Gonzales

jaim · 03-15-2007, 9:30 PM

Okay people. Read and discuss. Sen. Pryor:*Attorney General*lied to the Senate - CNN.com

A.F.T.C.T.T.G. · 03-15-2007, 9:33 PM

Politics suck

KenB · 03-16-2007, 1:03 PM

Grasping at straws. These attorneys work for the executive branch. That branch can hire and fire at will. Just like Clinton fired 93 of them when he was elected.

Next!

steingar · 03-16-2007, 5:22 PM

I think that electing George W Bush twice were the two dumbest mistakes ever made by the American electorate (note I said "I think". Stash the flamethrowers guys). However, federal prosecutors serve at the pleasure of the President. Even the dumbass ones.

analogbear · 03-19-2007, 8:54 PM

Sure, but never in the history of the country has any class of Assistant US Attorneys General been fired mid-term, and in response to allegations of corruption in the executive branch by Congress and the press...Very fishy...

KenB · 03-19-2007, 9:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by analogbear

Sure, but never in the history of the country has any class of Assistant US Attorneys General been fired mid-term, and in response to allegations of corruption in the executive branch by Congress and the press...Very fishy...

Mmm hhhmm, like Clinton wasn't intentionally removing the Atty investigating Dan Rostenkowski or the Arkansas Attorney overseeing Whitewater. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle.

analogbear · 03-19-2007, 9:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KenB

Mmm hhhmm, like Clinton wasn't intentionally removing the Atty investigating Dan Rostenkowski or the Arkansas Attorney overseeing Whitewater. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle.

The political removal of 2, 3, or 4 atty's is one thing...Removing nearly 200 to avoid prosecution of yourself, your cabinet, and your advisors is in a wholly different league...And remember: Clinton was actually prosecuted, and lost. Neither pot nor kettle, here.

KenB · 03-19-2007, 9:17 PM

Clinton removed all 93 states attorneys general. Bush removed 8. These attorneys can be removed at the whim of the President. Neither President violated any law or did anything wrong. It's amazing that such a stink is being raised.

analogbear · 03-19-2007, 9:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KenB

Clinton removed all 93 states attorneys general. Bush removed 8. These attorneys can be removed at the whim of the President. Neither President violated any law or did anything wrong. It's amazing that such a stink is being raised.

Clinton, like every other newly elected president in nearly 110 years, removed the class of AG's when he took office...Just like bush did in 2K. This midterm removal, though not against the law, is interesting...Not stink-raising, but interesting.

KenB · 03-19-2007, 9:37 PM

As you may remember but have tried to forget, Walter Hubbell was a former partner of Mrs. Clinton at the Rose Law Firm in Little Rock who later went to jail for mail fraud and tax evasion. He was also Bill and Hillary Clinton's choice as Associate Attorney General in the Justice Department when Janet Reno, his nominal superior, simultaneously fired all 93 U.S. Attorneys in March 1993. Ms. Reno--or Mr. Hubbell--gave them 10 days to move out of their offices.

At the time, President Clinton presented the move as something perfectly ordinary: "All those people are routinely replaced," he told reporters, "and I have not done anything differently." In fact, the dismissals were unprecedented: Previous Presidents, including Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter, had both retained holdovers from the previous Administration and only replaced them gradually as their tenures expired. This allowed continuity of leadership within the U.S. Attorney offices during the transition.

Equally extraordinary were the politics at play in the firings. At the time, Jay Stephens, then U.S. Attorney in the District of Columbia, was investigating then Ways and Means Chairman Dan Rostenkowski, and was "within 30 days" of making a decision on an indictment. Mr. Rostenkowski, who was shepherding the Clinton's economic program through Congress, eventually went to jail on mail fraud charges and was later pardoned by Mr. Clinton.

Now...what's more interesting, the Bush firings or Clinton? Interesting indeed.

So tell me again why there is so much attention on the firings of 8 AGs?

analogbear · 03-19-2007, 10:21 PM

Don't even try to play the "cronyism card" in relation to the Clinton white house, when Bush redefined the genre...And Bush fired more than 8...

Sure, Clinton, the first democrat since 1980, needed to clean a little house at first...After 12-16 years of other-party influence who wouldn't?...Carter didn't have the same problem with Ford's appointments (remember, he replaced a bunch of Nixon-cronies with less politically-minded folks) or Reagan (who again, only had the Carter dudes after at most 4 years...)

I had no problem with Bush firing all, ALL, the AGs when he got elected.
I just had a problem with the idea of firing all of them in a seemingly protective move, midterm, coming on the heels of all the corruption in the white house (and make no mistake, no matter how bad a few bucks, some land, and a blow-job was with Clinton, Bush has done much worse), unprecedented suspension of our constitutional rights, poorly executed wars on 2 fronts, outing of a cia agent seemingly in response to her husbands accusatory memo(even if not, it sure looks that way, and a president should avoid the appearance of impropriety --Clinton should have too, and failed), poor reaction after 9/11, taking us from the largest lending nation in the world to the largest debtor nation, reducing the international esteem of this country to nil, undercutting the influence of the UN, and so many other piss-poor actions, policies, and decisions. That's all...It is interesting because it is another in a long list of questionable acts by what I believe History will remark as our worst President ever...

Where is all the personal animosity against me coming from? Are you under the impression (mistaken, I assure you) that I am a liberal, Democrat, or disciple of Clinton? I just can't take partisan politics any more...You point out problems in person B, and instead of addressing that, the listener starts going ad hominem on person C...Nonsense...

KenB · 03-19-2007, 10:43 PM

Don't play the cronyism card? How can you not? It's politics. If if anyone doesn't think cronyism runs rampant, they've had too much Kool Aid.

There is no anymosity at all (not sure where that came from) and I am neither Dem or Rep so please don't get so defensive. But you can't blurt out 'facts' like "Clinton, like every other newly elected president in nearly 110 years, removed the class of AG's when he took office..." or "Removing nearly 200 to avoid prosecution of yourself, your cabinet, and your advisors is in a wholly different league" and not get called on it. Bush did NOT remove all the AGs when he took over. Clinton did and it was not like every other President before him. Statements like this give the impression that your Clinton defense is instinctual. My apologies if that was not your intention and I misinterpreted.

I became involved in this thread because the story is a non-story. Other Presidents have fired AGs, more of them and under much more suspicious terms, than Bush. And yet when these facts are presented, the "Oh you can't bash Clinton" people come out. Why can't we review the acts of past Presidents to compare to the current one? What Bush has done is not a precedent. It sure wasn't pretty. But the story is more about the sound of the Dems unsheathing their sabres again than anything actually done wrong or illegal.

analogbear · 03-20-2007, 9:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KenB

Clinton did and it was not like every other President before him. Statements like this give the impression that your Clinton defense is instinctual. My apologies if that was not your intention and I misinterpreted.

I became involved in this thread because the story is a non-story. Other Presidents have fired AGs, more of them and under much more suspicious terms, than Bush. And yet when these facts are presented, the "Oh you can't bash Clinton" people come out. Why can't we review the acts of past Presidents to compare to the current one? What Bush has done is not a precedent. It sure wasn't pretty. But the story is more about the sound of the Dems unsheathing their sabres again than anything actually done wrong or illegal.

No prob.

I don't like to bash clinton, because as I see it, his wrongs are so greatly outweighed by his rights; and the one thing harped on most during, and forming the basis of, the failed attempt to impeach him, was lying about getting some strange. Picking on him seems almost nit-picky...In light of the whoppers told by the whole bush admin, and the descent into two failed wars...

We can review past presidential behavior, of course; but, like much of history, although the acts of prior presidents can (and ought to) inform the present, contemporaneous happenings are always more interesting to me in the "now" than moot acts by replaced-executives, especially when these modern happenings are yet another aspect of (a long history of disingenuous behavior by this admin especially, but) any current admin. I remember Monica, Whitewater and Desert One very well, Iran Contra very well, have some memory of both Vietnam and Watergate, and I still find the current situation "interesting" coming at this time in the admin, and after the progression of current events, that's all. Nobody has fired so many AGs mid-term. EVER. I don't think it is a non-issue, but interesting. Not earth-shattering, not a "precedent" (though it will precede something, so technically, it is a precedent, but of what, we do not know...It certainly sets no "legal precedent," but so what?) as you seem to use the term, but again how can we know, until another mid-term pres removes a stack of AGs?

jaim · 04-20-2007, 3:51 AM

Well, Gonzoles testified. What a douche. I think some water boarding and naked dog piles with him on the bottom are in order. All this scandal and yet no actual warrants for anyone's arrest. No impeachment proceedings. All show and not substance with any of this ****. If Gonzoles resigns what difference will it make? Another Bush crony will be put into place and business as usual. WTF?! Sure Gonzoles is part of the problem but go after the heart of the problem. Bush, Cheney, and Rove.

KenB · 04-20-2007, 6:47 AM

Resign? Impeachment? For what?? These prosecutors work for the President. He can hire them and he can fire them at will. Every President before him has done the same, including Clinton who fired ALL the Federal prosecutors. But Bush does it and he and Gonzales are criminals somehow. Amazing. Read up. Nothing illegal has been done here. This is the media being the media. Nothing more.

steingar · 04-20-2007, 8:52 AM

History will deal with the three stooges (Bush, Cheney and Rummy), and much more unkindly than any Senatorial committee.