Gonzales listened as lawyers lined up against Addington, then he ruled in favor of Addington

[BurtWorm]

Why? Because he agreed with Cheney? Or because he was afraid of him?

Gonzales should be impeached. Cheney should be impeached. Bush should be impeached. The Democrats must start with one of them. But they must *start*. The constitution can stand no more of their abuse.


http://blog.washingtonpost.com/cheney/chapters/pushing_the_envelope_on_presi/index.html

...

Decision time came in a heated meeting in Gonzales's corner office on the West Wing's second floor, according to four officials with direct knowledge, none of whom agreed to be quoted by name about confidential legal deliberations. Olson was backed by associate White House counsel Bradford A. Berenson , a former law clerk to Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy.

Berenson told colleagues that the court's swing voter would never accept absolute presidential discretion to declare a U.S. citizen an enemy and lock him up without giving him an opportunity to be represented and heard. Another former Kennedy clerk, White House lawyer Brett Kavanaugh, had made the same argument earlier. Addington accused Berenson of surrendering executive power on a fool's prophecy about an inscrutable court. Berenson accused Addington of "know-nothingness."

Gonzales listened quietly as the Justice Department and his own staff lined up against Addington. Then he decided in favor of Cheney's lawyer.

John D. Ashcroft, who was attorney general at the time, declined to discuss details of the dispute but said the vice president's views "carried a great deal of weight. He was the E.F. Hutton in the room. When he talked, everybody would listen." Cheney, he said, "compelled people to think carefully about whatever he mentioned."

When a U.S. District Court ruled several months later that Padilla had a right to counsel, Cheney's office insisted on sending Olson's deputy, Paul Clement, on what Justice Department lawyers called "a suicide mission": to tell Judge Michael B. Mukasey that he had erred so grossly that he should retract his decision. Mukasey derided the government's "pinched legalism" and added acidly that his order was "not a suggestion or request."

Cheney's strategy fared worse in the Supreme Court, where two cases arrived for oral argument alongside Padilla's on April 28, 2004.

...

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. H. Res. 333

Dennis Kucinich has introduced this impeachment bill for Cheney and is gathering co-sposors. I've written my conman, a repuke, to demand he co-sponsor. I hope all you who have Democratic Congresscritters do the same.

[Kagemusha]

2. At the time Gonzales was WH counsel, right? So his job was to serve Bush.

And that job meant his real job was to serve Cheney in all arguments of this nature, no matter what the hell his staff said, or John Ashcroft's for that matter.

[DURHAM D]

3. And now his real job at Justice is to protect Cheney. eom

[Kagemusha]

4. I don't think he recognizes any difference.

It's all protecting Bush in the end for "Fredo".

[Jim__]

5. The job of the White House Counsel is to advise the president on legal issues.

That does not mean telling the president what he wants to hear.

[BurtWorm]

6. In "normal" circumstances, of course you're right,

But this administration is not about following norms, let alone following the law.

It really would be a horrible miscarriage of justice to allow them to get away with what they plotted to get away with. I fear they're going to.