# Why is AG Gonzales NOT being impeached? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 17, 2007, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-ag-gonzales-not-being-impeached/404513 "2007-05-17T21:09:23Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![dalej42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@dalej42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dalej42)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2007, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-ag-gonzales-not-being-impeached/404513/21 "2007-05-18T18:45:55Z")
I’m thinking that the Dems have made the smart decision to not turn up the heat on Gonzales because they’ve wanted the debate and news coverage to be on the Iraq war. I also predict Gonzales will probably resign right around the dead news time of Memorial Day weekend. ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2007, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-ag-gonzales-not-being-impeached/404513/22 "2007-05-18T18:52:34Z")
Two words worry me badly: Recess Appointment ---
**Author:** ![Duckster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/duckster/32/1244_2.png) [@Duckster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duckster)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2007, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-ag-gonzales-not-being-impeached/404513/23 "2007-05-18T19:25:56Z")
[QUOTE=ArchiveGuy] Not if [Tony Blair](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=455673&in_page_id=1811) gets it first. [/QUOTE] > [@](#): > > The President serves a term of five years, which may be renewed. By convention, the Bank President has always been a U.S. citizen nominated by the United States as the largest shareholder in the bank. The President is elected by the Board of Governors for a five-year, renewable term. Source: [World Bank Group - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Bank#Presidency) Then again, considering Bush’s current track record with his nominations, he might be better off breaking tradition and go with a foreigner. ---
**Author:** ![marshmallow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@marshmallow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marshmallow)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2007, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-ag-gonzales-not-being-impeached/404513/24 "2007-05-18T19:35:00Z")
Impeach Gonzales? Why would the Dems do that? They’re content to let the administration slowly bleed to death in the shark infested waters of public opinion while simultaneously attempting to catch the GOP in the morasse. There are also practical considerations, like the fact they don’t have the votes to do it (that’s what happens when you vote in so many ‘centrists’). Then again, that hasn’t stopped them with all these fantasy Iraq withdrawl bills either. ---
**Author:** ![DoctorJ](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/doctorj/32/2904_2.png) [@DoctorJ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DoctorJ)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2007, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-ag-gonzales-not-being-impeached/404513/25 "2007-05-19T14:06:01Z")
Impeaching Gonzales right now would be like unplugging the slot machine while it’s still paying out. He would resign the minute any serious proceedings began, and the press would play it as the end of the scandal. With new and increasingly ridiculous stories coming every week, and plenty of key players yet to testify, bringing this thing to a close would be a real shame. ---
**Author:** ![Cervaise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cervaise/32/16693_2.png) [@Cervaise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cervaise)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2007, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-ag-gonzales-not-being-impeached/404513/26 "2007-05-19T17:38:12Z")
[QUOTE=DoctorJ] Impeaching Gonzales right now would be like unplugging the slot machine while it’s still paying out. [/QUOTE] Exactly. The real question here is not why the Dems aren’t trying to oust him, but why Bush hasn’t yet thrown him over the side (or why Gonzo hasn’t recognized the damage he’s doing and jumped himself). One explanation is that they just plain don’t like being told what to do, and they think they have a shot at running out the clock, with no nefarious motives beyond stupidity and arrogance. Another explanation is that they’re elbow deep in some truly grotesque shit, the exposure of which would be a scalpel across the throat and an arterial gush compared to the slow hemorrhage they’re currently trying to endure. Either way, the Dems win. No sense trundling their artillery up to the front line while the Bushies are busily engaged in wrapping their own lips around the barrel of a shotgun. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2007, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-ag-gonzales-not-being-impeached/404513/27 "2007-05-19T17:41:45Z")
You’ll want to keep a couple of extra shells handy, because these guys could miss. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2007, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-ag-gonzales-not-being-impeached/404513/28 "2007-05-22T21:36:41Z")
[Article](http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?bid=1&pid=197802) on calls for AGAG’s impeachment. [Website](http://impeachgonzales.org/) (w/ cool video) where you can sign an impeachment petition. According to [Kos,](http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/5/22/111456/606) it now appears that when Gonzalez appointed Tim Griffin as a USA, he backdated the appointment (from 12/18/06 to 12/15/06). > [@](#): > > So why would Alberto Gonzales backdate the Tim Griffin appointment from a Monday to a Friday? > > Because Alberto Gonzales and Senator Pryor had a conversation on December 15 at which Pryor asked for reasons why Cummins was resigning and indicated he did not support Griffin for USA. It appears that, after that conversation, they quickly made Griffin’s appointment a done deal, only later submitting the paperwork for it. By backdating the appointment, they got Griffin appointed without making it look like they were using the PATRIOT provision specifically to get around the Senate. Which, of course, they were. Would **that** be a crime? ---
**Author:** ![MovieMogul](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f08c70/32.png) [@MovieMogul](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MovieMogul)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2007, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-ag-gonzales-not-being-impeached/404513/29 "2007-05-24T16:27:10Z")
What about [lying before Congress?](http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2007/05/23/davis/index.html) > [@](#): > > For the final act of Monica Goodling’s day under oath, Rep. Artur Davis, D-Ala., read into the record testimony Alberto Gonzales delivered to the House Judiciary Committee just two weeks ago. “I have not gone back and spoken directly with Mr. [Kyle] Sampson and others who were involved in this process,” Gonzales told the committee on May 10. “In order to protect the integrity of this investigation and of the investigation of the Office of Professional Responsibility and the Office of Inspector General – I am a fact witness, they are fact witnesses, and in order to preserve the integrity of those investigations, I have not asked these specific questions.” > > Just minutes earlier Goodlinghad described an uncomfortable conversation she had with Gonzales in mid-March, which seemed to contradict the Gonzales testimony. Now Davis turned the questions on Goodling. “Ms. Goodling, did the Attorney General have a conversation with you regarding the terminations of United States attorneys?” > > Goodling: Yes, he did. > > Davis: And when did this conversation happen? > > Goodling: It was in March, before I left the department. > > Davis: Did you know you might be a fact witness at that point, Ms. Goodling? > > Goodling: Yes. > > Immediately after the hearing, Davis talked with reporters, offering his verdict. “It’s very clear that the attorney general was not fully accurate in his testimony,” Davis said. “It was an inappropriate conversation on the attorney general’s own terms.” ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2007, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-ag-gonzales-not-being-impeached/404513/30 "2007-05-24T16:39:23Z")
Look, in a normal presidency it would be essentially impossible to impeach a cabinet officer. The second it appeared impeachment was likely, that cabinet officer would resign. There’s really very little precedent for impeaching a cabinet officer, the way things are usually done is simply to hold hearings like these and as embarrassing story after embarrassing story comes out the official will be forced to resign to get them to stop. However, in this case my guess is that Bush is afraid that if Gonzales resigns, it would be impossible to get the senate to confirm another of his buddies for the post. And the thought of some independent person who isn’t personally loyal to Bush as attorney general keeps him awake at nights. It cannot be allowed to happen. And so the Gonzales story gets bigger and bigger. ---
**Author:** ![Don\_t\_Call\_Me\_Shirley](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@Don\_t\_Call\_Me\_Shirley](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Don_t_Call_Me_Shirley)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2007, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-ag-gonzales-not-being-impeached/404513/31 "2007-05-24T17:42:57Z")
[QUOTE=Lemur866] Look, in a normal presidency it would be essentially impossible to impeach a cabinet officer. The second it appeared impeachment was likely, that cabinet officer would resign. There’s really very little precedent for impeaching a cabinet officer, the way things are usually done is simply to hold hearings like these and as embarrassing story after embarrassing story comes out the official will be forced to resign to get them to stop. However, in this case my guess is that Bush is afraid that if Gonzales resigns, it would be impossible to get the senate to confirm another of his buddies for the post. And the thought of some independent person who isn’t personally loyal to Bush as attorney general keeps him awake at nights. It cannot be allowed to happen. And so the Gonzales story gets bigger and bigger. [/QUOTE] Good points, Lemur, but a recess appointment, for which this president is notorious, would negate this fear. Out of curiosity, if Bush were to make a recess appointment over the Memorial Day weekend, how long would that person be able to serve before Bush would be required to nominate someone through the normal process? My guess is that Bush could drag it out until next fall, when it would be moot. Even if there were some kind of deadline, he could wait until another recess, have his current recess appointment resign, and make another recess appointment. Also, wasn’t there something in the Patriot Act that allowed Bush to circumvent the confirmation process in some cases? Is that provision still in effect, and would that apply to the AG? ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2007, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-ag-gonzales-not-being-impeached/404513/32 "2007-05-24T18:10:46Z")
[QUOTE=Don’t Call Me Shirley] Out of curiosity, if Bush were to make a recess appointment over the Memorial Day weekend, how long would that person be able to serve before Bush would be required to nominate someone through the normal process? [/QUOTE] December, 2008. The Constitution says that recess appointments expire at the end of the Senate’s next session, and since this is an intrasession appointment, the Senate’s next session will expire in December of 2008. (The Senate’s current session expires in December of 2007.) ---
**Author:** ![dalej42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@dalej42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dalej42)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2007, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-ag-gonzales-not-being-impeached/404513/33 "2007-05-24T18:15:34Z")
[Politics1](http://www.politics1.com/) reports that Harry Reid will, "“Reid will call the Senate into session [during the summer recess] just long enough to force the Prez to send his nominees who need confirmation to the chamber’” Hopefully, this will eliminate the recess appointment idea. ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2007, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-ag-gonzales-not-being-impeached/404513/34 "2007-05-24T18:51:40Z")
[QUOTE=dalej42] [Politics1](http://www.politics1.com/) reports that Harry Reid will, "“Reid will call the Senate into session [during the summer recess] just long enough to force the Prez to send his nominees who need confirmation to the chamber’” Hopefully, this will eliminate the recess appointment idea. [/QUOTE] Unfortunately, that’s no guarantee. Traditionally, only recesses of 10 days or longer have been used to push through recess appointments. Reid is planning to call the Senate into session every 10 days during this recess so that Bush can’t get around the 10-day tradition. But it’s not a LAW that the recess has to be longer than 10 days, just tradition. And we know how revered tradition is to this administration when it can run roughshod over it for its own gain… ---
**Author:** ![Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spectre_of_pithecanthropus/32/12343_2.png) [@Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2007, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-ag-gonzales-not-being-impeached/404513/35 "2007-05-24T20:26:35Z")
Doesn’t this kind of malfeasance make Gonzales’ boss impeachable as well? Not that I think it could succeed; still AFAIK this is the first thng to happen on Bush’s watch that truly is impeachable. All the rest of it, IMHO, is just bad policy decisions made in good faith. You can’t be impeached for that. ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2007, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-ag-gonzales-not-being-impeached/404513/36 "2007-05-24T20:32:28Z")
[QUOTE=Spectre of Pithecanthropus] Doesn’t this kind of malfeasance make Gonzales’ boss impeachable as well? Not that I think it could succeed; still AFAIK this is the first thng to happen on Bush’s watch that truly is impeachable. All the rest of it, IMHO, is just bad policy decisions made in good faith. You can’t be impeached for that. [/QUOTE] You’re not really going to get very far trying to impeach Bush based on a wrongdoing of Gonzales that Bush apparently had nothing to do with. Even with Nixon, they had the tapes of his involvement with the coverup. We can’t even get the White House liaison to admit that she’s spoken to anyone in the White House with this bunch… ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2007, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-ag-gonzales-not-being-impeached/404513/37 "2007-05-24T20:37:06Z")
[QUOTE=Spectre of Pithecanthropus] Doesn’t this kind of malfeasance make Gonzales’ boss impeachable as well? [/QUOTE] What law has been broken? Drafting the Justice Department into the Administration’s service for partisan political purposes **should** be illegal, but AFAIK it is not. ---
**Author:** ![marshmallow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@marshmallow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marshmallow)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2007, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-ag-gonzales-not-being-impeached/404513/38 "2007-05-24T22:17:25Z")
[QUOTE=Spectre of Pithecanthropus] Not that I think it could succeed; still AFAIK this is the first thng to happen on Bush’s watch that truly is impeachable. All the rest of it, IMHO, is just bad policy decisions made in good faith. You can’t be impeached for that. [/QUOTE] Dude, if we can’t impeach Bush over the run up to the Iraq war by itself then we may as well forget about the concept of impeachment. Ditto the fact that every warantless wiretap in violation of FISA is a felony. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2007, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-ag-gonzales-not-being-impeached/404513/39 "2007-05-24T22:18:46Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] What law has been broken? Drafting the Justice Department into the Administration’s service for partisan political purposes **should** be illegal, but AFAIK it is not. [/QUOTE] I’ve started a [new thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=422199) to debate the above. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2007, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-ag-gonzales-not-being-impeached/404513/40 "2007-05-24T23:06:03Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] What law has been broken? Drafting the Justice Department into the Administration’s service for partisan political purposes **should** be illegal, but AFAIK it is not. [/QUOTE] It doesn’t matter. A law doesn’t have to be broken in order to impeach. One of the charges against Andrew Johnson was that he: > [@](#): > > did attempt to bring into disgrace, ridicule, hatred, contempt and reproach the Congress of the United States, and the several branches thereof, to impair and destroy the regard and respect of all the good people of the United States for the Congress and legislative power thereof and another, that he > [@](#): > > did, by public speech, declare and affirm in substance, that the Thirty-Ninth Congress of the United States was not a Congress of the United States authorized by the Constitution to exercise legislative power under the same; but, on the contrary, was a Congress of only part of the States, thereby denying and intending to deny, that the legislation of said Congress was valid or obligatory upon him, the said Andrew Johnson, except in so far as he saw fit to approve the same, and also thereby denying the power of the said Thirty-Ninth Congress to propose amendments to the Constitution of the United States. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-ag-gonzales-not-being-impeached/404513.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-ag-gonzales-not-being-impeached/404513.md?page=3)