Editorial: It's hard to see how Gonzales can stay (Star Tribune)

[struggle4progress]

Riveting hearing reveals yet more alarming past behavior.
Published: May 20, 2007

~snip~ As in Watergate, many tried to do the right thing. Those included Ashcroft and Comey, who testified that even after Ashcroft refused to budge, the White House went ahead and reauthorized the spying -- without Justice approval. Comey said he wrote up his resignation, and that he understood Ashcroft, FBI Director Robert Mueller and others planned to resign as well. It was only when President Bush learned of these plans that he intervened and Justice's concerns were addressed.

Gonzales' behavior in this account sounds much like his involvement in the White House's crafting of a novel approach to the treatment of detainees. Applicable laws were declared inapplicable as new legal theories were hatched to explain whatever the White House was bent on doing.

Calls for Gonzales to resign, which now include one from Republican Sen. Norm Coleman, have mostly focused on his weak, credulity-stretching testimony about the firings of multiple U.S. attorneys and why they occurred. But his behavior in that matter simply builds on previous indicators that he isn't fit to lead Justice.

The Senate may soon take up a "no confidence" resolution on Gonzales. If President Bush still wants to sing his praises, he may find himself performing solo.

http://www.startribune.com/561/story/1193076.html

[MannyGoldstein]

1. When ASHCROFT Says You're Overreaching... Holy Crap!

The Republicans will have to impeach. The Democrats won't.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

2. rather mind-bending, no?

I never EVER thought I would feel that way. grateful for his efforts?

[JDPriestly]

3. What was really going on?

It appears that some sort of program, probably some sort of surveillance program that did not comply with the law was actually put into practice, what kind of program was rejected by Ashcroft and Comey? The program that was rejected must have been extremely and quite obviously very intrusive and illegal. Certainly we should have the right to know what was going on. As I understand the statements that Comey made, some kind of program was carried out without the approval of the Justice Department before the drama at Ashcroft's bedside. How illegal was it? And what kind of compromise was made to address the concerns of the Justice Department? I have this queasy feeling that the compromise may have compromised our rights and that we should know about it. How much crime can the executive branch hide behind "security" and "executive privilege" arguments. The executive branch is supposed to be equal to the legislative and judicial branches of government not superior. It appears to be using its power to declare information to be classified to deprive the other branches of government of their status as equals in the government. This is unacceptable in my view. And I believe it would have been unacceptable to Washington, Adams, Jefferson and Madison.

Was Bush eavesdropping on strictly domestic communications without FISA approval? Just asking. I have no information on this.

[acmavm]

4. My only quibble here, and I admit it's a big one, is how can ANY OF THE

BUSH** ADMININSTRATION stay, not just Gonzo.

The've lied us into a disastrous war that has killed Americans and Iraqis, they have looted the Treasury for the benefit of their corporate benefactors and friends, they have stripped away all the protections of the American people when it comes to food safety, environmental protections, safe and available medicines. This has been a coordinated effort by all those in the administration and they have been very skillful (up to recently) in keeping this under wraps and away from the American people. They have instigated policies that spy on us, that can have us locked up on a whim, and recently they have started to initiate the first steps to martial law by allowing blivet to write a directive giving him complete control over all three areas of government in the event of a national emergency. And national emergency is a wide-open area according to their definition.

They've 'lost' billions of dollars. (Right, they lost that money and I'm the next queen of England.) Can you imagine if a Democratic administration had 'lost' billions of dollars. I know we're used to it from the Pentagon, they've lost a trillion or so. But these people wrapped it up, put it on pallets, and shipped it over to old J. Paul Bremer to disperse (and I suspect pocket) the stuff without a trace.

There's enough criminal activity here for a RICO charge. Hell, people who say there's nothing to impeach for are crazy.

This is