Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Dos Equis on May 17, 2007, 06:03:05 PM
-
Idiots. No crime was committed, can't get him to resign, so they resort to this? Pretty desperate.
Senate Democrats Plan to Seek No-Confidence Vote on Attorney General Gonzales
Thursday, May 17, 2007
WASHINGTON — Two Senate Democrats said Thursday they will seek a no-confidence vote on Attorney General Alberto Gonzales over accusations that he carried out President Bush's political agenda at the expense of the Justice Department's independence.
Sens. Chuck Schumer of New York and Dianne Feinstein of California, who have led the investigation into the conduct of White House officials and Gonzales, said the attorney general has been too weakened to run the department.
Just when such a vote might occur in the Senate was uncertain.
Their announcement is the latest in a series of blows suffered by Gonzales this week, including new criticism from Republicans and the prediction of one GOP veteran that the investigation into the firings of federal prosecutors would end with the attorney general's resignation.
Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the senior Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said Thursday that the Justice Department can't properly protect the nation from terrorism or oversee Bush's no-warrant eavesdropping program with Gonzales at the helm.
Hagel Joins Group Calling for Gonzales' Resignation Ex-Aide: Ashcroft, Mueller Nearly Quit Over Secret Wiretaps Attorney General Gonzales Says He Relied on Former Deputy About Attorney Firings Justice Department No. 2 Paul McNulty to Resign Judge Approves Immunity for Former Justice Department Aide in Firings Probe "I have a sense that when we finish our investigation, we may have the conclusion of the tenure of the attorney general," Specter said during a committee hearing. "I think when our investigation is concluded, it'll be clear even to the attorney general and the president that we're looking at a dysfunctional department which is vital to the national welfare."
His comment echoed new criticism of Gonzales this week. Former deputy attorney general James Comey testified that Gonzales tried to get his predecessor as attorney general, John Ashcroft, to approve Bush's eavesdropping program as Ashcroft lay in intensive care.
Asked twice during a news conference Thursday if he personally ordered Gonzales and then-White House chief of staff Andrew Card to Ashcroft's hospital room, Bush refused to answer.
"There's a lot of speculation about what happened and what didn't happen. I'm not going to talk about it," Bush said.
The tale inspired Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., to become the fourth Republican senator to call for Gonzales' resignation. Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., joined in the criticism.
"When you have to spend more time up here on Capitol Hill instead of running the Justice Department, maybe you ought to think about it," Roberts told The Associated Press.
Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, who has not called for Gonzales' resignation, agreed.
"I have absolutely no confidence in the attorney general or his leadership," said Leahy, D-Vt.
Bush has stood by his longtime friend and adviser, the key to Gonzales' hold on his job.
But just when some predicted that Gonzales had survived the furors over the firings, Comey's testimony helped broaden the Democrat-led probe into whether the attorney general politicized the Justice department at the White House's behest.
Gonzales has said only eight U.S. attorneys were targeted for dismissal. But the Justice Department, over nearly two years, listed as many as 26 prosecutors after concerns were raised about their performances, a senior government official familiar with the process said Thursday.
The Justice Department said it fully supports all of its current U.S. attorneys. The list of 26 names was first reported Thursday by The Washington Post.
Many of the names on various and changing lists of prosecutors under scrutiny "clearly did not represent the final actions or views of the department's leadership or the attorney general," said Justice spokesman Dean Boyd. He said the lists "reflect Kyle Sampson's thoughts for discussion during the consultation process."
Sampson, Gonzales' former chief of staff, oversaw the review that drove the firings. He resigned in March as a result of the department's botched handling of the dismissals.
The developments came as Democrats sought more testimony from current and former Justice Department officials. House Democrats announced that Gonzales' former White House liaison, Monica Goodling, would testify next week under a grant of immunity.
At issue is whether the department, at the White House's urging, tried to cause problems for Democrats by facilitating voter fraud cases and others involving corruption.
Comey's testimony this week further weakened Gonzales among Republicans as well as Democrats.
According to Comey, Gonzales in 2004 pressured Attorney General John Ashcroft to certify the legality of Bush's no-warrant eavesdropping program. The conversation took place at Ashcroft's hospital bedside as the attorney general recuperated from pancreatitis.
Ashcroft rebuffed Gonzales, but the White House certified the program's legality anyway. Faced with the resignations of Ashcroft, Comey and FBI Director Robert Mueller, Bush ordered the program be changed to accommodate Justice's objections.
Democrats said his testimony appeared to contradict Gonzales' account in February 2006, when he told two congressional panels that there had "not been any serious disagreement about the program."
Dean Boyd, a Justice Department spokesman said Gonzales' testimony "was and remains accurate."
Joining Hagel in demanding Gonzales' resignation are GOP Sens. John Sununu of New Hampshire, Tom Coburn of Oklahoma and John McCain of Arizona, who is a presidential candidate. House Republican Conference Chair Adam Putman of Florida also has called for a new attorney general.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,273235,00.html
-
Idiots. No crime was committed, can't get him to resign, so they resort to this? Pretty desperate.
Six repub senators have called for him to resign.
Are those 6 republicans idiots?
-
Six repub senators have called for him to resign.
Are those 6 republicans idiots?
Only if they vote for this dumb "no confidence" resolution.
-
we really need to waste tax dollars on this? Serious, there are much more important things
-
we really need to waste tax dollars on this? Serious, there are much more important things
Tell me about it. They hired one of the most expensive law firms in the country to help with this witch hunt, and all they can come up with is a stupid no confidence resolution. It is an absolute waste of our tax dollars.
-
this man has INCREDIBLE power.
and he either forgets tons of shit that happens recently... or he's lying.
either way, incompetent and/or liars don't belong in a positon this powerful.
If you believe the top lawyer in the land can be this forgetful or lying (and can ignore the numerous outright contradictory things he's told congress), then it means one thing: YOU HAVE LOW STANDARDS FOR YOUR LEADERS.
And if you do, you're a shitty american.
-
Tell me about it. They hired one of the most expensive law firms in the country to help with this witch hunt, and all they can come up with is a stupid no confidence resolution. It is an absolute waste of our tax dollars.
which firm did they hire?
-
which firm did they hire?
Arnold & Porter. Up to $25k a month! An outrageous waste of my money. >:(
Now hiring: Attorneys to assist the attorneys in the US Attorney investigation
Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee have retained an outside law firm to help them in their investigation into the firing of U.S. Attorneys. The contract permits the law firm of Arnold & Porter to spend as much as $25,000 a month consulting the Committee. Attorney Irvin Nathan (a veteran of the Carter and Clinton Justice Departments) has confirmed that he has been retained by the Committee, though the contract is still subject to final approval.
According to draft contract language obtained by Court TV, the law firm will "assist Democratic members of the Committee on the Judiciary with issues related to the termination of U.S. Attorneys by the Bush Administration, possible misrepresentations to Congress, interfering with investigations, and matters related thereto." The contract states that it is subject to the approval of the Committee on House Administration.
How unusual is it for a congressional committee staffed by legions of lawyers to hire expensive outside counsel? It depends on whom you ask. One Republican House staffer characterized it as "rare." Another source told me that outside counsel was hired during other congressional investigations such as Whitewater and Iran-contra.
Meanwhile, we have a call in to the office of House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers. We'll update you on any response.
http://blog.courttv.com/inside/attorney_general_investigation/index.html
-
this man has INCREDIBLE power.
and he either forgets tons of shit that happens recently... or he's lying.
either way, incompetent and/or liars don't belong in a positon this powerful.
If you believe the top lawyer in the land can be this forgetful or lying (and can ignore the numerous outright contradictory things he's told congress), then it means one thing: YOU HAVE LOW STANDARDS FOR YOUR LEADERS.
And if you do, you're a shitty american.
Who says I believe him? But can you give me an instance where he has impacted the US on a large scale?
-
Who says I believe him? But can you give me an instance where he has impacted the US on a large scale?
YES!
The man runs the fooooking justice department.
He is the #1 man in the JUSTICE DEPT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
I don't think it's a waste of resources and here's why:
Atty. Gen. Gonzales has been less than forthright in his answers to Congressional questions. He gave the appearance that he doesn't know what is going on in the Justice Dept. which he heads. He has appeared either out of touch or incompetent--answering that he didn't recall information 71 times is horrible.
He serves at the president's pleasure. Sending this message, on the record, of 'no-confidence' lets the president and the public know that a large section of the government no longer reposes trust or confidence in the man's capabilities.
The ball's in the president's court and he still has full faith in the abilities of Mr. Gonzales. He hasn't explained why but I'm sure the issue will come up again.
-
He is either a liar, or dangerously forgetful.
Do you want a liar running the top law enforcement agency in the nation during a time when terrorists want to kill us? Gonzalez can't remember what he did last week. do you want a guy that numb to be in charge of decisions which keep out bad guys and foil plots?
No offense, but when you defend him (because you think it's about defending Bush), you're compromising your family's safety. I want a SMART, SHARP motherfvcker running the justice dept - someone with brains, a good memory, and the ability to outthink criminals and jihadists.
Do you think Gonzalez could outwit a fvcking paper bag?
-
I don't think it's a waste of resources and here's why:
Atty. Gen. Gonzales has been less than forthright in his answers to Congressional questions. He gave the appearance that he doesn't know what is going on in the Justice Dept. which he heads. He has appeared either out of touch or incompetent--answering that he didn't recall information 71 times is horrible.
He serves at the president's pleasure. Sending this message, on the record, of 'no-confidence' lets the president and the public know that a large section of the government no longer reposes trust or confidence in the man's capabilities.
The ball's in the president's court and he still has full faith in the abilities of Mr. Gonzales. He hasn't explained why but I'm sure the issue will come up again.
Decker they don't need Arnold & Porter at $25K a month to come up with a dumb no confidence resolution, which in all likelihood will be a party-line vote. They already wasted our money on these witch hunt hearings and came up with nothing. This is obviously a partisan attack. We shouldn't waste money on partisan witch hunts.
-
Decker they don't need Arnold & Porter at $25K a month to come up with a dumb no confidence resolution, which in all likelihood will be a party-line vote. They already wasted our money on these witch hunt hearings and came up with nothing. This is obviously a partisan attack. We shouldn't waste money on partisan witch hunts.
I think the purpose is legitimate. The Atty. Gen. does not appear competent or in control.
I don't think it is a witch hunt to point that out to the public and to the president.
What is the alternative? Let him slide?
-
I think the purpose is legitimate. The Atty. Gen. does not appear competent or in control.
I don't think it is a witch hunt to point that out to the public and to the president.
What is the alternative? Let him slide?
Actually, the purpose was to determine whether the AG broke the law, not to do one of the most expensive job evaluations in U.S. history.
What exactly is he sliding on? What law did he break?
-
Actually, the purpose was to determine whether the AG broke the law, not to do one of the most expensive job evaluations in U.S. history.
What exactly is he sliding on? What law did he break?
I'm not alleging he broke the law.
I'm alleging that he gives the appearance of not having command of his department or his faculties. A memory that faulty must have some explanation.
-
Beach Bum must be okay with terrorists attacking the US.
After all, he wants to keep THE MOST FORGETFUL A.G. IN HISTORY in his job.
Most of us would prefer a man without amnesia be in charge of the agency which keeps us safe.
Not Beach Bum. He likes our nation's top lawyer to forget things.
-
I'm not alleging he broke the law.
I'm alleging that he gives the appearance of not having command of his department or his faculties. A memory that faulty must have some explanation.
Dude this entire fiasco started because they accused Gonzales of firing these U.S. Attorneys for "political reasons," to interfere with criminal investigations, and that he lied to Congress about it. They struck out on all three. The issue then morphed to "incompetence." This is a manufactured, partisan controversy.
I don't blame him one bit for his "faulty" memory. We have a guy (Scooter) going to prison based on comments he made about a crime that never happened. With that backdrop, when you have a partisan group of senators and congressmen who have hired Arnold & Porter for the sole purpose of finding out whether or not you committed a crime, and you are questioned like a criminal, you give them as little as possible.
-
YES!
The man runs the fooooking justice department.
He is the #1 man in the JUSTICE DEPT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Not much of an example of how he has had impact on day to day operations.
-
Not much of an example of how he has had impact on day to day operations.
i could waste my time and list his job description.
But since we know that you are okay with the head of justice dept being moronically forgetful, it's clear you're beyond using reason to reach positions.
-
Arnold & Porter. Up to $25k a month! An outrageous waste of my money. >:(
Chicken feed. Whitewater investigation cost $50,000,000.00 with a finding of insufficient evidence against the Clintons. Now there is an outrageous waste of money and manpower.
-
50 mil spend on whitewater.
13 mil spent on 9/11.
You figure that one out ;)
-
i could waste my time and list his job description.
But since we know that you are okay with the head of justice dept being moronically forgetful, it's clear you're beyond using reason to reach positions.
So basically you have nothing to show that he had had a negative impact on the US. That my friend is why I don't care about him. He isn't impacting things here. You show me he has and I will criticize right behind you.
-
It's a political ploy by the Dems.....it's worthless, their only doing for public support, the Pres has the ultimate decision!
-
Chicken feed. Whitewater investigation cost $50,000,000.00 with a finding of insufficient evidence against the Clintons. Now there is an outrageous waste of money and manpower.
And the money spent on Whitewater is chicken feed compared to the national debt.
Neither one has anything to do with this particular partisan witch hunt.
-
He isn't impacting things here.
The Attorney General of the US isn't "impacting" things?
Wow. Here I was, believing he was one of the most powerful men in the nation by virtue of his position. Thank goodness we have you to tell us he isn't "impacting" things.
-
The Attorney General of the US isn't "impacting" things?
Wow. Here I was, believing he was one of the most powerful men in the nation by virtue of his position. Thank goodness we have you to tell us he isn't "impacting" things.
Once again you fail to show anything because there is nothing. There are no stories of his "lying" affecting the US. Here is the thing, he had every right to fire those attorneys so he never should have been asked any questions in the first place. If it wasn't for a witch hunt we wouldn't even be talking about gonzalez. I didn't see people running around before this started complaining about him. He had no impact and there have been no stories prior to this that said he was impacting the US.
-
Once again you fail to show anything because there is nothing. There are no stories of his "lying" affecting the US. Here is the thing, he had every right to fire those attorneys so he never should have been asked any questions in the first place. If it wasn't for a witch hunt we wouldn't even be talking about gonzalez. I didn't see people running around before this started complaining about him. He had no impact and there have been no stories prior to this that said he was impacting the US.
I bet if he had fired a bunch of conservatives you wouldn't be singing the same tune.
-
Once again you fail to show anything because there is nothing. There are no stories of his "lying" affecting the US.
He had no impact and there have been no stories prior to this that said he was impacting the US.
Right. Because the White house and AG would be the FIRST to announce any security failings due to their forgetfulness?
Dude, they control the flow of info. You ever wonder why we've heard nothing but good news from them for 6 years? Because they release good news and classify bad news.
I guess I cannot understand why you, a fairly bright man, can actually believe the AG is an office which doesn't have much "impact". You should use WIKI and look at the man's duties an reponsibilities. He supervises a pretty important branch of the govt. You excuse what seems to be glaring incompetence... do you have such low standards in all aspects of your life? Or just those who keep us safe?
-
Right. Because the White house and AG would be the FIRST to announce any security failings due to their forgetfulness?
Dude, they control the flow of info. You ever wonder why we've heard nothing but good news from them for 6 years? Because they release good news and classify bad news.
I guess I cannot understand why you, a fairly bright man, can actually believe the AG is an office which doesn't have much "impact". You should use WIKI and look at the man's duties an reponsibilities. He supervises a pretty important branch of the govt. You excuse what seems to be glaring incompetence... do you have such low standards in all aspects of your life? Or just those who keep us safe?
Nothing shows he ever used a lie to impact the US. Until I see other wise I don't care. I would like to see him goen for other reasons however.
-
What is left to defend about Alberto Gonzalez?
16 democrats and 13 republicans have explicitely called for his resignation and many more have been critical of his tenure in office. Does this man have to commit murder right before your eyes before you clue in? :(
-
What is left to defend about Alberto Gonzalez?
16 democrats and 13 republicans have explicitely called for his resignation and many more have been critical of his tenure in office. Does this man have to commit murder right before your eyes before you clue in? :(
I'm not defending him, I think he is an idiot that needs to go and now. He should have said "I fired them, it was my right, now bite me with your questions". But he had to try and be weasly about it, so because of his lack of balls he needs to go. All I am saying is that if we never would have heard anything about him our lives would have went on just like they were and nothing ever would have changed. Again I want him gone, but for diferent reasons than you.
-
I'm not defending him, I think he is an idiot that needs to go and now. He should have said "I fired them, it was my right, now bite me with your questions". But he had to try and be weasly about it, so because of his lack of balls he needs to go. All I am saying is that if we never would have heard anything about him our lives would have went on just like they were and nothing ever would have changed. Again I want him gone, but for diferent reasons than you.
Cool. IMO, our great country should have great leaders. I just don't see Gonzales as a great leader, or even a mediocre leader. He's a poor leader who lied to Congress. He has a lot of power to allocate justice dept resources and control justice dept direction, objectives, and investigations. If he uses govt resources to his political advantage (as he did with the firings), then there is clear abuse going on in what SHOULD be a non-partisan entity, the justice dept.
-
Uh oh. The fat lady may be clearing her throat. Democrats may get their wish.
Several in GOP May Back No-Confidence Vote on Attorney General Alberto GonzalesSunday, May 20, 2007
WASHINGTON — The top Republican on the Senate committee investigating Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said Sunday he believes Gonzales could step down before a no-confidence vote sought this week by Senate Democrats.
Gonzales failed to draw a public statement of support from Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell. Asked whether Gonzales effectively can lead the Justice Department, McConnell said "that's for the president to decide." The senator suggested there may be several resolutions introduced to dilute a no-confidence vote.
"In the Senate, nobody gets a clear shot," said McConnell, R-Ky.
Yet Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter, the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said he believed a "sizable number" of GOP lawmakers would join Democrats in expressing their lack of confidence in the attorney general.
Five Republicans have urged Gonzales to resign over his firing of federal prosecutors, while several other Republicans have expressed criticism of his actions.
"Votes of no confidence are very rare," Specter said. "Historically, that is something which Attorney General Gonzales would like to avoid. I think that if and when he sees that coming, he would prefer to avoid that kind of a historical black mark."
White House Calls Upcoming Senate No-Confidence Vote for Attorney General 'Political Stunt' Senate Democrats Plan to Seek No-Confidence Vote on Attorney General Gonzales Republicans Wither Under Weight of Democratic Investigations The White House has called the upcoming vote a "political stunt" and said Gonzales retains President Bush's confidence.
Specter long has made it clear he believed the Justice Department no longer functioned well because of Gonzales' handling of the prosecutor firings and that as a result Gonzales would step down.
But Specter's comments Sunday raised the pressure on Gonzales and Bush, who has indicated Gonzales would not be leaving anytime soon.
Democratic Sens. Chuck Schumer of New York and Dianne Feinstein of California said they will seek a vote on a nonbinding resolution as early as this week to express what senators of both parties have said for weeks: that Gonzales has become too weakened to run the department.
Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said Gonzales was concentrating on doing his job. "As we work to ensure Congress has all the information it needs on this matter, the attorney general remains focused on the important work that the American people expect him to do," Roehrkasse said Sunday.
A no-confidence vote, though symbolic, probably would create trouble for Gonzales. Any attorney general needs to work with Congress on legislation, as well as nominees who require Senate confirmation. Gonzales would need to confirm a new deputy attorney general because his current one, Paul McNulty, is leaving over the firings of federal prosecutors.
Gonzales will be in Washington on Monday and part of Tuesday before heading to Europe, visiting counterparts in Hungary and Switzerland and then joining a conference of leading industrial nations Thursday in Germany. He will be back in Washington on Friday -- before the long Memorial Day weekend and a planned congressional vacation.
Specter and other senators said they were particularly troubled by testimony last week that Gonzales, when he was Bush's White House counsel, pressured then-Attorney General John Ashcroft to certify the legality of Bush's controversial eavesdropping program while Ashcroft was in intensive care.
In his testimony, former deputy attorney general James Comey said he thought the no-warrant program was questionable and violated the law. Gonzales and White House chief of staff Andy Card then headed to Ashcroft's sick bed at George Washington University Hospital in an unsuccessful bid to convince Ashcroft otherwise. The program was eventually certified after it was modified.
On Sunday, Schumer sent a letter to Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Cheney's chief of staff, David Addington, asking if they personally ordered Gonzales to Ashcroft's hospital room. When asked twice by reporters last week, Bush refused to answer.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, who is on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said he did not believe that Gonzales acted illegally. If Bush chooses to support Gonzales, then senators should work on passing legislation such as immigration reform rather than playing "gotcha" games, said Graham, R-S.C.
"I want to focus on that, rather than pass a resolution, that's never been done in the history of the Congress, to play 'gotcha' politics with the attorney general," he said.
Specter appeared on CBS' "Face the Nation," McConnell spoke on ABC's "This Week," and Graham was on "Fox News Sunday."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,274096,00.html
-
BB,
Do you have confidence in Gonzalez?
-
So basically you have nothing to show that he had had a negative impact on the US. That my friend is why I don't care about him. He isn't impacting things here. You show me he has and I will criticize right behind you.
It is manifestly evident that Gonzales is affecting how the government is run.
Gonzales has shown that he understands little about the US constitution.
He advised the president that FISA could be ignored and americans could be spied on without a warrant.
He doesn't understand the concept of 'habeus corpus' and advised the president that we can deny that right to anyone under the circumstances.
He authored a memo telling the president that the Geneva Convention Rules were "quaint" opening the door for torture in the name of the US.
He is politically maladroit. He completely mishandled the firings of US attornies creating a big deal where a more seasoned and capable man would have exercised better discretion.
He is a company man.
-
It is manifestly evident that Gonzales is affecting how the government is run.
Gonzales has shown that he understands little about the US constitution.
He advised the president that FISA could be ignored and americans could be spied on without a warrant.
He doesn't understand the concept of 'habeus corpus' and advised the president that we can deny that right to anyone under the circumstances.
He authored a memo telling the president that the Geneva Convention Rules were "quaint" opening the door for torture in the name of the US.
He is politically maladroit. He completely mishandled the firings of US attornies creating a big deal where a more seasoned and capable man would have exercised better discretion.
He is a company man.
What you fail to see is that I haven't defended him in any instance. I agree he needs to go. But if the Democrats hadn't wasted all this time on him we never would have heard about him and we all would have gone on with life like it was. They need to focus on more pertinent issues like coming up with a viable solution to immigration rather than this BS one they put forth last week.
-
What you fail to see is that I haven't defended him in any instance. I agree he needs to go. But if the Democrats hadn't wasted all this time on him we never would have heard about him and we all would have gone on with life like it was. They need to focus on more pertinent issues like coming up with a viable solution to immigration rather than this BS one they put forth last week.
Our government is "By and For the People."
In that vein, we want a transparent government. We want to know our servants in the government are competent.
"life like it was..."
For god's sake, the man (the top lawyer in the country) gave Bush a green light on torture, spying, forgoing the geneva convention rules...
That is not how the country operated before Bush/Gonzales.
He's got to go.
-
Our government is "By and For the People."
In that vein, we want a transparent government. We want to know our servants in the government are competent.
"life like it was..."
For god's sake, the man (the top lawyer in the country) gave Bush a green light on torture, spying, forgoing the geneva convention rules...
That is not how the country operated before Bush/Gonzales.
He's got to go.
This is the reason why Democrats manufactured this controversy. It was all the "other stuff" they were upset about. I bet the "no confidence" resolution, if they're able to pass one, focuses on the "torture memo," etc.
-
This is the reason why Democrats manufactured this controversy. It was all the "other stuff" they were upset about. I bet the "no confidence" resolution, if they're able to pass one, focuses on the "torture memo," etc.
Gonzale's immoral and subpar performance created this controversy. The democrats are just calling him on it since the republican party has dropped the ball on oversight for the past six years.
The president hasn't explained why he gives Gonzales his full support.
The atty. gen.'s judgment has been a disgrace. Torture, spying on americans, habeus corpus...come on. We can do a whole lot better than this yes-man.
It is a nice thing about our government that it can redress past errors.
-
sometimes you gotta bust the capones on tax evasion because they're insulated thru corrpution in the gangster arena.
sometimes you gotta bust the albertos on firings because he's insulated on the really dangerous stuff by the executive branch.
-
Gonzale's immoral and subpar performance created this controversy. The democrats are just calling him on it since the republican party has dropped the ball on oversight for the past six years.
The president hasn't explained why he gives Gonzales his full support.
The atty. gen.'s judgment has been a disgrace. Torture, spying on americans, habeus corpus...come on. We can do a whole lot better than this yes-man.
It is a nice thing about our government that it can redress past errors.
Actually, it's more like they invented a controversy to take down someone who has a different political philosophy. They are now trying to justify those absurd Congressional hearings and the waste of my money.
-
someone who has a different political philosophy.
His philosophy wipes its ass with the constitution and geneva.
if you are cool with this, you are the fvcking terrorist. now ya know.
-
Actually, it's more like they invented a controversy to take down someone who has a different political philosophy. They are now trying to justify those absurd Congressional hearings and the waste of my money.
Governmental spying on americans without a warrant is UnAmerican.
Torture is UnAmerican.
Those are not different political philosophies.
Gonzales advocates things wholly UnAmerican.
I say it's about damn time someone does something about this man.
-
His philosophy wipes its ass with the constitution and geneva.
if you are cool with this, you are the fvcking terrorist. now ya know.
You should thank Decker for giving you something to Parrot on this thread because you didn't mention any of this until he did.
-
Governmental spying on americans without a warrant is UnAmerican.
Torture is UnAmerican.
Those are not different political philosophies.
Gonzales advocates things wholly UnAmerican.
I say it's about damn time someone does something about this man.
Decker you're just confirming that this investigation and hearings had nothing to do with Gonzales firing these U.S. Attorneys.
-
Decker you're just confirming that this investigation and hearings had nothing to do with Gonzales firing these U.S. Attorneys.
No, I'm pointing out that this man is not and has never been fit for his job. The attorney firing scandal concerns improper political pressure as the impetus for firing attornies working in a non-partisan position: Congress is trying to determine if the firings are politically motivated.
That's a rather serious allegation. Is it illegal? Probably not. Those perpetrating the act are impeachable though.
Gonzales has been shown to make inconsistent and contradictory statements to Congress. Now that can still be construed as a crime.
The larger issue is that something is wrong with the Justice Department and the head of that department has been evasive and contradictory regarding the operations of his own department.
Is that the type of behavior we want from the Nation's top lawyer?
-
No, I'm pointing out that this man is not and has never been fit for his job. The attorney firing scandal concerns improper political pressure as the impetus for firing attornies working in a non-partisan position: Congress is trying to determine if the firings are politically motivated.
That's a rather serious allegation. Is it illegal? Probably not. Those perpetrating the act are impeachable though.
Gonzales has been shown to make inconsistent and contradictory statements to Congress. Now that can still be construed as a crime.
The larger issue is that something is wrong with the Justice Department and the head of that department has been evasive and contradictory regarding the operations of his own department.
Is that the type of behavior we want from the Nation's top lawyer?
What behavior? These hearings were about investigating a crime. Where is the evidence of this crime? This other stuff is completely irrelevant to whether or not he committed a crime. They struck out and are using this as a vehicle to hang the man for all of his prior political disagreements. I'm just appalled at what I see is an abuse of Congressional authority and a waste of my money.
I had lunch with several of my liberal colleagues right after the Senate hearings and when I brought up the fact that there was no evidence of any wrongdoing, all they talked about was the "torture memo," "habeas corpus," etc. Nothing about whether or not he fired U.S. Attorneys in violation of the law. This is an attempt to divert attention away from the fact that the hearings were a farce.
I wouldn't be as bothered if they convened these hearings to assess whether or not the AG is effective, etc. But they didn't. Completely disingenuous on their part.
-
What behavior? These hearings were about investigating a crime. Where is the evidence of this crime? This other stuff is completely irrelevant to whether or not he committed a crime. They struck out and are using this as a vehicle to hang the man for all of his prior political disagreements. I'm just appalled at what I see is an abuse of Congressional authority and a waste of my money.
I had lunch with several of my liberal colleagues right after the Senate hearings and when I brought up the fact that there was no evidence of any wrongdoing, all they talked about was the "torture memo," "habeas corpus," etc. Nothing about whether or not he fired U.S. Attorneys in violation of the law. This is an attempt to divert attention away from the fact that the hearings were a farce.
I wouldn't be as bothered if they convened these hearings to assess whether or not the AG is effective, etc. But they didn't. Completely disingenuous on their part.
Congress has the constitutional right to investigate governmental matters.
Now I know that Congress' oversight powers were inert under the Republican majority for almost 7 years, but Congress has the authority and right to look into whatever the hell it wants to concerning the executive branch and any federal agency.
You find the current investigation a waste of time. That's your right to hold that opinion. Congress would and does disagree with you
Congress does not have to have a finding of criminal liability to investigate someone. It can simply claim 'no faith' in the person/department and from there it starts.
Congress sensed that something is rotten in Denmark and Gonzales' testimony, wrought with evasions, contradictions, and omissions, certainly did not help dispel that notion.
-
You should thank Decker for giving you something to Parrot on this thread because you didn't mention any of this until he did.
so you accept his point as valid?
I see you've moved on to insulting my knowledge of the matter. Once a debater starts insulting the messenger, not the message, we usually see he's shooting blanks.
-
Congress has the constitutional right to investigate governmental matters.
Now I know that Congress' oversight powers were inert under the Republican majority for almost 7 years, but Congress has the authority and right to look into whatever the hell it wants to concerning the executive branch and any federal agency.
You find the current investigation a waste of time. That's your right to hold that opinion. Congress would and does disagree with you
Congress does not have to have a finding of criminal liability to investigate someone. It can simply claim 'no faith' in the person/department and from there it starts.
Congress sensed that something is rotten in Denmark and Gonzales' testimony, wrought with evasions, contradictions, and omissions, certainly did not help dispel that notion.
I don't have an issue with right of Congress to hold hearings. That isn't the issue. It's the fact they accused Gonzales of breaking the law, hired one of the most expensive law firms in the country to investigate these allegations, conducted hearings to investigate these allegations, found nothing, and are now moving the goal posts and attempting to force the man to quit over issues that have nothing to do with whether or not he broke the law. This is by and large a partisan political attack.
-
I don't have an issue with right of Congress to hold hearings. That isn't the issue. It's the fact they accused Gonzales of breaking the law, hired one of the most expensive law firms in the country to investigate these allegations, conducted hearings to investigate these allegations, found nothing, and are now moving the goal posts and attempting to force the man to quit over issues that have nothing to do with whether or not he broke the law. This is by and large a partisan political attack.
Beach, seriously... have you listened to any of the people who were fired?
I was listening to one guy, from New Mexico I think... and he point blank said he was fired because he wouldn't "play ball". He was told to stop looking at certain things, and when he said "I pledge to uphold the constitution", they canned him.
Seriously... This is not just about what Congress is "saying", this is about what has truly happened to people. You're going to believe Gonzo over how many other people?
The guy fired them based on them not playing ball, and that is wrong.
-
I don't have an issue with right of Congress to hold hearings. That isn't the issue. It's the fact they accused Gonzales of breaking the law, hired one of the most expensive law firms in the country to investigate these allegations, conducted hearings to investigate these allegations, found nothing, and are now moving the goal posts and attempting to force the man to quit over issues that have nothing to do with whether or not he broke the law. This is by and large a partisan political attack.
Yes it is a partisan attack by the democrats b/c the Republicans have abdicated its oversight powers.
If it's a fishing expedition, why is Gonzales lying about his recall?
Either he's lying or covering something up or he's a blithering idiot.
-
Beach, seriously... have you listened to any of the people who were fired?
I was listening to one guy, from New Mexico I think... and he point blank said he was fired because he wouldn't "play ball". He was told to stop looking at certain things, and when he said "I pledge to uphold the constitution", they canned him.
Seriously... This is not just about what Congress is "saying", this is about what has truly happened to people. You're going to believe Gonzo over how many other people?
The guy fired them based on them not playing ball, and that is wrong.
I believe they were fired because they didn't "play ball." They are political appointees and at-will employees. They can be fired because their breath stinks. Obviously someone in the Administration didn't like these guys. These guys are routinely fired because they belong to the wrong party. That isn't news. The only issue, IMO, is whether or not they were fired to interfere with legitimate criminal investigations.
Who is the guy who said he was told "to stop looking at certain things"? That didn't come up at either hearing.
-
Yes it is a partisan attack by the democrats b/c the Republicans have abdicated its oversight powers.
If it's a fishing expedition, why is Gonzales lying about his recall?
Either he's lying or covering something up or he's a blithering idiot.
How do you know he's lying? Did you watch the hearings?
What is he covering up?
-
How do you know he's lying? Did you watch the hearings?
What is he covering up?
An omission can still be characterized as a lie. He answered over 70 questions pertaining to occurence facts and DOL procedure with: "I don't know." He made public statements contradicted by subsequently released e-mails. His former chief of staff used the "I don't know" response over 120 times.
I read the transcripts.
I don't know what he's covering up yet.
One thing is eminently clear: He has the mental recall of a mentally impaired individual.
Maybe he's covering up the extent of how high in the executive food chain from where these ordered firings came?
Ex-aide: Gonzales signed off on attorney firings http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17852146/
Why the contradictions?
That's why we need more witnesses and more testimony.
Here's an open letter to the Atty. Gen. from some of his peers: http://farm1.static.flickr.com/224/500143050_91de3a7f03_o.gif
Beach Bum, I think you know that the man has been less than forthright in responding to Congressional questions. The Republicans even eviscerated the man b/c his answers were too subpar.
"He did not distinguish himself in the hearing," said Rep. Adam Putnam, House GOP conference chairman. "There remains a cloud over the department."
Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Oklahoma, said Gonzales should resign
On Friday, another Republican, Sen Jeff Sessions of Alabama, told CNN that Gonzales should consider leaving office.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/04/20/gonzales/
-
1. I suppose if I were going to look at this a bit more I would start with the change of procedure for hiring/firing attorneys found in the Patriot Act.
Why was that included?
2. Were the dismissals normal?
No, presidents routinely dismiss prior administration's appointments. But the attorneys fired were the president's own people. That's really out of line with the character the Bush administration.
3. Why did DOJ officials have such a tough time recounting basic substantive/procedural facts with respect to the firings? Why the contradictions about which person authorized what?
4. Why were the attorneys fired? Hadn't they all received very good job reports? Why was there testimony that they were fired for performance related issues?
5. Here in the great state of Wisconsin, Atty Biskupic (on the list of 'to be fired') filed charges and earned a conviction of a democratic campaign worker at the height of the election cycle where WI gubernatorial and state senate seats were up for grabs. Upon appeal the case was dismissed outright instead of the grant of a retrial.
6. Does loyalty affect the workings of Justice? Does loyalty trump prosecutorial independence?
Note that decisions to disrupt elections and voting rights, and decisions to derail investigations into Republicans, are flatly illegal. The first is fraud, the second is obstruction of justice, and both are felony crimes
Stay tuned!
We will find out.
-
so you accept his point as valid?
I see you've moved on to insulting my knowledge of the matter. Once a debater starts insulting the messenger, not the message, we usually see he's shooting blanks.
Nice try. I am pointing out that you never have anything to say unless you are parroting someone else, fine with me it just shows your lack of maturity. As far as debating Decker on the ideas of torture, habeus corpus etc. we have already had that debate and have agreed to disagree.
-
Nice try. I am pointing out that you never have anything to say unless you are parroting someone else, fine with me it just shows your lack of maturity. As far as debating Decker on the ideas of torture, habeus corpus etc. we have already had that debate and have agreed to disagree.
How unfortunate.
Support of torture and denial of habeus corpus are not part of US traditions and history: The very essence of conservatism.
If those things are not part of conservatism, they must be different...radical one might say.
I know you 'agree to disagree' but you are a thoughtful fellow and I ask that you reconsider your position.
-
I believe they were fired because they didn't "play ball." They are political appointees and at-will employees. They can be fired because their breath stinks. Obviously someone in the Administration didn't like these guys. These guys are routinely fired because they belong to the wrong party. That isn't news. The only issue, IMO, is whether or not they were fired to interfere with legitimate criminal investigations.
Who is the guy who said he was told "to stop looking at certain things"? That didn't come up at either hearing.
The guy from New Mexico was a REPUBLICAN... He told them he wouldn't play ball when it came to stopping an investigation... They fired him.
What does that say about Gonzo now?
-
How unfortunate.
Support of torture and denial of habeus corpus are not part of US traditions and history: The very essence of conservatism.
If those things are not part of conservatism, they must be different...radical one might say.
I know you 'agree to disagree' but you are a thoughtful fellow and I ask that you reconsider your position.
again I'm not supporting Gonzalez. When I speak of torture, I mean we have different Ideas as what constitutes torture. Habeus corpus is a big deal but I don't feel it should apply to non-us citizens. I don't recall your Geneva convention claims
-
I don't know what he's covering up yet.
. . .
Beach Bum, I think you know that the man has been less than forthright in responding to Congressional questions. The Republicans even eviscerated the man b/c his answers were too subpar.
Neither does Congress. :)
Man I don't know anything about what he may be covering up. He was criticized by some Republicans because he is a lousy witness. Big deal. Wake me when there are credible allegations of illegality.
-
The guy from New Mexico was a REPUBLICAN... He told them he wouldn't play ball when it came to stopping an investigation... They fired him.
What does that say about Gonzo now?
I think they're all Republican (or at least the overwhelming majority of them).
Tu are you sure about this? I didn't hear about any of this at the hearing. What you're describing sounds like a crime to me. Proof?
-
I think they're all Republican (or at least the overwhelming majority of them).
Tu are you sure about this? I didn't hear about any of this at the hearing. What you're describing sounds like a crime to me. Proof?
I watched an episode of Bill Maher and the guy from New Mexico was on there and that's what he said... It was a few weeks back... I'm not going to be able to quote what he said, I'll be honest about that, but when I finished listening to him, it sure sounded like a crime was committed to me.
-
I watched an episode of Bill Maher and the guy from New Mexico was on there and that's what he said... It was a few weeks back... I'm not going to be able to quote what he said, I'll be honest about that, but when I finished listening to him, it sure sounded like a crime was committed to me.
Fair enough. But I have to think that if a crime was committed that Congress would have jumped all over it. There wasn't so much as an accusation at the hearings.
-
Fair enough. But I have to think that if a crime was committed that Congress would have jumped all over it. There wasn't so much as an accusation at the hearings.
Which is what really gets me about the whole thing... I mean, when I listened to it, it sounded so damn shifty I didn't know what to think, but then, boom, nothing during the hearings.
I dunno... seems odd, that's all I know.
-
Bush calls Gonzales no-confidence vote 'political theater'
POSTED: 4:16 p.m. EDT, May 21, 2007
Story Highlights• President Bush Monday said that Attorney General Gonzales has his support
• The president says the Gonzales "has done nothing wrong"
• Democrats planning a symbolic no-confidence vote in the Senate
• Republican Sen. Arlen Specter speculated that Gonzales would resign before vote
Adjust font size:
CRAWFORD, Texas (AP) -- President Bush insisted on Monday that embattled Attorney General Alberto Gonzales still has his support and denounced Democratic plans for a no-confidence vote as "pure political theater."
"He has done nothing wrong," Bush said in an impassioned defense of his longtime friend and adviser during a news conference at his Texas ranch.
Despite Bush's comments, support for Gonzales is eroding, even in the president's own party. The Senate is prepared to hold a no-confidence vote, possibly by week's end, and five Republican senators have joined many Democrats in calling for Gonzales' resignation.
The attorney general is under investigation by Congress in last year's firing of eight federal prosecutors.
The president told the Democrats to get back to more pressing matters.
"I stand by Al Gonzales, and I would hope that people would be more sober in how they address these important issues," Bush said. "And they ought to get the job done of passing legislation, as opposed to figuring out how to be actors on the political theater stage."
Still, Bush did not directly answer a question about whether he intended to keep Gonzales in office through the end of his presidency regardless of what the Senate does.
Gonzales does not necessarily need Congress' support to continue serving. But Bush and Gonzales are under increasing pressure as more lawmakers demand the attorney general's departure.
. . .
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/21/bush.gonzales.ap/index.html
-
Bush calls Gonzales no-confidence vote 'political theater'
POSTED: 4:16 p.m. EDT, May 21, 2007
Story Highlights• President Bush Monday said that Attorney General Gonzales has his support
• The president says the Gonzales "has done nothing wrong"
Honestly, what would you expect from a P.O.S. war criminal president with approval ratings in the 20's?
-
Honestly, what would you expect from a P.O.S. war criminal president with approval ratings in the 20's?
::)....like I said, the dems can say or vote on whatever they want on this issue, it doesn't mean crap, they have no say so on this and they know it, Bush is right, it is political theater and by the way, congresses approval ratings are lower than Bush's......what does that tell you??
-
::)....like I said, the dems can say or vote on whatever they want on this issue, it doesn't mean crap, they have no say so on this and they know it, Bush is right, it is political theater and by the way, congresses approval ratings are lower than Bush's......what does that tell you??
You mean Gonzales is not the anti-Christ? :)
-
::)....like I said, the dems can say or vote on whatever they want on this issue, it doesn't mean crap, they have no say so on this and they know it, Bush is right, it is political theater and by the way, congresses approval ratings are lower than Bush's......what does that tell you??
If the Democrats had no say in the matter, there would be no investigation.
But there is an ongoing investigation which is receiving bi-partisan support.
-
If the Democrats had no say in the matter, there would be no investigation.
But there is an ongoing investigation which is receiving bi-partisan support.
Republicans are only "supporting" it to stop this fool from ruining their election hopes. They know it started as a witch hunt, but now he HAS to go
-
Republicans are only "supporting" it to stop this fool from ruining their election hopes. They know it started as a witch hunt, but now he HAS to go
Considering the the AG's pathetic testimony and his questionable interpretation of the Constitution re Unified Executive Power, I would say that the investigation into his job performance/competency in the handling the firings was merited.
Let's face it, either Gonzales is uninformed as to how his own department operates or he is an incompetent. Neither bodes well for position of Atty Gen of the US.
We cannot condone incompetence and/or prevarication at such an important position.
-
Considering the the AG's pathetic testimony and his questionable interpretation of the Constitution re Unified Executive Power, I would say that the investigation into his job performance/competency in the handling the firings was merited.
Let's face it, either Gonzales is uniformed as to how his own department operates or he is an incompetent. Neither bodes well for position of Atty Gen of the US.
We cannot condone incompetence and/or prevarication at such an important position.
What the hell, I'll say it for the fith time, I don't condone anything he did. And that's all I have to say about that
-
What the hell, I'll say it for the fith time, I don't condone anything he did. And that's all I have to say about that
Part of the effort to influence people through debate involves repitition. Sorry about harping on the point.
-
Part of the effort to influence people through debate involves repitition. Sorry about harping on the point.
lol, are you trying to influence me?
-
lol, are you trying to influence me?
To quote the great Captain Kirk, "In every revolution, there's one man with a vision.
Be that one man!"
So yes, I am trying to influence you. What you think is important to me.