The Nifonging of Alberto Gonzales

Led by hateful Democrats and foolish Republicans, the U.S. Senate already has declared Attorney General Alberto Gonzales a criminal for the most trivial of matters.

They’re following the horrid example of Durham County District Attorney Mike Nifong, who had three Duke lacrosse players convicted in the press of a crime they couldn’t have committed.

In Gonzales’ case, the “crime” is the firing of eight or nine regional U.S. attorneys, government employees whom Gonzales had every right to fire with or without reason. Gonzales was inconsistent over why they were fired. Was it for bad performance or simply because he wanted someone else in the posts? It doesn’t matter. He exercised his lawful authority.

Animal attack. But under Sen. Patrick Leahy’s vengeful chairmanship, the Senate Judiciary Committee has targeted Gonzales for death. The senators want to murder his reputation. They want Gonzales to resign. They want him indicted. They want him ruined. They want him dead.

The beastly bloodlust has sunk to the lowest levels. Even pit bulls won’t watch these Senate hearings. At one moment, Sen. Leahy rips off Gonzales’ ears. The next, Sen. Schumer chews off his nose and stomps on it, barking. Then Sen. Specter digs at the wounds.

I wonder, when Gonzales comes back later this week to disprove the latest grand exaggerations against him, if the proud senators will apologize and resign, as Nifong did.

And if they don’t, can they all be disbarred?

Frank Warner

Comments

[Carl]

Yes, it is a valid argument. It's just not an argument you choose to recognize.

[lrbinfrisco]

"Yes, it is a valid argument. It's just not an argument you choose to recognize."

Carl,

the argument of limited resources does not pass logical muster of why a lower profile case with more sketchy evidence, with dubious federal jurisdiction, and relatively low priotority to the American public should take priority over a higher profile case with more concrete evidence, with precise federal jurisidiction, adn relatively high priority to the American public. It's not just because I don't want to recognize the argument, it's because there is no logically cohesive supporting arguments to the arguemnts premise.

Any reasonable person would agree that the Justice Departments resources would be better used tracking down Alqueda terrorists who wish to committ attacks of mass destruction of the US versus tracking down circus clowns who jay walk on 5th Fridays of odd months. However any nonreasonable person could claim that it was just because the reasonable people didn't recognize the argument that clowns should be tracked down because of limited resources without providing any logical backing to that argument.

[jj mollo]

And any person who knows some economics realizes that you can't put all your resources on the supposedly highest priority. Some resources are OK for creating guns and some are OK for creating butter. The justice department is charged with furthering the enforcement of all federal laws.

[jj mollo]

And about the amount of time that was spent developing the Vick case -- Sometimes it takes a long time to catch the culprits. Mafia cases have gone on for a really long time without turning up anything to prosecute. Angelo Bruno was the Boss in Phila for years. Everybody knew it but nobody could do anything about it. During Prohibition they got one guy for stealing a candy bar. I think Al Capone went down for tax evasion.

[lrbinfrisco]

Any paerson who knows some economics realizes it's completely stupid not to put any resources in one of the highest priority items while putting significant amounts in nonessential items.

Creating millions of jars of polish for gun holsters yet not making any guns nor gun holsters is just plain stupid.

The Justice department is charged with defending the constitution of the US. Choosing to ignore major violations of the constitution in order to enforce some obscure federal law doesn't make any sense.

Vick isn't Al Capone, nor a mafia boss, he's at worst a stupid, overpaid professional athlete who illegally mistreated some animals. Now stack that against the most blatant misuse of prosecutorial powers to violate constitutional rights in decades. Dog rights versus human rights. If we fail to protect the human rights, no one will be able to protect the dog rights in the future. Gonzales needs his priorities majorly adjusted. He's a sad incompetent excuse for an Attorney General, as is anyone who puts dog rights above human rights.

[lrbinfrisco]

BTW it has recently come to light that the Justice Department allowed serveral individuals to languish on death row in order to protect some mob informants. I wouldn't justify current actions of the Justice Department by past actions the Justice Department, especially many that occured with J. Edgar Hoover in charge of the FBI.

[jj mollo]

I happen to like dogs. I think they should be protected and not turned into vicious killers. If Vick sets up a profit making gambling operation that depends on cruelty to a large number of dogs, then he should be prosecuted. If the local authorities can't or won't do it, then the Feds are using their influence properly in order to pursue it. I would personally like to see Mr. Vick treated the same way the dogs were treated, but I will be happy with a prison sentence that conveys a message to those who would emulate him.

Mr. Nifong is already well on his way to getting appropriate punishment. The only thing the Feds could do is steal some of the thunder away from the state and local authorities. It would cost a lot and fail to contribute very much to the case. If the state and the bar assn. drop the ball, then there's nothing to stop the feds from coming in at a later time.

I didn't want to let you go thinking that I approved of J. Edgar Hoover. Even though he looked like a dog, I didn't like him much. He was a racist, a blackmailer and a power mad bureaucrat.

[jj mollo]

And once again. I don't think Gonzales is doing a very good job except for keeping the heat off of Bush.

[jj mollo]

Now, it might also be the case that Nifong has some personal mental/emotional issues that could explain why he did his job so badly. What benefit does the justice department gain if they end up looking vindictive. Anger is the appropriate response when someone abuses the protocols and procedures of justice in order to pursue their own zealous monomania. Let us think carefully before we tread down the same path.

[Nicholas]

jj, if you like dogs, you might want to consider donating a little money to this charity. ACE says the people do a good job, and as little as $10 could help them win a multi-thousand dollar grant from Hanes.

Read the post for more information. Among other things, they take care of dogs that have been used for fighting.

[jj mollo]

Thanks for the link Nicholas. So it's Kevin Bacon's organizatgion? Is it somehow using the concept of 6-degrees of separation, or is that just the name?

[Nicholas]

Well, as I understand it, the idea behind sixdegrees is that anybody can create one of these "badges" which lets anyone donate to a particular charity. So if you have a favorite charity you can create a badge for it and put it on your web site. Then you are supposed to tell at least six people, and they are supposed to tell six people, etc. - kind of like a chain letter.

It seems like an OK idea. I'm not sure if it will be anything revolutionary. But I thought I might as well tell people about this one in particular, since ACE says that he knows the people who run it personally and they do a good job. I like dogs too, so I donated a little, and probably will donate more later. But the way sixdegrees is set up, the more individual donations a charity receives, the more likely it is to win an additional grant.

I do think it's pretty cute that he took the "six degrees of Kevin Bacon" idea and made it his own.

[lrbinfrisco]

jj,

I too love dogs, but I don't put their rights ahead of innocent human beings. And local authorieties should be given at least a good 16 months ( what NC authorities have been given so far) to see if they will press criminal charges if your going to compare the cases.

And Vick has already arguably received greater punishment than any process the state of NC has implemented against NiFong or is in the process of trying him for. If the feds are piling on anywhere it's against Vick. NiFong has yet to receive any criminal penalties and if he does, it will only be a max of 30 days in jail and/or a max of $1000 fine. He has lost his license to pratice law for at least 5 years as a civil penalty. Not a very big penalty for attempting to falsely imprision 3 individuals for 30 years, causing millions of dollars of damage, engaging in election fraud, engaging in blatant witness tampering, and blatantly violating the civil rights of dozens of individuals.

Protecting the civil rights guarranteed to all citizens is infinitely more important that the alleged abuse of a few animals. The justice department is setting a standard that it will not even make a good faith effort to investigate blatant civil rights violations. Gonzales is telling every one of our local DA's that if they have grudge against anyone of us, it's OK with the justice department if they bring totally bogus charges against us and use every dirty trick in the book to convict us. But don't you dare mistreat fido.

The punishment should be very severe for those who use positions of government authority to illegally and unconstitutionally violate our freedoms. The future of our very society depends upon the vigilant enforement of the constitution. To abdicate this responsibility, as apparently Gonzales has done, is to place our nation's future in peril.

[Jake D.]

jj mollo:

Back to the U.S. Attorney firings, I'm glad you agreed that Carter firing Marston was "comparable" -- was there any Congressional investigation(s) of that replacement? No, because there was a Democratic Congress in charge. Clinton replaced more than 8 of his original (1993) U.S. Attorneys after his re-election too -- again, no Congressional investigation(s). Now that a REPUBLICAN President does it, the Democrats in Congress want investigation after investigation -- you don't think that's at all "political"?

[Jake D.]

Here are just a few of those Clinton replacements:

1997: Beverly Martin, Douglas Jones, Thomas Scott, Mary Lou Leary, and Sharon Zealey.

1998: Byron Jones, Denise O’Donnell, Paul Warner, Scott Lasser, Paul Seave, Ellen Curran, Stephen Robinson, Richard Deane Jr., Alejandro Mayorkas, Robert Green, Harry Litman, and Jose Rivera.

1999: Melvin Kahle, Gregory Vega, Thomas Strickland, Donna Bucella, Daniel French, Quenton White, Jackie Williams, Mervyn Mosbacker Jr., and Carl Schnee.

2000: Daniel Webber Jr., Norman Bay, Steven Reed, Ted McBride, and Audrey Fleissig.

[jj mollo]

Jake D., If you could put these comments under the correct post, I might be able to pick up the thread of the conversation again.

[jj mollo]

One reason I love Frank's blog is that it's so easy to track new comments back to the original conversation. His most recent 10 comments are usually enough for me to keep on top of things. Recently his traffic has been getting a little thicker, so I might have missed your comments when they rolled off. If I were a little more tech savvy, I know I could find out some other way. Oh, well. Old dog ... new tricks.