Could Bush have Gonzalez fire Fitzgerald? OOJ

[savemefromdumbya]

in the coffee shop this morning they were discussing that the District of Columbia Appellate Court rejected Bush suing his own Dept of Justice, stopping Patrick Fitzgerald’s indictments against White House officials. They said on Friday Gonzalez refused to sign the indictments against himself and the white house officials. Would this be an obstruction of justice? Or could this go to the Supreme Court? Is this true or is everyone getting crazy?

[jsamuel]

1. no

[JuniorPlankton]

2. Either way it is too late

In fact, I want them to do something stupid like this: it'll draw more attention to Dim Son, away from just a few "bad apples"

:kick:

[MaineDem]

3. Channeling Nixon?

But it's not Saturday.

[clmbohdem]

4. Like the Cox sacker?

[RaleighNCDUer]

5. When Nixon tried it

his AG was too ethical to go along with it, which prompted his resignation, then his successor followed thru.

I have little confidence that Alberto Torturememo Gonzales would be so bound by his ethics but he just might be intelligent enough to advise against it. If he was pushed, though, yeah I think he'd do it.

[savemefromdumbya]

6. Fitzgerald's authority is plenary does this mean?

I found this on the web: this sound encouraging

Fitzgerald’s authority “is plenary and includes the authority to investigate and prosecute violation of any federal criminal laws related to the underlying alleged unauthorized disclosure, as well as federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, your investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses; to conduct appeals arising out of the matter being investigation and/or prosecuted…”
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/documents/ag_letter_feburary_06_2004.pdf

[jbonkowski]

7. No no no

This keeps coming up every day. Fitz has completely autonomy from the AG in this investigation. He cannot be removed, replaced, demoted, or controlled in any way by the AG or the Administration. He technically has more power than the AG because the White House cannot fire him.

This was set-up when Fitz took the post, probably at the CIA's request. Ashcroft (AG at the time) could not investigate, due to his close relationship to those being investigated, and then the guy he passed it on to at Justice didn't want the hot potato, either. They gave it to FItz and moved it out of the Justice Dept. to make it independent and not under the authority of those being investigated.

It's not clear that any power in the United States could remove him. Maybe the Supreme Court. The Justice Department could probably cut off additional funding to him, but that seems kind of pointless so close to the end. Of course, he could ask for another extension...

[savemefromdumbya]

11. thanks for the info

I found the info - thanks

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=5162699&mesg_id=5162841

[jbonkowski]

8. This would bring Bush into it

If Bush is the only one in the chain of command not involved, he would be involved if he tried to stop the investigation. His recent comments in the last few days have actually been supportive of the investigation.

I bet he's trying to survive this now, and trying not to do anything to directly involve himself.

[Neil Lisst]

9. Funny story. Bush DID intend to fire him.

Yeah, he called Gonzalez and told him to fire Gerald Fitzpatrick.

Now it's too late to fire the right guy.

[Ediacara]

13. LOL

There is a sort of spoofy song called, "The Two Gay Irishmen," about Patrick Fitzgerald and Gerald Fitzpatrick!

[zbdent]

10. Gonzalez would "Bork" Fitzgerald?

The true definition of being "Borked" is the Saturday Night Massacre . . . Bork did it, gleefully . . .

[Ediacara]

12. I suppose he could, but we all know how well that went when Nixon tried it