Gonzales under fire

Posted: Thursday, April 19, 2007 9:07 AM by Mark Murray
Filed Under: White House, Congress

The Washington Post offers up some clues as to what Bush is looking for in Gonzales’ testimony today. "Bush does not think Gonzales did anything wrong in dismissing the prosecutors, according to aides, but has been aggravated by his friend's clumsy, shifting explanations of what happened. In effect, advisers said, Bush is giving Gonzales a chance to fix the situation today. What happens if he does not remains unclear. No one in the White House believes Gonzales can say anything that would get Democrats to drop the matter, but his supporters hope he can be confident and consistent enough to explain his role without providing more ammunition for critics. Should he stumble, some Republicans said, Gonzales has a responsibility to fall on his sword, sparing Bush having to ask.”

A new CBS News poll suggests that a large majority of folks haven't been following the US attorneys controversy -- which may be why 36% of those surveyed didn't have an opinion about whether they thought Gonzales should resign or not. For the record, 36% were in favor of him resigning, 28% were not in favor.

Also, did anyone else know that Bill Richardson has not yet called for Gonzales’ ouster? And check out his reason… According to The Hill, Richardson “said Monday the reason he has not called for the removal of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is that the two both have Hispanic backgrounds. Richardson, in an interview with The Hill, said he is ‘pretty close’ to making such a call, but added that he is reluctant to do so before Gonzales’s Senate testimony despite the high-profile involvement of New Mexico in the U.S. attorneys scandal. ‘The only reason I’m not there is because he’s Hispanic, and I know him and like him,’ Richardson said, adding, ‘It’s because he’s Hispanic. I’m honest. I want to give him the benefit of the doubt.’”

EMAIL THIS

Comments

I don't know about the polling but I know that I have been following this very closely because this administration has been trying to undermine the Constitution of the United States. Bush thinks that no one cares because he is right about things and he is completely mistaken about this. I think once they started down the path of not needing the FISA court and other laws that protect our rights, we should be very cautious as to what they are doing. I know that this issue is very troubling to me. I have seen what it is like to live in a state of fear from your government and it is not a very pretty picture. We as the People of the country should be very dutiful in ensuring the elected folks protect and preserve the Constitution of the United States. I took an oath to defend it, by God they should as well.

Terry, Disabled Vet, Des Moines, IA (Sent Thursday, April 19, 2007 9:16 AM)

At least Richardson is honest.

Bob, Orlando (Sent Thursday, April 19, 2007 9:59 AM)

Of course King George doesn't see anything wrong. To his way of thinking the federal government is his to use for political gain so nothing is improper.

John B, Des Moines, IA (Sent Thursday, April 19, 2007 10:02 AM)

I was interested in Richardson's run for the Presidency, but no more. He lost me with this : "‘The only reason I’m not there is because he’s Hispanic, and I know him and like him,’ Richardson said, adding, ‘It’s because he’s Hispanic. I’m honest. I want to give him the benefit of the doubt.’” Racist remarks? No?? Let's change it a bit and see if what he said sounds racist : ‘The only reason I’m not there is because he’s White, and I know him and like him,’ Richardson said, adding, ‘It’s because he’s White. I’m honest. I want to give him the benefit of the doubt.’” .... Would there have been an outcry if he said the latter??? You betcha!!! We already have a moron as president, we don't need the next one to be a bigot.

The Edge, Macon GA (Sent Thursday, April 19, 2007 10:04 AM)

Amigo has shot his foot.

Flat-earther, Georgia (Sent Thursday, April 19, 2007 10:34 AM)

Edge, you nailed it. Your analogy puts it in perfect perspective. Thank you.

Ken, MN (Sent Thursday, April 19, 2007 10:34 AM)

The Edge in Macon, GA, haven't you stopped to think he just wants another Hispanic to succeed? I don't agree with him but it is common for all of us to defend our own race, isn't it? He was honest; or would you have rathered have him say what you consider politically correct although he thought otherwise? Love Ga, by the way, had a girlfriend in Waycross.

Ravine Force, Kissimmee, FL (Sent Thursday, April 19, 2007 10:35 AM)

How could a Cesar descended from God do anything wrong? Loonie lefties.

Thank God I'm not a liberal weenie (Sent Thursday, April 19, 2007 10:50 AM)

The Edge==I agree with you. I had high respect for Mr. Richardson until he made this statement. If he were to get the Presidency, would he make a lot of decisions based on race?

Seattle Sue (Sent Thursday, April 19, 2007 11:09 AM)

It is very depressing to me that a third of this country doesn't care about anything except American Idol. Our country is being taken away from us one piece at a time by a bunch of incompetent thugs, and this 1/3 is either too dumb or too lazy to even be aware. I work for a law firm, and all the attorneys here have worked very hard; they're smart, ethical, and most are experienced. To have a justice department filled at the highest levels with lawyer wannabes that "graduated" from some joke of a religious lawschool and have no real legal experience should be a crime punishable by jail.

Harris Isenberg, Portland, Ore. (Sent Thursday, April 19, 2007 11:26 AM)

Ravine..I do appreciate the honesty in Richardson's statement especially regarding today's political climate of deception, spin and outright lies by our king and his court. However, the undercurrent of racism sets off alarms, it also smells of favoritism... "I don't agree with him but it is common for all of us to defend our own race, isn't it?" True, but it is imperative our current and prospective leaders transcend that commonality and opt to 'defend' all races. Our President needs to 'defend' all of the human race whom are American Citizens, not just those of their own heritage. (There are gorgeous and wonderful women in Ga...FL is also so blessed.)

The Edge, Macon GA (Sent Thursday, April 19, 2007 11:42 AM)

The only reason gonzales is the AG is because he was Bush'es personal lawyer. He needed someone that would cover his tracks and Al Gonzo has done so in the past. That is what he is doing now.

TEC-Spring Tx (Sent Thursday, April 19, 2007 11:46 AM)

I am surprised the president hasn't been quoted as follows: "You're doing a great job, Brownie...uh, I mean, Gonzo!!"

Nick A, IL (Sent Thursday, April 19, 2007 12:29 PM)

From what I hear, a number of current US Prosecuters feel a cloud is hanging over their department. Perhaps the majority of Americans are not aware of what is happening, but that doesn't mean our Justice Department has not been damaged. Ignorance is bliss until the storm hits and you discover FEMA is stocked with unqualified cronies.

Amy B Portland, ME (Sent Thursday, April 19, 2007 12:36 PM)

LIES LIES AND MORE LIES! THEIR DIGGING A DEEP HOLE.

JOHNNY JUSTICE ANYWHERE USA (Sent Thursday, April 19, 2007 12:50 PM)

Why does no one remember or care that Reno, as Clinton's AG, fired all 93 US Attorneys from the senior Bush's administration (See the National Review from Sept. 1, 1998). I am getting increasingly sick of the double standard! Hipoocracy is huge on BOTH sides of the aisle.

MC, Saratoga Springs, NY (Sent Thursday, April 19, 2007 1:19 PM)

ONCE AGAIN I ASK DOES ALBERTO GONZALES HAVE ALZHEIMER'S ? HE APPEARS NOT TO REMEMBER MUCH.

JOHNNY JUSTICE ANYWHERE USA (Sent Thursday, April 19, 2007 1:20 PM)

MC, Saratoga Springs, NY: Clinton made those changes at the begining of his administration and did so because he wanted people who agreed with his policy stances to be enforcing the laws. Bush fired his OWN appointed US Attorney for, it appears, not indicting Democrats or indicting Republicans during an election year. If you don't see the difference between the two scenarios you are hopeless.

John Doe, The Peanut Gallery (Sent Thursday, April 19, 2007 2:05 PM)

MC in Saratoga, it would be hard to draw a conclusion that these 2 are somewhat related or that people have forgotten. 1) What Reno and Clinton did was fired all of them and it happened during the beginning of the first term. 2) The current situation happened during the middle of the second term and to a very select group of attorneys. One of the attorneys was described as a absent house or words to that affect and the individual was actually serving in the Guard no less. A couple of them have been described as great attorneys and was doing a good job. No one is saying that the administration can not fire them at anytime, the problem stems from what was said and who was involved and at what time. I don't know about you but this administration has done more to harm our liberties than any other. They have by-passed the FISA court for wire taps, the FBI was actually collecting data on innocent Americans. Gonzales has said that he was not involved then he was but only limited and then it was said that the White House was not involved only later to discover that it was to a degree. I don't know about you but I really don't like being lied to. It is an appearance of deciet that Gonzales must clear up and not this well I don't remember stuff. I took an oath to protect and defend the Consitition of the United States we should hold them to the same.

Terry, Disabled Vet, Des Moines, IA (Sent Thursday, April 19, 2007 2:30 PM)

to MC in saratoga. Clinton's firing of all 93 prosecuter's was legitmate. It was done at the begining of his term, which is appropriate. And most presidents do this at the begining of their term. Remember they do serve at the will of the president. which i find to be totaly bogus, since we hire them and pay their salaries. Bush fired the attorneys 2 years into his second term, which is inappropriate since he hired them all at the begining of his first term.It raises a red flag, and was done very near an election cycle. If they were fired because they did not move quick enough to file corruption charges on democrats before an election then that my friend is playing politics, and is illegal. so that is it in a nut shell. so hopefully you now understand why there is such an uproar over this. And Gonzales lack of memory is proving his down fall. Just figured i's let you know.

John, Newport Rhode island (Sent Thursday, April 19, 2007 2:32 PM)

MC: There is a big difference between appointing all new Prosecuters at the beginning of a term and singly out certain Attorneys based on non-performance issues. Evidence suggests Lam, McKay and Iglesias were fired for either not pursuing cases against Democrats or for prosecuting Republicans for bribery. It appears Lam was fired for continuing to investigate leads in the Duke Cunningham bribery case. What happens to our justice system if people think the White House can order the prosecution of political rivals while protecting their own? Yes, Presidents can make political appointments, however, once appointed, Attorneys must operate without undue influence from the executive branch.

Amy B Portland, ME (Sent Thursday, April 19, 2007 2:34 PM)

MC-Sarasota Springs Nobody cares re: Clinton because it happened when he took office, the same as what W did at the start of his admin. If you really understood the controversy, it is the public statements since made by the fired US attys that they were let go for political, not performance issues, as stated by Gonzo. Some have stated they were let go for not prosecuting dems (ironically, a repub supporter). Also at issue is why a Rove-referred staffer got one of the vacated US attys spots. Based on what I have heard and read on the story, I get increasingly sick at how this admin plays politics 24/7 and in mind opinion, never to the advantage of the American public as a whole.

Mark Y; Westlake Village, CA (Sent Thursday, April 19, 2007 2:35 PM)

MC, firing attorneys appointed by a previous administration is not the issue. Most recent presidents DID fire the US attorneys appointed by the previous administration. Once these appointees are nominated by the president and confirmed by the senate, they are supposed to be INDEPENDENT of outside influences, like members of Congress calling them to inquire about "sealed indictments" and so on. This would be similar to a citizen calling the district attorney to influence the DA to bring charges against someone the citizen didn't like. The US attorneys should make these decisions based on evidence, or lack thereof, not the wishes and wants of Congress.

Lisa Fort Worth TX (Sent Thursday, April 19, 2007 2:45 PM)

so Pres is aggravated by Gonzalez's "clumsy,shifting explanations"..my! my! does anyone else notice the hypocrisy in that statement? do you think somewhere in that addled brain he gets what we are feeling ..nah!

stix66 illinois (Sent Thursday, April 19, 2007 2:50 PM)

I ASK YOU "MR. TRUMP" AFTER HEARING ALL THE TESTIMONY, WHAT IS YOUR DECISION? YOUR FIRED!!!!

JONNY JUSTICE ANYWHERE USA (Sent Thursday, April 19, 2007 3:14 PM)

It seems that the Repubicans are not upset that the U.S. Attorneys were fired for whatever reason the AG thinks up. He said that the reason WASN'T or WAS performance based, which one? Depends on when you listen to his answer. The Republicans are not worried about the firings, but the bumbling reaction of the Attorney General. It's not that he didn't handle the firings well, it's just that he didn't handle his explanations well. So much for justice.

Jane, Southern Mississippi (Sent Friday, April 20, 2007 12:11 AM)

I, too, respected many of Richardson's policies, but no more. To keep silent because you like someone is fine, but the silence should not be based on ethnicity. If it were, then I would keep silent on a lot of things wrong with this administration!

Utahreb, Veyo, UT (Sent Saturday, April 21, 2007 8:30 AM)

WHAT EVER HAPPENED TO REPUBLICAN CONGRESSMEN MARK FOLEY WHO RESIGNED IN DISCRACE?

JONNY JUSTICE ANYWHERE USA (Sent Saturday, April 21, 2007 8:59 PM)

SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

Your name, city and state (John Doe, Seattle, Wash.):

Your e-mail address (jdoe@msnbc.com):

Your website (it's okay if you don't have one):

Remember me? (We'll keep it private) Remember me?

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=157611