Confidence, schmonfidence

June 10, 2007

The Senate is scheduled to consider a no-confidence resolution condemning Alberto Gonzales tomorrow, but even if it passes, don’t expect too much of a reaction from the White House. Whether the Senate trusts the Attorney General or not is of no interest to the president.

The White House on Sunday dismissed Senate plans to hold a no-confidence vote on the attorney general and said the outcome will not undermine President Bush’s resolve to keep Alberto Gonzales at the Justice Department.

“Not a bit. Purely symbolic vote,” presidential spokesman Tony Snow said. He was asked in a broadcast interview whether Bush might reconsider his decision to support Gonzales should a sizable number of Republican senators vote for the no-confidence resolution.

“It is perfectly obvious that the president has the right to hire and fire people who serve at his pleasure,” Snow said.

The point, of course, isn’t whether Bush has employment power over those who serve at his pleasure, but rather whether Gonzales’ conduct has been tragic enough to force his ouster.

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) recently said, “The president should understand that while he has confidence in Attorney General Gonzales, very few others do. Congress has a right — and even an obligation — to express its views when things are this serious.”

I don’t disagree in the slightest. I just don’t think anyone should be surprised when Bush and Gonzales treat the no-confidence vote the way they treat habeas.

The AP added that tomorrow’s resolution “could be Congress’ last effort to force Gonzales ouster.” That’s not quite right — the Senate could consider impeachment.

As has been obvious since last fall, with Bush you can either choose to impeach or engage in ineffectual handwaving. The administration is purely criminal, and can’t be compromised with or treated as an honest negotiating partner.

Impeaching Gonzales would be a worthwhile project, even if it fails to convict. An impeachment trial would focus attention on ongoing criminality at the DOJ as well as at the White House. A successful AG impeachment would be a decent warm-up for the (hopefully) bigger impeachments to come. An unsuccessful one would force GOP incumbents to go on record defending the indefensible. (The fact that this motley crew – Schlozman, Sampson, Goodling and Abu himself, come of on TV as such weasels is a gift from above.)

  • The House has the authority to impeach, so it would be the House, which would consider impeachment.

    The Senate is the body, which tries the case.

    The power of impeachment, however, is a dead letter, as long as so few Republicans in the Senate are willing to do their duty to the country or the Constitution.

    But, there’s nothing to keep the Democrats from negotiating over the appointment of a new Attorney General.

    Considering that the DoJ’s junior-level civil service ranks are now stacked full of underqualified, right-wing idelogues, the Democrats in Congress should be concerned about what to do, to ensure that the Department of Justice can be made functional under a future, Democratic Administration. One thing the Congress can do, is to radically defund dysfunctional parts of the DoJ, like the Civil Rights division, so that Ms. Goodling’s hires have to be laid off, in a “reduction in force” — the only practical way, within the rules, to get rid of civil service hires. The Congress could offer to relent in such defunding, if a responsible Attorney General is appointed.

    Bush might actually

  • I’ve been hesitant about pushing for Bush’s impeachment, but I think going full force after Gonzales is exactly the right thing to do. Holding impeachment trials is something that the Democracts can do even though they can barely field a working majority in the senate, and Gonzales won’t get the sort of support from the public that many people inevitably give to an embattled president. Even though the Dems will probably ultimately fail in this, an impeachment trial for Gonzales would lay open the heart of both republican misdoings and White House corruption. Even better, it would either get rid of Gonzales, or it force a lot of Republicans to stand up openly in support of all manner of evil and corruption. Thus, a Gonzales impeachment should provide a 3-6 month long lesson, in the full glare of media publicity, about why people should wait a generation or so before ever again voting republican.

  • The danger I see in the no-confidence vote, is that it is probably going to be a party-line vote, and if Republicans who are defending Gonzales when even they have to know that he is likely guilty of crimes, are not willing to express their lack of confidence in a non-binding “sense of the Senate” resolution, you can be pretty sure that they would not have what it takes to bring Gonzales to account in an impeachment trial.

    The story would be, of course, that this was just what Bush keeps calling it: “partisan political theater,” and it would give the WH reason to believe it could just stand fast and run out the clock. Meanwhile, both the House and the Senate could continue to hold hearings, but if they were to be conducted – as last week’s Schlozman testimony was – with only Democrats in attendance, the “partisan” label would only gain credibility, even though I expect hearings would continue to bring out information that was damning.

    As long as the WH can keep the firewall in place, they believe they are safe, and it can be business as usual. Taking out Gonzales is, I believe, essential to finally breaking down that wall. I would rather see the hearings continue, subpoenas be issued and fought over, than I would see a no-confidence vote that isn’t going to shame Gonzales – or Bush – into removing him. I would happily wait for indictments and criminal trials for these people than to have a slap-on-the-wrist vote that even Schumer admits they might not have 60 votes to stop a filibuster.

  • I believe we’re on the road to impeachment. The no confidence vote is a warning shot across the bow that will Bush blissfully ignore. The politicization of the DOJ and more specifically, enforcement of voting laws, is something no sensible repub seeking reelection will want to touch with a 10′ pole. It seems to me that the likely outcome for the GOP is a choice between bad, worse and disaster. Jettisoning Gonzo might be bad, but keeping him will lead to worse or disaster.

    I’m not seeing a viable wedge or base rallying issue here. They have nothing to positively advocate in this. All they have are 1/2 baked ‘it’s not as bad as it looks’ defenses. It’s not even a particularly good play of the ‘victim card’. Either I’m completely missing something, or the Rove machine has completely run off the rails.

  • What I don’t understand is why it’s Bush who is brushing off the no-confidence vote (like a cow swishing its tail at flies).

    They way these guys have done everything, it should really be Gonzales brushing off the significance of the vote.

  • “It is perfectly obvious that the president has the right to hire and fire people who serve at his pleasure,” Snow said.

    At this point, one has to wonder how much pleasure (and what sort) Bush is deriving from AGAG’s continued employment.

  • Let’s have some real fun — defund the entire DOJ in the next Budget bill.It would be vetoed, and the veto would be sustained, but then the budget would start over from zero, and Dems could make the President justify every little thing he wants. It’s hardball for the next two years.

  • what jimBOB said in #1

    pass me the popcorn, and let’s get this show on the road folks.

  • “The AP added that tomorrow’s resolution ‘could be Congress’ last effort to force Gonzales ouster.’ That’s not quite right — the Senate could consider impeachment.”

    Actually, Steve, the AP is technically right in saying that the resolution *could* be Congress’s last effort to force Gonzales out. That depends whether the House is willing to impeach Gonzales (requiring only a simple majority, which *ought* to be achievable, given the Democratic majority; if it has to be a party-line vote, then fuck, let’s have a party-line vote that gets it done), and whether the Senate is willing to try him (which requires a 2/3 vote for conviction, but fuck, make the man answer some questions under oath and it’s a win-win situation; he’s a walking perjury trap even if Republicans unite behind his crooked ass… in which case, duh, we get an issue for 2008… assuming Dems have the brains and balls to use it).

    But given the way Democrats have butchered the strategy of opposing Bush, persisting in opposition, and gaining from it (political/policy/electoral benefits), the way we *should* read the AP’s line about Congress maybe not having any more chances to force Gonzales out *should* be:

    “Will Democrats do everything they can?”

    And I hardly think it’s guaranteed that “yes” is the answer to that question.

  • Maybe the Commander Guy should stay in Albania – they seem to really like him there.

    • Comments are closed.