Gonzales must resign now. "Mistakes were made."

In addition,

Quote:

Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy announced Thursday he had subpoenaed White House adviser Karl Rove in a widening probe into the firing of federal prosecutors, The Associated Press reports.

"We have now reached a point where the accumulated evidence shows that political considerations factored into the unprecedented firing of at least nine United States Attorneys last year," Leahy said, according to the AP.

Democrats on the judiciary committee also called for a special prosecutor to investigate whether Attorney General Alberto Gonzales lied under oath when he testified before Congress.

Developing...

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Senate_Judiciary_Chairman_to_subpoena_Karl_0726.html

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cyclo, Do you really believe anything will come of this "investigation?" Like Libby, they'll all be pardoned by Bush even if they are charged with crimes against the US. Why waste congress' time and the people's money?

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Cyclo, Do you really believe anything will come of this "investigation?" Like Libby, they'll all be pardoned by Bush even if they are charged with crimes against the US. Why waste congress' time and the people's money?

Oh, c'mon, man, it isn't a waste.

Just b/c Bush has the ability to exercise his powers doesn't mean it's right for him to do so. The more he has to over-step to protect himself, the worse things will get for him and the Republicans in the Congress who are doing his bidding.

Don't be so negative about things. You could have said the exact same thing, over and over, during Nixon - and been right, up until the end where he lost out to the investigators.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Senate Judiciary Chairman to subpoena Karl Rove Nick Juliano
Published: Thursday July 26, 2007

Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy announced Thursday he had subpoenaed White House adviser Karl Rove in a widening probe into the firing of federal prosecutors.

"We have now reached a point where the accumulated evidence shows that political considerations factored into the unprecedented firing of at least nine United States Attorneys last year," Leahy said, according to The Associated Press.

Democrats on the Judiciary Committee also called for a special prosecutor to investigate whether Attorney General Alberto Gonzales lied under oath when he testified before Congress.

"It has become apparent that the attorney general has provided at a minimum half-truths and misleading statements," four members of the Senate Judiciary Committee wrote in a letter to Solicitor General Paul Clement.

Sen. Arlen Specter, the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, has not yet weighed in on the Rove subpoenas, his spokesperson told RAW STORY.

E-mails released by the Justice Department have shown Rove was involved in discussions over the firing of at least eight US Attorneys.

Developing... link

0 Replies

So are you saying that no political appointee can be fired for political reasons?

0 Replies

Cyclo: Just b/c Bush has the ability to exercise his powers doesn't mean it's right for him to do so.

Nothing from Bush's past would even suggest any gain for the American People to go forward with subpoenas, committee investigations, and final charges with penalties. There are so many important issues for congress to spend their time on rather than sidetracked with issues that has no benefit at the end. I see it as a waste of time and money; those who can't see corruption in Bush will never see it.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Cyclo: Just b/c Bush has the ability to exercise his powers doesn't mean it's right for him to do so.

Nothing from Bush's past would even suggest any gain for the American People to go forward with subpoenas, committee investigations, and final charges with penalties. There are so many important issues for congress to spend their time on rather than sidetracked with issues that has no benefit at the end. I see it as a waste of time and money; those who can't see corruption in Bush will never see it.

It does have a benefit, friend, in that we are protecting the Democracy itself from his actions.

Look, presidents don't give up power without a fight. If we don't work hard to limit the powers of the executive, then the next one, Republican or Democrat, will attempt to retain those powers for himself. This is about a lot more then just winning the election, or sending bills to Bush for him to veto.

Once again, you could have said the same thing during Nixon's term, and would have been right - up until the very end, that is.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

So are you saying that no political appointee can be fired for political reasons?

Not if those reasons are illegal, such as firing someone for not pursuing indictments against Democrats. That's not legal, to direct the DoJ to target members of the opposing party.

The DoJ works for the American people, not for the Executive branch!!! It is administered by the Exec branch, but it does not derive its' authority or mandate from this, but rather from the will of the people. To attempt to subvert the practice of enforcing the law, into a political tool to use against your opponents - and then to lie about it when questioned on it - is ridiculous, unethical, immoral, and UnAmerican in the extreme.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Quote:

but it does not derive its' authority or mandate from this, but rather from the will of the people.

The same can be said for the executive branch.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

Quote:
but it does not derive its' authority or mandate from this, but rather from the will of the people.

The same can be said for the executive branch.

And, you would agree that it would be wrong for the executive to use his powers to promote purely his interests, and not the interests of America as a whole, correct? The corollary for the actions works perfectly. The DoJ does not exist in order to further the political party who controls the WH, the Exec. branch is not vested with powers to further the fortunes of those who are in it.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

mysteryman wrote:
Quote:
but it does not derive its' authority or mandate from this, but rather from the will of the people.

The same can be said for the executive branch.

And, you would agree that it would be wrong for the executive to use his powers to promote purely his interests, and not the interests of America as a whole, correct? The corollary for the actions works perfectly. The DoJ does not exist in order to further the political party who controls the WH, the Exec. branch is not vested with powers to further the fortunes of those who are in it.

Cycloptichorn

IF thats what the Executive branch is doing,then yes its wrong.

But in most instances, with this President, you and I disagree about it.
You think he is only trying to promote his own interests,and I think differently.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
Quote:
but it does not derive its' authority or mandate from this, but rather from the will of the people.

The same can be said for the executive branch.

And, you would agree that it would be wrong for the executive to use his powers to promote purely his interests, and not the interests of America as a whole, correct? The corollary for the actions works perfectly. The DoJ does not exist in order to further the political party who controls the WH, the Exec. branch is not vested with powers to further the fortunes of those who are in it.

Cycloptichorn

IF thats what the Executive branch is doing,then yes its wrong.

But in most instances, with this President, you and I disagree about it.
You think he is only trying to promote his own interests,and I think differently.

Well, I'm not claiming - though I could make an argument for it - that this is what the exec branch is doing: using their resources for personal gain. What I am claiming is that they are using the DoJ to target Democrats and potential Democratic voters.

Democrats have been prosecuted at a rate of 7 to 1 in the last 5 years. The civil rights division has been gutted and replaced with a bunch of people who don't uphold the reason it was created. Domenici, in NM, wouldn't go after a Democrat (who there was no evidence against really, iirc) and got threatening phone calls from Senators, who talked about this with Rove, who then fired him - and then they lied about why they fired him.

Gonzales states in his January Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, that he would 'never, ever fire a prosecutor for Personal reasons.' But they did exactly that in Oklahoma, to put in Tim Griffin. They lied about why they fired each and every one of the prosecutors in question.

When asked just two days ago, how many US attorneys he has fired, Gonzo didn't know. When asked who put their names on the list, he didn't know. He claims not to know anything about anything that goes on in his department; he is blatantly and obviously lying to cover up the politicization of the DoJ.

Lesser DoJ officials have quit in droves. The 8 people beneath Gonzales have all resigned. They have testified that they took actions to put Republicans in career DoJ positions, which are explicitly non-political. They have received political briefings from Karl Rove's office, entitled 'how to help our candidates.'

There is a clear pattern here, that the WH is using the DoJ in order to not only act as a political arm to strike at their enemies, but also as a shield to keep the president from being investigated. This shouldn't come as a surprise to you, MM, as Gonzales is Bush's personal lawyer; he just didn't give up the job when he was appointed to AG. But he doesn't work for Bush, he works for us and should be shitcanned for forgetting this fact.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Quote:

This shouldn't come as a surprise to you, MM, as Gonzales is Bush's personal lawyer; he just didn't give up the job when he was appointed to AG. But he doesn't work for Bush, he works for us and should be shitcanned for forgetting this fact.

I will agree with this,but I still have not seen any evidence from anyone that anything criminal has occurred.

0 Replies

Although classified, Gonzales states that top political leaders in congress got the details of the administration's program of warrantless wire taps. Further, he states that the leaders approved.

By Dan Eggen and Paul Kane, Washington Post | July 25, 2007

WASHINGTON -- Attorney General Alberto Gonzales testified yesterday that top congressional leaders from both parties agreed in March 2004 to continue a classified surveillance activity that Justice Department officials had deemed illegal, a contention immediately disputed by key Democratic lawmakers.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat, and Senator Jay Rockefeller, a West Virginia Democrat, who were briefed on the program at the time, said there was no consensus that it should proceed. Three others who were at the meeting also said the legal underpinnings of the program were never discussed.

"He once again is making something up to protect himself," Rockefeller said of the embattled attorney general.

The dispute came as Gonzales weathered one of the most contentious and hostile congressional hearings seen during the Bush administration, as Democrats and the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee accused him of repeatedly misleading them and warned that he could face perjury charges if he lied to the panel.

"I do not find your testimony credible, candidly," said Senator Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican who became visibly angry at several points during his exchanges with Gonzales. "The committee's going to review your testimony very carefully to see if your credibility has been breached to the point of being actionable."

Chairman Patrick Leahy, a Vermont Democrat, told Gonzales bluntly: "I don't trust you."

The session was a political low point for the attorney general, who has watched his reputation erode over the past seven months in Congress, in public opinion polls and among many of his own employees.

Gonzales has found himself in the middle of a running controversy over the firings of nine US attorneys by his department, and House and Senate lawmakers have demanded documents and testimony that the White House has refused to provide. Gonzales has also been accused of making misleading statements about issues including FBI civil liberties abuses and a warrantless surveillance program run by the National Security Agency.

Specter appeared to raise the stakes for Gonzales and the administration yesterday by suggesting that a special prosecutor may be needed to file contempt charges against the White House officials who have refused to honor congressional subpoenas.

Much of yesterday's to-and-fro involved a controversial episode on the evening of March 10, 2004, when Gonzales and then-White House chief of staff Andrew H. Card Jr. visited the hospital bed of then-attorney general John Ashcroft, who was recovering from gallbladder surgery.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

Quote:
This shouldn't come as a surprise to you, MM, as Gonzales is Bush's personal lawyer; he just didn't give up the job when he was appointed to AG. But he doesn't work for Bush, he works for us and should be shitcanned for forgetting this fact.

I will agree with this,but I still have not seen any evidence from anyone that anything criminal has occurred.

You must not have been paying attention, then, because ordering the DoJ to target Democrats is illegal.

Also, lying in front of Congress - as Gonzales has definitely done - is illegal as well.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

FBI director contradicts Gonzales

By LAURIE KELLMAN and LARA JAKES JORDAN, Associated Press Writers
13 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - The head of the FBI contradicted Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' sworn testimony Thursday, and Senate Democrats requested a perjury investigation in a fresh barrage against the truthfulness of President Bush's embattled longtime friend and aide.

In a third blow to the Bush administration, the Senate Judiciary Committee issued subpoenas to compel the testimony of Karl Rove, Bush's chief political adviser, in connection with its investigation.

0 Replies

Then the question arises regarding who would prosecute Gonzales. Bush, as the person ultimately in charge of Justice, would order that no attorney participate in the prosecution.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

mysteryman wrote:
Quote:
This shouldn't come as a surprise to you, MM, as Gonzales is Bush's personal lawyer; he just didn't give up the job when he was appointed to AG. But he doesn't work for Bush, he works for us and should be shitcanned for forgetting this fact.

I will agree with this,but I still have not seen any evidence from anyone that anything criminal has occurred.

You must not have been paying attention, then, because ordering the DoJ to target Democrats is illegal.

Also, lying in front of Congress - as Gonzales has definitely done - is illegal as well.

Cycloptichorn

Yeah, how does someone MISS that?

0 Replies

goddamn FBI director is part of the liberal conspiracy to politicize the dept of justice

Quote:

FBI Director Contradicts Gonzales

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: July 26, 2007
Filed at 7:44 p.m. ET

IN SWORN TESTIMONY: The head of the FBI contradicted Alberto Gonzales Thursday, saying the terrorist surveillance program was the topic of the hospital room dispute.

INVESTIGATION POSSIBLE: Senate Democrats requested a perjury investigation.

A THIRD BLOW: The Senate Judiciary Committee issued subpoenas to compel the testimony of Karl Rove in connection with its investigation.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Congress-Gonzales-Summary-Box.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

0 Replies

Nothing illegal?

Read this by Frank Bowman Slate:

Quote:

Congress could and should impeach Alberto Gonzales. One ground for doing so, as I have previously suggested, is the attorney general's amnesiac prevarication in his testimony before the Senate and the House.

But if Congress wants more, it need look no further than the firing of David Iglesias, former U.S. attorney in New Mexico. The evidence uncovered in Gonzales' Senate and House testimony demonstrates that he fired Iglesias not because of a policy disagreement or a management failure, but because Iglesias would not misuse the power of the Department of Justice in the service of the Republican Party. To fire a U.S. attorney for refusing to abuse his power is the essence of an impeachable offense.

Do you understand that, MM ? It is illegal even to ask an attorney general to use his power for political aims, to say nothing, but believe me there will be plenty more said, about firing the guy for refusing to violate the law.

We are talking about suborning malicious prosecution, wrongful imprisonment and conspiracy to abuse of the legal and civil rights of US Citizens. Nothing illegal?? Any other District Attorney would have already had visits from the FBI, been before a grand jury, indicted for perjury and been booted off his State Bar onto his blue-suited ass. Right before the civil law suits began.

Please, I want everyone to call their Senator's office tomorrow and demand that the Senate move forward immediately with a perjury before Congress investigation and, if the evidence supports indictments, the impeachment of Alberto Gonzales.

Joe(there is no hope of Justice without a just Justice Department)Nation

0 Replies

Gonzales must resign now. "Mistakes were made."

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know