Could Alberto Gonzales be disbarred?
Could Alberto Gonzales be disbarred?
“While the political world obsesses over whether Attorney General Alberto Gonzales can survive the outcry over the politically motivated dismissal of eight United States Attorneys, the legal academy has been debating a different aspect of the fallout: Could a case be made that the chief law-enforcement officer of the United States should be disbarred?”
The question has emerged in the wake of what many consider to be damaging testimony by Monica Goodling, Mr. Gonzales’ senior counselor and the Justice Department’s White House liaison, before the House Judiciary Committee on May 23.
Ms. Goodling described a meeting in March where Mr. Gonzales said to her: “Let me tell you what I can remember,” and “laid out his general recollection” that the firings of the prosecutors had been performance-related. At his own appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee in April, Mr. Gonzales told the panel that “I haven’t talked to witnesses because of the fact that I haven’t wanted to interfere with this investigation and department investigations.”
“It depends crucially on what the facts are,” said David Luban, a professor at the Georgetown University Law Center. “Given the most unfavorable interpretation, there’s clearly a case for disbarment.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
no
May 31st, 2007 at 1:31 amIf he lied, under oath, he shoud be disbarred, period. He’s an attorney first…
Theresa
May 31st, 2007 at 1:36 amIt would seem I have been thinking along those lines myself, since this story broke and especially after Monica’s testimony. After all Gonzo is a habitual liar just like his bosses, Rove, Bush and the rest of them.
He should be disbarred along with the rest of the Loyal Bushies….
May 31st, 2007 at 1:38 amImpeach Gonzales, then disbar him!
May 31st, 2007 at 1:40 amWelcome to the Police State:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5169251572356055602&q=police+state
May 31st, 2007 at 1:41 amno
Comment by Mr. President
Yes he can be disbarrred.
May 31st, 2007 at 1:48 amThe board that gave him his license can strip it.
You, Mr. President, have no control over that board.
If witness tampering doesn’t get him, discussing a classified wiretapping program in front of Ashcroft’s wife in an unsecured hospital room certainly should.
May 31st, 2007 at 1:50 amThis piece of sh*t is the centerpiece of unethical behavior, WHEN HE SHOULD BE THE FOUNDATION FOR JUSTICE.
I say, f*ck em and feed him fish heads.
May 31st, 2007 at 1:52 amCanadian > If Gonzales is forced out, then Bush might have Alberto sleep with the fishes to silence him from spilling the beans on Bush Regime.
May 31st, 2007 at 1:54 amComment by Wayne — May 31, 2007 @ 1:48 am
neither do you.
May 31st, 2007 at 1:55 amMichael
Are you in here? I need more truth. Come on man. Give it to me.
May 31st, 2007 at 2:10 amneither do you.
Comment by Mr. President
Did I claim any?
May 31st, 2007 at 2:11 amThe board decides. If they rule against him, they disbar.
You must be the current dumb (p)resident.
Mr Pres
Where’s Michael? Man I have really got a Jones for the truth. Can you tell me what it is? Please man.
May 31st, 2007 at 2:12 amI agree with Theresa.
May 31st, 2007 at 2:12 amThe follow-up question is whether the Attorney General position has to be a licensed lawyer.
May 31st, 2007 at 2:17 amJake > yes the Attorney General has to have a law license. Do you want a snake-oil phony lawyer to have that position?
May 31st, 2007 at 2:24 amDo you want a snake-oil phony lawyer to have that position?
Comment by Jay Randal
Errr… isn’t that what we have anyway?
May 31st, 2007 at 2:36 amThe only Attorney General convicted of criminal charges was John Mitchell, who served during Nixon’s Administration. However, Mitchell resigned in February 1972 to head President Nixon’s reelection committee. On June 17, 1972, five men were arrested after breaking into Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate building complex in Washington, D.C. They and two other men associated with the White House and the reelection committee were charged with burglary and wiretapping. Mitchell denied playing any part in the Watergate incident but nonetheless resigned from the reelection committee post in July.
In May 1973 he was indicted in New York City for perjury and obstruction of justice in an alleged scheme to secretly contribute cash to the Nixon reelection campaign. He was acquitted of the charge in 1974. In that same year, however, he was indicted for conspiracy, obstruction of justice, giving false testimony to a grand jury, and perjury, for his role in the Watergate break-in and cover-up. He was convicted of these charges in 1975 and sentenced to two-and-a-half to eight years in prison. After exhausting his criminal appeals, he entered federal prison in June 1977. His sentence was later reduced to one to four years after he made a statement of contrition. He was paroled in January 1978.
His criminal convictions led to his disbarment in 1975. Of course, the same thing could happen to Gonzales while he is still Attorney General. And, I can find no law that requires the Attorney General be a licensed lawyer.
May 31st, 2007 at 2:36 amJake > to practice legal law in the United States, you must have a license, so therefore the Attorney General has to be a legal lawyer.
May 31st, 2007 at 2:43 amNow, some STATES require their State Attorney General to be a licensed lawyer: http://www.journalinquirer.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=16461860
May 31st, 2007 at 2:44 amIf anyone NOT on the “Ignore List” for resorting to personal attacks and/or refusing to answer my questions knows of a FEDERAL requirement, please let me know.
May 31st, 2007 at 2:47 amYou guys should this weeks new rules.
Bill Maher was kicking A
A sample:
And finally, New Rule: Jimmy Carter must be shipped off to Guantanamo Bay. Last weekend, former U.S. president and current Al Qaeda operative–Jimmy Carter, launched an unprovoked attack upon democracy itself by telling an Arkansas newspaper that the Bush Administration has been the worst in history. And people were shocked… Arkansas has newspapers?! — Bill Maher
May 31st, 2007 at 2:50 amIf anyone NOT on the “Ignore List†“Ignore List†“Ignore List†“Ignore List†“Ignore List†“Ignore List†— Jake
May 31st, 2007 at 2:52 amActually, he’s an American first… not that should in any way slow down his disbarment … or imprisonment.
May 31st, 2007 at 2:55 amFor the record, Carter quickly retracted his “worst Administration” comment.
May 31st, 2007 at 2:56 amJake > just crickets chirping on here now, because we are all on your ignore list > lol.
May 31st, 2007 at 2:57 amCarter said Monday that his remarks were “careless or misinterpreted” http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070522/NEWS07/705220383/1001/NEWS
BTW: On Thursday, former presidents Carter, Bill Clinton and George HW Bush are expected to be among 1500 well-wishers at the private dedication of the Billy Graham Library. That should be an interesting get together.
May 31st, 2007 at 3:06 amsnarkmaster:
Good catch. We are all Americans first.
May 31st, 2007 at 3:07 amI have to say Jake, if you were a real American, you’d be a Democrat.
Details matter… so does reality.
May 31st, 2007 at 3:26 amLet me preface this by saying that I don’t give a fig if I’m on your Ignore List. If I’m not, I should be, because it’s my firm belief that you’re a pus-sucking maggot.
Be that as it may, I don’t know that there is any formally written requirement that the Attorney General has to be a licensed lawyer, so I suppose it may be possible that your wet dream could come true, that Gonzo could be disbarred and cling desperately to his position, as OJ clings to hope of catching “the real killer”, Bill O’Reilly clings to his moral authority, Pat Robertson clings to his sanity, and Michael Jackson clings to his nasal prosthesis.
The idea is pretty stupid, though, because his ability to carry out his duties would be severely retarded and he would not be taken seriously by anybody. (In other words, no different than the current situation).
The position of Attorney General was created by the Judiciary Act of 1789, which states:
Indeed, we know that Gonzo is not “learned in the law”, or, if asked, he would say “Frankly, Senator, I don’t recall what I don’t remember that I learned.”
I doubt seriously he would be allowed to “prosecute and conduct all suits in the Supreme Court” as a disgraced and disbarred attorney, but he could continue to provide the same kind of “advice and opinion upon questions of law when required by the President” of the same high quality he has done in the past, such as in dismissing the Geneva Convention, sanctioning torture, and giggling at habeus corpus.
Pretty sad when the best thing you fascist automatons can think up is to hold onto power as long as possible through technicalities by disregarding all notions of ethics and personal responsibility, but what else should be expected from this caricature of an administration, whose only successful war will be their defeat of Nixon for title of most disgraceful and hated regime in American history.
May 31st, 2007 at 3:27 amSnarkmaster:
You are saying that NO Republicans are good Americans? How about Independents like Patrick Fitzgerald — is he a good American?
May 31st, 2007 at 3:34 amAnyone else who actually knows of a formal, written requirement that the Attorney General has to be a licensed lawyer?
May 31st, 2007 at 3:37 amFor the record, the Attorney General rarely appears in person to represent the Government in court anymore. In fact, under most circumstances, the United States Solicitor General and his office argues before the Supreme Court on the government’s behalf. There are plenty of other attorneys duly admitted to practice law at Gonzales’s direction.
May 31st, 2007 at 3:52 amFor the record, the Attorney General rarely appears in person to represent the Government in court anymore. In fact, under most circumstances, the United States Solicitor General and his office argues before the Supreme Court on the government’s behalf. There are plenty of other attorneys duly admitted to practice law at Gonzales’s direction.
True. The position has evolved to one of basic political hack status.
Although as far as I know, Gonzo has taken it to new levels.
May 31st, 2007 at 3:58 amFor all the comment from the right about disbarring Clinton wah wah wah . Abu should be automatically disbarred. Hell, he’s got some serious memory issues and really, should an Alzheimers sufferer hold a high official appointment in the US government? Oh wait, I forgot all about Reagan.
May 31st, 2007 at 3:58 amJust as there is clearly a case for disbarment there is also clearly a case for disembowlment. Not sure which would send a stronger message to Gitmo however.
May 31st, 2007 at 5:37 amThe point is, the Republicans have given us the Worst Attorney General Ever.
May 31st, 2007 at 6:35 amYes, he should be disbarred and forced to resign. Loss of pension along with restitution to his victims is proper, also.
May 31st, 2007 at 7:15 amHe’s made a mockery of all things judicial in the U.S.
Think it’s time to send a message to these clowns.
So, disbar and impeach the monkey already.
May 31st, 2007 at 7:56 amGonzales practices law??????????
I thought he just served as W’s waterboy.
May 31st, 2007 at 8:02 am“And, I can find no law that requires the Attorney General be a licensed lawyer.”
So what? If he is disbarred for lying he shouldn’t continue as AG. But, hey, if the Bush sycophants want to keep Gonzo around, go ahead, it’s like Christmas every day for the Dems!
May 31st, 2007 at 8:56 amHe shouldn’t be disbarred, he should be embarred: right straight into the hoosegow.
May 31st, 2007 at 9:23 amIt doesn’t matter what side of the aisle you happen to be standing on, when asked questions directly pertaining to your position/function, all you can yammer off is “I don’t recall”, you should not hold that position – period!
May 31st, 2007 at 9:42 amGonzo, alone, has turned this from a question of wrong-doing to that of competency. And he failed miserably.
“You are saying that NO Republicans are good Americans? How about Independents like Patrick Fitzgerald — is he a good American?”
There are lots of Republics who are good Americans. And they are all greatly ashamed of what their party has become. As far as Fitzgerald is concerned, I have no admiration for him. He did not bring treason charges against Bush Admin people even though they admitted that they outed Valerie Plame. Fitzgerald has stated unequivocally that Valerie Plame was a covert agent, therefore it was his duty to charge these people with treason. It’s my belief that the Bush Crime Family has something on Fitzgerald or he was made an offer he couldn’t refuse. So, he was told to make Libby the only fall guy in this treasonous act.
May 31st, 2007 at 9:52 amAbsolutely he should be disbarred. THe guy is the top lawyer in the US right now. He heads the justice department. Yet he lies under oath, obstructs justice, tries to influence the testimony of others, and worse yet he believes it is perfectly fine to turn the justice department into a partisan, Republican hit squad that ignores or stonewalls cases that hurt Republicans and pushes cases that have no merit because it hurt democrats.
Even one of those things would get a regular lawyer disbarred. Seems like GOnzales has nothing but disdain for the law and should be disbarred immediataly. THat’ll take care of whether or not he should be voted “no confidence”. The guy should get fired.
May 31st, 2007 at 10:02 amCurious that Jake would suggest it okay for Gonzales to continue as AG even if disbarred.
May 31st, 2007 at 10:08 amCanadian > If Gonzales is forced out, then Bush might have Alberto sleep with the fishes to silence him from spilling the beans on Bush Regime.
Not gonna happen. They don’t care. Here’s a little exercise: Try thinking of something Bush could do that would absolutely get him impeached.
May 31st, 2007 at 10:18 amDisbarment isn’t enough. I want to see the greasy little f*#ker convicted and incarcerated.
May 31st, 2007 at 10:19 am“He did not bring treason charges against Bush Admin people even though they admitted that they outed Valerie Plame.”
kate henry
to this statement I would add:
YET
it isn’t over…
May 31st, 2007 at 10:21 amDisbarred then disembowled then disseminated to the fishes.
BTW Jake is not a pus-sucking maggot, as much as he appears to be. He is just a pitifully shallow person desperately seeking attention. The kind of creature that in an earlier age would be biting heads of live chickens for attention.
More to be pitied than censured.
May 31st, 2007 at 10:30 am“The Judiciary Act of 1789†was replaced by the “Act to Establish the Department of Justice†of 1870, which forms the basis for the dept. of Justice even today. The official conduct, description and governance of the Attorney General can be found under U.S. CODE 28, Part II, Chapter 31; § 503.
The ABA’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct — which alone are not binding – though they have been adopted by 47 of the 50 States as the official and binding laws of those respective states, as well as the United States Supreme Court, as to the licensing and the authorization of the practice of law in those jurisdictions. (New York, California and Maine have adopted their own, but similar rules and laws.)
The legal profession, in and of itself, is a self-governing institution. However, disbarment usually ends an attorney’s ability to practice law – including the giving of legal advice – and usually ends or prohibits him/her from practicing law, in any official capacity.
Disbarment is an injunction that essentially indicates the offending attorney is not fit to practice law in a given state(s), jurisdiction or court. Given the true rarity of disbarment, the extremely high profile position on an Attorney General; it is very unlikely an AG would be allowed to continue, in an official capacity, his role as the head of the Justice department.
The Attorney General is essential a cabinet position – at the secretary level – such as the “Secretary of Defenseâ€, but is the only position at that level appointed by the President, without the title of “Secretary of ___________â€.
In its purest form, the AG is appointed by President and confirmed by the Senate; and once confirmed, serves at the pleasure of the President. If the AG was disbarred and the President refused to fire him, then Congress could move to impeach him.
In summary, while there is no specific law that categorically states the AG must be “licensed or a member of the Bar”, no modern President has ever appointed or had confirmed by the Senate, an AG that was not a member of the Bar and licensed to practice law, at minimum, in his home state.
Also taking into account that any disbarment of a sitting AG by any State Bar would also likely lead to disbarment by the Supreme Court, would make it nearly impossible for the AG to be an effective or accepted head of what is essential the country’s largest law firm- the DOJ.
My guess is, if Gonzales is disbarred and not fired by Bush or impeached by Congress, there would be a mass exodus at the DOJ by many career attorneys, in turning leading to chaos inside the DOJ in protest, sparking a national crisis in our justice system. At which point the Supreme Court may be asked to intervene and directly ask Gonzales to resign his post.
May 31st, 2007 at 11:01 amthere would be a mass exodus at the DOJ by many career attorneys, in turning leading to chaos inside the DOJ in protest, sparking a national crisis in our justice system.
frank ranelli
This is already occuring!
May 31st, 2007 at 11:08 am# 52, I agree wholly; which is why any additional weight added to the proverbial camel’s back would likely break it and Bush would be forced to fire Gonzales or he would resign in disgrace.
My original post was not intended to assert my own beliefs, but to inject some factual evidence and history into this conversation for clarity.
Personally speaking, Gonzales is hanging by a thread, is an immense apologist and “yes man” for Bush, as well as a disgrace to our nation.
Every day he remains in office soils the dignity of our rule of law; to say nothing of the subversions of the rule of law he has already undertaken.
He needs to go, the sooner the better.
May 31st, 2007 at 11:21 amI was also injecting some factual evidence and history into this conversation, namely that there is no law which requires Alberto Gonzales be a licensed lawyer to remain Attorney General. As far as I know, there’s no law that requires the Speaker of the House to be a Member of Congress either. Those are the facts. No one has rebutted the fact that modern-day Attorneys General rarely appear in person to represent the Government in court anymore. In fact, under most circumstances, the United States Solicitor General and his office argues before the Supreme Court on the government’s behalf. There are plenty of other attorneys duly admitted to practice law at Gonzales’s direction. And, while the Congress is free to impeach him, there is no procedure I am aware of for the Supreme Court to impeach Gonzales.
For my money, John Mitchell was the Worst Attorney General Ever (see post # 18 above).
May 31st, 2007 at 12:13 pmIf anyone NOT on the “Ignore List†for resorting to personal attacks and/or refusing to answer my questions knows of a FEDERAL requirement, please let me know.
Comment by Jake — May 31, 2007 @ 2:47 am
You write as if somehow what you or I say here, at TP, has anything to do with whether or not it’s legal or not that Fredo gets disbarred. That is for others to decide, others who are NOT pedophiles (such as you) – others who are lawyers, again not you. Take your chickenshit ignore list and gtfo Foley.
May 31st, 2007 at 12:42 pm“I am aware of for the Supreme Court to impeach Gonzales.”
No, of course not, the Judicial Branch cannot impeach anyone. You misread what I wrote. Let me put it another way, the proprietary and protective ways of the legal field would suggest that the Supreme Court, and in particular its members, would be in favor of Gonzales stepping down or being removed as he (Gonzales) is a representative of the “boys club” (the ABA) and his ignoble stay would soil the reputation of all attorneys and the legal field, impugning them; the Justices, as well.
As was the case with Nixon, as an example, there is no explicit or implied law that a President must resign for ANY reason, but when immense pressure was applied — in the end largely by his own party — it achieved the desired affect through the will of the people and their representatives – removal of a dishonest President.
Jake, you are overly concerned with the “pedantics†here and fail to flesh out the likely reality: If Gonzales was disbarred; he would never remain as AG and would endure inexorable pressure from many fronts. Qualifications and legitimacy matter, whether there is a law requiring them or not.
May 31st, 2007 at 1:01 pmLike disbarment would make this adminstration drop him… being unqualified for a job is waaaaay down the list of requirements.
May 31st, 2007 at 1:17 pmJake’s question still isn’t answered, Frank. Yeah, in the parallel-universe where Alberto Gonzalez was disbarred (from the federal bar and/or in Texas, where he is licensed?) while still serving as Attorney General (try to imagine the evidenciary hearings to which Mr. Gonzalez would be procedurally entitled – for that matter, just try to imagine the witness lists), he would not continue to serve as AG. Wasn’t the question originally whether there’s a requirement the AG be licensed? Jake’s been treated pretty harshly for that question. A person need not be an attorney to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court, after all.
May 31st, 2007 at 1:22 pmOh, Frank – I have to take issue with the “qualifications and legitimacy matter” argument. There are just so many short, but poignent, arguments to the contrary, the current Attorney General being only one. Clarence Thomas, is one. Our nation’s former horse-race-breeding Katrina buster is another. Ed Meese, there’s another one.
Maybe you meant to say “qualification and legitimacy should matter”.
May 31st, 2007 at 2:04 pmThank you, John88. I already agreed if Gonzales lied, under oath, he shoud be disbarred, period. As you pointed out, however, the logical question following that is whether a disbarred person can serve as Attorney General of the United States. I have looked for any such prohibition and could not find one. Your point about non-lawyers serving as Supreme Court Justices is well taken. I also tried to make an analogy to the fact that the Speaker of the House does not necessarily have to be a member of Congress either. It doesn’t bother me if no one wants to answer my questions. See you around.
May 31st, 2007 at 2:16 pmBeyond what has become insipidly obvious – that the AG is not required to be a member of the Bar – what is the purpose of answering this question by Jake:
“Anyone else who actually knows of a formal, written requirement that the Attorney General has to be a licensed lawyer?”
The fact remains, Jake and now John88, are too concerned with what are thought to be utter correctness or enforceable laws, rather than the prevailing forces that pressure, shame, public outcry, disgrace, and a litany of other indignities would bring if the AG was disbarred.
Imagine the perceived illegitimacy – and therefore the outcome – of thousands of cases the DOJ has prosecuted under Gonzales, as to whether the cases should be retried if the Attorney General was proven unfit to practice law. Appeals and challenges would be enumerable.
The whole Patriot Act could be brought into question and every case prosecuted under it.
It seems that a few here appear to be myopic and hung up on Peccadilloes rather than reality. Politics and law are not so black and white and an answer to a single, close-ended question does not add any inevitability to this discussion.
May 31st, 2007 at 3:40 pm“I already agreed if Gonzales lied, under oath, he shoud be disbarred, period.”
By virtue of that admission, should he not also be impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice and removed as the AG?
I am confident we have laws against those transgressions, Jake.
May 31st, 2007 at 4:11 pmRemember that we’re not just talking about perjury here, but the even more serious problem of an attempt to obstruct justice by trying to “fix” the testimony of a key witness.
It seems clear that Goodling’s testimony about what Gonzales did would support an indictment for witness tampering and/or obstruction of justice. This is particularly clear in light of Gonzales’ consciousness that he was “crossing the line.” That consciousness shown by his false denial, under oath, that he didn’t talk to any of the other players “… because of the fact that I haven’t wanted to interfere with this investigation and department [DOJ] investigations.â€
If Gonzales had ever been a “real lawyer” — i.e., a trial lawyer — he would have known that he was hanging himself out to dry with his attempt to “fix” the testimony of a key witness who could (and now has) testified to his serious breach of professional ethics, which was also very likely criminal. (The distinction is important: a great deal more of lawyers’ misbehavior breaches professional ethics without being criminal.) Even a baby lawyer with the blunted sense of ethics exhibited by Ms. Goodling knew Gonzales was way off base. Even after twelve+ years in the “Bush bubble,” Gonzales had to know he was putting his foot in it BIG TIME!
I don’t see that there is any justification for not disbarring Gonzales at this point, though Prof. Luban’s cautious answer in the original post was certainly appropriate. Further investigation into the facts can only dig the hold deeper.
Frankly, I think that Gonzales should be indicted, too, but disbarment is an even clearer case. Anyone doubt what verdict a District of Columbia jury would return against a defendant whose every statement for the past three or four months has provided fresh evidence of his lying?
PS My observations are based on being a member of the South Carolina Bar for 35+ years and of the U.S. Supreme Court Bar for 33 years.
May 31st, 2007 at 8:33 pmHe should be disbarred for having gone to ashcroft when the man was totally incapiciated and attempted to get him to sign a document. That reaks!
May 31st, 2007 at 10:48 pmGo to the Texas Bar’s website to look up Gonzales, and to review the Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct. There’s one that says a lawyer shall not, in the course of representing a client, make a materailly false statement of fact or law.
http://www.texasbar.org
May 31st, 2007 at 11:14 pmI would look ito every avenue possible to remove this man from the bar.
June 1st, 2007 at 2:08 pmI don’t disagree with Frank or Hardheaded. Quite the contrary. In having a vigorous disagreement with a coworker about Mr. Gonzalez, I insisted – as I still maintain – that if she or I were to engage in the conduct exhibited by Mr. Gonzalez, we’d be certainly subject to disciplinary action by the state bar.
All the pressures that would bear to force his resignation are almost unreal – the practical likelihood of discipline against his license when no other official action has been taken by the US government is within the “technically possible” realm, only. Not to mention that, presumably, the ultimate authority on questions of discipline with respect to his Texas licensure is the Texas Supreme Court. I don’t know that I’d trust that group to be impartial. I digress.
I think he has shown shockingly poor judgment. His behavior has been shown to be such that, frankly, I’d love the opportunity to try a case against him someday. Yeah – like he’ll try a case.
June 1st, 2007 at 2:39 pmFrank:
If Gonzales lied, under oath, he should resign; if he refused to resign, he should be impeached. I am confident you will never prove that he lied under oath.
Karim:
“Every avenue possible” including assassination?
June 1st, 2007 at 3:33 pm