NYT endorses Gonzales impeachment
- From: trudogg <independent@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2007 12:56:34 -0400
The New York Times apparently wasn?t won over by the data-mining
defense. Today, the paper?s editorial board raises the specter of
impeaching the attorney general.
As far as we can tell, there are three possible explanations for
Mr. Gonzales?s talk about a dispute over other ? unspecified ?
intelligence activities. One, he lied to Congress. Two, he used a
bureaucratic dodge to mislead lawmakers and the public: the spying
program was modified after Mr. Ashcroft refused to endorse it, which
made it ?different? from the one Mr. Bush has acknowledged. The third
is that there was more wiretapping than has been disclosed, perhaps
even purely domestic wiretapping, and Mr. Gonzales is helping Mr. Bush
cover it up.
Democratic lawmakers are asking for a special prosecutor to look
into Mr. Gonzales?s words and deeds. Solicitor General Paul Clement
has a last chance to show that the Justice Department is still
minimally functional by fulfilling that request.
If that does not happen, Congress should impeach Mr. Gonzales.
How unusual is this? Josh Marshall explains that no sitting cabinet
secretary in the history of the country has ever been impeached. Not
one.
But there?s a very good reason for that ? it?s never been this
necessary before. Under political norms that used to be taken
seriously, scandal-ridden cabinet secretaries would resign or be
fired. Bush is rewriting the rule book, so unprecedented measures such
as impeaching the Attorney General are suddenly required.
The normal course when a cabinet secretary has been implicated in
grave wrongdoing or has lost the confidence of the overwhelming number
of senators (which I think he clearly has, though partisan loyalty has
kept many Republicans from saying it) is for him or her to resign. And
if they won?t see fit to resign the president fires them since if
nothing else the person can?t fulfill the responsibilities of office
under those debilitating circumstances.
But then there is the big ?unless?.
Unless the president is party to the wrongdoing that placed the
cabinet secretary in jeopardy. And that is clearly the case we have
here, which explains the historical anomaly that the possibility of
Gonzales? impeachment is even a topic of serious conversation.
On a related note, Oliver Willis takes a stroll down memory lane to
remind us of this gem: ?Do you remember that Alberto Gonzales was on
the ?short list? of Supreme Court nominees for the Bush
administration??
It?s a scary bunch of folks.
Steve Benen
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: NYT endorses Gonzales impeachment
- From: Wade Ward
- Re: NYT endorses Gonzales impeachment
- Prev by Date: Republicans refuse to defend Gonzales
- Next by Date: Re: Helicopters collide in fatal chase for live news
- Previous by thread: Republicans refuse to defend Gonzales
- Next by thread: Re: NYT endorses Gonzales impeachment
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
