StubbornFacts
Stubborn Facts
Stubborn Facts

Navigation

User login

Subscribe via RSS

Resources

The latest from our partner, the PoliGazette

Blog Roll

Gonzales and the U.S. Attorneys

Submitted by Simon on Mon, 08/27/2007 - 10:27am

It's worth adding to Tully's post that while I joined the chorus line in calling for Gonzales' head, we ought to be very clear (as we've been before) that there is no actual U.S. Attorneys scandal. The partisan meme that something illegal was done is utterly meritless. Not only is the firing of a U.S. Attorney unquestionably within the inherent Article II powers of the Chief Executive, see Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52 (1926); Humprey's Executor v. United States, 295 U.S. 602 (1935); Wienar v. United States, 357 U.S. 349 (1958); Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654, 723 (1988) (Scalia, J., dissenting), it is expressly authorized by statute, see 28 U.S.C. § 541(c), and "[w]hen the President acts pursuant to an express or implied authorization of Congress, his authority is at its maximum, for it includes all that he possesses in his own right plus all that Congress can delegate." Youngstown co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 635 (1952) (Jackson, J., concurring).

You're undoubtedly correct

You're undoubtedly correct about the substance of the so-called scandal. But if Administration officials lied to Congress and/or other investigating authorities, would those potentially be separate and distinct crimes? Just wondering, as it often seems that folks get netted by the cover-up rather than the underlying offense.

I would have thought so. I

I would have thought so. I know there's a lot of folks on the right - Thompson's one of them, IIRC - who say that because Fitzgerald was out of control and there was no underlying crime, Libby really should get off, but setting aside the jurisdictional question which is pending appeal (which is serious and interesting) he still perjured himself. Just like Clinton. Just like Clinton. Now, whether Congress is a "competent tribunal" within the meaning of 18 usc 1621 is a question one can answer on many levels. ;)

Not to rehash whether there

Not to rehash whether there was a "scandal" or not, but the question was never whether the President had the authority to fire the US Attorneys, but whether he did so for partisan reasons (eg, whether an AG was fired for nor pursuing voter fraud claims before an election, when the intent of pushing the claims was to help the Republican candidate). You can believe or not believe the allegation, but I think your cites above misse that point.

Right. As you said Justin, the legality of the firings in and of

themselves is undisputed, but there is (as least as I saw it) some evidence that the whole thing was partisan, and somewhat unseemly. Let's not forget that Gonzales did gave misleading testimony to Congress.

At the end of the day, we have a potential scandal, through partisan flame-fanning and Gonzales' own evasion and incompetence, becoming a big scandal. That, with the other baggage he has, doomed him.

"In the world you will find tribulation, but be of good cheer, for I have overcome the world."

John 16:33

If that's really the limit

If that's really the limit of the claim, then it's barely a scandal worthy of the name, absent evidence that (a) a U.S. Attorney pursued a meritless charge acting on political motives (b) that they failed to persue a meritorious charge acting on political motives or (c) they were fired for refusing to do (a) or (b). Without that, once it's conceded that the President can fire his employees - and U.S. Attorneys are such - the bottom drops out of the "scandal," which is probably why the scandal has had such limited resonance outside of political circles.

Well, hopefully the

Well, hopefully the Democrats will keep investigating so we can know if anything improper happened. It would certainly be helpful if the White House provided a coherent explanation as to why the US Attorneys were fired; that's not evidence of bad behavior, but it certainly smells like rotting fish.

I just hope that Bush doesn't appoint an unqualified hack as a replacemement--it's impossible to predict what he is going to do.

Recent comments

Advertisements
StubbornFacts.us does not endorse the content of any advertisement

Featured Movie

Syndicate

Syndicate content

Who's online

There are currently 0 users and 2 guests online.