home

Gonzales Resigns

Update (TL): Gonzales will make a statement at 10:30 am ET, I'll live blog it in a new thread. Bush is also expected to make a statement, and CNN says he will not be naming a replacement today. CNN says Chertoff is the favorite for ultimate replacement, also naming Paul Clement.

*****

He finally did something right:

Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, whose tenure has been marred by controversy and accusations of perjury before Congress, has resigned. A senior administration official said he would announce the decision later this morning in Washington.

I'm sure J. and TChris will have thoughts later.

Update [2007-8-27 8:52:49 by Big Tent Democrat]: One little comment. The Times reporter was upset that he was "misled":

As recently as Sunday afternoon, Mr. Gonzales was denying through his press spokesman, Brian Roehrkass, that he intended to leave.

Mr. Roehrkass said Sunday afternoon that he had telephoned Mr. Gonzales about the reports circulating in Washington that a resignation was imminent, “and he said it wasn’t true, so I don’t know what more I can say.”

White House spokesmen also misled reporters on Sunday, insisting that there was no truth to the reports. Aides to senior members of the Senate Judiciary Committee said over the weekend that they had received no suggestion from the administration that Mr. Gonzales intended to resign.

Of all the "misleading" things done by BushCo to call out, this one seem rather minor. But worth noting.

< Countdown's "Worst Person": Rush Limbaugh | Reactions to Gonzales' Resignation >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    So (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by roger on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 07:49:31 AM EST
    Now we get a recess appointment. What are the odds that the Dems will do anything about it? Slim to none?

    Rumour has it that Chertoff will get the job

    No chance of a recess appointment (none / 0) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 07:53:59 AM EST
    Folks have gone off the deep end there.

    Parent
    I have to admit it crossed (none / 0) (#12)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 08:29:36 AM EST
    my mind for about 10 seconds or so. Given Congress will be in session next week (?) it strkes me as unlikely and would be the proverbial gasoline on the fire. Better to risk hearings with a solid but boring and unflappable nominee.  



    Parent

    Bush isn't (none / 0) (#33)
    by NMvoiceofreason on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 09:51:07 AM EST
    ... doing this for the good of the country.

    Neither is Gonzo.

    Something much worse is coming. Bet on it.

    Parent

    on the cynical side (none / 0) (#35)
    by manys on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 09:55:52 AM EST
    that's what I was thinking as well. Big news like this out of the Bush Administration on a Monday? They must be using it to cover for something else, like maybe the Maliki replacement. In an administration bent on extending the war/contractor welfare as long as possible, I bet they try to squeeze a couple more Friedman Units out of Gonzales. It's probably about all Fredo can offer on his way out the door.

    Parent
    Hard to do worse than Gonzo (none / 0) (#36)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 09:56:16 AM EST
    I never suggested either Bush or Gonzo is doing this for the good of the country.

    Bush still has to govern. Last thing he needs is another controversy. Better to end it as cleanly as possible.

    My bet it Paul Clement.



    Parent

    Let's look to history (none / 0) (#56)
    by manys on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 11:04:17 AM EST
    What about the Gonzales imbroglio would lead anybody to believe that the administration is trying to avoid controversy?

    Parent
    Talking Points Memo has it right (5.00 / 0) (#59)
    by NMvoiceofreason on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 12:15:37 PM EST
    Recess Appointment
    08.27.07 -- 11:34AM
    By Josh Marshall

    Judged by the standards of our history, a recess appointment to replace Alberto Gonzales sounds like an incredible proposition. But don't be so sure. Just as we saw with the 'pardon scooter' movement, the word seems already to have gone out to the folks on the right to start preparing the ground for just such a move by the president. I've already heard a few just this morning saying it would be the right thing for the president to do. Watch for it.


    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/051637.php

    We are not the only ones to see this coming.

    Having got what you wanted (2.50 / 2) (#6)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 07:50:20 AM EST
    You will not want what you get.

    Heh (none / 0) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 07:53:26 AM EST
    The story of my life.

    Parent
    But can Bush name someone worse than Gonzo? (none / 0) (#9)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 08:12:47 AM EST
    No (none / 0) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 08:13:51 AM EST
    He really can not.

    And there will be NO recess appointment.

    I wonder how folks think this is possible? It would be better to have kept Gonzo on board than do that.

    Parent

    With Bush's reputation (none / 0) (#11)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 08:24:43 AM EST
    People think anything is imaginable.

    But I agree, it would be extremely hard to name someone worse than Gonzo.

    Confirmation hearings could be interesting should Leahy and Co. decide to make it so.



    Parent

    Ramsey Clark????? (none / 0) (#24)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 09:34:53 AM EST
    Would he please you??

    ;-)

    Parent

    Not me (none / 0) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 09:38:33 AM EST
    Can't speak for Molly.

    James Comey is acceptable.

    Parent

    Comey - I rarely say "never" (none / 0) (#28)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 09:42:50 AM EST
    but somehow I am tempted to say "when pigs fly."

    ;-)


    Parent

    You reject a respected professional (5.00 / 0) (#54)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 10:57:24 AM EST
    You know that Jeralyn would agree with you, but for entirely different reasons.

    You demonstrate you partisan Republican nature.

    Parent

    Not my current job, man..but (1.00 / 0) (#60)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 01:36:58 PM EST
    while I'm Pres maybe I can do something about NHC... if I can get Reid and Pelosi's attention...

    I'm saying Bush wouldn't have him.

    Where do you get these off the wall claims??

    Parent

    Lets just say I would be amused in the (none / 0) (#31)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 09:48:40 AM EST
    unlikely event that Bush appoints fellow Texan Ramsey Clark.



    Parent

    Wouldn't you. (1.00 / 0) (#61)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 01:37:29 PM EST
    Ah, the weakness of the contrarian (none / 0) (#57)
    by manys on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 11:06:08 AM EST
    You just can't resist attacking your imagined enemies and opponents. Why even post at all?

    Parent
    Ah, the weakness of the person (1.00 / 1) (#62)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 01:39:19 PM EST
    who has no sense of humor.

    Parent
    okay (5.00 / 0) (#71)
    by manys on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 09:48:12 PM EST
    Where's the joke?

    Parent
    Yep (none / 0) (#78)
    by manys on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 03:14:10 PM EST
    Thought so. Just another collection of driveby potshots.

    Parent
    irony (none / 0) (#74)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 08:46:01 AM EST
    incongruity between the actual result of a sequence of events and the normal or expected result (2) : an event or result marked by such incongruity b : incongruity between a situation developed in a drama and the accompanying words or actions that is understood by the audience but not by the characters in the play


    Parent
    Irony? (none / 0) (#75)
    by Edger on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 09:21:22 AM EST
    Spot the missing element.
    incongruity between the actual result of a sequence of events and the normal or expected result (2) : an event or result marked by such incongruity b : incongruity between a situation developed in a drama and the accompanying words or actions that is understood by the audience but not by the characters in the play
    Irony.

    Parent
    We still need to impeach him... (none / 0) (#1)
    by Avedon on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 07:36:03 AM EST
    ...unless you want to see him on the Supreme Court someday.

    We no longer need to impeach him (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by NMvoiceofreason on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 09:25:26 AM EST
    ... as he is no longer in office.

    Indictment, conviction, and prison will suffice.

    Parent

    He would be disbarred if impeached, no? (none / 0) (#55)
    by Edger on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 11:03:10 AM EST
    The conviction would suffice (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by NMvoiceofreason on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 11:22:03 AM EST
    Presuming it stood on appeal.

    SCOTRP (Supreme Court of the Republican Party) would find any conviction to have violated some right they would never hold Jose Padilla to have, and he will be free tom practice law again.

    Parent

    I wonder (1.00 / 1) (#63)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 01:40:34 PM EST
    Is being a member of the bar a requirement?

    Parent
    Didn't use to be (none / 0) (#65)
    by NMvoiceofreason on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 03:04:40 PM EST
    Some of our greatest Supremes weren't black, didn't wear dresses or high heels, and never were lawyers.

    It's part of the problem we have today. Law doesn't belong to the lawyers, it belongs to the people.

    Parent

    Do tell. When did that start? (none / 0) (#66)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 04:11:31 PM EST
    1776 (none / 0) (#68)
    by NMvoiceofreason on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 05:42:18 PM EST
    The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies

    Presented by the Indiana University School of Law--Bloomington

    The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies
    In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776

    The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

    When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain [George III] is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

    He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

    He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

    He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

    He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

    He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

    He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

    He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

    He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

    He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

    He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

    He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the consent of our legislatures.

    He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

    He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

    For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

    For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

    For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

    For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

    For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

    For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

    For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:

    For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

    For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

    He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

    He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

    He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

    He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

    He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

    In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

    Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

    We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by the Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

    Parent

    Do tell? Got dictionary? (1.00 / 0) (#69)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 08:07:59 PM EST
    sarcasm

    sharp and often satirical or ironic utterance designed to cut or give pain <tired of continual sarcasms>
    2 a : a mode of satirical wit depending for its effect on bitter, caustic, and often ironic language that is usually directed against an individual b : the use or language of sarcasm <this is no time to indulge in sarcasm>


    Parent
    Your response (5.00 / 0) (#70)
    by NMvoiceofreason on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 08:20:09 PM EST
    To the Declaration of Independence is sarcasm.

    No wonder your response to the Constitution is just as defective.

    I took an oath to defend it against enemies within and without.

    Do you have any such oaths?

    Parent

    Going too fast?? (1.00 / 0) (#73)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 08:40:22 AM EST
    No. I had sarcastly commented:

    I wonder Is being a member of the bar a requirement?

    You came back with an attack on blacks and women and concluded with a ringing:

    It's part of the problem we have today. Law doesn't belong to the lawyers, it belongs to the people.

    To which I sarcastly responded:

    Do tell. When did that start?

    Your response was to quote the Declaartion of Independence.

    At that point I decided to give you a hint.

    I see it didn't work.

    Parent

    I just wonder (none / 0) (#2)
    by Deconstructionist on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 07:40:19 AM EST
     why when it was obvious he could not possibly survive his many blunders and misdeeds, Bush allowed the bleeding to persidt all spring and summer. I was way off in my prediction that he would be gone by April Fools' Day but what in the world can he  (or his advisors)  possibly think was gained by waiting 5 months to drop the axe?

    I wonder if his wife and kids want to spend (none / 0) (#3)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 07:40:22 AM EST
    more time with Gonzo? (she said with a snarl having awoke with a vicious headache)

     

    Why attack his family?? (1.00 / 2) (#25)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 09:35:31 AM EST
    It wasn't a snark directed at the family (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 09:43:20 AM EST
    Went over your head?



    Parent

    Nope (1.00 / 2) (#64)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 02:00:29 PM EST
    You brought his wife and family in and used them.

    That is uh...... bad taste... IMO

    Lanny nails it.

    Parent

    So it did go over your head. (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 08:20:23 AM EST
    Clearly (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by squeaky on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 12:44:02 PM EST
    As for my thoughts (none / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 07:43:47 AM EST
    I figure my continued call for his impeachment plus my strident opposition to his confirmation in 2005 give a general idea.

    I'll discuss replacements when they are named.

    I'm Interested (none / 0) (#13)
    by roger on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 08:31:32 AM EST
    Why dont you think that there will be a recess appointment?

    Defeats the purpose of Gonzo's resigining (none / 0) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 08:32:33 AM EST
    which is to end the controversy.

    Parent
    I just wonder about that (none / 0) (#15)
    by andgarden on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 08:43:15 AM EST
    I think Democrats aren't the only ones who can do a self-chewed compromise.

    Parent
    Dems would be thrilled with recess appointment (4.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 08:51:16 AM EST
    They could raise high holy heck and please the base without actually having to vote.

    Chertoff is likely to be confirmed and create a new wedge with the base.

    Parent

    Well I don't think (none / 0) (#18)
    by andgarden on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 08:59:14 AM EST
    anyone Bush appoints will be acceptable. It's not like he's going to welcome, you know, Christie Whitman, back into the Administration. (Does she even have a law degree?)

    I put money on Ted Olson. That ought to provide red meat for the Clinton fundraisers.

    Parent

    Chertoff seems to be the pick (none / 0) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 09:04:27 AM EST
    The line on Chertoff (none / 0) (#20)
    by andgarden on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 09:06:25 AM EST
    if that he just can't keep a job. He's the quintessential empty chair.

    Parent
    17 months (none / 0) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 09:21:52 AM EST
    Chertoff is objectionable of course.

    the question is what can be extracted from all this.

    I am playing with a crazy idea of offering Bush confirmation in exchange for an expeditious court ruling on his executive privilege claims.

    Parent

    I'd actually hold out (none / 0) (#23)
    by andgarden on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 09:26:28 AM EST
    for everything that Leahy and Schumer have asked for. Of course, Democrats would be unable to hold that line; given a week to be sniveled at by David Broder, they'll give Bush what he wants.

    Parent
    Bruce Fein just suggested (none / 0) (#30)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 09:45:54 AM EST
    that the Democrats push for the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate the politicalization of the justice department (may not be an exact quote).



    Parent

    How does that work (none / 0) (#32)
    by Maryb2004 on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 09:49:11 AM EST
    since nobody can control the courts?  

    Parent
    Really? (none / 0) (#34)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 09:52:57 AM EST
    the FISa amendment said the FISa court has to decide in 30 days.

    Parent
    The FISA court (none / 0) (#38)
    by Maryb2004 on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 10:01:11 AM EST
    will hear the executive privilege claims?  

    I thought you were talking about all of the contempt of congress/executive privilege claims.  What are you talking about?

    Parent

    I was responding to your point (none / 0) (#44)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 10:21:06 AM EST
    about who can tell the court what to do.

    The FISA amendment tells the FISA court to decide in 30 days.

    My point was was a response to yours.

    Nothing to do with the FISa Court hearing ep claims.

    Parent

    In other words (none / 0) (#45)
    by Maryb2004 on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 10:25:32 AM EST
    you were avoiding my question on how such a tradeoff would actually work.    

    No prob.  I can wait for the definitive blog post on the subject.

    Parent

    I didn't think I was (none / 0) (#48)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 10:36:15 AM EST
    I hate to avoid questions.

    Are you asking if there should be legislation in this deal?

    I say yes. But the whole idea is just aq crazy lark of mine.

    This is not a very serious thought.

    Now, NOT funding the Iraq Debacle, is a VERY serious thought of mine and I have thought it through completely.

    Parent

    At this point I'm not sure (none / 0) (#51)
    by Maryb2004 on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 10:44:45 AM EST
    what I was asking or what we're talking about.

    You put out the idea of offering Bush confirmation in exchange for an expeditious court ruling on the ep claims.  I see how Congress delivers confirmation as their part of the bargain.  I wasn't clear how Bush DELIVERS the expeditious court ruling.

    I'm not sure how we got to a discussion on legislation.  I thought I was asking a procedural question.  

    Parent

    May not be (none / 0) (#77)
    by NMvoiceofreason on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 05:23:15 PM EST
    ... the reason you think.

    Of course, there is the "spend more time with his family" reason.

    Another reason might be to delay investigations. Often a prosecutor is removed or demoted to obstruct justice (worked in GuamGate - Abramoff - etc). In this case, the longer the AG job is up for grabs, the better for the Administration. Keeps the interim guy wondering, and no long term plans or investigations get started.

    Third might be to reduce Gonzo's exposure. At this point, since the democrats require sworn testimony (unlike many of his lies about FISA when the Republicans controlled and accepted unsworn testimony), it is hard to remember what lies and what truths he has told. Numerous more perjury counts await each testimony.

    Finally, after the recess appointment of Harriet Miers or John Yoo, controversy will very much NOT be the goal of the resignation - but CYA.

    Parent

    Senate should not approve anyone (none / 0) (#16)
    by Saul on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 08:47:28 AM EST
    until they get all the answers they wanted from Gonzlaes but could not get. Even if  this takes dragging it  up to the 08 election.

    Looks like Clement is the interim.... (1.00 / 0) (#27)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 09:40:13 AM EST
    Bush doesn't care how long the Demos waste time and look ineffectual.

    Parent
    You are right (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Saul on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 09:58:16 AM EST
    Bush doesn't care about a dam thing. That's the problem

    Parent
    Democrats are... (none / 0) (#39)
    by NMvoiceofreason on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 10:02:35 AM EST
    ...wasting time and looking very ineffectual.

    They really need to get the indictments and subpoenas out. Lots of paper to cover all the crimes of this administration

    Parent

    Congress won't... (none / 0) (#40)
    by NMvoiceofreason on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 10:05:36 AM EST
    ...get a chance to approve anyone.

    Harriet Miers will be nominated in a recess appointment. CYA is much more important with them than gettting a nominee confirmed.

    Parent

    Nope. Resignation effective 9/17 (none / 0) (#41)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 10:11:51 AM EST
    That precludes a recess appointment.



    Parent

    Yes Molly, there are many recesses (none / 0) (#43)
    by NMvoiceofreason on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 10:17:25 AM EST
    Not just this one.

    Solicitor General takes the slack. By Turkey day Columbus Day and Veterans Day will have given them at least two opportunities.

    They are not doing this for our benefit. They are doing it for theirs.

    Parent

    Don't know why you keep stating the obvious (5.00 / 0) (#46)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 10:30:48 AM EST
    They are not doing this for our benefit.

    This blog's rules out my response which would begin with No and end with Sherlock.



    Parent

    Heh (none / 0) (#47)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 10:34:26 AM EST
    Apparently the commenter is expecting a Veterans Day recess appointment.

    Parent
    Perhaps a Christmas Gift? (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 10:38:48 AM EST
    Sorry Molly! (none / 0) (#50)
    by NMvoiceofreason on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 10:41:17 AM EST
    Didn't mean to offend. Its the burden of working as a paralegal. Lawyers just don't see the obvious, unless you explain it to them. I agree with most of your comments, including the NSS directed at me.

    We Democrats often make the mistake of assuming that the other side wants whats best for everybody. They don't. They only want what is best for them.

    Makes the murder of the Kyoto treaty a little less harsh, doesn't it?

    Parent

    As a lawyer I would object (none / 0) (#52)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 10:46:28 AM EST
    but I would be lying if I said my bacon was never saved by a loyal paralegal, secretary and friendly court clerk.

    No harm no foul.



    Parent

    LOL (none / 0) (#53)
    by Maryb2004 on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 10:51:20 AM EST
    Lawyers just don't see the obvious, unless you explain it to them.

    So true.

    I was a paralegal before I went to law school.  I used to say I wasn't sure I wanted to go to law school because I was afraid of the mandatory partial lobotomy that removed common sense.  

    But really, life is easier now that common sense isn't an issue.

    Parent

    Of course.... (none / 0) (#42)
    by NMvoiceofreason on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 10:13:37 AM EST
    ...Karl Rove is available now too.

    Parent