Alberto Gonzales resigns as U.S. Attorney General

[Kthleen]

Just like it says. Heard it on the news this morning. No permanent replacement decided yet.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Attorney General Alberto Gonzales resigned on Monday, ending a controversial tenure as chief U.S. law enforcement officer that blemished the administration of President George W. Bush.

Gonzales announced at the Justice Department that his resignation would take effect on September 17. He refused to take questions from reporters and gave no reason for his sudden decision to depart after months of controversy.

"I have lived the American dream," said Gonzales, a son of migrant workers who began working for Bush when the president was still the governor of Texas.

"Even my worst days as attorney general have been better than my father's best days," he said.

Bush was expected to make a statement later Monday, but a senior administration official said the president had not decided on a new nominee.

U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement will serve as acting attorney general, the official said, amid speculation that Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff could be a candidate for a permanent replacement.

A 52-year-old Bush loyalist, Gonzales was at the center of a political firestorm over the sacking of federal prosecutors last year, which critics in Congress said were politically motivated. He faced a possible perjury investigation for his testimony before Congress.

Gonzales spoke to Bush by telephone on Friday and then visited him on Sunday at his Crawford ranch, where he formally submitted his letter of resignation, said another senior administration official.

"He (Bush) very reluctantly accepted it," the official said. Asked whether anyone from the White House had suggested that Gonzales resign, the official said: "It was his decision."

Source and more info here

 

[Illidan]

I realize the following comment breaks the LONP credo, but:

I'm not surprised. The entire Bush Administration has been marked by corruption and incompetence. Gonzales is running before any investigation yields charges against him, leaving the public light before anyone can scrutinize him further (which is what Rove did, I'm sure).

 

[evkl]

Bush Administration falling down, falling down, falling down...

'Berto should've been gone a while ago. I don't know how this administration manages to have people stick around much longer than their useful lifetimes.

 

[GrnMarvl14]

So...Attorney-General #2 is out the door. Maybe I'll actually have confidence in the next one, and won't feel like he's Bush's attempt to appeal to some group of potential supporters.

Wonder who's next to leave? My money's on whoever is serving as Secretary of Commerce. Just...because.

 

[The Big Al]

It's about time. He should have left months ago. He probably stayed around just long enough to piss of the left before the hammer fell.

There's a clear difference between people who left after Bush got reelected and the people leaving now that the Dems hold congress. Most of the people who decided not to stick around for the second term were people Bush didn't listen two. The people leaving recently are more like rats fleeing a sinking ship with their tails on fire.

 

[Fig]

The rats are leaving the ship, it seems...

 

[The Big Al]

Though it makes me wonder if there's something coming down the pipe. Sptember's going to be the month Bush claimed we had to wait for until decisions were made in Iraq. If Bush doesn't budge the Dems may push harder. They're already in hot water with their base about Iraq and now they're going to need to have something to show for it.

 

[Dr. Peppa]

Thank gawd, finally! But what will Jon Stewart make fun of every night if there isn't Alberto Gonzales.

 

[Girafarig_Magcargo]

It's sad to see Gonzales go, but he did really bungle the whole Attorney flap. If he had just stayed resolute and said to all the whining Democrats "Hey, we can fire the U.S. Attorneys whenever we feel like it," because he can, then at least he wouldn't be the target of all the dumb jokes about forgetting stuff.

 

[The Big Al]

My guess is he was given a choice. Resign or be held in contempt of congress because he couldn't tell the truth without getting Bush in even hotter water.

 

[the gadfly]

Does anyone really think this is the end of this matter? There's blood in the water. Being of voting age during Watergate and the Viet Nam war, there are too many similarities for me to ignore.

 

[GrnMarvl14]

Does anyone really think this is the end of this matter? There's blood in the water. Being of voting age during Watergate and the Viet Nam war, there are too many similarities for me to ignore.

But has ANYTHING been REALLY investigated during this presidency? Most things seem to drop after someone resigns (I'm STILL shocked we got a verdict on the Libby case, but even THAT only came about after an up-hill struggle).

The only reason Watergate seems to have worked (worked as in resulted in a meaningful investigation) is because there was actual, firm evidence of corruption. It's hard to ignore something when you've got the president saying the exact words, and have his henchmen caught red-handed. As is, all of these guys who have gotten into trouble have had plausible deniability on their side, allowing them to say "it was just me" and letting the matter drop, or just encase them. As is, it's so close to the elections, that the Democrats don't seem to want to waste the energy and be seen by voters as vindictive or (one of my favorite words here) "dividers." But maybe I'm just too skeptical.

 

[MrWho]

Does anyone really think this is the end of this matter? There's blood in the water. Being of voting age during Watergate and the Viet Nam war, there are too many similarities for me to ignore.

Suddenly, millions of Americans across the states realize that "escalation" = "troop surge".

Or, at least, they should. p:

 

[the gadfly]

But has ANYTHING been REALLY investigated during this presidency?

Not until the opposition political party gained control of both chambers of Congress. Let's not forget Nixon dealt with a Democratic Congress throughout his presidency.

The only reason Watergate seems to have worked (worked as in resulted in a meaningful investigation) is because there was actual, firm evidence of corruption. It's hard to ignore something when you've got the president saying the exact words, and have his henchmen caught red-handed.

You forget that Nixon also claimed executive privilege. It took a Supreme Court decision to make the tapes and other materials available to Congress.

The question is will the current Supreme Court do the same thing?

More importantly, does it matter? Bush will be out of office January 20, 2009. Impeachment proceedings will take at least that long. It takes 2/3 of the House to impeach and 2/3 of the Senate to convict. The Democrats don't have the votes in either chamber. You can make your own excuses.

Suddenly, millions of Americans across the states realize that "escalation" = "troop surge".

Or, at least, they should. p:

And why should we? Our soldiers are professionals who volunteered. Essentially, they are our employees doing things we would never let our children do. How many members here have family members serving in the military forces?

 

[GrnMarvl14]

Not until the opposition political party gained control of both chambers of Congress. Let's not forget Nixon dealt with a Democratic Congress throughout his presidency.

And that IS what gave me hope that we'd see some oversight of the presidency, but he's constantly done everything possible to prevent it from happening, from saying certain Cabinet members and staff wouldn't testify to ignoring any attempts by Congress to get him to answer ANY question. See, that's where Clinton went wrong. He agreed to be held accountable.

You forget that Nixon also claimed executive privilege. It took a Supreme Court decision to make the tapes and other materials available to Congress.

The question is will the current Supreme Court do the same thing?

While I've got some confidence in our Supreme Court, they seem to have the old "hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil" act going on. To get them to do anything, Congress would have to take the Court by its collective hand, bring them to the evidence, and point at it.

More importantly, does it matter? Bush will be out of office January 20, 2009. Impeachment proceedings will take at least that long. It takes 2/3 of the House to impeach and 2/3 of the Senate to convict. The Democrats don't have the votes in either chamber. You can make your own excuses.

Exactly. Congress can't, so they won't even make a show of it. Not just because Bush is almost out of office, but because too many of them are up for re-election (or, for the presidential candidates, election. And seeking to impeach their predecessor, even if they abstain from the voting, would make them look petty) they'll just sit idly by and do nothing. Many of the Democrats who got elected the last go round promised to try and get Bush impeached, but it's not like they have to keep their promises...they're politicians after all.

I guess all I can do is wait until we get someone new in office. And then, assuredly, the complaining will begin anew.