Edwards Wins the Gonzales Primary

UPDATE: This just in from ABC News: "In an exclusive interview to air Wednesday morning, March 14, on "Good Morning America," Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., the frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination, for the first time called for the resignation of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales." HRC wasn't going to let Edwards enjoy his first-to-call-on-Gonzales-to-resign status for very long. See below.

Former Senator John Edwards wins. He's the first of the leading Democratic presidential candidates to call for the head of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales on a stick--that is, for the A.G. to resign over the still-expanding U.S. attorney scandal. After news stories appeared on Tuesday reporting White House involvement in the recent firings of federal prosecutors (including those who were unresponsive to Republican pressure to investigate Democrats), Edwards released this statement:

Today's news is only the latest and most disturbing sign of the politicization of justice under President Bush. From the abuse of investigative authority under the Patriot Act to the unconstitutional imprisonment of the Guantanamo Bay detainees and illegal torture of prisoners at Abu Ghraib and Bagram Air Force Base, this president has consistently shown contempt for the rule of law.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales betrayed his public trust by playing politics when his job is to enforce and uphold the law. By violating that trust, he's done a great disservice to his office. If White House officials ordered this purge, he should have refused them. If they insisted, he should have resigned in protest. Attorney General Gonzales should certainly resign now.

Edwards left current Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in the dust. Earlier in the day, HRC's office put out a statement in which she called for more answers--from President Bush:

With the White House now acknowledging a direct role in the Justice Department's U.S. Attorney firings, the president must affirmatively step forward to explain what he is doing to address the politicization of our prosecutorial system and what role he and his aides played in this controversy.

The president is the chief executive of the country and this matter goes to the heart of his ability to manage our federal law enforcement and U.S. Attorney system. It is imperative that the president act swiftly to explain what role the White House played in this situation, hold those who acted inappropriately accountable, and take responsibility.

Yes, she asked Bush to take responsibility. Has she not been paying attention?

Obama took a similar stance, highlighting his previous opposition to Gonzales:

I opposed Mr. Gonzalez's nomination, in part, because he had shown in his role as White House Counsel a penchant for subverting justice to serve the President's political goals, and I feared that in an Attorney General. Sadly, the latest revelations underscore my concern. Americans deserve to know who in the White House is pulling the strings at the Department of Justice, and why. Anyone involved should appear under oath and answer these questions.

Round to Edwards.

That is perhaps a flippant way of looking at today's flurry of press releases from the Democratic candidates. But if this scandal does widen, expect Edwards to remind Democratic primary voters (over and over) that when evidence emerged suggesting the Bush administration perverted the federal prosecution system, he was the first to demand that Gonzales, who in 2005 approved the idea of firing a group of prosecutors, leave the administration. If the scandal peters out, no Democratic voter will hold it against Edwards that he demanded Gonzales' resignation. Yet he may well end up with the bragging rights. After all, you never know where a scandal is heading or how big it will become.

What's Alberto Gonzalez's worst mistake? Cast your vote in the Nation Poll.

Comments (47)

1. Boy, and they say I'M cynical and look at politics as a "game"!!!

   "But if this scandal does widen, expect Edwards to remind Democratic primary voters (over and over) that when evidence emerged suggesting the Bush administration perverted the federal prosecution system, he was the first to demand that Gonzales, who in 2005 approved the idea of firing a group of prosecutors, leave the administration. If the scandal peters out, no Democratic voter will hold it against Edwards that he demanded Gonzales' resignation. Yet he may well end up with the bragging rights."

   Posted by Mask at 03/13/2007 @ 2:57pm

2. BTW, Mr Corn....

   If Gonzales DOESN'T resign....do you want to see...

   impeachment of him???

   Posted by Mask at 03/13/2007 @ 2:58pm

3. Hell, he should be impeached for illegal authorization of torture against international laws and treaties taht the US ascribes to - "F" a bunch of judge scandals...

   Posted by leftofcenter at 03/13/2007 @ 3:46pm

4. "Edwards Wins the Gonzales Primary"

   Think it will be the only one he wins?

   Posted by john maasch at 03/13/2007 @ 4:13pm

5. This approach, even its use of sports terms like "bragging rights" would seem to trivialize what is going on in the country. I am an Edwards supporter,but I wonder whether calling for Gonzales or Rove or anyone else to resign X days earlier than another candidate says anything about anyone's abilities to lead the country.

   Posted by Moysh at 03/13/2007 @ 5:00pm

6. .."but I wonder whether calling for Gonzales or Rove or anyone else to resign X days earlier than another candidate says anything about anyone's abilities to lead the country. "

   It says style over substance, it says I can't think of anything else to say and no one new is looking or listening to me...Edwards had better get used to it..the same thing happened to him a few years back, before he built his nice new house...in NC...he lost. He is already done...Hillary has bigger balls and kn ows how to use them.

   Posted by john maasch at 03/13/2007 @ 5:34pm

7. What's next? "John Boy" Edwards wins the race to call for Dick Cheney's resignation, or some other such stupidity? MOYSH got it right, but I'll take it a step further:

   Edwards can't get noticed unless he lurches further and further into loony left territory, and we'll probably hear about it first (and probably only here) at The Nation's blog site...

   Posted by davebarlett at 03/13/2007 @ 6:21pm

8. 7 out of 10 Americans think Libby (who was convicted of lying, perjury and obstruction of justice in the CIA leak case investigation) should NOT be pardoned.

   This is a great news: The American people still believe in the rule of law. It's time for the White House to demonstrate the same.

   Not only should Bush not pardon Libby, he should testify truthfully, as should everyone else involved, with full disclosure 1) who was involved in leaking the CIA agent's name, 2) why it was done and 3) what measures have been taken to keep our nation's intelligence assets from being used as pawns in White House politics.

   Posted by NeilSagan at 03/13/2007 @ 6:21pm

9. Obama could still win the call the so-called AG a pathetic torturer primary.

   Posted by conshame at 03/13/2007 @ 6:22pm

10. Alberto Gonzalez lied under oath to the Senate about why Justice was terminating six US Attorneys. The intent was to deceive. There is a difference between politics and testifying under oath to congress, grand juries or a court of law. Gonzalez knows the difference. He gets no pass.

    The document dump on Monday and the resignation of Gonzalez's guy is an attempt to save the AG's job. It's bad news when the document dump occurs on a Monday not a Friday, and when that happens, it's a lot worse than the White House would have us believe.

    Abu Gonzalez should resign for deceiving congress under oath and for providing the veil of legal legitimacy for the torture of suspected terrorists and Iraqi civilians. If Gonzalez doesn't resign, he should be impeached. The current top law enforcement officer of the United States is a punk and a thug and a lap dog of GW Bush.

    Posted by NeilSagan at 03/13/2007 @ 6:36pm

11. 7 out of 10 Americans think Libby (who was convicted of lying, perjury and obstruction of justice in the CIA leak case investigation) should NOT be pardoned.

    Posted by NEILSAGAN 03/13/2007 @ 6:21pm

    Where was this?

    Posted by Mask at 03/13/2007 @ 7:24pm

12. new CNN poll

    Posted by Will C. at 03/13/2007 @ 7:49pm

13. Edwards can't get noticed unless he lurches further and further into loony left territory, and we'll probably hear about it first (and probably only here) at The Nation's blog site...

    Posted by DAVEBARLETT 03/13/2007 @ 6:21pm

    hey you could be the first hamster on the block that wasn't the last to know

    Posted by Will C. at 03/13/2007 @ 7:51pm

14. here's some good stuff [tinyurl.com]

    The e-mails released Tuesday revealed that the firings were considered and discussed for two years by Justice Department and White House officials. The issue first arose in a February 2005 discussion between Sampson and Miers, officials said. At the time, Miers suggested the possibility of firing all 93 U.S. attorneys. Such purges of the political appointees often come at the beginning of a new president's administration, not midway through.

    Posted by Will C. at 03/13/2007 @ 8:00pm

15. new CNN poll

    Posted by WILL C. 03/13/2007 @ 7:49pm

    Oh, okay...thanks WILL

    Posted by Mask at 03/13/2007 @ 8:22pm

16. you should go to wikipedia and look up google

    Posted by Will C. at 03/13/2007 @ 8:30pm

17. you should go to wikipedia and look up google

    Posted by WILL C. 03/13/2007 @ 8:30pm | ignore this person

    Hilarious.

    Posted by Oustbush at 03/13/2007 @ 9:11pm

18. I'm a little disturbed that 30% think Libby should be pardoned. I suppose that's what Bush and his prols are sitting with-- the hardcore fanatics we see here quoting each other word for word. I heard somebody this morning on the radio complaining that Libby should have been allowed to use a memory expert to testify; he tried that but Fitzgerald humiliated her so badly before the judge she was not allowed to present to the jury. It was pathetic.

    Posted by Oustbush at 03/13/2007 @ 9:18pm

19. I'm a little disturbed that 30% think Libby should be pardoned.

    Posted by OUSTBUSH 03/13/2007 @ 9:18pm

    18% said YES, pardon. 12% undecided.

    Posted by NeilSagan at 03/13/2007 @ 11:19pm

20. The least disabused TV viewers: right-wing knuckleheads

    The Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland conducted a study in October 2003 of public knowledge and attitudes about current events, focusing on media consumption habits. The study examined three generic misconceptions about the march to war in Iraq – alleged WMDs, purported Iraqi involvement in 9/11, and supported international support for a U.S. invasion of Iraq. While three-fifths of Americans held at least one of these misconceptions at the time, speaking to the poor quality of American punditry, Fox News viewers stood out – their viewers were "three times more likely than the next nearest network to hold all three misperceptions." link [politico.com]

    Posted by NeilSagan at 03/13/2007 @ 11:24pm

21. Fox TV viewers = 3 x more ignorant. He he.

    Posted by NeilSagan at 03/13/2007 @ 11:38pm

22. You know, given that CNN poll....I guess it's virtually assured that Bush won't pardon Libby, huh?

    I mean, the man does whatever the polls say...such as how he pulled out of Iraq when it became 65-70% unpopular.

    I'm sure he'll do the same thing with Libby too!

    Posted by Mask at 03/14/2007 @ 06:09am

23. You poor little dumy. It doesn't matter if the chimp pardons libby. I would be suprised if he did. This is the seventy two virgins crowd. The longer libby sits in jail the bigger a hamster hero he becomes.

    Posted by Will C. at 03/14/2007 @ 07:44am

24. Posted by WILL C. 03/14/2007 @ 07:44am |

    Actually the bigger PAY-OFF he receives when he gets out.

    Right now, on conviction alone, I figure he's going to go to Dubai, get $5 million a year as a Regional Vice-Prez, and a nice 15K square footer with a couple of servants.

    Posted by Mask at 03/14/2007 @ 08:26am

25. Lying to Congress: A Felony

    First, we now know -- or at least the White House is trying to tell us -- that they considered firing all the US Attorneys at the beginning of Bush's second term. That would have been unprecedented but not an abuse of power in itself.

    The issue here is why these US Attorneys were fired and the fact that the White House intended to replace them with US Attorneys not confirmed by the senate. We now have abundant evidence that they were fired for not sufficiently politicizing their offices, for not indicting enough Democrats on bogus charges or for too aggressively going after Republicans. (Remember, Carol Lam is still the big story here.)

    We also now know that the top leadership of the Justice Department lied both to the public and to Congress about why the firing took place. As an added bonus we know the whole plan was hatched at the White House with the direct involvement of the president.

    Note to Bush allies: if the "Clinton did it" defense is the best you can do, this scandal must be truly horrifying.

    In case there was still any lingering doubt among conservatives on this point, in White House documents released today, there's an email to Harriet Miers from Attorney General Alberto Gonzales's chief of staff Kyle Sampson (who resigned yesterday), in which Sampsons admits that the Clinton administration never purged its U.S. attorneys in the middle of their terms, explicitly stating, "In recent memory, during the Reagan and Clinton Administrations, Presidents Reagan and Clinton did not seek to remove and replace U.S. Attorneys to serve indefinitely under the holdover provision."

    Posted by NeilSagan at 03/14/2007 @ 10:53am

26. Apparently, firing US Attorneys to protect friends from prosecution for criminal behavior is not a new trick for Bush and his lying enablers.

    Bush removal ended Guam investigation US attorney's demotion halted probe of lobbyist

    By Walter F. Roche Jr.,, Los Angeles Times | August 8, 2005

    WASHINGTON -- A US grand jury in Guam opened an investigation of controversial lobbyist Jack Abramoff more than two years ago, but President Bush removed the supervising federal prosecutor, and the probe ended soon after.

    The previously undisclosed Guam inquiry is separate from a federal grand jury in the District of Columbia that is investigating allegations that Abramoff bilked Indian tribes out of millions of dollars.

    In Guam, a US territory in the Pacific, investigators were looking into Abramoff's secret arrangement with Superior Court officials to lobby against a court reform bill then pending in Congress. The legislation, since approved, gave the Guam Supreme Court authority over the Superior Court.

    In 2002, Abramoff was retained by the Superior Court in what was an unusual arrangement for a public agency. The Los Angeles Times reported in May that Abramoff was paid with a series of $9,000 checks funneled through a Laguna Beach, Calif., lawyer to disguise the lobbyist's role working for the Guam court. No separate contract was authorized for Abramoff's work.

    Guam court officials have never explained the contractual arrangement. At the time, Abramoff was a well-known lobbying figure in the Pacific islands because of his work for the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands and Saipan garment manufacturers, accused of employing workers in what critics called sweatshop conditions.

    Abramoff spokesman Andrew Blum said the lobbyist ''has no recollection of his being investigated in Guam in 2002. If he had been aware of an investigation, he would have cooperated fully." Blum declined to respond to detailed questions.

    The transactions were the target of a grand jury subpoena issued Nov. 18, 2002, according to the subpoena. It demanded that Anthony Sanchez, administrative director of the Guam Superior Court, turn over all records involving the lobbying contract, including bills and payments.

    A day later, the chief prosecutor, US Attorney Frederick A. Black, who had launched the investigation, was demoted. A White House news release announced that Bush was replacing Black.

    The timing caught some by surprise. Despite his officially temporary status as the acting US attorney, Black had held the assignment for more than a decade.

    Posted by NeilSagan at 03/14/2007 @ 11:12am

27. Former Senator Fred Thompson, who now plays a district attorney on Law & Order told Fox News today that he'll make a decision in the coming months about whether to jump into the field of Republican candidates vying for the 2008 presidential nomination.

    "I'm going to wait and see what happens, I want to see my colleagues on the campaign trial, what they say, what they emphasize, whether they can carry the ball next November."

    Mr. Thompson, who served as a senator from Tennessee from 1994 until 2003, said he was leaving the door open for a return to the political stage.

    In 1977, Thompson took on a Tennessee Parole Board case that ultimately toppled Tennessee Governor Ray Blanton from power on charges of selling pardons. The scandal became the subject of a book and a movie titled Marie in which Thompson played himself.

    Selling pardons? What will an $8 million defense fund buy?

    Posted by NeilSagan at 03/14/2007 @ 11:24am

28. We also now know that the top leadership of the Justice Department lied both to the public and to Congress about why the firing took place.

    Posted by NEILSAGAN 03/14/2007 @ 10:53am

    Uh, NEIL, before you get too excited.....WHEN did they do that? Under what circumstance?

    Posted by Mask at 03/14/2007 @ 11:25am

29. was they this much bed wetting when other presidents fired ags? Who cares...you loons run from one panicy "I found a crime, I found a crime and a lie!!" to another...this is govt girls, and you want to give it MORE responsibility...its already too big to manage...and you clods are willing to make it bigger and think your "boys" aren't "criminals"...google your own democratic party and crime....

    Posted by john maasch at 03/14/2007 @ 11:45am

30. Oddly, Maasch, it only matters to you when the Democrats do something that you feel you can pounce on. I don't have enough time (my family only has about 80 year life spans) to type in all of the scandals this administration has perpetrated. If you could find one uninterrupted day for these pinheads without a lie and a crime, it would certainly be an improvement.

    If we sized any organization on the basis of what these neocon bozos can manage, there wouldn't be a structure in the U.S. bigger than a dog house.

    Posted by brantl at 03/14/2007 @ 12:00pm

31. Which leading Democrat will get ahead of the curve?

    All it takes is leadership, do something before anyone else, and the style is the substance - just Stand up for America.

    Say, The George Bushs personal attorney and long-time torture advocate Alberto Gonzales, is a danger and a threat to American Justice and Law. Mr. Bushs attorney is not loyal to America, his entire attitude is one of mockery towards the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

    The so-called Attorney General is also the #1 law-violator in America, interfering with prosecutors over politics. Bushs attorney is nothing but a crook and he must resign.

    Posted by conshame at 03/14/2007 @ 12:06pm

32. Bushs attorney is nothing but a crook and he must resign.

    Posted by CONSHAME 03/14/2007 @ 12:06pm

    Okay, going to get jumped on I know...but honestly curious...

    what crime did Gonzales commit?

    Posted by Mask at 03/14/2007 @ 12:13pm

33. Mask

    Uh...see: Posted by NEILSAGAN 03/14/2007 @ 10:53am (title of post)

    Posted by leftofcenter at 03/14/2007 @ 12:53pm

34. MASK 03/14/2007 @ 12:13pm

    Enough of this "where was the law broken" crap. Officials at the highest level of this or any other government of a sovereign nation are, in a very real sense, above the law. They either make, enforce, or interpret the law.

    It is the pattern of behavior and standard of ethics that we are concerned with. These people have enormous power and great discretion in how to apply it. As such, proving that they have broken the law is inherently difficult.

    And as has been stated over and over by myself and others, if your only defense is that you're not really a criminal, you are already done for, as far as public opinion goes.

    Posted by MyParadigm at 03/14/2007 @ 12:56pm

35. Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 03/14/2007 @ 12:53pm

    Yes, saw it...hence this post-

    Uh, NEIL, before you get too excited.....WHEN did they do that? Under what circumstance?

    Posted by MASK 03/14/2007 @ 11:25am

    And was waiting on his answer.

    Posted by Mask at 03/14/2007 @ 2:00pm

36. Kudos to David (and The Nation) for keeping the actions of the other candidates in the news. I think the only way Edwards or Kucinich can get any print in the mainstream media is to either hold up a liquor store or start dating Paris Hilton.

    Posted by bigmambo at 03/14/2007 @ 2:02pm

37. if your only defense is that you're not really a criminal, you are already done for, as far as public opinion goes.

    Posted by MYPARADIGM 03/14/2007 @ 12:56pm

    Really? any historical precedent for that in the last dozen years?

    Geez, doesn't that sound an AWFUL lot like the "Limbaugh/Hannity" guys during the Clinton years? "Travel-gate", "File-gate", "Whitewater", "Rose Law Firm records"?

    "Who cares if he didn't ACTUALLY break a law...it's about him being unethical!!!"---el Rushbo and Slick Sean.

    Look, already under fire, but let me say....I DON'T CARE what happens to Gonzales. As I predicted on another thread, he'll get thrown under the bus by Bush when it seems politically expedient or IF it seems politically expedient...

    then Bush will nominate some moderate "Arlen Specter" Republican to the AG post......the Dems will grill him/her (lightly)...and they'll take over ...do the EXACT same things as Gonzales, but "nicer"....and finish out until January 2009.

    But they got Libby on perjury...and NOBODY for the "outing of Valerie Plame"....so don't give me this "so what if no laws were broken" crap and telling me about ethics and public opinion.

    This is the real world, boys. And if Gonzales can go on CNN (or Fox!) and say "Democrats want me to resign, but won't tell me what laws I supposedly have broken"....then "public opinion" is going to "go" with him.

    Posted by Mask at 03/14/2007 @ 2:07pm

38. MASK 03/14/2007 @ 2:07pm

    The problem with your argument is that what Limbaugh/Hannity were attacking Clinton on was personal conduct, semi-shady business deals, and relatively small-time executive excesses. What's going on with Bush and company is relevant to the actual conduct of government and the effect it has on people's lives. And it absolutely is not the same.

    Excuse me for boiling it down to "when Clinton lied, nobody died." But that's basically what I'm saying. My unethical matters. Their unethical don't mean diddly. It might seem like a playground scuffle, but I think most adults can tell the difference.

    And by the way, Libby did in fact break the law. If you want to argue that Fitzgerald was out of control, good luck.

    Posted by MyParadigm at 03/14/2007 @ 2:38pm

39. RIO BRAVO 03/14/2007 @ 2:18pm

    Oy vey. Democrat starts with a clean slate after three Republican adminstrations. Republican inexplicably fires well-performing attorneys, and it turns out that several of them were contacted by lawmakers for not prosecuting Democrats fast enough.

    The former is not a big surprise. The latter is much more interesting, especially since it was done immediately after a humiliating election, when there was an obvious need to regain strength however possible.

    Posted by MyParadigm at 03/14/2007 @ 2:46pm

40. Posted by MYPARADIGM 03/14/2007 @ 2:38pm

    MYPARA....I'm merely talking spin, politics, and reality.

    Gonzales can go on Stephanopolous, Russert, Situation Room, whatever and say "I broke no law, I don't understand why the Democrats are coming after us for a simple mistake".

    Lies, damnable lies, bold-faced lies....okay. But the spin will be "Gonzales committed no crime...so why should he step down"?

    "He was acting unethically!!!!"....okay. So Bush says "Don't think so, Congress/whoever....what you going to DO about it?"

    Impeach Gonzales? Nope, nothing to charge him with in bills of impeachment. "high crime or misdemeanor" dont even work. "It'll drive Bush's poll numbers down"?....too late. Embaressment of the Administration and Alberto?....yeah, they'll just COLLAPSE under that, won't they?

    So...what are we left with? Plus they can blame it all on Kyle Sampson.

    Posted by Mask at 03/14/2007 @ 2:52pm

41. Right now, on conviction alone, I figure he's going to go to Dubai, get $5 million a year as a Regional Vice-Prez, and a nice 15K square footer with a couple of servants.

    Posted by MASK 03/14/2007 @ 08:26am

    So you're suggesting that he did it for the money. Maybe, but you're foolish to think he's going to live in Dubai. Nobody knows or cares about ol scoota in Dubai

    Ha Ha Ha Ha

    No, all his fawning fans are here. In hamsterland he's a martyr for the cause. In Dubai he's only the guy who took it in the poopa.

    Posted by Will C. at 03/14/2007 @ 11:34pm

42. Posted by WILL C. 03/14/2007 @ 11:34pm

    WILL, I know you don't keep up with the news too well, but...

    Halliburton announced a few days ago that they were moving their corporate HQ to Dubai.

    Check "the Google" for "Halliburton" and "Dubai" to get upto speed.

    Posted by Mask at 03/15/2007 @ 08:13am

43. Rio Loco

    Since you're cross-posting the same crap, let me cross-answer

    "...ask for the resignation of all 93 U.S. attorneys..."

    Requesting resignations from an incoming POTUS is just about SOP. Firing 6 for strictly political reasons and then lying to Congress about it...a bit different, yes?

    Posted by leftofcenter at 03/15/2007 @ 11:48am

44. That's not different enough for Rio. You need coal-mine entrance black versus blinding white light for Rio loco.

    Posted by brantl at 03/15/2007 @ 1:21pm

45. Rio is merely a mouth piece for the Tory talking points. there is no there there.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 03/15/2007 @ 1:36pm

46. Brantl (& Rio Loco)

    "versus blinding white light "

    Yes Rio...head towards the light (we're all hoping its a train)

    Posted by leftofcenter at 03/15/2007 @ 3:17pm

47. Halliburton announced a few days ago that they were moving their corporate HQ to Dubai.

    Check "the Google" for "Halliburton" and "Dubai" to get upto speed.

    Posted by MASK 03/15/2007 @ 08:13am

    right

    and you were talking about scoota

    check up thread to get up to speed, then get back to me

    Posted by Will C. at 03/17/2007 @ 03:16am