ABOUT FIRST READ

First Read is an analysis of the day's political news, from the NBC News political unit. First Read is updated throughout the day, so check back often.

Chuck Todd, NBC Political Director

Mark Murray, NBC Deputy Political Director

Domenico Montanaro, NBC News Political Reporter



Gonzales resigns

Posted: Tuesday, August 28, 2007 9:11 AM by Domenico Montanaro
Filed Under:

The New York Times’ analysis: “The announcement on Monday that Mr. Gonzales will step down as attorney general — coming on the heels of the resignation of Mr. Rove, the chief political strategist — effectively removes two of the biggest targets on Democrats’ hit list. Both were close friends and aides from Mr. Bush’s days as Texas governor, and both were being cast by Democrats as symbols of what they regarded as the Bush administration’s political excesses and failures.”

VIDEO: NBC's Pete Williams report on who will succeed Alberto Gonzales.

The Washington Post notes, “Rarely has a Cabinet-level resignation been so anticipated, coming long after Gonzales's credibility had been irreparably undermined by controversy. After he seemingly could do no more harm to the administration, Bush's friend and longtime confidant finally called it quits… But his case is not unique -- and that is what has confounded Bush's allies. The same pattern occurred with former defense secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld.”

The Los Angeles Times says Gonzales “leaves an enduring legacy: a Justice Department mired in controversy over the firing of U.S. attorneys and a series of legal and moral challenges to his post-Sept. 11 policies on presidential power, torture and domestic spying.”

The Wall Street Journal adds that Gonzales’ downfall “was triggered by the Justice Department's firing of eight U.S. attorneys. But the brawl over his tenure turned on a far broader issue: the Bush administration's six-year effort to impose greater political control over the federal bureaucracy.” 

In his analysis, the Boston Globe’s Canellos writes that Gonzales’ departure “could unlock the Bush administration's legal closet, bringing new details tumbling into the open about issues including the treatment of terrorism suspects, warrantless surveillance of Americans, and the administration's definition of official secrets. … some observers are suggesting that Bush could avoid some of the scrutiny by delaying his appointment of a successor.”

The Washington Post profiles the man who -- at least temporarily -- is replacing Gonzales: Solicitor General Paul Clement. “Compared with Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, Clement is a savvy Washington insider. He has spent nearly two decades learning his way around town, starting as a Supreme Court clerk and working his way through corporate law and Capitol Hill before finding a niche in the executive branch.”

The Replacements: The New York Daily News writes that Chertoff “heads the list” to fill Gonzales’ spot and other possibilities include interim Attorney General Paul Clement, ex-Deputy Attorney General George Terwilliger, and former Appellate Judge Laurence Silberman. “A senatorial slam dunk is ex-Deputy Attorney General Larry Thompson, now at PepsiCo. He would make history as the first black attorney general, but he turned down the job once before, a source said.”

Per NBC’s Andrew Merten, Fred Thompson discussed Gonzales’ resignation while visiting the Minnesosta State Fair. “I was glad to see him go on and quit taking all the flack that he taking,” Thompson said. “He's a good man, he's trying to do the best. They could've done things a lot better, they could've handled things a lot better over the past several months without any question. But it got to where his political enemies were making him look good. They insulted him and abused him and engaged in so much overkill that I'm glad the president didn't let them run him out of town. They did it at their own pace, and I think the timing was good, and now the Justice Department can move on.”

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

Many "insiders" on tv last night were all in sync on one important matter. Alberto Gonzales did not resign, he was fired.
So, what does it really mean when a presidential candidate states that he will not bring in Washington insiders to work with him while in office. Apparently, at least in the case of president Bush it means that his core of confidents will be made up of his long-term associates. Associates with prolonged loyalty and willingness to fall on the sword when needed and never reveal the inside mechanics of the administration.  Bush has brought in people with a loyalty more to the president than to the greater good of the country. He has brought in people that had more than party loyalty and many were unqualified to perform the job.  Remember “ Heck of a Job Brownie”? We should all be wary of anyone promising that he will not seek Washington insiders as members of his administration.  Without some key Washington insiders a president cannot be a reformer or unite the government for the good of all people. A president can however isolate the executive branch from outside influence and intrusion, keeping the game plan under wraps, effectively shutting off the will of the people and blocking transparent government. In the case of Bush, if a tree falls and no one hears it, then the tree surely did not fall.
I think the democrats should have any appointee given a medical examination to determine that he/she is not prone to amnesia. That problem seems to plauge this administration.
ooohhh bye bye Georges bestest friend.The Bushs are just users, the whole damn family.
If Hillary Clinton (god forbid) wins the election, she had better remember this when she fires her US attorney's.  Equally, she better pray she doesn't have a GOP controlled congress.

Bill Clinton fires 93 US attorney's....nothing happened.

George Bush got rid of 8 and all hell broke loose...

Nobody can ever convince me there wasn't a master plan by the liberals to make a mole hill out of an ant hill.....
If we're lucky Fred will run himself out of town.  Stay in New York, Fred, and keep doing the job you do so well and in which you can hurt us the least.
Jerry, I ask you this: why did Gonzo resign?
GONZO-GATE HAS NOT GONE AWAY, WE WILL BE TALKING ABOUT THIS "YEARS" FROM NOW.
Jerry,

It seems more like you are trying to make a mole hill out of a mountain!

It is not in the numbers but rather the motive...

to kool-aid drinker # 1 That's you Jerry- Continue with your stupidity that Clinton fired ALL REPUBLICAN U.S ATTORNEY'S AT THE START OF HIS FIRST TERM HELD OVER FROM BUSH 1....It has been done throughout history by incoming presidents. Not when Republican U.S Attorney were not towing the party line. GOT IT NOW!
jerry, once again you show that you are ignorant to the situation.  It was not about removing the attorney's but more about when and why and just a very select few that were hand picked in the first place.  The reason stated was because of performance issues and then all hell broke lose and was discovered that they were released not because of performance issues but the appearance of not going after people from a political party with more tenacity.  That is making the DOJ office political, and definately not protecting the citizens of the US.  When Clinton did that he did it at the begining of his term and he released all (not just a select few).  So can you handle the truth jerry?
Bush and Congress have proven two important points: Laws are for Little People and America does not have representative government.

Our own government has betrayed us.
I wonder what Bill's motive was in the firing of 93 US attorney's back in his administration.  Chuck/Mark; has anybody looked into that yet at MSNBC?

ALberto Gonzales has been dragged thru the mud, his good name smeared and tarnished.  I would have stayed myself, flipped off Schumer and Hillary and Leahy and told them "go for it baby".  2 of the 3 named above have more skeletons in their closet then all the administration combined.  Sooner or later, they would have all come out.


If democrats want to understand what real abuse of power is all about, all they have to do is ask the junior Senator from New York.
John, what we need is a third party, entitled -

                We The People.
"I would have stayed myself, flipped off Schumer and Hillary and Leahy and told them "go for it baby"."  

So why didn't he stay and fight like a 'real man' then? What was the problem? Why did he suddenly get soft?
BFF - Bush, Meirs, Rove, Gonzales, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice

"political excesses" -- what a polite way the New York Times has of referring to torture, indefinite detention without trial, killing detainees, illegal domestic spying, election fraud, destroying the separation of church and state, destroying the separation of powers, destroying one of our spy operations, causing the death of over 600,000 people and destroying a country and the lives or millions.
let's take a look at Bill Clinton the firing of the 93 attorney's back all those years ago.

Whitewater was at it's height.......

Jay Stephens, US Attorney for D.C.
30 days from indicting Dan Rostenkowski, chairman of the house ways and means committee.  Chairman Dan was leading the Clinton economic plan....

Stephens was fired......
Rosty went to jail anyway.....
Pardoned by Bill Clinton.......

Criminals always stick together don't they.....?

Jerry .. as much as you dislike Hillary Clinton, George Bush and his Texas criminals have redefined the the phrase "abuse of power". However, justice will prevail and they will all fall one by one ..as we are seeing this week with another Bush crook, Alberto Gonzales. Jerry, when the Dems win in a landslide in '08, you will have no one to blame but your fellow Texans for that. They went to Washington and snaked their way through everything including a war which up to date is reponsible for more than 3800 american deaths.
Jerry/I hope that you and the other Repuks know how to swim because you are going to go down with the sinking ship we all are a witness to. Oh, I forgot that you can just hang on to the decider, but I should warn you that if it comes to saving you or himself, Bushy will push you under the water to save his hide. I suggest you wear a life preserver.
jerry/corpus christi texas-
You said:
"If democrats want to understand what real abuse of power is all about, all they have to do is ask the junior Senator from New York."

We're asking you, put up or shut up.  Tell us about her abuse of power, spell it out for us so there will be no room for interpretation.  Make your case!
Gonzo is gone because he was told to be gone.Geesh---we all know how Bush works by now.He has been told to shut up and will be protected by executive privlige ---same old story since 2000.Wonder if the zombie looking guy,Chertoff will be nominated?There is a lot of Bush mud to be dragged through and many more will be face first into it.
jerry ask george bush and scooter libby
jerry/corpus christi texas--Here ya go Jer. Mid-term is the key. Mid-term with no other explanation other than failure to place politics above justice.

The Following excerpted from:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bush_admini
stration_U.S._attorney_firings_controversy/Firings_and_
activities_of_fired_U.S._attorneys


"Mid-term firings of U.S. attorneys were highly unusual, according to CRS and McClatchy

According to a CRS report published in February 2007 in order to "to ascertain how often, prior to 2007, U.S. attorneys left office before completing their four-year terms without a change in presidential administration," U.S. attorneys appointed and confirmed by a presidential administration generally stay on for the entire length of the administration. Most of those that have voluntarily resigned before their term ended, however, cited personal reasons such as seeking other positions or did so amidst allegations of "questionable conduct." [5]

Many U.S. attorneys continue to serve after the administration leaves office. However, U.S. attorneys serve "at the pleasure of the president," meaning that the president has the right to terminate their appointments at any time. According to a McClatchy news article dated March 13, 2007, "mass firings of U.S. attorneys are fairly common when a new president takes office, but not in a second-term administration," as was the case with the George W. Bush firings. [6]

According to the CRS report, in the past 25 years, with the exception of the most recent eight, only two U.S. Attorneys have been "apparently dismissed by the President." Both cases were under the Reagan Administration. Reagan dismissed William Kennedy, US Attorney for the Southern District of California, in 1982, reportedly for asserting that the CIA had pressured DOJ to pressure him not to pursue a case. The second was in 1984 when President Reagan dismissed J. William Petro, US Attorney for the Northern District of Ohio for disclosing information about an indictment. Petro was later convicted of the charges.[7] Both are considered traditionally reasonable causes to be asked to resign. [8] Most of the other attorneys who resigned "explicitly indicated (in news reports or elsewhere) that their intent was to take a position with a law firm or as house counsel for a business." Only three resignations (all of which occurred under George W. Bush's administration) were given without explicitly stating, or having information to back, reasons for leaving.[9]

On March 13, 2007, McClatchy Newspapers published an article stating that the "current situation is distinct from Clinton firings of U.S. attorneys." The article further goes on to state that "nonetheless, Bush aide Dan Bartlett noted Clinton's first term firings in defending Bush's second term dismissals." [10]

Record by presidential administration:

   * Ronald Reagan: Dismissed all previously appointed attorneys en masse and replaced them upon assuming office. All of those attorneys who left office before completing their two four-year terms left for personal reasons, with the exception of the two mentioned above (Kennedy and Petro).[11]

   * George H.W. Bush: Kept appointees from the previous administration. Only one attorney's "resignations [was] the result of questionable conduct." Frank McNamara, Jr. resigned because he had “been the focus of heated dispute since the Justice Department announced in November [1988] that he was the target of an internal probe.”[12]

   * Bill Clinton: Dismissed all previously appointed attorneys en masse and replaced them upon assuming office. Those attorneys who left office before completing their two four-year terms left for personal reasons. Two of those "resignations were the result of questionable conduct." Larry Colleton resigned in 1994 after being videotaped grabbing a reporter by the throat, and Kendall Coffey resigned in 1996 amidst allegations of biting a topless dancer. [13]

   * George W. Bush: Did not dismiss all the attorneys en masse when he assumed office. Bush Allowed a few to continue in their positions for several months until he replaced with his own selections early in his administration. Bush dismissed eight U.S. attorneys on December 7, 2006, in the middle of their second terms, without citing reason. Three other attorneys resigned without either explicitly stating reasons or providing conclusive evidence as to what reasons were prompting their resignations. "
Come on jerry, please tell us your argument for abuse of power please.  jerry "You can't handle the TRUTH"
GAB must be under 21.....

Travelgate
Whitewater
Vince Foster
removing furniture from the white house
Rose law Firm
cattle futures
INFOUSA
today's topic; the Chinese connection with the Paws
Lobby money from the health field
taping the enemies of her husband 1994
told upstate New Yorkers she was a duck hunter
She was a Yankees fan growing up in Chicago
Madison S & L Scandal
Chelsea jogging around the world trade center on 9-11
Born in 1947, claimed to be named after Sir Edmund Hillary.  Sir edmund became a household word when he climbed Mount Everest in 1953.  She later recanted that story (must have learned from Al Gore).

Gab....

Please google any of the above...might take you till November 2008 to go through it all.

Of course she can release all of her papers that she has forbidden the public to see in the Clinton Library until after November 2008 and put me in my place (as well as the other republicans in here).  But until she does, she just better keep the attack dogs coming and stop screwing up.




There isn't any point in trying to explain to Jerry what this is all about.  It's been explained to him probably dozens of times by now.  He never refutes the accusations, therefore he understands them but refuses to acknowledge them.  Therefore he doesn't care about justice, only increased power for the GOP.
Sad, isn't it. All of it.  We are all convinced of other people's motives and their moral character, and know for certain they are evil, crooked and corrupt. It's always them.  And, it's always us. None of us are exempt.  I can't quite pass up the opportunity to question why all these folks with such animosity can't seem to spell the words correctly.  Juan, it's "toeing".  No, it's not about spelling...it's about whether you are knowledgeable or not, whether you can process information and make an informed decision.  And, if Bush is bad, with his "disapproval" rating, what do we say about Congress (Democrat-controlled, by the way)?  Why are so many upset over the number of deaths in Iraq (certainly not something to celebrate) but we kill that many every year on our highways.  Why don't you get involved with that?!  Never mind, that's Bush's fault as well. I'm sure he caused the flooding in Iowa, too.  We deserve every bit of what our stupidity brings to this nation and this society.  
For Jerry from Corpus Christi, Texas:

You're sadly missing the point.  It was not Gonzales doing a hatchet job on 8 federal prosecutors that resulted in his downfall... it was the fact that, had the firings been legitimate in the first place, there would have been nothing to backpeddle, flat-out lie, destroy records, and suffer convenient episodes of "amnesia" about. In Gonzales' defense, however, I must say this:  he learned to deceive and shadow box at the Master's knee... a President who took advantage of a nation's grief in the aftermath of 9-11 and lied to us all in order to take us into a bloody exercise in futility in Iraq.  Saddam Hussein, who had no Weapons of Mass destruction to begin with (and with whom, not so very long ago when we thought it in our best interests to be so, the United States hopped into bed), is now dead.  We have introduced "democracy" to the country he once ruled... and now find (surprise, surprise) that Iraq's new governmental officials cannot seem to get it together to save their butts.  Therefore, we are now quagmired in another Viet Nam that will be grinding up more and more of our brave troops for years, if not decades, to come.  Even with a bloodthirsty dictator at the helm, Iraq was more stable before we marched into the fray than after. Not to mention that Osama Bin Laden and his merry band of killers are carrying on, unchecked.   The sacrificed lives, limbs, and blood of our heroic troops is on President Bush's hands ~ and those of every single one of his Staff who support his platform and enabled his crimes with their policy of "lie your ass off until the public buys it".  When will the government EVER learn just to pony up when an error or misconduct has occurred and tell the truth?  Nine times out of ten, the "sin" can be forgiven if the "sinner" accepts responsibility and genuinely endeavors to correct it.  It is the smokescreens, denials, slights of hand, and prevarications that so undermines the public's trust in the people with whom our nation's destiny has been entrusted.          
jerry, how many times does your stupid ass (and brain) have to be told Clinton got rid of the 93 US attorneys at the BEGINNING of his term, just like Bush I, bush II, Reagan, Nixon, Carter etc.  You have never understood any issue, and in the Gonzo case, it was about the politicizing the enforcement of the laws of the land.  I guess we need you to keep posting just to show how dumb bushies are.
M.Boley....Gonzo went soft because georgie like jeff better.  As for jerry....your the poster boy for the texas school of hypocrite's and closet gays
Jerry has no case. He is a woman hating,hiding in the closet, typical republican male from the US of A!!
My brother is a big, stupid, loser.
Leave Jerry Alone, he has been brain washed by the almighty Rush Mouth. Everything he writes is a restatement of the Rush Mouth’s holy truth. Everyone is wasting there time, since Jerry listens to the mighty purveyors of truths. You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make him drink, unless of course it is the Kool Aid.
Jerry,

What a great list of subjects that have long since been refuted...

Vince Foster?
Whitewater?
etc....

Give me a break. You are watching to many late night programs on public access. That is about the only place that will still take that crap (but they will take just about anything)! And then there is Lush Rimjob, the fat lying junkie... A real pillar of truth there as well???

Once again, Bill Clinton got a blow job and we are all being screwed now!

Maybe we should all pitch in and buy you some aluminum foil and you can make a nice little hat!
Gary:  Thanks for the information.  It clearly shows that the administration did something that wasn't done routinely within the past 25 years, including holding over a number of attorneys before replacing them later (technically this was mid-term also.

That the firings were "unusual" in the context of the last 25 years seems reasonable and I have no problem accepting that.

I'm still waiting for someone to definitively convince me that there was wrongdoing. I

've heard and read lots of opinions but none really add up to wrongdoing within the parameters of the powers granted the president in this area. When people start from the premise that everything George Bush does is wrong I dismiss their credibility out of hand.

Appointments to every position under the purview of the president are political by nature and always have been.  So too are firings, they can always be interpreted to be political.  The motivations to attack Bush and the administration in this case are purely political and have nothing to do with upholding justice.

This is a political vendetta, variations of which will continue to be played out in this and future administrations, regardless of the party in charge if a political gain is perceived.  

Neither party has a lock on virtue though it's interesting to see the Dems/Libs have assumed supremacy in the "holier than thou" tone.  

I really need proof that firing 8 in the middle of a term is wrongdoing. A president can remove all U.S. Attorneys en masse for political reasons when they take office.  It's because they want their own U.S. Attorneys.  If that's not political, convince me  
and just because it's "highly unusual" isn't good enough.

Everything else I've seen is just people with their own little agendas which, of course, is merely political.  Except for those who are out of their minds with single-minded hate for all things George Bush.  Then it falls into the realm of irrationality and those folks don't really count with me either.
I see Jerry's relying on ancient talking points. Come on, dude, get some fresh material! Your shtick is wearing thin.
Clinton (Bill and Hil) did some shady things, I'll admit it---but they never trashed the U.S. Constitution as thoroughly as Bush and his master, Cheney, have done.  (Plus, he wiped out shrub's father's deficit and won a war in Kosovo without getting 3 or 4 thousand troos killed.)
Jerry...come, come now....Bill Clinton fired all 93 US Attorneys at the start of his presidency.  That's pretty standard practice for a new administration.  George Bush and Gonzales fired 8 or 9 targeted attornies that wouldn't a)prosecute democrats in their states before the election or, b) wouldn't cease prosecuting Republicans before the election.  It's obvious that Bush and company were trying to tamper with the elections in these states. There is nothing similar at all between what Clinton did and what Bush did.  You're just grasping at straws again as usual. You're comments are almost pathetic to read.
Joe Bob in Texas - Great line about Lush Rimjob...I'm still laughing.  Alas, I'm afraid Jerry needs more than one tin foil hat!!! LOL
Richard,

There is a key reason that makes this situation different and it comes down to motive. This is no issue firing AG's and yes it has happened in previous administrations. It is a crime though when it is done for reasons of retaliation (i.e. Iglesias), or to subvert the voting process but pursuing false VOTER fraud cases to hide the ELECTION fraud that you have been committing. It is the latter that underlies this entire sordid episode and it has Karl Rove written all over it.

You have no farther to go to start seeing the picture than the replacements themselves.

Lets start with Tim Griffin. He was Roves deputy that was stupid enough to send some of his caging lists to the wrong email address (it happened to be a honeypot run by some reporters from the BBC). Oops...

Then we have Jeffrey Schlotzman who started this illustrious episode by gutting the voter rights division of the Justice department. Then he filed a voter fraud lawsuit against ACORN a week before the election based on charges that they had reported themselves. The case was thrown out as completely without merit... Also, you should see his testimony in front of the Judiciary committee if you want a good laugh!

It goes in from there...

Many of these characters seem to have connections to a group called the American Center For Voting Rights that was run by a guy named Thor Hearne who happened the be the general council for the Bush campaign. This group appeared in front of congress once with false testimony and now seem to be doing everything it can to disappear...

and this is just the start!

Richard, Washington State--While I believe that these firings were Administration punishment for the US Attorneys refusal to use their office to further a political agenda, clearly, NO wrong doing was established although perjury before congress could probably have been proven. It's always the cover-up that gets em.
All Gonzo or his subordinates had to do was state  that US attorneys serve at the pleasure of POTUS. But they didn't do that! They obfuscated and told different stories and generally acted like guilty little kids. Maybe that has something to do with the preponderance DOJ political staff who received their accreditation from GOD U. Who knows, it doesn't matter. The result was a DOJ with no credibility with the public, with its legal professional core, nor even with the Republican party. A DOJ that was obviously not independent. A DOJ that became to be seen as law firm for the Administration instead of the defender of blind justice for the American people. This AG and his political staff were clearly out of their league because they should have had the skills to get away with it. Blaming Congress for this is like a Little League parent blaming the other teams pitcher for suckering their kid into swinging at nothing.
Richard, Washington State--Oh yeah. And you gotta love Clinton's two dismissals:
"Larry Colleton resigned in 1994 after being videotaped grabbing a reporter by the throat, and Kendall Coffey resigned in 1996 amidst allegations of biting a topless dancer."
Thought you'd enjoy those. :)
jERRY ONCE AGAIN YOU ARE MISREPRESENTING THE TRUTH. YES CLINTON FIRED ALL THE ATTORNEYS AND WHOEVER IS ELECTED IN O8 WILL DO THE SAME, IT IS COMMON PRACTICE WHEN THE WHITE HOUSE CHANGES PARTIES YOU FIRE  THE ATTORNEYS AND APPOINT YOUR OWN. DO YOU WANT US TO BELIEVE YOU ARE SO NAIVE THAT YOU BELIEVE BUSH KEPT ALL OF CLINTON'S ATTORNEYS?


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):

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=335633

First Read e-mail alerts


Sign up for First Read alerts
The first place for key political news and analysis

Syndicate This Site

Add First Read to your news reader:
live.com xml
myyahoo msn
bloglines newsgator
google