• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Gonzo could be prosecuted

That's good news and a relief. I was afraid for a moment that my second favorite muppet had finally run afowl of the law regarding his obsession with chickens.

But, in all seriousness, Gonzales and all the other Bushies need to pay for their crimes. But I fear they never will. Justice is blind and apparently also a Republican. Not that the Democrats are much better.
 
Unfortunately, since Bush allowed the Justice Dept. to get stuffed by graduates of a diploma mill, the prosecution will be botched.
 
CyberCecil said:
That's good news and a relief. I was afraid for a moment that my second favorite muppet had finally run afowl of the law regarding his obsession with chickens.

But, in all seriousness, Gonzales and all the other Bushies need to pay for their crimes. But I fear they never will. Justice is blind and apparently also a Republican. Not that the Democrats are much better.
Click to expand...

Bets on Shrub issuing a blanket pardon for all his cronies and appointees for the last 7 years just before he leaves office?:D
 
fuelair said:
Bets on Shrub issuing a blanket pardon for all his cronies and appointees for the last 7 years just before he leaves office?:D
Click to expand...
I'll up the ante. I'll bet that he'll try to do it quietly under the radar and if it gets brought up in the press at all, there will be cries from the pundits that "Clinton did it too!" ...and all will be well.
 
Prosecuted for perjury? Am I getting jaded when I don't think this amounts to much anymore? Don't get me wrong, perjury is and should be a crime. But this looks more like a witch-hunt than anything else.

The bottom line, the President can fire his attorneys in the justice dept for pretty much any reason including politics. Sad but true. That AG Gonzalez chose to obfuscate the reasons for the firings under oath, to me, does not rise to the level of perjury that we should be concerned about.

Lurker
 
Upchurch said:
M'kay. Hows about his violation of both law and Constitution?
Click to expand...

Well, the original link, from what I quickly gleaned, discussed the AG's role in the firing of attorneys in the Justice Dept.

Regarding the eavesdropping program, that is a bit more touchy for me since I do consider the NSA program, as I understand it, to be Constitutional. In this instance, I would say the AG is worthy of being indicted if the program is determined to be unconstitutional. My understanding is that a determination is still pending (if it is ever determined).

Lurker
 
Ziggurat said:
You can be prosecuted for violating laws and for violating court orders, but how can you be prosecuted for violating the constitution? I don't think it's ever happened before (and it's not like government officials haven't acted unconstitutionally prior to Bush), and it's not going to now.
Click to expand...

This is technically true. What courts do, however, is find actions of public officials to have conducted in unconstitutional activities, which is indeed unlawful.

Considering the nature of Gonzales' job and the nature of most of the proposed crimes against him, this won't play out in a court of law but in an investigation committee. That is, if it plays out at all.
 
Lurker said:
...

The bottom line, the President can fire his attorneys in the justice dept for pretty much any reason including politics. Sad but true. That AG Gonzalez chose to obfuscate the reasons for the firings under oath, to me, does not rise to the level of perjury that we should be concerned about.

Lurker
Click to expand...

This is roughly the Republican spin on this, but I'm not sure that it is true.

Clearly the Attorney General through the aegis of the President has the right to hire and fire whoever he wants for the US Attorney positions. But does he have the right to use that power to halt criminal prosecutions for partisan political reasons or to use that power to coerce criminal prosecutions for partisan political reasons?

Would it be a crime for the Attorney General to accept money in return for hiring a US Attorney?

Before Bush I thought that the president was constrained by the laws of the land. This administration has pushed the envelope to the point that it is just not clear to me how the president or at his pleasure anybody in his administration is constrained by laws.

My suspicion is that Cheney had no intention of submitting to a local investigation of his shooting accident except on his terms regardless of whether they had jurisdiction or not. Was this just the way that the law was implemented in this case or is in fact the vice president not subject to oversight by local law enforcement officials as a matter of law?
 
Last edited:
davefoc said:
This is roughly the Republican spin on this, but I'm not sure that it is true.
Click to expand...
Ok, let's take a look at your argument.
Clearly the Attorney General through the aegis of the President has the right to hire and fire whoever he wants for the US Attorney positions. But does he have the right to use that power to halt criminal prosecutions for partisan political reasons or to use that power to coerce criminal prosecutions for partisan political reasons?
Click to expand...
Good question. Can he be tried for obstruction of justice? I don't think there is a law against him firing the attorneys though.
Would it be a crime for the Attorney General to accept money in return for hiring a US Attorney?
Click to expand...
Yes - bribery.
 
Sure he can be charged with and tried for obstruction of justice. As a matter of fact, if he accepted money to fire a US Attorney to prevent a prosecution, he could be charged with both bribery and obstruction.

Gonzo would be the first Attorney General convicted of a crime committed while in office; John Mitchell was the first person ever to both be Attorney General and be convicted of a crime, but he had resigned the post before he committed it. Edwin Meese was accused of, and later proven to have had, knowledge both of Iran-Contra, and of George Schultz's allegation that Reagan admitted to Schultz that he was aware of the HAWK weapons shipment to Iran; Meese could conceivably been charged with obstruction on either of these points, but never was, and arguably could be the first Attorney General known to have committed a crime while in office.
 
Schneibster said:
Meese could conceivably been charged with obstruction on either of these points, but never was, and arguably could be the first Attorney General known to have committed a crime while in office.
Click to expand...
Just to nitpick, not quite, since he was not convicted, and it is 'unproven' per the old Scottish legal category.

You'd also want to look hard at every other AG since GW's, and anything said by another insider about them, before you made such a "first ever" comment, and I'm not sure you have done so.

Minor quibble, really, since Meese seemed to exist in the gray area.

DR
 
davefoc said:
My suspicion is that Cheney had no intention of submitting to a local investigation of his shooting accident except on his terms regardless of whether they had jurisdiction or not. Was this just the way that the law was implemented in this case or is in fact the vice president not subject to oversight by local law enforcement officials as a matter of law?
Click to expand...

Good question. I think there is something about not being able to arrest congressmen during a session, to prevent people from using laws to prevent them from voting on laws, but I don't know if that applies to the VP during his term or not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom