Gonzales must resign now. "Mistakes were made."

This is a non-issue. The White House can fire as many of these prosecutors as it wants for any reason it wants, including failing a political litmus test. It's just the latest in the long list of nonsensical reasons why Bush should be impeached or, as in this particular case, why someone in his staff should resign.

This is a non-issue. The White House can fire as many of these prosecutors as it wants for any reason it wants, including failing a political litmus test. It's just the latest in the long list of nonsensical reasons why Bush should be impeached or, as in this particular case, why someone in his staff should resign.

So now I get it. If attorneys do not prosecute voter fraud by Democrat buddies, Republicans have absolutely no right to even imply in the slightest that this might be incompetence?

As I said, it is now becoming illegal to be a Republican.

If Bush doesn't like the way a US attorney combs his hair, he can get rid of them.

So now I get it. If attorneys do not prosecute voter fraud by Democrat buddies, Republicans have absolutely no right to even imply in the slightest that this might be incompetence?

As I said, it is now becoming illegal to be a Republican.

Brandon9000 wrote:

This is a non-issue. The White House can fire as many of these prosecutors as it wants for any reason it wants, including failing a political litmus test. It's just the latest in the long list of nonsensical reasons why Bush should be impeached or, as in this particular case, why someone in his staff should resign.

Ridiculous. AG Gonzales will be forced out because he lied under oath, which I guarantee you agree is an issue.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

This is a non-issue. The White House can fire as many of these prosecutors as it wants for any reason it wants, including failing a political litmus test. It's just the latest in the long list of nonsensical reasons why Bush should be impeached or, as in this particular case, why someone in his staff should resign.

Ridiculous. AG Gonzales will be forced out because he lied under oath, which I guarantee you agree is an issue.

Cycloptichorn

Lying under oath is indeed an issue and unacceptable, but the firings themselves are not. To be honest, I am not familiar with Gonzales' testimony under oath.

I will state one exception to my condemnation of lying under oath, though, which doesn't apply in this case, but is of some interest. If the question asked is about something unimportant, the prosecutors acting only politically to try to pin anything they can on you, and the question subject to interpretation, I am not very upset about what might technically be a lie, as in the case of President Clinton.

That 8 US attorneys have been replaced because Bush didn't like their politics is no big whoop-dee-doo.

That there was a string of e-mails and conversations stratergizing over how to fire them ... isn't that pretty damning evidence that they knew what they were doing was wrong?

Quote:

If Bush doesn't like the way a US attorney combs his hair, he can get rid of them.

You are 100% incorrect. Foolish thing to say.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

If Bush doesn't like the way a US attorney combs his hair, he can get rid of them.

You are 100% incorrect. Foolish thing to say.

Cycloptichorn

Instead of being a d***, how about explaining what "can be replaced, at least theoretically, at any time for any reason." means to you?

I don't have time to research it at the moment, but would be interested in any cases that were pursued during this time frame aganst dems and the results. Also, any cases against Republicans in the same time frame and the outcome.

Has anyone done that yet?

In testimony on Jan. 18, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales assured the Senate Judiciary Committee that the Justice Department had no intention of avoiding Senate input on the hiring of U.S. attorneys.

Just a month earlier, D. Kyle Sampson, who was then Gonzales's chief of staff, laid out a plan to do just that. In an e-mail, he detailed a strategy for evading Arkansas Democrats in installing Tim Griffin, a former GOP operative and protege of presidential adviser Karl Rove, as the U.S. attorney in Little Rock.

"We should gum this to death," Sampson wrote to a White House aide on Dec. 19. "[A]sk the senators to give Tim a chance . . . then we can tell them we'll look for other candidates, ask them for recommendations, evaluate the recommendations, interview their candidates, and otherwise run out the clock. All of this should be done in 'good faith,' of course."

The conflict between documents released this week and previous administration statements is quickly becoming the central issue for lawmakers who are angry about the way Gonzales and his aides handled the coordinated firings of eight U.S. attorneys last year.

Democrats and Republicans are demanding to know whether Gonzales, Deputy Attorney General Paul J. McNulty and other Justice officials misled them in sworn testimony over the past two months. Yesterday, Republican Sen. John E. Sununu (N.H.) joined a handful of Democrats in calling on President Bush to fire his attorney general and longtime friend.

Gonzales has declined to address the apparent contradictions in detail, saying only that he was unaware of the specifics of the plan that Sampson was orchestrating.

The inconsistencies between Justice's positions and the documents are numerous. On Feb. 23, for example, a Justice legislative affairs aide wrote to Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) that the department "was not aware of Karl Rove playing any role in the decision to appoint Mr. Griffin." But internal Justice e-mails show that "getting him appointed is important" to Rove and was closely monitored by political aides in the White House.

Last week, senior Justice official William E. Moschella told a House Judiciary subcommittee that the White House was not consulted on the firings until the end of the process.

But the documents released this week show that the plan began more than two years ago at the White House counsel's office, which initially suggested firing all 93 U.S. attorneys. Gonzales rejected that idea, and Sampson wrote back in January 2006 that Justice and the White House should "work together to seek the replacement of a limited number of U.S. Attorneys."

Schumer argued this week that Sampson "may well have obstructed justice" by not disclosing his communications to Congress and other senior Justice officials, who had said for weeks that the White House had only a limited role in the removals. "There has been misleading statement after misleading statement, and these have been deliberately misleading statements," Schumer said yesterday.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

If Bush doesn't like the way a US attorney combs his hair, he can get rid of them.

You are 100% incorrect. Foolish thing to say.

Cycloptichorn

Instead of being a d***, how about explaining what "can be replaced, at least theoretically, at any time for any reason." means to you?