Gonzales Lied: Documents show Gonzales approved firings

[Hugo Chavez]

Gonzales Lied: Documents show Gonzales approved firings
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070324/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/fired_prosecutors


GONZALES: As we can all imagine, in an organization of 110,000 people, I am not aware of every bit of information that passes through the halls of the Department of Justice, nor am I aware of all decisions.

As a general matter, some two years ago, I was made aware that there was a request from the White House as to the possibility of replacing all the United States attorneys.

That was immediately rejected by me. I felt that that was a bad idea and it was disruptive.

GONZALES: What I know is that there began a process of evaluating strong performers, not as strong performers and weak performers. And so, as far as I knew, my chief of staff was involved in the process of determining who were the weak performers; where were the districts around the country where we could do better for the people in that district.

And that's what I knew.

But, again, with respect to this whole process, like every CEO, I am ultimately accountable and responsible for what happens within the department.

But that is, in essence, what I knew about the process. I was not involved in seeing any memos, was not involved in any discussions about what was going on. That's basically what I knew as the attorney general.

GONZALES: I just described the extent of the knowledge I had about the process. I never saw documents. We never had a discussion about where things stood.

What I knew was that there was an ongoing effort that was led by Mr. Sampson vetted through the Department of Justice to ascertain where we could make improvements in U.S. attorney performances around the country.

[Hugo Chavez]

OH SNAP... This will be the end of GONZALES

BBBYE BYE

[240 is Back]

He lied.

Top attorney in the land lied.

What else is there to say?  No American should tolerate liars in office.

Every one of us should be demanding his resignation.  To keep him in office shows you have low standards and expectations from your leaders.  If any of us were to lie like this, we'd be fired.

[Hugo Chavez]

but.... but but............... Clinton clinton.... ..... ... CLINTON... clintonclintonclinton... . CLINTON!!!!

[ribonucleic]

but.... but but............... Clinton clinton.... ..... ... CLINTON... clintonclintonclinton... . CLINTON!!!!

5-Step Spin Program [to be followed in sequence]

1. That's your own interpretation of what "involved" means!

2. His memory was fuzzy!

3. Lying to reporters isn't a crime!

4. Clinton got a blowjob!

5. The Ayatollah is beheading American soldiers! We must nuke Iran now!

[OzmO]

Clinton got a hummer.   

[ribonucleic]

C'mon Bum... don't hold out...

We're waiting for that "YAWN!"

LOL

[240 is Back]

Integrity and standards... yawn.



Come on Bum, you can do it!

[Dos Equis]

By popular demand:  YAWN.     Is this it??  I don't condone lying, but I have not seen the smoking gun yet.

Where is the alleged perjury? 

[Hugo Chavez]

By popular demand:  YAWN.     Is this it??  I don't condone lying, but I have not seen the smoking gun yet.

Where is the alleged perjury? 

Is this it? DID you just say that??? Are you going to pretend that if this wasn't a dem, he wouldn't be cruisified over this?  Ah... BWAHAHAhahhahhahahhahhaa hhhahaa

[Dos Equis]

Is this it? DID you just say that??? Are you going to pretend that if this wasn't a dem, he wouldn't be cruisified over this?  Ah... BWAHAHAhahhahhahahhahhaa hhhahaa

You mean the way I didn't support millions spent on the Clinton lie?  And my opposition to the Whitewater investigations?  The Hillary $10,000 investment?  They are both Democrats BTW.    

The first problem I see is no underlying crime (similar to Scooter Libby).  At least not so far.  The second is I have not read the specific lie to Congress that constitutes "perjury."  I doubt the January 2006 statement about "political firings" amounts to anything.  The third is I haven't heard what Gonzalez has to say about these e-mail messages that claim to show he actually approved firings when he said he didn't. 

What I've seen in certain parts of the press and on this board is people coming to a very quick conclusion and then looking for any facts to support their conclusion.  I'm very cynical about partisan witch hunts.  I don't blame the president one bit for being cynical as well.

Also, the fact Antonio's chief of staff resigned so quickly tells me there may have been some stuff going that Gonzalez was not necessarily involved with.  There is a lot of paper that goes out of my office under my name that I don't necessarily have firsthand involvement with.  But I'm still responsible.  And so is Gonzalez if it turns out some crime was committed by anyone on his staff under the guise of Antonio's authority.   

[tu_holmes]

You mean the way I didn't support millions spent on the Clinton lie?  And my opposition to the Whitewater investigations?  The Hillary $10,000 investment?  They are both Democrats BTW.    

The first problem I see is no underlying crime (similar to Scooter Libby).  At least not so far.  The second is I have not read the specific lie to Congress that constitutes "perjury."  I doubt think the January 2006 statement about "political firings" amount to anything.  The third is I haven't heard what Gonzalez has to say about these e-mail messages that claim to show he actually approved firings when he said he didn't. 

What I've seen in certain parts of the press and on this board is people coming to a very quick conclusion and then looking for any facts to support their conclusion.  I'm very cynical about partisan witch hunts.  I don't blame the president one bit for being cynical as well.

Also, the fact Antonio's chief of staff resigned so quickly tells me there may have been some stuff going that Gonzalez was not necessarily involved with.  There is a lot of paper that goes out of my office under my name that I don't necessarily have firsthand involvement with.  But I'm still responsible.  And so is Gonzalez if it turns out some crime was committed by anyone on his staff under the guise of Antonio's authority.   

I'll be honest... I'm not really sure what the crime is either... I mean... Is firing someone wrong now? I'm confused by the real issue.

Now, if you want to bash Al on other stuff. ie his stance on "coercion", I'm ok with that... I'm just not exactly sure what the issue is in this whole point.

Is it that he lied to congress? Well, hell, My boy Bill did that and I sure didn't give a crap.

So can someone lay this out for me a little  better? I admit, I'm only following it sporadically.

[Dos Equis]

I'll be honest... I'm not really sure what the crime is either... I mean... Is firing someone wrong now? I'm confused by the real issue.

Now, if you want to bash Al on other stuff. ie his stance on "coercion", I'm ok with that... I'm just not exactly sure what the issue is in this whole point.

Is it that he lied to congress? Well, hell, My boy Bill did that and I sure didn't give a crap.

So can someone lay this out for me a little  better? I admit, I'm only following it sporadically.

Thank you.  That's what I've been trying to determine as well.  There are a lot of allegations:  Gonzalez lied to Congress, U.S. Attorneys were fired to prevent criminal investigations of Republicans, etc. 

These U.S. Attorneys are the equivalent of at-will employees.  They serve at the pleasure of the president.  Nothing wrong at all with firing them because they are not "good soldiers" and toeing the party line, so long as the firings were not done to impede a legitimate criminal investigation.  That's the real issue IMO. 

[tu_holmes]

Thank you.  That's what I've been trying to determine as well.  There are a lot of allegations:  Gonzalez lied to Congress, U.S. Attorneys were fired to prevent criminal investigations of Republicans, etc. 

These U.S. Attorneys are the equivalent of at-will employees.  They serve at the pleasure of the president.  Nothing wrong at all with firing them because they are not "good soldiers" and toeing the party line, so long as the firings were not done to impede a legitimate criminal investigation.  That's the real issue IMO. 

I mean, that's normal right... Don't Attorneys get fired all the time when the man up top changes? Isn't that normal?

That's why our Judicial branch is not at the behest of any person... They are ultimately for life and have no one to answer to once they are confirmed... Seems like it works out the way it's supposed to.

I agree with your other point as well... did he try to stop some investigation by using his power and firing these guys... if not... I don't see what the real issue is.

If it's about a lie to congress... I wish someone would tell me when I can have a trial for when congress lies to me... which they do all the time.

I just don't get this one guys... and I'm a socially liberal guy... I just don't see this one.

Sorry blue states... I know I'm letting you down, but I can't help it.

[Mr. Intenseone]

Gonzales Lied: Documents show Gonzales approved firings
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070324/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/fired_prosecutors


GONZALES: As we can all imagine, in an organization of 110,000 people, I am not aware of every bit of information that passes through the halls of the Department of Justice, nor am I aware of all decisions.

As a general matter, some two years ago, I was made aware that there was a request from the White House as to the possibility of replacing all the United States attorneys.

That was immediately rejected by me. I felt that that was a bad idea and it was disruptive.

GONZALES: What I know is that there began a process of evaluating strong performers, not as strong performers and weak performers. And so, as far as I knew, my chief of staff was involved in the process of determining who were the weak performers; where were the districts around the country where we could do better for the people in that district.

And that's what I knew.

But, again, with respect to this whole process, like every CEO, I am ultimately accountable and responsible for what happens within the department.

But that is, in essence, what I knew about the process. I was not involved in seeing any memos, was not involved in any discussions about what was going on. That's basically what I knew as the attorney general.

GONZALES: I just described the extent of the knowledge I had about the process. I never saw documents. We never had a discussion about where things stood.

What I knew was that there was an ongoing effort that was led by Mr. Sampson vetted through the Department of Justice to ascertain where we could make improvements in U.S. attorney performances around the country.

Eight firings out of 93 justices?

Big deal!

[240 is Back]

Eight firings out of 93 justices?

Big deal!

They were done to influence outcomes of legal proceedings.  Specific cases.  Once it's acceptable to fire folks prosecuting you, you can just toss out the justice system. 

The dems are making a deal out of the repubs using firings to influence 8 cases.
Why?
Cause if they don't, next month the repubs will use their power to fire people to win 80 cases.
And the next month, maybe they'll have 800 cases against them dismissed.

Looks like the American justice system would collapse, depending on what party is in office.  And guess what man... if hilary wins in 2008, suppose SHE decided to fire every prosecutor or judge who ever ruled against ANY democrat at any point.  imagine that.  Democrats controlling the entire justice system. 

THAT is why we stop it at 8. 

[Mr. Intenseone]

They were done to influence outcomes of legal proceedings.  Specific cases.  Once it's acceptable to fire folks prosecuting you, you can just toss out the justice system. 

The dems are making a deal out of the repubs using firings to influence 8 cases.
Why?
Cause if they don't, next month the repubs will use their power to fire people to win 80 cases.
And the next month, maybe they'll have 800 cases against them dismissed.

Looks like the American justice system would collapse, depending on what party is in office.  And guess what man... if hilary wins in 2008, suppose SHE decided to fire every prosecutor or judge who ever ruled against ANY democrat at any point.  imagine that.  Democrats controlling the entire justice system. 

THAT is why we stop it at 8. 

It's another BS move by the Dems, they're doing everything in their power to cock-block the Pres. everything they do is either trying to subpoena or calling for someone to resign, every freaking move the Reps make, it's freaking ridiculous, they have no answers for anything and that's all they have!

[240 is Back]

It's another BS move by the Dems, they're doing everything in their power to cock-block the Pres. everything they do is either trying to subpoena or calling for someone to resign, every freaking move the Reps make, it's freaking ridiculous, they have no answers for anything and that's all they have!

Joe,

If Hilary Clinton won in 2008, and decided to start firing people so cases in progress, against dems sho broke the law, were STOPPED... you'd be pissed, right?

if hilary helped dems get away with crimes by firing anyone who would prosecute them... you'd be pissed, right?

[tu_holmes]

It's another BS move by the Dems, they're doing everything in their power to cock-block the Pres. everything they do is either trying to subpoena or calling for someone to resign, every freaking move the Reps make, it's freaking ridiculous, they have no answers for anything and that's all they have!

Now come on... NO ONE is trying to cock-block Bush... Who the hell wants to bang Laura? No one I know.

[Mr. Intenseone]

Joe,

If Hilary Clinton won in 2008, and decided to start firing people so cases in progress, against dems sho broke the law, were STOPPED... you'd be pissed, right?

if hilary helped dems get away with crimes by firing anyone who would prosecute them... you'd be pissed, right?

If I'm not mistaken, it was either Bill or someother Dem who fired alot more and not so much as a peep was made by the media, I'll find it in the morining.

[240 is Back]

If I'm not mistaken, it was either Bill or someother Dem who fired alot more and not so much as a peep was made by the media, I'll find it in the morining.

EVERY prez fires them ALL, his first day in office.
NO prez can pick and choose which to fire, based upon cases they influence.

you didn't answer:

if hilary helped dems get away with crimes by firing anyone who would prosecute them... you'd be pissed, right?

[Dos Equis]

If I'm not mistaken, it was either Bill or someother Dem who fired alot more and not so much as a peep was made by the media, I'll find it in the morining.

You're not mistaken.  Happens all the time.  And the removal/replacement of U.S. Attorneys does not have to take place when the new administration takes over.  The president does not have to fire all of them.  And the president can fire them whenever the heck he wants, so long as there is no "obstruction of justice."  But the liberal clairvoyants have already determined that they were fired to stop the prosecution of Republicans.     This may be true, but it certainly hasn't been proved. 

[Hugo Chavez]

You're not mistaken.  Happens all the time.  And the removal/replacement of U.S. Attorneys does not have to take place when the new administration takes over.  The president does not have to fire all of them.  And the president can fire them whenever the heck he wants, so long as there is no "obstruction of justice."  But the liberal clairvoyants have already determined that they were fired to stop the prosecution of Republicans.     This may be true, but it certainly hasn't been proved. 

actually the way this happened is unprecedented... and it's not clairvoyance, it's a fact that some of these guys were looking into Republicans or had as in Abmermoff and Cunningham... enjoy

[Hugo Chavez]

Eight firings out of 93 justices?

Big deal!

so why the big lie from Gonzotard if it's no big deal

[Hugo Chavez]

  And my opposition to the Whitewater investigations? 

I'm way to sick to read all that right now, but jesus grandpa, how old are you?