0
   

Gonzales must resign now. "Mistakes were made."

 
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Mar, 2007 01:53 pm
I know this was an elected District attorney, and not a US prosecutor, but this was the kind of thing I was talking about in my previous post... Any thing like this with US prosecutors?

(Funny - but not haha funny - what a stink the Republicans made over Delays prosecution given the current news.)
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Mar, 2007 02:41 pm
I was thinking of things like THIS about Griffin who was rewarded with a US Attorney position.

It will be interesting to put the pieces together.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Mar, 2007 06:08 pm
McGentrix wrote:
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.


It's certainly no big whoop to someone who doesn't mind the justice department of our federal government being used to advance the interests of the political party in power. But you mind that, don't you? After all, we are a nation of laws and justice is blind.
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Mar, 2007 06:26 pm
I think it's less important to focus on who was fired than to look at the performance of who was kept.


Joe (who are the Loyalists?)Nation
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Mar, 2007 06:31 pm
Conyers demands answers from Attorney General by Josh Catone
Published: Thursday March 15, 2007

House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) today sent a letter to US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales demanding answers to allegations that he may have advised the President to shut down an investigation of the White House's domestic wiretapping surveillance program because of his involvement with the program, according to a statement released to RAW STORY.

"It would be an extraordinary abuse of authority if you advised the President on this matter after learning that your own conduct was to be investigated," Conyers wrote.

The full letter is available here (PDF).
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Conyers_demands_answers_from_Attorney_General_0315.html
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Mar, 2007 07:08 pm
Who was retained and what did they do?

Quote:


The odd thing is, contrary to what Okie thinks, I like Republicans. Real Republicans that is, the kind who provide balance in this democracy on the other end of the seesaw from my wacko liberal pinkos friends, but Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld are NOT Republicans, they are power hungry freaks of nature.

Joe(i am not sure they know what America is )Nation
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Mar, 2007 09:28 pm
Joe Nation wrote:

The odd thing is, contrary to what Okie thinks, I like Republicans. Real Republicans that is, the kind who provide balance in this democracy on the other end of the seesaw from my wacko liberal pinkos friends, but Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld are NOT Republicans, they are power hungry freaks of nature.

Joe(i am not sure they know what America is )Nation


That is surprising. What is a real Republican in your opinion, anyway? Can you name the best example that you know of?

Actually, I have known for a long, long time that Bush is not a true conservative Republican. Many other republicans are not the conservative type that I prefer either. So, perhaps I admit to going to extra lengths to defend Republicans when criticized by "whacko pinko" liberal Democrats. Reading constant criticism of other politicians by some of the biggest hypocrit politicians in Washington, namely Democrats, is frankly getting old on this forum.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Mar, 2007 09:47 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
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


In the words of Andrew McCarthy, "."
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Mar, 2007 09:48 pm
Ticomaya wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
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


In the words of Andrew McCarthy, "."


I don't care how many of you are wrong; the president cannot fire his own employees for 'any reason he chooses.'

I outlined two reasons in the Bush Supporters thread that should be easy for anyone to find.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Mar, 2007 09:50 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
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


In the words of Andrew McCarthy, "."


I don't care how many of you are wrong; the president cannot fire his own employees for 'any reason he chooses.'

I outlined two reasons in the Bush Supporters thread that should be easy for anyone to find.

Cycloptichorn


Right ... can't fire for discrimination under suspect classifications ... gotcha.

You got anything else, or is that the only little point you were trying to make?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Mar, 2007 09:52 pm
Ticomaya wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
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


In the words of Andrew McCarthy, "."


I don't care how many of you are wrong; the president cannot fire his own employees for 'any reason he chooses.'

I outlined two reasons in the Bush Supporters thread that should be easy for anyone to find.

Cycloptichorn


Right ... can't fire for discrimination under suspect classifications ... gotcha.

You got anything else, or is that the only little point you were trying to make?


You sound a little pissed off, Tico. Must be because your boys are getting f*cking shellacked these days.

I think of you every time I read about something bad happening to the GOP. Puts a smile on my face.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Mar, 2007 09:56 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
You sound a little pissed off, Tico. Must be because your boys are getting f*cking shellacked these days.

I think of you every time I read about something bad happening to the GOP. Puts a smile on my face.

Cycloptichorn


I just found out timberlandko died March 3rd.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Mar, 2007 10:01 pm
Ticomaya wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
You sound a little pissed off, Tico. Must be because your boys are getting f*cking shellacked these days.

I think of you every time I read about something bad happening to the GOP. Puts a smile on my face.

Cycloptichorn


I just found out timberlandko died March 3rd.


You're kidding

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Mar, 2007 10:03 pm
god damn it
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Mar, 2007 10:06 pm
I wish I was.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Mar, 2007 10:07 pm
Ticomaya wrote:

I just found out timberlandko died March 3rd.


Sad to hear that. Welcome back Ticomaya. You are sorely needed here to defend against the insanity.

I have no clue about Timber, his age, or circumstance, but my sincere condolence to family if they read this.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Mar, 2007 10:11 pm
okie wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:

I just found out timberlandko died March 3rd.


Sad to hear that. Welcome back Ticomaya. You are sorely needed here to defend against the insanity.


Thanks, Okie, but I've not really been "gone." However, free time is more of a premium now.

Quote:
I have no clue about Timber, his age, or circumstance, but my sincere condolence to family if they read this.


Kevin was 60, and it appears he had a heart attack.

Jespah has a thread .... HERE.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Mar, 2007 03:45 am
The issue of the firings is more than a president firing an attorney to replace him/her with someone they like more. As you all say it is legal to do that and has been done in the past. The issue is that in the run up to the November elections, corruption became a big deal. So as usual Karl Rove and republicans got to work and started calling attorneys inquiring about ongoing investigations concerning democrats and corruption and wanting it to be out in the open before the November elections. When they didn't get the desired results, they were fired. If all of that turns out to be the case, in a sane world everyone would agree, this would be a horrible act committed by this administration and some republicans in congress. Coming after the whole Valerie Plame outing, it is just too much to take and we shouldn't have to put with this kind of thing from our president.
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Mar, 2007 06:52 am
This issue isn't about hiring and firing Attorneys General, it's about this administration's attempt to expand the powers of the President.

I'm sure Karl Rove is pissed. I know I would be if I had this great plan for a permanent Republican majority and have it screwed up by the likes of George Bush, Harriet Miers and Alberto Gonzales, to say nothing of thickheads like Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld. "Jesus!", he must be saying to himself, "can't these people secure an ever enlarging grip on power without leaving any fingerprints like me?"

From the very beginning, Rove's, and, to be fair, Cheney's idea of creating an American Presidency without limited powers has been at the core of every action they have taken. Before you reject that notion out of hand, look back at the way this administration interacted with Congress in first five years :loyalty to the President's views and strict obedience in voting (enforced by Tom DeLay) were the litmus tests applied to Republican Members of Congress. Democrats were seldom, if ever, spoken to or of. When Republican Congressmen tried to take initiatives into their own hands, they were punished. See this from Off the Kuff 2005:

Quote:
yanked his chairmanship in January. Rep. Rob Simmons, R-Conn., lost his chairmanship of the VA health subcommittee, and Rep. Rick Renzi, R-Ariz., is no longer on the committee. They too had signed the letters to Hastert, R-Ill., and DeLay, R-Texas.


<sigh>


It was probably a mistake to make Gonzales the US Attorney General, but I know it must have seemed right to Bush. This was the same guy who came up with ways to get suspend the Geneva Conventions, to make warrant-less spying on American okie-dokie-smokie and still thinks the President ought to be able to hold anyone without charges for as long as the President deems necessary. (President Mugabe of Zimbabwe has that power, why not George?) What's a little writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum got to do with running a country the way it ought to be run, by God?


Things could be worse: George might have stayed the course on Harriet Miers' Supreme Court nomination.

Joe(words fail me)Nation
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Mar, 2007 07:32 am
Joe Nation wrote:
This issue isn't about hiring and firing Attorneys General, it's about this administration's attempt to expand the powers of the President.

I'm sure Karl Rove is pissed. I know I would be if I had this great plan for a permanent Republican majority and have it screwed up by the likes of George Bush, Harriet Miers and Alberto Gonzales, to say nothing of thickheads like Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld. "Jesus!", he must be saying to himself, "can't these people secure an ever enlarging grip on power without leaving any fingerprints like me?"

From the very beginning, Rove's, and, to be fair, Cheney's idea of creating an American Presidency without limited powers has been at the core of every action they have taken. Before you reject that notion out of hand, look back at the way this administration interacted with Congress in first five years :loyalty to the President's views and strict obedience in voting (enforced by Tom DeLay) were the litmus tests applied to Republican Members of Congress. Democrats were seldom, if ever, spoken to or of. When Republican Congressmen tried to take initiatives into their own hands, they were punished. See this from Off the Kuff 2005:

Quote:
yanked his chairmanship in January. Rep. Rob Simmons, R-Conn., lost his chairmanship of the VA health subcommittee, and Rep. Rick Renzi, R-Ariz., is no longer on the committee. They too had signed the letters to Hastert, R-Ill., and DeLay, R-Texas.


<sigh>


It was probably a mistake to make Gonzales the US Attorney General, but I know it must have seemed right to Bush. This was the same guy who came up with ways to get suspend the Geneva Conventions...

What a bunch of distortions. No one asked to suspend the Geneva convention. The memo you post a link to refers to a legal determination as to whether Al Qaeda and the Taliban fulfill the criteria as stated in the Geneva Convention to be covered by it. Nothing about replacing civil servants with ones sympathetic to your opinions is either illegal or unusual (for either party).
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 05/18/2024 at 12:33:29