HOME / the chat room: Real-time discussions with Slate writers.

The Rap on GonzalesEmily Bazelon answers your questions.

Posted Thursday, April 19, 2007, at 6:47 PM ET

Emily Bazelon was online at the Washingtonpost.com on Thursday, April 19, to discuss testimony by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales before the Senate judiciary committee. An unedited transcript of the chat follows. Slate tracked the hearings at "The Gonzales Q&A."

(Continued from page 2)

RSS

Emily Bazelon: Certainly some of them might not have been fired if the process had been different. For one thing, it's strange that DoJ has internal performance evaluations that Gonzales conceded this morning he didn't read, and that didn't play a role in the decisions about the dismissals. Why evaluate if no one cares what the evaluations say? And when the people you fired earned high marks on those evaluations, what does that suggest about the reasons for their dismissals?

_______________________

Tallahassee, Fla.: You said that Congress can't get rid of Gonzales. I am pretty sure that they can impeach him, however.

Emily Bazelon: Yes, Congress can impeach "all civil officers of the United States." But only for "treason, bribery, or high crimes and misdemeanors." The last part is famously ill-defined.

_______________________

Rochester, Mich.: Emily, your response to Washington's question: "You're right -- Congress can't remove him" is inaccurate. The AG can be impeached by the House and removed after conviction by the Senate. Only one cabinet member, Secretary of War Belknap, was impeached (after he resigned), so it would be a rare event, but it is entirely within Congress's Constitutional power: "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors" (Art II). Emphasis on "all civil officers." And as for whether he has committed "treason, bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors," impeachment is considered a "political question" unreviewable by the Supreme Court, so effectively whatever the House says is an impeachable offense is an impeachable offense. Nevertheless, the House doesn't like to make such things look purely political, so do you see anything that rises to recent standards of an impeachable offense here?

Emily Bazelon: You're right: I just posted a response about impeachment. I meant that they can't vote to oust him just because they think he should go, as opposed to because they decide that he committed an impeachable offense -- a higher bar, as it should be. The point is that executive officers serve at the pleasure of the president. (How many times have we heard that line today?) And while it's easy to get impatient in instances like these, the separation-of-powers principle is important, and worth preserving. We don't want Congress to start going around impeaching agency heads they just don't like.

_______________________

Princeton, N.J.: Another question from the Times piece: Is it ever appropriate for a member of Congress to contact a United States attorney and, without identifying the constituent concerned, inquire about "sealed indictments"? Or to ask about the timing of yet-to-be-filed indictments involving allegations of political corruption by members of the opposite political party?

Emily Bazelon: No, definitely not. That's why Iglesias raised that point in the Times today. Sealed indictments means secret -- big no no to try to pierce that veil.

_______________________

Raleigh, N.C.: Hey Emily. Love you on the gabfest. It occurs to me that the real political fallout from this depends on what develops as the narrative (to borrow from your pal John Dickerson) on Gonzales's testimony in the next couple days. Based on the testimony and what you otherwise may have seen/heard, what sort of narrative do you expect to develop about this testimony and Gonzales's future?

Emily Bazelon: Hey I'm so glad you're a gabfest fan! And I just made John read over my shoulder and he loved your reference. Yes, I think you're absolutely right: The story about AG's testimony matters a lot. That story, though, won't be divorced from what he said and how he said it. The main theme of the hearing so far, if you ask me, is that he is on the defensive. The Democrats haven't unearthed a smoking gun -- but then no one should have expected them to. The more salient point is that Gonzales hasn't performed so well as to put everyone's mind at rest. And you don't need the pundits to testify to that. The Republican senators already have.

_______________________

San Francisco: Hi Emily, thanks for taking questions today. Listening to the Attorney General's testimony is just painful -- he just doesn't seem to have his facts straight and is getting torn to shreds by Senators from both parties. My question is, what was the White House thinking by letting the AG get slaughtered? Did they honestly think he would be able to defend his actions (or inaction) well? How on Earth can the AG not resign at this point?

Emily Bazelon: Ah, yes, we at Slate have been asking these questions for weeks on our Gonzo-Meter. I don't have a real explanation. My best guess goes something like this: Bush is loyal to Gonzales. Gonzales has convinced himself he had to do this to defend his own integrity. So the administration let him. Now, though, someone is going to have to make a cold and calculated judgment about whether he has done himself more damage, and if so, needs to (finally) go.

_______________________

Seattle: Quotes from White house aides (per CNN): "Going down in flames." "Not doing himself any favors." "Watching clubbing a baby seal." "Very troubling." "Don't understand that tactic Gonzales used." Ouch.

Emily Bazelon: Oh dear. It seems they have decided to throw him overboard. Even before he finishes talking.

_______________________

Bethesda, Md.: FWIW, the contract for "Gonzales to resign by end of June" at the political futures trading Web site intrade.com has risen from 48 percent likelihood an hour ago to 60 percent currently. Kind of a higher-precision, higher-stakes version of your Gonzo-meter.

Emily Bazelon: You are so right! If his Intrade numbers are bad, that says more than any of us talking heads.

_______________________

Woonsocket, R.I.: "I don't think this is so much about the interim appointments allowed by the changes last year to the Patriot Act, which after all the senators voted for." My understanding was that the change was slipped into the bill by one of Arlen Specter's staffers, a political operative with ties to Karl Rove and the White House. Didn't every Senator admit that they passed the reauthorization without reading that provision? A pretty startling admission, I think!

Emily Bazelon: I'm sorry to say they don't read a lot of the bills closely. Lawmaking is a big sausage factory.

_______________________

Los Angeles: Isn't the real problem here that Gonzales has yet to figure out that there is a difference between being Counsel to the President (his prior position) and being Attorney General of the United States?

Emily Bazelon: A keen observation. You probably remember that this question was raised during Gonzales' confirmation hearings -- would he be able to be independent from the president, in the way the country's chief law enforcement official should be? At the time, we were thinking about issues like interrogation and torture. But the question matters in this context, too.

_______________________

Long Beach, Calif.: This purge is the work of Karl Rove and is only a continuation of an ongoing plan to promote indictments against Democratic Party legislators in preparation for the elections in 2008. One of these persecutions (yes I spelled it right) in Wisconsin recently was overturned by the court. Why aren't Senators just out-and-out putting forth the scheme and letting Gonzales flail in it, instead of nibbling around the edges? I notice the Senator's opening remarks did come pretty close to this -- but the questions aren't reflecting it. Thoughts?