Gonzalez to resign, be replaced by Chertoff?

[BrainGlutton]

Story here, (http://www.usnews.com/blogs/washington-whispers/2007/8/24/maybe-trading-up-soon-at-justice.html) but at present there's nothing to go on but "the buzz among top Bushies." If it happened, could Chertoff get confirmed easily? And who would replace him at Homeland Security?

I don't suppose it would affect Congressional investigations of Gonzalez' conduct in office one way or another.

[ElvisL1ves]

Chertoff is the best nominee one can expect to get, so yes, he'd get confirmed.
It doesn't matter who replaces him at HS.
And the Gonzalez problem is primarily his own fitness for office, and Rove's involvement, so yes, the investigations would peter out.

[BrainGlutton]

And the Gonzalez problem is primarily his own fitness for office, and Rove's involvement, so yes, the investigations would peter out.

No, the Gonzalez problem is mainly the attorney-firings affair, which is part of a coordinated program to rig future elections against Democratic candidates. A Dem-controlled Congress isn't going to let that go so easily.

[ElvisL1ves]

It was part of a past effort regarding past elections. There's too much public awareness of it now for it to work in the future. Most likely. We hope.

[Malodorous]

Well, Chertoff confirmation hearings would give Dems a good reason to bring up the gov't response to Katrina again, which depending on how close to '08 we are, might give Bush some pause in selecting Chertoff.

Indeed, the whole dept. of Homeland Security is pretty unpopular, I'm not sure the GOP would want to give the Dems another forum to grill its head on its various failings.

[davidm]

Since when does potential public disapproval prevent Bush from doing anything.

I think at this point the White House is more interested in covering their own ass than anything else. That means putting a reliable crony in charge of Justice.

[RTFirefly]

Chertoff is the best nominee one can expect to get, so yes, he'd get confirmed. The scary thing is, I expect you're right on both counts.

And I regard Chertoff as a political hack and a proven incompetent.

I would hope that the Dems would block the confirmation of any AG nominee who didn't have a much stronger track record of both competence and impartiality. But at this point my opinion of the Dems' effectiveness is pretty low.

[alphaboi867]

Well, Chertoff confirmation hearings would give Dems a good reason to bring up the gov't response to Katrina again, which depending on how close to '08 we are, might give Bush some pause in selecting Chertoff.
..

Can't Bush just have Gonzalez resign while Congress is in recess and appoint whoever he want's using a recess appointment (depriving the Senate of any say). That would last until 3 weeks before his term is up.

[BJMoose]

I wonder what Chertoff's gut feeling is about all this?

[ElvisL1ves]

Can't Bush just have Gonzalez resign while Congress is in recess
The WH has an agreement with Reid not to do that - the result of Reid's previously announcing plans to keep the Senate formally in session continuously, with a pro-forma gavel banging as required, in order to prevent any more such fuckyou appointments.

[BrainGlutton]

NPR's Morning Edition is saying -- repeatedly -- that Gonzalez will announce his resignation later today.

[Bricker]

No, the Gonzalez problem is mainly the attorney-firings affair...


It was. Now it's the commission of perjury in an apparent attempt to forestall inquiry into those firings. Fromw here I sit, the firings, while politically idiotic, were legal. Lying under oath to keep the details quiet, however, is most certainly illegal. And as I said here several weeks ago, it's for that reason that Gonzales needed to either resign or be fired.

I also said that a grand jury needed to hear perjury charges against him, and I think that should be the next step.

[Baldwin]

A couple weeks ago a reported asked Bush (occasionally they get to ask him a question) about Gonzalez being held to a high standard of accountability. Bush answered (as nearly as I recall): "I don't accept the premise of your question. Alberto Gonzalez hasn't done anything to be held accountable for."

So why is he resigning? Maybe he wants to spend more time with Karl Rove's family.

Well, I hope he he dies in a prison cell. (Not likely, but I'm a bit of a sentimentalist about these things.)

[Bricker]

Well, I hope he he dies in a prison cell. (Not likely, but I'm a bit of a sentimentalist about these things.)

Wow. What other crimes do you believe should carry the death penalty, or life in prison, as punishment?

[Malodorous]

So why is he resigning? Maybe he wants to spend more time with Karl Rove's family.

I think the official line is that the (unfounded, of course) accusations have become too much of a distraction for the Justice dept. and so Gonzales is resigning for the greater good.

[BrainGlutton]

WaPo (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/27/AR2007082700372.html?hpid=artslot) says Gonzalez will announce his resignation at a press conference at 10:30 this morning.

The departure leaves Bush with a key cabinet opening nearing the end of his second term. As controversy around Gonzales mounted, so has speculation about possible replacements. Among the names mentioned by lawmakers and their aides in recent weeks: Homeland Security secretary Michael Chertoff; former deputy attorney general James Comey and former deputy attorney Larry Thompson.

[Malodorous]

If Bush appoints Comey, I'll be forced to say something nice about the administration for probably the first time since at least '04.

[cosmosdan]

I hope they have Gonzalez's Medal of Freedom ready in time.

"Gonzo, you've done a heck of a job"

[BrainGlutton]

I hope they have Gonzalez's Medal of Freedom ready in time.

We laugh because it is funny, and we laugh because it is true.

[plnnr]

A couple of months ago the consensus of this Board was that Gonzo would never go - there were too many skeletons in the closet that could potentially come out during the confirmation hearings for a new AG.

What's changed?

[BrainGlutton]

A couple of months ago the consensus of this Board was that Gonzo would never go - there were too many skeletons in the closet that could potentially come out during the confirmation hearings for a new AG.

What's changed?

AGAG blinked.

[BrainGlutton]

Gonzalez Does Not Remember Resigning. (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/8/27/8184/57704)

[plnnr]

AGAG blinked.

I guess my bigger question was, what's changed from the AG's perspective?

If the only thing that was keeping him from leaving months ago was some misplaced loyalty to the President (rather than to the rule of law), then has he suddenly gotten that old time religion?

Our Accomplisher In Chief must be taking this one pretty hard.

[asterion]

Please, please, people, the man's name is Gonzales. Is it too much to ask to spell his name correctly?

As for his resignation and replacement, that should be fun watching. Both on the pundit shows (I can't wait for Countdown) and on C-Span.

[mhendo]

Can't Bush just have Gonzalez resign while Congress is in recess and appoint whoever he want's using a recess appointment (depriving the Senate of any say). That would last until 3 weeks before his term is up.
Apart from the agreement previously mentioned by ElvisL1ves, Bush's previous recess appointments at least had the support of many Republicans in the Congress, but that's something that would be far from guaranteed if he tried it again.

Bush's stock with Republican lawmakers is very low right now. Quite a few Republicans have been extremely angered by the whole Gonzales thing, and many are also keen to distance themselves from the Bush White House as much as possible in the hope that they can avoid being tainted by its problems in the run-up the the next election.

[BrainGlutton]

CNN seems to think Vick's guilty plea is a much more newsworth story of the day . . . but the question of whether Chertoff will replace Gonzales (thanx, asterion) at least came up for a mention.

[Malodorous]

I guess my bigger question was, what's changed from the AG's perspective?

If the only thing that was keeping him from leaving months ago was some misplaced loyalty to the President (rather than to the rule of law), then has he suddenly gotten that old time religion?

Our Accomplisher In Chief must be taking this one pretty hard.

You're assuming he resigned on his own initiative, he may have been asked to do so by the Prez. As for what changed, my guess is that the administration realized they didn't have enough support in Congress to pervent some sort of perjury investigation from going forward.

Or perhaps they intended to dump him all along, and just wanted to wait it out for a bit to make it look like they weren't caving to pressure.

[plnnr]

You're assuming he resigned on his own initiative, he may have been asked to do so by the Prez. As for what changed, my guess is that the administration realized they didn't have enough support in Congress to pervent some sort of perjury investigation from going forward.

Or perhaps they intended to dump him all along, and just wanted to wait it out for a bit to make it look like they weren't caving to pressure.

I'm still wondering as to motives. It was the widely held view on this Board the AG would never resign because that would open up the Administration's handling of various issues (elements of the security system primarily) up to scrutiny during the confirmation process for whoever has to follow Gonzales. Fair enough point. BushCo's extreme inner-apparatus loyalty also got batted around as a point. That's what gives me pause to think the Prez asked for the resignation - he (Bush) puts incredible stock in personal loyalty and I don't see him looking for a resignation that will 1) appear as him being disloyal to a fellow Texan that he's essentially groomed and 2) open the administration up to investigation during the confirmation process. In either instance, the Administration (or, perhaps more accurately, the President) is on the short end of the stick). As far as I can figure, the AG's resignation would have no impact on Congress' ability to carry on a perjury investigation even after AG resigns.

My money is that Gonzales finally had enough of being the goat and looking like a complete ass in front of Congress. "Enough of this shit - I'm heading to K Street."

[Great Dave]

Well, since his resignation is effective Sept 17, there will be no recess appointment. (Unless the confirmation takes too long, and Bush does it over a holiday recess.) I've heard speculation on NPR that John Danforth and Orrin Hatch are both possibilities. Danforth would bring tons of credibility that's so badly needed, much as Saxby did after Watergate.

[elucidator]

Credibility is not the first and foremost, loyalty is first and foremost. If they wanted credibility, they would have tapped Pat Fitzgerald, who has credibility up the wazoo. Trouble is, he's earned his credibillity, he appears to be as billed, an honest conservative of a stripe I thought extinct.

Not a team player. Lacks the crucial quality of loyalty to The Leader.

My WAG: its the "Big Enchilada" ploy developed by Nixon: throw one of the chubbier children off the troika and perhaps the wolves will be satisfied. "OK, OK! You got Gonzo! Enough, already!"

They're desperate. The slime revealed is not all, there is more. Only an utter Bushivik can be relied upon to do what needs be done.

[BobLibDem]

From where I sit, the firings, while politically idiotic, were legal.

Where is the line between inappropriate behavior and abuse of power? Some of the US Attorneys have said that they were pressured to pursue charges against Democrats before elections. If this is true, I call it abuse of power. If they were told NOT to pursue specific cases against Republicans, then I'd call it obstruction of justice. When you start bringing charges or witholding charges in order to influence elections, that undermines the entire democratic process. If that ain't a crime, it oughta be.

[elucidator]

It's the chutzpah principle: it wasn't made a crime because no one believed anyone could be brazenly corrupt enough to attempt it, or dumb enough to believe they would get away with it.

I don't much care about the legality, I don't need anyone to go to prison. I simply want full sunlight on this conspiracy of maggots.

[5 time champ]

I think they got the timing off though, Labor Day isn't until next Monday. Why not wait to make the announcement until this Friday @ 4:45 pm starting the long Labor Day weekend? Or is Gonzo really that incompetent that he got his days mixed up? Or maybe there is more bad news [for the Bush Administration anyway] to come out later this week?

[BrainGlutton]

I think they got the timing off though, Labor Day isn't until next Monday. Why not wait to make the announcement until this Friday @ 4:45 pm starting the long Labor Day weekend? Or is Gonzo really that incompetent that he got his days mixed up? Or maybe there is more bad news [for the Bush Administration anyway] to come out later this week?

Maybe they figured Vick's guilty plea would push the Gonzales story off the front page.

And maybe they're right.

[RTFirefly]

A couple of months ago the consensus of this Board was that Gonzo would never go - there were too many skeletons in the closet that could potentially come out during the confirmation hearings for a new AG.

What's changed?The fuck if I know, and I was definitely a part of that consensus.

My thinking was that it would be hard for Bush to find someone simultaneously un-hackish enough to get confirmed, but hackish enough so that, when in office, he would keep DoJ from investigating Bush's crooked allies and henchmen.

Maybe Bush's sense is that Congress has gotten back in the habit of caving in to Bush and being willing to rubber-stamp Chertoff. But your WAG is as good as mine.

[Baldwin]

Wow. What other crimes do you believe should carry the death penalty, or life in prison, as punishment?I don't believe in the death penalty. I do think Gonzales (can't believe I've been misspelling his name for so long) morally deserves being locked up for the rest of his life, regardless of what charges may or may not be brought against him. (Of course, that applies to so many in the current administration.)

When John Ashcroft left, I was foolish enough to say "Well, at least the next one has got to be an improvement." Ha! Won't say that again.

[Elendil's Heir]

Chertoff just might have too much post-Katrina baggage to get through the Senate. If not Danforth or Hatch, there must be some other William Websteresque gray eminence they can put in at DoJ. They're going to need him (or her) to calm the waters in the last few days of the President's term.

[Leaper]

Been looking over some conservative blogs, at least the major ones.

No one seems to have liked Gonzalez. They say he was a political bumbler, able to turn any situation into an embarassment to himself and his bosses.

Few, if any, seem to like Chertoff. The whole immigration thing really turned the tide against him, in addition to the stuff already mentioned.

So if Chertoff does get in, it seems only the Administration will be happy. And maybe Presidential candidates (Democrats get something else to shout about, Republicans get the opportunity to distance themselves from Bush in a way they know their constituents won't mind).

[elucidator]

Which underlines that if it is Chertoff, its by default, not by choice. They are on the fork: pick somebody with a reputation for stern integrity, and they risk having the giant economy sized Can O' Worms opened up. And the supply of absolute Bushiviks loyalists is declining drasticly, as the rodents exhibit nautical emergency behavior ("Swim away! Swim away!").

The overall impression is of a Republican party (or a faction thereof, to use a narrower brush...) determined to use the mechanisms of government to cement their grasp on power. And if everything they might wish to hide had already been revealed, they would bring in an iron-ass like Fitzgrald, whose very presence would confirm that. If he said "Nothing more to see here, move along, move along, you looky-loos", I'd be inclined to believe him.

Conclusion: there is something yet hidden, big enough to worry them, big enough so that any porcine cosmetics are preferable to facts. Big Trouble in Little China.

[Evil Captor]

It was part of a past effort regarding past elections. There's too much public awareness of it now for it to work in the future. Most likely. We hope.

I think you need to change your user name to "Pollyanna" if you're buying that notion. I think the DEMS would pull the same shit if they thought it would work.

[Evil Captor]

I think they got the timing off though, Labor Day isn't until next Monday. Why not wait to make the announcement until this Friday @ 4:45 pm starting the long Labor Day weekend? Or is Gonzo really that incompetent that he got his days mixed up? Or maybe there is more bad news [for the Bush Administration anyway] to come out later this week?

That's the question on my mind, too. First Rove bails, now Gonzo? Why is that? Is there some bomb about to go off? Some emails that got into the hands of someone not evil?

[Jonathan Chance]

Which underlines that if it is Chertoff, its by default, not by choice.

Hello? Am I the only one thinking of the hearings, here?

Gonzales resigns. Senate Democrats get to rake the replacement nominee over the coals for all of the lapses, imagined or not, of his predecessor.

Gonzales resigns and Chertoff replaces him. Senate Democarts get to rake the replacement nominee over the coals for all of the lapses, imagined or not, of his predecessor then get to do the same thing to the new Homeland Security nominee. Do you all really think the administration wants some nominee facing 10 days of 'So how do YOU think Bush fucked up in killing a major American city?' questions?

The safe money is anyone other than a sitting cabinet official.

[elucidator]

Its not like they got a lot of choices here. Either way, its a shit sandwhich, they are reduced to prefering mayonaise over mustard.

[elucidator]

An interesting take on the timing of all this, from Talking Points Memo, without which no citizen can hope to be well informed...

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/051656.php

Offered without further comment.

[BJMoose]

There is, of course, one other possiblity - Bush will simply leave the position open and have the number two guy play AG for the next year.


A few minutes back I thought, "We'll be able to figure this out when Bush's presidential papers become available for study someday." But then I realized that, given this administration's track record on accountability, when the George Walker Bush Presidential Library and Grill opens for business, the official archives will fit comfortably in a single file cabinet.

[BrainGlutton]

From Greg Palast's recent interview with fired U.S. Attorney David Iglesias: (http://www.gregpalast.com/american-nightmare-gonzales-wrong-and-illegal-and-unethical/#more-1825)

“They misjudged my character, I mean they really thought I was just going to roll over and give them what they wanted and when I didn’t, that I’d go away quietly but I just couldn’t do that. You know US Attorneys and the Justice Department have a history of not taking into consideration partisan politics. That should not be a factor. And what they tried to do is just wrong and illegal and unethical.”

When a federal prosecutor says something is illegal, it’s not just small talk. And the illegality wasn’t small. It’s called, “obstruction of justice,” and it’s a felony crime.

Specifically, Attorney General Gonzales, Iglesias told me, wanted him to bring what the prosecutor called “bogus voter fraud” cases. In effect, US Attorney Iglesias was under pressure from the boss to charge citizens with crimes they didn’t commit. Saddam did that. Stalin did that. But Iglesias would NOT do that - even at the behest of the Attorney General. Today, Captain Iglesias, reached by phone, told me, “I’m not going to file any bogus prosecutions.”

But it wasn’t just Gonzales whose acts were “unethical, wrong and illegal.“

It was Gonzales’ boss.

Iglesias says, “The evidence shows right now, is that [Republican Senator Pete] Domenici complained directly to President Bush. And that Bush then called Alberto Gonzales, the Attorney General, and complained about my alleged lack of vigorous enforcement of voter fraud laws.“

In other words, it went to the top. The Decider had decided to punish a prosecutor who wouldn’t prosecute innocents.

[ElvisL1ves]

I think the DEMS would pull the same shit if they thought it would work.Tweeet! Flagrant tu quoque, offense, fifteen yards, loss of down.


The Chertoff issue, btw, would be that it would involve 2 Senate hearings, not 1, neither of which Cheney is in any position to brass a nominee through. The subject matter would be 2, not 1, of the least responsibly managed departments in the administration.

[Evil Captor]

Tweeet! Flagrant tu quoque, offense, fifteen yards, loss of down.

Not really. My intent was not really to establish a moral equivalence between the Dems and the Pubbies, but to say that the attractiveness or turning the federal D.A.s into a partisan tool to be used to overlook election rigging and to selectively prosecute political opponents -- which is CLEARLY what Bush and Rove were aiming at -- is so great that members of both parties would look long and hard at it. Let's face it, once you have the people who enforce the law lined up on your side, the laws as written are meaningless -- you can do anything you like.

This is clearly Rove's idea. This is why I hate the man. In part. He has no more respect for the democratic process than Joseph Stalin.

[ElvisL1ves]

When you can point to any example of the Democrats actually doing it, not just you imagining it, please do so. :rolleyes:

Upon further review, the play stands as called.

[BrainGlutton]

The Chertoff issue, btw, would be that it would involve 2 Senate hearings, not 1, neither of which Cheney is in any position to brass a nominee through. The subject matter would be 2, not 1, of the least responsibly managed departments in the administration.

Unless W decides to nominate Chertoff for AG and leave the secretariat of Homeland Security vacant -- and if he did leave it vacant, who would notice?

[BobLibDem]

when the George Walker Bush Presidential Library and Grill opens for business,

That's Bar and Grill. I can't imagine his place being dry.

I think Chertoff would rather get a prostate exam from Senator Craig than appear in a confirmation hearing. There are way too many things he'd rather not discuss in front of a hostile panel.

I agree with the no current cabinet member theory. Of all the names bandied about, I think Orrin Hatch would be the best choice and would sail right through.

turning the federal D.A.s into a partisan tool to be used to overlook election rigging and to selectively prosecute political opponents -- which is CLEARLY what Bush and Rove were aiming at -- is so great that members of both parties would look long and hard at it. Let's face it, once you have the people who enforce the law lined up on your side, the laws as written are meaningless -- you can do anything you like.

This is clearly Rove's idea. This is why I hate the man. In part. He has no more respect for the democratic process than Joseph Stalin.

Absolutely. I have no doubt that future historians will remember this decade as the closest the US has ever come to a dictatorship. The scary thing is if they were competent Machiavellians, they might have well succeeded.

[BrainGlutton]

Of all the names bandied about, I think Orrin Hatch would be the best choice and would sail right through.

Hatch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orrin_Hatch) has his Senate seat (and considerable seniority) until 2013. Why would he give that up to be AG for a year and a half?

[BobLibDem]

Hatch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orrin_Hatch) has his Senate seat (and considerable seniority) until 2013. Why would he give that up to be AG for a year and a half?

Beats the crap out of me but the talking heads on TV keep bringing up his name.

[ElvisL1ves]

Maybe:
Being a Republican, his seniority isn't worth much now or in the foreseeable future anyway.
He'd be replaced by another Utah Republican anyway.
He's ready to retire after his current term anyway.
He's enough of a patriot to want to clean up DOJ, not complete its partisanization.
He has a clean enough public image to look like he's doing it, too.
He'd be confirmed without a party-damaging fuss.

[BrainGlutton]

He's enough of a patriot to want to clean up DOJ, not complete its partisanization.

Then why would Bush even consider him?! ;)

[Evil Captor]

When you can point to any example of the Democrats actually doing it, not just you imagining it, please do so. :rolleyes:

Upon further review, the play stands as called.

The Dems have a long history of rigging elections. Think Chicago in 1968. Befo0re the ciil rights movement, the Dems in the South did everything they could, legal and illegal to keep blacks from voting. All that is ancient history, of course. But it does decry the notion that election rigging is stricltly a Pub thing. It's more of a Pub thing right now because the Pubs don't have the votes to win elections honestly and they know it --- hence Karl Rove.But a swing of the pendulum could easily lead to Dems taking up where Rove has (hopefully) left off.

[BrainGlutton]

Gonzales' troubles are definitely not over: (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/30/AR2007083000995.html?hpid=topnews)

The Justice Department's inspector general indicated yesterday that he is investigating whether departing Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales gave false or misleading testimony to Congress, including whether he lied under oath about warrantless surveillance and the firings of nine U.S. attorneys.

The disclosure by Inspector General Glenn A. Fine in a letter to Congress signals an expansion of the department's internal investigations into Gonzales's troubled tenure, probes that were not previously known to be focused so sharply on the attorney general and his testimony.

Fine's office has also separately expanded a probe into whether senior Gonzales aides improperly considered partisan affiliations when reviewing applicants for nonpolitical career positions. As part of that inquiry, Fine sent hundreds of questionnaires in the past week to former Justice Department job applicants.