Republican urges Bush to fire Gonzales

[ieffinhatecardio]

Well, that's one Republican who's calling for the Attorney General's ousting. I hope others will follow suit.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/15/AR2007031500708.html

By Thomas Ferraro
Reuters
Thursday, March 15, 2007; 9:37 AM

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush voiced lukewarm confidence in Attorney General Alberto Gonzales on Wednesday, shortly before a conservative lawmaker became the first Republican in Congress to urge Bush to fire him.

Gonzales appeared to be battling for survival as the nation's highest law enforcement officer amid a mounting political firestorm over his Justice Department's dismissal of eight U.S. federal prosecutors.

"I do have confidence in Attorney General Al Gonzales," Bush said, but he added that Gonzales needed to go to Capitol Hill to answer questions and ease concerns.

"I'm frankly not happy about" how the U.S. attorneys' firings were handled, Bush told a news conference with Mexican President Felipe Calderon in Merida, Mexico.

The Justice Department has said the U.S. attorneys were fired last year largely because of policy differences or performance problems. But critics charge it appears that they may have been ousted for political reasons.

Republican Sen. John Sununu of New Hampshire called for Gonzales' dismissal. He complained about the attorney general's handling of the firings as well as his earlier dealings with Congress on anti-terror efforts.

"The president should fire the attorney general and replace him as soon as possible with someone who can provide strong, aggressive leadership," Sununu said in a statement.

Gonzales' chief of staff, Kyle Sampson, resigned this week after acknowledging he had not told other department officials about the extent of his communications with the White House about firing the prosecutors.

With the Democratic-led Congress investigating, Bush said he had discussed the matter with Gonzales earlier in the day.

'MISHANDLED'

Bush noted he had a right to remove U.S. attorneys and had heard complaints about some of them that he had passed along to Gonzales. But he said he did not tell Gonzales who should be fired, although he believed the sackings were justified.

"Yet this issue was mishandled to the point, now, where you're asking me questions about it in Mexico," Bush said.

Several Democrats in Congress have called on Gonzales to resign. A number of Republicans have voiced concerns, but Sununu was the first on Capitol Hill to call for him to be replaced.

Gonzales appeared on morning TV shows where he said he was working to make sure Congress receives the information it needs, and brushed off calls to step aside.

"I serve at the pleasure of the president of the United States. That's a decision for the president to make," Gonzales told Fox News.

Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer of New York accused Bush and Gonzales of having failed to respond adequately to the matter. "When it's possible the law was broken, admitting mistakes, but not doing anything about it, does not cut it," Schumer said.

"We need a full accounting from the White House as to what went on here, the resignation of the attorney general, and a clarification from the president of his role," Schumer said.

Two former prosecutors charge they received improper calls from Republican lawmakers or staff shortly before being fired If it is determined it amounted to interference with a federal investigation, it would be a violation of law.

[militarymuscle69]

Well, that's one Republican who's calling for the Attorney General's ousting. I hope others will follow suit.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/15/AR2007031500708.html

By Thomas Ferraro
Reuters
Thursday, March 15, 2007; 9:37 AM

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush voiced lukewarm confidence in Attorney General Alberto Gonzales on Wednesday, shortly before a conservative lawmaker became the first Republican in Congress to urge Bush to fire him.

Gonzales appeared to be battling for survival as the nation's highest law enforcement officer amid a mounting political firestorm over his Justice Department's dismissal of eight U.S. federal prosecutors.

"I do have confidence in Attorney General Al Gonzales," Bush said, but he added that Gonzales needed to go to Capitol Hill to answer questions and ease concerns.

"I'm frankly not happy about" how the U.S. attorneys' firings were handled, Bush told a news conference with Mexican President Felipe Calderon in Merida, Mexico.

The Justice Department has said the U.S. attorneys were fired last year largely because of policy differences or performance problems. But critics charge it appears that they may have been ousted for political reasons.

Republican Sen. John Sununu of New Hampshire called for Gonzales' dismissal. He complained about the attorney general's handling of the firings as well as his earlier dealings with Congress on anti-terror efforts.

"The president should fire the attorney general and replace him as soon as possible with someone who can provide strong, aggressive leadership," Sununu said in a statement.

Gonzales' chief of staff, Kyle Sampson, resigned this week after acknowledging he had not told other department officials about the extent of his communications with the White House about firing the prosecutors.

With the Democratic-led Congress investigating, Bush said he had discussed the matter with Gonzales earlier in the day.

'MISHANDLED'

Bush noted he had a right to remove U.S. attorneys and had heard complaints about some of them that he had passed along to Gonzales. But he said he did not tell Gonzales who should be fired, although he believed the sackings were justified.

"Yet this issue was mishandled to the point, now, where you're asking me questions about it in Mexico," Bush said.

Several Democrats in Congress have called on Gonzales to resign. A number of Republicans have voiced concerns, but Sununu was the first on Capitol Hill to call for him to be replaced.

Gonzales appeared on morning TV shows where he said he was working to make sure Congress receives the information it needs, and brushed off calls to step aside.

"I serve at the pleasure of the president of the United States. That's a decision for the president to make," Gonzales told Fox News.

Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer of New York accused Bush and Gonzales of having failed to respond adequately to the matter. "When it's possible the law was broken, admitting mistakes, but not doing anything about it, does not cut it," Schumer said.

"We need a full accounting from the White House as to what went on here, the resignation of the attorney general, and a clarification from the president of his role," Schumer said.

Two former prosecutors charge they received improper calls from Republican lawmakers or staff shortly before being fired If it is determined it amounted to interference with a federal investigation, it would be a violation of law.

Gonzalez did nothing wrong

[ieffinhatecardio]

Gonzalez did nothing wrong

How do you know that? BTW, he has admitted to lying to Congress.

[OzmO]

Is it just me or are we all forgetting Reno Fired 92 of them in 1993?

[ieffinhatecardio]

Is it just me or are we all forgetting Reno Fired 92 of them in 1993?

I don't remember the circumstances under which those firings took place but it's safe to say there was no Patriot Act or War involved in the firing decisions.

[militarymuscle69]

Is it just me or are we all forgetting Reno Fired 92 of them in 1993?

it wa 93 of them, even your facts have no facts

[OzmO]

it wa 93 of them, even your facts have no facts

Getting desperate aren't you?

Pathetic.

[militarymuscle69]

Getting desperate aren't you?

Pathetic.

Just waiting for you to contribute am accurate fact

[OzmO]

Just waiting for you to contribute am accurate fact

No, what you were doing was an act of desperation.

Speaks very loudly 


pathetic.

[militarymuscle69]

No, what you were doing was an act of desperation.

Speaks very loudly 


pathetic.

No seriously....produce one fact

[OzmO]

No seriously....produce one fact

 

[militarymuscle69]

thanks again for proving another point

[OzmO]

thanks again for proving another point

[240 is Back]

Gonzales Lied Under Oath, Said All Bush-Appointed Attorneys Would Be ‘Senate-Confirmed’

In his own words!

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/03/13/gonzales-lies/

[ribonucleic]

<< If Dick Cheney was capable of regret, he just might be regretting telling Senator Patrick Leahy to “go fuck yourself” in 2004.

Leahy’s got a stack of subpoenas on his desk, and they’re all going to DoJ and the White House. Not for wars or torture or illegal spying or secret prisons or anything serious, obviously, but that’s how these scumbags are finally taken out — Al Capone for back taxes, Nixon for a “two-bit failed burglary,” Hitler for buying a pirated “Baby Einstein” DVD, etc.

Speaking of Nixon, the old crook’s beloved White House counsel is doing what he does best: trying to protect a bunch of criminals in the White House. Fred Fielding is threatening to “not allow” the big fish to testify. Leahy snarled that he’d have them all tasered: “Frankly, I don’t care whether he says he’s going to allow people or not. We’ll subpoena the people we want. If they want to defy the subpoena, then you get into a stonewall situation I suspect they don’t want to have.” >>

http://wonkette.com/politics/white-house/patrick-leahy-has-a-looooong-memory-244489.php

commenting on this story...

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/15/fired.attorneys/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

[Dos Equis]

Is it just me or are we all forgetting Reno Fired 92 of them in 1993?

Like every other Prez/AG when a new party takes over.  There is always a purging when a new party takes over.  U.S. Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president.

[Camel Jockey]

Why doesn't that mexican do something about our border situation?

[ribonucleic]

Like every other Prez/AG when a new party takes over.  There is always a purging when a new party takes over.  U.S. Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president.

But when you lie to Congress about doing it, that's a felony. 

And since you guys love bringing the Clintons into everything: remember how upset you were when Clinton lied about his blowjob? 

[militarymuscle69]

But when you lie to Congress about doing it, that's a felony. 

And since you guys love bringing the Clintons into everything: remember how upset you were when Clinton lied about his blowjob? 

Who was mad about that. I just wanted him to be man enough to admit it. More power to him for getting it

[Dos Equis]

But when you lie to Congress about doing it, that's a felony. 

And since you guys love bringing the Clintons into everything: remember how upset you were when Clinton lied about his blowjob? 

O Rly?  Just how upset was I Ribo? 

[ribonucleic]

O Rly?  Just how upset was I Ribo? 

Oh, you didn't think Clinton should have been impeached? 

[militarymuscle69]

Oh, you didn't think Clinton should have been impeached? 

no

[Dos Equis]

Oh, you didn't think Clinton should have been impeached? 

No.  And the fact I voted for him twice has nothing to do with that opinion.    

He lied under oath, but it wasn't perjury IMO, because the lie was not "material."  Whether or not he had consensual sex with Lewinsky was completely irrelevant to whether or not he violated Paul Jones' civil rights.  I was astounded that the Starr report did not even address this.  

The entire process was a complete waste of my tax dollars.  There should never be a partisan impeachment of the president, regardless of party.  I was not happy.  

THAT SAID, I do believe he lost his moral authority to lead, in particular to be Commander in Chief (because adultery is a crime in the military), and he should have done the honorable thing and resigned.    

[Al-Gebra]

THAT SAID, I do believe he lost his moral authority to lead, in particular to be Commander in Chief (because adultery is a crime in the military), and he should have done the honorable thing and resigned.   

if we start looking for leaders w moral authority . . .

politics is a dirty business, and by the time you get to the top (bottom?), all the moral authority seems to be leached out.

Reagan had Patti Davis.  Dubya has his twins.  If you can't run your own household, should you be able to run a country?

In reagan's case, the jury's in . . . and the answer is Yes.

[Dos Equis]

if we start looking for leaders w moral authority . . .

politics is a dirty business, and by the time you get to the top (bottom?), all the moral authority seems to be leached out.

Reagan had Patti Davis.  Dubya has his twins.  If you can't run your own household, should you be able to run a country?

In reagan's case, the jury's in . . . and the answer is Yes.

Legitimate questions.  If a man cannot run his own household I have doubts about whether he can run the country.  I don't believe divorce shows an inability to run a household BTW.

But re Clinton:  I don't think you can be an effective leader of an organization when you engage in conduct that your subordinates can be imprisoned over.