Furor Over DA Firings Grows

[Nickdfresh]

Pelosi calls for new attorney general

By Jill Zuckman
Tribune (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-070319pelosi,0,5911959.story) national correspondent

March 19, 2007, 11:31 AM CDT

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) added her voice to the growing chorus of discontent over the Justice Department's firing of eight federal prosecutors, saying today, "I believe we need a new attorney general.''

In a meeting with The Chicago Tribune editorial board and in an interview with WGN-TV, Pelosi said there was a reason Republicans feared a Democratic victory last November.

"They knew that the era of no oversight was over and that they would have to be held accountable,'' she said, citing the scandal at Walter Reed over the treatment of wounded soldiers, as well as questions about whether politics played a role in the dismissal of the U.S. attorneys.

"I think what is unfolding looks pretty bad for the administration as well as Alberto Gonzales,'' Pelosi said, noting that Republicans have begun calling for his dismissal in addition to Democrats.

Pelosi said it seems clear that Gonzales never stopped acting as President Bush's lawyer when he moved from the White House counsel's office to the Justice Department. But she said she would reserve judgment until House and Senate hearings reveal exactly what happened.

"I don't think Alberto Gonzales fundamentally understood the difference between being the president's lawyer and the attorney general of the United States and the premier defender of the Constitution,'' she said. "I think what is important is for us to have the hearings, which will be thorough and reasoned and put the facts on the record."

Pelosi said she believes Gonzales was not the only person involved in the decision to fire the federal prosecutors, many of whom were involved in pursuing corruption cases against Republicans.

"I don't think it looks good for him right now," Pelosi said of Gonzales.

Despite the bipartisan calls for Gonzales' ouster, the White House said today, "We hope he stays.''

Asked if Gonzales will serve out the remainder of Bush's term, White House spokesman Tony Snow said, "Well, we hope so.''

The Justice Department is expected to turn over to Congress today documents that could provide more information about the role that officials there played in dismissing the prosecutors. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) has said he wants to question Karl Rove, Bush's top political strategist, as well as Harriet Miers, the former White House counsel.

The White House is also expected to say this week whether it will allow them to testify before Congress.

jzuckman@tribune.com

Copyright © 2007, Chicago Tribune

[studly hungwell]

THE REASON THESE GUYS WERE FIRED IS IRRELEVANT. NOTHING ILLEGAL HAPPENED HERE.

[Nickdfresh]

Oh brother...

They fired DAs for investigating Republicans ("Duke" Cunningham).


And if it's irrelevant, then why won't it die, and why are Republicans now calling on Speedy to quit?

[studly hungwell]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Oh brother...

They fired DAs for investigating Republicans ("Duke" Cunningham).


And if it's irrelevant, then why won't it die, and why are Republicans now calling on Speedy to quit?

It won't die because its chic to 'hate bush with every bone in your body', these days. As far as why pubs want speedy to quit is more interesting...even the white house won't defend itself....let alone any congressional pub. Its easily understood why congressional pubs won't stand up for Bush but why won't he defend himself? It's pretty frustrating.

[Warham]

Pelosi thinks everybody in the White House should be replaced...with Democrat replacements.

[FORD]

Originally posted by Warham
Pelosi thinks everybody in the White House should be replaced...with Democrat replacements.

They will be.........

[FORD]

And put a fork in Speedy. He's done.

[Warham]

Originally posted by FORD
They will be.........

FORD, are you dreaming again?

[Ellyllions]

Pelosi keeps this up and we won't buy her a new fancy plane to tool around in...

[FORD]

Originally posted by Ellyllions
Pelosi keeps this up and we won't buy her a new fancy plane to tool around in...

Sorry, that's mandated by law. Thanks to what REPUBLICANS passed as part of 9-11 paranoia.

[Ellyllions]

I really don't care.
It's never been my money anyway and that's the ultimate goal of all politicians....the tax money.

[FORD]

Originally posted by Ellyllions
I really don't care.
It's never been my money anyway and that's the ultimate goal of all politicians....the tax money.

Then I assume you're REALLY pissed off about the $500 Billion wasted so far on that illegal and immoral clusterfuck in Iraq?

[FORD]

Like I said, Speedy's DONE.........

White House Seeking Gonzales Replacements
By: Mike Allen
March 19, 2007 09:06 PM EST

Republican officials operating at the behest of the White House have begun seeking a possible successor to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, whose support among GOP lawmakers on Capitol Hill has collapsed, according to party sources familiar with the discussions.

Among the names floated Monday by administration officials are Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and White House anti-terrorism coordinator Frances Townsend. Former Deputy Attorney General Larry Thompson is a White House prospect. So is former solicitor general Theodore B. Olson, but sources were unsure whether he would want the job.

Republican sources also disclosed that it is now a virtual certainty that Deputy Attorney General Paul J. McNulty, whose incomplete and inaccurate congressional testimony about the prosecutors helped precipitate the crisis, will also resign shortly. Officials were debating whether Gonzales and McNulty should depart at the same time or whether McNulty should go a day or two after Gonzales. Still known as "The Judge" for his service on the Texas Supreme Court, Gonzales is one of the few remaining original Texans who came to Washington with President Bush.

In a sign of Republican despair, GOP political strategists on Capitol Hill said that it is too late for Gonzales' departure to head off a full-scale Democratic investigation into the motives and timing behind the firing of eight U.S. attorneys.

"Democrats smell blood in the water, and (Gonzales') resignation won't stop them," said a well-connected Republican Senate aide. "And on our side, no one's going to defend him. All we can do is warn Democrats against overreaching."

A main reason Gonzales is finding few friends even among Republicans is that he has long been regarded with suspicion by conservatives who have questioned his ideological purity. In the past, these conservatives warned the White House against nominating him for the Supreme Court. Now they're using the controversy over the firing of eight federal prosecutors to take out their pent-up frustrations with how he has handled his leadership at Justice and how the White House has treated Congress.

Complaints range from his handling of immigration cases to his alleged ceding of power in the department to career officials instead of movement conservatives.


Without embracing Gonzales, Republicans pointed out that presidents are free to replace U.S. attorneys at will. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) noted on MSNBC that some of those who were replaced "haven't whined or complained about it" and added, "I think that there's a lot of politics, but I don't think it's just on one side."

But officials on Capitol Hill said that after the Justice Department failed to turn over a batch of e-mails about the prosecutors on Friday as expected, Republican senators became less likely to defend Gonzales or the White House. They feared the delay signaled more damaging information was in the pipeline.

"We have a crisis where there doesn't need to be one, and now Democrats have an issue where they can open up the subpoena floodgates," said an exasperated Republican aide. "Once these investigations start, there always ends up being a lot of messy collateral damage."

Now the White House is girding for a confirmation battle at the same time it is coping with Democrats' threats to subpoena aides to Bush, including senior adviser Karl Rove.

Among the contenders to replace Gonzales, Chertoff is a former U.S. circuit judge for the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Philadelphia. Before that, he was confirmed by the Senate in 2003 as assistant attorney general for the criminal division.

Under this scenario, Chertoff's successor at the Department of Homeland Security might be Townsend, who now works in the White House as assistant to the president for homeland security and counterterrorism. Townsend held senior Justice Department posts under Attorney General Janet Reno during the Clinton administration and is also a potential nominee for attorney general.

Republican sources said other widely respected Republican lawyers have been considered for attorney general, although some of them may not be interested in taking the job. These names include:

--Former Sen. Fred Thompson of Tennessee, the "Law & Order" star who is now considering seeking the Republican presidential nomination.

--Olson, who was Bush's first solicitor general and now is a partner at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher in Washington.

--Larry Thompson, who has been general counsel of PepsiCo Inc. since leaving his first-term job as deputy to Attorney General John Ashcroft.

--Retired federal judge Laurence H. Silberman, who was named by Bush to be co-chairman of the Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction.

--George J. Terwilliger III, a former deputy attorney general and acting attorney general who was a leader of Bush's legal team during the Florida election recount.

Asked if Gonzales will stay, White House Press Secretary Tony Snow said Monday: "We hope so. He has the confidence of the president." But Snow also revealed that the president had not talked to Gonzales since a conversation the two had when Bush was in Mexico last week.

Link (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0307/3202.html)

[FORD]

If they put Ted Olson under oath at confirmation hearings, I got some questions for that bastard.........

[Guitar Shark]

I actually know the D.A. from Washington who was fired (McKay). Nice guy.

[FORD]

Originally posted by Guitar Shark
I actually know the D.A. from Washington who was fired (McKay). Nice guy.

You should ask him who he was investigating (that got him fired)

[Ellyllions]

Originally posted by FORD
Then I assume you're REALLY pissed off about the $500 Billion wasted so far on that illegal and immoral clusterfuck in Iraq?

Boy, that's a leading question if I ever read one...

[Warham]

How was the Iraq War 'illegal', or 'immoral'?

Saddam Hussein killed anywhere from 100,000 to 500,000 of his own people, and that's probably low-balling the number.

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by studly hungwell
chic to 'hate bush with every bone in your body', these days.

There's nothing "chic" about it. He's a worthless, lying, piece of shit scumbag. Most people just took awhile to realize it.

[Warham]

These libs won't have anything to do after Bush leaves office.

It'll be alot quieter around here in two years.

[Ellyllions]

It's already gotten a lot more quiet since the Dems took over Congress.

Honestly, I've been staying out of the Front Line because it's all shits and giggles now anyway. The filthy scum in DC is going to do whatever the fuck they wanna do no matter how hard we battle morals. They don't give a shit about any of us or anyone in another country. They all wallow in their stinking high chairs and battle each other over partisanship no matter who it hurts.

All we do is belittle each other into a tizzy for people who are the lowest form of oxygen users in our whole population. And the Pelosi's and Clinton's hands are just as dirty as the Bush's and the Cheney's.

So battle on....they don't care. You're their puppets for acting like they'll make a difference. They've been promising shit for 8 years now and they choose sides based on power and popularity.

Life will go on, status quo...gas prices will go up and down, the soldiers will come home eventually, and there will be another political battle to fight. The only reason we're even paying attention to all of this is because of our age anyway. It's not like any of this is new...only new fronts from Administration to Administration.

In the 80's, my teenage head was too far up my own ass to know how close we were to a nuclear war with the Soviet Union. I saw the music videos and the protests about how much Regan was hated. In the 90's I video taped the start of the Gulf War and cried when my cousin was sent. I saw the Bush bashing and when the war was over I went back to raising my son. I was aware of how bad Clinton was made fun of and how much people hated him then too.

Today is no different.

[Hardrock69]

Here is a neat article:


Our Highest Law Enforcement Officials are Criminals
Crime Blotter: 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue

By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS

While serving as President Bush's White House lawyer, Alberto Gonzales advised Bush that the president's war time powers permitted Bush to ignore the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and to use the National Security Agency (NSA) to spy on US citizens without obtaining warrants from the FISA court as required by law. Under an order signed by Bush in 2002, NSA illegally spied on Americans without warrants.

By spying on Americans without obtaining warrants, Bush committed felonies under FISA. Moreover, there is strong, indeed overwhelming, evidence that justice was obstructed when Bush and Gonzales blocked a 2006 Justice Department investigation into whether Gonzales acted properly as Attorney General in approving and overseeing the Bush administration's program of spying on US citizens. Also at issue is whether Gonzales acted properly in advising Bush to kill an investigation of Gonzales' professional actions with regard to the NSA spy program.

We are faced with the almost certain fact that the two highest law enforcement officials of the United States are criminals.

The evidence that Bush and Gonzales have obstructed justice comes from internal Justice Department memos and exchanges of letters between the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), an investigative office, and members of Congress. The documents were leaked to the National Journal, and the story was reported in the March 15, 2007, issue by Murray Waas, who also relied on interviews with both current and former high ranking DOJ officials. Ten months previously on May 25, 2006, Waas broke the story in the National Journal about the derailing of the OPR investigation.

From Waas's report it is obvious that many current and former Justice Department officials have serious concerns about the high-handed behavior of the Bush administration. The incriminating documents were leaked to the National Journal, the only remaining national publication that has any credibility. The New York Times and Washington Post have proven to be supine tools of the Bush administration and are no longer trusted.

When the Bush administration's violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was leaked to the New York Times, the paper's editors obliged Bush by spiking the story for one year, while Bush illegally collected information that he could use to blackmail his critics into silence. As I wrote at the time, the only possible reason for violating FISA is to collect information that can be used to silence critics. The administration's claim that bypassing FISA was essential to the "war on terror" is totally false and is a justification and practice that the Bush administration, no longer able to defend, abandoned in January of this year.

The known facts: After keeping the information from Congress and the public for one year, on Dec. 16, 2005, the New York Times reported that Bush was spying on Americans without complying with the FISA statute. In response to a request from members of Congress, the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility launched an investigation into the Bush administration's decision to ignore FISA and to conduct domestic spying on American citizens without obtaining the warrants required by law. On January 20, 2006, Marshall Jarrett, the Justice Department official in charge of OPR, informed senior Justice Department officials of his investigation and its scope.

Gonzales informed President Bush about the OPR investigation, and Bush shut down the investigation by refusing security clearances to the Justice Department officials in OPR. In a response to Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Arlen Specter on July 18, 2006, Gonzales disclosed that President Bush had halted the OPR investigation.

This is the first and only time in history that DOJ officials have been denied security clearances necessary to conduct an investigation. The Bush administration claimed that the secret spying was too crucial to our national security to permit even Justice Department officials to learn about it. However, even as Bush was denying clearances to OPR, he granted identical clearances to: (1) the FBI agents ordered to find who leaked the administration's secret spying to the New York Times, (2) DOJ officials in the Civil Division who had to respond to legal challenges to the illegal spy program, and (3) five private sector individuals who sit on the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board.

Obviously, the unprecedented denial of security clearances to OPR was done in order to prevent the investigation.

On March 21, 2006, Marshall Jarrett wrote to Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty that OPR was being "precluded from performing its duties."

In May, 2006, Jarrett informed Congress: "On May 9, 2006, we were informed that our requests had been denied. Without these clearances, we cannot investigate this matter and therefore have closed our investigation." The National Journal reports: "[Rep. Maurice] Hinchey and other Democratic House members asked Jarrett why he was unable to obtain the necessary clearances; Jarrett's superiors, according to government records and to interviews, instructed him not to inform Congress that President Bush had made the decision."

When the illegal domestic spying program was launched in 2002, Gonzales was still White House Counsel. Documents and interviews show that most high ranking Justice Department officials opposed the illegal program. Attorney General Ashcroft, Deputy Attorney General James Comey, Assistant Attorney General Jack Goldsmith in charge of the Office of Legal Counsel, and James A. Baker, counsel for the Office of Intelligence Policy and Review all raised objections to the illegality and propriety of Bush's National Security Agency eavesdropping program. Baker went so far as to warn the presiding judge of the FISA court that authorities were improperly obtaining information and bypassing the court. On learning that the administration was violating FISA, one of the federal judges on the FISA court resigned in protest.

Goldsmith was troubled by Bush's claim that the "war on terror" gave the president virtually unlimited powers. Goldsmith's objections to the Bush-Cheney-Gonzales view that the president is above the law during time of war brought him under fierce attack from Vice President Dick Cheney and Cheney's two principal henchmen, Scooter Libby, now a convicted felon, and David Addington.

Goldsmith found an ally in Deputy Attorney General Comey. Comey defied the White House in March 2004 when he refused to reauthorize Bush's spying on American citizens unless the program was brought within the law. Comey incurred additional Bush-Cheney enmity when he appointed Patrick J. Fitzgerald to investigate the leak of Valerie Plame's identity, an investigation that resulted in the arrest and conviction of Vice President Cheney's chief of staff.

In his lengthy and detailed report in the National Journal, Waas quotes a former White House Official: "Comey showed us that he was a guy who wouldn't be kept on a leash in an administration that likes to keep everybody on a short leash."

A criminal political administration has no choice but to keep everyone on a short leash in order to keep its illegal acts under wraps. Americans have never experienced an administration so replete with crimes as the Bush Regime.

This criminal regime must now be brought to an end. Impeachments of Bush, Cheney, and Gonzales, followed by felony indictments and trials are imperative if the rule of law in the United States is to be preserved.

Paul Craig Roberts held the William E. Simon Chair in Political Economy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies at Georgetown University and was Senior Research Fellow in the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. He served as Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Treasury in the Reagan administration. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.He can be reached at: PaulCraigRoberts@yahoo.com



http://counterpunch.org/roberts03192007.html

[Ellyllions]

So what's the hold-up?
Do you mean to tell me that there isn't one person in DC who can put a stop to this?

[Hardrock69]

Here is another:

Sen. Schumer: “We do have evidence” Gonzales lied under oath
By: SilentPatriot on Sunday, March 18th, 2007 at 6:34 PM - PDT

During his January 18, 2006 testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Alberto Gonzales said this:

GONZALES: I would never, ever make a change in a United States attorney position for political reasons or if it would, in any way, jeopardize an ongoing serious investigation. I just would not do it.

video_wmv Download (4510) | Play (3798) video_mov Download (1705) | Play (2195)

(HR Note: for the actual links to video files, click on the link below to go to the page that originates this article.)

When asked on Meet the Press this morning if he "had any evidence that a U.S. attorney was removed and that removal jeopardized an ongoing investigation," Senator Schumer said he does and that the evidence is "becoming more and more overwhelming."

This is why the prosecutor purge is a genuine scandal. Not only is there clear evidence that the firings were unprecedented and purely politically-motivated, but Alberto Gonzales lied about it under oath and the White House keeps changing it's story. What conclusion can we draw from these lies and revisionisms other than they have something to hide? Namely, that these eight prosecutors were selectively fired because they did not sufficiently politicize their offices and succumb to pressure to do so, only later to be fired for "performance-related" reasons despite receiving exemplary evaluations.

Transcript below the fold…

MSNBC:

SEN. SCHUMER: [B]ut, in these instances, the evidence is becoming more and more overwhelming that certain U.S. attorneys, and only certain ones, not all of them, but certain U.S. attorneys were fired because either they wouldn't prosecute a case that was politically advantageous to the White House or they were prosecuting a case that was disadvantageous to the White House. Every legal commentator, left, right, center, says you can't do that, that's the one thing you can't do.

MR. RUSSERT: Well, let's be specific about this because I want to show you what the attorney general said in January testifying before your committee. Let's watch Alberto Gonzales.

(Videotape, January 18, 2007)

MR. ALBERTO GONZALES: I would never, ever make a change in a United States attorney position for political reasons or if it would, in any way, jeopardize an ongoing serious investigation. I just would not do it.

(End videotape)

MR. RUSSERT: Do you have any evidence that a U.S. attorney was removed and that removal jeopardized an ongoing investigation?

SEN. SCHUMER: We do have evidence. In fact, four of the U.S. attorneys who were fired believe that played a role in their removal. Remember, these folks were called up all of a sudden on December 7th. They thought they were doing, doing a good job. They said, "You're not doing–you're fired." "Why?" "We can't tell you." Then they say–there's a little pressure. They say they weren't doing their job right. We get hold of the evaluations done by their peers, the judges, everyone in their district, they all get outstanding ratings. And then it comes out that in four of these instances, they were asked to pursue cases, individual cases, not a general policy, they were asked to pursue individual cases that they thought they shouldn't or they were perhaps pressured to stop. So, yes, there is evidence there in the–in the U.S. attorney's mind.

But, Tim, we don't have proof yet, conclusive, beyond a reasonable doubt proof. That's why we have to go forward with the investigation.

MR. RUSSERT: But this is a very serious charge, Senator. Let me show you a map of the United States and where these U.S. attorneys come from. There you'll see up in Michigan and then we have them in New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona, Arkansas, Washington state and two in California. Where specifically did a U.S. attorney stop investigating or was a criminal justice case interrupted because of one of their removals?

SEN. SCHUMER: The most notorious is the Southern District of California, San Diego. Ms. Lam, the U.S. attorney, had already brought about the conviction of Duke Cunningham. It came out in the newspapers that she was continuing to pursue that investigation and it might lead to others, legislative and others. And in the middle of this investigation, she was fired. So I asked the deputy attorney general, "Why was she fired?" He said, "Well, she wasn't doing enough immigration re-entry cases." I said, "Really?" She–he said, did you tell–I asked him, "Did you tell her?" She said yes. I said, "Well, did she improve?" This was back in the summer. "Did she improve?" He said, "I have no idea." Well, gee whiz, if you're firing someone in the middle of the most heated political investigation in America, don't you think you ought to have a reason and know the reason?


LINK (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/03/18/sen-schumer-we-do-have-evidence-gonzales-lied-under-oath/)

[Steve Savicki]

Originally posted by Warham
It'll be alot quieter around here in two years.
That's certainly better than drama, isn't it? ;)

[Guitar Shark]

Originally posted by Ellyllions
So what's the hold-up?
Do you mean to tell me that there isn't one person in DC who can put a stop to this?

How about taking your top off?

That might get their attention.

[Ellyllions]

Done.

Now what?

[FORD]

Originally posted by Warham
How was the Iraq War 'illegal', or 'immoral'?

Saddam Hussein killed anywhere from 100,000 to 500,000 of his own people, and that's probably low-balling the number.

And Chimpy has killed at least 650,000.

Which means YOU support a guy who's a bigger bastard than Saddam Hussein.

Not to mention that it took Saddam 30 years to rack up those totals.

[blueturk]

And now Bush says that the White House will be glad to let the key players in this thing answer some questions...BUT NOT UNDER OATH. Why is that? Because they don't want to lie under oath?


http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/03/20/ap3534575.html

[blueturk]

Originally posted by Warham
These libs won't have anything to do after Bush leaves office.

It'll be alot quieter around here in two years.

You're right. Nobody else out there could be as mind-numbingly incompetent and corrupt as your boy Bush, and inspire such outrage (except MAYBE Nixon). And you stupid fuckers were worried about blow jobs....

"And there is distrust in Washington. I am surprised, frankly, at the amount of distrust that exists in this town. And I'm sorry it's the case, and I'll work hard to try to elevate it." --George W. Bush, interview on National Public Radio, Jan. 29, 2007

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Ellyllions
Done.

Now what?

A new avatar?

[Warham]

Originally posted by FORD
And Chimpy has killed at least 650,000.

Which means YOU support a guy who's a bigger bastard than Saddam Hussein.

Not to mention that it took Saddam 30 years to rack up those totals.

Bush hasn't killed anybody.

Even the UN says that 100,000 people have been killed since the US invaded Iraq in 2003, most of those by insurgents.

[Warham]

Originally posted by blueturk
You're right. Nobody else out there could be as mind-numbingly incompetent and corrupt as your boy Bush, and inspire such outrage (except MAYBE Nixon). And you stupid fuckers were worried about blow jobs....

"And there is distrust in Washington. I am surprised, frankly, at the amount of distrust that exists in this town. And I'm sorry it's the case, and I'll work hard to try to elevate it." --George W. Bush, interview on National Public Radio, Jan. 29, 2007

The outrage started Jan 20, 2001, long before the war. It's been partisan ever since the Supreme Court ruling. The left has hated George W. Bush ever since.

Stop portraying the Clinton investigation as being about 'sex' or 'blowjobs'. It was about him lying under oath. He wouldn't have been disbarred because of sloppy sex with a fat intern.

[Warham]

www.iraqbodycount.org

[ODShowtime]

All that shit was weak warham. Look and listen to what's happening.

[blueturk]

Originally posted by Warham
The outrage started Jan 20, 2001, long before the war. It's been partisan ever since the Supreme Court ruling. The left has hated George W. Bush ever since.

Stop portraying the Clinton investigation as being about 'sex' or 'blowjobs'. It was about him lying under oath. He wouldn't have been disbarred because of sloppy sex with a fat intern.

Having a presidency handed to you even though you got less votes than your opponent does inspire strong emotions, especially when your brother just happens to be governor of the state that cemented the "win".

As for the Clinton investigation, you've got a point. It's much better to do it the way Dubya and friends do....lie like hell, just don't do it under oath.

"He gave support to terrorists, had an established relationship with al Qaeda, and his regime is no more." –Dick Cheney, Nov. 7 2003 on Saddam Hussein

[Warham]

Originally posted by blueturk
Having a presidency handed to you even though you got less votes than your opponent does inspire strong emotions, especially when your brother just happens to be governor of the state that cemented the "win".


Bush won every recount in the state, and the state Supreme Court tried their best to change state election laws midway through the recounts, giving Al Gore the chance to steal more votes.

I can see why there'd be anger that it didn't go the Democrat's way.

[Warham]

Originally posted by ODShowtime
All that shit was weak warham. Look and listen to what's happening.

I have.

The partisanship is ridiculous.

[EAT MY ASSHOLE]

Originally posted by Warham
It was about him lying under oath. .

Helllooooooooo Scooter Libby!

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
The outrage started Jan 20, 2001, long before the war. It's been partisan ever since the Supreme Court ruling. The left has hated George W. Bush ever since.

Stop portraying the Clinton investigation as being about 'sex' or 'blowjobs'. It was about him lying under oath. He wouldn't have been disbarred because of sloppy sex with a fat intern.

He didn't "lie under oath."

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
He didn't "lie under oath."

Did too.

[Ellyllions]

He most certainly did lie under oath. As far as a "reasonable" (law definition for finding guilt) person would ascertain. But in lawyer speak, he was attempting to get off on a "technicality".

Serves ok, as long as you're not the victim. If any of us were in court trying to seek retribution for a crime committed against us, we'd be pissed as hell if our assailant got off on a technicality leaving us feeling like there's no justice. Only words.

Attorney's are scum, and this whole shenanigans is a damn political game. The bottom line, is that for the next 2 years we're going to see the Democrats battle Bush on anything he does. It's going to be as fun-filled and exciting as keeping track of the BFF battles among the "it" girls. You thought the Anna Nicole saga was ridiculous, well, just sit tight kiddies. Until the election, GWB isn't going to be able to have a cone of ice cream without it being propagandized by the Democrats.

It's called a VENDETTA.

They feel like they've gotten a bad reputation for voting FOR the Iraq war, so they'll use him to try to wash that away.

Is it ok?

Well, you all think about it this way.....no matter what you think of Bush.....

As long as they're turning DC into something more to the standards of the National Enquirer, they're NOT governing the people.

Did you get that?

They're NOT doing their elected jobs. Honestly, we could be attacked right now and not one of them would see it coming. They're using our tax dollars and manpower to battle each other instead of keeping an eye on anything, making any changes in broken systems, or following through on any election promises.

Talk is cheap guys, and if you believe anything a republican or democrat says then you're the fools. Not them.

[Warham]

Originally posted by EAT MY ASSHOLE
Helllooooooooo Scooter Libby!

Yep, and he'll probably do the same amount of time Bill did.

[blueturk]

Originally posted by Ellyllions


....Until the election, GWB isn't going to be able to have a cone of ice cream without it being propagandized by the Democrats.

It's called a VENDETTA....

With all due respect to my fellow Tarheel, I don't think this administration's actions are being "propagandized by the Democrats". Dubya did pretty much whatever he wanted to with the rubberstamping Republican-led Congress. Now he can't, and he's pitching a fit because he's so used to getting his way (as he has his whole life) that he can't comprehend anybody questioning The Royal Court of King George. As for vendettas, over 3000 Americans have died because of Dubya's personal vendetta against Saddam Hussein. As I've said before, the reason Bush staged his ridiculous "Mission Accomplished" photo-op was because DUBYA'S mission was accomplished. He wanted Saddam out, and he got it. He never thought about what to do next, and our troops are paying for it.

"I think the American people — I hope the American — I don't think, let me — I hope the American people trust me." —George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Dec. 18, 20

[Ellyllions]

State fan here hun....

While you are correct, expand your mind just a little bit further into the playing field to understand what I'm saying. From this point on, there isn't one thing that George can do without being simply attacked by the Democrats. Even down to his choice of Ice Cream. I'm not saying he is innocent of anything, I'm just saying it's "game on bitches"...ya know?

[Nickdfresh]

Uh-UH!

[hideyoursheep]

Originally posted by Warham
These libs won't have anything to do after Bush leaves office.



Why do you think only libs hate the W, Re-Re?

Oh, you can bet they'll have their hands full REPAIRING THE DAMAGE that your Man-God has created.

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by hideyoursheep
Oh, you can bet they'll have their hands full REPAIRING THE DAMAGE that your Man-God has created.

that was funny

[Warham]

Originally posted by hideyoursheep
Why do you think only libs hate the W, Re-Re?

Have a few hours?

There's many, many reasons. Two right off the bat...

1. 2000 election results.

2. His religious preferences.

[hideyoursheep]

Originally posted by blueturk
And now Bush says that the White House will be glad to let the key players in this thing answer some questions...BUT NOT UNDER OATH. Why is that? Because they don't want to lie under oath?


http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/03/20/ap3534575.html

Why else?

Those Douchbags!:mad:

[Warham]

What is there to lie about?
There was nothing illegal about these firings!

Democrats just want to drag Rove in front of a committee so that they can question how he supposedly 'stole' their elections from them in 2000 and 2004.

[Warham]

Even some Democrats admit that if this goes to court, and it looks like it will, it will not be resolved until 2009 at the earliest. Bush will have a good chance to win the case anyway, and he'll be out of office.

But leave it up to the Democrats to try.

[hideyoursheep]

Originally posted by Warham
What is there to lie about?
There was nothing illegal about these firings!

Democrats just want to drag Rove in front of a committee so that they can question how he supposedly 'stole' their elections from them in 2000 and 2004.

It's simple.

Nothing to hide, no worries, right?

For some odd reason,:rolleyes: the words "under oath" have scared them shitless, including during the 9/11 commissions investigation.

This time, extramarital affairs aren't the issue..

[ODShowtime]

It's very telling that they won't testify under oath.

[Warham]

Originally posted by hideyoursheep
It's simple.

Nothing to hide, no worries, right?


3,000 pages of e-mails between the administration and the Justice Dept. and they haven't found anything.

You think they could cover their tracks that well?

[FORD]

Originally posted by Warham
Have a few hours?

There's many, many reasons. Two right off the bat...

1. 2000 election results.

2. His religious preferences.

Both of which are complete frauds.

[Warham]

Originally posted by FORD
Both of which are complete frauds.

So you say.

I've never seen legimate proof of anything other than what's on the record.

[EAT MY ASSHOLE]

Originally posted by Warham
What is there to lie about?
There was nothing illegal about these firings!

That's where you may be wrong, my furry dim-witted chum!

As some of these US attonrneys had ongoing investigations taking place regarding people that certain officials - and I'm not necessarily implicating Bush or Rove here at all, but anyone of influence - wanted to impede and prevent from going to trial or even being further investigated, that IS in fact illegal. It may in fact be the real reason why Fitzgerald was not let go during his investigation into "plamegate".

If there's nothign to lie about, why not talk about it openly and under oath on the Senate floor with a full trnascript? With bush's "reasonable proposal" on Tuesday, it sure smells like he's got something to hide.

[Ellyllions]

I keep wondering why it's important that it's under an "oath"...I mean illegal is illegal. Self-incriminating statements are illegal and the oath just signifies the ongoing battle of Church and State...

Honestly, if these attorney's were fired because of who they were investigating then it won't be avoidable. It is such a blatant step that there will be no way around it being seen.

But from where I'm sitting right now, it's nothing more than political battles.

[Hardrock69]

DOJ Threatened Retaliation Against Fired Attorneys
By Jason Leopold


Wednesday 21 March 2007

A Justice Department official threatened to take the "gloves off" and "retaliate" against the eight United States attorneys who were abruptly removed from their posts if they continued to speak publicly about the circumstances behind their dismissals, according to an email released late Monday sent to the fired prosecutors by one of their colleagues.

The email, a portion of which had been discussed during a Senate judiciary hearing two weeks ago, was written by H.E. "Bud" Cummins on February 20 and sent to US Attorneys Dan Bogden, John McKay, Carol Lam, David Iglesias and Paul Charlton immediately after Cummins had a somewhat heated exchange with Mike Elston, a top aide to Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty, about comments Cummins had made that were published in the Washington Post on February 18.

According to the Post story, Cummins had taken issue with statements made by Justice Department officials that the reasons behind his termination, and those of his colleagues, was the result of poor job performance. Cummins, the former US attorney in Little Rock, Arkansas, was replaced by an aide to White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove.

"They're entitled to make these changes for any reason or no reason or even for an idiotic reason," Cummins told the Post. "But if they are trying to suggest that people have inferior performance to hide whatever their true agenda is, that is wrong. They should retract those statements."

Two days later in an email to other fired prosecutors, Cummins wrote that he had spoken with Elston, and Elston told him that if Justice Department officials "feel like any of us intend to continue to offer quotes to the press, or organize behind the scenes Congressional pressure, then they would feel forced to somehow pull their gloves off and offer public criticisms to defend their actions more fully."

"I was tempted to challenge him," Cummins wrote in the email. "And say something movie-like such as 'Are you threatening ME??? [sic].'"

Cummins wrote that he stopped short of calling Elston and other officials in the Justice Department "liars" for their disingenuous statements to lawmakers that the US attorneys were removed because of their poor job performance and inability to prosecute immigration and obscenity cases.

Elston "mentioned my quote [in the February 20 edition of The Washington Post] and I didn't apologize for it, told him it was true and that everyone involved should agree with the truth of my statement, and pointed out to him that I stopped short of calling them liars and merely said that IF [sic] they were doing as alleged they should retract," Cummins wrote in the email. "I also made it a point to tell him that all of us have turned down multiple invitations to testify. He reacted quite a bit to the idea of anyone voluntarily testifying and it seemed clear that [the Justice Department] would see that as a major escalation of the conflict meriting some kind of unspecified form of retaliation."

The issue of lackluster job performance by the fired prosecutors has emerged as the Justice Department's central theme and is seen as the rationale for dismissing the eight US attorneys, according to sworn testimony before Congress by Associate Attorney General William Moschella, and previous public statements by spokespeople in the Justice Department. However, documents released over the past two months show that the US attorneys had positive job evaluations. In fact, documents released late Monday by the Justice Department illustrate that the US attorneys who were pushed out of their jobs were told by department officials that they were doing a good job, but that President Bush wanted to give other candidates an opportunity to serve as US attorneys.

According to one document dated November 7, 2006 and titled "Plan for Replacing Certain US Attorneys," Mike Battle, who oversaw all 93 US attorneys before resigning his position earlier this month, was enlisted to contact the US attorneys to be replaced "on or about November 8-10 [2006]."

"Step 1": Battle informs the US attorneys as follows:

"What are your plans for continued service as US attorney? The administration is grateful for your service as US attorney, but has determined to give someone else the opportunity to serve as US attorney in your district for the final two years of the administration. We will work with you to make sure that there is a smooth transition, but intend to have a new interim or acting US attorney in place by January 1 [2007]."

The document then goes on to describe a "Step 2," which was to have White House Deputy Counsel Bill Kelley phone senators whose states will be affected by the US attorney purge because the Bush administration wants to give someone else the chance to serve out the remainder of the president's term. However, if the lawmakers "push" for more information about the firings, Kelley is told to inform the senators that each termination "is based on a thorough review of US attorneys' performance."

But that line of reasoning was not communicated to the US attorneys who were fired. Indeed, after watching Associate Attorney General William Moschella testify before Congress on March 6 about the purge, Margaret Chiara, the US attorney in Michigan, was surprised to learn that she was one of the eight US attorneys who were fired for allegedly performing poorly during their tenures in office.

"Today's Congressional events make clear that I am, indeed, among the 'USA-8,'" Chiara wrote in an email to Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty. "Shortly after his opening statement, but before citing the perceived deficiencies of my former colleagues, Will Moschella stated that the two United States attorneys not present [before Congress] were dismissed because of management problems. Apparently, [former US Attorney for Northern District of California] Kevin Ryan (whom I do not know) and I share the same reason for termination. [McNulty aide] Michael Elston told me on more than one occasion that the rationale for dismissal was on a continuum of sorts, and that I am on the de minimus end after [Las Vegas US Attorney] Dan Bogden. It is abundantly clear that this regrettable situation could have been better managed if the reasons for the dismissals were initially communicated to the affected United States attorneys."

As a final note in her email to McNulty, Chiara asked the deputy attorney general, "So, I now need to know what is the management problem to which Mr. Moschella referred?"

Jason Leopold is a former Los Angeles bureau chief for Dow Jones Newswire. He has written over 2,000 stories on the California energy crisis and received the Dow Jones Journalist of the Year Award in 2001 for his coverage on the issue as well as a Project Censored award in 2004. Leopold also reported extensively on Enron's downfall and was the first journalist to land an interview with former Enron president Jeffrey Skilling following Enron's bankruptcy filing in December 2001. Leopold has appeared on CNBC and National Public Radio as an expert on energy policy and has also been the keynote speaker at more than two dozen energy industry conferences around the country.



http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/032107A.shtml

[Warham]

Originally posted by EAT MY ASSHOLE
If there's nothign to lie about, why not talk about it openly and under oath on the Senate floor with a full trnascript? With bush's "reasonable proposal" on Tuesday, it sure smells like he's got something to hide.

The burden of proof is on the accuser, not the defendant. They haven't found any proof of any illegality after all the documents have been read through with a fine-toothed comb.

If they can't find a SHRED of proof of any illegality, why have somebody come in under oath to testify about nothing?

And his proposal was probably too reasonable.

Not to mention, one of the eight was one of Bush's stalwarts. These attorneys were fired for not prosecuting immigration and other types of cases fast enough, or not at all.

[FORD]

It's funny how the BCE always claims they have nothing to hide, yet go out of their way to hide everything.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
The burden of proof is on the accuser, not the defendant. They haven't found any proof of any illegality after all the documents have been read through with a fine-toothed comb.

If they can't find a SHRED of proof of any illegality, why have somebody come in under oath to testify about nothing?

And his proposal was probably too reasonable.

Not to mention, one of the eight was one of Bush's stalwarts. These attorneys were fired for not prosecuting immigration and other types of cases fast enough, or not at all.

LOL What complete bullshit.

The immigration thing is a complete scam. The DA that that was used as an excuse for was the one that destroyed "Duke" Cunningham.

And she did prosecute immigration violations, by focusing on fewer "big cases" rather than a lot of little ones. Or, preferring to crack down on businesses that knowingly sought out illegals to hire (the real problem), rather than chasing her tail going after individuals...

It's nothing but sheer ass-covering...

[Nickdfresh]

Oh, and BTW, the White House e-mails clearly show an agenda by Rove to politicize the office of DA.

Fucking spare me the "rationale" crap...

[Warham]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
LOL What complete bullshit.

The immigration thing is a complete scam. The DA that that was used as an excuse for was the one that destroyed "Duke" Cunningham.

And she did prosecute immigration violations, by focusing on fewer "big cases" rather than a lot of little ones. Or, preferring to crack down on businesses that knowingly sought out illegals to hire (the real problem), rather than chasing her tail going after individuals...

It's nothing but sheer ass-covering...

Where's the evidence of illegality?

There is none!

This is a partisan witch hunt. I love seeing Leahy get in a huff over nothing. He just wants to drag Rove and every other White House staff member and see if he can get two contradictory statements so he can get a perjury charge.

I'll go out on a limb and say that nothing will come of this. Any bets?

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
Where's the evidence of illegality?

There is none!

his from a guy that supported the biggest partisan witchhunt in the history of the USThis is a partisan witch hunt. I love seeing Leahy get in a huff over nothing. He just wants to drag Rove and every other White House staff member and see if he can get two contradictory statements so he can get a perjury charge.

I'll go out on a limb and say that nothing will come of this. Any bets?


It's a good thing that you have absolutely no concept of irony...:)

[Warham]

I know irony, and this ain't 1998 all over again.

[Nickdfresh]

You're right. The investigations have only started.:)

[Warham]

How does it feel knowing Gonzalez will not resign and will serve out the rest of his term?

Depressing??

[Nickdfresh]

Wow! You got me there!

Um, he's toast...

[Warham]

Don't think so.

This is going to court, where it'll drag out for years, probably well into the next president's term. By that time, the press will be more concerned with Giuliani or McCain running the show.

[Warham]

I remember when the Plame investigation started and how all the liberals in here were drooling over the fact that Karl Rove was finally going to get what was coming to him...

What happened?

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
the one that destroyed "Duke" Cunningham.

preferring to crack down on businesses that knowingly sought out illegals to hire (the real problem), rather than chasing her tail going after individuals...

definitely not a loyal bushie

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by Warham
How does it feel knowing Gonzalez will not resign and will serve out the rest of his term?

Depressing??

Cheerleading for the guy who says torture and illegal spying are ok. Nice.

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by Warham
I remember when the Plame investigation started and how all the liberals in here were drooling over the fact that Karl Rove was finally going to get what was coming to him...

What happened?

Scooter libby took the fall for him.


Juror Demands: ‘Where’s Rove? Where are these other guys?’
Juror says Libby was guilty but was set up to take the fall in Plame probe



By Alex Johnson
Reporter
MSNBC
Updated: 2:21 p.m. ET March 7, 2007

The jurors who convicted I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby believed Vice President Dick Cheney’s former chief of staff was set up as a fall guy, a juror said Tuesday, but they had no alternative to finding him guilty in the leak of the identity of a classified CIA operative.

“I will say there was a tremendous amount of sympathy for Mr. Libby on the jury,” said the juror, Denis Collins, a former newspaper reporter.

Geeze, are you off your meds today? I'm having a field day with your stupid ass.

[Warham]

Originally posted by ODShowtime
Scooter libby took the fall for him.

Scooter Libby took the fall for no one. They had already questioned Karl Rove and he came out clean.

[Warham]

Originally posted by ODShowtime
Cheerleading for the guy who says torture and illegal spying are ok. Nice.

No, I'm just against partisan fishing expeditions.

Do the Democrats think they'll win elections going after every Republican on baseless charges?

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by Warham
Scooter Libby took the fall for no one. They had already questioned Karl Rove and he came out clean.

Well I guess you're right and those jurors were wrong.

What do they know? They only had to sit through hours of testimony and presentation of evidence.

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by Warham
Do the Democrats think they'll win elections going after every Republican on baseless charges?

I don't know, but he DID lie to the Senate Judiciary Committee on 1/18/07 when he said he would never fire for political reasons



on Jan. 18, Gonzales stated, “I think I would never, ever make a change in a United States attorney for political reasons or if it would in any way jeopardize an ongoing serious investigation. I just would not do it.”

I think this was the same hearing in which he argued that the Constitution doesn’t explicitly bestow habeas corpus rights.

You could just agree with me that he needs to go, but instead you drone on with what liberals and democrats did wrong. It's infantile.

[Warham]

They weren't fired for political reasons.

[Warham]

Illegal immigrants in Texas rarely prosecuted, memo says

By ELLIOT SPAGAT Associated Press Writer
© 2007 The Associated Press
TOOLS
Email

Get section feed
Print

Subscribe NOW

— Guidelines issued by U.S. attorneys in Texas showed that most illegal immigrants crossing into the state had to be arrested at least six times before federal authorities would prosecute them, according to an internal Justice Department memo.

The disclosure provides a rare view of how federal authorities attempt to curb illegal immigration. The memo was released this week in response to a congressional investigation of the dismissals of eight U.S. attorneys.

The Border Patrol makes more than 1 million arrests a year on the U.S.-Mexico border. T.J. Bonner, head of a union representing Border Patrol agents, said it's unrealistic to prosecute all violators.

"Let's be honest, there isn't enough jail space to incarcerate everyone who crosses that border," said Bonner, president of the National Border Patrol Council. "If everyone demanded hearing in front of an immigration judge, it would bring our system to a grinding halt in a matter of days."

It is unclear when the memo was written, but the Justice Department reviewed the guidelines sometime after a February 2005 performance review of Carol Lam, the top federal prosecutor in San Diego from 2002 until she was fired last month. Some Republican lawmakers had complained that Lam failed to aggressively prosecute immigration violations.

Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said Thursday that immigration prosecutions are a high priority and that the government sent 30 additional attorneys to the border region in the second half of 2006. He said U.S. attorneys set guidelines that, in part, reflect local crime issues and staffing.

"Increasing the number of prosecutors will permit districts to adjust their guidelines and take in more cases," he said. "For law enforcement reasons, the department cannot discuss what the present prosecutorial guidelines are concerning the border."

The memo was written in response to Justice Department inquiries about immigration prosecutions by the five U.S. attorney offices that cover the 2,000-mile border — San Diego, Phoenix, San Antonio, Houston and Albuquerque, N.M.

Guidelines vary by office, but migrants with no criminal records who have not been deported by an immigration judge will almost certainly be turned back to Mexico "numerous times" before getting prosecuted, according to another Justice Department memo dated Nov. 22, 2005. Those "voluntary returns" are booked on administrative, not criminal, violations.

Parts of the other memo are blacked out, so it's unclear whether the document refers to U.S. attorneys in Houston or San Antonio.

The memo says one Texas district prosecutes migrants if the Border Patrol catches them at least six to eight times. The other district prosecutes after someone is caught at least seven times.

In late 2005, the government created a 200-mile zone near Del Rio, Texas, in which every adult arrested for illegal immigration would be prosecuted and jailed before being deported.

The San Diego office, which covers an area stretching from the Pacific Ocean to the Arizona state line, does not prosecute "purely economic migrants" as a general rule, according to the memo.

The Arizona district, the nation's busiest corridor for illegal crossings, "almost certainly" declines to prosecute on a first or second offense, the memo says. The New Mexico district makes decisions based on criminal records in the U.S.

There are many exceptions to the rule, including violators with criminal records.

Representatives of all five U.S. attorney offices declined to comment.

Republican Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado, who advocates a crackdown on illegal immigration, said the Texas guidelines underscore a lax enforcement attitude. He said the federal government should contract for more jail space, perhaps with local governments.

"If you made it a priority of the department, you would see a reduction," Tancredo said.

Arizona's Paul Charlton and New Mexico's David Iglesias were also among the eight U.S. attorneys abruptly fired. Justice Department officials have said they were concerned about the prosecutors' approach to immigration cases.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
They weren't fired for political reasons.

Yeah um, did you see those e-mails?

http://www.luminomagazine.com/2004.03/spotlight/officespace/images/lumbergh/lumbergh1.jpg

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
Illegal immigrants in Texas rarely prosecuted, memo says

...

You mean she rarely prosecuted "guest workers?"

Yeah, that's a big Bush priority...

BTW dope, I just said she focused on companies hiring illegal aliens, not the little people...

[Warham]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
You mean she rarely prosecuted "guest workers?"

Yeah, that's a big Bush priority...

Maybe it is!

Since this 'scandal' is going nowhere, I can only wonder what the next one will look like.

[DrMaddVibe]

Originally posted by FORD
It's funny how the BCE always claims they have nothing to hide, yet go out of their way to hide everything.


No, what's really funny is the way the American public believed the Democratic party when they stated if elected to positions of power they wouldn't conduct witch hunts.

Now, fast forward to Pelosi's sweeping referendum and what do we have? Nothing! Not one thing. Zilch. Zip. Nada.

THAT'S funny!:D

[Warham]

Pelosi's too busy right now trying to keep her office door from being battered down by the angry Code Pinko mob outside.

[DrMaddVibe]

The ol' "Better Watch Out For What You Wish For" coming to bite them in the ass?

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by Warham
They weren't fired for political reasons.

Oh, great retort! You have me on the ropes! :rolleyes:

[EAT MY ASSHOLE]

Warham, you never cease to impress.

Frankly, I don't even know where to begin with responses to your comments on this page.

In breif:

Karl Rove testified to a Grand Jury on multiple occassions. each time, he had to ADD to his previous testimony, ie: "I forgot to mention, yes, in fact, I DID speak to Cooper at time Magazine. Silly me. Whoops."

There are still at least a hundred pages of e-mails regarding these DOJ firings that have not been turned over. That's a lot of pages, and I put it on the same level as Berger stuffing documents down his Hanes. If there's nothing to see here, kids, then why are you hiding it?

The one prosecutor who WAS let go that was a FoB was done so b/c his record was TERRIBLE and it was the appropriate measure. Unlike, seemingly, these others who had VERY strong records in their favor.

BTW, the senator who contacted Iglesias at home and tried to pressure him? He's now retianed a defense attorney. You know what kind of people do that?

Guilty people.

[Roy Munson]

Another NON-issue.

Much ado about NOTHING.


Clinton fire how many fed pros again? What? 90-something?


The president can fire these fuckers even if he doesn't like their neck tie.

Keep reaching, Libs.

The best part about this is that we can get rid of a less-than-stellar AG who was probably hired on an affirmative action basis. Yes, I believe he was hired just because he's hispanic. Bush is a pussy sometimes, too.

[EAT MY ASSHOLE]

Originally posted by Roy Munson

Clinton fire how many fed pros again? What? 90-something?



93. Meaning, all of them. At the beginning of his term. Which is fairly customary. Why, even George W did it back in 2001!

And it MIGHT be illegal. If the firings were done to prevent a prosecutrion/investigation in progress, then that IS in fact a crime.

When Ashcroft first took office, even he told all 93 newly appointed US Attonreys that politics and political leanings should have no part with their office and responsibilities. Anything else would be irresponsible for anyone whose job it is to uphold the law.

[Hardrock69]

Well, seems that many of the firings WERE to prevent prosecution of cases that were not in the best interest of themonkey and his cast of goddamnable fuckheads....

That alone would make them illegal, and would make the decider liable for criminal charges.

[Warham]

Originally posted by Hardrock69
Well, seems that many of the firings WERE to prevent prosecution of cases that were not in the best interest of themonkey and his cast of goddamnable fuckheads....

That alone would make them illegal, and would make the decider liable for criminal charges.

No, the firings were because they weren't prosecuting ENOUGH cases, meaning they were waffling.

[Warham]

Originally posted by EAT MY ASSHOLE
93. Meaning, all of them. At the beginning of his term. Which is fairly customary. Why, even George W did it back in 2001!

What if those 93 attorneys he fired were in the middle of investigations and prosecutions? That alright?

Why does it matter when it was done?

[Warham]

Originally posted by EAT MY ASSHOLE
BTW, the senator who contacted Iglesias at home and tried to pressure him? He's now retianed a defense attorney. You know what kind of people do that?

Guilty people.

Not really.

Everybody who goes to trial or is under legal fire has an attorney. Having an attorney doesn't mean you are guilty of any crime.

[Warham]

Originally posted by EAT MY ASSHOLE
Karl Rove testified to a Grand Jury on multiple occassions. each time, he had to ADD to his previous testimony, ie: "I forgot to mention, yes, in fact, I DID speak to Cooper at time Magazine. Silly me. Whoops."

That's fine to add to previous testimony. Nobody has a perfect memory.

It's only important if your story doesn't jive with somebody elses.

[blueturk]

Originally posted by Warham
That's fine to add to previous testimony. Nobody has a perfect memory.

It's only important if your story doesn't jive with somebody elses.

Damn! I want some of that shit that Rove and Libby were smoking! They can't remember a fucking thing! Hell, I'll bet Dave wouldn't mind some of that!

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
No, the firings were because they weren't prosecuting ENOUGH cases, meaning they were waffling.

Or they were prosecuting Republican Senators...

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
What if those 93 attorneys he fired were in the middle of investigations and prosecutions? That alright?

Why does it matter when it was done?

Um, aren't all DAs let-go at the beginning of any administration "in the middle of investigations?"

What grate points...:)

[EAT MY ASSHOLE]

Originally posted by Warham
What if those 93 attorneys he fired were in the middle of investigations and prosecutions? That alright?

Why does it matter when it was done?

Look, schmuck, Reagan, Clinton. and W all did EXACTLY this at the start of their terms. Know why it wasn't in the papers?

BECUASE IT IS ABSOLUTELY CUSTOMARY AND WITHIN THE NORM. This, however, is not. If BUSH was dissatisfied with the performance of these attorneys for legitimate performance reasons, fine. I WANT THEM gone. But when the justice department is manipulated into being not just another wing within the White House but ALSO A MEANS FOR A POLITICAL OPERATIVE - ROVE - TO SHORTSELL THE COUNTRY FOR GAIN FOR ONE POLITICAL PARTY, ***THAT*** IS AN ISSUE.

Though I doubt he'll say so publicly, even John Ashcroft would be aghast at this crap.

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by Roy Munson
The best part about this is that we can get rid of a less-than-stellar AG who was probably hired on an affirmative action basis. Yes, I believe he was hired just because he's hispanic.

and because he is easily manipulated

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by EAT MY ASSHOLE
Though I doubt he'll say so publicly, even John Ashcroft would be aghast at this crap.

It's fucked how ol'JA is now remembered as one of the more moderate gw&friends grads.

[EAT MY ASSHOLE]

Originally posted by ODShowtime
It's fucked how ol'JA is now remembered as one of the more moderate gw&friends grads.

Completely.

[Nickdfresh]

Documents Show Attorney General Alberto Gonzales Approved Firings of Several U.S. Attorneys

03-23-2007 8:58 PM
By LARA JAKES JORDAN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (Associated Press) -- Attorney General Alberto Gonzales approved plans to fire several U.S. attorneys in a November meeting, according to documents released Friday that contradict earlier claims that he was not closely involved in the dismissals.

The Nov. 27 meeting, in which the attorney general and at least five top Justice Department officials participated, focused on a five-step plan for carrying out the firings of the prosecutors, Justice Department officials said late Friday.

There, Gonzales signed off on the plan, which was crafted by his chief of staff, Kyle Sampson. Sampson resigned last week amid a political firestorm surrounding the firings.

The documents indicated that the hour-long morning discussion, held in the attorney general's conference room, was the only time Gonzales met with top aides who decided which prosecutors to fire and how to do it.

Justice spokeswoman Tasia Scolinos said it was not immediately clear whether Gonzales gave his final approval to begin the firings at that meeting. Scolinos also said Gonzales was not involved in the process of selecting which prosecutors would be asked to resign.

On March 13, in explaining the firings, Gonzales told reporters he was aware that some of the dismissals were being discussed but was not involved in them.

"I knew my chief of staff was involved in the process of determining who were the weak performers _ where were the districts around the country where we could do better for the people in that district, and that's what I knew," Gonzales said last week. "But that is in essence what I knew about the process; was not involved in seeing any memos, was not involved in any discussions about what was going on. That's basically what I knew as the attorney general."

Later, he added: "I accept responsibility for everything that happens here within this department. But when you have 110,000 people working in the department, obviously there are going to be decisions that I'm not aware of in real time. Many decisions are delegated."

Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., who is leading the inquiry into the firings, said: "If the facts bear out that Attorney General Gonzales knew much more about the plan than he has previously admitted, then he can no longer serve as attorney general."

The documents were released Friday night, a few hours after Sampson agreed to testify at a Senate inquiry next week into the firings of eight U.S. attorneys last year.

Earlier Friday, a staunch White House ally, Sen. John Cornyn, summoned White House counsel Fred Fielding to Capitol Hill and told him he wanted "no surprises."

"I told him, 'Everything you can release, please release. We need to know what the facts are,'" Cornyn said.

Sampson will appear Thursday at a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee, his attorney said. His appearance will mark the first congressional testimony by a Justice Department aide since the release of thousands of documents that show the firings were orchestrated, in part, by the White House.

Sampson "looks forward to answering the committee's questions," wrote his attorney, Brad Berenson, in a two-paragraph letter to Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and the panel's top Republican, Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania.

"We trust that his decision to do so will satisfy the need of the Congress to obtain information from him concerning the requested resignations of the United States attorneys," Berenson wrote.

E-mails between the White House and the Justice Department, dating back to the weeks immediately after the 2004 presidential election, show Sampson was heavily engaged in deciding how many prosecutors would be replaced, and which ones. The Bush administration maintains the dismissals of the eight political appointees were proper.

Democrats, however, question whether the eight were selected because they were not seen as, in Sampson's words, "loyal Bushies."

"He was right at the center of things," Schumer said earlier of Sampson. "He has said publicly that what others have said is not how it happened. ... He contradicts DOJ."

Schumer said he hoped Sampson would provide more detail about who initiated the firings and whether they were politically motivated.

___

Associated Press writer Laurie Kellman contributed to this report.

Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

[Satan]

Vaya Con Diablo, Speedy!

We'll be waiting for you.....

[EAT MY ASSHOLE]

Warham, Munson, you above all people should be COMPLETELY infuriated by this. The guy LIED to YOU> Meaning, these "Bushies" feel no obligations to folks who didn't vote "R" in 2000, 02,04, or 06. There agenda only caters to their loyalists. And here you are backing them up, takin everything they say at face value, and they leave you here looking like a bunch of drones, zombies and, frankly, sheep.

Would you take this from your wife??? Kids? Employer? If there's no big deal, then why the cover-up? Why the lies? What's with all the bullshit?

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by EAT MY ASSHOLE
Warham, Munson, you above all people should be COMPLETELY infuriated by this. The guy LIED to YOU> Meaning, these "Bushies" feel no obligations to folks who didn't vote "R" in 2000, 02,04, or 06. There agenda only caters to their loyalists. And here you are backing them up, takin everything they say at face value, and they leave you here looking like a bunch of drones, zombies and, frankly, sheep.

Would you take this from your wife??? Kids? Employer? If there's no big deal, then why the cover-up? Why the lies? What's with all the bullshit?


it's the dems fault. The libs helped too.

no one else did anything wrong.

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by EAT MY ASSHOLE


Though I doubt he'll say so publicly, even John Ashcroft would be aghast at this crap.

Doubt it.

:gulp:

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by EAT MY ASSHOLE
And here you are backing them up, takin everything they say at face value, and they leave you here looking like a bunch of drones, zombies and, frankly, sheep.



It's not all black and white.

There's many shades of gray within the political mix, also.

Don't assume all "Bushies" believe everything he says.

:gulp:

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
It's not all black and white.

There's many shades of gray within the political mix, also.

Don't assume all "Bushies" believe everything he says.

:gulp:


Hypocrite...

[FORD]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
It's not all black and white.

There's many shades of gray within the political mix, also.

Don't assume all "Bushies" believe everything he says.

:gulp:

If you voted for his pathetic ass in 2004, then you already believed too many of his lies to have any credibility of being considered "objective".

As for shades of gray, the problem is that they only exist in right wing world when it comes to breaking the law, but never when it comes to their rigid fascist demands of "You're either with us or with the terraists".

Which, of course, makes them hypocrites. :gulp:

[Nickdfresh]

Brian is another small-minded pussy-bitch...

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Brian is another small-minded pussy-bitch...

:lol:

Yet Nick feels the need to attack me in every thread.

I rule him. I own him.

He's afraid of me.

:cool:

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
:lol:

Yet Nick feels the need to attack me in every thread.

I rule him. I own him.

He's afraid of me.

:cool:

That's pretty funny Brianne...

The only thing is that I continually make you look stupid, though you don't really need me for that, do you...

I mean, you have the intellectual depth of a twelve-year-old, and I'm pretty sure that your college fantasy is all a troll, and possibly your supposed Naval Service as well, since you seem to actually know so little about Walter Reed, a place that you've supposedly "developed software" for. You seem to make quite a few claims that you can rarely substantiate and I am pretty sure that you're a complete fraud at this point. Much like 90% or your posts, you've little substance too offer and virtually no original thinking other than the recycled Republican talking points for (other) undereducated white trash retards.

Have a nice day, "manchild."

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
That's pretty funny Brianne...

The only thing is that I continually make you look stupid, though you don't really need me for that, do you...

I mean, you have the intellectual depth of a twelve-year-old, and I'm pretty sure that your college fantasy is all a troll, and possibly your supposed Naval Service as well, since you seem to actually know so little about Walter Reed, a place that you've supposedly "developed software" for. You seem to make quite a few claims that you can rarely substantiate and I am pretty sure that you're a complete fraud at this point. Much like 90% or your posts, you've little substance too offer and virtually no original thinking other than the recycled Republican talking points for (other) undereducated white trash retards.

Have a nice day, "manchild."

See, I told you so.

:)

:gulp:

[Nickdfresh]

Again, the lazy pussy says nothing and contributes nothing but tired old cliches...

[DLR'sCock]

Originally posted by Warham
What if those 93 attorneys he fired were in the middle of investigations and prosecutions? That alright?

Why does it matter when it was done?


It is customary that the US attorneys are fired or let go when a new president comes into term, and the new ones are appointed by the incoming president. Think of it along the lines of the cabinet, it is the same thing, All presidents do this when they are elected.

[Guitar Shark]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Have a nice day, "manchild."

Let's bump this sucker (http://www.rotharmy.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=675111#post675111) up, shall we? :D

[Nickdfresh]

The absolute truth and ultimate owning...:D

[blueturk]

BushCo is scared as hell....

Gonzales aide to invoke Fifth Amendment
Goodling will refuse to answer Senate questions on fired U.S. attorneys
The Associated Press
Updated: 5:31 p.m. ET March 26, 2007
WASHINGTON - Monica Goodling, a Justice Department official involved in the firings of federal prosecutors, will refuse to answer questions at upcoming Senate hearings, citing Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination, her lawyer said Monday.

"The potential for legal jeopardy for Ms. Goodling from even her most truthful and accurate testimony under these circumstances is very real," said the lawyer, John Dowd.

He said that members of the House and Senate Judiciary committees seem already to have made up their minds that wrongdoing has occurred in the firings.

Goodling, who is Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' senior counsel and White House liaison, took a leave of absence this month. She was subpoenaed by the Senate Judiciary Committee along with several of Gonzales' other top aides.

There have been questions about whether Goodling and others misinformed Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty about the firings just before he testified before the Senate committee in February.

Dowd said that a senior Justice Department official had told a member of the Senate committee that he was misled by Goodling and others before testifying.

The potential for taking the blame for the department's bungled response "is very real," Dowd said. "One need look no further than the recent circumstances and proceedings involving Lewis Libby," he said, a reference to the recent conviction of Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff in the CIA leak case.

Gonzales' support eroding
The disclosure comes even as the White House stood by Alberto Gonzales on Monday, while support for the embattled attorney general erodes on Capitol Hill amid new questions about his honesty.


Three key Republican senators sharply questioned Gonzales' truthfulness over the firings last fall of eight federal prosecutors. Two more Democrats on Sunday joined the list of lawmakers calling for Gonzales' ouster.

At issue is Gonzales' March 13 denial that he participated in discussions or saw any documents about the firings, despite documents that show he attended a Nov. 27 meeting with senior aides on the topic, where he approved a detailed plan to carry out the dismissals.

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said Gonzales "might be accused of being imprecise in what he was saying," but maintained that the attorney general was not closely involved in the firings.

"I understand the concern. I understand that people might think that there are inconsistencies," Perino said. "But as I read it, I think that he has been consistent."


The White House is placing the onus on Gonzales to explain his action to lawmakers, but he is not scheduled to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee until April 17 - three weeks away.

"I grant you, I think that that seems like a long time," Perino said. "But I don't think I would read into that that the Justice Department isn't having ongoing discussions with members of the Judiciary Committee on both the House and the Senate side, and other members who have expressed interest."

Bush did not speak to Gonzales over the weekend.

Loss of credibility
Gonzales faces the toughest test of his two-year tenure at the Justice Department with the release of documents suggesting he was more involved with the firings than he indicated earlier.

Democrats have accused the Justice Department and the White House of purging the prosecutors for political reasons. The Bush administration maintains the firings were not improper because U.S. attorneys are political appointees.

Speaking to reporters in Orlando, Fla., Sen. Bill Nelson said whether or not Gonzales was fully engaged, "he has lost all credibility with me." Nelson, D-Fla., joined the ranks Sunday of lawmakers in both parties calling for Gonzales to resign.

"Unless he has a good explanation for not only what he knew and when he knew it but also for the ineptitude of the department ... he is a goner," Nelson said of Gonzales. "I think there might be enough Republicans who are calling for his resignation, even before he takes the witness stand."

Stopping short of demanding Gonzales' resignation, Sen. Arlen Specter cited a Nov. 27 calendar entry placing the attorney general at a Justice Department meeting to discuss the dismissals. Those documents "appear to contradict" Gonzales' earlier statements that he never participated in such conversations, said Specter, top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee that oversees the Justice Department.

"We have to have an attorney general who is candid, truthful. And if we find out he has not been candid and truthful, that's a very compelling reason for him not to stay on," said Specter, R-Pa.

Specter said he would wait until Gonzales' testimony before deciding whether he could continue to support the attorney general.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said Gonzales has been "wounded" by the firings. "He has said some things that just don't add up," said Graham, who also is on the Senate Judiciary panel. And Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., said the Justice Department has continually changed its story about the dismissals.

"You cannot have the nation's chief law enforcement officer with a cloud hanging over his credibility," Hagel said.

At the same time, Democratic Sens. Dianne Feinstein of California and Bill Nelson of Florida said Gonzales should step down.

Contradictory documents
At a March 13 news conference, trying to stem the furor over the firings, Gonzales said, "I never saw documents. We never had a discussion about where things stood."

But his Nov. 27 schedule, included in a batch of memos sent to Capitol Hill late Friday, showed he attended an hour-long meeting at which, aides said, he approved a detailed plan for executing the purge.

Since the schedule's release, Justice aides have said Gonzales meant he was not involved in selecting the prosecutors when he said he didn't participate in discussions about their firings. "He didn't say he wasn't involved," former Republican chairman Ed Gillespie said Sunday.

Also, Republican Sens. Trent Lott of Mississippi and Orrin G. Hatch of Utah reaffirmed their earlier support for Gonzales. Hatch called Gonzales "an honest man" but added: "But let's be honest about it, the Justice Department has bungled this attorney thing."

Three of the ousted U.S. attorneys Sunday said they have concluded their firings were politically motivated.

Former prosecutors John McKay in Seattle and David Iglesias in New Mexico both said they were rebuked in private conversations for not pursuing Democrats in their states more aggressively in election-year investigations. "It is troubling, connecting those political dots," Iglesias said.

Bud Cummins, who was replaced as U.S. attorney in Little Rock, Ark., by a Karl Rove protégé, acknowledged political appointees can be fired for no reason.

"But in this case it looks like that authority was delegated down through (former White House counsel) Harriet Miers, Karl Rove, Judge Gonzales and all the way down to a bunch of 35-year-old kids who got in a room together and tried to decide who was most loyal to the president," Cummins said.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17801652

[Nickdfresh]

Yes indeed...

Just saw this!

Hey, but Warham has informed us that nothing illegal took place and it's all good.

Nothing to see here...:)

[ODShowtime]

Stopping short of demanding Gonzales' resignation, Sen. Arlen Specter cited a Nov. 27 calendar entry placing the attorney general at a Justice Department meeting to discuss the dismissals. Those documents "appear to contradict" Gonzales' earlier statements that he never participated in such conversations, said Specter, top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee that oversees the Justice Department.

"We have to have an attorney general who is candid, truthful. And if we find out he has not been candid and truthful, that's a very compelling reason for him not to stay on," said Specter, R-Pa.

Specter said he would wait until Gonzales' testimony before deciding whether he could continue to support the attorney general.

God, what would we do without him? He's the lynchpin.