The Case Against Attorney General Gonzales

The Wacky Analyst

Volume 4

March 30, 2007

While calls for the resignation of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales over the firing of eight U.S. attorneys continue, both Gonzales and President Bush continue to hold their ground. While members of Congress on both sides of the aisle have criticized Gonzales over misleading statements concerning the firings, others have denounced the whole situation as yet another Washington political witch hunt.

However, it is not entirely clear to me exactly what Gonzales did wrong to make himself a target of these resignation demands. As in most cases, though, reasons exist both to support and oppose these demands.

First, it is rather clear that the AG should not resign merely because the firings were (at least in part) political in nature. Because Bush, like any president, can generally fire executive officials for any reason or no reason at all, Gonzales should not be an indirect scapegoat to be sacrificed by those opposing this well-established executive authority.

However, the manner in which Gonzales has handled this congressional inquiry is perhaps a more appropriate basis for calling for his resignation. For example, Gonzales has led members of Congress and the public to believe that he had either no role or a very minor role in the firings. Despite that representation, the media has reported that Gonzales was present at a meeting where his aides formulated a plan for the firings. Moreover, Gonzales reportedly approved this plan. On its face, this revelation appears inconsistent with his previous representations.

Although Gonzales probably did not knowingly lie or misrepresent the extent of his involvement, a serious question arises as to his credibility as the chief officer in the Department of Justice, a department where credibility is paramount to maintain the trust of the public. If the public cannot trust the attorney general on matters as inconsequential as perfectly legal firings or attorneys, one wonders if he can be trusted on any matter. At the very least, Gonzales has either a very bad memory or is simply too careless with his words to be trusted by Congress and the public.

The other possibility is that he simply has no respect for Congress and refused to take the time to accurately check his schedule and other records before making these misleading statements. While Gonzales could plausibly argue that he merely meant that he was not aware of the actual reason for the firings, that excuse does not vitiate the sobering reality that he comes across as uncooperative and unreliable in the search for the whole truth.

One would be bold to insist that the attorney general is cooperative and reliable as it pertains to congressional oversight. As they say in the professional-wrestling world, this man is a serious "heat magnet." He could have and likely should have accurately and fully disclosed the extent of his involvement before making any statement. Gonzales is good at one thing - making a bad situation even worse.

On a side note, it is also puzzling that one component of the plan approved by the AG consisted of ways for dealing with any political fallout caused by the firings. Considering how badly DOJ has handled this controversy, it is manifestly clear that that part of the plan was seriously neglected. Mark that as one more signal that Gonzales has a difficult time carrying out the plans of his department. At the very least, one has to wonder why there is no clear documentation that details the reasons for the firings. Does a U.S. attorney not deserve just a little more respect than this?

In short, the real measuring stick for deciding whether Gonzales should resign is his inability to effectively cooperate with congressional oversight. Mr. Attorney General, I will let others decide whether you should resign, but please do us all a favor and take some basic classes on public relations. As it stands now, all you can do is turn a simple case of heartburn into a quadruple bypass. Even the Bush administration deserves more than this level of incompetence.

Legal Tips for Rat Poison in Pet Food

Jimmy Boyd

The Wacky Pundit

March 23, 2007


As most pet lovers have already heard, a major company recently distributed pet food contaminated with rat poison all throughout the United States. A rash of kidney failures and even death has scattered across the country.

This incident has even prompted one pet owner to proclaim that the company murdered her pet. While this sentiment is totally understandable under the circumstances, it is important to keep in mind the actual legal rights involved in this situation.

First, there is no such thing as wrongful death for pets. While pets are living and breathing and certainly loving beings, the law does not go quite that far. Although it seems very unemotional, the law generally treats pets merely as personal property. Damages related to the injury or death of a pet are generally the same as damage to any other personal property, such as damage to a house or car.

For example, most pet lovers would consider their pets to be priceless and unreplaceable, but the law generally limits recovery to the value of a similar pet. For instance, if the plaintiff had a dog that generally goes for $500, that would be the amount of damages available to that plaintiff.

However, plaintiffs can receive other damages. In pet cases, these other damages would most likely include vet bills, medication, and any other services related to the injury or death of the pet.

Unfortunately, most courts probably will not award damages for emotional distress. Such damages are usually awarded in cases of personal injury, but pets are regarded as personal property. Because courts do not generally award damages for emotional distress in property-damage cases, most plaintiffs cannot recover for emotional distress.

The good part about this situation for plaintiffs is that it is an easier case to prove than many other types of cases. In most cases, an injured party must prove that the defendant is liable for negligence. Negligence refers to the breach of some legal duty, which is generally a duty to take reasonable care not to harm the person or property of another.

However, the vast majority of states provide for strict liability in product-defect cases. Pet food definitely qualifies as a product in terms of products liability. The advantage of strict liability is that the plaintiff does NOT have to prove that the defendant was negligent. In other words, the mere fact that the pet food contained rat poison in this case is generally enough to show that the defendant is liable and responsible for damages.

Both manufacturers and sellers may be liable in products-liability cases so long as they are in the business of manufacturing or selling those goods. For example, if a pet owner bought pet food at his or her local retail store, that store may also be liable even though it had no idea that the food was contaminated by rat poison. Of course, the actual manufacturer is also responsible even if it had no actual knowledge of the rat poison.

In short, the courts will generally limit damages in pet cases as compared to cases of personal physical injury. Of course, the courts will award the value of the pet, vet bills, and similar expenses. On the other hand, a case like this is easier to prove than most cases because injured pet owners need not prove that the manufacturers and sellers were negligent. The courts generally impose strict liability for product defects even if the defendants had no knowledge whatsoever of the contamination.

Caution: This article is merely a simple introduction to legal issues related to pet-food contamination. It is not legal advice. In addition, laws vary from state to state. Consult a local attorney if your pet has suffered injury or you have any other legal problem.

Jimmy Boyd

The Wacky Pundit

The U.S. Attorney Firings and Executive Privilege

The Wacky Pundit

Volume 2

March 22, 2007

The latest Washington controversy making the rounds is the firing of eight U.S. Attorneys by the White House. At issue is not so much the actual firings. The controversy surrounds the fact that Department of Justice officials led Congress to believe that the firings occurred as a result of performance deficiencies. As more information comes out, it appears clear that the firings were carried out for political reasons instead of the previously claimed performance deficiencies.

As a part of this ongoing controversy, at least some leaders in Congress are insisiting on placing current and former White House officials under oath to unearth the details of these firings. Not surprisingly, the White House refuses to cooperate in this plan and simply states that they will make officials available for informal meetings.

Putting to one side the fact that informal meetings are a silly way to get at the truth of any matter and seem to be an atttempt to avoid tough questions, several legal questions arise as a part of this controversy.

First, the Supreme Court has made it clear that the president may fire purely executive officials for any reason or no reason at all. As the saying goes, executive officials serve "at the pleasure" of the president. Therefore, the actual firings raise no particular legal issue. The reasons for firing an executive raise political issues, but I will leave that for another day.

However, the president has stated that he will claim executive privilege (or have officials like Karl Rove or Harriett Myers claim executive privilege on his behalf) if Congress seeks to put the officials under oath. This raises serious constitutional questions about the scope of executive privilege.

Executive privilege embraces the concept that the president should be able to engage in confidential communications with his official advisors. The purpose of the privilege is to allow the president to "let his hair down" and engage in wide-ranging discussions and make important decisions without the fear of outside influences or interference from third parties. By maintaining this privacy, the idea is that the president can make better and more informed decisions without the risk of embarrassment or unnecessary controversy that would surely arise if all such meetings were made public.

But executive privilege is not absolute. The first question to ask is whether executive privilege extends so far as to encompass such issues as the firing of other executive officials (such as the U.S. Attorneys in this case). Generally speaking, executive privilege encompasses such matters as diplomacy, war planning, and certainly issues of national security. None of those possible justifications seems to exist in this case. During the Watergate scandal, the Supreme Court held that a generalized claim of the right to confidentiality was not sufficient to overcome a specific need to investigate and uncover documents in a criminal case. But the full scope of executive privilege is still not entirely clear.

The president would likely argue that the need to receive candid advice about political decisions (hence policy issues) is sufficient to claim executive privilege. This would seem to be an expansion of executive privilege because it has nothing to do with diplomacy or national security. A claim of executive privilege for an issue like the firing of executive officials certainly seems much closer to the generalized claim of privilege rejected in the Nixon case than, for example, a claim of privilege for communications about how to execute the war in Iraq.

Eventually, the courts would have to decide if the issue of executive firings even qualifies for executive privilege. But there is no way to say with certainty how the courts would decide this. My best guess is that the courts would say there is some interest in maintaning confidentiality on such issues, but that does not end the inquiry.

Regardless of the judicial decision on the first question, another question must be answered. Even if communications related to the executive firings fall under the protections of executive privilege, the courts would then have to balance that interest with the interest of Cogress to oversee activities of the executive branch. The Nixon case is not totally instructive here because the overriding interest in the Nixon case was the constitutional power of thejudiciary to conduct criminal proceedings. As of this time, no criminal invesigation exists regarding the attorney firings. Nonetheless, Congress does have some oversight powers over the executive branch.

Looking through my crystal ball, I would guess that the interest in overseeing the performance and activities of the executive branch trumps a claim of executive privilege for purely political firings. In such a case, the White House would have to produce all relevant documents, and the former and current officials would have to testify under oath.

It is not possible to say with any degree of certainty how the courts would come down on these issues. Ultimately, Congress and the White House will hopefully avoid a constitutional crisis by coming to a fair compromise.

Jimmy Boyd
The Wacky Pundit

Bush Requests Another Blank War Check

The Wacky Analyst
Volume One
March 19, 2007

President Bush requested in a speech today for Congress to give him a blank check for the war in Iraq. He seeks unlimited funds to carry out his plan to send over 20,000 more troops to Iraq and continue whatever goal he claims to have in Iraq.

Of course, the real problem is whether a troop surge and more money will achieve anything of prominence. Democrats in Congress are definitely moving for a timeline to end U.S. involvement in Iraq, and the president insists he will veto any such measure.

The first thing that puzzles me about this whole situation is that Bush can't clearly articulate any goals or plans. In addition, we always hear yet another claim of progress (just like today) that likewise is never effectively articulated. How many years now have we heard the same claims? Where is the proof of this progress? These claims come across as hollow to any objective observer. Perhaps I and others like me would buy into all these plans if the White House could actually articulate something and put it in clear and concise English instead of the same old one-liner or two-liner justifications.

It seems that Bush still legitimately thinks that there is work to be done in Iraq. On that note, he may be correct, but the end game remains as fuzzy as ever. As soon as out troops pull out, what is the likelihood that all detractors will peacufully lay down arms and bow to Iraqi leaders? In our country, we disagree but always have peaceful elections to determine our leaders. This is simply not the way of life in Iraq. Detractors here complain about policy but go about their lives. Detractors there build bombs, take up arms, and kill people.

Defenders of White House policy label opponents as quitters. In my opinion, this could not be further from the truth. Opponents of the administration simply realize that the main goal has already been achieved. We went in to remove a brutal dictator, and we have done that. It is now up to the Iraqi people to determine the path of their future. Hopefully, Bush will soon realize that our main task is done. After the death of over 3000 of our troops, the other goals have diminished.

Regardless of any timeline or lack thereof, there comes a time when a country has to take back control. If the current government can't get things in order, then perhaps they are not the right ones for the job. Even good guests can overstay their welcome. We have been reasonably good guests, but if the Iraqi government and Iraqi troops can't get with the program in what is now going on five years, then they are the failures, not us. The main goal was to remove Saddam, and we achieved that, put in place an interim government, and that government held elections. It's time for the Iraqi people to determine their future. Sometimes, good guests just need to go home.

News Analysis Mission Statement

Hi all. I created this blog to share my analysis and opinions on various issues in the news. I will try hard to present all sides and then let you decide and share your own opinions.

Of course, there are various kinds of news stories, but I will be focusing mainly on politics and legal topics. I have a law degree and am awaiting my bar exam results for the Michigan State Bar at this time. You will never know how I come down on an issue. Although I would describe myself as leaning somewhat left, I support gun rights and various other "conservative" positions. My opinions on various issues in the news are based on my own reasoning. I don't say they are based on common sense because my common sense may be different than your common sense.

At any rate, I want you to comment and give your own opinions on the news topics and commentary that I present. Feel free to disagree with myself and other commenters, but please keep it civil (no name calling, please).

We may disagree, but it's a fun world out there and fun to share our views, so let's enjoy the news together.