Senate Democrats Plan to Seek No-Confidence Vote on Attorney General Gonzales

[Dos Equis]

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.  

[tu_holmes]

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.

[Decker]

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.

[Dos Equis]

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.         

[Dos Equis]

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?   

[Decker]

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/

[Decker]

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.

[egj13]

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.

[Decker]

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.

[tu_holmes]

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?

[egj13]

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

[Dos Equis]

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.  

[Dos Equis]

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?   

[tu_holmes]

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.

[Dos Equis]

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.   

[tu_holmes]

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.

[Dos Equis]

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

[The Enigma]

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?

[The Coach]

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??

[Dos Equis]

....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?   

[Decker]

....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.   

[egj13]

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

[Decker]

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.

[egj13]

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

[Decker]

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.