"Richardson says it's time for Gonzales to resign"

Richardson says it's time for Gonzales to resign

DES MOINES, Iowa Democratic presidential candidate Bill Richardson says it's time for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to resign.
The New Mexico governor says questions about the firings of eight U-S attorneys and the role Gonzales played have effectively ended his ability to run the Justice Department.

Richardson, who's in Iowa today, told The Associated Press that "it's time for him to go."

The call is significant because Gonzales, a fellow Hispanic, has enjoyed Richardson's support to this point.

Richardson says he watched Gonzales testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday and found his explanations unconvincing.

http://www.whotv.com/Global/story.asp?S=6402987&nav=2HAB

Wow. There's reason enough, right there, to send a check . . . to some other candidate.

until his testimony. He gets mischaracterized here every day.

no real DEM should have given him ANYTHING.

of Human Rights, and for the United States to join the International Criminal Court. So any inference that he will tolerate torture is dishonest.

Boy, sure are a lot of tender supporters out there, willing to jump on anything they think they can twist.

I have never said anything about the man that wasn't true. Guess that must be why the same people keep climbing my frame.

the politicalization of the AG office. Just trying to keep it all honest.

:rofl:

in what it was conveying? If so, what can I say?

because he's hispanic.

and appreciated having a Latino in the position, he expressed his opposition to his actions as AG.

Would it have been more credible for him to ignore the fact that he had been supportive of having a Latino elevated to the position in the past? He acknowledged that support - because Gonzales was a fellow Hispanic - and then, never shied away fro criticizing his actions. Of course, folks will only play the 'support' part of the conversations and interviews.

:hi:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=706208

and he has carried too much water for the wrong team.

<snip>Vigil-Giron, along with Governor Bill Richardson, not only stopped any attempt at a recount directly following the election, but demanded that all the machines be wiped clean. This not only concealed evidence of potential fraud but destroyed it. In 2006, New Mexico's Supreme Court ruled the Secretary of State's machine-cleaning job illegal - too late to change the outcome of the election, of course.<snip>

http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/65/23443

and put him on my personal permanent shit list.

he just admitted that his support for Gonzales was limited to that as he criticized his actions.


from Tavis Smiley interview: http://www.pbs.org/kcet/tavissmiley/archive/200703/20070321_richardson.html


Tavis: What's your sense of this showdown that we are facing on this constitutional crisis . . . ?

. . . it's very troublesome. It's basically the Bush administration saying that we're not gonna talk to the Congress, fully disclose to the Congress, and constitutionally, Congress has a right to know. Oversight, that's the role of a Congress that I believe in the Republican administration kind of blinked an eye and forgot about some of the sins of the Bush administration.

Now that there's a Democratic Congress, I believe, rightfully so, they are conducting oversight. So there are several issues. One, should we politicize the U.S. attorneys? I don't believe that. They should be non-political. And the White House should not be telling the Justice Department what to do politically about prosecutions.

In my own state of New Mexico, we have a very courageous U.S. attorney, David Iglesias, who was fired because he wasn't prosecuting Democrats before the last election. He said, "Well, we're not ready." And so, there was dissatisfaction. Apparently, he was ousted along with seven other U.S. attorneys.

Tavis: Yeah, he has a piece today in "The New York Times."

. . . Right, an op-ed where he says "Look, I was trying to do my job and I felt pressured by members of Congress from New Mexico, and now my job has been eliminated and my reputation's been tarnished. And I just want the truth out. So I'm very proud of him, but at the same time, it raises a lot of issues about the politization of the Justice Department, and that has to stop. You can't do that. The attorney general should be the attorney for the American people, not the president's lawyer.

Tavis: Alberto Gonzalez happens to be a member of your community. Is this guy gonna survive? He's the first Hispanic to have that job.

. . . Yeah, I know. I'm rooting for him, I like the guy, I know him. I hope he survives, but he's got to clean up his act and at least know what's happening in his department. He, at that press conference, said "Well, I didn't know anything about this." When you're heading a Cabinet agency—I did at the Department of Energy—and it's very hard to do that, 'cause you got thousands of people working for you.

. . . you gotta know what is happening with U.S. attorneys, because these are the top Justice Department attorneys in every state. So, he's gotta get more engaged, he's gotta clean up his act, he's gotta be forthcoming. I think the Congress needs to really investigate, but if I were the White House, I'd say "I'm gonna let Karl Rove testify, I'm gonna put everything on the table, I'm gonna let Harriet Miers, the former legal counsel.

. . . They shouldn't be testifying in private. They should do it openly before the American people. That's a separation of powers. We should do that.

. . . I do believe that it's up to a president to make those decisions about Cabinet members. Obviously, Alberto's very damaged, and he's gotta be frank and testify and do what has to happen. But I think that's up to the president.

Tavis: So you would not call for his stepping down right now.

No, no. And you know what? Part of it maybe is because he's the highest-ranking Hispanic ever.

. . . Well, I think it's more a lack of attention, lack of a plan, lack of being thorough. He's too much the president's lawyer. He's too much of a political person. And I recognize that.

. . . He is the president's guy. What makes any president think—or makes the Congress think—they approved this guy, they gave the guy confirmation—that this guy could be an independent voice at the Justice Department? I didn't see that anywhere in those confirmation hearings.

. . . They probably shouldn't have confirmed him. I don't think the president should have given him that job. He was White House counsel. He might have been an excellent ambassador to Mexico. He's very loyal to the president. I've had conversations with him on immigration. I thought he was very competent.

. . . he obviously was not engaged with his department. So, I do believe that if he doesn't come forth and testify and be frank with the American people and tell the Congress, then the president should remove him. But I just think, Tavis, that this is a presidential decision. You can pick your Cabinet. And if somebody's not performing, let him go.

. . . I don't agree with the president saying virtually that Alberto didn't do anything wrong, and that the Congress shouldn't have access to Karl Rove and to Harriet Miers. They should. But there's a human side to me. The guy's a very, very—came up from a very poor family, he's the highest-ranking Hispanic ever. Maybe I'm waiting a little more so that he cleans up his act before I join everybody else and try to, I guess, make some political hay out of this.

. . . I believe that the Supreme Court should have a Supreme Court that looks like America. Diversity of America. And I'm very proud to be the first Hispanic candidate running for president, but my main message is I'm very proud to be Hispanic, but I'm not just running as a Hispanic. I'm running as an American governor, very proud to be Hispanic, dealing with all issues, including Hispanic issues.