Look, these appointees serve at the pleasure of the president. If the president is insane or stupid, just wait four years and you can have another president, theoretically. Gosh, who cares anyway.
I may not be able to write clearly, but given a chance to proofread I can spell. (Which is more than opposing counsel in this case I'm working on can say. Misspelling your own client's name, as well as being unable to keep "plead" "pled" and "pleaded" straight? Uncool.)
#2 sounds like "just lay back and enjoy it, it'll all be over real soon."
3: "Pled" vs. "pleaded" is a battle I thought I would win one day. Sadly, I think I've lost once and for all, and now I soldier on under the tyranny of "pleaded." Sigh.
Impeachment is always at least a partly political question, so violating the law doesn't get you all the way to "should impeach." I don't actually know what the drawbacks of impeaching Gonzales would be (alienating Hispanics, maybe), but that's the question to ask.
2:
the people being prosecuted care. Career prosecutors care about being promoted based on skill not political donations and political work.
Our system depends on the integrity of the justice system. Prosecutors have such unbelievable power.
alienating Hispanics, maybe
Not to mention lackeys and yes-men everywhere. Can Democrats win without the lickspittle vote?
Bryan Garner, Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage, 2d ed.:
"Traditionally speaking, pleaded is the best past-tense and past-participial form. Commentators on usage have long said so, pouring drops of vitriol onto has pled and has plead ...." [Gives examples; goes on to concede "some standing" to "pled" and "plead," but calls "pleaded" "the predominant form" in both America and Britain.
And there you have it.
Prosecutors have such unbelievable power.
Hmph. Try telling that to my wife when it's time to do the dishes.
It's become clear from all this that the Goodling-type people at Justice either -- at worst -- believed that their jobs at Justice were simply about advancing the fortunes of the Republican party and its members, or -- at best -- had no conception that the institution might have some logic of its own that differed from their own political convictions. The fuckers.
I'm not sure I'm for impeachment. I think that might be treating a symptom, not addressing the disease.
13: "at Justice" should be "throughout the Administration"
I'd be willing to call the guy who's saying Gonzales is doing a heckova job the disease, and consider that by itself sufficient misconduct to justify impeachment.
"Our system depends on the integrity of the justice system."
At once, so true and so very, very tragic.
5: appointing aides is like bad weather.
Did anybody actually see the video of Goodling's testimony (I only saw excerpts on The Daily Show, which I'm counting for these purposes)? She really came off as 1) guilty and knows it and 2) a complete dingbat.
There's a whole generation of dingbat true believers coming up behind her in the evangelical colleges.
Well, if the majority could just wave its magic Impeachment Wand and have Gonzales outta there in the time it takes a software company to fire a contract worker, I'd be all for it. Using the state's police powers for partisan ends is un-American. Period.
On the other hand (IIRC, IANAL and all that), actual impeachment requires a trial, which would basically be the only thing the Senate could do for some time. Is that the most important thing for them to be doing? Is it important enough to make it the only thing they are doing?
There's a war to be stopped, after all, and there are other administration malfeasances to be brought to light, plus all of the usual business of running the country.
Then there's the matter of the trial itself. Doesn't it take a two-thirds majority to convict? Are there 15 or 20 Republicans who would vote to remove him from office? If not, he stays in with something that politically looks like absolution.
The trick, it seems to me, is to keep doing things in public that increase the political cost of keeping him. Every round of this reinforces the perception that Bush and the Republicans are bad for the country. At some point, Bush thanks Gonzales for his services and either lets him go or wishes him well on his choice to pursue new challenges or spend more time with his family. If not, Bush keeps paying the political cost, and the point that Bush and the Republicans are bad for the country.
Keeping these bad things (and many other bad things) in the public's eye increases the majority's ability to do good things. It stiffens the spines of wavering members and, I hope, increases the size of the majority, thus further increasing its ability to do good things...
I think Gonzales has shown he should not be the nation's top law enforcement official. But should his fitness be turned into the one and only thing the Senate does, with an uncertain outcome?
14: Hey, when the integrity of the justice system is at stake, treating the symptoms is pretty dang important too.
21 semi-pwned, as I took a long time to write...
Politically unwise, I'm not good at gauging that sort of question. Eh, maybe -- I was focused on whether it would be the right thing to do, not whether it would be advantageous. But I think worrying about it being the only thing the Senate could focus on is overblown. There's a whole lot of them, and they have staffs. Everything would get done.
24 - What else did the Senate do while Clinton was on trial?
I agree with a lot of 21, but the problem with it is that Bush doesn't care about paying the political cost. What, he's going to drop to 25% in the polls? Who cares? As long as he's got enough votes to sustain vetoes--which he's not likely to lose, at least not on many issues--there is no cost to him. To those in the GOP who are running in 2008, maybe, but he's all about letting other people pay the costs.
Sow down there, LB. Ms. Goodling only testified that she "may have" taken inappropriate political considerations into account. As in, she may not have, as well. Either one's a possibility.
Also, NCP, "pleaded" is correct.
Instead of impeaching Gonzales, couldn't we just give his kids to John Yoo?
"sow down" s/b "slow down". Although I kind of like the ring of the former.
Sow down there, don't hog all the outrage, you might start to boar us.
Poetic justice would be to have Yoo and Gonzales in a contest to write the most convincing brief condemning himself. Loser gets one year of the Padilla treatment.
11, 27: Look, fuckers, I said I'd lost the war. Don't feel the need to tap dance all over the surrender papers.
And as long as the North Carolina Supreme Court still uses it, "pled" will have a place of honor in my lexicon.
NC, I'm from freakin' Mississippi, and trust me, I am not using our supreme court as a guide to usage ... it's bad enough using them as a guide to the law!
I'm not fussy -- I won't complain about either "pleaded" or "pled" as a past tense. But "plead" as a past tense is flat wrong.
"pled" is always correct and "pleaded" always wrong, yes? Or is there some transitive usage of "plead" for which "pleaded" is the correct past tense, or something? Or is "pleaded" the correct participle (I don't believe so)?
Abu Gonzalez plod through his testimony with resignation on his face.
33: For what it's worth, I agree that "pled" does have a certain antiquated charm to it, much like the defeated Confederacy. It's understandable to mourn its passing, even while acknowledging that from its very inception it was an error, a great mistake, whose defenders, despite some individual good intentions, were always fundamentally in the wrong. (And, given this parallel, I suppose it's also not too surprising that North Carolina hasn't yet fully acknowledged the defeat.)
40:
I would have thought that you didnt care as long as they pled guilty.
Hm, ought to read the thread more before commenting.
I'll see your "impeachment" and raise you: What needs to happen is imprisonment. For the whole crew.
On the subject of "ead/ed," does anyone else find it really weird to make the verb "lead" into past by spelling it "lead" instead of "led"? I started being irritated by this a couple of years ago, but now I see it all over, so I might have just wrongly put it in the "error" category and then been afflicted with Baader-Meinhof.
And of course it's all very arbitrary, since the metal "lead" is pronounced "led."
44: I'll see your imprisonment and raise you a frogmarch.
I hear "frogmarch", do I have "being drawn and quartered"? "being drawn and quartered"? Going once for "frogmarch", to the gentleman in the odd disguise... Going twice... Sold!
I'm thinking some kind of Mussolini type option ...
41: You are evil and you must be destroyed.
While I do understand that Unfogged moderation is basically an orgulous despotism, it seems to me that if analogies are banned, so should be mixed metaphors.
I find it interesting that now that the deputy has quit they're trying to pin it all on him.
But quite frankly I don't believe a thing monica goodling says, these weren't mistakes or anything, but direct orders from the white house, and gonzales is being rewarded for lying for bush. But I strangely find it hard to get worked up about this whole scandal, when there is so much worse stuff going on.
also: pled fits better with usual english usage, but there are plenty of other words that have wacky tenses (hang/hanged/hung). I would probably use pled, but IANAL.
Would you use Pled after or before you ANALed?
52: You would use Pledge afterwards. To get the best shine.
If you don't think Gonzales deserves impeachment for this, is it because you think violating law and civil service rules to politicize law enforcement is no big deal, or because you think that it's unreasonable to hold Gonzales responsible for what his aides do, or is there some third option I haven't thought of?
Option three, of course: Goodling was just an overzealous subordinate, acting in a highly partisan manner entirely on her own. Either that or she was a Democrat plant.
Moonbat.
"But I strangely find it hard to get worked up about this whole scandal, when there is so much worse stuff going on."
I, too, suffer somewhat from outrage fatigue, but I think manipulating the machinery of law & order to influence the political process is pretty damn shocking.
Impeachment of Gonzalez would, it's my understanding, be much less intensive and effort than impeachment of the President. Remember, the Founders expected impeachment to happen much more often than it has - the reason that Bush appears to hold all the cards, and that checks appear unbalanced, is that Congress has holstered its weapon while faced with an armed maniac. The Founders did not expect government to grind to a halt every few years while purging (to be expected) bad actors.
On the language question, my toddler would like to offer a vote for "goed" in place of "went."
55: Oh yeah, this is actually about as big a deal as anything we know about. Remember, this isn't just about partisan prosecutors - which is awful - but also about using fake claims of vote fraud to subvert elections. So, to be clear: the Rove gameplan here is to force prosecutors to use the power of the Federal government to intimidate minorities out of voting, thus ensuring a Republican majority regardless of the desires of the citizenry.
While Gitmo and NSA spying subvert American liberties, this scandal is an actual effort to subvert American democracy. Which is why I think impeachment is the dead minimum we should be talking about.
I'm with ttaM -- you don't need an impeachment in a case like this. You need a lamppost.
The auction already ended, Brock. Try to keep up.
re: 59
You realise that now we can't travel to the US without the risk of detention. Assuming they can get past our cunning aliases.
Assuming they can get past our cunning aliases.
Worst of all, they're going to pull EVERYONE named Nworb Werdna off his flight.
Yeah, all those innocent Werdnistas.
I am so sick and angry about this story I can't write anything coherent.
I dispute the second part of that sentence. But anyway, here's something that, while unrelated, might cheer you up.
"Oh yeah, this is actually about as big a deal as anything we know about. Remember, this isn't just about partisan prosecutors - which is awful - but also about using fake claims of vote fraud to subvert elections. So, to be clear: the Rove gameplan here is to force prosecutors to use the power of the Federal government to intimidate minorities out of voting, thus ensuring a Republican majority regardless of the desires of the citizenry.
While Gitmo and NSA spying subvert American liberties, this scandal is an actual effort to subvert American democracy. Which is why I think impeachment is the dead minimum we should be talking about."
I just wanted to quote JRoth for emphasis.
Extreme measures are regrettably necessary in the war on Werdna-fascism.
Ooh, and there's going to be a video too!
64: Giuliani slammed by NYC firefighters for 'lack of respect'
I like it, but the sentence would, I think, be more effectively ended with the words, "into a bank of lockers."
69 -- I took it that LB was suggesting her phrase should g in place of "for 'lack of respect'".
Remember, the Founders expected impeachment to happen much more often than it has
Source?
Jesus Christ. If the 9-11 firefighters can't figure out that their real complaint should be THE TOXIC AIR THAT FUCKHEADS LIKE GIULIANI TOLD THEM WAS SAFE, then we're in trouble. Lack of respect for human remains amid a gargantuan, toxic disaster? Not quite as pressing to me.
I just read an article about a woman whose death from lung disease has now been fairly conclusively linked to the asbestos and whateverelse dust. She wasn't even a rescue worker, just someone who got out of the site and arrived home covered in it.
72: Shit, I knew someone was going to ask, and I can't recall where I read this. I think that Madison specifically said in one of the Federalists that impeachment was included as a remedy for... corruption? Something not-illegal.
Is it too late to see your Mussolini and raise you a Rasputin? We need these people to stay down.
Totally OT, but this is some totally bad-ass shit -- water buffaloes vs. lions vs. crocodiles.
Check out 3:36 and 5:47, and the happy ending at 6:15. Hell, just watch it all, those buffaloes frakkin' rule.
re: 76
Rasputin would be fine, or some kind of Ekaterinburg/Yekaterinburg moment.
Federalist 39 suggests that part of what makes the proposed Constitution a "republican" one is that the "President of the United States is impeachable at any time during his continuance in office." In other words, the fact of his impeachability is critical to the sense that he is responsible to the people.
But probably better is 77, the entire closing of which follows. Note that Madison is specifically talking about "safety, in a republican sense" - as in, what keeps the executive from enacting anti-republican tyranny.
We have now completed a survey of the structure and powers of the executive department, which, I have endeavored to show, combines, as far as republican principles will admit, all the requisites to energy. The remaining inquiry is: Does it also combine the requisites to safety, in a republican sense, a due dependence on the people, a due responsibility? The answer to this question has been anticipated in the investigation of its other characteristics, and is satisfactorily deducible from these circumstances; from the election of the President once in four years by persons immediately chosen by the people for that purpose; and from his being at all times liable to impeachment, trial, dismission from office, incapacity to serve in any other, and to forfeiture of life and estate by subsequent prosecution in the common course of law. But these precautions, great as they are, are not the only ones which the plan of the convention has provided in favor of the public security. In the only instances in which the abuse of the executive authority was materially to be feared, the Chief Magistrate of the United States would, by that plan, be subjected to the control of a branch of the legislative body. What more could be desired by an enlightened and reasonable people?
Federalists 65 and 66 (Hamilton) and some of 64 (Jay) cover the impeachment trial power of the Senate and make it clear (to me, anyway) that the intention was to make impeachments of elected officials quite difficult. Impeachment of judicial officials like judges, however, is meant to be much easier. In the latter case, "malconduct" however it is further defined is suitable for impeachment (Fed. 79, Hamilton). However, although Gonzales is in charge of the DoJ, he is not a member of the judiciary--he is an appointed member of the executive. Therefore IF he is susceptible to impeachment (which, ignorant as I am, I don't know), I believe it would be a difficult process. I think this is why the Democrats have been talking about a vote of no confidence; it might be their only real tool (if impeachment of executive officers is not allowed).
And by "real tool" I mean completely symbolic and toothless tool.
Okay, so he can be impeached. I am a dumbass. Art. II, sec. 5
of the Constitution:
The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
Is Gonzales really guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors? Or is he just guilty of being a giant douche?
It's a huge failing that your Constitution doesn't contain a 'giant douche' amendment.
"High crimes and misdemeanors" is ill-defined, I think intentionally to allow impeachment for significant misconduct while leaving the definition of significant misconduct up to Congress. Gooding's conduct was certainly unlawful, although probably not criminal, and I don't see any reason to think that it wasn't the result of policy set at Gonzales's level.
I don't get the "high crimes and misdemeanors" bit -- are officials who commit felonies exempt from impeachment?
Gonzales, April 19th:
"I have not gone back and spoken directly with Mr. [Kyle] Sampson and others who were involved in this process," Gonzales told the committee on May 10. "In order to protect the integrity of this investigation and of the investigation of the Office of Professional Responsibility and the Office of Inspector General -- I am a fact witness, they are fact witnesses, and in order to preserve the integrity of those investigations, I have not asked these specific questions."
Goodling, yesterday:
"He [Gonzales] just said that he thought that everybody that was on the list was on the list for a performance-related reason," Goodling testified. "He proceeded to say, 'Let me tell you what I can remember,' and he laid out for me his general recollection of some of the process regarding the replacement of U.S. attorneys."
That conversation occurred in March, prior to Gonzales' testimony in April.
It's called perjury. It's not complicated.
Nah, you just have to think 18th C. "Misdemeanor" in that sentence doesn't mean "Crime punishable by less than one year's imprisonment" which is roughly the misdemeanor/felony line, it means mis-demeanor like bad-behavior. Doing things that are wrong. It's vague, but I believe purposefully so.
Is Gonzales really guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors?
Sure, he's guilty of FISA violations and probably Hatch act and perjury problems as well. Of course the available evidence would suggest that "high crimes and misdemeanors" refers only to semen stains and cantankerousness, but it's worth a try.
Perjury and Attempt to Suborne (sp?) Perjury, looks like.
Who among us has not attempted to suborn sodomy, let him cast the first stone.
Just like everything else in American politics, this argument drives me nuts. It amounts to saying, "Because the Republicans impeached Clinton for no good reason, Democrats can't impeach anyone even for a good reason". Suddenly we have a strict definition of "impeachable offense".
And with the media we've got, the rules will almost certainly change again on Jan. 20, 2009.
I'm not a big enthusiast for the "framing" meme, but Republican and media frames of issues can never be taken at face value, and if the rules are changed for one side, they can't be changed back for the other side.
Same with the "civility" BS. Newt Gingrich and Tom DeLay were two of the nastiest gutter-fighters in the history of American politics, but "civility" seems only to be mentioned when it's Democrats or bloggers who are under discussion.
Also, remember from logic that if a, then a v b (without exclusivity). So if it is true that Gonzales is guilty of perjury, then it is also true that Gonzales is either guilty of perjury or a giant douche. It is also true that Gonzales is either guilty of perjury or a giant douche or a syncophantic lapdog.
"Who among us has not attempted to suborn sodomy, let him cast the first stone."
I'd be concerned if anyone was able to throw a stone.
Actually, that should be "It is also true that Gonzales is (either guilty of perjury or a giant douche) and is a sycophantic lapdog."
I prefer "syncophantic," thank you. He's in sync.
98/99: I see some inconsistency here. Also, Kobe!
We already know he's a giant douche.
It only appears as inconsistency to you mortals. I have a higher, paraconsistent logic.
There is some overlap between "giant douch" and "sycophantic lapdog".
When the two scandals converge, and we find out that the NSA has been passing wiretap data to political people or whatever, then they'll impeach him for sure!
The "If only he'd knock over a bank or something" of the modern era.
101: Then we don't need to state it as a conditional anymore. We now know it is true that
Gonzales is either guilty of perjury or (a giant douche and a sycophantic lapdog)
Pass the word.
86: Correction! This portion of Gonzales' testimony took place before the House Judiciary Committee on May 10th.
My bad. But hey, it's still perjury!
When perjuring is illegalized, only illegals will perjure. Another good reason to oppose the Immigration Bill!
Look on the bright side, Gonzales could have ended up on the Supreme Court.
"A well-constituted court for the trial of impeachments is an object not more to be desired than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly elective. The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself." (Federalist 65)
I think this does a lot to illuminate "high crimes and misdemeanors." "Abuse or violation of some public trust" clearly does not map one-to-one with "statutory crime." As for the intended difficulty seen by Yeho in 80, that's clearly there, but the goal that I see Hamilton establishing is that it not be a partisan - faction, they would have said - exercise. That's why they chose the Senate to hear the case, because it's "sufficiently dignified, and sufficiently independent." But they leave the bringing of impeachment to the House, which was always intended to be the more passionate, so to speak, chamber. I think that what was intended was something like a couple of impeachments per decade, with only an occasional conviction.
It's our conservative political culture that prevents this - actually deposing a president is so drastic that we fear so much as impeaching (much less convicting) a clearly pernicious underling. I redirect you back to my 57; Gonzalez has been caught trying to subvert democratic elections across the US. Others may share his guilt, but if he chooses to go down alone, so be it. Down he must go.
Gonzales could have ended up on the Supreme Court.
I'm not sure about that. It's pretty hard to get confirmed if during your hearing you can't remember anything about your legal philosophy.
Democrats' timorousness WRT impeachment is a good reason to distrust and disdain them. This should be a lay-down case. It would be nice if at least one person were held accountable before the rest of the administration floats off to legally-untouchable land on a raft of pardons.
It's pretty hard to get confirmed if during your hearing you can't remember anything about your legal philosophy.
Yeah, what are the odds that that would happen twice in 20 years?
104: My annoyance with the media in this situation is pretty much boundless, but your post points out a disappointment that hadn't occurred to me before: Where the hell is Trudeau? He doesn't even have to come up with new cartoons; he can just re-run the Nixon ones.
I guess he figures, "Been there, done that."
Re: the take up all the Senate's time point. That's wrong. The Senate is allowed to delegate the hearing of evidence to a committee who then issues a report either recommending for or against conviction. See Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993). That's a Judge Nixon, not a President Nixon.
115: Ah, that's what I was thinking of when I wrote that impeaching Gonzo shouldn't be such a big deal. Sure, for the president, it takes everyone's time, but underlings? Delegate, delegate, delegate.
I heard an NPR report about the hundreds of investigations Congress had opened up, and apparently they'd delegated research to all kinds of people: retired journalists, professors, random staffers.
I think it's admirable that after 6 years of Bush you can still muster enough outrage to be angry at this. I ran out of my reserve years ago.
Bush is the fucking Fountain of Youth for outrage.
One thing that came out in this prosecutor purge is that they fired one guy for complaining that DOJ wasn't providing resources to investigate the murder of a US Assistant Attorney. Why not? Because he'd been assassinated by a gun nut, and the Bush Admin didn't want to arrest and prosecute a gun nut.
Bush's awfulness goes way past 11.
119: I refuse to think about that story because I think it might cause actual brain damage from the disbelief and outrage. So it didn't happen.
re: 120
And we are back to the lamppost option.
Here's what I don't get - these aren't just "moonbat conspiracy theories." I mean, 119 is alleged by a Republican US Attorney. And there's evidence to back him up. Why is there NO ONE on our side screaming this on every TV show in the country? You had fucking Chris Matthews interviewing the Clinton Murder Files people - bullshit made up of whole cloth - but now, when we have an actual criminal group in the White House, everyone but Dennis Kucinich is too fucking polite to talk about it. You want to know why Americans are ambivalent about impeachment (altho, of course, they are far more in favor now than they were 8 years ago)? Because no one is telling them what's really going on.
Hell, at this point a LOT of "serious" people suspect that the illegal part of the NSA was spying on political enemies - shouldn't at least Cliff Schecter, who seems to have balls, be raising the issue? It will take awhile to dent public consciousness that these guys are worse than Nixon. And it won't happen if no one speaks up.
Goddammit.
110 - I'm not so sure about that. See also, Thomas, Alito, Roberts et alii.
111 - "good reason to distrust and disdain [the Democrats]" ... By all means, let us stand with that other, far more vigorous opposition party in Congress, the, um ... the, um ... the, er, help me out again, what party would that be?
You want to know why Americans are ambivalent about impeachment ...? Because no one is telling them what's really going on.
Agreed. It's a little dizzying, actually, to talk politics with anyone who just knows what they saw on the TV news.
One thing that came out in this prosecutor purge is that they fired one guy for complaining that DOJ wasn't providing resources to investigate the murder of a US Assistant Attorney. Why not? Because he'd been assassinated by a gun nut, and the Bush Admin didn't want to arrest and prosecute a gun nut.
Oh fuck I wish I hadn't just read that.