Impeach Gonzales
The US Attorney General (AG), as head of the Justice Department, wields the enormous power of charging Americans with federal crimes. He can have his subordinates investigate you, haul you before a federal grand jury, and recommend that you be indicted. If the Grand Jury follows this recommendation (and most of them do), you will face public humiliation, big legal bills, and possible loss of your job ---even if you are not convicted. If you are convicted (and most indicted people are), you face years in prison, financial ruin, and loss of any professional license or public office you might hold.
For this reason, it is essential that the AG and his staff are fair to all suspects. Any use of the US criminal justice system for partisan advantage is a violation of the right of every American to "the equal protection of the laws" guaranteed in the Fourteenth Amendment and is therefore grounds for impeachment and removal from office.
We must consider the recent scandal about the firing of 8 (out of 93) US attorneys by AG Alberto Gonzales in light of this possible abuse of power. First, let us grant that the Justice Department has a proper role in advancing the political agenda of the President and his administration. For example, the decision to appeal (or not appeal) a ruling of a federal court will reflect the ideology of the President. Arguments raised before the courts on the possible unconstitutionality of a law or government action must also reflect administration policy. The election of a particular person to become President of the United States is tantamount to endorsement of that candidate's political philosophy by the people.
However, the US attorneys practice before the federal District Courts, where these issues are not considered. Their primary mission should be impartial and effective law enforcement .
We have been frequently reminded in the past few weeks that these attorneys "serve at the pleasure of the President", and so can be replaced at any time without cause. However, exercising this legitimate power in furtherance of a corrupt scheme is still grounds for impeachment, as in the Watergate Case. (1)
But has the Bush/Gonzales Justice Department abused its powers?
1. Since George W Bush became President, the Justice Department has investigated or indicted 298 Democrats and 67 Republicans.(2) Can you believe that there more than 4 corrupt Democrats for every corrupt Republican? That would be the only legitimate justification for the disparity.
2. New Mexico Republicans called US Atty. David Iglesias last Fall to urge him to indict Democrats for vote fraud. When he refused, the New Mexico GOP chairman complained to White House aide Karl Rove, who then complained to the Justice Department. Shortly afterward, Iglesias was placed on the list of prosecutors to be fired. (2)
3. Gonzales' chief staff urged that US attorneys be evaluated on whether they are "loyal Bushies."
Although these facts indicate political favoritism by the Bush/Gonzales Justice Department, none of them can be characterized as a "high crime" or misdemeanor, the criterion for impeachment. However, there is excellent evidence that Gonzales lied under oath to the Senate about his participation in making the list of US attorneys to be fired.
If President Bill Clinton deserved to be impeached for lying about sex, Gonzales certainly deserves the same for lying about political considerations in the administration of justice. Clinton's affair, as reprehensible as it was, in no way threatened the fair enforcement of federal laws. Gonzales lied about precisely that.
Since we know that House Republicans consider even one lie under oath justification for impeachment, they should be leading the clamor to impeach Gonzales for perjury. If they won't, let the Democrats do it. I believe that if the House Judiciary Committee approves impeachment of Gonzales, he will follow the example of ex-President Richard Nixon and resign before the full House even takes action on the charge
Perjury may not be the most serious allegation against Gonzales, but if it is the one can be proved, let's go with it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) After President Richard Nixon fired Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox (who had subpoenaed White House tapes) in October, 1973, the House Judiciary Committee began impeachment proceedings. After the Committee approved Articles of Impeachment in July, 1974, Nixon resigned.
(2) "The Flack Gap" by Jonathan Chait in the New Republic, April 23, 2007.
For this reason, it is essential that the AG and his staff are fair to all suspects. Any use of the US criminal justice system for partisan advantage is a violation of the right of every American to "the equal protection of the laws" guaranteed in the Fourteenth Amendment and is therefore grounds for impeachment and removal from office.
We must consider the recent scandal about the firing of 8 (out of 93) US attorneys by AG Alberto Gonzales in light of this possible abuse of power. First, let us grant that the Justice Department has a proper role in advancing the political agenda of the President and his administration. For example, the decision to appeal (or not appeal) a ruling of a federal court will reflect the ideology of the President. Arguments raised before the courts on the possible unconstitutionality of a law or government action must also reflect administration policy. The election of a particular person to become President of the United States is tantamount to endorsement of that candidate's political philosophy by the people.
However, the US attorneys practice before the federal District Courts, where these issues are not considered. Their primary mission should be impartial and effective law enforcement .
We have been frequently reminded in the past few weeks that these attorneys "serve at the pleasure of the President", and so can be replaced at any time without cause. However, exercising this legitimate power in furtherance of a corrupt scheme is still grounds for impeachment, as in the Watergate Case. (1)
But has the Bush/Gonzales Justice Department abused its powers?
1. Since George W Bush became President, the Justice Department has investigated or indicted 298 Democrats and 67 Republicans.(2) Can you believe that there more than 4 corrupt Democrats for every corrupt Republican? That would be the only legitimate justification for the disparity.
2. New Mexico Republicans called US Atty. David Iglesias last Fall to urge him to indict Democrats for vote fraud. When he refused, the New Mexico GOP chairman complained to White House aide Karl Rove, who then complained to the Justice Department. Shortly afterward, Iglesias was placed on the list of prosecutors to be fired. (2)
3. Gonzales' chief staff urged that US attorneys be evaluated on whether they are "loyal Bushies."
Although these facts indicate political favoritism by the Bush/Gonzales Justice Department, none of them can be characterized as a "high crime" or misdemeanor, the criterion for impeachment. However, there is excellent evidence that Gonzales lied under oath to the Senate about his participation in making the list of US attorneys to be fired.
If President Bill Clinton deserved to be impeached for lying about sex, Gonzales certainly deserves the same for lying about political considerations in the administration of justice. Clinton's affair, as reprehensible as it was, in no way threatened the fair enforcement of federal laws. Gonzales lied about precisely that.
Since we know that House Republicans consider even one lie under oath justification for impeachment, they should be leading the clamor to impeach Gonzales for perjury. If they won't, let the Democrats do it. I believe that if the House Judiciary Committee approves impeachment of Gonzales, he will follow the example of ex-President Richard Nixon and resign before the full House even takes action on the charge
Perjury may not be the most serious allegation against Gonzales, but if it is the one can be proved, let's go with it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) After President Richard Nixon fired Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox (who had subpoenaed White House tapes) in October, 1973, the House Judiciary Committee began impeachment proceedings. After the Committee approved Articles of Impeachment in July, 1974, Nixon resigned.
(2) "The Flack Gap" by Jonathan Chait in the New Republic, April 23, 2007.
posted by Gerald S Glazer at 11:02 AM
2 Comments:
I do not see where you have identified a single lie. You say he lied about things but provide no proof. Certainly, there is a suspician that he lied, but exactly what words of his were a lie and exactly what facts prove that these words are a lie.
In Clinton's case we have the exact words and the hard evidence of direct testimony of the exact fact from a participant and the forensic evidence of a skirt.
So where is the direct testimony of a participant and the forensic evidence regarding Gonzales? You may be correct, but where's the evidence?
You have cited only flimsy circumstantial evidence and it is reviewed below:
1. Disparity of prosecutions -Exactly what is the record of other attorneys general in this regard? These attorneys are political appointments as they work for the president. These are not elected officials of government. These attorneys have always been used for political purposes. How many Republicans versus Democrats did the attorney general of Clinton prosecute? I am not justifying the practice, but this is the way this has worked for a very long time.
Anyway Clinton fired all of them for political reasons not just 8.
2. Firing of Iglesias - If there was voter fraud by Democrats and the attorney did not prosecute, then he should have been fired. If you had said that the Democrats did not engage in voter fraud and he was fired then you might have a point.
3. Loyal Bushies - There is nothing wrong with having a criterion as a "loyal Bushie". Ths is one of the criteria that ALL presidents use to chose these attorneys. Every president has his own agenda. For example it might be voter fraud, or illegal aliens or drug trafficking, etc. If Bush wanted especially to target drug trafficking then he should chose those "loyal" to his thinking. This is how the attorney general's office has always worked and there is nothing wrong with this.
You suggest that Gonzales lied about making the list. So in that case please state his exact words on this issue and and the exact facts that refute this or these statements. This is what lies consituute, not impressions or suggestions or implications, but actual facts.
Hi
Please consider writing news pieces or an op-ed for Jewrusalem: Israeli Uncensored News. We strive to present different views and opinions while rejecting political correctness. Ideally, we try to make the news "smart and funny." Thus, your input is very welcome.
Best,
Alex
www.jewrusalem.net/en
Post a Comment
<< Home