0
   

Gonzales must resign now. "Mistakes were made."

 
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Mar, 2007 06:43 am
Maybe this will help, Finn.

Quote:
David C. Iglesias was United States attorney for the District of New Mexico from October 2001 through last month.

LINK
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Mar, 2007 07:52 am
President's involvement in firings at center of subpoena debate RAW STORY
Published: Thursday March 22, 2007

The extent to which President Bush knew of and was involved with the plan to fire eight U.S. attorneys in December is at the heart of whether he will be able to successfuly exercise executive privilege in fighting congressional subpoenas of White House aides, The Hill is reporting.

In an email exchange found among the 3,000 documents delivered to Congress by the Justice Department, Kyle Sampson, former chief of staff to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, asked White House counsel Harriet Miers whether he had approval to move forward with the firings.

"Miers responded that she was 'not sure whether this will be determined to require the boss's attention.' Her e-mail ended with the words: 'We will see. Thanks,'" reports the Hill. "Sampson, who resigned last week, responded with a critical question: 'Who will determine whether whether [sic] this requires the President's attention?'"

The rest of the disclosed Justice Department documents do not provide evidence of whether the President was involved in those discussions. But since only four e-mails delivered to Congress were dated in the period between mid-November and December 4, it is believed that there may yet exist undisclosed e-mails from that period which provide answers.

"The e-mail exchange is particularly relevant to Bush's case because the Supreme Court has provided only limited protection for executive privilege," according to The Hill. "It acknowledges the need to protect communications between high-ranking government officials and those who advise and assist them, but it has also ruled that the public interest can outweigh that need in 'non-military' and 'non-diplomatic' discussions. Critics of the U.S. attorney firings argue that Bush's case for executive privilege would be significantly weaker if his aides never discussed the plan for the firings with him."

Joshua Micah Marshal, writing on his TalkingPointsMemo blog, which has played a central role in publicizing the firings, writes that the debate over executive privilege obstructs the larger issue of the administration's misconduct.

"Back up a bit from the sparks flying over executive privilege and congressional testimony and you realize that these are textbook cases of the party in power interfering or obstructing the administration of justice for narrowly partisan purposes," writes Marshall. "It's a direct attack on the rule of law."

Marshall continues, "The contours and scope of executive privilege is one issue, and certainly an important one. But in this case it is being used as no more than a shield to keep the full extent of the president's perversion of the rule of law from becoming known."
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Presidents_involvement_in_firings_in_question_0322.html
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Mar, 2007 02:55 pm
Ex-Gonzales aide to testify at inquiry

WASHINGTON - The former top aide to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales agreed Friday to testify at a Senate inquiry next week into the firings of eight U.S. attorneys last year.

Kyle Sampson, who resigned two weeks ago amid the furor over the dismissals, will appear next Thursday at a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee, his attorney said. His appearance will mark the first congressional testimony by a Justice Department aide since the release of thousands of documents that show the firings were orchestrated, in part, by the White House.

Sampson "looks forward to answering the committee's questions," wrote his attorney, Brad Berenson, in a two-paragraph letter to Committee chairman Patrick Leahy (news, bio, voting record), D-Vt., and the panel's top Republican, Arlen Specter (news, bio, voting record) of Pennsylvania.

"We trust that his decision to do so will satisfy the need of the Congress to obtain information from him concerning the requested resignations of the United States attorneys," Berenson wrote.
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Mar, 2007 04:39 pm
Analysis: Bush-appointed U.S. Attorneys have 'partisan records' RAW STORY
Published: Friday March 23, 2007

President George Bush and the Justice Department, in selecting U.S. Attorney appointments, have emphasized the prosecution of alleged voter fraud by Democrats in electoral battleground states, a report by McClatchy Newspapers finds.

"Bush, Karl Rove, the president's deputy chief of staff, and other Republican political advisers have highlighted voting rights issues and what Rove has called the 'growing problem' of Democratic election fraud since Bush took power in the tumultuous election of 2000, a race ultimately decided by the U.S. Supreme Court," write Greg Gordon, Margaret Talev and Marisa Taylor for McClatchy.

They continue, "Since 2005, McClatchy Newspapers has found, Bush has appointed at least three U.S. attorneys who had worked in the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division when it was rolling back long-standing voting rights policies aimed at protecting predominantly poor, minority voters."

The report adds that a newly installed U.S. attorney, Tim Griffin of Little Rock, Ark., was accused of suppressing Democratic votes during the 2004 election while working as the research director for the Republican National Committee. Josh Marshall's TalkingPointsMemo.com was among the first to raise questions about Griffin's appointment in January. The BBC's Greg Palast also recently explored the Griffin appointment.

Bush's appointments seem to also have been electorally targeted.

"Last April, while the Justice Department and the White House were planning the firings, Rove gave a speech in Washington to the Republican National Lawyers Association," McClatchy reports. "He ticked off 11 states that he said could be pivotal in 2008. Bush has appointed new U.S. attorneys in nine of them since 2005: Florida, Colorado, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Arkansas, Michigan, Nevada and New Mexico. U.S. attorneys in the latter four were among those fired."

Rove later thanked the audience for "all that you are doing in those hot spots around the country to ensure that the integrity of the ballot is protected" and added, "A lot in American politics is up for grabs."

Excerpts from the McClatchy Newspapers article, available in full at this link, follow...

#
Now the Bush administration's emphasis on voter fraud is drawing scrutiny from the Democratic Congress, which has begun investigating the firings of eight U.S. attorneys - two of whom say that their ousters may have been prompted by the Bush administration's dissatisfaction with their investigations of alleged Democratic voter fraud.

...

Bush has acknowledged hearing complaints from Republicans about some U.S. attorneys' "lack of vigorous prosecution of election fraud cases," and administration e-mails have shown that Rove and other White House officials were involved in the dismissals and in the choice of an aide to Rove to replace one of them. Nonetheless, Bush has refused to permit congressional investigators to question Rove and others under oath.

...

Taken together, legal experts and other critics say, the replacement of the U.S. attorneys and the changes in Justice Department voting rights policies suggest that the Bush administration may have been using its law enforcement powers for partisan political purposes.

The department's civil rights division, for example, supported a Georgia voter identification law that a court later said discriminated against poor minority voters. It also declined to oppose an unusual Texas redistricting plan that helped expand the Republican majority in the House of Representatives. That plan was partially reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Frank DiMarino, a former federal prosecutor who served six U.S. attorneys in Florida and Georgia during an 18-year Justice Department career, said that too much emphasis on voter fraud investigations "smacks of trying to use prosecutorial power to investigate and potentially indict political enemies."
link
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Mar, 2007 04:43 pm
Gonzo is toast.

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002861.php

Incompetence in addition to outright lying to congress. I may have to call in sick to work that day so I can watch his ass get destroyed in front of the committee.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Mar, 2007 04:45 pm
Imagine Rove claiming election fraud by the Dems? Has Bushie ever really won an election?
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Mar, 2007 06:06 am
New documents released late Friday show that Gonzales was more involved than he admitted. He attended a meeting where the firings were discussed. This is after he claimed he was not involved in any discussions.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17763780/
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Mar, 2007 06:48 pm
The Washington Post has similar info, but refers to the meeting which Gonzales attended as one where the "roll out" was discussed.

Hmm. Another roll out... They shoulda checked with Rove. He knows you don't do roll outs until September!

(Sorry. Was gonna get a link to WP, but it pushed me to a registration page)
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Mar, 2007 07:18 am
Op-ed: Don't just oust Gonzales, impeach him Ron Brynaert
Published: Saturday March 24, 2007

It isn't enough to oust Attorney General Alberto Gonzales for his role in "Attorneygate," Congress should impeach him, Robert Kuttner writes in an op-ed published in Saturday's Boston Globe.

"Gonzales, the nation's highest legal officer, has been point man for serial assaults against the rule of law, most recently in the crude attempt to politicize criminal prosecutions," Kuttner argues. "Obstruction of a prosecution is a felony, even when committed by the attorney general."

Aside from his role in the firing of eight US attorneys, which "had multiple political motives, all contrary to longstanding practice," Kuttner writes, "[t]here are several other reasons to remove Gonzales, all involving his cavalier contempt for courts and liberties of citizens, most recently in the FBI's more than 3,000 cases of illegal snooping on Americans."

"After the administration refused to cooperate, Republican Senator Arlen Specter inadvertently gave the best rationale for impeachment," Kuttner continues. "Referring to the White House invocation of executive privilege, Specter warned, 'If there is to be a confrontation, it's going to take two years or more to get it resolved in court.'"

Kuttner believes that it would be "much harder" for the Bush Administration to "stonewall" against an impeachment inquiry that "could be completed in a matter of months."

"And Gonzales might well be asked to resign rather than exposing the administration to more possible evidence of illegality," Kuttner writes. "...It's time for an impeachment, not just to oust Gonzales, but as a salutary warning to his superiors."
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Oped_Dont_just_oust_Gonzales_impeach_0324.html
0 Replies
 
Builder
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Mar, 2007 07:21 am
I'm just wondering how much crapola has to go through the wringer before Americans stand up and shout down the admin.

The Government is for the people, by the people.

Seems like that has been twisted around.
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Mar, 2007 07:52 am
Builder wrote:
I'm just wondering how much crapola has to go through the wringer before Americans stand up and shout down the admin.

The Government is for the people, by the people.

Seems like that has been twisted around.


I've been wondering the same thing for 6 years, Builder.

With each new revelation it seems like gee, surely now... But, it never is enough.

I think the foundation laid by the Republican party for the past 20 years, such as false claims of mainstream media bias, network of foundations/think tanks, talk radio, and claims of wrong doing by Dems for what they themselves are doing, has led us to where we are. I mean, come on. Voter fraud? Look at the fiasco in Florida in 2000 and the Republican response of sending republican congressional aides from DC to pound on windows and demand that vote counts stop.

All of this leads the average American that is working, raising their family and trying to get by with a skewed picture of what is happening and little time to investigate / learn the truth. They end up taking the easy way out and just assume it's "Politics."

Right now there's a conserted effort by Bush and his admin. to use buzz words like "partisan" to frame the conversation. Calling Dems partisan right out of the gate, putting that in the minds of the average American that doesn't have time to read the paper and only catches that soundbite on the evening news, distorts the truth. That's what they are good at. That's why what you ask has to be answered with... "Americans probably won't stand up and shout down this administration."
0 Replies
 
Builder
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Mar, 2007 08:06 am
Damn, Squinney. Seems like you've got your finger on the pulse.

As an outside observer, I've long wondered why Americans put up with so much bullshit and posturing from politicians.

What we seem to be forgetting (don't worry, the same **** is going down in Australia) is that these people are PUBLIC SERVANTS. They aren't some form of royalty. They are people put in jobs to SERVE US. When they stop doing that, they get shown the door.

The issue you have right about now is that the executive declared war on terror. Meaning they actually have the right to veto the next election.

I hope you don't get stuck with this bunch of retards for another term.

We are in the process of weeding out our incompetents right about now in Australia.

Good luck with yours.
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Mar, 2007 08:40 am
Builder wrote:
The issue you have right about now is that the executive declared war on terror. Meaning they actually have the right to veto the next election.
...


That's been mentioned. No one seems to take it as a serious possibility.

Were that to happen, I would think THAT would be the point where Americans would finally stand up and shout.

Unfortunately, I can't say that with certainty.

Here's another example of what's happening:

It was a staffer from Republican Arlen Specters office that inserted into the Patriot Act the part about US attorneys not having to be confirmed by the Senate. He was rewarded with a US Attorney position in Utah. But, look at what Arlen Spector is saying :

From interesting Discussion taking place HERE

Quote:
It sat for three months after conference. It was during the conference committee that the provision was slipped into the bill. No one knew for all those months.

From TPM Muckraker: (emphasis added)

Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) angrily addressed his insertion of a measure that changed the law governing the selection of U.S. Attorneys during this morning's hearing on the issue.

As we reported last month, Specter inserted an obscure provision into the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act that made it possible for the administration to appoint interim U.S. Attorneys for an indefinite period. The measure was inserted when the bill was in conference committee. "Specter slipped the language into the bill at the very last minute," we wrote.

This morning, Specter said that he found the report "offensive" and proclaimed, "I do not slip things in." If an item is potentially controversial, he argued, he makes it a practice of alerting other senators to the issue.

The bill was not voted on for three months after the conference, Specter continued, giving senators plenty of time to notice and object to the measure. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and others have said that the short and obscurely-worded measure, part of a very large and extremely controversial bill, simply went unnoticed as the fight over its passage roiled for months.

That puts the actual time when Brett Tolman slipped it in back to December. It was apparently slipped in during Christmas or New Year's lulls, when few were around Washington. Some Christmas present.

So, my point is that somewhere between the email cited and mid- to late- December the idea to insert the provision was hatched, the exact language was written and approved and someone was selected to insert it. (Or the email stated is a convenient fiction).

Who benefited? Who would approve the such language? Who could authorize it?

Here's Specter's remarks, in the same story:

..I then contacted my very-able Chief Council Michael O'Neill to find out exactly what had happened. Mr. O'Neill advised me that the requested change had come from the Department of Justice, that it had been handled by Brett Tolman, who is now the US Attorney for Utah.

That the change had been requested by the Department of Justice because there had been difficulty with the replacement of a US Attorney in South Dakota where the court made a replacement which was not in the course with the statute, hadn't been a prior federal employee and did not qualify. There was also concern because in a number of districts the courts had questioned the propriety of their appointing power because of separation of powers. As Mr. Tolman explained it to Mr. O'Neill, those were the reasons and the provision was added to the PATRIOT Act, and as I said was open for public inspection for more than three months while the Conference Report was not acted on.

I suggest the provision was a necessary element due to a number of "problems" that were cropping in and DoJ was the cudgel for creating backfires (not just to push voter fraud to cover electoral fraud, but to legalize voter supression), CIA/Cunningham/Fogo/Lewis, the straw dog of immigration and to further press the persecution prosecution of Democratic officials.

If you wanna check something, check the falsified documents Issel used to press the attack on Lam. That whole thing has the same MO as the Niger forgeries themselves, and the INR memo and Plame.

It's a set-up document for a campaign and three's a f*cking charm. In the artistic world, someone has peaked when they start repeating themselves.
0 Replies
 
Builder
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Mar, 2007 08:50 am
OMG Shocked

I'm no lawyer, but that looks pretty grim for the coming trial of Gonzales.

Wish I had some conciliatory words for you all.

Looks like the whole goddamn country has been stitched up in legal hoopla.

You do realize that if these warmongers attack Iran, you're all gonna have to cop it sweet from these criminals? That could spell disaster for the globe.

Best of luck. I sincerely hope someone with the legal nouse picks up the case, and pulls the rug out from under these wicked pricks.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Mar, 2007 09:40 am
Qualifications for working for Bush
To work for George W. Bush and his Vice President, you must meet the following qualifications:

Must be able to lie during a lie-detector test and not get caught.

Must be able to lie to the Media without smirking.

Must not know much about the job you've taken.

Must hate government and focus on making it ineffective.

Must tolerate the "People" and ignore your status as their employee.

Must detest the people's Congress and view them as underlings.

Must be loyal to President Bush above all, even above your office oath.

Must bow at the feet of Karl Rove, the governing genius.

Must quiver before the power of Vice President Cheney.

Must sacrifice American lives and its treasure to maintain political power.

Must be an idiot without a conscience!

BBB
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Mar, 2007 10:47 am
Senator Feinstein calls for Gonzales' resignation David Edwards and Josh Catone
Published: Sunday March 25, 2007

On "Fox News Sunday," today, Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) for the first time publicly joined calls for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to resign.

"I think the day of the dual-hatted attorney general should be over," said Feinstein. "Attorney General Gonzales has had the view that he serves two masters, that he serves the president and that he serves as the chief law enforcement officer. He serves one master, and that's the people of this country."

Feinstein continued that an attorney general must be "straight forward" and "follow the law."

"I believe he should step down," she continued. "I think the nation is not well-served by this."

A video clip follows:
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Senator_Feinstein_calls_for_Gonzales_resignation_0325.html
0 Replies
 
kelticwizard
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Mar, 2007 02:57 am
If Gonzalez resigned tomorrow, what would change?

How much changed when Rumsfeld was forced to leave?

Once you get past the emotional satisfaction of seeing these people get the heave-ho, what is left? The president and vice president and political advisors who put these people in office remain. If their replacements have a nicer style, so what. The new people will still be advancing the same awful policies the old people did.

We can only hope the new House and Senate can cool down some of the worst tendencies of this Administration. But positive change will only happen when we put someone in the White House with a whole different attitude and viewpoint from what we have now.
0 Replies
 
Builder
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Mar, 2007 05:21 am
kelticwizard wrote:
If Gonzalez resigned tomorrow, what would change?


Well, hopefully the whole process of justice in America would take a turn for, well, for Justice. Real justice, without executive influence. Isn't that what true justice in a true democratic republic was supposed to be all about, according to the constitution?

kelticwizard wrote:
How much changed when Rumsfeld was forced to leave?


The only change I noted was that for a couple of days, people who think with their own brains applauded his departure, and the rest of the plebs went back to watching football, Nascar, NBL, and fishing programs.

kelticwizard wrote:
Once you get past the emotional satisfaction of seeing these people get the heave-ho, what is left?


What should be "left" is the turning over of a new leaf. A rebirth of the position of power that includes nothing of the despotic and demonic past. What did we end up with?

kelticwizard wrote:
The president and vice president and political advisors who put these people in office remain.


Through cunning advisors, the P and VP can axe underlings without recourse to their own dictatorial style. This is the true crime.

kelticwizard wrote:
If their replacements have a nicer style, so what.


What surprises me most, is that the same shonks keep finding themselves with these power-mongering positions. That leads me to believe that most Americans have a memory that extends to about a week only. Too many alternatives to take up their conscious waking hours.

kelticwizard wrote:
The new people will still be advancing the same awful policies the old people did.


You got that right, brother.

kelticwizard wrote:
We can only hope the new House and Senate can cool down some of the worst tendencies of this Administration.


I wouldn't hold my breath, If I were you. What we have, is people who were bought with bribes, (sorry, I meant election donations), so they are basically beholden to their monetary advisors (bribemongers). Money, what a concept? Where did I read that????

kelticwizard wrote:
But positive change will only happen when we put someone in the White House with a whole different attitude and viewpoint from what we have now.


I'm wondering who will take up the baton? Edwards looks like a sound proposition. I wouldn't touch Hillary with a ten foot pole. Obama? I don't know. Is it time for a man of colour? McCain is a bird of the same feather as the one you have.

I just realised that it's not my election. Why am I even commenting? Go home Aussie. Go home. Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Mar, 2007 06:38 am
Quote:
kelticwizard wrote:
If Gonzalez resigned tomorrow, what would change?




Builder wrote:
Quote:
Well, hopefully the whole process of justice in America would take a turn for, well, for Justice. Real justice, without executive influence. Isn't that what true justice in a true democratic republic was supposed to be all about, according to the constitution?


Too true.

If we took that attitude why bothering arresting anyone at all, after all, someone else is just going to break the law again.

Before the November election, these guys have been left unchecked to do as they please with an accommodating republican congress rubbing stamping, looking the other way, or in some cases joining in. Now that they know we have some people in the opposition role in congress willing to go after these guys, perhaps they will think twice before trying these kinds of actions in the future. Thats what good it does, ideally.
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Mar, 2007 07:36 am
Attorney General Gonzales among officials who allegedly ignored abuse of minor boys

By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton, both already under siege for other matters, are now being accused of failing to prosecute officers of the Texas Youth Commission after a Texas Ranger investigation documented that guards and administrators were sexually abusing the institution's minor boy inmates.

Among the charges in the Texas Ranger report were that administrators would rouse boys from their sleep for the purpose of conducting all-night sex parties. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54861
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/20/2024 at 03:35:53