Another one bites the dust

[khaosworks]

August 27, 2007
Embattled Attorney General Resigns
By STEVEN LEE MYERS

WACO, Tex., Aug. 27 — Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, whose tenure has been marred by controversy and accusations of perjury before Congress, has resigned. A senior administration official said he would announce the decision later this morning in Washington.

Mr. Gonzales, who had rebuffed calls for his resignation, submitted his to President Bush by telephone on Friday, the official said. His decision was not immediately announced, the official added, until after the president invited him and his wife to lunch at his ranch near here.

Mr. Bush has not yet chosen a replacement but will not leave the position open long, the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity because the resignation had not yet been made public.

Mr. Bush had repeatedly stood by Mr. Gonzales, an old friend and colleague from Texas, even as Mr. Gonzales faced increasing scrutiny for his leadership of the Justice Department, over issues including his role in the dismissals of nine United States attorneys late last year and whether he testified truthfully about the National Security Agency’s surveillance programs.

Earlier this month, at a news conference, Mr. Bush dismissed accusations that Mr. Gonzales had stonewalled or misled a congressional inquiry. “We’re watching a political exercise,” Mr. Bush said. “I mean, this is a man who has testified, he’s sent thousands of papers up there. There’s no proof of wrong.”

Mr. Gonzales’s resignation is the latest in a series of high-level departures that has reshaped the end of Mr. Bush’s second term. Karl Rove, another of Mr. Bush’s close circle of aides from Texas, stepped down two weeks ago.

The official who disclosed the resignation today said that the decision was Mr. Gonzales’s and that the president accepted it grudgingly. At the same time, the official acknowledged that the turmoil over Mr. Gonzales had made his continuing as attorney general difficult.

“The unfair treatment that he’s been on the receiving end of has been a distraction for the department,” the official said.

As recently as Sunday afternoon, Mr. Gonzales was denying through his press spokesman, Brian Roehrkasse, that he intended to leave.

Mr. Roehrkasse said Sunday afternoon that he had telephoned Mr. Gonzales about the reports circulating in Washington that a resignation was imminent, “and he said it wasn’t true, so I don’t know what more I can say.”

White House spokesmen also insisted on Sunday that they did not believe that Mr. Gonzales was planning to resign. Aides to senior members of the Senate Judiciary Committee said over the weekend that they had received no suggestion from the administration that Mr. Gonzales intended to resign.

Senator Charles Schumer, the New York Democrat who sits on the committee and has been calling for Mr. Gonzales’s resignation for months, said this morning: “It has been a long and difficult struggle, but at last the attorney general has done the right thing and stepped down. For the previous six months, the Justice Department has been virtually nonfunctional, and desperately needs new readership.”

Senator Schumer said that “Democrats will not obstruct or impede a nominee who we are confident will put the rule of law above political considerations.”

Philip Shenon contributed reporting.

I didn't think it would actually happen. I have to say, that I'll miss the dissembling, the feigned memory loss, the support of unconscionable means to extract information, the attempts to circumvent the Constitution.

Okay, I'm lying. Not going to miss it that much. But I have a dream, that in years to come, when the people beat a path to his front porch, where the grey-haired, rocking-chair bound Gonzales sits, gazing over his lawn, with a dog at his feet, when they ask the wizened old soldier what exactly went down, or why he resigned... that instead of saying that he got out while the going was good, before the administration completely crumbled, he'll show some of that old fire and say in that Muppet-like voice...

"I don't recall."

Comments

[loveandgarbage.livejournal.com]

As a non-partisan UK based legal academic (whose attitude is derived from regular viewing of The Daily Show, a reading of the liberal UK media and a concern for justice): hooray. There was a story in a UK magazine (New Statesman http://www.newstatesman.com/200708230011 ) last week that Rove is more firmly embroiled in this particular scandal than has currently been suggested with a plea to Watch this space.

[mihrimah.livejournal.com]

Dude. That wasn't in the print edition of the Times we get, for some reason. Can't happen soon enough!

[astro-not1.livejournal.com]

I need to check and see if this will fall when Congress is out of session; if it does, it means the Bush gets to appoint his new A.G. without Senate approval, and they can't object until the beginning of the session that follows their return (which would mean we could be stuck with someone even less honest and forthcoming until January, 2009).
It makes me want to hate recess appointments, but they were the only way Clinton got some sane judges even temporarily on the bench in a couple of instances. (big sigh) Maybe things are looking up a little . . .

[madfilkentist]

Bush bypassing Congress = bad, Clinton bypassing Congress = good?

[astro-not1.livejournal.com]

Considering the results, yes. My actual point, however, was that I wish that recess appointments weren't even necessary, especially since they have become a way for the President to circumvent a major and important provision of the Constitution. They were seen by the founders as a way to prevent important posts from remaining empty in times of need, but like so many provisions of the Constitution they've been distorted and trampled on in the years since. Today, the Republicans demand up or down votes on their nominees, but refuse on a regular basis to allow such votes when a Democrat is in the White House. The last time the Democrats controlled the Senate (2001), they caved on almost every Bush nominee that came up, even when it was obvious to anyone paying attention that at least some of them were not qualified.
The nomination of Judge Bork to the Supreme Court shows how the process should work; he was, by his own writings, obviously biased and an activist judge of the type that the Republicans have frowned on (and would have loudly denounced had he been a Democratic nominee). For these reasons he was not qualified to sit on the Supreme Court. He even had half a dozen prominent Republicans vote to reject his nomination, including Arlen Spector, Bob Packwood, and John Warner. This is the role of the Senate, to advise and consent, meaning they give their advice to the President and to consent when the nominee is qualified for the position and, by his or her testimony to the Senate, shows they will faithfully fulfill their duties within the law and the scope of the position.
Do I wish that Clinton hadn't made any recess appointments? Yes, but I accept that he had good reasons for doing so. I also wish Bush hadn't, and I believe his record shows that he makes such appointments solely for political expediency (which he did NOT have to do when Republicans controlled Congress). If you feel that makes me partisan, so be it. I'm simply hoping that whoever he nominates as his new A.G. will have to be confirmed by the Senate, as is required by the Constitution.