I can’t believe I missed this editorial from Sunday’s NY Times. It does a good job of listing the occasions on which Alberto Gonzales has, at best, misled the Congress.
And then, the money quote.
Democratic lawmakers are asking for a special prosecutor to look into Mr. Gonzales’s words and deeds. Solicitor General Paul Clement has a last chance to show that the Justice Department is still minimally functional by fulfilling that request.
If that does not happen, Congress should impeach Mr. Gonzales.
Finally. Finally! Of course, Clement is not going to appoint a special prosecutor — if he did, he’d be disowned. So here’s hoping that, when it becomes clear that no prosecutor is forthcoming, the Times and other voices louder than mine keep banging the “Impeach Gonzales” drum hard.
Relatedly, three cheers for Rep. Jay Inslee (D-Wash.) for sponsoring a resolution (pdf) instructing the House Judiciary Committee to investigate whether Gonzales should be impeached.
RESOLUTION
Directing the Committee on the Judiciary to investigate whether Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General of the United States, should be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors.
Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary shall investigate fully whether sufficient grounds exist for the House of Representatives to impeach Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors.
Several of the co-sponsors are, like Inslee, former prosecutors. They include Xavier Becerra (D-Calif.), Tom Udall (D-N.M.), Michael A. Arcuri (D-N.Y.), Ben Chandler (D-Ky.) and Dennis Moore (D-Kan.). Read more details at Inslee’s home page.
Jeez, after that exchange with Shumer last week where he repeatedly refused to answer questions, I wanted someone to just motion to the bailiffs and have him dragged out of the room in shackles right then and there. What does it take to get a blatant violator of federal statutes arrested around here?
I’ll tell you what it takes: Democrats who aren’t chickensh*ts.
Interesting that Udall’s on board with this. He’s probably the strongest candidate the Democrats could field* against New Mexico Senator Pete Domenici. Given that NM is a swing state, it’s not the “safest” position he could take for his career…and it does show some real brass ones.
<
p>
* And yes, other campaigns will push the idea that Governor Richardson should theoretically run against Domenici. That won’t happen anymore than President Clinton will jump into a primary against Mark Pryor. Just because something could happen is no reason that it should, or will.
Now I get the idea that they are just waiting to get the Whitehouse and continue the ways of the previous administration. Interesting how the Presidential Pardon was used as a fund raiser by Bill and now George pushes the envelope and uses it to pardon his criminal element. Why not just auction off the pardons to anyone in prison? Executive Privilege has evolved to the point since Nixon that covers all shady deals, no matter the administration.
<
p>
Too many are involved to call it treason.
Do you think they should also be impeached?
<
p>
2. If you’re going to go after Bush/Cheney, you have to do Cheney first. Impeaching Bush without Cheney would be madness.
<
p>
3. So, is it worth impeaching Cheney? I’m not sure. Though he richly deserves it, (a) it seems very unlikely that there are enough votes to remove him from office (in contrast, I think it’d be possible, if difficult, to muster the necessary votes to remove Gonzales), (b) unlike impeaching the AG, impeaching and trying the VP would be a monumental undertaking that would suck up all of Congress’s energy and prevent anything else from getting done, and (c) even if the effort succeeded, it’s unclear that it would get him out of office much sooner than he’ll be leaving anyway.
<
p>
So I’m not sold, but I could be convinced.
First I fully support impeaching Gonzales and would strongly consider supporting the impeachment of Bush, Cheney, and criminal prosecution of Karl Rove for a miscelleanoues number of high crimes and misdeameanors.
<
p>
What worries me about Gonzales is that he is not resigning and appears to be the fall guy. The more time and energy Congress spends trying to nail Gonzales the less time it can spend nailing those truly responsible for ordering the firing, ordering the unconstitutional wiretaps, etc. Congress is getting lower and lower approval ratings due to all this negative press regarding investigations and they are playing exactly into GOP talking books about investigation after investigation.
<
p>
I do support these efforts but they must be conducted very rapidly we only have a year and a half to go before elections and in my view not enough time to sufficiently punish all the members of the Bush admin. who broke the law.
I am sure there are other groups doing this as well. Here is the Common Cause site if anyone wants to sign their petition.
…after the end of the Bush malAdministration (unless, of course, Bush pardons him), but let me ask you this. If Speedy is impeached (and, more importantly removed–a point that is normally overlooked) who would he be replaced by?
<
p>
Given the Bush malAdminstration’s penchent for rescess appointments, it could be anyone. Including (ta da!) Robert Bork. He of Saturday Night Massacre fame. Would you really want that?
Isn’t this a mildly racist way of referring to our Attorney General? I’m willing to say he’s a liar or buffoon, but to say he is like a character from a cartoon full of Mexican stereotypes, well, I didn’t think this was RedState.
“Speedy”? Isn’t this a mildly racist way of referring to our Attorney General?
<
p>
If I were to refer to all Gonzaleses as “Speedy,” that might be racist. But if I refer to this Gonzales as “Speedy” that would not be racist, unless you believe that Alberto Gonzo is a race unto himself.
<
p>
Would you prefer that I refer to him as “Seedy Gonzales,” as Jon Stewart of Daily Show fame has done?
<
p>
BTW, lest you misunderstand the reference, “Speedy Gonzales” is the title of a 1970s-era song by Charo regarding a rather naughty character. Kind of like our current Speedy.
Wikipedia:
Despite the League of United Latin American Citizens, this doesn’t sound like the sort of metaphor in which I’d expect anyone on the Left to indulge.
…that I don’t give a tinkers’ damn what your opinion is on this matter. Nor do I consider Wikipedia a reliable research source. It’s useful for some things that I am familiar with, but that’s about it.
<
p>
Regarding
<
p>
…anyone on the Left to indulge…
<
p>
I believe that I have made it abundantly clear over the last 8 months or so that I have been here that I am neither left, nor liberal/progressive, nor conservative. I don’t have the slightest idea where you got the idea that I might be “left.”
<
p>
And, yes, I will still keep refering to Alberto Gonso as Speedy Gonzales, whether or not you like it. As far as I’m concerned, he’s probably a crook and should be referred to in such terms.
Of course, you won’t respond to this either because “you don’t give a damn what [my] opinion is on the matter” and don’t want to indulge in further self-refutation.
…apparently you…
<
p>
“you don’t give a damn what [my] opinion is on the matter”
<
p>
…take liberties while supposedly quoting from what other commenters have posted. That is a fraud, dear sir or madam. I clearly referenced “tinkers’ damn” which, if you would address your dictionary has a well-known meaning and is not an epithet.
<
p>
When is your high school back in session? You are commenting like a high school student.
You might mix some coherence in with the condescension.
..that others take note of this openly racist comment.
<
p>
A conservative would be excoriated for making such juvenile remarks on BMG.
Is there something about you you would like me to excoriate? I have a few minutes.
<
p>
By the way, do note in my follow-up (that came after your remark so you had no way of knowing this) that I expect liberals to uphold a higher standard in this regard than conservatives.