Schumer: Gonzales unlikely to survive(people at DOJ want info to come out)

[maddezmom]

Schumer: Gonzales unlikely to survive
WASHINGTON, March 18 (UPI) -- A top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee says Alberto Gonzales probably will not survive as U.S. attorney general, and may step down within a week.

Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., spoke on NBC's "Meet the Press" Sunday. Asked by host Tim Russert if Gonzales will remain attorney general, Schumer said it was "unlikely."


"I think it's highly unlikely he survives. I wouldn't be surprised if a week from now he is no longer attorney general," Schumer said. Gonzales is due to return to the committee to testify on the firing of eight U.S. attorneys. Democrats allege the abrupt firings were for political reasons.


"The Justice Department has actually agreed to be cooperative, and this week the staff will take depositions of five Justice Department officials," Schumer said. "Next week we will have them come to hearings. They've also given us all the documents" related to the firings.


~snip~


"I would offer a fervent plea to the White House to give us this information," Schumer said. "It's going to come out, anyway. There are too many people in the Justice Department who want the information to come out because they were so upset."

more: http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/schumer_gonzales_unlikely_to_survive/20070318-022623-2466r/

From TPMuckraker:
U.S. Attorney Purge Scandal: The Week Ahead
By Paul Kiel - March 18, 2007, 10:29 AM
I think they call this running the gauntlet. Get ready, Alberto.

From the AP:

On Monday, the Justice Department plans to turn over to Congress more documents that could provide more details of the role agency officials -- including Gonzales -- and top White House officials played in planning the prosecutors' dismissals.
On Tuesday, the White House is expected to announce whether it will let former White House counsel Harriet Miers, political strategist Karl Rove and other presidential advisers testify before Congress -- and whether it will release more documents to lawmakers, including additional e-mails and other items. That decision was to be made on Friday, but the White House asked for more time.

On Thursday, lawmakers are scheduled to quiz Gonzales about his agency's budget request, but likely will ask questions about the scandal, too.

more:
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002793.php

[kestrel91316]

1. Why trust to fate??? Impeach his sorry ass already, guys!

[jwirr]

2. Hidden deep inside our Government are the old workers who are

fighting for the truth to come out - talk about an act of patriotism.

[maddezmom]

3. check out Specter on Faux re: Schumer and the USA flap

WALLACE: This week, you said that New York Democratic Senator Schumer — that his role leading the investigation into the U.S. attorneys at the same time that he's running the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee is a conflict of interest. Has he crossed a line here?

SPECTER: I think he has. And I confronted Senator Schumer on it eyeball to eyeball on Thursday in the Judiciary Committee meeting.

But let's look at what the facts are. Senator Schumer is leading the inquiry, and the day after we have testimony about Senator Domenici, he puts his name up on the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, criticizing or really making the argument that he ought not to be re-elected.

Now, I think that the inquiry by the Judiciary Committee ought to have at least a modicum of objectivity, and if Mr. Schumer is doing a job to defeat Senator Domenici, which he is now — that's his job as chairman of the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee — that he puts it up on their Web site the very next day, and then he has made very conclusory and judgmental statements all along.

And I challenged him on that a week ago in the Judiciary Committee, and he calls it a purge, and he's taken a very political stance. Now, he's got a right to do that. He's a politician and I'm a politician.

But I don't think he can do both things at the same time without having a conflict of interest, but that's up for him to decide.

WALLACE: Senator, we only have about 30 seconds left. Are you calling on Senator Schumer to step down — if he's going to continue this political effort, are you calling on him to step down in terms of leading the investigation?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,259448,00.html

somebody needs to step down and it's not Schumer

[Truthseeker013]

4. check out Specter on Faux re: Schumer and the USA flap

And the heads need to start rolling at the top. I was in the Naval Academy for a year and a half, and one of the first things I learned there is that the captain of the ship is responsible for everything that occurs under his comand.

[gratuitous]

11. Gee, Arlen, since the self-writing legislation came out of your shop

The "self-writing" legislation that enabled Gonzales to do his little political purge came out of Arlen Specter's office, perhaps Specter should step down from the Judiciary Committee. After all, isn't it a conflict of interest for him to be policing the Justice Department after his staff writes legislation that he's not even aware of? I don't think he can do both things at the same time without having a conflict of interest.

Step down, Mr. Specter. It would be the honorable, ethical thing to do.

{Giggle}

[KittyWampus]

12. -giggle- and good on you for pointing out Arlen wrote/enabled the damned provision

that allowed this all to happen.

Under the guise of 'protecting America' :puke:

Patriot Act, indeed. It seems the criminals were given enough rope.

[Babel_17]

5. Eventually, republicans are going to realize that

the democratic party stands to gain never ending political hay as long as Gonzales is around. Assuming the dem's don't get shrill or make outrageous claims that have no credibility, the Gonzales led DOJ will serve as a genie's lamp that can always be counted on to be rubbed so as to deliver revelations that hurt the image of the republican party. Not to mention that Gonzales continued presence would serve as a living emblem of the malfeasance of the administration, and as a catalyst for more probes and criticism, etc.

Gonzales has already been impeached, his credibility will forever more be fair game for the press. No one in the DOJ can reasonably assume that Gonzales can act as a firewall to protect them from shady doings. They have every incentive to not incur the wrath of the party that now controls the investigative committees (and which looks to be heavily favored to do so two years from now).

All that's left for sane republican partisans is the effort to control the defeat. This is why I like that our leadership is concentrating on acquiring evidence and testimony rather than making getting the head of Gonzales the overriding goal. Yes, an administration that has to fire its attorney general is weakened and such an action lends finality to its opposition's premise that such an administration has serious issues regarding integrity. But imo the administration is in a position where that outcome will be forced eventually anyways, if they try to go forward while in denial of that they are just doing themselves much more harm.

Once Gonzales is gone it will be harder to get the public to notice the backstory. Imo we need our leaders to concentrate on documenting all the sordid details of what has gone under this most venal of attorney generals. His ability to do more wrongs will then take care of itself. By following this strategy we help to insure that if Gonzales is replaced we don't lose the momentum of getting these wrongdoings documented. By not making our focus Gonzales himself we we will be in a better position to get a replacement that dares not hinder these investigations. We can't let Bushco be allowed to put Gonzales in the position of being the cutout man. The administration managed him and his fall from grace is our entry into the world in which they did all their dirty deals. It's our entry into that world that is critical. Gonzales being in place or not is secondary imo.

P.S. I'm not saying that appropriate calls, in the proper context, for the removal of Gonzales should be stifled.

[Barrett808]

6. Word. n/t

[Venus Dog]

7. You mean some of Gonzo's underlings don't like him

I'm shocked, shocked I tell you :eyes:

[Demeter]

8. OH, But Nobody OUtside the Beltway Knows or Cares About Gonzo, Doncha know?

Except for those who care about the Constitution, civil rights, privacy, Big Brother tactics, anti-war, and other such fundamentals.

And that's a lot more people than they can count.

[libodem]

9. Torture boy needs spanked

[maddezmom]

10. possible replacements cited by Schumer

The three lawyers Schumer suggested Democrats might support to replace Gonzales are:


-Michael B. Mukasey, who returned last year to the private sector after serving as chief U.S. district court judge of the southern district of New York. Mukasey, a Reagan administration nominee, presided over the terrorism trial of Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and 11 co-defendants.


-Larry Thompson, who left the Justice Department in 2003 after serving as deputy attorney general under John Ashcroft. Thompson focused on terrorism and corporate crime, including a role in going after Enron Corp.


-James Comey, who left the Justice Department in 2005 after serving as Thompson's replacement. Comey is trusted by some Democrats because of his perceived discomfort with some of the administration's terrorism surveillance policies and because he named U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald as special prosecutor in the CIA leak case that ended with the conviction of Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby.

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/16930979.htm

[LiberalFighter]

13. Here is the most recent database of US Attorneys since Nixon period

US Attorneys since Nixon It is a PDF

Let me know if there are any corrections or additions.

[heatstreak]

14. kick