What exactly has Gonzales done wrong?

Question

Many Democrats have already stated publicly that the US Attourneys serve 'at the presidents pleasure' and that he is free to fire as many of them as he wants with no reason whatsoever. it is within his presidential powers.

Clinton fired over 90 of them at once and there were ongoing investigations into his and Hillary's personal misconduct which then simply stopped. This is not the case with Bush.

Isnt this just another fishing expidition?

Republicans - Are you sick of the silence from your side?

Democrats - Why do you think this could be "Bush's Watergate"?

I like all the answers...

I am amazed that I didnt get the usual BS answers. Thank you all for really thinking and really answering.

Answer 1

(1) EVERY president fires the U.S. Attorneys when he takes office (when the previous president is from a different party) because U.S. Attorneys are political positions.
However, it is RARE that U.S. Attorneys get fired in the middle of a presidential term.
(2) Here are the two things he did wrong:
(a) Main Justice were jerks. They didn't tell them what was wrong and just fired them without warning or reason (that hurts those US Attorneys' careers later, and is very different from the "expected" firing that comes with political change)
(b) There are indications that some were fired because they specifically didn't respond to OTHER POLITICAL PRESSURE -- like the Senator from New Mexico calling up and saying "Are you going to indict those democrats before the election??" That's an abuse of power and too much political pressure on a (quasi-) independent prosecutorial body.
Add to that that many of the prosecutors were really well known as highly qualified, good, (and sometimes somewhat progressive) prosecutors; that makes peoples' eyebrows raise.
There's speculation that the firings were so even more conservative attorneys could get two years in before the end of republican presidential runs. This is the same as replacing quality prosecutors with political hacks solely for their personal political gain (and the GOP's political gain in the long run).
Finally, the WHOLE issue was stirred up when there was a suggestion that the Pres was going to appoint these people WITHOUT Congressional approval (another way to get hacks in who aren't quality and won't do justice, but instead just advance the GOP agenda.)

This is NOT Bush's watergate -- but all of these circumstances combined with the DOJ's relatively repentent stance (Gonzales is just saying "I'm sorry; it was a jerk thing to do," nothing more, really...) raises ire when the other party is in the legislature.
I'm a democrat, but I'm surprised how this thing has such legs. We do get right back to the issue you first raised -- U.S. Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president, so no one did anything ILLEGAL when they were fired (except, maybe, demanding prosecutions be brought for purely political purposes and then firing US Attorneys when that didn't happen, but that's a long shot to prove).
It was just one more jerk thing to do, in a long line of jerk things (this is especially true under the Ashcroft/Gonzales DOJ, where "Main Justice" in Washington has attempted more and more control over the U.S. Attorneys in the field, to the chagrin of most everyone, I think).

Answer 2

First, Republicans in Congress aren't being silent. More than one has called for Gonzales's resignation.

As to the 1993 firings, cleaning house upon a new president taking office is historically common, especially after 12 hears of rule by the other party. Firing multiple USAttys in the middle of the term is almost unheard of. See the detailed discussions above.

As far as what Gonzales has done wrong, it may be one of two things. Either he deliberately fired USAttys for what appears to be purely politial motives. Or, based on Gonzales's own statements, he didn't realize that so many USAttys were being fired. So, either that's malfeasance or incompetence. Or, there might have been valid reasons for the firings. Yet, both Gonzales and Bush admit that "mistakes were made"

Did Gonzales fail to live up to the requirements of his office, or commit actions which were ethical violations? Nobody is sure right now. That's why there are hearings. To determine whether what happened was wrong or improper, or whether it was just all a series of mistakes.

The point of the hearings is to get to the truth. Which is something that I would hope everyone wants to discover.

Answer 3

First, it should be noted that when a new President takes office, they typically ask for the resignation of all sitting US attorneys, as well as many other executive-branch employees of decision-making status. This is what Clinton did. He did not "fire" them; he asked for their resignations and received them.

Here, there is a lot of talk about this firing being politically-motivated because Bush appointed all of these US attorneys and because it is not coming at the beginning of a new term in office. There are also more allegations that the US attorneys in those districts were not focusing enough attention before the 2006 elections on corruption investigations involving Democrats. The Justice Department insists that they were fired because of their performance. However, each of their most recent evaluations had nothing but positive remarks.

It is not the job of Congress, though, to "investigate" the firings. As you pointed out, these are people serving at the will of the President. The legislature has nothing to do with the release of a US attorney.

Answer 4

Not quite, Clinton ask for their resignations when he came in as was his right, as they serve at the pleasure of the president and they were put in by a president of a different party. That's legal and common. It seems to me that Clinton had no shortage of pointless investigations into any and every facet of his life and if there were 90 of them that we didn't hear about there were hundreds that we did. Out of curiosity, how much more that the $300 million Starr spent would you have liked to have seen go down the drain?
There are two differences with Bush, first it seems these jurists were fired due to political interference from lobbyists who wanted undue influence on the judicial processes. In one instance, a judge was asked to leave so that a friend of Karl Rove could replace him. In the others Gonzales made the mistake of saying the jurists had been replaced for cause, that is, they weren't good judges. That got them angry, that's not the way its done, and so they complained.
The second thing is that Bush used a provision of the new Patriot Act to put those appointees in office, that made all of Congress angry, and those men like their power too and guard it jealously. So what you had was a President in the executive branch appointing men pre-approved by lobbyists and local politicians, and by passing Congress.
Watergate was an illegal burglary done with Nixons approval. What Bush did had never been legal before, and its on shaky legal ground now, but he did an end run around Congress and hes going to pay for it.
BTW there have only been five judges changed in mid-term, although changes at the time of Presidential party changes (as in Clinton) are common historically.

Answer 5

Well, Gonzales seems to think he is above the law which is not so good for the one who should be setting the best example of the law in the nation. Having attorneys fired for their political views sounds like a dictatorship to me. As for Clinton, it wasn't apparent that he had attorneys fired because of their particular politics, but show me the proof and we'll talk...! I'm willing to listen and have an open mind.

Second - Since when have Republicans ever been silent. They raise more fuss than anyone, even when they controlled BOTH legislative branches, the executive and nearly all of the judiciary. I just see many of them as bullies, but then again not all.

As for Democrats' thinking that this could be Bush's Watergate...he has done so many worse things than this, and gotten away with them. It's a good thing he doesn't seem to go quail hunting like his good buddy and VP Dick Cheney.

Answer 6

I wasn't going to answer until I saw the statement that the atty from New Mexico was fired for refusing to investigate voter fraud. That's just not true. He and the Secretary of State investigated voter fraud and they found none. N.M. went back to paper ballots last year and I was interviewed by the FBI regarding a person who allegedly voted twice. The person did not vote twice and when the FBI agent came back to tell me the results of the investigation. He told me they had found no voter fraud in the state. They found a few errors--like the registration of an underage voter (one person only), but the young person did not try to vote.
I agree the President has the power to fire the U.S. attys. David Iglesias of N.M. did not deserve to be fired for performance issues. He received glowing recommendations from the U.S. Attorney General in 2005. So, I guess what A.G. Gonzales did that was wrong was lied about why the N.M. atty was fired. He was fired because of political pressure from the Republicans who wanted him to indict Democrats over new Courthouses in Albuquerque. There may have well been improprieties in those public contracts, but the U.S. atty cannot act until the FBI finishes and they have not. I just want to correct that misconception.

Answer 7

If you asked bush what watergate was, he would think it was niagara falls or something. Republicans need to keep silent ,because everything they say is deception or something negative that divides our country. Never based on actual facts. Only their theories on how life should be. When the truth is spoken, they always try to cover it up and say something that makes someone else look like the criminal.
Gonzalez was gwb personal attorney. And has done nothing for our country. It is still, if not more, corrupt than it was when he took his job.The attorney general should rid the corruption. Not cover the corruption up. Typical republican though. And he never thinks he does anything wrong.

Answer 8

at the same time as the regulation first got here out, a regulation enforcement officer might want to ask for the man(s) papers in the journey that that they had lifelike suspicion which many argued may reason discrimination because..nicely..what may be seen lifelike suspicion? They *edited* the bill about per week later declaring that the officer might want to in undemanding words ask for the man(s) paper on condition that they did no longer have id on them. i in my view do not have a difficulty with the bill yet others argue that the bill takes the incorrect attitude fixing the unlawful immigration problem and in undemanding words encourages discrimination adverse to the Mexican community.

Answer 9

Along with the attorneys, the Clintons also fired the entire travel office staff for the White House and replaced them with friends from Ark. There was no investigation over that. The attorney from N.Mex. was fired because he refused to investigate the vote fraud in the state. All U.S. attorneys serve at the pleasure of the Pres. and do not have any property rights to their jobs. They know that when they take the position. This is just politics as usual. The people in Wash. waste time slinging mud instead of taking care of business.

Answer 10

No, I'm more irritated at the Republicans who are calling for Gonzales' resignation when it is clear that this sort of thing has been going on since somebody figured out they could about 150 years. Why is it OK for Clinton to do these sorts of things and when Bush does it, it's evil?