Should Gonzales step down?

[DC_DEEP]

Instead of pointing fingers and saying "the other guy did it, so it's ok if my guy does it," we should instead be thinking about this in terms of how it affects our court system. If the US District Attorneys know that they can be fired on a whim, especially for not "legislating through the courts" along party lines, does that not indicate that there is a serious compromise of jurisprudence? Does it not indicate that there is a serious flaw in the executive/legislative/judicial checks and balances? Bush II did it, but it's OK because Clinton did it, but it's OK because Bush I did it, but it's OK because Reagan did it, but it's ok because someone else before him did it...

Gee, let's go ahead and apply the same standards to people who beat their children. "I don't like it, but I'm not going to demand better because his daddy did it to him, and his daddy before him..." If it is reprehensible, it should not be excused by any means.

 

[ETA123]

Instead of pointing fingers and saying "the other guy did it, so it's ok if my guy does it,"

Perhaps I should have been more clear.

I'm not saying it's okay if anyone does it. I'm pointing out that:

A. Saying "Clinton did it" and stopping there is dishonest at best and outright lying at worst.

B. The comparison between the Clinton firings and these 8 firings is an apples and oranges comparison since these were Bush appointees being fired for not kissing ass to Bush enough. It IS unprecedented such a purge of US attorneys to occur during a president's second term.

 

[SpeedoGuy]

Ah, how eager conservative apologists are to claim "yah, well Clinton did it too" every time the Bush administration shoots itself in the foot. Conservatives weren't eager to compare themselves to Clinton when they came to power but they sure seem to use that excuse alot now.

 

[DC_DEEP]

Perhaps I should have been more clear.

I'm not saying it's okay if anyone does it. I'm pointing out that:

A. Saying "Clinton did it" and stopping there is dishonest at best and outright lying at worst.

B. The comparison between the Clinton firings and these 8 firings is an apples and oranges comparison since these were Bush appointees being fired for not kissing ass to Bush enough. It IS unprecedented such a purge of US attorneys to occur during a president's second term.

Thanks for clarifying, ETA, but my comments were aimed more at others who don't really see it as an across the board problem, and defend the actions of one president because of the actions of another president. You obviously didn't do that. You have a better grasp on what I'm trying to get across.

 

[davidjh7]

Sigh...
the more I see of our government, the more I want to be a Canadian.....

 

[2265]

AAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!

I do not understand why such a big deal is being made of this.

Clinton fired all 93 U.S. attorneys when he took office. There was nothing wrong with that!

Bush DID NOT fire 93 U.S. attorneys when he took office, showing that he is not as concerned with partisan politics. The 8 U.S. attorneys that were fired in this case were under review for two years before they were fired. Neither Bush nor Gonzalez did anything wrong.

The reason that this non-issue has become such a big deal is that the democrats and the left-biased media are grasping at straws to do anything they can to villify Bush, and the American sheeple see these rediculous stories and assume something was wrong with this.

Bush and Gonzalez are as much at fault for blowing this out of proportion as anyone else, for acting as if they did something wrong. I don't know why the hell they don't stand up for themselves. This is also the reason the Democrats are now in power in Congress. All the republicans are spineless wussysnots who feel they need to appease the left-wing media.

 

[SurferGirlCA]

Ah, how eager conservative apologists are to claim "yah, well Clinton did it too" every time the Bush administration shoots itself in the foot...

Closer to knee level at this point. They ran out of feet a long time ago.

 

[madame_zora]

Okay now, how about a little ray of reality shining in?

1) It is NOT normal to fire your own appointees in the middle of their term. While many (if not most) incoming presidents fail to renew the terms of their predecessor's appointees, it is highly unusual to fire your own appointees (yes, bush followed suit of most presidents and appointed his own USAs in 2000) in the middle of their terms because they won't fabricate evidence [of voter fraud] that does not exist. Anyone who saw the HBO special on the election fraud in Florida, 2000, got to see poll workers dumping bags and bags of uncounted votes in a dumpster, not knowing they were being filmed. The Whitehouse is alleging that there was fraud in favor of dems? WTF, I seem to believe that there is a fucking repub in office. This sure smells like a little good old-fashion CYA to me.

Ooh, perhaps it's because these cases of voter fraud that the REPUBS committed in Florida, where bush's brother Jeb was the gov and Kathleen Harris was the overseer are finally going to court. Yeah, the Dems committed voter fraud- why didn't they win then?

Since the 2000 presidential election ended in dispute in Florida, Republicans have repeatedly raised concerns about possible voter fraud, alleging that convicted felons and other ineligible voters have been permitted to cast ballots to the benefit of Democrats.

2) They didn't have to bring the firings before congress because of an addendum to the Patriot Act that just went into law last year. Guess what? That makes it UNPRECEDENTED! That's right- totally new!

Sampson also strongly urged bypassing Congress in naming replacements, using a little-known power slipped into the renewal of the USA Patriot Act in March 2006 that allows the attorney general to name interim replacements without Senate confirmation.
"I am only in favor of executing on a plan to push some USAs out if we really are ready and willing to put in the time necessary to select candidates and get them appointed," Sampson wrote in a Sept. 17 memo to Miers. "It will be counterproductive to DOJ operations if we push USAs out and then don't have replacements ready to roll immediately.
"I strongly recommend that as a matter of administration, we utilize the new statutory provisions that authorize the AG to make USA appointments," he wrote.
By avoiding Senate confirmation, Sampson added, "we can give far less deference to home state senators and thereby get 1.) our preferred person appointed and 2.) do it far faster and more efficiently at less political costs to the White House."

E-mails show that Justice officials discussed bypassing the two Democratic senators in Arkansas, who normally would have had input into the appointment, as early as last August. By mid-December, Sampson was suggesting that Gonzales exercise his newfound appointment authority to put Griffin in place until the end of Bush's term.
"f we don't ever exercise it then what's the point of having it?" Sampson wrote to a White House aide.

3) Rove, slimebag that he is, has slithered out of his hiding place to accuse Clinton (very unimaginative) of doing the same thing- except that he's fucking lying, and HE knows it. Clinton couldn't possibly have done the same thing, because the Patriot Act didn't exist. Rove is extremely well aware of how stupid you morons are though, and you'll believe whatever you're told. Clinton appointed his own USAs, like most presidents do, and let them serve their terms. Make no mistake, this IS something new and special, to us from bushco.

Harriet Myers stepped down in January, and Sampson (Gonzales' top aide) resigned yesterday. Looks like we have two good scapegoats.

Mr. Bartlett said it was “highly unlikely” that Mr. Rove would testify publicly to Congress about any involvement he might have had. “But that doesn’t mean we won’t find other ways to try to share that information,” he said.

Firings Had Genesis in White House - washingtonpost.com

White House Said to Prompt Firing of Prosecutors - New York Times

 

[B_NineInchCock_160IQ]

I'm not following this story close enough to know how big of a deal it is or is not... but saying that the media needs to grasp at straws to find fault with the current administration is some of the most laughable bullshit I've ever heard on these boards.... and there's a lot of laughable bullshit on these boards. There is SO much wrong with Bush and his administration there shouldn't be a need to have to grasp at anything. The reason Democrats took back Congress is because of the fact that Bush and his team are all colossal fuckups and corrupt disconnected assmonkies. It has nothing to do with the media and it certainly has nothing to do with Republicans failing to be on-message. That's the one thing they actually do well anymore- brain washing through slogans and empty mantras. This is the only reason they didn't actually suffer bigger losses last election cycle.

 

[ETA123]

AAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!

I do not understand why such a big deal is being made of this.

Clinton fired all 93 U.S. attorneys when he took office. There was nothing wrong with that!

Bush DID NOT fire 93 U.S. attorneys when he took office, showing that he is not as concerned with partisan politics. The 8 U.S. attorneys that were fired in this case were under review for two years before they were fired. Neither Bush nor Gonzalez did anything wrong.

At least 6 of the 8 US Attorneys in this case had received postive reviews throughout their terms. That is a FACT.

The Bush administration did, in FACT, replace almost all 93 US Attorneys when they took office in 2001. Rove himself has stated this:

"At a speech last week in Little Rock, Karl Rove described the Bush administration’s purge of federal prosecutors as “normal and ordinary,” claiming that Clinton did the same thing. “Clinton, when he came in, replaced all 93 U.S. attorneys,” Rove said. “When we came in, we ultimately replace most all 93 U.S. attorneys — there are some still left from the Clinton era in place. … What happened in this instance, was there were seven done all at once, and people wanted to play politics with it.?

Don't believe me? See for yourself:

YouTube - Karl Rove on U.S. Attorney appointments

The FACT is that these firings occurred because these 8 attorneys would not pursue cases they did not deem legally tenable, in other words, they were doing their jobs exactly as they should have been. The FACT that they did not rush any of these cases in order to bring them to light just before an election is one of the major reasons they were fired.

Continue to defend the actions of Bush, Gonzales and their minions as much as you like, it doesn't change the fact that they are morally and ethically challenged and have been caught red-handed.

Did it not occur to you that there is a reason they waited until after they'd slipped in clauses to bypass Congressional approval for replacements? They wanted to eliminate 8 people who weren't sycophantic enough to the administrations agenda.

Gonzales WILL lose his job over this, whether it's from resignation or being fired, he WILL lose his job.

Then he can be prosecuted for lying under oath after denying involvement in the firings.

They don't stand up for themselves????? Maybe, just maybe they can't stand up for themselves because they don't have a leg to stand on. They lied, they manipulated, they distorted and they got caught.

 

[ETA123]

Bush and his team are all colossal fuckups and corrupt disconnected assmonkies.

That may be the most accurate assessment of the situation to date. :biggrin1:

 

[DC_DEEP]

At least 6 of the 8 US Attorneys in this case had received postive reviews throughout their terms. That is a FACT.

*Why let facts get in the way?

Don't believe me? See for yourself:

YouTube - Karl Rove on U.S. Attorney appointments

*Wacko liberal media fabrication!

The FACT is that these firings occurred because these 8 attorneys would not pursue cases they did not deem legally tenable, in other words, they were doing their jobs exactly as they should have been.

*Damned activist US Attorneys! Damned activist judges! Damned activist courts! How dare they follow due process? How dare they let facts get in the way!

Did it not occur to you that there is a reason they waited until after they'd slipped in clauses to bypass Congressional approval for replacements? They wanted to eliminate 8 people who weren't sycophantic enough to the administrations agenda.

**I wonder why Congress allowed this proviso into law in the first place?

Gonzales WILL lose his job over this, whether it's from resignation or being fired, he WILL lose his job.

Then he can be prosecuted for lying under oath after denying involvement in the firings.

**I doubt it. It will be glossed over, spin-jobbed, and forgotten.

*Now, if he had lied under oath about exchanging blow jobs in the Blue Room with Tony Snow and Scott J. Bloch... well, that would be reason to remove him from office, especially if we get to spend hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars to do so.




N. B.
*facetious
**serious

 

[B_JQblonde]

Sigh...
the more I see of our government, the more I want to be a Canadian.....

Naaaaaaaah. It's just the same old same old.

Meanwhile, the US is still the world's greatest country.

Feel free to go though, and don't let the door hit you.....

 

[B_Hickboy]

Well, I know I'm repeating myself, but it's true we are a new age...

YouTube - bush sunday bloody sunday

 

[madame_zora]

And bush has the solution:

YouTube - Bush n Blair - Gay Bar

 

[Male Bonding etc]

I love Bush's idea about letting his people come and talk... as long as it is without transcript and no oath is taken! Geez! Well, really, as if we expect them to be completely honest even taking an oath!

 

[SpeedoGuy]

Gonzalez also serves at the president's pleasure. Consistency would suggest he also be fired for "poor performance." After all, its about job perfomance, not politics, right?

BTW, if a president can be forced to testify over blow jobs, why shouldn't a president's advisors be forced to testify over questionable practices in the Justice Department?

I say bring on the subpeonas.

 

[zgrog2000]

Do any of you really give a shit about the US attorney in any state? If someone told most of you that any member of the Bush administration wiped their ass sideways or picked their nose you'd be screaming for impeachment, firing, assassination, suicide bombing, or life in prison with Phil Donahue. Good grief.

DC Deep, why is SCbi's post an idiot response? It reflects the precedence and current state of politics in the United States. Just like the new defense bill that contains billions of dollars of pork. Both parties suck and so do the majority of the politicians. Chuck'em all out. It's time for some of that revolution that Tom Jefferson spoke of.

 

[ETA123]

Do any of you really give a shit about the US attorney in any state? If someone told most of you that any member of the Bush administration wiped their ass sideways or picked their nose you'd be screaming for impeachment, firing, assassination, suicide bombing, or life in prison with Phil Donahue. Good grief.

It's not the attorneys themselves that are the problem here. It's the fact that they were fired for political reasons. At least three were fired in the middle of investigating Republican corruption, others were fired for not pursuing cases against Democrats.

If the Clinton administration, the first Bush administration, or even the Kennedy administration had done the same thing, I would also be outraged.

We are not discussing the routine replacing of US Attorneys that takes place with pretty much every incoming administration, we're discussing second term political firings, which is unprecedented, we're also discussing a provision that was slipped into a bill that allowed the AG to bypass congress in appointing new US Attorneys (which power has now been suspended).

To try and say "Do any of you really give a shit about the US attorney in any state?" is to miss the point entirely. It's the circumstances of why they were fired (especially after they had previously received positive performance reviews).

 

[DC_DEEP]

Do any of you really give a shit about the US attorney in any state? If someone told most of you that any member of the Bush administration wiped their ass sideways or picked their nose you'd be screaming for impeachment, firing, assassination, suicide bombing, or life in prison with Phil Donahue. Good grief.

DC Deep, why is SCbi's post an idiot response? It reflects the precedence and current state of politics in the United States. Just like the new defense bill that contains billions of dollars of pork. Both parties suck and so do the majority of the politicians. Chuck'em all out. It's time for some of that revolution that Tom Jefferson spoke of.

Yes, I do give a shit about the US Attorneys in any given state. If you don't understand why, you don't really understand what a US Attorney is supposed to do.

As for my comment about SCbi's post, did you read my entire response? I explain why it is an idiot response. No I do not support partisan politics of any kind. I agree both parties suck. Did I not make that clear? I have been railing about partisan politics since I joined this site, about 4 years ago. That's old news. I said excusing your own bad behavior by pointing out someone else's bad behavior is an idiot response. Do you not understand why?