Bush Falls for One of the Classic Blunders

[Plaid Adder]

Well, all right, two. The first is never get involved in a land war in Asia. But only slightly less well known is this one:

DON'T FIRE A BUNCH OF LAWYERS!

I know there have been so many scandals broken about this administration that it's hard for us all to get our hopes up that we've finally seen The One that will force Bush & Cheney' impeachment or resignation. But I have to say I am not sure they're going to survive the attorney generals' firing scandal.

The fact that it doesn't yet have one of those cute "gate" nicknames would by itself tell you this is dangerous for them, because people haven't yet found a way to trivialize it. And well they shouldn't. Because for a long time under Bush's rule, the sole and only thing standing between him and totalitarian power was a justice system that still partly functioned. There were still some judges willing to protect the Constitution from Bush's assault on civil liberties when given the opportunity; and there were still some federal prosecutors willing to prosecute some of the Republican politicians working for what is going to turn out to have been one of the most shockingly corrupt administrations in American history. There were still a few people out there who could, when everything else had failed to stop a corrupt politician from robbing us blind, send the guy to jail. Or at least send him the hell out of Congress.

So naturally Bush and Gonzales wanted to make sure THAT loophole got fixed. But this was overreaching, even for them, and it is my hope that soon they will sorely rue the day. At the LEAST I hope it will get Gonzales fired, as he should have been long ago. I never thought anyone could come up with an attorney general worse than Ashcroft, but these guys managed.

In the months to come, they will look back and try to assess when and where it was that this administration made that last fatal mistake. Well, this scandal combines two very bad, and potentially fatal mistakes.

Mistake #1: Continuing to do business as usual _after_ the 2006 elections.

Apparently Iraq isn't the only thing Bush is in denial about. Evidently nobody was able to convince him that you have to go about your power grab with somewhat more subtlety when the opposition party has the power to convene Congressional hearings and subpoena witnesses. Nothing they've done since November 2006 really indicates that they quite understand that the days of zero accountability are over. I used to think these guys operated like a totalitarian regime because they secretly knew that in fact, that's what they were. Now, I am considering the possibility that they operate that way just because they have to believe that that's what they are--because let's face it, if as it turns out they haven't totally destroyed American democracy, the federal government, and the justice system, there's a good chance that some or all of them are going to jail.

Mistake #2: Firing the lawyers.

Here's why this is going to turn out to be a very bad idea. First of all, Congress has got to be at least 75% lawyers. They presumably know something about how the DOJ is supposed to work, and they know this is not it. The bullshit Gonzales has been slinging about how everyone fires US attorneys when they take office is true enough--with a new administration comes new lawyers. But to fire eight attorneys that you've singled out for this special treatment two years into your second term--no, that's not normal, and they're not going to be able to convince any of those lawyers on the Hill that it was.

Second, you never want lawyers testifying against you in any type of hearing whatsoever. Why? Because lawyers take notes.

This is a simple fact, but one that Bush et al. would have done well to remember. Lawyers are used to having to account for their time; and being that they live in a world where a lot of suing and prosecuting goes on, successful lawyers develop a wide array of cover-your-ass skills. Taking detailed notes about conversations you have while you're at work is one of them. So is noting down the time, date, and duration of any phone calls or conversations you might have with people you deal with at work, so that (if you work for a private firm) you can accurately bill the client for that time.

Most people who get called as witnesses in a legal proceeding are easy to confuse and lead into contradictions precisely because they often don't have clear memories of exactly when and in what order things happen. Someone who's perfectly truthful, as he sees it, on the stand can easily be lured into self-contradictions that undermine his credibility just because he may have forgotten on what day of the week something happened, or given two different dates at two different points in his testimony, or inadvertently claimed that event A happened before event B even though logically it couldn't have. Lawyers are a different story. You can see this in the Congressional hearings now. Iglesias, for instance, knows exactly when and where he was contacted by Domenici and Wilson, he knows how long the conversations took and he knows exactly what they talked about. I'm sure all of the other fired US attorneys have been carefully generating paper trails ever since they first started to realize they were being targeted. My guess is that all 8 of these ex-US attorneys have lots of very interesting documentation--and that they are all very, very angry.

My hope is that this is finally going to be the scandal that buries the Bush administration. And it will, if there's any, you know, justice left.

:popcorn:

The Plaid Adder

[uppityperson]

1. Indeed.

Never argue with a Scicilan when your life is on the line. Fire him instead!

[Goblinmonger]

2. #1 Never get involved in a land war in Asia n/t

[NanceGreggs]

3. Great overview of the situation, PA!

K & R!

[Goblinmonger]

4. #2 Never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line

Sorry. Had to be said.

[Patiod]

10. #3 Never hire a lawyer who refers to the police as "the federales"

#4 never play poker with someone named doc

[Richard Steele]

18. Not trying to get off-topic, but:

BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!

[The Doctor.]

27. Your intellect is...

"truly dizzying".

[ComerPerro]

30. Wait till I get going!

[Richard Steele]

37. Well, that WOULD explain all the dizziness. KICK

[ComerPerro]

31. .....

Man in Black: All right. Where is the poison? The battle of wits has begun. It ends when you decide and we both drink, and find out who is right... and who is dead.
Vizzini: But it's so simple. All I have to do is divine from what I know of you: are you the sort of man who would put the poison into his own goblet or his enemy's? Now, a clever man would put the poison into his own goblet, because he would know that only a great fool would reach for what he was given. I am not a great fool, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. But you must have known I was not a great fool, you would have counted on it, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.
Man in Black: You've made your decision then?
Vizzini: Not remotely. Because iocane comes from Australia, as everyone knows, and Australia is entirely peopled with criminals, and criminals are used to having people not trust them, as you are not trusted by me, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you.
Man in Black: Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.
Vizzini: Wait til I get going! Now, where was I?
Man in Black: Australia.
Vizzini: Yes, Australia. And you must have suspected I would have known the powder's origin, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.
Man in Black: You're just stalling now.
Vizzini: You'd like to think that, wouldn't you? You've beaten my giant, which means you're exceptionally strong, so you could've put the poison in your own goblet, trusting on your strength to save you, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. But, you've also bested my Spaniard, which means you must have studied, and in studying you must have learned that man is mortal, so you would have put the poison as far from yourself as possible, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.
Man in Black: You're trying to trick me into giving away something. It won't work.
Vizzini: IT HAS WORKED! YOU'VE GIVEN EVERYTHING AWAY! I KNOW WHERE THE POISON IS!
Man in Black: Then make your choice.
Vizzini: I will, and I choose - What in the world can that be?
Vizzini:
Man in Black: What? Where? I don't see anything.
Vizzini: Well, I- I could have sworn I saw something. No matter.First, let's drink. Me from my glass, and you from yours.
Man in Black, Vizzini:
Man in Black: You guessed wrong.
Vizzini: You only think I guessed wrong! That's what's so funny! I switched glasses when your back was turned! Ha ha! You fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders! The most famous is never get involved in a land war in Asia, but only slightly less well-known is this: never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha...
Vizzini:
Buttercup: And to think, all that time it was your cup that was poisoned.
Man in Black: They were both poisoned. I spent the last few years building up an immunity to iocane powder.

[uppityperson]

53. Don't tell me you spent the last few years transcribing 1 of my favorite movies.

[ComerPerro]

56. lol, no, grabbed off the internets

[wicket]

5. As always PA, you have hit the nail on the head!

:thumbsup:

[solara]

6. Excellent analysis k&r

:kick:


INVESTIGATE IMPEACH INDICT INCARCERATE :patriot:

[aquart]

7. Afghanistan is in Asia.

Bush fell for both of them.

[Alcibiades]

14. As is Iraq, of course

so he did it twice.

[aquart]

17. Iraq is in Asia, too? My geography sucks.

But, yes. NEVER start a land war in Asia.

Unless you are Genghis Khan who was once played by John Wayne so it's quite possible that that's who Georgie thinks he is today.

[Alcibiades]

58. The whole of the Middle East is in Asia

Which is confusing because the ethno-linguistic realities don't match the geographic realities, which tend to be based on physical rather than human factors (though there is that pesky and arbitrary division of Eurasia into Europe and Asia, depending upon which side of the Urals you're on). All of Turkey east of the Bosporus (i.e. excluding Istanbul) is in Asia, and is known as Asia Minor, which is how I always remembered that Turkey is in Asia. The whole of the Arabian peninsula is Asian, and everything including and east of the Sinai Peninsula, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria.

Given the fact that no one today uses the term "Near East," and only a few hold onto the term "Far East," we should probably consider dumping "Middle East" in favor of the more accurate "Southwest Asia." Also, if we called it Southwest Asia, we would automatically recall our experiences in Southeast Asia, and that might restrain those inclined to act like cowboys.

[Warpy]

8. Every new administration fires lawyers

when they first take office. What makes this so unusual is that these 8 prosecutors were investigating things that were potentially embarrassing to the administration and everybody knows it; plus, it's 2 years into a lame duck term and that makes it more like Nixon's Saturday Night Massacre than business as usual.

You're right, these guys are all going to testify. This is one of the biggest blunders Rove has committed. It may turn out to be #2, right behind his thrusting Stupid into office.

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

16. What is doubly bad is that their replacements don't require confirmation by the Senate

That is the criminal element.

Another sleazy law, courtesy of the "Patriot Act."

(edited for typos - fat fingers!)

Merry Fitzmas! Treason is the Reason for the Season!

[dweller]

43. actually, they do require confirmation

they were trying to get around it (what's the use of a power if you can't use it?)

i believe they would have replaced all 93 to get the 8, but chose to skirt the law, using the Pat.act provision, believing nobody would catch them.

dp

[Divernan]

46. Patriot Act Reauthorization CHANGED that law - no Senate confirmation required.

However, on March 9, 2006, President George W. Bush signed into law the Patriot Act Reauthorization Bill of 2005<3> which amends Section 546 by striking subsections (c) and (d) and inserting the following new subsection:

(c) A person appointed as United States attorney under this section may serve until the qualification of a united States Attorney for such district appointed by the President under section 541 of this title.

This, in effect, strikes the 120 days limit on interim U.S. Attorneys, and effectively extends their term to the end of the appointing President's term, which circumvents the U.S. Senate confirmation process.

[dweller]

49. i'm still looking for it

for i read/rec'd every thread on this issue here this morning, and the links provided. Somewhere it was stated that the provision was for 'special circumstances, crisis, etc'(my understanding) and this didn't fulfill it.

i believe they knew it was a longshot to use the provision, considered replacing all 93 to replace the 8, but went the route they did anyway.

guess i'll have to find the pat.act to read more carefully into it.
dp

also: Gonzales Lied Under Oath, Said All Bush-Appointed Attorneys Would Be ‘Senate-Confirmed’

A little-noticed provision slipped into the Patriot Act in 2005 allows the President to appoint “interim” U.S. attorneys for an indefinite period of time, without Senate confirmation. On Jan. 18, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales assured the Senate Judiciary Committee that the administration never intended to take advantage of it:

GONZALES: And so let me publicly sort of preempt perhaps a question you’re going to ask me, and that is: I am fully committed, as the administration’s fully committed, to ensure that, with respect to every United States attorney position in this country, we will have a presidentially appointed, Senate-confirmed United States attorney.

I think a United States attorney who I view as the leader, law enforcement leader, my representative in the community — I think he has greater imprimatur of authority, if in fact that person’s been confirmed by the Senate.

But in mid-December, an e-mail by Gonzales’s chief of staff, D. Kyle Sampson (who resigned yesterday), showed that the Justice Department clearly intended to skirt the Senate altogether and use the Patriot Act provision to appoint U.S. attorneys that would serve until the end of Bush’s term:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x400633

[Divernan]

52. That comment is not in the U.S. Code, could have been excuse now being offered

The only thing that really matters is the exact (black letter) language of the law. When it comes to court cases having to apply law, the courts may allow consideration of the legislative history, i.e, transcripts of debate in the House or Senate as to what the legislators understood to be the purpose of the law. But legislative history is considered the very weakest of arguments. However, in this case, it is unlikely there was any such legislative history, because this amendment flew in under the radar as part of the larger bill.

It is really bull shit for Gonzalez, after the fact of the law being changed, to say, "We never intended to take advantage of the change", and as you include in your post, Sampson had emailed that the DOJ intended to do such that.

In the Pennsylvania state legislature, I recall the debate when the then Dem. House majority voted to remove the ceiling/cap on allowable interest rates on credit cards. They didn't just RAISE it (I think it was like 15% back then); they TOTALLY REMOVED IT. The leaders had gotten big fat campaign contributions from the banking industry lobbyists. And when a few populist dems angrily charged that the consumers needed to be protected from usurious interest rates, the (Dem) leaders replied, well, how do we know they'll even raise the rates - they might even LOWER the rates. The GOP controlled the state Senate, and they were happy to go along also. Of course the rates immediately shot up. My point is that politicians do not push and pass laws unless interested parties intend to utilize said laws. Which Bush/Gonzalez did with this change re removing necessity for Senate confirmation

[Divernan]

41. Please stop saying "fire". USAs are appointed for 4 yr. terms. So they don't HAVE to be fired.

Yes, I KNOW this is a long post. But look, this issue is going to get as complex as the Watergate scandal/hearings. So the very first thing to do, (and I am addressing this to ALL readers, not just Warpy), if you want to understand it and comment on it, is to read this basic info about USAs. Otherwise you just continue to spread misinformation, such as the claim that all presidents "fire" USAs. They don't. Read on, please.

The bottom line is that USAs are appointed by the President for four year terms, i.e., the clear and legal understanding is that when a president leaves office (whether after 1 or 2 terms), all the USAs he appointed leave also. They don't have to be FIRED - their 4 year appointments naturally expire. So yes, Pres. Clinton replaced all departing Bush Sr.'s appointed USAs with Clinton's new appointments. However, it was unheard of (before W)for a sitting president to wholesale fire his own appointees.

There HAVE been instances when USAs have resigned their appointments for personal or health reasons; and VERY rare instances when they have been fired for inappropriate behavior. In those cases, the Attorney General could appoint an acting USA who could serve no more than 120 days. That gave presidents time to find and screen permanent replacement appointments, who also had to be approved by the Senate. It seems reasonable to believe that Bush (through his stooge, Judiciary Chairman Senator Arlen Spector) slipped in the revision to the Patriot Act in March, 2006, which removed the 120 day limit for "acting" replacement appointments by the Attorney General, in anticipation of this wholesale firing of his own AGs for political purposes.

BACKGROUND:
The United States Attorneys(USAs) represent the U.S. federal government in the United States District Courts and the United States Courts of Appeals. Therefore there are 93 USAs stationed throughout the United States, Puerto Rico, the US Virgin Islands, Guam & the Northern Mariana Islands. One USA is assigned to each of these judicial districts, with the exception of Guam & the Marianas, where a single USA serves both.

USAs and their offices (which include many more lower level lawyers who are NOT presidential appointees, but rather civil servants) are part of the Dept. of Justice (DOJ) & therefore part of the executive branch of government.

DUTIES OF USAs
Under the Judiciary Act of 1789, their duties shall be to "prosecute in each district all delinquents for crimes and offenses cognizable under the authority of the United States, and all civil actions in which the United States shall be concerned."

PROCEDURES FOR APPOINTMENT (before Bush changed it via the Patriot Act)
USAs are appointed by and serve at the discretion of the President for a term of four years, with APPOINTMENTS SUBJECT TO CONFIRMATION BY THE SENATE.

The procedure for appointment of INTERIM (emphasis added) U.S. Attorneys is governed by Section 546 of title 28, United States Code.<2> Section (c) states:

(c) A person appointed as United States attorney under this section may serve until the EARLIER (emphasis added) of (1) the qualification of a United States attorney for such district appointed by the President under section 541 of this title; OR (2) the expiration of 120 days after appointment by the Attorney General under this section.
CHANGES UNDER BUSH'S REVISED PATRIOT ACT
However, on March 9, 2006, President George W. Bush signed into law the Patriot Act Reauthorization Bill of 2005<3> which amends Section 546 by striking subsections (c) and (d) and inserting the following new subsection:

(c) A person appointed as United States attorney under this section may serve until the qualification of a united States Attorney for such district appointed by the President under section 541 of this title.

This, in effect, strikes the 120 days limit on interim U.S. Attorneys, and effectively extends their term to the end of the appointing President's term, which circumvents the U.S. Senate confirmation process.

The United States Senate is currently investigating this revision to the U.S. Patriot Act.

[halobeam]

45. Great info..thanks

One question: it was stated that some attny's still USA's are from Clinton's administration. How is it, if it's a four year term, that they are there? Or is this information untrue? Or where their position's extended and confirmed through Senate?

btw..thanks for explaining they had terms and weren't fired. This information is not understood by many, including myself.

[Divernan]

48. I don't know about specific cases, but based on my reading of the governing law,

the new president could simply reappoint a USA for another four year term, and then yes, they would be reconfirmed by the Senate. And the way the US Code read BEFORE Bush recently changed it, that would appear to be the ONLY legal way to keep a prior USA in place beyond 120 days after the expiration of their four year appointment.

The USA whom Bush fired a couple of years ago, who served the Guam/Marianna Islands district, had actually originally been appointed by Bush Sr. Bill Clinton kept him through two terms, and W must also have reappointed him. I think the reason that particular USA lasted so long is that this part of the world is pretty damn remote, uncivilized, hot and humid. I went through Guam on my way to Micronesia and the weather was really opressive. Most USAs want to be where the action is, politically - within their home states - so this would be a tough slot to fill.

[halobeam]

60. thank you

[OwnedByFerrets]

55. I would have to argue with you that

"thrusting" monkeyboy into office was a blunder on Roves part. It has accomplished EVERYTHING they wanted to accomplish and as of this day, I have yet to see any persons other than Scooter boy be prosecuted for their crimes against the Constitution and or Humanity. The frustrating part is that it doesnt even seem to be on the table as a talking point.

[REACTIVATED IN CT]

59. Chris Wallace from Fox Noise was on Imus this AM

He was trying to make the argument that Bill Clinton fired all the US Atty's when he took office, so what was the big deal with Shrub firing 8 of them ? Idiots

K & R, Plain Adder. This may very well be their undoing.

[tblue37]

9. And then the idiots had the gall to threaten the lawyers with

"consequences" if they dared to talk to the media or testify to Congress. These lawyers know better than anyone that exposure is their strongest protection.

[tblue]

11. Oh goodie! I've been waiting for them to finally step on the wrong toes

They've stepped all over

Black voters in Florida
Clinton
Richard Clarke
WMD inspectors
CIA professionals
Katrina victims
local gov't in Louisiana
the people of Iraq
US military and veterans

with no repercussions whatsoever. It will be so gratifying to watch the law professionals finally take them to the mat.

[wakeme2008]

12. Almost correct PA :)

IMHO your headline should have been "DON'T FIRE A BUNCH OF LAWYERS FROM YOUR OWN PARTY!"


Bill Clinton fired a lot of the leftovers from Bush 41 but that was expected. Bush 43 fired his own lawyers.... Not smart.....

[Cobalt-60]

25. So there's betrayal too..excellent

I havent felt this good about politics for a while.
I believe that lawyer firing was what did Nixon in too.

[Spiffarino]

54. Please see #41

:hi:
Divernan makes a great point. It seems we are falling for a Rovian talking point by referring to what previous Presidents did as "firing" USAs. Clinton et al didn't fire any of them upon entering office.

[brer cat]

13. Excellent. K&R

[Throwing Stones]

15. Amen, Plaid

I do think this one was over the line for the reasons you stated, but, alas, each and every thing that comes out everyday seems to be "the one", at least for a little while, until some dumb drugged out celebrity dies and the media has a new shiny object to concentrate on.

[Richard Steele]

19. I think that's some very spot-on analysis, Plaid Adder. Recommended.

[LSK]

20. K&R

[librechik]

21. Gonzogate

as in Gonzo made the lawyers Gonzo -gate

[Danascot]

24. Perfect!

Gonzogate - Love it, love it, love it!

[jazzjunkysue]

22. NYT: Gonzalez admits plan to replace all US attorney at once.

He admits that was the plan?

What else do we need to impeach the blowmonkey? Honestly?

What else do we need. Firing all of the US attorneys.

Alberto told him to slow down and just fire some a little at a time.

This is outrageous!

Do the so-called conservatives really want this? Really?

[Cha]

23. It's the hubris..they think

they can get away with anything with the coporatemediawhores in their beds.

We'll see what it will take for the dam to break and the pendulum to knock them outta the halls of power and into cells of prisons.

[Hamlette]

26. another problem is these "guys" are political apointees. . .

picked by republicans in their own states so Bush has pissed off all those republicans. Bush tried to put in his own guy here in Utah...years ago, and Hatch hit the roof. Hatch got to pick "his guy". Were Bush to fire him? Hatch wouldn't be happy. They might not speak up but they'll be less likely to do Bush's bidding this close to 2008.

The worse thing they did, however, is "fix" the game in advance with the clause in the patriot act that doesn't allow for either court or the Senate oversight. That's what makes this stink.

You gotta be proud of the lawyers thought. They are all republicans. For them to speak out takes guts and a whole lot of pissed off.

[Laurab]

28. It's my hope, too - K & R

This one is not going away anytime soon.

[Rex]

29. 7 years of Constitutional Crisis and finally they slip up.

They could have found a more discreet way, shows how powerful they want to be. Takes crime to a whole new level.

[ProudDad]

32. Nixon'x downfall was

after firing the lawyers:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturday_Night_Massacre

And it was that great patriot Robert Bork (:sarcasm:) who finally did nixon's bidding...

[leftofthedial]

33. extra points for the princess bride allusion

:thumbsup:

:patriot:

[Manifestor_of_Light]

34. Yup. A bunch of detail oriented compulsive note takers

Lawyers know that evidence consists of notes, tapes, videos, a handwritten diary, any kind of a paper trail. Plus circumstantial evidence.

And yes I am a non-practicing lawyer, never passed the bar exam, but yes, I can THINK just like the rest of them. Logically.

When the "Bush v. Gore" decision came out and the Supremes said "This is not a precedent" my head exploded. Me and a few million other people. Two hundred years of judicial review via Marbury v. Madison GONE.

My brilliant legal comment is: AAAAGGGHHHHHH!!!!

[neuvocat]

35. Kick

[fooj]

36. It's all about the RULE OF LAW.

[frogcycle]

38. yeah, I thought Walter Reed might do it...

but lawyers will fight back better than maimed troops. Hey, whatever it takes!

[LonelyLRLiberal]

51. So right - nothing more dangerous than attacking the reputation of a lawyer

Man, they were trying to cover up what they were doing by claiming these USAs were performing poorly. A lawyer will not tolerate an unjustified attack on his/her professional reputation. You make those claims, you by God better have some back-up.

[rasputin1952]

39. I am willing to bet that these lawyers, prosecutors no less....

outshine Gonzales in not just the legal arena, but in overall intelligence as well.

Listening to Gonzales, he's nothing more than a hack for bush, and a tad light under the cap. The odds say that at least 1/4 of these lawyers are incredibly intelligent and know the laws inside and out; the othe 3/4 are most likely above average.


Considering Gonzales did nothing but work for bush, there is a good chance he's dumb as a box of rocks. It would be nice to see Gonzales eviserated and tossed into the line of other failed lawyers like Coulter and Ashcroft....:D

[Divernan]

42. You could lose that bet. He's Harvard law & has decades of experience.

Which means he understands QUITE well the harm, injury, damage and even death that he has wrought on thousands of people with whom he has had professional contact, in one way or another. He may have been admitted to Harvard Law as a token minority, but law school classes have blind grading, so no professors gave him undeserved grades because of pity for his minority status. (Blind grading means that every exam period, students are assigned a number which they use in lieu of names on their exams. The professor has no knowledge of which students' papers he is grading. And THAT is why George W. Bush would not go to law school- he got an MBA degree because he could depend on the family name on his exam papers to pressure professors re grades.)

Here's Gonzalez' professional history, courtesy Wikipedia:
Texas career
Gonzales was an attorney in private practice from 1982 until 1994 with the Houston law firm Vinson and Elkins, where he became a partner. In 1994, he was named general counsel to then-Texas Governor George W. Bush, rising to become Texas Secretary of State in 1997 and finally to be named to the Texas Supreme Court in 1999, both appointments made by Governor Bush.

He received the Presidential Citation from the State Bar of Texas in 1997 for his dedication to addressing basic legal needs of the indigent. In 1999, he was named Latino Lawyer of the Year by the Hispanic National Bar Association.

As counsel to Governor Bush, Gonzales helped Bush be excused from jury duty when he was called in a 1996 Travis County drunk driving case. The case led to controversy during Bush's 2000 presidential campaign because Bush's answers to the potential juror questionnaire did not disclose Bush's own 1976 misdemeanor drunk driving conviction.<1> Gonzales' formal request for Bush to be excused from jury duty hinged upon the fact that, as Governor of Texas, he might be called upon to pardon the accused in the case. Upon learning of the 1976 conviction, the prosecutor in the 1996 case (a Democrat) felt he had been "directly deceived". The defense attorney in the case called Gonzales' arguments "laughable".<2>

As Governor Bush's counsel in Texas, Gonzales also reviewed all clemency requests. A 2003 article in The Atlantic Monthly asserts that Gonzales gave insufficient counsel, failed to take into consideration a wide array of factors, and actively worked against clemency in a number of borderline cases. (The state of Texas executed more prisoners during Gonzales' term, and still has more prisoners on death row, than any other state.)<3> <4>

[rasputin1952]

61. That possibility exists, but seems highly improbable...

Looks to me like while Gonzales might be Harvard Law, it does not mean he is necessarily that good. So far, all he's done is tow the party line, one that has become remakably precarious over the past few months.

From his own description, he showed little if anu oversight of those he passed the responsibilities on to. Not only is this a failure in leadership, it is also a sure-fire way to have the finger pointed in ones direction for action he was ultimately responsible for. It was his fault for not maintaining a closer view of the situation.

FWIW: I believe he knew all along what was going on, not many people would allow things of such magnitude w/o some form of oversight or knowledge.

[Chichiri]

40. Hahahahahahahaahahaa!!!!

Hahahaahahhahahaahahahaha!!!

Hahahahahahahahahahaahaa!!

Hahahahahha-- *thud*

[lapislzi]

44. Hubris.

I have long thought their hubris would be their undoing. Long time coming, though.

Now let's get on with some gotterdammerung (with a side of schadenfreude)!

[PurpleChez]

47. Thanks, Plaid Adder!

Ya know...it blows my mind, after all of the rambunctiousness and misdemeanoring that Cheney/Bush has gotten away with, that this has garnered so much attention. But I'm happy. Perhaps it's because it has absolutely NOTHING to do with Iraq...it's almost impossible to argue that NOT firing a US attorney will embolden our enemies, will let the terrorists win, etc. Let 'em all burn.

[mtnHov]

50. I hope your right , (your making my day)....never thought I'd be rooting for lawyers.

[opihimoimoi]

57. 51.....you got it right once more....T/Y....lets hope this is the Implosion long overdue