Can Gonzo be disbarred for conspiring with Bush to break the law?

[FormerRepublican]

Gonzos legal opinions are so far out in left field that it's pretty obvious they're full of sheet. He's just mouthing public mumbo jumbo to "try" to advance Bush illegalities. Isn't that unethical for a lawyer to do? Especially since he's conspiring with Bush to violate his oath of office, which states he will support and defend the constitution?

What kind of oath does Gonzo take to follow the law and support and defend the constitution? What obligation does he have to "we the people" if it comes into direct conflict with what Herr Dictator Bush wants? Isn't what Gonzo's doing pretty unethical for a lawyer? If what Bush is doing is actually illegal (and I believe it is), then isn't Gonzo violating the law as well by supporting Bush's lawbreaking, and in fact contributing to the conspiracy?

[serryjw]

1. We need to hear from lawyers but

if someone does go after him I would think he is culpable.

[Canuckistanian]

2. If his legal arguments are false

That is, if he is even indicted at all.

What could he be indicted for? Obstruction of Justice? Conspiracy? Treason?

If he convinced Dimson that what he was doing was legal, then Gonzo's guilty.

BUT the "ignorance of the law is no excuse" rule should still be in effect for Shrub. He should have sought legal confirmation of the constitutionality.

[FormerRepublican]

5. Given that the law clearly states that Americans can't be subjects of...

...wiretaps without a warrant, but Gonzo is saying he doesn't rule it out - isn't that prima fascia evidence that Gonzo is persuading Bush to break the law? How can Gonzo interpret something that is the total opposite of what both the Constitution and the law states?

And that's just one example, when it's quite clear that Gonzo has given unsound legal advice on a multitude of matters. Doesn't that make him an incompetent lawyer and subject to being disbarred?

And it doesn't let Bush off the hook, either.

What they're trying to argue is so clearly bogus that I don't understand how they can think that anyone who knows the law would agree with them. It seems quite clear that they don't, they just advance the argument as a PR maneuver, and utilize the power of the office to avert any direct legal challenges that would prove them wrong.

What happens to Gonzo if all these cases go to court - the Gitmo stuff, the torture stuff, the wiretapping stuff - and every single one gets shot down as being patently ridiculous, which they are? Isn't he putting himself into some significant jeopardy?

In addition, if it's actually Bush making this sheet up, and Gonzo goes along just to support Bush, then doesn't that put him into legal trouble as well? Gonzo is a lawyer - he can't just parrot whatever Bush says and say it's the law. If he does, doesn't that make him subject to being disbarred? And if he does, isn't he conspiring with Bush to break the law by diverting public pressure that would prevent the lawbreaking?

[Canuckistanian]

6. I guess you've got a point

Lawyers ARE disbarred for giving their clients incorrect legal advice, especially when it gets their clients in legal jeopardy.

But is Gonzo really considered his lawyer?

[FormerRepublican]

7. Does it matter, as long as he's issuing an opinion that Bush relies on?

And don't forget that some of these opinions issued when Gonzo was a White House lawyer, and thus Bush was his client. And Gonzo testified to Congress that he's Bush's lawyer - was he lying?

[Canuckistanian]

14. If he's Bush's lawyer in this case

Then he is definitely in a conflict of interest. He's officially the AG.

And, thus, disbarrable.

[FormerRepublican]

16. Well, if he ISN'T Bush's lawyer, then he lied to Congress.

I was watching his testimony when he said Bush was his client.

[Imagevision]

17. Bush hires WH. lawyer to attorney generaaal post, What did Gonzo know?

and when! - how the greeg do you investigate the attorney general -- this has gotten so pathetic, going to war under false pretenses and killing how many people...all aaround?

Why is Bush any different then Saddaam? He used chemicals, so did Bush in Fallujah!!

[me b zola]

3. Well,

I'm fairly confident that he could be sitting in a cell in The Hague with bush* and the other criminals.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

4. Okay. this is going to sound a little far out ... but

I did a tarot reading in January, and I keep coming back to the feeling I had that Gonzales is going to go down for this. I don't understand it completely... but it keeps popping up.

I've filed it away for future ponderation.... ya, I'm a kook. deal with it. :)

[Canuckistanian]

8. It's probably a better predictor than anything going now

Keep at it. See what it says about Cheney and Rove.

[napi21]

9. Only if it can be proven that he KNEW his advice was wrong.

Sorry to burst your dreams, but there are so many ways to interpret the law, it's very unlikely that anyone could ever prove he eally knew better and disregarded the law.

[FormerRepublican]

10. So can we sue him for violating our civil rights?

In addition, aren't there some things that are just obviously illegal on their face? For example, if a lawyer told someone it was OK to steal a motorcycle out of the yard of their neighbor, it's clearly illegal.

Can't the same be said of what Gonzo is doing? Illegal wiretaps of Americans on American soil, torture, suspension of the writ of habeus corpus, etc. - isn't that kind of illegal on it's face? Shouldn't any reasonably well trained lawyer know that those things are illegal? What obligation does a lawyer have to make REASONABLE interpretations of the law, versus politically convenient interpretations that no one else would support?

[Trevelyan]

12. This sounds good to me. We need to explore this and all legal

avenues to protect ourselves from these Nazis. How many lawyers are disbarred each year and are most of the reasons for personal illegal activities or for giving false legal advice and putting their clients in danger?

[napi21]

13. I doubt you can sure HIM for that. HE didn't do anything but adivse

the Pres. You have to sue for the ACTIONS of someone who damaged YOU. Perhapse Gonzo could be a co-conspirator, if you could prove Shrub & the rest of the admin were conspiring to ciolate civil rights, but Gonzo...not directly...I wouldn't think.

[FormerRepublican]

15. But if Bush relied on Gonzos legal advice that it was OK to violate...

...my civil rights, Gonzo has no legal responsibility for that? If Gonzo told Bush it was legal to loot the treasury as long as no one found out, does he have no legal responsibility if Bush does it?

[napi21]

18. Lawyers advice is found to be poor all the time. If Gonzo can make

a valid explaination of how he made his decisions...and so far he has done that...he's simply not culpable of punishment. He may have misinterpreted the law, but, at the time, he believed he was right.

How in the world would you prove Shrub LOOTED the Treasury? Of course he did, but waring on Iraq, and the multitude of tax cuts for the rich, but the crime isn't looting the treasury.

[FormerRepublican]

19. It was an example.

Utah, where I live, has a law that if I tell someone to break the law, I'm guilty of a crime if that person goes on to break the law. I forget what it's called and would have to look it up, but I remember reading about it in the state statutes. If such a law applies to me, how could it not apply to Gonzo?

I'm not sure if there's an equivalent federal law... Even if there's not a federal law, couldn't Gonzo be prosecuted in states like mine where telling someone to break the law is illegal? Does a lawyer have special protections for what he does that a regular citizen doesn't? Wouldn't that violate equal protections under the Constitution?

[napi21]

20. Absolutely! But you have to prove he knew his advice was

breaking the law and so far, he has testified that he BELIEVES the Pres has the right to do all these things "Under authority granted by the Constitution". Now, I don't agree with that interpretation either, but it would be almost impossible to PROVE Gonzo KNEW and advised the Prez anyway.

Please remember. PROOF is EVERYTHING!

[FormerRepublican]

21. I found the Disciplinary Rules for the State Bar of Texas

Link

There are a couple of things in there that I think might get Gonzo into trouble. One is his refusal to disclose certain things to the Congressional intelligence committees. In doing so, he's violating the law which says he has to. He can say it's legal to steal, come up with an argument that stealing is OK, and proceed to steal, but he's still committing a crime.

He definately has a nasty conflict of interest going on between representation of Bush and representation of Congress, who he has thus far been adversarial with. I'm not sure how that would play out as a matter of ethics.

He's also supposed to persuade Bush NOT to violate the law, which he hasn't done.

There's also some stuff in there about how he can't represent two parties in substantially the same case. In the case of Gonzo testifying before Congress - and representing Congress as the AG giving legal opinions - isn't he in violation since he's also representing Bush (even if merely as a former client) and the interests of Congress and Bush are oppositional in relation to matters like NSA wiretapping. Doesn't the ethics rules require that he remove himself from this situation?

There's some other interesting stuff in there that you might want to take a look at.

[Imagevision]

11. I remember Gonzo refusing to answer questions at hearings

I believe the whole administration can be convicted of something for inappropriate behavior in their jobs.