating on the very long shot of Patrick Fitzgerald. It isn't likely, but it would be nice.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
The administration might well run into the same problem they did with the War Czar opening: a lack of qualified candidates willing to take the job.
quote: Officials largely dismissed speculation about Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff as a possible replacement, noting that such a move could lead to two contentious confirmation hearings -- one for him and one for his replacement.
This makes sense to me--Chertoff would have an uphill battle for his confimation, plus the one for his replacement. It just doesn't seem like a wise choice.
My guess is the most likely candidates are either Hatch or another senator or ex-senator.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Chertoff would have an uphill battle for his confimation, plus the one for his replacement. It just doesn't seem like a wise choice.
Alternatively, if they could win both appointments, it would deal a possibly fatal blow to the Democratic party.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
It might weaken the Dems, but not fatally. But why should Bush gamble on winning? Hasn't he lost enough gambles to want a safer path?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
What does he have to lose? He's a lame duck, all his people are abandoning him, and the thing he's built his presidency around, the Iraq war, is in a shambles. The only people left on his side now aren't ever going to stop supporting him. If an honest person who cares about serving the people and not just the President gets confirmed as AG, things will be scaled back at the least, and there's a very real possibility that he will get impeached. The one thing he has going for him is that his opponents are the Democrats. Why not gamble on them folding?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote: If an honest person who cares about serving the people and not just the President gets confirmed as AG, ... there's a very real possibility that he will get impeached
I think you're making a HUGE leap here.
For one there are many, many, many honest people who care about serving the people and not just the President who do not see impeachment as either desirable or deserved.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
What was I thinking? The logical, safer, wiser path will be shunned by Bush, as he has done so often before.
Seriously though, maybe he will double down. It wouldn't surprise me.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Aaaaugh! "My family and I to begin...." *clutches head* Even in resignation, Gonzalez stuns me with his Not-Someone-Tom-Can-Respectness.
Sounds like it's a good time for he to brush up on the difference between a subject and an object.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Dag is right: I think impeachment this late in the term is unlikely. Also, loyalty to Bush and/or Republicans in general is the most important criteria for the new AG. Anyway, the choice isn't between Chertoff and some Mr. Smith reformer, it's between Chertoff and some other Republican lawyers willing to go along with Bush.
Curiously, Gonzales can possibly still be impeached despite resigning! I didn't know this till this week, but resigning doesn't protect Cabinet Secretaries from impeachment. In fact, the only Cabinet Secretary ever impeached was impeached after he resigned (though he was acquitted in his Senate trial): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_W._Belknap
Impeach Gonzales, the most inept, lying AG in memory!
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Errr...I think people are missing my meaning. I think it's likely that there were things that the DoJ under Gonzales and White House have gotten up to that are clear high crimes and misdemeanors that will lead to people getting impeached and going to jail assuming that the AG post doesn't go to a Bush insider. With Gonzales resigning, this seems less likely, but I still consider it a significant possibility.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
After watching that top ten thing...
My God in heaven. He's either lying or the most inept AG ever.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Errr...I think people are missing my meaning.
I got your meaning. My comment stands.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
This comment?
quote:For one there are many, many, many honest people who care about serving the people and not just the President who do not see impeachment as either desirable or deserved.
I don't see how that makes any sense if you understood my comment.
In the scenario I said was a possibility, the honest person finds out new information in his role as the Attorney General. You're not saying anything about what I said.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: This comment?
quote:For one there are many, many, many honest people who care about serving the people and not just the President who do not see impeachment as either desirable or deserved.
I don't see how that makes any sense if you understood my comment.
Quote the entire comment, Squick, not just part of it.
In the scenario I said was a possibility, the honest person finds out new information in his role as the Attorney General. You're not saying anything about what I said.
You said the appointment and confirmation of an honest, person who cares about serving the people and not just the president would make impeachment "a very real possibility."
I disagreed with your conclusion.
I didn't do a detailed analysis as to why. We've done that, gotten nowhere.
I don't see how you couldn't see how stating that you are making a huge leap and stating one reason why it's a leap - with an explicit statement that it's only one reason - isn't saying anything about what you said.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Because the reason you gave has nothing to do with what I said.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Yes, it does.
Your whole case is based on the assumption that no honest person who cares about serving the people and not just the president has such information.
I think that's a huge leap.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
So you believe that there are honest people in the very upper levels of the Bush administration?
I think you're the one making a huge leap.
And, again, what you first said didn't address what I said at all.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:So you believe that there are honest people in the very upper levels of the Bush administration?
I think you're the one making a huge leap.
Yes, but you're wrong.
quote:And, again, what you first said didn't address what I said at all.
Yes, it did. Repeating it doesn't change that fact.
I'm sorry you can't seem to comprehend that people other than yourself are entitled to make posts that state only conclusions without making complete arguments. But when that's what you post, expecting more is fairly ridiculous.
Continuing to insist on something that is manifestly untrue in light of subsequent explanation is simply sad.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)