Alberto R. Gonzales

Alberto R. Gonzales
80th United States Attorney General
In office February 3 2005 – September 17 2007
President	George W. Bush
Preceded by	John Ashcroft
Succeeded by	Peter Keisler (acting)"#wp-_note-NYTimes-Associated_Press-Bush_Text-2007-09-17">[1]
Born	August 4 1955 (1955--) (age 52) San Antonio, Texas
Political party	Republican
Alma mater	Rice University
Religion	Roman Catholic

Alberto Gonzales (born August 4 1955) is an American jurist who served as the 80th Attorney General of the United States. Gonzales was appointed to the post in February 2005 by President George W. Bush. Gonzales was the first Hispanic to serve as United States Attorney General. While Bush was Governor of Texas, Gonzales had served as his general counsel, and subsequently he served as Secretary of State of Texas and then on the Texas Supreme Court. From 2001 to 2005, Gonzales served in the Bush Administration as White House Counsel.^[2] Amid several controversies and allegations of perjury before Congress, on August 27 2007 Gonzales announced his resignation as Attorney General, effective September 17 2007.^[3][4]

Personal background

Alberto Gonzales was born to a Catholic family^[5] in San Antonio, Texas, and raised in Humble, a town outside of Houston. He was the second of eight children born to Pablo and Maria Gonzales. His father, who died in 1982, was a construction worker. According to Gonzales, no immigration documentation exists for three of his grandparents and thus they may have entered and resided in the United States illegally.^[6]

An honors student at MacArthur High School in unincorporated Harris County, Gonzales enlisted in the United States Air Force in 1973, for a four year term of enlistment, serving two years at Fort Yukon, Alaska and two years as a cadet at the United States Air Force Academy. Prior to beginning his third year at the academy, which would have caused him to incur a further service obligation, he transferred to Rice University in Houston, where he was a member of Lovett College and earned a bachelor's degree in political science in 1979, impressing the long-time faculty there as an excellent student.^[7] He then earned a Juris Doctor (J.D.) degree from Harvard Law School in 1982.

Gonzales has been married twice: he and his first wife, Diane Clemens, divorced in 1985; he and his second wife, Rebecca Turner Gonzales, have three sons.

Career

Gonzales was an attorney in private practice from 1982 until 1994 with the Houston law firm Vinson and Elkins, where he became a partner. In 1994, he was named general counsel to then-Texas Governor George W. Bush, rising to become Secretary of State of Texas in 1997 and finally to be named to the Texas Supreme Court in 1999, both appointments made by Governor Bush.

Outside of his political and legal career, Gonzales was active in the community. He was a board director of the United Way of the Texas Gulf Coast from 1993 to 1994, and President of Leadership Houston during this same period. In 1994, Gonzales served as Chair of the Commission for District Decentralization of the Houston Independent School District, and as a member of the Committee on Undergraduate Admissions for Rice University. He was chosen as one of Five Outstanding Young Texans by the Texas Jaycees in 1994. He was a member of delegations sent by the American Council of Young Political Leaders to Mexico in 1996 and to the People's Republic of China in 1995. He received the Presidential Citation from the State Bar of Texas in 1997 for his dedication to addressing basic legal needs of the indigent. In 1999, he was named Latino Lawyer of the Year by the Hispanic National Bar Association.

As counsel to Governor Bush, Gonzales helped Bush to be excused from jury duty when he was called in a 1996 Travis County drunk driving case. The case led to controversy during Bush's 2000 presidential campaign because Bush's answers to the potential juror questionnaire did not disclose Bush's own 1976 misdemeanor drunk driving conviction.^[8] Gonzales' formal request for Bush to be excused from jury duty hinged upon the fact that, as Governor of Texas, he might be called upon to pardon the accused in the case.

As Governor Bush's counsel in Texas, Gonzales also reviewed all clemency requests. A 2003 article in The Atlantic Monthly asserts that Gonzales gave insufficient counsel, and failed to second-guess convictions and failed appeals. Only one death sentence was over-turned by Governor Bush, and the state of Texas executed more prisoners during Gonzales' term than any other state.^[9][10]

War on Terror

The Executive Order 13233, drafted by Gonzales and issued by George W. Bush on November 1 2001 shortly after the September 11, 2001 attacks, attempted to place limitations on the Freedom of Information Act by restricting access to the records of former presidents.

Gonzales authored a controversial memo in January of 2002 that explored whether Article III of the Geneva Convention applied to Al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters captured in Afghanistan and held in detention facilities around the world, including Camp X-Ray in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. The memo made several arguments both for and against providing Article III protection to Al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters. He concluded that Article III was outdated and ill-suited for dealing with captured Al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters. He described as "quaint" the provisions that require providing captured Al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters "commissary privileges, scrip, athletic uniforms, and scientific instruments". He also argued that existing military regulations and instructions from the President were more than adequate to ensure that the principles of the Geneva Convention would be applied. He also argued that undefined language in the Geneva Convention, such as "outrages upon personal dignity" and "inhuman treatment", could make officials and military leaders subject to the War Crimes Act of 1996 if mistreatment was discovered.^[11]

In 2004, when this memo was leaked to the press, Gonzales said about the memo in Senate confirmation hearings that "… I don't recall today whether or not I was in agreement with all of the analysis, but I don't have a disagreement with the conclusions then reached by the department."^[12]

According to a New York Times report, despite a public legal opinion issued in December of 2004 that declared torture "abhorrent," that shortly after Gonzales became Attorney General in February of 2005 that the Justice Department issued another, secret opinion which for the first time provided CIA explicit authorization to barrage terror suspects with a combination of painful physical and psychological tactics, including head-slapping, simulated drowning and frigid temperatures. Gonzales reportedly approved the legal memorandum on “combined effects” over the objections of James B. Comey, the outgoing deputy attorney general, who told colleagues at the Justice Department that they would all be “ashamed” when the world eventually learned of it. According to The Times report, the 2005 Justice Department opinions remain in effect, and their legal conclusions have been confirmed by several more recent memorandums. ^[13] Patrick Leahy and John Conyers, chairmen of the respective Senate and House Judiciary Committees, requested that the Justice Department turn over documents related to the secret February 2005 legal opinion to their committees for review. ^[14]

Gonzales also authored the Presidential Order which authorized the use of military tribunals to try terrorist suspects. He fought with Congress to keep Vice President Dick Cheney's Energy task force documents from being reviewed. Gonzales was also an early advocate of the controversial USA PATRIOT Act.

On June 23, 2006, Gonzales, along with Deputy Director of the FBI John S. Pistole gave a high level press briefing involving the Miami bomb plot to attack the Sears Tower.

On November 14, 2006, invoking universal jurisdiction, legal proceedings were started in Germany for his alleged involvement under the command responsibility of prisoner abuse by writing the controversial legal opinions.^[15]

Attorney General nomination and confirmation

U.S. President George W. Bush announces his nomination of Gonzales to succeed Ashcroft as the next Attorney General during a press conference in the Roosevelt Room Wednesday, November 10 2004.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor presents Gonzales to the audience after swearing him in as Attorney General, as Mrs. Gonzales looks on.

Gonzales' name was sometimes floated as a possible nominee to the United States Supreme Court during Bush's first presidential term. On November 10 2004, it was announced that he would be nominated to replace United States Attorney General John Ashcroft for Bush's second term. Gonzales was regarded as a moderate compared to Ashcroft because he did not oppose abortion or affirmative action.

These departures from the conservative viewpoint elicited a strong degree of opposition to Gonzales that started during his Senate confirmation proceedings at the beginning of President Bush's second term. The New York Times quoted anonymous Republican officials as saying that Gonzales's appointment to Attorney General was a way to "bolster Mr. Gonzales's credentials" en route to a later Supreme Court appointment.^[16]

The nomination was approved without a spirit of bipartisan comity, with the confirming vote, on February 3 2005, split along party lines 60-36 (54 Republicans and 6 Democrats in favor, and 36 Democrats against, along with 4 abstentions: 3 Democrat and 1 Republican).^[17] He was sworn in on February 14 2005.

Speculation over a possible Supreme Court nomination

Shortly before the July 1 2005 retirement of Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States Sandra Day O'Connor, rumors started circulating that a memo had leaked from the White House stating that upon the retirement of either O'Connor or Chief Justice of the United States William Rehnquist, that Gonzales would be the first nominee for a vacancy on the Court.

Quickly, conservative stalwarts^[18] such as National Review magazine^[19] and Focus on the Family, among other socially conservative groups, stated they would oppose a Gonzales nomination.^[20]

Much of their opposition to Gonzales was based on his perceived support of abortion rights; typically, they cited his place in the majority opinions of various Texas Supreme Court rulings in a series of In re Jane Doe cases from 2000 that ordered lower courts to reconsider minor women's requests for a "judicial bypass" provided in a provision of Texas' parental notification law, and in one case (43 Tex. Sup. J. 910), granted the bypass that allowed the girl to obtain an abortion without notifying her parents. Gonzales wrote concurring opinions in two of these cases: In re Jane Doe 3 (43 Tex. Sup. J. 508) and In re Jane Doe 5 (43 Tex. Sup. J. 910). For In re Jane Doe 3 he concurred, on the legal grounds that the lower court had issued its ruling only one business day after the Texas Supreme Court had issued guidance on what the applicant for a judicial bypass must prove, with the differently reasoned majority opinion to remand the case to the lower courts.

For In re Jane Doe 5 his concurring opinion began with the sentence, "I fully join in the Court's judgment and opinion." He went on, though, to address the three dissenting opinions, primarily one by Nathan L. Hecht alleging that the court majority's members had disregarded legislative intent in favor of their personal ideologies. Gonzales's opinion dealt mostly with how to establish legislative intent. He wrote, "We take the words of the statute as the surest guide to legislative intent. Once we discern the Legislature's intent we must put it into effect, even if we ourselves might have made different policy choices." He added, "[T]o construe the Parental Notification Act so narrowly as to eliminate bypasses, or to create hurdles that simply are not to be found in the words of the statute, would be an unconscionable act of judicial activism" and "While the ramifications of such a law and the results of the Court's decision here may be personally troubling to me as a parent, it is my obligation as a judge to impartially apply the laws of this state without imposing my moral view on the decisions of the Legislature."

Political commentators had suggested that Bush forecast the selection of Gonzales with his comments defending the Attorney General made on July 6 2005 in Copenhagen, Denmark. Bush stated, "I don't like it when a friend gets criticized. I'm loyal to my friends. All of a sudden this fellow, who is a good public servant and a really fine person, is under fire. And so, do I like it? No, I don't like it, at all." However, this speculation proved to be incorrect, as Bush nominated D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge John Roberts to the Supreme Court.

After the death of Chief Justice William Rehnquist on September 3 2005, creating another vacancy, speculation resumed that President Bush might nominate Gonzales to the Court. This again proved to be incorrect, as Bush decided to nominate Roberts to the Chief Justice position, and on October 3 2005, nominated Harriet Miers as Associate Justice, to replace Justice O'Connor. On October 27 2005, Miers withdrew her nomination, again renewing speculation about a possible Gonzales nomination. This was laid to rest when Judge Samuel Alito received the nomination and subsequent confirmation.

Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to:

Alberto Gonzales

On September 11 2005 U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary chairman Arlen Specter was quoted as saying that it was "a little too soon" after Gonzales' appointment as Attorney General for him to be appointed to another position, and that such an appointment would require a new series of confirmation hearings.

Controversies

Under Gonzales's leadership, the Justice Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation have been accused of improperly, and perhaps illegally, using the USA PATRIOT Act to uncover personal information about U.S. citizens.^[21] His inability to explain his role and influence in the dismissal of U.S. attorneys led several members of the United States Congress from both major political parties to call for his resignation. Through his testimony before Congress on issues ranging from the Patriot Act to U.S. Attorney firings, he commonly admitted ignorance.^[22] For example, in response to a Washington Post article which stated that Gonzales was told about FBI violations involving the Patriot Act, Justice officials "could not immediately determine whether Gonzales read any of the FBI reports in 2005 and 2006."^[23]

Dismissal of U.S. Attorneys in 2006

Main article: Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy

On December 7 2006, seven United States Attorneys were notified by the United States Department of Justice that they were being dismissed, after the George W. Bush administration made the determination to seek their resignations.^[24] One more, Bud Cummins, who had been informed of his dismissal in June 2006, announced his resignation on December 15, 2006 effective December 20, 2006 upon being notified of Tim Griffin's appointment as interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Arkansas.^[25][26][27] In subsequent congressional hearings and press reports, it was disclosed that additional U.S. attorneys were dismissed without explanation to the dismissee in 2005 and 2006, and that at least 26 U.S. attorneys were at various times under consideration for dismissal.^[28]

Although the Prosecutors serve at the pleasure of the President, critics have claimed the dismissals were either motivated by desire to install attorneys more loyal to the Republican party ("loyal Bushies", in the words of D. Kyle Sampson, Mr. Gonzales’s former chief of staff) or as retribution for actions or inactions damaging to the Republican party. At least six of the eight had positive internal Justice Department performance reports.^[29] There were various hearings and testimony offered in January through March. Criticism increased upon the release of emails by Gonzales' chief of staff Kyle Sampson, which showed extensive communication between Sampson and White House Administration official Harriet Miers. Sampson resigned, but the emails indicate that a number of statements from the Dept of Justice, including statements made by Gonzales himself, were inaccurate.

In a press conference given on March 13, Attorney General Gonzales suggested that "incomplete information, was communicated or may have been communicated to the Congress" and he accepted full responsibility.^[30][31] Nonetheless, Gonzales avowed that his knowledge of the process to fire and select new US attorneys was limited to how the US attorneys may have been classified as "strong performers, not-as-strong performers, and weak performers." Gonzales also asserted that was all he knew of the process, saying that "[I] was not involved in seeing any memos, was not involved in any discussions about what was going on. That's basically what I knew as the Attorney General."^[30]

However, Department of Justice records released on March 23 appeared to contradict some of the Attorney General's assertions, indicting that on his Nov. 27 schedule "he attended an hour-long meeting at which, aides said, he approved a detailed plan for executing the purge."^[32] Despite insisting that he was not involved in the "deliberations" leading up to the firing of the attorneys, newly released emails also suggest that he had indeed been notified and that he had given ultimate approval.

In his prepared testimony to Congress on April 19th, 2007, Gonzales insisted he left the decisions on the firings to his staff. However, ABC News obtained an internal department email showing that Gonzales urged the ouster of Carol Lam, one of the fired attorneys, six months before she was asked to leave.^[33] During actual testimony on April 19, Gonzales stated 71 times that he couldn't recall events related to the controversy.^[34] His response angered the Democrats on the committee, and frustrated several Republicans. One example of such frustration came in an exchange between Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama, who is often an ally of the Bush Administration, and Gonzales regarding a November 2006 meeting. At the meeting, the attorney firings were purportedly discussed, but Gonzales did not remember such discussion. As reported by the Washington Post, the dialogue went as follows:

GONZALES: Well, Senator, putting aside the issue, of course, sometimes people's recollections are different, I have no reason to doubt Mr. Battle's testimony [about the November meeting].
SESSIONS: Well, I guess I'm concerned about your recollection, really, because it's not that long ago. It was an important issue. And that's troubling to me, I've got to tell you.
GONZALES: Senator, I went back and looked at my calendar for that week. I traveled to Mexico for the inauguration of the new president. We had National Meth Awareness Day. We were working on a very complicated issue relating to CFIUS.
GONZALES: And so there were a lot of other weighty issues and matters that I was dealing with that week.^[35]

Right to writ of habeas corpus in the U.S. Constitution controversy

On January 18, 2007, Gonzales was invited to speak to the Senate Judiciary Committee, where he shocked the committee's ranking member, Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, with statements regarding the right of habeas corpus in the United States Constitution.^[36] An excerpt of the exchange follows:

GONZALES: The fact that the Constitution—again, there is no express grant of habeas in the Constitution. There is a prohibition against taking it away. But it’s never been the case, and I’m not a Supreme—

SPECTER: Now, wait a minute. Wait a minute. The Constitution says you can’t take it away, except in the case of rebellion or invasion. Doesn’t that mean you have the right of habeas corpus, unless there is an invasion or rebellion?^[37]

Senator Specter was referring to 2nd Clause of Section 9 of Article One of the Constitution of the United States which reads: "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." This passage has been historically interpreted to mean that the right of habeas corpus is inherently established.^[38]

As Robert Parry writes in the Baltimore Chronicle & Sentinel:

NSA Domestic eavesdropping program

Main article: NSA warrantless surveillance controversy

In a December 2005 article^[40][41] in The New York Times, it was revealed that the NSA was eavesdropping on U.S. citizens without proper warrants. This led to an investigation by the Office of Professional Responsibility in the Justice Department. This investigation was shut down after the President^[42] denied investigators the security clearances necessary for their work. Some critics have alleged that the President did so in order to protect Gonzales from the internal probe.^[43]

According to May 15, 2007, testimony by the former deputy attorney general, James B. Comey to the Senate Judiciary Committee (as reported in the New York Times^[44]) on the evening of March 10, 2004, Mr. Gonzales and Andrew H. Card Jr. (then Mr. Bush’s chief of staff) tried to bypass him by visiting Mr. Ashcroft. The purpose of this visit was to reauthorize the secret wiretapping program, which Comey (as acting AG) had refused to reauthorize. (Mr. Ashcroft was extremely ill and disoriented, Mr. Comey said, and his wife had forbidden any visitors.)

Comey’s testimony laid out that "contrary to Gonzales' assertion, there was significant dissent among top law enforcement officers over a program Comey would not specifically identify."^[45] He added that some "top Justice Department officials were prepared to resign over it."^[45]

In a preview of his book "The Terror Presidency" to be published later in September of 2007, Jack Goldsmith, the former head of the Office of Legal Counsel at the Department of Justice, corroborates many of the details of Comey's Senate testimony regarding the March 10, 2004 hospital room visit of Gonzales and Card on former Attorney General Ashcroft. Jeffrey Rosen writes this in the September 9, 2007 issue of The New York Times Magazine of his extended interview with Goldsmith, who was also in the hospital room that night:^[46]

As he recalled it to me, Goldsmith received a call in the evening from his deputy, Philbin, telling him to go to the George Washington University Hospital immediately, since Gonzales and Card were on the way there. Goldsmith raced to the hospital, double-parked outside and walked into a dark room. Ashcroft lay with a bright light shining on him and tubes and wires coming out of his body.

Suddenly, Gonzales and Card came in the room and announced that they were there in connection with the classified program. “Ashcroft, who looked like he was near death, sort of puffed up his chest,” Goldsmith recalls. “All of a sudden, energy and color came into his face, and he said that he didn’t appreciate them coming to visit him under those circumstances, that he had concerns about the matter they were asking about and that, in any event, he wasn’t the attorney general at the moment; Jim Comey was. He actually gave a two-minute speech, and I was sure at the end of it he was going to die. It was the most amazing scene I’ve ever witnessed.”

After a bit of silence, Goldsmith told me, Gonzales thanked Ashcroft, and he and Card walked out of the room. “At that moment,” Goldsmith recalled, “Mrs. Ashcroft, who obviously couldn’t believe what she saw happening to her sick husband, looked at Gonzales and Card as they walked out of the room and stuck her tongue out at them. She had no idea what we were discussing, but this sweet-looking woman sticking out her tongue was the ultimate expression of disapproval. It captured the feeling in the room perfectly.”

On Tuesday, July 24, Gonzales testified for almost four hours before the Senate Judiciary Committee. He appeared to contradict the sworn account of James B. Comey regarding the March 10, 2004 hospital room meeting with John Ashcroft.

Gonzales was confronted by Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) who told him "That is not what Mr. Comey says; that is not what the people in the room say."^[45] Gonzales responded "That's how we clarify it."^[45]

The response to Gonzales' testimony by those Senators serving on both the Judiciary and Intelligence Committees was one of disbelief. John D. Rockefeller IV said Gonzales was being "untruthful," and Russ Feingold said “I believe your testimony is misleading at best,” which Sheldon Whitehouse—also a member of both committees—concurred with, saying, “I have exactly the same perception.” The ranking Republican on the committee, Arlen Specter, said to Gonzales, “Your credibility has been breached to the point of being actionable.” Committee chairman Patrick Leahy said, “I just don’t trust you,” and urged Gonzales to review carefully his testimony, a comment interpreted as a warning that committee lawyers would examine it for possible intentional misstatements.^[47]

On July 26, 2007, the Associated Press obtained a four-page memorandum from the office of former Director of National Intelligence John D. Negroponte dated May 17, 2006, which contradicted Gonzales' testimony the previous day regarding the subject of a March 10, 2004 emergency Congressional briefing which preceded his hospital room meeting with former Attorney General John Ashcroft, James B. Comey and former White House Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr..^[48]

On that same day, FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III also seemed to dispute the accuracy of Gonzales' Senate Judiciary Committee testimony of the previous day regarding the events of March 10, 2004 in his own sworn testimony on that subject before the House Judiciary Committee.^[49]

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) asked Mueller "Did you have an opportunity to talk to General Ashcroft, or did he discuss what was discussed in the meeting with Attorney General Gonzales and the chief of staff?" He replied "I did have a brief discussion with Attorney General Ashcroft." Lee went on to ask "I guess we use [the phrase] TSP [Terrorist Surveillance Program], we use warrantless wiretapping. So would I be comfortable in saying that those were the items that were part of the discussion?" He responded "It was—the discussion was on a national—an NSA program that has been much discussed, yes."^[45]

On Thursday, August 16, 2007, the House Judiciary Committee released the heavily-redacted notes^[50] of FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III regarding the Justice Department and White House deliberations of March, 2004 which included the March 10, 2004 hospital-room visit of Gonzales and Andrew H. Card Jr. on John Ashcroft in the presence of then-acting Attorney General James B. Comey. The notes list 26 meetings and phone conversations over three weeks—from March 1 to March 23—during a debate that reportedly almost led to mass resignations at the Justice Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. ^[51]

In a July 26, 2007 letter to Solicitor General Paul Clement, Senators Charles Schumer, Dianne Feinstein, Russ Feingold and Sheldon Whitehouse urged that an independent counsel be appointed to investigate whether Gonzales had perjured himself in his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee on the previous day. "We ask that you immediately appoint an independent special counsel from outside the Department of Justice to determine whether Attorney General Gonzales may have misled Congress or perjured himself in testimony before Congress," the letter read in part.^[52]

On Wednesday, June 27, 2007, the Senate Judiciary Committee issued subpoenas to the Justice Department, the White House, and Vice President Cheney seeking internal documents regarding the program's legality and details of the NSA's cooperative agreements with private telecommunications corporations. In addition to the subpoenas, committee chairman Patrick Leahy sent Gonzales a letter about possible false statements made under oath by U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh during his confirmation hearings before the committee the previous year.^[53] In an August 17, 2007 reply letter to Leahy asking for an extension of the August 20th deadline ^[54] for compliance, White House counsel Fred Fielding argued that the subpoenas called for the production of "extraordinarily sensitive national security information," and he said much of the information—if not all—could be subject to a claim of executive privilege. ^[55] On August 20, 2007, Fielding wrote to Leahy that the White House needed yet more time to respond to the subpoenas, which prompted Leahy to reply that the Senate may consider a contempt of Congress citation when it returns from its August recess.^[56]

On July 27, 2007, both White House Press Secretary Tony Snow and White House spokeswoman Dana Perino defended Gonzales' Senate Judiciary Committee testimony regarding the events of March 10, 2004, saying that it did not contradict the sworn House Judiciary Committee account of FBI director Robert S. Mueller III, because Gonzales had been constrained in what he could say because there was a danger he would divulge classified material.^[57] Lee Casey, a former Justice Department lawyer during the Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush administrations, told the The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer that it is likely that the apparent discrepancy can be traced to the fact that there are two separate Domestic Surveillance programs. "The program that was leaked in December of 2005 is the Comey program. It is not the program that was discussed in the evening when they went to Attorney General Ashcroft's hospital room. That program we know almost nothing about. We can speculate about it. …The program about which he said there was no dispute is a program that was created after the original program died, when Mr. Comey refused to reauthorize it, in March of 2004. Mr. Comey then essentially redid the program to suit his legal concerns. And about that program, there was no dispute. There was clearly a dispute about the earlier form or version of the program. The attorney general has not talked about that program. He refers to it as "other intelligence activities" because it is, in fact, still classified."^[45]

On Tuesday, August 28, 2007—one day after Gonzales announced his resignation as Attorney General effective September 17th—Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Patrick Leahy indicated that it would not affect ongoing investigations by his committee. “I intend to get answers to these questions no matter how long it takes,” Leahy said, suggesting that Gonzales could face subpoenas from the committee for testimony or evidence long after leaving the administration. “You’ll notice that we’ve had people subpoenaed even though they’ve resigned from the White House,” Leahy said, referring to Harriet E. Miers, the former White House counsel, and Karl Rove, who resigned this month as the president’s top political aide. “They’re still under subpoena. They still face contempt if they don’t appear.”^[58]

On Thursday, August 30, 2007, Justice Department Inspector General Glenn A. Fine disclosed in a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee that as part of a previously ongoing investigation, his office is looking into whether Gonzales made statements to Congress that were “intentionally false, misleading, or inappropriate,” both about the firing of federal prosecutors and about the terrorist-surveillance program, as committee chairman Patrick Leahy had asked him to do in an August 16, 2007 letter. Fine's letter to Leahy said that his office “has ongoing investigations that relate to most of the subjects addressed by the attorney general’s testimony that you identified." Fine said that his office is conducting a particular review “relating to the terrorist-surveillance program, as well as a follow-up review of the use of national security letters,” which investigators use to obtain information on e-mail messages, telephone calls and other records from private companies without court approval.^[59]

Texas Youth Commission scandal

Alberto Gonzales, along with U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton, have been accused of failing to take action in regards to hundreds of serious complaints and investigations against dozens of staff members, which concern allegations that teachers, administrators and guards had sex with minor male inmates incarcerated in Texas Youth Commission programs.^[60]

Gonzales' objectivity

Gonzales has had a long working and personal relationship with President Bush dating back to when he served as general counsel to then-Texas Governor George W. Bush, which has been a source of controversy regarding his objectiveness and the independence of the U.S. Department of Justice that he heads.^[61][62] Gonzales has been called George W. Bush's "yes man" and some say he has given Bush the kind of legal advice he wants, which is not necessarily of the highest professional or ethical caliber.^[63][64] Often cited as an example, Gonzales as White House Counsel signed a controversial January 2002 memorandum to the President in which it was argued that the Geneva Convention proscriptions on torture did not apply to Taliban and Al-Qaeda prisoners, and that the conventions' limitations on the questioning of prisoners were, in fact, "obsolete" when dealing with terrorism.^[65][66]

Resignation

Calls for resignation

A number of members of both houses of Congress publicly said Gonzales should resign, or be fired by Bush. Calls for his ousting intensified after his testimony on April 19 2007.

On May 24 2007, Senators Charles Schumer (D-NY), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) of the Senate Judiciary Committee announced the Democrats' proposed no-confidence resolution to vote on whether "Attorney General Alberto Gonzales no longer holds the confidence of the Senate and the American People." ^[67] (The vote would have had no legal effect, but was designed to persuade Gonzales to depart or President Bush to seek a new attorney general.) A similar resolution was introduced in the House by Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA).^[68]

On June 11 2007 a Senate vote on cloture to end debate on the resolution failed (60 votes are required for cloture). The vote was 53 to 38 with 7 not voting and 1 voting "present" (one senate seat was vacant). Seven Republicans, John E. Sununu, Chuck Hagel, Susan Collins, Arlen Specter, Olympia Snowe, Gordon Smith and Norm Coleman voted to end debate; Independent Democrat Joseph Lieberman voted against ending debate. No Democrat voted against the motion. Not voting: Biden (D-DE), Brownback (R-KS), Coburn (R-OK), Dodd (D-CT), Johnson (D-SD), McCain (R-AZ), Obama (D-IL). Stevens (R-AK) voted "present."^[69][70]

University of Missouri law professor Frank Bowman^[71] has observed that Congress has the power to impeach Gonzales if he willfully lied or withheld information from Congress during his testimony about the dismissal of U.S. Attorneys.^[72] Congress has impeached a sitting Cabinet member before; William W. Belknap, Ulysses S. Grant's Secretary of War, was impeached in a unanimous vote by the House in 1876 for bribery, but the Senate fell just short of the votes necessary to convict him. Belknap had resigned before the House vote, and several Senators who voted to acquit him said they did so only because they felt the Senate lacked jurisdiction.

On July 30 2007, MSNBC reported that Rep. Jay Inslee announced that he would introduce a bill the following day that would require the House Judiciary Committee to begin an impeachment investigation against Gonzales.^[73][74]