What on earth is this talk about the 'legal case against him'? No sane person is even suggesting that Gonzales did anything illegal.

Dave

Dave, you just won't let go of that bone, will you? There are many people, many sane people, who have suggested that Gonzales may be guilty of perjury and/or obstruction of justice.

Many people believe a lot of things out of pure self-interest and partisanship, Doug.

Sounding idiotic and having a poor memory under stress isn't a crime. And as yet no one has been able to point to an instance where he clearly and knowingly lied.

Last I checked we considered people innocent until proven guilty, though I see that the left is continuing its relentless efforts to do away with that vital constitutional protection.

Dave

i'll have to wait until my home PC is back online to provide the many links for possible perjury charges against Gonzalez...but there ARE there and well documented

from what's been in the news, the Senate investigation is iffy, but the House will be proceeding with the investigation...let's wait until that's gone further before saying anything definitive

but perjury looks likely, obstruction may be there as well, and just leaving their jobs does not let either Rove or Gonzalez off the subpeona hook

"time wounds all heels" - R.A.H.

Excelsior?

check out the last line of "Go West"...predating "Pandora's Box" publication by 10 years

...proper attribution (unless there is an earlier RAH use) = Groucho

"Last I checked we considered people innocent until proven guilty, though I see that the left is continuing its relentless efforts to do away with that vital constitutional protection."

All I can do is roll my eyes. Write sentences like this with one hand, and accuse others of being partisan with the other.

Gonzales may well have lied under oath to Congress when he said he wasn't at meetings he really did attend, or wasn't involved in decisions several other people said he directed.

Beyond that, it's mostly a matter of his championing, and writing legal defenses of, policies that some of us find unconstitutional, anti-democratic, and disgusting. I'll not claim he should be tried in a court of law for doing this - but it's understandable that there are people who would like to go that route. It has little to do with 'presumption of innocence,' a red herring in this context.

But since he was a really wretchedly bad attorney general, we should just be glad to be rid of him. And I hope Dave can at least join in that sigh of relief.

God, imagine if Bush had succeeded in putting him on the Supreme Court. We'd be stuck with him for decades.

Gonzales only had lapses in memory--could happen to anybody. Reminds mo of the old Steve Martin bit--"I forgot it was illegal to rob banks."

Handy, most of what you're talking about happened when he was White House counsel. In that job he was a legal hack hired to find justifications for what the administration wanted to do. As such he did a reasonably good job and satisfied his employer. How does this make him any better or worse than those in similar jobs in any other administrations?

As attorney general he was unremarkable and those few supposedly controversial decisions he was involved in were trivialities played up into bogus causes by partisan flaks.

Compared with prior attorney generals he was like a shining beacon of harmless mediocrity.

Do you remember John Ashcroft? He's the one who signed off on the provisions of the PATRIOT Act. He's the one who approved the warrantless wiretaps. He's the one who tried to cover up the Plame leak. He's the one who ordered federal violation of state sovereignty and arresting terminally ill patients in his campaign against medical marijuana.

Has Ashcroft been indicted? Where is the crusade against him?

But wait, let's not forget Janet Reno on whose watch we saw not only the persecution and mishandling of the Richard Jewell investigation, which is one of the worst cases of false prosecution in our nation's history, but even worse, she presided over the Mt. Carmel Massacre where 78 people died including innocent women and children, all with Reno's explicit approval. No serious attempt was made to bring her to trial. If Gonzales ought to be tried for perjury then Reno ought to be charged with criminal negligence at the very least and probably conspiracy to commit murder.

So let's get real about the trivial little footnote that is Alberto Gonzales.

Dave

the Richard Jewell investigation, which is one of the worst cases of false prosecution in our nation's history...

How can you have a false prosecution against someone who was never charged?

Dr. D., Jewell's name was leaked to the media as a suspect by the FBI and they did nothing to exonerate him or indicate that there was another suspect in the case for years after the leak. So in the eyes of the public and the media he remained the main suspect in the bombing until he was cleared in Eric Rudolph's confession SEVEN YEARS later.

True, it may not explicitly be false prosecution, but it's gross prosecutorial neglect and irresponsibility.
'
Dave

IMO, Jewell should have sued the FBI - AND the MSM - for defamation & slander. If I'd been on the jury, he'd have won, too.

Dave, Dave, Dave *sigh* ... Jesus X. Christ. There are none so blind as those determined not to see, are there???

The Justice Dept's internal investigations unit is looking into the possibility that Gonzales lied to Congress.

for troll i n #5 - i stand corrected...had not known of the earlier usage...thanks for the info

Excelsior?

xxoo - platonic-ally speaking of course