PDA

View Full Version : Republicans block Gonzales 'no confidence' vote


jeo4
06-12-2007, 09:44 AM
Republicans block Gonzales 'no confidence' vote

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Republicans blocked the Senate's no-confidence vote on Attorney General Alberto Gonzales Monday, rejecting a symbolic Democratic effort to prod him from office despite blistering criticism from lawmakers in both parties.

The 53-38 vote to move the resolution to full debate fell seven short of the 60 required. In bringing the matter up, Democrats dared Republicans to vote their true feelings about an attorney general who has alienated even the White House's strongest defenders by bungling the firings of federal prosecutors and claiming not to recall the details.

Republicans did not defend him, but most voted against moving the resolution ahead.

Monday's vote was not the end of scrutiny for Gonzales and his management of the Justice Department -- more congressional hearings are scheduled and an internal department investigation continues.

Short of impeachment, Congress has no authority to oust a Cabinet member, but Democrats were trying anew to give him a push. Gonzales dismissed the rhetorical ruckus in the Senate, and President Bush continued to stand by his longtime friend and legal adviser.

"They can have their votes of no confidence, but it's not going to make the determination about who serves in my government," Bush said in Sofia, Bulgaria, the last stop on a weeklong visit to Europe.

"This process has been drug out a long time," Bush added. "It's political."

The attorney general said he didn't plan on leaving anytime soon.

"I am focused on the next 18 months and sprinting to the finish line," Gonzales said as he met Monday with child advocates in an impoverished Mobile, Alabama, neighborhood.

In the Senate, seven Republicans voted with Democrats to advance the no confidence resolution.

Even before the controversy over fired prosecutors, lawmakers of both parties complained that Gonzales allowed Justice to violate civil liberties on a host of other issues -- such as implementing Bush's warrantless wiretapping program.

Specter: 'There is no confidence in the attorney general'
One veteran Republican said Gonzales had used up all his political capital in the Senate.

"There is no confidence in the attorney general on this side of the aisle," said Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the senior Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee. Specter voted to move the resolution forward, but he said many of his GOP colleagues would not because they feared political retribution.

Democrats said it was only fair to put senators on record for or against Gonzales, particularly since five GOP senators have called for the attorney general's resignation and many more have said they have lost confidence in him.

The mere debate shook loose another Republican call for a new attorney general.

Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, for the first time publicly declared she had lost confidence in Gonzales.

"I think his continued tenure does not benefit the department or our country," she said.

Chief sponsor Charles Schumer, D-New York, urged more like her to vote their true feelings.

"If senators cast their vote with their conscience, they would speak with near unanimity that there is no confidence in the attorney general," said Schumer. "Their united voice would undoubtedly dislodge the attorney general from the post that he should no longer hold."

"He deserves to be fired," said Senate Majority leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada.

Whatever Gonzales may or may not deserve, some Republicans said, it's not the Senate's job to hold forth on a member of the president's Cabinet.

"This is a nonbinding, irrelevant resolution proving what? Nothing," said Sen. Trent Lott, R-Mississippi. "Maybe we should be considering a vote of no confidence on the Senate or on the Congress for malfunction and an inability to produce anything." (Watch Lott call the no confidence vote "beneath the dignity of the Senate" )

The vote cut across party lines.

Among the Republicans voted for the no-confidence resolution were four who had already called for a new attorney general: Sens. John Sununu of New Hampshire, Gordon Smith of Oregon, Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Norm Coleman of Minnesota. Joining them were Specter and Maine Republicans Olympia Snowe and Collins.

Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, an independent who often votes with the Democrats, voted no.

And Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, voted present. Federal agents investigating corruption in Alaska have probed the remodeling of Stevens' home there. Stevens is not considered a target of the investigation, law enforcement officials familiar with the probe have told the Associated Press.

Those not voting included Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, a presidential candidate who had called for Gonzales' resignation.

House Democrats announced that Gonzales' deputy, Paul McNulty, who has announced his resignation, would testify June 19 about his role in the U.S. attorney firings. Gonzales last month said he relied on McNulty more than any other aide to decide which U.S. attorneys should be fired last year. But internal Justice Department documents showed that McNulty was not closely involved in picking all of those fired.

And the Justice Department's internal inspector general is investigating whether department officials improperly considered the party affiliation of candidates for career jobs there.

Majority Democrats toned down the language in their one-sentence resolution to attract more support from Republicans. The measure read: "It is the sense of the Senate that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales no longer holds the confidence of the Senate and of the American people."

Source: CNN.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What this man did to his staff was dirty. Republicans blocking a no confidence vote just solidified my reasonng for hating Congress and the very narrow view of two party politics.

EVILxxx
06-12-2007, 10:01 AM
This comes off as doing the right thing for the wrong reasons. Not to mention that those involved in the vote are racist.

The Postmaster General
06-12-2007, 10:16 AM
Originally posted by jeo4
Whatever Gonzales may or may not deserve, some Republicans said, it's not the Senate's job to hold forth on a member of the president's Cabinet.


So much for separation of power...

Thrizzle
06-12-2007, 11:21 AM
Didnt congress approve his nomination? It seems to reason that they should be able to revoke that approval when the AG begins to undermine the justice system.

Brando @$$ Fat
06-12-2007, 03:29 PM
Originally posted by jeo4
"If senators cast their vote with their conscience, they would speak with near unanimity that there is no confidence in the attorney general," said Schumer. "Their united voice would undoubtedly dislodge the attorney general from the post that he should no longer hold."

"He deserves to be fired," said Senate Majority leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada.

Found this to be quite funny.

Lynn7
06-12-2007, 07:34 PM
I think the whole thing is stupid. I am glad it was blocked. With all the big things facing our nation, this is pretty wacky.

MadsenOMC
06-12-2007, 07:38 PM
This is a big thing Lynn, and if you don't think so, you're not paying close enough attention. Either that or you're just choosing to ignore it. The only thing that's wacky or stupid is believing it isn't a big thing. Politicizing the Justice Department should concern any American with a brain in their head.

MadsenOMC
06-12-2007, 07:45 PM
Alberto Gonzales digs himself a deeper hole.
by Benjamin Wittes

I want to ask how the U.S. attorney termination list came to be," House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers said to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales at the outset of Thursday's oversight hearing. "Who suggested putting most of these U.S. attorneys on the list and why?"

It's a perfectly reasonable question--one you would think that Gonzales, after months of being beaten about the face and neck with this scandal, would be prepared to answer. But Gonzales couldn't--or wouldn't--answer it. He bobbed and weaved. He took responsibility for the process. He told the committee that he had "expected" his aide, D. Kyle Sampson, to consult with the department's senior leadership. He said he didn't oversee the process closely and, since the scandal broke, hasn't inquired about the specifics from the subordinates who compiled the recommendations because he didn't want to compromise the integrity of pending investigations into the matter. He said he "understood" the list "to be the consensus recommendation of the senior leadership of the department." Yet, when it came down to naming names, he couldn't tell Conyers who exactly was responsible for the U.S. attorneys' ending up on that list.

And so began another embarrassing appearance by this hopelessly compromised man, who refuses to resign and is apparently willing to mire the entire Justice Department in scandal for the duration of the Bush administration in order to remain at its helm. Over the course of the day, Gonzales displayed his now notorious powers of memory (or lack thereof). Facts were not facts but merely his "recollection." Instead of denying things, he said he had no "specific recollection" of them happening. He couldn't even state flatly that improper partisan considerations had played no role in the firings. "I know that's not the reason why I accepted the recommendations," he said in response to one question. "And I'm not aware, based upon my review of the documents, based upon the testimony that I have seen ... that people were motivated and coming forward with recommendations for improper, for partisan political reasons." Somehow, he seems to expect that people will find this reassuring.

Gonzales's appearance was particularly dispiriting--and non-credible--because it followed only a week after the country received a lesson in what testimony by the attorney general should look like. This testimony came, unfortunately, from a man who is not the attorney general and who never will be under President Bush, but who served as deputy attorney general earlier in the administration. James Comey, to be fair to Gonzales, had an easier job before the committee than did his former boss; nobody's trying to get his scalp or trip him up, after all. But even taking that into account, the difference between the two men's appearances was dramatic. Comey answered questions straight. He didn't hedge his answers with references to his memory. He didn't slough off accountability onto underlings--while simultaneously declaring that he takes responsibility for this fiasco. And, perhaps most importantly, he didn't talk as though everything that lies within the president's raw power is proper to do.

Comey did not accuse anyone of anything. He didn't need to. But an indictment drips off of every word of praise he gave the fired attorneys, whom he supervised while at the department. One of them, he conceded, had management problems, and Comey had mentioned him as a weak performer when asked about possible U.S. attorney replacements. The others he described with often-considerable enthusiasm; while he had spoken with one of them about her low number of gun prosecutions, none of them was on his list of weak performers. Comey conceded the possibility that what the department brass has termed "performance-related" issues may have arisen with these people after his departure in 2005. But his evident regard for the dismissed U.S. attorneys overwhelms the concession--as does the e-mail he wrote to one of them: "Watching [the flap] causes me great pain for the [U.S. attorneys], whom I respect, and the department which I love. Regardless, I will not sit by and watch good people smeared." Between the praise he bestows on his former colleagues and Gonzales's total inability to answer Conyers's question about how the department generated the termination list yawns a huge credibility gap.

Every administration gets accused of politicizing the Justice Department. Ever since Watergate, the allegation has become part of the opposition trope. The allegations nearly always lack merit. For example, Janet Reno and William Barr--the attorneys general in the Clinton and George H. W. Bush administrations, respectively--both faced loud charges of politicizing the department for, rightly in my view, refusing to appoint unnecessary independent prosecutors to investigate scandals that did not merit them. Political appointees sometimes disagree with career officials and overrule them; that makes career officials upset and stokes allegations on Capitol Hill of politicization. Yet it may involve no impropriety at all. In general, it's a good rule of thumb to disbelieve reflexively such allegations about either party's stewardship of the department.

Yet this episode is testing my rule. Something, after all, must explain how this particular list came to be. New facts, many of them troubling, keep emerging. And while differences over policy explain some of the firings, Comey's testimony dramatically suggests that the inadequacies of these individuals as managers or crime fighters or their insufficient commitment to administration policy initiatives isn't a sufficient explanation for all. The administration's--and many Republicans'--insistence that U.S. attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president and can be dismissed at any time is true but doesn't cut it. Nobody doubts, after all, that the president has the power to fire U.S. attorneys. But not everything that's lawful is good or proper. And it is not good for prosecutors to be evaluated for whether or not they are "loyal Bushies" while the White House and members of Congress lean on the department for more attention to voter fraud cases in the immediate proximity of an election. Nor is it good for the attorney general to be able to offer no coherent explanation for how people lavishly praised by his former deputy--a man of far greater reputation than the attorney general himself--ended up on a list of people to lose their jobs.

This failure to appreciate the difference between what is lawful and what is proper pervades Gonzales's statements since the scandal began--as though if he can only establish that the administration had the legitimate power to fire these officials, the problem will go away. It also pervades the e-mail traffic among his aides. The most upsetting thing about this traffic, rife as it is with White House involvement and reflecting ugly pressure from Capitol Hill in certain cases, is that nobody ever stops and says, "Wait a minute; this is wrong. This is the U.S. Department of Justice we're running here." Nobody ever sent the email that said, "It's very important in my view for [this] institution to be an 'other' in American life, ... because [our] people [have] to stand up before juries of all stripes, talk to sheriffs of all stripes, judges of all stripes." That latter statement had to await Comey's testimony. And Gonzales, for his part, still doesn't seem to understand how damning of his leadership that fact is.



he most moving bit of Comey's testimony did not actually deal with the U.S. attorneys scandal specifically; it came when he was asked about a related allegation--now under investigation--that a department official was subjecting applicants for career positions to political litmus tests. That, Comey said, is


the most serious thing that I've heard come up in this entire controversy. If that was going on, that strikes at the core of what the Department of Justice is. You just cannot do that. You can't hire assistant U.S. attorneys based on political affiliation ... because it deprives the department of its lifeblood, which is the ability to stand up and have juries of all stripes believe what you say. ... I hope it didn't happen. ... But that is a very serious thing.

It says the world about the Bush administration that Comey is now a private citizen--derisively nicknamed "Cuomo" by the president--and Alberto Gonzales remains the attorney general of the United States.

Benjamin Wittes is a guest scholar at the Brookings Institution and is writing a book about the federal courts of appeals. He can be reached at benjamin.wittes@gmail.com.

Cyclonus
06-12-2007, 08:32 PM
Once again Bush and Gonazales make a complete mockery out of the system of checks and balances our founding fathers wisely set up. :mad: I will be happy when Bush's term eventually ends...though I sure hope Giulani doesn't replace him. Then we're fucked again.

Thrizzle
06-12-2007, 08:41 PM
Gonzales should be removed but he's just a foot soldier taking orders from Bush, Cheney and Rove.

Vong
06-12-2007, 09:32 PM
Originally posted by Thrizzle
Gonzales should be removed but he's just a foot soldier taking orders from Bush, Cheney and Rove.

Don't worry mate, they'll all get their comu-upons...

MacReady
06-12-2007, 11:10 PM
Am I the only pissed that in the Cindy Sheehan thread Lynn is crying about how everybody's biased against her because of her ultra neo-conservative and fundamentalist evangelical views, while in this thread she's essentially stated we should look the other way when it's very likely a high-ranking republican decides to fire other high-ranking people solely because of their liberal political views?

Brando @$$ Fat
06-12-2007, 11:17 PM
Originally posted by Vong
Don't worry mate, they'll all get their comu-upons...

No they won't, this is America.

MadsenOMC
06-13-2007, 09:06 AM
Originally posted by MacReady
Am I the only pissed that in the Cindy Sheehan thread Lynn is crying about how everybody's biased against her because of her ultra neo-conservative and fundamentalist evangelical views, while in this thread she's essentially stated should look the other way when it's very likely a high-ranking republican decides to fire other high-ranking people solely because of their liberal political views?

No you're not, but it's just the way Lynn is.

The Postmaster General
06-13-2007, 11:36 AM
Originally posted by MacReady
Am I the only pissed that in the Cindy Sheehan thread Lynn is crying about how everybody's biased against her because of her ultra neo-conservative and fundamentalist evangelical views, while in this thread she's essentially stated should look the other way when it's very likely a high-ranking republican decides to fire other high-ranking people solely because of their liberal political views?


Not to mention that this thread involves a high ranking government official with a lot of power, and the other thread is essentially about an angry citizen who wields no official power.

Oh, wait - You did mention that. Well, it seems it can't be mentioned enough,

jeo4
06-13-2007, 01:13 PM
Originally posted by Lynn7
I think the whole thing is stupid. I am glad it was blocked. With all the big things facing our nation, this is pretty wacky.

I'm beginning to see why Greb opted to be banned. To say that this no confidence vote is a is "stupid" or "wacky" is hugely hypocritical considering the bashing you give Democrats on a regular basis.

jeo4
06-13-2007, 01:21 PM
Originally posted by MacReady
Am I the only pissed that in the Cindy Sheehan thread Lynn is crying about how everybody's biased against her because of her ultra neo-conservative and fundamentalist evangelical views, while in this thread she's essentially stated should look the other way when it's very likely a high-ranking republican decides to fire other high-ranking people solely because of their liberal political views?

Nope.

MadsenOMC
06-13-2007, 01:29 PM
Originally posted by jeo4
I'm beginning to see why Greb opted to be banned. To say that this no confidence vote is a is "stupid" or "wacky" is hugely hypocritical considering the bashing you give Democrats on a regular basis.

You can bet that she'd be singing an entirely different tune if this was a Democratic administration. She wouldn't shrug and say it's no big deal.

The Postmaster General
06-13-2007, 03:58 PM
And of course by "big things facing our nation" she is referencing the moral fallout following the Lewinsky scandal.

Lynn7
06-13-2007, 05:51 PM
Originally posted by MacReady
Am I the only pissed that in the Cindy Sheehan thread Lynn is crying about how everybody's biased against her because of her ultra neo-conservative and fundamentalist evangelical views, while in this thread she's essentially stated we should look the other way when it's very likely a high-ranking republican decides to fire other high-ranking people solely because of their liberal political views?

I did not complain about "my" treatment here on the boards although I will say here that I find it hard to take when you all start to use my name and say stuff that I think or feel. Let me say what I think. I dont' need people to rephrase and misinterpret what I have said.

From what I understand, the president has the RIGHT to hire or fire people in these positions as he wishes. Clinton got rid of everyone when he came in and of course how about travel gate during the Clinton years? Is that ok but this is bad?

Lynn7
06-13-2007, 06:07 PM
Originally posted by jeo4
I'm beginning to see why Greb opted to be banned. To say that this no confidence vote is a is "stupid" or "wacky" is hugely hypocritical considering the bashing you give Democrats on a regular basis.

Do you know that when that happened that I wrote to Joblo and asked him not to ban Greb for his comments? Joblo wrote me back and told me I had no say in the matter - that Greb had disregarded the rules of the board.

Anyway, Greb might be back here posting under another name. Who knows?

Thrizzle
06-13-2007, 06:49 PM
It's common for presidents to fire all the AG's and hire new ones when they first come into office. It's not common to fire AG's mid-term, and it's unheard of to fire your own AG's for refusing to unjustly prosecute democrats or justly investigating republicans. You can't turn AG offices into political hit squads; this is a big issue.

jeo4
06-13-2007, 10:00 PM
Originally posted by Lynn7
I did not complain about "my" treatment here on the boards although I will say here that I find it hard to take when you all start to use my name and say stuff that I think or feel. Let me say what I think. I dont' need people to rephrase and misinterpret what I have said.

Uh, no...most everyone here quotes you directly.

Originally posted by Lynn7
From what I understand, the president has the RIGHT to hire or fire people in these positions as he wishes.

Um...no again. This isn't the President. This is an appointee who fired people in long term positions based on political views. And now he's lied about it publicly and to Congress both.

Originally posted by Lynn7
Clinton got rid of everyone when he came in and of course how about travel gate during the Clinton years? Is that ok but this is bad?

Again, this isn't a President we are talking about appointing positions to a cabinet. This is a completely different case, but nobody here acknowleged anything Bill Clinton did as "okay", so take your own advice here and don't put words into anyone's mouth.

MadsenOMC
06-14-2007, 09:33 AM
Originally posted by Lynn7
From what I understand, the president has the RIGHT to hire or fire people in these positions as he wishes. Clinton got rid of everyone when he came in and of course how about travel gate during the Clinton years? Is that ok but this is bad?

Clearly you don't understand. That's the problem. Thrizzle explained it well. Read his recent post.

jeo4
07-27-2007, 02:40 PM
Snow: Congress creating 'controversies' over Gonzales (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/27/gonzales/index.html)

Un-fucking-believable.