So will Alberto Gonzales depart? Some opine he’s toast. Is it a matter of when, not if?
I love a two-fer one. It may end as a hat trick.
Democrats have said they will next week table a non-binding vote of no confidence, saying that Mr Gonzales is too weak to effectively run the US Justice Department. Meanwhile, more senior Republicans are speaking out and echoing the view that Mr Gonzales a long-time close ally of President George Bush should step down. On Thursday Senator Norm Coleman became the fifth Republican senator to demand that Mr Gonzales leave.
The White House has called next week’s scheduled no confidence vote a meaningless political act, but while it may be symbolic it would likely cause further problems for Mr Gonzales given his need to work with Congress on legislation. It could also create problems for the confirmation process of a new deputy for him, his current one having resigned over the firing of the prosecutors.”
Add his friend, Sen. Ken Salazar. Ouch, he has called for Gonzales to resign Let’s recall it was Salazar who endorsed Gonzales and introduced him at his confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee. When your friend won’t stand for you, stuff happens.
Is the No Confidence Vote a pump primer for Impeachment?
Could be, muses looseheadprop and Emptywheel over at Firedoglake
looseheadprop
“Wow, talk about public humiliation.
But I don’t think that is the point. I think the significance of this is to start getting Senators into shape for much more important votes that may be coming in future. If the “no confidence” vote comes in at the magic 67, we will have taken one more step closer to IMPEACHMENT TO CONVICTION.”
Emptywheel
“We need 66 votes, but with Joementum in our caucus and Senator Johnson still recuperating, that means we’re looking for 18 votes from Republicans on Wednesday, assuming the rest of our caucus remains loyal (hopefully, the Blue Dogs will look at the way Gonzales and Bush used and abused Pryor’s bipartisan good faith, and think seriously about supporting the no confidence vote).
A formidable task, certainly. But when you consider how many Republicans have already voiced their disapproval of Gonzales, are hopelessly implicated in the USA Scandal, or are up for a tough re-election in 2008, we’ve got plenty to work with.
In the meantime, here are my evolving thoughts of who, in the Republican caucus, might be persuaded to use the no confidence vote as a graceful way to escort Gonzales out of the Justice Department.” Read on
Where’s the smoking gun for Impeachment? Not yet found.
What brought this to a head? Surely, it wasn’t the caught in lies like a deer in headlights, or the 100-and-counting “I can’t recalls.” If Gonzales had an honest tongue, he’d say. `I don’t wanna recall. I’m only his concierge’ (hall-porter).
Was it the firings of the USAs? Or the as yet to be revealed program –what were they trying to get Ashcroft to sign off on when prior to surgery, he had transferred his authority to Mr. Comey? Or this.
Ya know what did it? I think it was his bedside manner. Yep, that will do it, works every time. That’s seen to be an over-reach, beyond the pale taking advantage of a critically ill man and, not to mention, a tad unethical if not illegal?
From TIME: (H/T: Crooks and Liars)
Was Gonzales’ Emergency Visit Illegal?
When then-White House counsel Alberto Gonzales went to John Ashcroft’s hospital room on the evening of March 10, 2004 to ask the ailing Attorney General to override Justice Department officials and reauthorize a secret domestic wiretapping program, he was acting inappropriately, Ashcroft’s deputy at the time, James Comey, testified before Congress earlier this week. But the question some lawyers, national security experts and Congressional investigators are now asking is: Was Gonzales in fact acting illegally?
Comey described what happened next: “The door opened and in walked Mr. Gonzales, carrying an envelope, and Mr. Card. They came over and stood by the bed. They greeted the Attorney General very briefly. And then Mr. Gonzales began to discuss why they were there — to seek his approval for a matter, and explained what the matter was — which I will not do.” Ashcroft bluntly rebuffed Gonzales, but Comey’s unwillingness publicly to say what Gonzales said in the hospital room has raised questions about whether Gonzales may have violated executive branch rules regarding the handling of highly classified information, and possibly the law preventing intentional disclosure of national secrets.
“Executive branch rules require sensitive classified information to be discussed in specialized facilities that are designed to guard against the possibility that officials are being targeted for surveillance outside of the workplace,” says Georgetown Law Professor Neal Katyal, who was National Security Advisor to the Deputy Attorney General under Bill Clinton.
“The hospital room of a cabinet official is exactly the type of target ripe for surveillance by a foreign power,” Katyal says. This particular information could have been highly sensitive. Says one government official familiar with the Terrorist Surveillance Program: “Since it’s that program, it may involve cryptographic information,” some of the most highly protected information in the intelligence community.[.]
ILLEGAL! The chief law enforcement officer. Oh my.
For those who have been away, the whole affair is called – take your pick:
“The Wednesday Night Ambush” Shades of Watergate: What did the President Know and When he knew it
But the irony here is this; it was the Washington Post that broke the Watergate story that brought down Nixon. In keeping with today’s techie, Wapo’s header reads ‘Caller ID’
“Caller ID: It’s not whether the president called. It’s what he did.”
“IT DOESN’T much matter whether President Bush was the one who phoned Attorney General John D. Ashcroft’s hospital room before the Wednesday Night Ambush in 2004. It matters enormously, however, whether the president was willing to have his White House aides try to strong-arm the gravely ill attorney general into overruling the Justice Department’s legal views. It matters enormously whether the president, once that mission failed, was willing nonetheless to proceed with a program whose legality had been called into question by the Justice Department. That is why Mr. Bush’s response to questions about the program yesterday was so inadequate.
“I’m not going to talk about it,” Mr. Bush told reporters at a news conference with departing British Prime Minister Tony Blair. “It’s a very sensitive program. I will tell you that, one, the program is necessary to protect the American people, and it’s still necessary because there’s still an enemy that wants to do us harm.”
No one is asking Mr. Bush to talk about classified information, and no one is discounting the terrorist threat. But there is a serious question here about how far Mr. Bush went to pressure his lawyers to implement his view of the law. There is an even more serious question about the president’s willingness, that effort having failed, to go beyond the bounds of what his own Justice Department found permissible. Go Read the whole thing.
(emphasis added)
After reading this piece, Wow! Let’s make it a two-fer. Gonzales’ stock is a sure in-the-money-short. And if he falls so does Bush. Watergate II.
Should Gonzales stay this scandal won’t go away. I can’t see BushCo leaving the No:2 spot vacant for the next 613 days. Any confirmation hearing for No:2 grows a whole new set of legs for the scandal. Drip, Drip.
More irony still. Ya know all that puff that we bloggers just regurgitate…. It was blogger, Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo who broke this USAGs scandal. Josh doggedly kept at it, with help from his readers reporting in, until those lazy MSMs and Congress took notice.
Who said we’re not worth our weight in golden gigabytes?