If Alberto Gonzales can't be fired for lying under oath, what would it take?

Question

Revelations of notes, and testimony by the top people in the Justice Dept, show that both Cheney and Gonzales have lied about major decisions. They should both suffer the humiliation of being fired, which is much less than what has been suffered by our troops in Iraq! Seeing the pictures of "the fallen", published by the Washing Post, puts the deaths of so many in perspective....I am both sad and very angry at this admistration today.

koala....Old news? Turn on a radio or TV. And as to your "get a life", don't tell me what to do!

Johnny_sunshine2.......WOW! New to Y/ A? I am impressed with your insight. And, you made not one reference to Bill Clinton! You'll find his name mentioned almost every time a conservative disagrees with any political question.

Answer 1

You're absolutely right. At the very least, he appears to have lied under oath before Congress, according to testimony by the the then deputy Attorney General, James Comey, and the then director of the FBI, Robert Mueller, about whether there was a strong dispute about the legality of a classified wiretapping program. Here's a recap by the Economist, a moderately right wing British magazine with a majority of American subscribers, that endorsed Bush for election and reelection (full article, so it's not useful to copy it here):
http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9587767

There is a tiny shred of confusion about exactly which secret wiretapping program he was testifying about, so he might not quite have been caught in a lie on this occasion, though.

He also appears to have lied in claiming that the nine fired US Attorneys were not fired for political reasons, and that the White House was not involved, but the White House refuses to provide testimony from its end, asserting an absolute right to 'executive privilege' (which the Supreme Court has ruled in the past is a limited right, one that does not trump all other considerations, such as Congressional duty of oversight of the Justice Department), so it's currently not possible to document this lie.

We need an independent counsel to investigate the matter, but that has to be done by the Solicitor General, a member of Bush's Cabinet. Or, we need the Supreme Court to step in and define the exact extent of executive privilege, and order some review of the Administration's evidence in question, perhaps under seal. Unfortunately, once confirmed, an Attorney General serves 'at the pleasure of the President,' and this President isn't running for reelection, and seems to have little regard for the chance of his possible Republican successor. However, the Congress does have a Constitutional duty of oversight of the executive branch, particularly the crucial Judicial Department.

I believe that if the Supreme Court refuses to step in, Gonzalez should be impeached by Congress. Here's the New York Times calling for the same thing:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/29/opinion/29sun1.html?ex=1187496000&en=89561cd6778aaf59&ei=5070
Dahlia Lithwick of Slate theorizes that the reason Congress hasn't gone this far might be that they are enjoying having him in office, because they can score political points against the Bush administration repeatedly:
"The spectacle of Bush clinging desperately to an inept and untruthful AG is just about a campaign commercial in itself. Why impeach/censure/defund the hand that feeds you? The day Gonzales steps down is the day Democrats must hustle to find a new issue."
http://slate.com/id/2171839/
but I agree, it's time to force Dubya's hand, and the Supreme Court's, by impeaching Gonzalez and then forcing the SC to rule on the executive privilege claim when Congress subpoenaes evidence.

There's a real possibility that Congress is considering doing just that in the near future, which may be why Rove just resigned. He is at the center of the possible politicization of the firing of the US Attorneys for partisan political reasons. That appears to be a federal felony, Obstruction of Justice. It's exactly the same kind of thing Al Capone and the Chicago mob got up to when they tried to get judges fired for opposing their political shenanigans. He might have resigned so as not to be forced to do so under legal jeopardy if the matter is forced by Congress.

(There is a real risk that the SC will strengthen the executive privilege assertion, though, which would really handicap future Congressional oversight of the Executive Branch. Members of the Judiciary Committee, all lawyers, who oversaw the nomination hearings of the members of the Court, know more than I about the risk of this.)

Unfortunately, we can't 'fire' either one, as the one serves at the pleasure of the President, and the other was directly elected. We can impeach, have a trial, and perhaps convict Gonzalez, which would remove him from office, but remember, once you indict, you have to convict, and there's a real risk that this could backfire politically.

Or, we could just wait for the NEXT scandal, for Gonzalez to lie again.....

Answer 2

He replaced into telling lies and he's regular with it. I advise he renounce and supply the job to hurry Limbaugh, he's regular with each thing, merely hear to him, of direction it may advise a pay cut back. If not him Sean Hannity yet another realize all of it and he has already been to Iraq on a fact looking challenge, with Newt

Answer 3

Obviously he has been charged with perjury. No? Then you assertion that he lied must be false. Anyone who testified can get differing testimony from someone else. What your saying is everyone should refuse to testify because idiots will always twist what they say and call it a lie. The question was a lie. Twist twist twist.

Answer 4

Remember Clinton? He was impeached for lying under oath...and about a more benign matter. There's a double standard for you!

Answer 5

Eh, politics are ripe with corruption (from both sides). Not the right thing but that's just how it is.

Answer 6

An honest President. It isn't going to happen.

Answer 7

sad and angry...wow thats a deep one...lets do a comparison...given the liberal diatribe, perhaps you were "happy" with the clintons...

- The only president ever impeached on grounds of personal malfeasance
- Most number of convictions and guilty pleas by friends and associates*
- Most number of cabinet officials to come under criminal investigation
- Most number of witnesses to flee country or refuse to testify
- Most number of witnesses to die suddenly
- First president sued for sexual harassment.
- First president accused of rape.
- First first lady to come under criminal investigation
- Largest criminal plea agreement in an illegal campaign contribution case
- First president to establish a legal defense fund.
- First president to be held in contempt of court
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions from abroad
- First president disbarred from the US Supreme Court and a state court
.witch hunts were ok in the fifties with mccarthy...now its more than a bit juvenile...what part of ...THESE PEOPLE WORK AT THE WHIM AND DISCRETION OF THE PRESIDENT...is unclear to you? clinton fired 93 prosecutors and you surely arent whining about that.

bottom line, old news
grow up
get alife
move on.

Answer 8

If he ever exhibited morals or ethical behavior, he would certainly not be welcome in this administration.