When will they remove the embarrassing Al Gonzalez

[Darren Afrika-ka-ka]

I read about this fools "mis representations " almost on a daily basis now and after reading about the latest about involving his repeated lies i think with the FBI.What else will it take to make stubborn Pres Bush realise that he is backing an incompetent individual with really important issues at hand.

[Dionysos]

Since when has incompetence ever been a reason for Bush to fire anyone?

[Sinner]

Originally Posted by Dionysos

Since when has incompetence ever been a reason for Bush to fire anyone?

[PETA]

Originally Posted by monocerosman

What else will it take to make stubborn Pres Bush realise that he is backing an incompetent individual with really important issues at hand.

that's just it - one of GW's most glaringly obvious and maddening faults is his stupidly fierce and undying loyalty in the face of compelling reasons to sack a bitch.... Gonzalez is of course not the first nitwit he should have canned.

[Darren Afrika-ka-ka]

Originally Posted by xian

that's just it - one of GW's most glaringly obvious and maddening faults is his stupidly fierce and undying loyalty in the face of compelling reasons to sack a bitch.... Gonzalez is of course not the first nitwit he should have canned.

true true brother. But it has to be done...SOON

[PETA]

we can hope but I suspect it'll be fruitless - frankly I think Gonzalez is a minor lightning rod and it keeps the press moderately occupied... that is... less focused on Bush

which means Bush has every reason (politically speaking) to keep him... though Bush has demonstrated time and again that he's a fucking fool when it comes to politics

[Dionysos]

I think Gonzalez is the lightning rod that kills half the administration. Without Alberto Incompeto, Rove, Miers, & Bolton never would have been subpoenad by this spineless Congress. Like you're fond of saying, it isn't the crime that gets them, it's the coverup.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by Dionysos

I think Gonzalez is the lightning rod that kills half the administration. Without Alberto Incompeto, Rove, Miers, & Bolton never would have been subpoenad by this spineless Congress. Like you're fond of saying, it isn't the crime that gets them, it's the coverup.

Congress can issue the subpoena but I don't there' smuch they can do to enforce them... Executive Privilege is real and was upheld when the challenge was made first term with Cheney and the energy consultants... and that was 1) the VP and 2) not cabinet officials (I know Rove isn't but he's clearly an advisor)

If Gonzalez left yesterday (2 months ago) I don't think this subpoena bs would go (have gone) away... Congress is making too much political hay

[Dionysos]

The hilarious - and by hilarious I mean infuriating - part about these subpoenas is who is responsible for enforcing them: the attorney general. Boy, I wonder if he's going to push hard to get those guys to court.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by Dionysos

The hilarious - and by hilarious I mean infuriating - part about these subpoenas is who is responsible for enforcing them: the attorney general. Boy, I wonder if he's going to push hard to get those guys to court.

what I'm saying is that I think they are unenforceable even if the AG wanted to... I'm not clear on how it functions procedurally but Congress cannot compell testimony in the face of a legitmately invoked privilege (here executive privilege)

[Dionysos]

But they should be able to force testimony to determine if the 'executive privilege' is in fact being used legitimately. If need be, do it behind closed doors with congressional members who have high levels of security clearance, but it *has* to be under oath. This administration hasn't earned a blank check on either that or the right to invoke executive privilege whenever they feel like it.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by Dionysos

But they should be able to force testimony to determine if the 'executive privilege' is in fact being used legitimately.

Which is to say let Congress decide if the information is privileged after getting it on the record? Atty Client privilege doesn't work that way and I doubt executive privilege would either.

Originally Posted by Dionysos

If need be, do it behind closed doors with congressional members who have high levels of security clearance, but it *has* to be under oath. This administration hasn't earned a blank check on either that or the right to invoke executive privilege whenever they feel like it.

The privilege exists for good reason* and I don't think Congress can compell this testimony once invoked. Wish I had a better explanation of how it worked or the rule from the Cheney case to relate - I'll try to look it up.

One of the problems here is that this is a political showdown in the sense that two branches are butting heads... in the more base sense of the word as well.


* we want the executive to have advisors who are willing to explore the broadest scope of options in formulating policy - absence of privilege casts a chill on willingness of advisors to speak

[Dionysos]

Originally Posted by xian

* we want the executive to have advisors who are willing to explore the broadest scope of options in formulating policy - absence of privilege casts a chill on willingness of advisors to speak

I understand the purpose and have no problem with it in principle, but this administration has been deceitful in just about every possible way and they keep riding this check to the bank. There has to be a way - be it through an independent council, some sort of Congressional committee that can seal their records for a few years, whatever - to put a check on something that can be so easily abused. Do I think executive privilege is necessary and generally used in a proper manner? Yes. However I think - just as they've done with everything from torture to WMD to Cheney claiming he's not part of the executive fucking branch - this administration is abusing this concept in a way that's beyond what should be allowed. I don't claim to have the perfect answer to the issue, but it doesn't negate the fact that it's a problem Dubya & Co are exploiting.

[BigBallinColin]

it's gerald ford's fault

[PETA]

Originally Posted by Dionysos

Do I think executive privilege is necessary and generally used in a proper manner?

I think Congress pushed a showdown on something I consider to be fully within the realm of executive authority - the hiring and firing of political officers. The AG attys were not bureaucrats they were appointees iirc. That means they serve at the pleasure of the President and he owes no explanation whatsoever for their termination and Congress has no right to demand one much less subpoena cabinet members and advisors to the President.

Originally Posted by Dionysos

Cheney claiming he's not part of the executive fucking branch

Its a legit argument - he is President of the Senate. Ultimately I suspect it would fail but its not as silly as one might think.

Originally Posted by Dionysos

- this administration is abusing this concept in a way that's beyond what should be allowed. I don't claim to have the perfect answer to the issue, but it doesn't negate the fact that it's a problem Dubya & Co are exploiting.

Its something he is exploiting because he's been pushed by Congress over something they've only tenuous basis to push on. I agree that he can can do this and I agree that its looks terrible but the fault isn't so clearly cut and in his lap on this issue imo.