Furor Over DA Firings Grows

[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]

Oh look! GOnzales is a liar. I'm shocked...

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.....