The Beat

Ten Questions for Alberto Gonzales

posted by John Nichols on 04/18/2007 @ 3:59pm

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales goes in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee today as the most embattled high-ranking member of a presidential administration to appear before an oversight panel in decades. That Gonzales has clung to his position in the face of an overwhelming tide of revelations about his own misdeeds and the "take-the-fifth" actions of his lieutenants is a testament not to tenacity but to the closeness of his relationship with his enabling protector, President Bush, and the refusal of the current administration to entertain even baseline standards of accountability.

By any reasonable measure of propriety and practical politics, Gonzales looks to be on the way out. A ranking Republican member of the Judiciary Committee, Utah's Orrin Hatch, is already angling for the attorney general's job and it is difficult to imagine that Hatch will not have it in due course.

That said, the Gonzales testimony is important. Even in full spin mode -- and, make no mistake, the attorney general will appear with more lines memorized that a Shakespearean actor -- what transpires on Capitol Hill today could go a long way toward defining the future not just of the inquiry into the firings of U.S. Attorneys but of the Bush administration.

To that end, here are ten sets of questions that ought to be asked and answered by Gonzales:

1. Is it true that you have spent most of the past month preparing to give this testimony? Is it true that you have participated in hundreds of hours of practice sessions and reviews of information related to concerns about the politicization of the hiring and firing of U.S. Attorneys and allegations that sitting and former prosecutors were pressured to use their positions to advance the electoral and policy goals of the Bush White House and the Republican Party? If so, can we assume that you are prepared to provide thorough, detailed and straight-forward testimony without resorting to claims that you do not recall, recognize or understand matters that might reasonably have been expected to arise today?

2. When you took office two years ago, you swore an oath to the obey the Constitution. Is it your understanding that this oath requires you to place the good of the country and the rule of law ahead of the personal and political whims of the president? In other words, do you you consider yourself to serve the president or the republic?

3. If the president or members of his administration proposed using U.S. Attorneys to advance political and policy agendas -- by using so-called "voter fraud" investigations to encourage support for legislation tightening Voter ID and registration rules, or by advancing speculative prosecutions of key Democrats or those around them at election time -- would that be wrong? In such a circumstance, would you see it as your duty to tell him that such initiatives represent inappropriate and potentially illegal abuses of prosecutorial powers?

4. Did you and the president discuss so-called "voter fraud" investigations and prosecutions in the month before the 2OO6 congressional and state elections? Did the president tell you to ramp up those initiatives? As the head of a department that had access to the most detailed information regarding voting issues nationwide and knowing -- as has now been confirmed by investigative reports appearing in the Christian Science Monitor, the New York Times and other publications -- that there was no real problem with voter fraud, did you explain to the president that pursuing the sorts of investigations and prosecutions he was proposing was wrongheaded? Did you ask the president why he was proposing such initiatives? Did you seek to ascertain whether there was a political motive? Did you take actions in response to his demands?

5. It has been said by the defenders of the firings of U.S. Attorneys by the Bush administration that President Clinton removed all of the U.S. Attorneys in the country when he took office. Isn't it true that it is standard practice for new presidents to replace U.S. Attorneys when they take office? Didn't George Bush do this? And is it not true that Clinton retained Republican-appointed U.S. Attorneys and acting U.S. Attorneys, including current Department of Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff who was then a U.S. Attorney in New Jersey, in their positions until they had completed sensitive inquiries? Why did you not correct this deliberate misconception when it was being spread by members of the Bush administration and its supporters?

6. Were you ever involved in conversations, verbal or digital, in which White House political czar Karl Rove outlined a desire to politicize prosecutions by U.S. Attorneys around the country? Were you ever involved in conversations with state or national Republican party leaders in this regard? Did you ever read memos from state party officials outlining prosecutions they would like to see brought? What actions, if any, did you take to prevent politicized prosecutions? Did concerns about how U.S. Attorneys handled so-called "voter fraud" cases and other political matters weigh in deliberations by you and your aides about whether to retain federal prosecutors?

7. Why is it that so many of the U.S. Attorneys who were fired appear to have been those who faced criticism from state and local Republican officials for failing to advance political prosecutions of Democrats in an election year? What do you know about the statements of New Mexico U.S. Attorney David Iglesias, who says that before he was removed from his position he resisted pressure from Congresswoman Heather Wilson, R-New Mexico, and Senator Pete Domenici, R-New Mexico, to mount prosecutions of Democrats prior to the November, 2OO6, election in which Wilson was locked in a tight contest with the state's Democratic Attorney General? Were the alleged contacts by Wilson and Domenici inappropriate? Were you aware of them? Did you seek to investigate them? Why was Iglesias removed? Knowing that several of the other fired U.S. Attorneys can point to similar pressures, is it not reasonable for the Senate to conclude that Iglesias and the rest were removed for political rather than legal or administrative reasons? If not, what can you tell us that would counter concerns raised by fired U.S. Attorneys who had previously been praised by your office?

8. Were any of the 85 U.S. Attorneys who were not fired subjected to political pressures. How many of them announced investigations of so-called "voter fraud" cases on a time line that paralleled efforts by Republicans to advance legislation to establish new voter registration and Voter ID laws? How many of them launched prosecutions of top Democrats and people around them on time lines that paralleled election cycles? Were you ever involved in discussions of any kind regarding the political value of advancing such investigations and prosecutions? Did you ever remove a U.S. Attorney after being pressured by Republican officials or lobbyists? Why was the acting U.S. Attorney on Guam, Fred Black, who had launched an investigation of lobbyist Jack Abramoff's activities in the Pacific Island region, removed from his position after Abramoff circulated a complaint that, "I don't care if they appoint bozo the clown, we need to get rid of Fred Black?" If pressure from Abramoff was not a factor, why was Black, a respected prosecutor who had served under three presidents, removed?

9. Were you aware that the Republican Party of Wisconsin prepared packages of documents, including a lengthy memo outlining proposals for mounting "voter fraud" cases in Milwaukee that were forwarded to Rove's office in 2OO5 and that Steven Biskupic, the U.S. Attorney for Eastern Wisconsin who remains on the job, announced in 2OO5 the creation of a high-profile "voter fraud" task force and mounted more than ten percent of all voter fraud cases in the nation -- despite the fact that his jurisdiction represents barely one percent of the population and despite the fact that even Biskupic would eventually acknowledge there was no serious "voter fraud" problem there? ,Are you aware that, on a time line paralleling the 2OO6 gubernatorial campaign in Wisconsin, Biskupic prosecuted of a state employee on charges that she directed a state contract to a donor to the campaign of Democratic Governor Jim Doyle, that Republicans and their backers mounted an expensive television ad campaign attempting to link Doyle to the woman, and that after the election was done a federal appeals court described the evidence Biskupic used in the case as "beyond thin"?

1O. Were you aware that, on a time line paralleling the 2OO6 U.S. Senate campaign in New Jersey, a U.S. Attorney in that state, Chris Christie, began issuing subpoenas aimed at raising questions about the ethics of Bob Menendez, the incumbent senator who was seeking reelection that fall? Are you aware that Christie, a Bush "pioneer" fund raiser and former Republican elected official who has been talked about as a likely Republican statewide candidate, took the rare step of commenting about those subpoenas at the same time that Republicans were mounting an expensive television advertising campaign designed to attack Menendez's ethics and highlight the issues raised by Christie? Are you aware the inquiry has gone nowhere since Menendez was reelected? Why, Mr. Attorney General, do you think the urgency ended with the end of the election cycle?

---------------------------------------------------------------------

John Nichols' new book is THE GENIUS OF IMPEACHMENT: The Founders' Cure for Royalism. Rolling Stone's Tim Dickinson hails it as a "nervy, acerbic, passionately argued history-cum-polemic [that] combines a rich examination of the parliamentary roots and past use of the 'heroic medicine' that is impeachment with a call for Democratic leaders to 'reclaim and reuse the most vital tool handed to us by the founders for the defense of our most basic liberties.'"

Comments (157)

  1. Isn't it likely that ALL those, and more, have been asked during Gonzales' "mock hearing" practice session....and probably some pretty good crap-ola answers that will sound good for the 3.5 minutes that the networks devote to the testimony tomorrow...

    before going back to "an exclusive interview with Cho Seung-hui's only girlfriend in high school"?

    Posted by Mask at 04/18/2007 @ 10:29pm

  2. You poor little chimp. You truly do lead a pathetic life

    Posted by Will C. at 04/18/2007 @ 11:50pm

  3. I think we should start a contest to describe this administration's corruptness. Sure we have "Gonzogate", "whatever -gate" But what abour an overall name.

    Just as we had the "Teapot Dome Scandal" we need a good moniker that could be passed on into history. Any suggestions?

    ...."W's State of Lies Scandal"?

    Posted by bohdan yuri at 04/19/2007 @ 12:40am

  4. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 04/19/2007 @ 12:19am

    they would but they already know the answer...

    Because I'm an evangelic conservative

    Posted by Will C. at 04/19/2007 @ 12:52am

  5. So Gonzales will attempt to make his incoherant comments to the questions he's asked, drive the congresswo/men insane just enough to nuetralize any direct linear progression towards a case of wrong doing on his part per all the head scratching and empty looking thought bubbles. The congresswo/men knowing this already, will skip the T/F questions for multiple choice with various answers that contradict one and other, so that if Gonzales picks more than one answer, they'll know he's lying. Not being able to explain the contradiction, he comes clean, but like hsuB, will say he has the authority to do so. You see, hsuB has given him special powers, as of yet, unrevealed to anyone-- 'til now. They go into closed session...

    Posted by hsuBfools at 04/19/2007 @ 12:55am

  6. "Even in full spin mode -- and, make no mistake, the attorney general will appear with more lines memorized that a Shakespearean actor...."

    How about Cardinal Wolsey in Henry VIII: "When he falls, he falls like Lucifer, never to rise again."

    The detailed questions in the article are all excellent.

    Posted by RLawrence at 04/19/2007 @ 01:18am

  7. Names for the scandals?

    The Justice Nostra -- treating the U.S. Dept. of Justice as "our thing," "this thing of ours." So much gangster lingo: "the real problem we have with Carol Lam."

    Badfellas, Rovefellas

    Another question for Gonzales: Why was Bogden fired? Why was McKay fired? Why was Chiara fired? Why was Ryan fired? Why was Lam fired? Why was Cummins fired? Why was Iglesias fired? Why was the eighth fired?

    You'll notice that no one in the Administration has yet to answer these questions.

    Posted by RLawrence at 04/19/2007 @ 01:26am

  8. Another question for Gonzales: An email Congress obtained from DOJ shows Administration officials discussing, after the fact, ways of justifying the firing of several prosecutors incuding Carol Lam, and one official's suggeston to link the firings to immigration enforcement since the prosecutors worked in border states. Did you order officials to promulgate this pretext to Congress and the press as if it were true? If you didn't, who did?

    Posted by RLawrence at 04/19/2007 @ 01:30am

  9. A. G.-gate

    Posted by hsuBfools at 04/19/2007 @ 01:39am

  10. Q: Mr. Gonzales, an email obtained by Congress last week shows Administration officials, including your chief of staff Kyle Sampson, planning to withhold information from a Senate investigator, as they discuss how to make a quick get-away from the Hill "when we don't give her the information she wants (i.e. why they [the attorneys] were fired." Did you authorize your staff to withhold from Congress why the attorneys were fired?

    Posted by RLawrence at 04/19/2007 @ 01:40am

  11. hsuBgate

    Posted by hsuBfools at 04/19/2007 @ 01:42am

  12. Quaint Coup-gate

    Posted by hsuBfools at 04/19/2007 @ 01:50am

  13. Sad tale about one of the prosecutors who got sacked:

    Stay Single, Lose Your Job [tpmmuckraker.com]

    The Deputy Attorney General had misgivings about sacking him, since the guy was 50 and had been with the govt for ages and how was he gonna take care of his family, whatever. The Keepers of the List huddled and said, Well, he's not married -- so he got sacked after all.

    Where do you even begin with something like this?

    Q: Mr. Gonzales, do you think the President has the authority to sack people based on their marital status?

    Q: Mr. Gonzales, was the review process for all the attorneys this ad hoc?

    Q: Mr. Gonzales, why -- for the umpteenth time, why, why were they sacked?

    Posted by RLawrence at 04/19/2007 @ 01:56am

  14. Philip Roth beat us to it:

    The Plot Against America.

    We can call it The Plot for short.

    "Oh, that was during The Plot," "Yes, he was part of The Plot," "that Senator was found to be on the take during The Plot," "We had a pension before The Plot," "we owned our own home before The Plot...."

    Posted by RLawrence at 04/19/2007 @ 02:19am

  15. 1. Why didn't you just tell Congress that the president has the right to fire these appointees without cause; end of story?

    2. Why did you insist on trying to placate and pacify these scoundrels in Congress when it's none of their business?

    3. When are you going to act like the kind of tough no holds barred Attorney General we need in charge of the Justice Department?

    1--That doesn't justify politically-motivated firings of well-reviewed employees to replace them with political loyalists. Further, there may be cases where the removal was based on the USAs disinclination to push spurious "voter fraud" cases, in which case we may have a criminal question.

    2--Last I heard, Congress has both funding and oversight responsibilities over the Cabinet departments.

    3--His job was never to be a "tough, no-holds barred Attorney General". His job was to be Bush's crony.

    Posted by brunowe at 04/19/2007 @ 04:32am

  16. I'm still utterly amazed that Mr. Nichols is shocked, SHOCKED, that a politician could possibly have political motives for the things he does. Add this to the fact that a US attorney can be fired by the president, at any time, without cause, and that it is a violation of separation of powers for congress to intervene. So, again, where is the scandal here?

    Posted by homerjelwood at 04/19/2007 @ 05:44am

  17. How about a story from the inside? Does Gonzo manage well, do his employees have faith in him?

    http://www.law.com/jsp/dc/PubArticleDC.jsp?id=1176122643390&hub=TopStori es

    ..."Under Gonzales, though, almost immediately from the time of his arrival in February 2005, this changed quite noticeably. First, there was extraordinary turnover in the political ranks, including the majority of even Justice's highest-level appointees. It was reminiscent of the turnover from the second Reagan administration to the first Bush administration in 1989, only more so. Second, the atmosphere was palpably different, in ways both large and small. One need not have had to be terribly sophisticated to notice that when Deputy Attorney General Jim Comey left the department in August 2005 his departure was quite abrupt, and that his large farewell party was attended by neither Gonzales nor (as best as could be seen) anyone else on the AG's personal staff.

    Third, and most significantly for present purposes, there was an almost immediate influx of young political aides beginning in the first half of 2005 (e.g., counsels to the AG, associate deputy attorneys general, deputy associate attorneys general, and deputy assistant attorneys general) whose inexperience in the processes of government was surpassed only by their evident disdain for it.

    (now where have we heard that before?)

    "But the process of agency functioning, however, became dramatically different almost immediately after Gonzales arrived. No longer was emphasis placed on accomplishing something with the highest-quality product in a timely fashion; rather, it became a matter of making sure that a "consensus" was achieved, regardless of how long that might take and with little or no concern that quality would suffer in such a "lowest common denominator" environment. And heaven help anyone, career or noncareer employee, if that "consensus" did not include whatever someone in the White House might think about something, be it large, small, or medium-sized.

    In short, the culture markedly shifted to one in which avoiding any possibility of disagreement anywhere was the overriding concern, as if "consensus" were an end unto itself. Undergirding this, what's more, was the sad fact that so many political appointees in 2005 and 2006 were so obviously thinking not much further than their next (i.e., higher-level) position, in some place where they could "max out" by the end of Bush's second term. "

    Luvvy will defend incompetence unto his grave, his loyalty to a person over the running of guvt. Serving many Masters, spreading false witness...)

    Posted by crabwalk at 04/19/2007 @ 08:10am

  18. Q: Do you see the department's decision-making weaknesses that you've just sketched out here as connected to its current problems with what it did on the U.S. attorneys?

    A: Certainly. You can clearly hear distinct echoes of this in the recent public statements of Kyle Sampson before the Senate Judiciary Committee. He described what to many listeners was an absolutely astonishing process by which he and a small group of others within the Justice Department handled the matter of U.S. attorney replacement. By all accounts, no one person was in charge (Kyle described himself as merely the "aggregator"), it operated strictly by "consensus" (a word that he wielded as if it were an indisputably favorable one), and the end result was something that even he could not fully explain.

    Yet it became the "groupthink" recommendation to the AG, an unprecedented "hit list" to be endorsed uncritically, as if it were something upon which Gonzales could rely without thinking. (And with nary a paper trail, by the way, which, I can tell you is no small consideration.) One might ask: Exactly whose dispositive decision was it to include the U.S. attorney for the District of New Mexico (let alone the threshold question of why) on that final list? Was there really a good case for including U.S. Attorney John McKay of the Western District of Washington, whom I personally knew to have made tremendous contributions in the area of law enforcement information-sharing programs?

    Conversely, could it really be so that, as Kyle testified, one U.S. attorney (I won't repeat from where) actually was "saved" from being on the list merely because Monica Goodling happened to know of, and think well of, her work in a particular area? [Editor's Note: According to Sampson's testimony, that U.S. attorney was Anna Mills Wagoner of the Middle District of North Carolina.]

    Yes, this decision-making "process," if it even deserves to be called that, was no different than what I saw played out time and again, albeit on a different scale, during my last two years at Justice. And as I see it, from the vantage point of someone who has considerable experience in government decision-making in general and at the Justice Department in particular, the greatest and most damning dereliction is on the part of the person who knowingly permits such a "process" to exist on a matter of such public importance within the realm of his ultimate responsibility. Sure, it might induce that official to think (and even defensively say), "I was no more involved than that." But that never used to be good enough (or even minimally defensible) at the Justice Department prior to 2005. And that, as much as anything, should be impossible to defend now.

    Posted by crabwalk at 04/19/2007 @ 08:13am

  19. In the overall scheme of things, what is the point of all of this? For years this Administration has gotten away with slick deals, and under-the-table handshakes. Why would we think anything will be different this time?

    I awoke this morning anxious for what might come out of these hearings, but then I asked myself, "Why?" There will be nothing but lies and denials coming from the hearing, and the "mainstream media" will spin it to appear that something was accomplished.

    I don't know if anyone is aware, but this story moved off the front page as soon as one man chose to kill 30 students at a predominantly white college in Virginia. No one is paying attention to Gonzo right now, they are all channeling the voice of a mentally-ill young man who chose this week to go on a killing spree.

    What about the 183 people killed yesterday in Baghdad? Not hearing much of that right now either. But I digress....

    It matters not which branch of the government you look to for answers, no one is talking. They spout the retoric of the moment, and pray that someone doesn't call them on their sh__. Other than here, and a few other choice sites, the truth does not get exposed. I guess it is up to us to get the message out. Volunteers?

    Posted by Wakawaka34 at 04/19/2007 @ 08:56am

  20. What about the 183 people killed yesterday in Baghdad? Not hearing much of that right now either. But I digress....

    Posted by WAKAWAKA34 04/19/2007 @ 08:56am

    The Daily Show interview. Perhaps why poll shows more people informed that watch it.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 04/19/2007 @ 09:17am

  21. It matters not which branch of the government you look to for answers, no one is talking.

    Posted by WAKAWAKA34 04/19/2007 @ 08:56am

    It takes two. People need to want to listen.

    Some are ok with a big black boot on their face forever.

    It is up to the rest that won't tolerate that, always has been.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 04/19/2007 @ 09:22am

  22. You know, I'd like to see Gonzales gone too...not that it will REALLY make much difference in the last 20 months of the Bush Years....

    but the Right does ask a question that I've yet to see an answer to--

    What did Gonzales do that is illegal or more Constitutionally and on HSUB's favorite subject...that is a "high crime or misdemeanor"?

    If he goes to Congress today and doesn't perjure himself (even if it contradicts what he said at a PRESS CONFERENCE)....he hasn't committed a crime. (Obviously, if he DOES commit perjury to Congress, he will...but there's no law about "fudging the truth" to reporters)

    The firings weren't illegal. If nothing can be proven about "pressuring the other 85" (which would require THEIR testimony) and if none of the prosecutions the 9 USAs were involved with were obstructed....what did Gonzales do that would warrent impeachment and removal?

    and if "Nothing, it's unethical and unseemly"....well, yeah...but if that was the only qualifier and Bush and Alberto gave a rat's ass about public opinion or Congressional opinion...he'd have resigned weeks ago.....he didn't.

    Again, no a "Fredo" booster....but if Gonzales won't quit, theh the only Congressional action would be impeachment and removal...and I simply ask....on what grounds???

    Posted by Mask at 04/19/2007 @ 09:27am

  23. What did Gonzales do that is illegal or more Constitutionally and on HSUB's favorite subject...that is a "high crime or misdemeanor"?

    Posted by MASK 04/19/2007 @ 09:27am

    if such were involved in investigations...obstruction of justice? whats the term for high level law enforcement harrassment for bogus reasons? then if it can be proven, good old perjury?

    not certain (not a lawyer), just musing. will have to talk to my brother ("the lawyer") and see what his opine is. been a while anyhoos...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/19/2007 @ 09:35am

  24. I'm still utterly amazed that Mr. Nichols is shocked, SHOCKED, that a politician could possibly have political motives for the things he does. Add this to the fact that a US attorney can be fired by the president, at any time, without cause, and that it is a violation of separation of powers for congress to intervene. So, again, where is the scandal here?

    Posted by HOMERJELWOOD

    First off, the US Attorney General is not just another politician. Secondly, US Attorneys do serve at the pleasure of the Prez; however, they cannot be sacked because they are not willing to do the political bidding of the Prez. If you watched something other than Faux News you would know that.

    Where are all the "Law and Order" boys when their side is breaking the law, subverting the Constitution?

    Posted by mtspence05 at 04/19/2007 @ 09:36am

  25. I doubt any of the questions Mr. Nichols proposes be asked will in fact get asked -- at least in the form he'd like to hear. But it is a given that Gonzalez will do one of two things: give a repeat performance of lies featuring a lot of "I don't know" and "I don't recall", or flat out lie using concocted stories rehearsed over the course of a month. What he won't do is tell the truth. And when he perjures himself before Congress today, Democrats and Republicans should impeach the bastard. Pelosi may be too big a coward to go after the big fishes, but she should have courage enough to support impeaching a law-breaking attorney general.

    Posted by ARCHANGEL_M at 04/19/2007 @ 09:46am

  26. What did Gonzales do that is illegal

    Er, bribery-- political employment quid pro quo, obstruction of justice, initiating a political coup to subvert the constitutional right to vote, political assasination via illegal use of law enforcement, violating his oath, etc.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 04/19/2007 @ 09:48am

  27. Er, perjury

    Posted by hsuBfools at 04/19/2007 @ 09:50am

  28. MASK

    If these USAttys were fired because they were investigating Republicans, then the crime would be obstruction of justice. Bud Cummins was investigating the Republican governor of Missouri. Carol Lam, who had overseen the conviction of Randy Cunningham, had expanded the investigation to Jerry Lewis and Dusty Foggo (who was indicted two days before the end of her service). Daniel Bodgen was investigating a Republican congressman.

    There may also be criminal issues with those attorneys who were fired for not initiated spurious voter fraud investigations. John McKay refused to convene a federal grand jury on this issue after the tight Washington gubernatorial race. David Iglesias had received phones called from Heather Thomas (in a tight reelection race) and Pete Domenici trying to get him to expedite a voter fraud investigation so indictments, if any, would come out before the election.

    Posted by brunowe at 04/19/2007 @ 09:54am

  29. Posted by MASK 04/19/2007 @ 09:27am

    What are the labor laws regarding federal employees? As a fired employee, are you legally entitled to an accurate description of what led to your dismissal?

    Posted by nathanhale at 04/19/2007 @ 09:58am

  30. if such were involved in investigations...obstruction of justice? whats the term for high level law enforcement harrassment for bogus reasons? then if it can be proven, good old perjury?

    Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 04/19/2007 @ 09:35am

    Well, IBB...I noted both those. But so far, none of that's been proven and uptil recently the "main part" of the scandal was the firings themselves (only recently has it become "what about the 85 that WEREN'T fired?!?!!").

    If the fired USAs meant that an investigation/prosecution was stopped...sure...that's obstruction of justice.

    Perjury or lying to Congress MAY occur today...but like I said, if Gonzales tells the truth, even if he contradicts what he said TO THE PRESS....it's not perjury.

    Posted by Mask at 04/19/2007 @ 09:59am

  31. Posted by BRUNOWE 04/19/2007 @ 09:54am

    BRUN, again....that's a lot to PROVE. If Lam's investigation ended with her, and her successor fails to follow up...yep...obstruction. Same for Cummins and Bogden. But if their successors take up the investigations and continue them....it's hard to show that it "obstructed justice" (grey area of "slowed it"...but not sure it reaches illegality).

    As for Iglesias and McKay...again...this has to be SOLD to the public and if the line is "These guys were fired for NOT investigating charges of voter fraud"...it doesn't sell it.

    (I realize the opposite line of yours..."fired for not initiated spurious voter fraud investigations" fits....but that other spin works too!)

    Posted by Mask at 04/19/2007 @ 10:05am

  32. Posted by NATHANHALE 04/19/2007 @ 09:58am

    Sorry, NATE, but that seems the WEAKEST of the charges. Gonzales gets impeached for....not telling somebody the 'accurate' reason they were fired?!?!?

    Again, to all. I'd be perfectly happy with Alberto hitting the pavement on his substantial "nalgas".

    But if it's not something HARD-hitting (to go to the podium of the US Senate with)....there's not going to be a public outcry for his impeachment. And if he doesn't quit (which probably any other AG would have weeks ago).....then he stays and hopes it just fades away.

    Posted by Mask at 04/19/2007 @ 10:11am

  33. If he tells the truth, then he implicates Rove and hsuB. And thus retro-annointed 'special powers' by the unitary metaconstitutional hsuB exec. See the doors close.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 04/19/2007 @ 10:14am

  34. And if he doesn't quit (which probably any other AG would have weeks ago).....then he stays and hopes it just fades away.

    Posted by MASK

    Great, let him stay. Come election time he'll be there, shining like some great zit on the nose of the Republicans to remind all those "swing" voters just how hollow all that "law and order" talk really is.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 04/19/2007 @ 10:21am

  35. Posted by RLAWRENCE 04/19/2007 @ 01:26am

    You'll notice that no one in the Administration has yet to answer these questions.

    I've noticed that no one in the Administration has to. We all know that political appointees can be fired for any reason whatsoever. So what do these hearings have to do with anything? Bush hatred and pseudo-scandal. And this time next month, it'll be all forgotten.

    Posted by pontificus at 04/19/2007 @ 10:23am

  36. Posted by PONTIFICUS

    No, not for any reason whatsoever. That is patently untrue, defecatious. And any American that places our Constitution above partisan politics can easily recognize the fact.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 04/19/2007 @ 10:25am

  37. Posted by MASK 04/19/2007 @ 10:11am

    But if it's not something HARD-hitting (to go to the podium of the US Senate with)....there's not going to be a public outcry for his impeachment. And if he doesn't quit (which probably any other AG would have weeks ago).....then he stays and hopes it just fades away.

    Gone-zales may resign or 'get resigned'. But it won't have anything to do with the 'charges' against him by Democrats, if any are, indeed found. It'll be because he even let things get this far. All of Bush's appointees should know that these types of hearings are nothing but bad-faith attempts to damage the Administration in any and all ways possible, and they should conduct themselves accordingly.

    Posted by pontificus at 04/19/2007 @ 10:26am

  38. Posted by MTSPENCE05 04/19/2007 @ 10:25am

    No, not for any reason whatsoever. That is patently untrue, defecatious. And any American that places our Constitution above partisan politics can easily recognize the fact.

    Empty, you are so full of horseshit it's not funny. I just love the irony of people like you complaining about partisan politics.

    Posted by pontificus at 04/19/2007 @ 10:28am

  39. No, the Prez cannot fire US Attorneys for partisan reasons or any other motivations that would undermine the rule of law. No one is above the law, even if they're doing "the lord's work".

    Posted by mtspence05 at 04/19/2007 @ 10:30am

  40. Posted by MASK 04/19/2007 @ 09:59am

    But so far, none of that's been proven and uptil recently the "main part" of the scandal was the firings themselves (only recently has it become "what about the 85 that WEREN'T fired?!?!!").

    I think you're missing the point here, MASK. For the moonbats, it's The Bush Administration that's the scandal. Everything else is ancillary. The verdict has already come in, the moonbats just need to find a reason for a trial.

    Posted by pontificus at 04/19/2007 @ 10:33am

  41. Posted by MTSPENCE05 04/19/2007 @ 10:30am

    No, the Prez cannot fire US Attorneys for partisan reasons or any other motivations that would undermine the rule of law.

    True, but no one has even alleged that yet. It's all just another fishing expediction at this point by an out-of-control partisan Congress that should have better things to do than waste its time on partisan snipe hunts. But I'm sure you'll be part of the cheering section regardless.

    Posted by pontificus at 04/19/2007 @ 10:38am

  42. Posted by MTSPENCE05 04/19/2007 @ 10:30am

    No, the Prez cannot fire US Attorneys for partisan reasons

    Of course he/she can. That's why people like Clinton fire every single one of them when they come into office. Partisan reasons.

    Posted by pontificus at 04/19/2007 @ 10:39am

  43. Oh, and were you not in the cheering section when an out of control partisan Congress attempted to impeach a president over a blow job? Hypocrite! Defecatious, your name suits you.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 04/19/2007 @ 10:41am

  44. If you'd watch something other than Limbaugh and Faux News you could appreciate the difference between what Clinton (and that old senile fool Ronnie, along with many others) did and what this miserable, un-American punk Georgie Jr has done.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 04/19/2007 @ 10:43am

  45. By the way, when Clinton fired the US Attorney for Little Rock, he stopped an investigation into his Whitewater dealings. He replaced that Attorney with a friend of his from law school. No more investigation. Something tells me that didn't cause much concern here at The Nation, however. No more than Hillary Clinton's $100,000 bribe from Tyson Foods, I bet.

    Posted by pontificus at 04/19/2007 @ 10:43am

  46. Posted by MTSPENCE05 04/19/2007 @ 10:43am

    If you'd watch something other than Limbaugh and Faux News you could appreciate the difference between what Clinton (and that old senile fool Ronnie, along with many others) did and what this miserable, un-American punk Georgie Jr has done.

    I DO know the difference. The left hates George Bush. Anything else I need to know?

    Posted by pontificus at 04/19/2007 @ 10:44am

  47. Posted by MTSPENCE05 04/19/2007 @ 10:41am

    Oh, and were you not in the cheering section when an out of control partisan Congress attempted to impeach a president over a blow job?

    Not sure when that would have been, but I WAS in the cheering section when Congress impeached a President over PERJURY in his sexual harassment investigation. Is that what you were talking about?

    Posted by pontificus at 04/19/2007 @ 10:46am

  48. Great, let him stay. Come election time he'll be there, shining like some great zit on the nose of the Republicans to remind all those "swing" voters just how hollow all that "law and order" talk really is.

    Posted by MTSPENCE05 04/19/2007 @ 10:21am

    Well, that's dubious. He may play a small part...but just the general failure of the Bush Administration will be the killer.

    Posted by Mask at 04/19/2007 @ 10:46am

  49. I DO know the difference. The left hates George Bush. Anything else I need to know?

    Posted by PONTIFICUS

    No need to post anything else, too. That right there says it all. As I said, anyone that values our Constitution would find this administration's actions abhorent. Your undying support, blind devotion expose you for the un-American, authoritarian you are.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 04/19/2007 @ 10:48am

  50. I WAS in the cheering section when Congress impeached a President over PERJURY in his sexual harassment investigation

    And when did Monica accuse Bill of sexual harassment? How did they get from Whitewater to sexual harassment? And you talk of fishing expeditions, defecatious?

    Posted by mtspence05 at 04/19/2007 @ 10:50am

  51. Posted by MTSPENCE05 04/19/2007 @ 10:48am

    As I said, anyone that values our Constitution would find this administration's actions abhorent.

    How about this:

    Anybody who knows anything about rhetoric would find MTSPENCE's circular arguments laughable

    Posted by pontificus at 04/19/2007 @ 10:51am

  52. And when did Monica accuse Bill of sexual harassment? How did they get from Whitewater to sexual harassment? And you talk of fishing expeditions, defecatious?

    Posted by MTSPENCE05

    Posted by mtspence05 at 04/19/2007 @ 10:53am

  53. All of Bush's appointees should know that these types of hearings are nothing but bad-faith attempts to damage the Administration in any and all ways possible

    Posted by PONTIFICUS 04/19/2007 @ 10:26am

    Curious....what do you base the presumption of innocence on the Administration on? In other words, why is it Congress's "bad faith"...and not the Administration damaging itself?!?!?

    Posted by Mask at 04/19/2007 @ 10:53am

  54. Posted by MTSPENCE05 04/19/2007 @ 10:50am

    And when did Monica accuse Bill of sexual harassment?

    She never did, my willfully ignorant friend. But the judge compelled her to testify because the sexual exploitation of employees is part of the pattern of sexual harassment as defined by the law. But then, you already knew that. Or maybe it was just another inconvenient fact you choose to ignore.

    Posted by pontificus at 04/19/2007 @ 10:53am

  55. Oh, now you're concerned with the law?

    How did they get from Whitewater to sexual harassment? And you talk of fishing expeditions, defecatious?

    Posted by mtspence05 at 04/19/2007 @ 10:56am

  56. Sexual exploitation?

    Posted by mtspence05 at 04/19/2007 @ 10:57am

  57. Posted by MASK 04/19/2007 @ 10:53am

    Curious....what do you base the presumption of innocence on the Administration on?

    Well, in the first place, presumption of innocence is the one thing that all Americans are due. Secondly, no one, not even the Democrats doing the investigating, has even put forth a single reason, otehr than meaninglessly vague suggestions, as to precisely what 'political' firings might mean outside of the due rights of the Administration to handle its appointees. Lastly, from what I have heard, which is no more than you or anyone here, the reasons the Bush Administration had for firing these folks seemed perfectly good, as I have stated before.

    In other words, why is it Congress's "bad faith"...and not the Administration damaging itself?!?!?

    I think Congress's bad faith is manifest, both here and in the Plame investigation. This is just another political witch hunt. A fishing expedition.

    Posted by pontificus at 04/19/2007 @ 10:58am

  58. ponti-Before I add you to my ignore list I just want to say that what is laughable is that I can predict with 100% accuracy what the right wing will post on here by just glancing at the topic since all of you have the same opinion on every topic which is the same opinion expressed by Rush.If you look on the gun control and other boards you'll see that persons on the left disagree with each other,but not you guys.You goose step to the same beat.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 04/19/2007 @ 10:58am

  59. "and that it is a violation of separation of powers for congress to intervene. So, again, where is the scandal here?

    Posted by HOMERJELWOOD 04/19/2007 @ 05:44am

    There isn't...its political and the media will give it plenty of air time...perception becomes reality in politics and the dems know it..

    Posted by john maasch at 04/19/2007 @ 10:59am

  60. Posted by MTSPENCE05 04/19/2007 @ 10:57am

    Sexual exploitation?

    Yes, my willfully ignorant friend. Sexual exploitation. Look it up. It has something to do with using your employees for sex, like when you don't even know their name?

    Posted by pontificus at 04/19/2007 @ 11:00am

  61. All the following quotes are from mtspence05 in reply to my previous post.

    "First off, the US Attorney General is not just another politician."--I was talking about the president, the man who always has the ultimate say on whether or not a US attorney stays or goes. The AG is involved, but the firing is ultimately up to whatever sitting president we have at the time, and he certainly is just another politician.

    "however, they cannot be sacked because they are not willing to do the political bidding of the Prez."--Actually, they can. The fact that you don't like it doesn't matter, Spence. They only way firing them would be illegal is if it was to try and stop or hinder a prosecution already in progress. Hey, if I'm wrong here, point out the law that says otherwise, and I'll change my opinion to suit the facts. Point out the ACTUAL law though, not what you wish the law was. Like I said though, serving at the pleasure of the president means you also cease serving at the pleasure of the president.

    "If you watched something other than Faux News you would know that."--Wow. True, I do lean right, but here I am reading The Nation, which is about as far from Fox News as you can get. I would think that would clearly show my openness to new ideas and the fun I see in debate, but I guess I was wrong. I'm a brainwashed puppet of the Republican machine. My bad.

    "Where are all the "Law and Order" boys when their side is breaking the law, subverting the Constitution?"--I'm right here! Show me one law that's been broken! Demonstrate one subversion of the constitution! Waiting...waiting....

    Posted by homerjelwood at 04/19/2007 @ 11:02am

  62. Posted by I'M NOBODY 04/19/2007 @ 10:58am

    If you look on the gun control and other boards you'll see that persons on the left disagree with each other,but not you guys.You goose step to the same beat.

    There's a million ways to be wrong, but only one way to be right. If we all seem to say the same thing, maybe it's because we all know the truth?

    Posted by pontificus at 04/19/2007 @ 11:02am

  63. How did they get from Whitewater to sexual harassment? And you talk of fishing expeditions, defecatious?

    Posted by mtspence05 at 04/19/2007 @ 11:03am

  64. Secondly, no one, not even the Democrats doing the investigating, has even put forth a single reason, otehr than meaninglessly vague suggestions, as to precisely what 'political' firings might mean outside of the due rights of the Administration to handle its appointees. Lastly, from what I have heard, which is no more than you or anyone here, the reasons the Bush Administration had for firing these folks seemed perfectly good, as I have stated before.

    They only way firing them would be illegal is if it was to try and stop or hinder a prosecution already in progress.

    As I said above, there have been stories out there that some of the attorneys were fired because they were investigating Republican office-holders. If that's true, and the investigation is about that, than it's obstruction of justice. This isn't even close to a witch-hunt.

    Posted by brunowe at 04/19/2007 @ 11:11am

  65. There isn't [a violation of separation of powers]...its political and the media will give it plenty of air time...perception becomes reality in politics and the dems know it..

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 04/19/2007 @ 10:59am

    Of course it's political. But I call it a violation of separation of powers because congress is investigating a non-crime in the executive branch. Interference by one branch in the legal activities of another is what I meant by the violation.

    Posted by homerjelwood at 04/19/2007 @ 11:13am

  66. Ponti-There isn't any one truth to any of these topics so your response was as ignorant as I figured it would be,but I wanted to give you a chance before putting you on ignore.To say that there is only one truth to an issue like the gun issue is a tad naive to say the least and is probably an out right lie on your part.I find it difficult to believe that you are so ignorant that you really believe there is only one truth to any topic.Your type simply isn't capable of independent thought so you repeat what you're told to repeat.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 04/19/2007 @ 11:15am

  67. Posted by MTSPENCE05 04/19/2007 @ 11:03am

    How did they get from Whitewater to sexual harassment?

    With a little help from you, actually. First, you deliberately misstated the reasons for Clinton's impeachment, whereupon I had to correct you. Second, I mentioned Whitewater because it was Clinton's political firings that stopped the Whitewater investigation. Clear now?

    And you talk of fishing expeditions, defecatious?

    Whitewater may have been a fishing expedition, maybe not. We'll never know.

    But I still have not heard anyone on the left explain Hillary's $100 k bribe from Tyson. Nothing but peculiar silence.

    Posted by pontificus at 04/19/2007 @ 11:15am

  68. All of Bush's appointees should know that these types of hearings are nothing but bad-faith attempts to damage the Administration in any and all ways possible, and they should conduct themselves accordingly. Posted by PONTIFICUS 04/19/2007 @ 10:26am

    Bwaaa-hahaha!!! Does that mean Bushies should continue to lie about why they do the things they do (before being exposed as incompetent Mayberry Machiavellis), or, tell the truth (and expose themselves as incompetent Mayberry Macchiavellis)?

    Such a conundrum...maybe Turd Blossom will come to the rescue...

    Posted by nathanhale at 04/19/2007 @ 11:16am

  69. Posted by HOMERJELWOOD

    So, in your opinion, the president is free to politicize the Attorney General's office? The so called "rule of law" can just be discarded? All confidence in the non-partisan application of the law is of no concern? To the winner go the spoils? And where does that lead?

    You don't have to go to law school, be able to cite the law books to understand right and wrong. Both you and the vile defecatious are attempting to use law to defend your warped, self serving, partisan interpretations of the law.

    If nothing wrong was done, why all the lying, covering up. How did they supposedly lose those emails? Why did an appeal of the charges of the one woman get thrown out, and with such strong language from the reviewing judges? If it smells like excrement, chances are it is just that.

    Coming here and spreading your propaganda does not in any way mean that you're objective. Your bleating out the right's talking points reveal what you are. Your refusal to acknowledge the valid points of investigating what has been done by this administration (a cabal so bereft of any credit) demonstrates your blind partisanship. You, defecatious, and all the rest are not American; you do not get to support the Constitution when and where it dove tails with your politics.

    Say whatever you like, but the vast majority of the men and women here are more than objective and intelligent enough to recognize you for exactly what you are.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 04/19/2007 @ 11:17am

  70. Posted by BRUNOWE 04/19/2007 @ 11:11am

    As I said above, there have been stories out there that some of the attorneys were fired because they were investigating Republican office-holders. If that's true, and the investigation is about that, than it's obstruction of justice. This isn't even close to a witch-hunt.

    If those 'stories' were true, I'd be in favor of the hearings. But thus far, no one circulating these 'stories' has come forth. 'Stories' are not the basis of an investigation.

    Posted by pontificus at 04/19/2007 @ 11:20am

  71. Posted by MTSPENCE05 04/19/2007 @ 11:17am

    So, in your opinion, the president is free to politicize the Attorney General's office? The so called "rule of law" can just be discarded? All confidence in the non-partisan application of the law is of no concern? To the winner go the spoils? And where does that lead?

    MT, your posts are so full of strawmen, non-sequiturs, and circular reasoning, I would be surprised if you can dress yourself in the morning.

    Posted by pontificus at 04/19/2007 @ 11:23am

  72. But I still have not heard anyone on the left explain Hillary's $100 k bribe from Tyson. Nothing but peculiar silence.

    Posted by PONTIFICUS

    I'm not defending the bitch. She's nothing more than a corporate hack. Wrong is wrong.

    Was it not the independent prosecuter (what's the right wing hack's name) that went from Whitewater to Monica? (Did Monica make any accusations of sexual exploitations?) Hypocrites.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 04/19/2007 @ 11:23am

  73. Say whatever you like, but the vast majority of the men and women here are more than objective and intelligent enough to recognize you for exactly what you are.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 04/19/2007 @ 11:24am

  74. We have one person taking the fifth.We have Gonzales practicing for days for what conservative say is perfectly ok firings.People frequently take the fifth and practice testimony over nothing just like highly skilled lawyers like Libby lie under oath and obstruct justice because he know that he broke no laws.Lawyers take the fifth,lie under oath,obstruct justice because they know they did no wrong ,according to our right wingers.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 04/19/2007 @ 11:24am

  75. Posted by NATHANHALE 04/19/2007 @ 11:16am

    Bwaaa-hahaha!!! Does that mean Bushies should continue to lie about why they do the things they do (before being exposed as incompetent Mayberry Machiavellis), or, tell the truth (and expose themselves as incompetent Mayberry Macchiavellis)?

    Such a conundrum...maybe Turd Blossom will come to the rescue...

    A wonderfully bad-faith post, very suitably in support of a bad-faith investigation. In your world, Bush's people are either very good liars, in which case their criminality is never discovered. Or, alternatively, they are very bad liars, in which case they DO get caught, and their criminality is exposed.

    Pretty representative of the genre, I would say.

    Posted by pontificus at 04/19/2007 @ 11:26am

  76. Again, quotes are from mtspence05.

    "So, in your opinion, the president is free to politicize the Attorney General's office?"--Well, yeah. Only not in my opinion. It's a fact of life that politicians will politicize everything from hiring and firing US attorneys to panda breeding in the national zoo.

    "The so called "rule of law" can just be discarded?"--Absolutely not. So it's a good thing the rule of law was not discarded here, since no rule was broken.

    "You don't have to go to law school, be able to cite the law books to understand right and wrong."--True. And were not talking about right and wrong here, we're talking about the rule of law you keep bringing up. And since you keep bringing it up, I think it's perfectly fair to ask you to name one actual law that was broken by anyone.

    "If nothing wrong was done, why all the lying, covering up. How did they supposedly lose those emails? Why did an appeal of the charges of the one woman get thrown out, and with such strong language from the reviewing judges? If it smells like excrement, chances are it is just that."--I'm not saying that all the president's men, and the president himself, did a good job explaining what happened. Actually, I think the AG should be fired for letting a non-crime get us to where we are now. But it's also true that an investigation with political motives that you claim to deplore could make a rose garden smell like excrement.

    As for the litany of personal attacks that follow (my personal favorite is "you...are not American"), I'd just like to congratulate you on your powers of logic and debate. (Though it wouldn't hurt you to read the posting rules for this site. You know, the part that says, "Please refrain from straying off-topic and making personal attacks.") We disagree, my friend. Come, let's reason together.

    Now, again, please point out what law has been broken. I'd actually love to know.

    Posted by homerjelwood at 04/19/2007 @ 11:42am

  77. homerjelwood-Gonzales has told congress that he would never fire anyone for political reasons and now we need to know if that's true.We,also,need to know if any were fired in order to obstruct justice.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 04/19/2007 @ 11:47am

  78. Hey, Pontifurbator, can we get the representation of your genre: what's your over-under on how many times we're going to hear some variation of "I don't recall" coming out of Fredo's mouth as he testifies to the Senate? Has the over-under gone up or gone down since Fredo spent the past few weeks preparing for his testimony?

    Posted by nathanhale at 04/19/2007 @ 11:50am

  79. Posted by HOMERJELWOOD

    Partisan scum like you, reason? Right. If any of these attorneys were fired because of something they did or did not do in relation to partisan politics then that is a crime. The investigations (and the emails, once they are "recovered") will--I am confident--expose the unlawful behavior. Why do people lie, cover up, lose emails?

    Posted by mtspence05 at 04/19/2007 @ 11:53am

  80. Posted by NATHANHALE 04/19/2007 @ 11:50am

    Hey, Pontifurbator, can we get the representation of your genre: what's your over-under on how many times we're going to hear some variation of "I don't recall" coming out of Fredo's mouth as he testifies to the Senate? Has the over-under gone up or gone down since Fredo spent the past few weeks preparing for his testimony?

    Judging by the way Libby was handled, if I was Gonzales' counsel, I would advise him to say 'I don't remember' to every question he was asked.

    Posted by pontificus at 04/19/2007 @ 11:54am

  81. Posted by MTSPENCE05 04/19/2007 @ 11:53am

    MT, you do realize that you're just raving, don't you?

    Posted by pontificus at 04/19/2007 @ 11:56am

  82. True, I have had a little too much coffee this morning. That does not, however, invalidate what I've posted.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 04/19/2007 @ 11:58am

  83. Posted by PONTIFICUS 04/19/2007 @ 11:54am

    Well, Fredo just now said he doesn't recall the 11/27/2006 meeting in his own office (you know, the one where Sampson said they discussed the list) "I don't recall the contents of this meeting..."

    And no, it's no surprise that you dodged giving an answer: it's in keeping with your genre....

    Posted by nathanhale at 04/19/2007 @ 11:59am

  84. And I feel that "partisan scum" is more than appropriate.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 04/19/2007 @ 11:59am

  85. Posted by I'M NOBODY 04/19/2007 @ 11:47am

    All fair questions. My point is we do not need congressional hearings to find these things out. They quickly, nay, immediately devolve into grandstanding for cameras. (The Daily Show did a great bit one time, I think it was during a Supreme Court nomination hearing, with a contest to see which senator could talk the longest before asking an actual question. I believe Sen Biden won with over ten minutes.) We can find out if there was obstruction of justice with an off-camera investigation. This would determine if an actual crime has been committed. And I think it was stupid for the AG to say he would never fire a US Attorney for political reasons, since they are political appointments and firing them for political reasons is not a crime. Like I said, Gonzales should go for letting things get to this point.

    Posted by homerjelwood at 04/19/2007 @ 12:05pm

  86. How about if the AG is a bad manager? Or has lost the respect of the folks that work in the Justice Dept? How about if his policies are wrong, ie allowing torture on suspects and allowing kidnapping of foreign nationals? How can we determine if crimes have been committed when the people involved take the fifth and the Reagan Defense?

    I have to laugh at the Apologists, as long as no laws are broken, discovered and proesecuted then their is no wrong. Incompetence is A-OK by them.

    then, when someone convicted, people like PONTI still find something to hide behind. "He forgot", "No underlying crime"

    Posted by crabwalk at 04/19/2007 @ 12:08pm

  87. he would never fire a US Attorney for political reasons, since they are political appointments and firing them for political reasons is not a crime. Like I said, Gonzales should go for letting things get to this point.

    Posted by HOMERJELWOOD

    You just don't get it, do you? Are you sincerely incapable of extrapolation? Do you have one of those brains in your head?

    Posted by mtspence05 at 04/19/2007 @ 12:09pm

  88. Posted by CRABWALK

    And he talks of "circular logic"!

    Posted by mtspence05 at 04/19/2007 @ 12:10pm

  89. Posted by MTSPENCE05 04/19/2007 @ 11:53am

    "Partisan scum like you, reason? Right."--Now I'm not only not American, but I'm also scum that lacks the ability to reason. I'm quickly moving down the ladder.

    "If any of these attorneys were fired because of something they did or did not do in relation to partisan politics then that is a crime."--No, Spence, it really isn't. Again, just because you wish it so doesn't make it so.

    Posted by homerjelwood at 04/19/2007 @ 12:10pm

  90. then, when is someone convicted, blah blah...Ponti, obfuscate, hide...

    Posted by crabwalk at 04/19/2007 @ 12:11pm

  91. You just don't get it, do you? Are you sincerely incapable of extrapolation? Do you have one of those brains in your head?

    Posted by MTSPENCE05 04/19/2007 @ 12:09pm |

    What am I supposed to "get?" What am I supposed to "extrapolate?" And for the nth time, what crime was committed?

    Posted by homerjelwood at 04/19/2007 @ 12:14pm

  92. For those of you that missed it the first time, here is a view from someone that worked in the Justice Dept for decades:

    Third, and most significantly for present purposes, there was an almost immediate influx of young political aides beginning in the first half of 2005 (e.g., counsels to the AG, associate deputy attorneys general, deputy associate attorneys general, and deputy assistant attorneys general) whose inexperience in the processes of government was surpassed only by their evident disdain for it."

    As I see it, the Apologists are fine with political machinations over good governance.

    Posted by crabwalk at 04/19/2007 @ 12:16pm

  93. Posted by HOMERJELWOOD

    Then you're only attempting to split hairs.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 04/19/2007 @ 12:19pm

  94. What am I supposed to "get?" What am I supposed to "extrapolate?" And for the nth time, what crime was committed?

    Posted by HOMERJELWOOD

    You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make it drink (and you can do even less with a jackass).

    Posted by mtspence05 at 04/19/2007 @ 12:22pm

  95. And this is not a purely partisan endeavor. There are Republicans questioning what has been done by this administration.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 04/19/2007 @ 12:26pm

  96. You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make it drink (and you can do even less with a jackass).

    Posted by MTSPENCE05 04/19/2007 @ 12:22pm

    Ouch! Bravo, my good man! You sure showed me! Didn't answer a single question, but hey, thanks for playing.

    Posted by homerjelwood at 04/19/2007 @ 12:27pm

  97. Then you're only attempting to split hairs.

    Posted by MTSPENCE05 04/19/2007 @ 12:19pm

    You can't split hairs on a bald head, and you can't break a non-existent law.

    Posted by homerjelwood at 04/19/2007 @ 12:29pm

  98. Once again, we're not at Limbaugh.com; you're not fooling anybody other than yourself.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 04/19/2007 @ 12:29pm

  99. Bald--empty--head.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 04/19/2007 @ 12:29pm

  100. "I don't recall have any conversations with Mr. Karl Rove..."

    Posted by mtspence05 at 04/19/2007 @ 12:34pm

  101. Sorry, it's late where I am, and I have to sign off soon. It was fun playing the "See How Fast We Can Turn Rational Debate Into Personal Attacks" with you, Spence. I'll talk to you later about another topic, I'm sure. Looking forward to it!

    Posted by homerjelwood at 04/19/2007 @ 12:35pm

  102. As I said above, there have been stories out there that some of the attorneys were fired because they were investigating Republican office-holders. If that's true, and the investigation is about that, than it's obstruction of justice. This isn't even close to a witch-hunt.

    Posted by BRUNOWE

    There you go. It's been said many times already, but since you've chosen to ignore it each and every time...

    Posted by mtspence05 at 04/19/2007 @ 12:39pm

  103. HOMERJELWOOD ,

    They are arm chair lawyers like most of us, it all emotional with them as in, "I just knoiw he lied and is guilty", as they weave imaginary confessions and come to the conclusions that their logic lead them to their truth..Bush lied!!!

    only one problem..its not real..

    there was no crime..and fishing for one is at best a witch hunt..the longer this goes on the more bored people will become...except here, the shrillness will increase..everyone knows the blogs are the loons and they react to any stimulus.

    There is a definite hate for Bush out there..what never gets noticed is the lack of love for the Dems of any stripe.. You have your answer from nuts like MT..there was no crime committed, thats but you will never get an answer from his lips, he can't face the truth deep down.

    Posted by john maasch at 04/19/2007 @ 12:42pm

  104. As I said above, there have been stories out there that some of the attorneys were fired because they were investigating Republican office-holders. If that's true, and the investigation is about that, than it's obstruction of justice. This isn't even close to a witch-hunt.

    Posted by BRUNOWE

    There you go. It's been said many times already, but since you've chosen to ignore it each and every time...

    Posted by MTSPENCE05 04/19/2007 @ 12:39pm |

    And as I said, that is a fair question, and can be investigated off-camera without the political grandstanding of a congressional hearing.

    Posted by homerjelwood at 04/19/2007 @ 12:43pm

  105. And repeating lies, playing little vagina games, refusing to acknowledge a point, sticking to a partisan line is not "rational debate". (It might be at Libery Unviversity, but not here.)

    Posted by mtspence05 at 04/19/2007 @ 12:43pm

  106. And as I said, that is a fair question, and can be investigated off-camera without the political grandstanding of a congressional hearing.

    Posted by HOMERJELWOOD

    This administration deserves no such consideration. It has repeatedly lied, mislead, abused its authority. How many years have we been subjected to the disdain, condescension, outright contempt of these arrogant fools? It is payback time! As I said, there are Repubs joining those disgusted with the behavior of this administration. This is not about partisanship.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 04/19/2007 @ 12:47pm

  107. And repeating lies, playing little vagina games, refusing to acknowledge a point, sticking to a partisan line is not "rational debate". (It might be at Libery Unviversity, but not here.)

    Posted by MTSPENCE05 04/19/2007 @ 12:43pm

    First, what lie have I repeated? Second, vagina games? What are those, and how do you play? And as for refusing to acknowledge a point, I did acknowledge all points, then made a counterpoint. that's how debate works. And I kept my opinion (or "partisan line," as I guess it's now called) because you have yet to refute it. And finally, I have no idea how they do things at Liberty, since I graduated from the University of Wisconsin.

    Posted by homerjelwood at 04/19/2007 @ 12:55pm

  108. Posted by MTSPENCE05 04/19/2007 @ 12:47pm

    This administration deserves no such consideration. It has repeatedly lied, mislead, abused its authority. How many years have we been subjected to the disdain, condescension, outright contempt of these arrogant fools? It is payback time! As I said, there are Repubs joining those disgusted with the behavior of this administration. This is not about partisanship.

    You know, MT, I saw a video on NBC last night of a guy who sounded just like you. He had a gun in his hand. You don't own any guns, do you? Take anti-depressive medication? Scare people around you?

    Posted by pontificus at 04/19/2007 @ 12:57pm

  109. And as I said, that is a fair question, and can be investigated off-camera without the political grandstanding of a congressional hearing.

    Posted by HOMERJELWOOD

    This administration deserves no such consideration.

    Posted by MTSPENCE05 04/19/2007 @ 12:47pm

    I have no interest in consideration for the administration. I was talking about a way to actually conduct an investigation, not get yourself on camera and pontificate for ten plus minutes before actually asking a question.

    Posted by homerjelwood at 04/19/2007 @ 12:58pm

  110. As I said above, there have been stories out there that some of the attorneys were fired because they were investigating Republican office-holders. If that's true, and the investigation is about that, than it's obstruction of justice. This isn't even close to a witch-hunt.

    Posted by BRUNOWE

    Posted by mtspence05 at 04/19/2007 @ 1:16pm

  111. As I said above, there have been stories out there that some of the attorneys were fired because they were investigating Republican office-holders. If that's true, and the investigation is about that, than it's obstruction of justice. This isn't even close to a witch-hunt.

    Posted by BRUNOWE

    Posted by MTSPENCE05 04/19/2007 @ 1:16pm

    Addressed and answered earlier in my reply to a response from im nobody:

    All fair questions. My point is we do not need congressional hearings to find these things out. They quickly, nay, immediately devolve into grandstanding for cameras. (The Daily Show did a great bit one time, I think it was during a Supreme Court nomination hearing, with a contest to see which senator could talk the longest before asking an actual question. I believe Sen Biden won with over ten minutes.) We can find out if there was obstruction of justice with an off-camera investigation. This would determine if an actual crime has been committed. Posted by HOMERJELWOOD 04/19/2007 @ 12:05pm |

    Posted by homerjelwood at 04/19/2007 @ 1:24pm

  112. There is a definite hate for Bush out there..what never gets noticed is the lack of love for the Dems of any stripe.. You have your answer from nuts like MT..there was no crime committed, thats but you will never get an answer from his lips, he can't face the truth deep down. Posted by JOHN MAASCH

    As I said above, there have been stories out there that some of the attorneys were fired because they were investigating Republican office-holders. If that's true, and the investigation is about that, than it's obstruction of justice. This isn't even close to a witch-hunt. Posted by BRUNOWE

    Did you bother to read that post, you old lying coward? Did you even bother to read the article this time, you old lying coward?

    And you want to speak of "truth"? Once again, how old are you? You didn't serve in the armed forces during the Vietman War because you were: A) Too young? B) Had a high draft number? C) Hid behind the luxury of a education deferment while those without the money to attend college had to go fight?

    Posted by mtspence05 at 04/19/2007 @ 1:29pm

  113. Posted by HOMERJELWOOD

    You also stated that no crime has been committed--over and over again.

    And if this administration had been straight forward from the get go maybe the Senate could have cut it a little slack and conducted the inquiries behind closed doors. You lose emails, you make contradictory statements to House members and/or Senators, this is what happens.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 04/19/2007 @ 1:33pm

  114. If those 'stories' were true, I'd be in favor of the hearings. But thus far, no one circulating these 'stories' has come forth. 'Stories' are not the basis of an investigation.

    First, the fact that Lam, et al. were doing these investigations is a matter of public records, as is the rating of USAttys by loyalty to the administration (being loyal "Bushies"). Here's [tinyurl.com] the piece mentioning Cummins' investigation. Another example, David Iglesias has publicly stated [tinyurl.com] that Domenici and Thomas pushed him on the "voter fraud" investigation. Further, the Administration originally lied about the cause for the dismissal of the USAttys, citing "performance reasons". There are enough "coincidences" and inconsistencies in the Administration stories to more than justify an investigation. BTW, if this is all news to you, you just haven't been paying attention.

    And as I said, that is a fair question, and can be investigated off-camera without the political grandstanding of a congressional hearing.

    First, a Congressional hearing is required as part of Congress' oversight responsibility. Second, the public has a legitimate interest in Congress's actions being publicly available as much as possible (allowing for national security concerns, etc.). Third, both sides are would leak like a sieve anything done off-camera, so we are better off with a public record.

    Posted by brunowe at 04/19/2007 @ 1:41pm

  115. You also stated that no crime has been committed--over and over again.

    And if this administration had been straight forward from the get go maybe the Senate could have cut it a little slack and conducted the inquiries behind closed doors. You lose emails, you make contradictory statements to House members and/or Senators, this is what happens.

    Posted by MTSPENCE05 04/19/2007 @ 1:33pm

    Yes, I did say that over and over again, because no crime had been committed and, over and over again, you did nothing to prove me wrong.

    As for the possibility that "if this administration had been straight forward from the get go maybe the Senate could have cut it a little slack and conducted the inquiries behind closed doors," please! Do you honestly believe that congress ever had any interest in cutting anyone any slack?

    I agree that contradictory statements and lost emails happenned, and those ARE crimes if intentional and any crimes there should be prosecuted. My whole point, though, is that firing US Attorneys is not illegal, and that no evidence, other than accusations, has been presented that obstruction of justice occurred. Thus, no original crime to even begin a senate grilling for CSPAN. Any possible crimes, which I've just conceded to, would have occurred in the investigation of a non-crime.

    Posted by homerjelwood at 04/19/2007 @ 1:56pm

  116. and that no evidence, other than accusations, has been presented that obstruction of justice occurred. Thus, no original crime to even begin a senate grilling for CSPAN.

    Except that it is the legitimate purpose of an investigation to investigate such accusations, especially given the fact that the accusations are supported by the fact that the USAttys investigations were underway. Congress doesn't need to have conclusive proof of a crime before investigation, there is enough out there to give rise to a reasonable suspicion.

    Posted by brunowe at 04/19/2007 @ 1:58pm

  117. Posted by BRUNOWE 04/19/2007 @ 1:41pm

    First, the fact that Lam, et al. were doing these investigations is a matter of public records, as is the rating of USAttys by loyalty to the administration (being loyal "Bushies"). Here's [tinyurl.com] the piece mentioning Cummins' investigation. Another example, David Iglesias has publicly stated [tinyurl.com] that Domenici and Thomas pushed him on the "voter fraud" investigation. Further, the Administration originally lied about the cause for the dismissal of the USAttys, citing "performance reasons". There are enough "coincidences" and inconsistencies in the Administration stories to more than justify an investigation. BTW, if this is all news to you, you just haven't been paying attention.

    I've been following the coverage of the hearings and so far, there's been little or any focus of the Democratic Senators on Lam or any other particular case. Gonzales, on the other hand, seems to have laid out some pretty clear reasons why each and every USAG was let go, and they all seem to be related to poor performance. Pretty good of him, considering that most of this oversight is patently over-the-top given the fact that speculation seems to be its only impetus.

    My guess is that this will be clearer than ever by the time these hearings wind up. My prediction is that reasonable people can and will get tired of these kinds of partisan fishing expeditions.

    Posted by pontificus at 04/19/2007 @ 2:00pm

  118. Posted by BRUNOWE 04/19/2007 @ 1:58pm

    Agreed. And to actually conduct an investigation, and actually uncover facts, evidence, and possible proof, you do so off camera. Grandstanding is not about factfinding, but scoring points on camera. Thus, we've now politicized the investigation into suspected politicized firing of US attorneys.

    Posted by homerjelwood at 04/19/2007 @ 2:05pm

  119. "Do you honestly believe that congress ever had any interest in cutting anyone any slack?"

    I can't say. This is, however, a bipartisan effort; it's not just Dems that are asking hard questions. I can say for sure, though, that the past Congress was far too interested in giving this administration a blank check. I can also say, without any doubts, that it is the job of Congress to practise oversight and to check the power of the executive.

    "...no crime had been committed..."

    Huh, I guess you're privy to information that none of us--including the Senate--has. That's impressive. Contrary to your claims, I feel that an investigation is more than called for. Pardon me for not simply accepting your word on the matter.

    "My whole point, though, is that firing US Attorneys is not illegal, and that no evidence, other than accusations, has been presented that obstruction of justice occurred."

    I think that's why the Senate is investigating the firings, is it not?

    Posted by mtspence05 at 04/19/2007 @ 2:07pm

  120. I've been following the coverage of the hearings and so far, there's been little or any focus of the Democratic Senators on Lam or any other particular case. Gonzales, on the other hand, seems to have laid out some pretty clear reasons why each and every USAG was let go, and they all seem to be related to poor performance. Posted by PONTIFICUS

    Why don't you get a job with Faux News, defecatious?

    Posted by mtspence05 at 04/19/2007 @ 2:10pm

  121. "My whole point, though, is that firing US Attorneys is not illegal, and that no evidence, other than accusations, has been presented that obstruction of justice occurred."

    I think that's why the Senate is investigating the firings, is it not?

    Posted by MTSPENCE05 04/19/2007 @ 2:07pm

    Yes it is, though actual fact finding happens off-camera.

    And this is definitely a bipartisan effort. I never said it wasn't.

    Posted by homerjelwood at 04/19/2007 @ 2:12pm

  122. Gonzales, on the other hand, seems to have laid out some pretty clear reasons why each and every USAG was let go, and they all seem to be related to poor performance.

    You mean Gonzalez read a prepared list that he had a month to rehearse in response to a softball question from Brownback.

    Agreed. And to actually conduct an investigation, and actually uncover facts, evidence, and possible proof, you do so off camera. Grandstanding is not about factfinding, but scoring points on camera. Thus, we've now politicized the investigation into suspected politicized firing of US attorneys.

    I would point out that much of this work is, in fact, done off-camera. There is considerable staff work, research, drafting of questions, etc. that's done in prepration for this.

    Except that this is a matter of public concern. Congressional hearings are public matters, what rationale would Congress have for barring camera coverage. That is ultimately a journalistic judgement, Leahy certainly can't compel CNN, NYTimes, etc. to cover the hearing. This is about public accountability and Gonzales isn't entitled to stay in the shadows on this.

    Posted by brunowe at 04/19/2007 @ 2:17pm

  123. Posted by HOMERJELWOOD

    So what is your point, once again?

    Posted by mtspence05 at 04/19/2007 @ 2:18pm

  124. Ah yes, transparent oversight in action for 'we the people's' consumption.

    The circular hsuB Fredo logic will go just so far. They're about to spin out of control holding back-- but talk about 'not' getting an answer to whose idea it was to begin with... his? Rove's? hsuB's?

    Posted by hsuBfools at 04/19/2007 @ 2:23pm

  125. Posted by BRUNOWE 04/19/2007 @ 2:17pm

    Brunowe, the reasons you have cited for justifying this investigation could be used to justify practically ANY Senate investigation. Anyone can make an accusation, and anyone can speculate. But without any evidence, or even any objective reason to believe these types of things to be true, it's all spurious. And as these hearings are proving, not only is there no fire, there's not even any smoke.

    And the fact that Gonzales read a list of justifications prepared in response to a softball question does nothing to invalidate the fact that these justifications address the question of reasons why people were fired, independent of the ONLY justification for these hearings: that the Justice Dept was being used to persecute enemies or protect friends. You seem to imply that the fact that they answered the question alone makes them unacceptable.

    Posted by pontificus at 04/19/2007 @ 2:24pm

  126. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 04/19/2007 @ 2:23pm

    The circular hsuB Fredo logic will go just so far. They're about to spin out of control holding back-- but talk about 'not' getting an answer to whose idea it was to begin with... his? Rove's? hsuB's?

    The use of the Justice Dept to harass enemies and protect friends is a justifiable subject of concern. Conversely, the use of unnecessary oversight hearings for the purpose of hectoring and harassing one's political enemies is also an abuse of power. The questin is, which one is going on here?

    Posted by pontificus at 04/19/2007 @ 2:26pm

  127. whose idea it was to begin with... his? Rove's? hsuB's?

    Who initiated the idea to fire USA's? Seems Gonzales was at the back end in case a scape goat was needed. We should be getting to this point soon.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 04/19/2007 @ 2:29pm

  128. Brunowe, the reasons you have cited for justifying this investigation could be used to justify practically ANY Senate investigation. Anyone can make an accusation, and anyone can speculate. But without any evidence, or even any objective reason to believe these types of things to be true

    Except, as I and others keep pointing out, it isn't just accusations and speculation. The political ranking of USAttys and the involvement of Rove is a matter of records. The fact that all the fired USAttys were either investigating Republican politicians or under pressure from Republican politicians to launch "voter fraud" cases is also a matter of public record. The fact that Gonzalez has been less than forthright is a matter of public records. Those aren't just accusations and speculation.

    And the fact that Gonzales read a list of justifications prepared in response to a softball question does nothing to invalidate the fact that these justifications address the question of reasons why people were fired, independent of the ONLY justification for these hearings: that the Justice Dept was being used to persecute enemies or protect friends. You seem to imply that the fact that they answered the question alone makes them unacceptable.

    Not at all. My point is that fact that he performed adequately in a set-piece isn't terribly impressive or dispositive.

    Posted by brunowe at 04/19/2007 @ 2:49pm

  129. The political ranking of USAttys and the involvement of Rove is a matter of records.

    And neither means anything. As political appointees, political rankings are appropriate. As an example, one might surmise that all of the 93 attys that Clinton fired en masse had a political ranking of '0'. And since Rove has not, counter to common leftist belief, been identified as 'The Devil', his involvement, if there was any, doesn't matter a whit either.

    The fact that all the fired USAttys were either investigating Republican politicians or under pressure from Republican politicians to launch "voter fraud" cases is also a matter of public record.

    If atty's were not diligently pursuing voter fraud, isn't that a problem?

    I would agree that if they were all fired for prosecuting Republicans, and that was why they were fired, that would be a problem. But do you have any 'public records' to indicate that that was so?

    The fact that Gonzalez has been less than forthright is a matter of public records.

    Since when does 'less than forthright' become the justification for a criminal investigation? Did you miss the Clinton years in their entirety? If 'less than forthright' was a justification, none of those folks would be free.

    Posted by pontificus at 04/19/2007 @ 2:59pm

  130. Posted by BRUNOWE 04/19/2007 @ 2:49pm

    Like I've been saying all along, these hearings are nothing but a poltical witch hunt and fishing expedition. You can disagree with me all you want, but the fact is that these hearings are going nowhere, and they are a misuse of taxpayer funds and an abuse of power by the most left-wing of Senators Leahy, Schumer, Kennedy, et al. Moonbats all.

    Posted by pontificus at 04/19/2007 @ 3:10pm

  131. Don't believe me? Check back in a month. Ask yourself what the upshot of all this nonsense is. Gonzales might be gone, but it'll have nothing to do with the law, or the purported but bad-faith purpose of these hearings, and everything to do with not putting this nonsense to rest much earlier.

    Posted by pontificus at 04/19/2007 @ 3:20pm

  132. Ponti, you are so full of horseshit it's not funny. I just love the irony of people like you complaining about partisan politics.

    Posted by PONTIFICUS 04/19/2007 @ 10:28am

    Wow, talking to himself. At least now someone MIGHT believe him.

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 04/19/2007 @ 3:33pm

  133. Anybody who knows anything about rhetoric would find PONTI's circular arguments laughable

    Posted by PONTIFICUS 04/19/2007 @ 10:51am

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 04/19/2007 @ 3:35pm

  134. PONTI, your posts are so full of strawmen, non-sequiturs, and circular reasoning, I would be surprised if you can dress yourself in the morning.

    Posted by PONTIFICUS 04/19/2007 @ 11:23am

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 04/19/2007 @ 3:36pm

  135. if I was Gonzales' counsel, I would advise him to say 'I don't remember' to every question he was asked.

    Posted by PONTIFICUS 04/19/2007 @ 11:54am

    So then you would simply advise him to lie to Congress. How patriotic of you.

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 04/19/2007 @ 3:37pm

  136. As political appointees, political rankings are appropriate. As an example, one might surmise that all of the 93 attys that Clinton fired en masse had a political ranking of '0'.

    Except it substantiates the argument that they were fired because they weren't basing prosecutorial decision on White House political imperatives. Your tired reference to Clinton's discharging of all 93 has been long discredited as that is standard procedure for the beginning of an administration (incl. the current one) and his considerably different from the instant case.

    If atty's were not diligently pursuing voter fraud, isn't that a problem?

    Actually, the issue is that they may have been fired for not going forward with spurious cases of voter fraud and not timing those cases to coincide with the 2006 elections.

    I would agree that if they were all fired for prosecuting Republicans, and that was why they were fired, that would be a problem. But do you have any 'public records' to indicate that that was so? ?

    Again, you have attorneys marked as politically "not with the team" (a list that had, temporarily, included Patrick Fitzgerald), who were investigating Republicans (or not doing politically-motivated investigations at the behest of Republicans) who were the ONLY ones fired. If it walks, talks and swims like a duck, Congress has a perfectly good reason to see if it's a duck.

    Since when does 'less than forthright' become the justification for a criminal investigation?

    By itself, no. However, since he was less than forthright on the reasons the USAttys were fired and his involvement in the process, that, in conjunction with the above, is a further reason for Congress to investigate.

    Gonzales might be gone, but it'll have nothing to do with the law, or the purported but bad-faith purpose of these hearings, and everything to do with not putting this nonsense to rest much earlier.

    What a self-serving bit of tail-covering. Essentially your saying that no matter what happens, you were right.

    Posted by brunowe at 04/19/2007 @ 4:02pm

  137. whose idea was it to begin with... his? Rove's? hsuB's?

    Who initiated the idea to fire USA's? Seems Gonzales was at the back end of the process in case a scapegoat was needed. We should be getting to this point soon.

    Asked and once again not answered. Gonzales only gave a generic answer and when asked if hsuB, Rove did, could not recall...

    Posted by hsuBfools at 04/19/2007 @ 4:13pm

  138. Firing Prosecutors

    It appears that, under Rove's direction the White House has been planning to use U.S. attorneys to fan national fears of voter fraud. In his speech to the GOP lawyers, Rove listed 11 states that would play a pivotal role in the 2008 elections. Since 2005, Bush has appointed new U.S. attorneys in nine of those states: Florida, Colorado, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, Arkansas and New Mexico.

    What's more, the firings of U.S. attorneys in New Mexico, Arkansas and Washington appear directly related to this Republican plan to exploit the issue of voter fraud and suppress Democratic turnout.

    In Arkansas, Bush fired a sitting U.S. attorney in order to appoint Rove protégé Tim Griffin. (See "The Talented Mr. Griffin" by Greg Palast on page 31.)

    In Washington, fired U.S. Attorney John McKay had refused to prosecute alleged voter fraud in the 2004 Washington governor's race, in which Democrat Chris Gregoire beat Republican Dino Rossi by 129 votes.

    On March 6, McKay testified before the Senate that after the election Republicans pressured him to open an investigation. He said his office had examined the allegations of voter fraud and decided there was not enough evidence to pursue a case.

    "Had anyone at the Justice Department or the White House ordered me to pursue any matter criminally in the 2004 governor's election, I would have resigned," McKay told the Seattle Times. "There was no evidence, and I am not going to drag innocent people in front of a grand jury."

    If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it must be a fucking duck.

    Seems so relatively simple even a Neo-Con Dead-Ender Howling Monkey could grasp the concept.

    You'd think. You'd be wrong.

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 04/19/2007 @ 4:29pm

  139. In New Mexico, David C. Iglesias was equally suspect in the eyes of the GOP. Recall that in 2000, Gore beat Bush by 377 votes in New Mexico. Consequently, in 2004, Democrat-affiliated groups initiated voter registration campaigns in New Mexico. As a result, two boys, age 13 and 15, received voter cards in the mail. Iglesias responded by setting up a bipartisan task force to investigate. This didn't satisfy attorney Mickey D. Barnett, who represented the 2004 Bush-Cheney campaign in New Mexico. He told Iglesias he should bring federal charges against a canvasser who forged their signatures, which he refused to do.

    In a New York Times op-ed, Iglesias wrote:

    What the critics, who don't have any experience as prosecutors, have asserted is reprehensible - namely that I should have proceeded without having proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The public has a right to believe that prosecution decisions are made on legal, not political grounds.

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 04/19/2007 @ 4:29pm

  140. Mickey Barnett was convicted a few years ago for breaking into someones home, stealing family pictures, and trying to extort money for their return.

    Another fine example of Repuke "Family Values"..... how much is that pic of your dead father worth to you lady????

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 04/19/2007 @ 4:30pm

  141. Don't believe me? Check back in a month. Ask yourself what the upshot of all this nonsense is. Gonzales might be gone, but it'll have nothing to do with the law, or the purported but bad-faith purpose of these hearings, and everything to do with not putting this nonsense to rest much earlier.

    Posted by PONTIFICUS

    Let's see what the email say.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 04/19/2007 @ 4:53pm

  142. Posted by BRUNOWE 04/19/2007 @ 4:02pm

    Except it substantiates the argument that they were fired because they weren't basing prosecutorial decision on White House political imperatives.

    That's EXACTLY WHY THEY ARE POLITICAL APPOINTEES - TO FOLLOW POLITICAL IMPERATIVES. US atty's, like all prosecutors, have wide leeway and discretion in pursuing cases. In terms of emphasis, they are appointed to follow the political priorities of the appointing Administration. This is perfectly legitimate. The only time it would NOT be legitimate is if the Administration was askign them to ABUSE that discretion...and so far, no-one has even accused the Administration of doing that.

    Your tired reference to Clinton's discharging of all 93 has been long discredited as that is standard procedure for the beginning of an administration (incl. the current one) and his considerably different from the instant case

    You might be tired of hearing it, and I don't blame you. Because the fact is, your distinction between the two, though real, is arbitrary and meaningless in terms of the merit of the firings. In both cases, the firings were political, they are just more specifically targeted when it comes to Bush's firings. If anything, Bush's firings are MORE defensible and justifiable, because he has definitive performance-based reasons for firing them, whereas in Clinton's case it was PURE politics. I really don't understand your persistence in claiming that for some reason, Clinton's case was perfectly fine and Bush's was not. They were different, sure; but both perfectly within the rights of the authorities making these decisions. As I stated before, the only case where your distinction is meaningful is if Bush's firings were the result of his intent to abuse the DoJ prosecutor's discretion - and as I have said, that has not even been charged, except PERHAPS in one case (Lam's) which is certainly NOT proved, and not even charged in others. In fact, Gonzo's testimony today give specific reasons why the opposite is true, that there were good, reasonable, and justifiable reasons to let these people go.

    Posted by pontificus at 04/19/2007 @ 5:04pm

  143. Mickey Barnett was convicted a few years ago for breaking into someones home, stealing family pictures, and trying to extort money for their return.

    Another fine example of Repuke "Family Values"..... how much is that pic of your dead father worth to you lady????

    Hey ponti - let's see you excuse THAT one away.

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 04/19/2007 @ 5:09pm

  144. I'm sure there was a GOOD REASON why he tried to extort money for their family photos.

    Let's hear it.

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 04/19/2007 @ 5:09pm

  145. What's more, the firings of U.S. attorneys in New Mexico, Arkansas and Washington appear directly related to this Republican plan to exploit the issue of voter fraud and suppress Democratic turnout.

    Or this one????

    Come on ponti, how would jesus LIE?

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 04/19/2007 @ 5:10pm

  146. By the way, ponti old sport, I'm taking names for the Great Neo-Con Asskicking contest - you can get a number, just email me at

    neoconmorons@hotmail.com.

    I'm sure I can find a slot for you. If you have the nut to defend your positions in person.

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 04/19/2007 @ 5:13pm

  147. This is one case that stinks though. It does look like Domenici might have engineered the ouster of Iglesias. IF true, this I would say constitutes abuse.

    http://www.abqjournal.com/news/special/554986nm04-15-07.htm

    Posted by pontificus at 04/19/2007 @ 5:24pm

  148. cut-n-run ponti.... no nuts, no brains.

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 04/19/2007 @ 5:29pm

  149. With 'enemies' like you lefties, the terrorists don't need friends. Expect another round of civilian-massacring, troop-killing suicide bombings to drive home Sen. Reid's point.

    Iraq war is 'lost': US Democrat leader Apr 19 02:45 PM US/Eastern The war in Iraq "is lost" and a US troop surge is failing to bring peace to the country, the leader of the Democratic majority in the US Congress, Harry Reid, said Thursday.

    "I believe ... that this war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything, as is shown by the extreme violence in Iraq this week," Reid told journalists.

    Reid said he had delivered the same message to US President George W. Bush on Wednesday, when the US president met with senior lawmakers to discuss how to end a standoff over an emergency war funding bill.

    Posted by pontificus at 04/19/2007 @ 5:44pm

  150. If there has been a bigger bunch of losers in charge of Congress than people like Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, I'm not aware of it.

    Posted by pontificus at 04/19/2007 @ 5:45pm

  151. Posted by PONTIFICUS 04/19/2007 @ 5:45pm

    Pull your head out of your ass, where it has obviously been tightly lodged for the last 6 years, and notice the line of Repukes on their way to jail for selling us all out.

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 04/19/2007 @ 5:54pm

  152. Wow, Democrats are now ACTIVELY undermining our country's war effort. Amazing.

    Posted by pontificus at 04/19/2007 @ 6:08pm

  153. Wow, Democrats are now ACTIVELY undermining our country's war effort. Amazing.

    Posted by PONTIFICUS 04/19/2007 @ 6:08pm

    Jesus H Christmas, you make so many stupid, untrue and outright ignorant statements I have neither the time nor the energy to criticize them all individually.

    Let me sum up:

    If US attorneys are fired to prevent an ongoing investigation (as it appears to have been the case in most if not all eight fired attorneys), that's called obstruction of justice, and a damn ironic crime for the head of the Justice Department to be tangled up in.

    If Attorney General Gonzalez lied to Congress, as it appears he has done on several occasions, whether under oath or not, that is a crime.

    And as to the non-sequitor quoted above, Reid and Pelosi reporting what generals and soldiers and diplomats and heads of state have been saying for years is the only way to support the troops, because the mess in Iraq has failed beyond anybody's wildest nightmares and getting the brave young men and women the hell out of there is the only thing that will stop them from getting slaughtered in a useless, meaningless, unjustified and ill-conceved war.

    Posted by Turk33 at 04/19/2007 @ 6:22pm

  154. And here's the Reader's Digest version of Gonzalez's answers to John Nichols' ten questions:

    1. I don't remember.

    2. I don't recall.

    3. I have no memory of anything at all.

    4. I don't remember.

    5. I don't recall.

    6. I have no memory of anything at all.

    7. I don't remember.

    8. I don't remember.

    9. I don't remember.

    10. I don't remember.

    (with much credit to Mr. Peter Gabriel)

    Posted by Turk33 at 04/19/2007 @ 6:26pm

  155. Posted by TURK33 04/19/2007 @ 6:22pm

    And as to the non-sequitor quoted above, Reid and Pelosi reporting what generals and soldiers and diplomats and heads of state have been saying for years is the only way to support the troops, because the mess in Iraq has failed beyond anybody's wildest nightmares blah blah blah..

    Horseshit. You losers have been saying we're losing from the beginning, all because you place your hatred of GWB above the welfare of the country. And every time you undermine the war effort in this way, you're providing aid and comfort to the enemy, encouraging them to kill civilians and our soldiers.

    Proud of yourself, TURKEY?

    Posted by pontificus at 04/19/2007 @ 6:35pm

  156. You losers have been saying we're losing from the beginning,

    No, we toppled big, bad Saddam, and then because the morons you worship are as stupid as you are and had no plan for the power vacuum that developed, it's been a cluster fuck ever since

    all because you place your hatred of GWB above the welfare of the country.

    I know that you lemmings do things irrationally, but our "hatred" of Bush is because he has done nothing but lie, fuck-up, mis-manage, and leave in ruins almost everything he has touched.

    And every time you undermine the war effort in this way, you're providing aid and comfort to the enemy, encouraging them to kill civilians and our soldiers.

    And there it is folks, the patented bullshit lemming response to anybody who has the temerity to expose the lemmings for what they are - lying, un-American, Constitution-hating, ignorant ideologues.

    Proud of yourself, TURKEY?

    Posted by PONTIFICUS 04/19/2007 @ 6:35pm

    You're fucking-A right I'm proud, you slippery, stupid, propaganda-spouting douchebag! Unlike you lemmings, I know that my thoughts and actions have been in the spirit of American freedom and patriotism. Unlike you lemmings I have never supported surrendering civil liberties of ANY American just so I could have the illusion of being safer. Unlike you lemmings I have never condoned an illegal war against a pathetic pissant who who never attacked America. Unlike you lemmings I have never had to compromise my principles in the support of any elected official. I have no problem sleeping at night, except when I think about the lemming-in-chief having a say in the way the country, and you and the rest of the 36% club who still believe the lemming bullshit. Now that scares the hell out of me!

    Posted by Turk33 at 04/19/2007 @ 10:31pm

  157. That's EXACTLY WHY THEY ARE POLITICAL APPOINTEES - TO FOLLOW POLITICAL IMPERATIVES. US atty's, like all prosecutors, have wide leeway and discretion in pursuing cases. In terms of emphasis, they are appointed to follow the political priorities of the appointing Administration. This is perfectly legitimate.

    It's one thing is following the administration that hired them there meant following certain priorities (drugs over white-collar crime, etc.). That is legitimate. What isn't legitimate is when those decisions are based on gaining political advantage for the party in the White House. That is the issue here; whether it is getting rid of USAttys that are investigating corruption among Republican officials or USAttys who are resisting making spurious voter fraud investigations just because they would benefit the party in power.

    You might be tired of hearing it, and I don't blame you. Because the fact is, your distinction between the two, though real, is arbitrary and meaningless in terms of the merit of the firings. In both cases, the firings were political, they are just more specifically targeted when it comes to Bush's firings. If anything, Bush's firings are MORE defensible and justifiable, because he has definitive performance-based reasons for firing them, whereas in Clinton's case it was PURE politics.

    My point is that the Clinton firings are of a piece with the Reagan firings and the BushI firings, etc. In short, it is routine procedure. The dismissal of eight USAttys mid-term, especially given the circumstances, isn't routine. Further, if the firings were based on the USAttys refusal to base prosecutorial decisions on Republican political advantage, then it's considerably different from just wanting his own team in place. Remember, no one objected to BushII firing his USAttys in 2001.

    Posted by brunowe at 04/20/2007 @ 01:16am

John Nichols John Nichols

Breaking news and analysis on political, social, economic and cultural activism that mainstream media commonly ignore.

Archives

  1. November 2009

  2. October 2009

  3. September 2009

  4. August 2009

  5. July 2009

  6. June 2009

blog roll

Advertisement
Advertisement

Blogs

» Editor's Cut

Around the Nation | The week we went Rouge. Plus, Moyers on Afghanistan.
Katrina vanden Heuvel
6 Comments
Posted at 10:37 ET

» The Beat

Health Care Bill Advances, as Harry Reid Trumps Sarah Palin | The death panelist-in-chief rallied her followers to "KILL THE BILL." But 60 senators decided to follow the real leader.
John Nichols
34 Comments

» The Notion

Palin as the Church Lady | Going Rogue book tour brings passive-aggressive rightwing Christianity to the fore.
Leslie Savan
136 Comments

» Altercation

Slacker Friday | The "Second Amendment" sale; the raving paranoids of the right.
Eric Alterman

» The Dreyfuss Report

Chongqing: Socialism in One City | China is managing the most important event in the world: the urbanization of half a billion people. Fast.
Robert Dreyfuss
207 Comments

» Act Now!

Toward Copenhagen | A guide to joining the movement against climate change.
Peter Rothberg
67 Comments