Skip to main content

As an open democracy, we expect our government to operate honestly and in the service of our laws.  Gonzales proved long ago that he was incapable of living to these standards.  Anyone not fitted with the political blinders of Bush administration partisanship, has realized by now that Alberto Gonzales has lied to Congress.  The latest revelation from FBI Director Mueller’s notes on the fateful visit to John Ashcroft’s hospital bedside directly contradict Attorney General’s congressional testimony.  

Director Mueller’s notes reveal just one flagrant example among many that Gonzales isn’t qualified to lead any branch of government, let alone one whose main mission is law enforcement.  And yet, he still sits as the head of the Justice Dept.  

Like many Americans I find this disgraceful.  It is possible, and even preferable to impeach Gonzales, but as long as those who stand by the President are willing to back Gonzales, this option isn’t a politically practical solution.  

But what about calling Alberto Gonzales before the Bar Association?  He is a lawyer, right?  The standards for being a lawyer must contain some admonition about lying under oath, right?  

I assume the American Bar Association still cares about the rule of law and the conduct of it’s members.  I assume the ABA can act quickly and without deference to the political obstacles the Bush Administration has shown to Congress.  From the publicly available testimony and without the burden of having to prove a crime, per se, I am confident the ABA can easily find that Alberto Gonzales has violated his oath of jurisprudence.  

Should Alberto Gonzales be called to testify before the ABA, no subpoena would be required.  Alberto Gonzales has proven he has no shame, but not appearing before the Bar for a licensing hearing would be an act that would echo across the nation.  Even the most supplicant of Bush lapdogs would be forced to condone Gonzales.

Once Alberto Gonzales’ license to practice law has been withdrawn, how can any member of government say he should remain as AG and face their constituency?

Originally posted to Eapguy on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 08:41 AM PDT.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  The ABA has no jurisdiction (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Pozzo, MajorFlaw, marykk, pfiore8

    Actually the State Bar of Texas is responsible for disciplining lawyers in the State of Texas.  I know of no other state where Gonzales is a member of their bar.  Remember his buddies run the Texas Bar Association.

  •  Not the ABA -- State bar (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Pozzo, marykk, pfiore8

    The ABA doesn't have anything to do with governance of particular attorneys -- you don't have to be a member to practice.  It's a trade association.

    However, you've got the gist right -- Gonzalez is a member of one or more state bars (I think Texas but not D.C. IIRC), and they do have the right (and obligation!) to police the ethical conduct of their members.

    •  A member of the public (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      marykk, gloryous1

      Can file a complaint in most jurisdiction.  In D.C. they certainly can.

      In Texas, the situation is murkier - - here is a link to the grievance form . . .

      It is not clear that Mr. Gonzales would be covered here.

      •  the Judge (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Recall, the WH and other cronies call Gonzo "Judge."  He was a member of the Texas Supreme Court, I believe, and likely is still quite, gag, esteemed there.  Given the blind support he enjoys in the Lone Star state, it is highly unlikely the Texas Bar will open an investigation against him.  Nice thought, however.  And no reason why a citizen of the state shouldn't make such a request based on principle.

        •  Actually, if you look at their procedures (0+ / 0-)

          The Grievance Board would be required to seriously consider a complaint.  I believe that it is something that should be and certainly could be done, based on evidence that he has given false testimony to Congress.  Certainly if Congress were to find him in contempt, that would be grounds for filing a complaint.

          Of course the AG does not need to be an attorney.

  •  IANAL (0+ / 0-)

    but I've asked a couple lawyer friends about this and they said it is really hard to get a lawyer disbarred.  Especially in this case since other republican lawyers will defend what he has done.  Steal a dollar from a client and they will can your ass.  Shred the constitution and they'll do nothing.

    •  Part of the problem (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      is that the codes of professional responsibility give very little guidance to lawyers in public service.  The focus is lawyers in traditional private practice, where stealing from clients' funds, eliciting false testimony and conflicts of interest are the kinds of matters that attorney disciplinary panels hear all the time.  A complaint about "shredding the constitution" doesn't fit neatly within the menu.  

      If you think you're too small to be effective, you've never been in the dark with a mosquito.

      by marykk on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 09:36:21 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site