╌>

'He's not going to be constrained': Bush's AG issues urgent warning

community » Discussions » Category » News & Politics » Discussion » 'He's not going to be constrained': Bush's AG issues urgent warning
  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  cb  •  3 months ago  •  7 comments

'He's not going to be constrained': Bush's AG issues urgent warning
"It tells me something that his vice president hasn’t endorsed him," said Gonzales. "His secretary of Defense hasn’t endorsed him. His former national security adviser hasn’t endorsed him. That says something, doesn’t it? They know him best.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


Story by Matthew Chapman

BB1qikfc.img?w=768&h=513&m=6&x=300&y=158&s=133&d=133

Former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is worried about what will happen to the rule of law if former President Donald Trump is given a second term.

Gonzales, who led the Justice department under former President George W. Bush and  supported Trump's federal criminal indictment , told Politico during a  lengthy interview  what he thinks of the controversial Supreme Court  ruling  on presidential immunity.

Gonzales argued it was basically correct that presidents have presumptive immunity for official acts, but said the Supreme Court could have done a better job outlining what is clearly an "unofficial act."

What concerns Gonzalez more is what Trump, the Republican nominee, could do with executive branch power should he get a second chance at reclaiming the White House in 2025.

"It tells me something that his vice president hasn’t endorsed him," said Gonzales. "His secretary of Defense hasn’t endorsed him. His former national security adviser hasn’t endorsed him. That says something, doesn’t it? They know him best. They’ve worked with him on these very difficult decisions that have to be made in the White House. I don’t know him. I’ve only had one conversation in my life with him. But the fact that they won’t endorse him? They know something. They know something about this man."

The big problem, Gonzalez argued, is that "he’s not going to be constrained by the fear of losing a subsequent term in office. This will be it. Why would anyone think, given his record, that he would not abuse the power of the office? Just based on the record, I think everyone should have concerns about possible abuse if he becomes president of the United States again."

Trump has promised that if he is re-elected, he will shut down investigations into his past actions, consider pardoning at least some of the Jan. 6 rioters, and possibly become a  dictator for just "day one."

The Heritage Foundation, meanwhile, has crafted a lengthy far-right government restructuring plan known as  Project 2025  that would let Trump singularly wield executive and law enforcement power as he sees fit.


Red Box Rules

Do Stay On Topic!

Do Add Something Substantive or Be Gone.

No Spamming.

No Trolling.

No Mocking Others. (Your comment may be removed without additional warning.]


 

Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
CB
Professor Principal
1  seeder  CB    3 months ago

Former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is worried about what will happen to the rule of law if former President Donald Trump is given a second term.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
1.1  Greg Jones  replied to  CB @1    3 months ago

Biden's defiance of the law at all levels has been on display for 4 years now. 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2  seeder  CB    3 months ago

Donald, last night at the RNC Convention spoke and said that God's providence is 'on him.' Of course, he won't constrain himself in a new "Donald" administration! God did it (let Donald tell it.)

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
3  Ronin2    3 months ago

The Establishment doesn't want Trump.

Another reason to vote for him.

Why anyone would listen to a Bush Administration official is beyond me?

Why doesn't the Press ask Gonzales about water boarding and torture? How soon they forget. They are willing to listen to anyone who is anti Trump.

Former U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said Tuesday he wishes he could "do some things over" from his years with the Bush administration, citing a memo he wrote that human rights groups contended led to the Abu Ghraib prison scandal in Iraq.

Gonzales said he made a mistake by using the words "quaint" and "the Geneva Conventions" in the same sentence in the 2002 legal memo about prisoner-of-war protections covered under the treaty, which he said did not apply to enemy combatants in the war on terror.

Gonzales, who at the time was former President George W. Bush's White House legal counsel, said people used the memo to paint him as not supportive of the document's principles.

So Gonzales doesn't endorse Trump. Who the hell cares?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
4  seeder  CB    3 months ago

George W. Bush’s Attorney General Is Worried About Trump

Alberto Gonzales discusses the Supreme Court’s ruling on presidential immunity — and the prospect of a second Trump administration with more vendettas and fewer guardrails.

As the onetime White House counsel and attorney general under President George W. Bush, Alberto Gonzales was known as an energetic and sometimes  controversial supporter  of expansive presidential powers, particularly in the realm of national security. He’s also no fan of Donald Trump.

So what would he make of the  Supreme Court’s recent ruling  granting broad immunity to the president, including significant protection to Trump from prosecution in the Justice Department’s case alleging that he tried to steal the 2020 election?

In an interview with POLITICO Magazine conducted before the assassination attempt on Trump, Gonzales largely sought to square the circle: Even as he suggested the court’s ruling largely affirmed the need for a president to make tough decisions, he expressed dismay about how Trump might use the authority for malign purposes if he returns to the White House.

“Why would anyone think, given his record, that he would not abuse the power of the office?” Gonzales said. “I think everyone should have concerns about possible abuse if he becomes president of the United States again.”

We also spoke at length about the implications of Trump returning to power after promising to use the presidency — and the Justice Department — to go after his perceived political enemies, and about how Special Counsel Jack Smith and Attorney General Merrick Garland may be approaching the case against Trump now.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

What was your reaction after you read the Supreme Court’s opinion in the immunity case ?

My initial reaction was that the justices understand the importance of respecting a president’s decision-making. I wasn’t surprised in terms of that outcome, because five of the six of the majority worked in the executive branch — in particular, people like [John] Roberts, [Brett] Kavanaugh, [Neil] Gorsuch, [Samuel] Alito. A president needs to be able to make these kinds of decisions on behalf of the country without fear of prosecution.

But let me quickly add that if we as voters do our job correctly, and we elect a person with courage and integrity, they’re always going to do what is necessary to protect our country, and they’re always going to try to find a way to do it in a way that’s consistent with the Constitution and consistent with the law.

So on one hand, I’m not sure the decision was really necessary. On the other hand, I think it’ll be reassuring to some people who are in the office of the presidency and have to make a tough decision and are worried that the next administration may come after them.

But if you understand how the White House works, virtually every decision the president’s going to make is going to be supported by a legal opinion — either by the White House counsel’s opinion, a Department of Justice opinion, by agency lawyers. So when they’re relying upon an opinion of the lawyer, the standard practice of the Department of Justice is that there’s not going to be a prosecution for wrongdoing, even if the opinion is later found to be ridiculous or not supportable.

Now of course, if the president can order the Department of Justice to prosecute someone in any event, that’s a different story. And that’s the one thing that I do have some concerns about.

You wrote  a paper in 2018  about criminal immunity for presidents that broadly laid out an approach that appears similar to the one that the court used — distinguishing, at a very high level, between official acts and unofficial acts. Where do you see the points of difference between that general position and the specific position that the court adopted ?

There are certain scenarios that I wonder what the answer is. For example, the pardon power in my judgment is unlimited — it’s limited, obviously, to federal cases that have been decided; it wouldn’t apply to a state decision.

But could the president freely say, “OK, I’ll pardon your son, if you give me a million dollars”? He’s exercising his core constitutional pardon power, but the question is, should that be OK? And shouldn’t the court inquire into the motive behind the exercise of that power?  One of the motives would be that you want to enrich yourself.

I have difficulty with the notion that you cannot inquire into the motive behind a presidential decision .

Now, I say that, but I also understand the court doesn’t want to get in the business of second-guessing the president of the United States. I get that. But it seems to me that there are certain obvious examples where we all would agree: “That’s just not right. It’s wrong to do this.”

I wish the court would have had the courage to at least point out that there could be certain instances where it was just so obvious that the motive is not one that we’re going to reward and that therefore the president would not enjoy immunity with respect to certain kinds of decisions that could arguably fall within the umbrella of core constitutional acts.

Much more of the interview to read:
 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5  seeder  CB    3 months ago

George W. Bush’s Attorney General Is Worried About Trump (continued.)

He’s saying this stuff out loud, repeatedly. He is saying if he comes back into power that he will use the Justice Department to target his political enemies — the Bidens and the prosecutors who are coming after him.

He’s admitted, at least for day one, he’ll be a dictator. So absolutely, am I worried? You bet I’m worried.

To play devil’s advocate, there are some people who say that Trump used this sort of rhetoric during his first term and when he was running for election in 2016, leading the chants of “lock her up” about Hillary Clinton. He did make efforts to pursue   various perceived enemies   but   prosecutors ended up stopping him   at various points — or   grand juries   potentially, or   juries during the Biden administration   if you talk about the Durham investigation.

How concerned are you about him being more effective in a second term in pursuing those sorts of vendettas?

I think he will do a better job of appointing people who will protect him, and I think that’s why control of the Senate is so vital. If the Democrats control the Senate, they’ll be able to exert some level of influence.

If the Republicans take control of the Senate, then he’ll be free to appoint people that will do his bidding.

I don’t think this is outlandish or this is outrageous. I think it’s very likely that this is going to happen. He will know what he needs to be more successful in carrying out his objectives. From my perspective — just based on the record and based on comments that he’s made — I think it’s much more likely he’ll be more effective in a second term in terms of pursuing his agenda.

In the first Trump term, Congress didn’t prove to be much of an impediment to his agenda in this area. Are you more optimistic that in a second term, Senate Republicans will step up and provide some sort of opposition or bulwark?

No, not really.

The other thing we have to be mindful of is that if Donald Trump is elected in November, it means the American people support his vision and support his policies, his style.

I have to respect that. I wouldn’t like it, but that’s the way it works in this country. You have elections, and you accept the outcome of the election. At least some of us do. Obviously Trump didn’t accept the outcome of the last election.

 
 
 
squiggy
Junior Silent
6  squiggy    3 months ago

It would be exhausting to have to listen to all 81,000,000 reasons to avoid voting for Trump but then I recall that group letters - like Generals and former AGs - will speed things up. 

 
 
You must be logged in to post a comment

Who is online


445 visitors