0
   

Gonzales must resign now. "Mistakes were made."

 
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Mar, 2007 09:38 am
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.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Mar, 2007 09:47 am
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.

Yes, we can only assume Sununu has been hitting the koolaid.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Mar, 2007 09:52 am
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
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Mar, 2007 09:56 am
Brandon, maybe this piece will answer your queries.

Fraudelent Firing
Paul Rogat Loeb
March 15, 2007


Paul Rogat Loeb is the author of The Impossible Will Take a Little While: A Citizen's Guide to Hope in a Time of Fear. See www.paulloeb.org. To receive his monthly articles email [email protected] with the subject line: subscribe paulloeb-articles.

They just wanted to protect the sanctity of the vote. That's the administration's pious explanation for why they fired eight U.S. Attorneys who were Republican enough for Bush to have appointed them in the first place. "The president recalls hearing complaints about election fraud not being vigorously prosecuted and believes he may have informally mentioned it to the attorney general," explained White House spokeswoman Dana Perino. How could you question such a laudable goal?

Of course the justifications keep shifting, as with the Iraqi war. First it was the general performance of the prosecutors. Then a preference for specific replacements. Now it's concern for the democratic process.

But the administration and its allies have a long history of using the specter of election fraud to justify reprehensible actions. In 2000, Jeb Bush claimed to be fighting potential fraud when he purged over 55,000 voters from the Florida rolls for felony convictions that under law should have had their voting rights restored?-or that never had them revoked to begin with. Some simply had names similar to that of a convicted felon. Staffers of ChoicePoint, the Republican-tied data-collection firm that handled this effort, acknowledged that they disproportionately targeted low-income Democrats, particularly African Americans. A follow-up by BBC investigative reporter Greg Palast found that 90 percent of those scrubbed were legitimate voters, enough by far to have made Al Gore the winner. And the Supreme Court that handed Bush the presidency was led by William Rehnquist, who got his start harassing black and Hispanic voters in South Phoenix as part of a Republican effort called Operation Eagle Eye.

Election fraud was also the watchword in 2004. Ohio Secretary of State (and Bush campaign chair) Ken Blackwell claimed he was just protecting the legitimacy of the vote when heknocked 300,000 voters off the rolls in key Democratic cities like Cleveland, far exceeding Bush's margin of victory. Blackwell also tried to reject new Democratic registrations because an arcane law said they were supposed to be on 80-pound paper stock (presumably more secure), then had to back off when his own official forms failed the same criterion. And he went to court to ensure that provisional ballots would be considered only if cast in the right precinct, defeating their key purpose, even as he sowed voter confusion by pulling machines and closing down polling stations in longstanding Democratic neighborhoods.

But maybe voting integrity really is the issue in the current wave of firings. In the same 2004 election, Karl Rove aide Timothy Griffin, just named the new U.S. Attorney for eastern Arkansas, originated a strategy to send 70,000 letters challenging the addresses of black and Hispanic voters in places like Florida's Jacksonville Naval Air Station, a local homeless shelter and the historically black Edward Waters College. As Palast writes in another BBC report, Republicans sent the letters out with do-not-forward instructions. When they came back undeliverable, as when soldiers were deployed overseas, Florida then struck the voters from the rolls so even absentee ballots no longer counted. Maybe that's what White House Spokeswoman Perino meant by showing concern for the sanctity of the vote.

If election fraud was a legitimate issue, such abuses might have a shred of legitimacy. Yet the documented cases of deliberate illegal voting are minuscule. For a 2003 report, "Securing the Vote ," the think tank Demos conducted a national study, seeking documented evidence of actual fraud. They ran comprehensive searches of newspapers and court records, contacted secretaries of state and state attorneys general. Except for cases involving a handful of isolated individuals, every rumor of illegitimate voting turned out to be baseless. The image of armies of unregistered, illegal and dead people swarming the polls was and is a Republican myth.

So what was the sin of the fired U.S. attorneys? It seemed that they weren't sufficiently enthusiastic about joining compatriots who investigated or indicted local Democrats by a nearly five to one margin over Republicans, often with election eve headlines that melted away, along with their cases, as soon as the polls were closed. Some may have refused to go after Democratic groups who were trying to register voters. San Diego's Carol Lam even had the audacity to prosecute Republican Congressman Duke Cunningham. Perhaps this solidly Republican group actually believed their job was to serve all of America's citizens, instead of playing the role of political attack dogs. It's too bad that couldn't be the standard for the administration that terminated them.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Mar, 2007 09:59 am
okie wrote:
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.


The fired attorneys ARE Republicans and were appointed by Bush. Why fire your own appointees whose terms have expired? Maybe in order to test drive your new powers (given over by a pussy-ass congress in the PATRIOT act) which allow you to replace them without senatorial confirmation.

It's all perfectly legal, but IMO really really bad for the country.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Mar, 2007 10:01 am
If Bush doesn't like the way a US attorney combs his hair, he can get rid of them. That 8 US attorneys have been replaced because Bush didn't like their politics is no big whoop-dee-doo. Unless you are a liberal and doesn't like Bush in which case it's some sort of federal crime... (which it isn't.)

This remains a tempest in a teapot.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Mar, 2007 10:04 am
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
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Mar, 2007 10:08 am
okie wrote:
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.


Noo, the point is that republicans were calling prosecutors and pressuring them to prosecute democrats before the november elections. When those prosecutors didn't bow to pressure they were fired. This spinning ya'll are trying is not working, been tried too many times.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Mar, 2007 10:22 am
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 irrelevant, 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's statement about cheating on his wife.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Mar, 2007 10:26 am
Brandon9000 wrote:
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.


Fair enough, that's a reasoned and balanced view.

Gonzales is in trouble because his office basically tried to hide the fact that these prosecutors had been targeted by the WH for removal, primarily because they either were going after too many Republicans or not going after enough Democrats(allegedly, with evidence to back it up). Not just Gonzales but several members of the DoJ who testified straight-up lied or told untruths to congress, under oath. That's why Gonzales apologized so publicly; he knows he's in jeopardy.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Mar, 2007 10:34 am
McGentrix wrote:
That 8 US attorneys have been replaced because Bush didn't like their politics is no big whoop-dee-doo.


they're Republican - he's Republican. Shouldn't he like their 'politics'?
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Mar, 2007 10:40 am
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?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Mar, 2007 10:43 am
squinney wrote:
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?


Yes, it most definitely does seem to be evidence that what they were doing was wrong.

My favorite email is the one from Sampson to Miers in which he discusses the 'imminent problem with Lam' - date may 11, 2006, the same day it was reported that Lam was widening her probe of Cunningham to include Doolittle and Jerry Lewis, two other corrupt Republicans.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Mar, 2007 10:46 am
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?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Mar, 2007 10:51 am
McGentrix wrote:
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?


The problem is the words 'for any reason.'

The president cannot replace attorneys for 'any reason' he likes, unfortunately.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Mar, 2007 10:56 am
It is not acceptable to use U. S. Attorneys as weapons against the Dems. Apparently, that is what the administration sought to do, and probably did on a number of occasions. While, perhaps, the letter of the law was not violated, surely legislation will result from this. We now know that a related provision of the Patriot Act will soon be changed.
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Mar, 2007 11:00 am
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?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Mar, 2007 11:01 am
squinney wrote:
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?


Yup. 7-1 prosecutions of Dems-Republicans

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Mar, 2007 11:56 am
Anyone who buys these misleading statements from the administration and the attorney general is just being willfully blind, there is simply no excuse to defend these people.

Statements On Firings of Prosecutors Are Key Issue

Quote:
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.


Another very interesting article is this one.

firings didn't 'come out of head of Zeus'

Quote:
A Patriot Act provision which may have led to the allegedly political firing of eight US attorneys "did not come out of the head of Zeus," according to a renowned legal expert. On MSNBC's Countdown Wednesday night, George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley analyzed the current "firestorm surrounding the firings."


Congress is currently investigating whether the firings were politically motivated, and two of the dismissed attorneys, John McKay and David Iglesias, have already testified that they received inappropriate phone calls from top Republican lawmakers and aides.

According to Turley, the provision in the Patriot Act that allowed such firings was no accident. "When you see an administration trying to try to put into legislation something this specific, this tailored, it does not come out of nowhere," said Turley.

"It did not come out of the head of Zeus," Turley said. "It came out of the head of someone at the White House who wanted to use it. I think there are serious questions there and this is a scandal that is getting worse by the day."

"They?'re not supposed to be constantly looking over their shoulder to see if Karl Rove is coming on them with a wood chipper," Turley said of US attorneys, who "are supposed to retain an element of independence."

Turley added, "I have to say that one of the more troubling legacies of the Bush administration has been the politicization of the Department of Justice."


It is shameful we have these people in office and they were actually elected to be there.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Mar, 2007 12:57 pm
McGentrix wrote:
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?


funniest post so far today....
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
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2026 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 03/02/2026 at 08:54:33