A.G. Gonzales Is A Lying Fool by Jongsstraw

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

A.G. Gonzales Is A Lying Fool

POSTED BY: JONGSSTRAW
UPDATED: Thursday, August 2, 2007 08:02
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1260
PAGE 1 of 1

Monday, July 30, 2007 5:14 AM

...and "this" thread brought to you by your resident neo-con fascist Bush-loving inbred redneck Republithug....
What is Gonzales' problem with telling the truth??...the whole truth??...nothing but the truth?? TELL THE TRUTH ya maroon!..Don't you and the rest of the pathetic Bush Administration know...DON"T ya know by now ya idiot, that regardless of whether any "crime" was ever committed or not...it really does not matter?! It's the COVERING UP, and LYING, and the OBSTRUCTION that is not only gonna get your sorry fat ass put in prison, but will only fuel the Dems for more & more blood? So..Mr Gonzales...ANSWER THE QUESTIONS already!!!!!!

OK...You and Bush decided to fire 9 federal prosecutors...why? political reasons? OK that's the truth...JUST SAY IT ALBERTO!!

And then I say so the "f" what? All President's fire federal prosecutors...Mr. Clinton fired 92 out of 93! SO again WHAT are you lying for Alberto??? Tell the truth and admit it...it's not a crime.....but what you're doing is! Your partial answers and half-truths and refusals to obey subpeonas are ridiculous...you & Mrs. Meirs et al are all gonna go to prison if you don;t start cooperating now...today!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 30, 2007 6:29 AM

RIGHTEOUS9

Correct me if you feel like I'm wrong.

The issue is not the replacement of U.S. attorney's. It's an uninteresting talking point to say that Clinton replaced more than Bush. It's irrelevant. The odd thing about Bush's terminations is the time he chose to do them, but that in-and-of-itself would just be...odd.

The issue is whether or not the Bush administration and the DOJ were actively pressuring and interfering with ongoing investigations, and whether the firings were for political reasons...those stemming from prosecutors not going hard enough at cases involving democrats, and too hard at cases involving republicans. Firing U.S. attorneys for political reasons is illegal.

The DOJ's explanations for these firings have not panned out, the stonewalling and the constant lying under oath does indeed make things look awfully fishy, and firing them at a strange time only makes the stink that much stronger. It can be expected that the President will fire attorneys when he gets into office, and frankly that's the only "clean" time to make such a move.

The reality is appointments are politically motivated. They can hardly be otherwise. But according to the law, firing based on such motives is illegal. At time of appointment there is usually one major qualifier that keeps this above board - the senate confirmation.

The beauty of the Bush administration's move, is that under the Patriot Act, they no longer had to
have their replacements confirmed after a 120 day interem. Screw separation of powers. That's why we got such gems as Jeffrey Taylor, who one, helped to draft the patriot act, and two, "lost" the American taxpayer over 100 million dollars when he listed the wrong statute in a binding plea agreement with a defendant company. Charming.

.....

What i find interesting about those who go on about Clinton firing 93 attorneys when he took office, is just how many republicans were there for Bush not to fire when he replaced him. How many democrats are U.S. attorneys now do you think? How many democrats did Bush appoint? To be fair, I don't know. I have a guess, but I got too lazy to keep searching.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 30, 2007 6:59 AM

JONGSSTRAW

I don't think anything you wrote is wrong, but firing US Attorneys for political reasons is illegal? Maybe it's un-ethical, or un-wise even, but illegal?...why? where? If that is true, then the Clinton history becomes more than relevant...don't you think? When the Republicans took control of Congress in 1994, 2 years after Clinton became President they could have done the same thing to Clinton & Reno that Leahy et al are doing now...but they didn't. Why not, you think? Other Clintonistas, leftovers ..either resigned or were fired too...is that illegal too?..to fire them for purely poitical reasons? If a President can get away with this "illegal" activity, then why wouldn't Bush have fired them in 2000 or 2004 immediately after he was sworn in? You seem to be saying that firing them in mid-term is toooooo obvious a political hatchet job, and therefore more likely to lead to an investigation? Is this ANOTHER thing that Bush screwed up? Couldn't even fire people correctly?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 30, 2007 7:54 AM

FLETCH2

I think if firing was out and out illegal then we would have seen the AG in a courtroom and not the Senate. As was mentioned these are political appointments so cleaning house is common at the start of any administration, so Clinton put his boys in when he came into office, Bush did likewise. No problem.

The question is this. After putting these guys in place was it their performance in politically sensative cases that got them fired? Where these prosecutors expected to act as political attack dogs to forward the Republican cause, deliberately pressing cases against Dems and ignoring similar cases about Reps? If so THAT is illegal, putting pressure on prosecutors to do that is illegal and if they refuse, replacing them with folks willing to press that agenda is also illegal.

If a politico does something illegal I want his ass in jail, I don't want him to have a "get out of jail free" card because he's chummy with the current junta. As for the "serves at the President's pleasure" crud, If they are on the public nickel, they work for me (and the other 200million tax payers) and I want them to do their job free of political interferance.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 30, 2007 8:15 AM

JONGSSTRAW

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:

The question is this. After putting these guys in place was it their performance in politically sensative cases that got them fired? Where these prosecutors expected to act as political attack dogs to forward the Republican cause, deliberately pressing cases against Dems and ignoring similar cases about Reps? If so THAT is illegal, putting pressure on prosecutors to do that is illegal and if they refuse, replacing them with folks willing to press that agenda is also illegal.

That seems like a hard thing to actually prove in court. It seems to me that if Gonzales and Bush had just told the truth months ago, all these new pending charges would never be necessary. Again, I say, the cover-up & obstruction is always much worse than the actual crime, if there is a crime. By taking the position they have, both Bush & Gonzales have set themselves up for a lot of future misery...this 'aint going to go away...and every day they lie & obstruct only makes it worse for them and all Americans.. Is what they're hiding worse than what they're doing now? It can't be worse...they have given the Dems another gift-wrapped election victory by taking this selfish, egotistical & antagonistic battle down to the wire....just bad politics, bad citizenship....very embarrassing for anyone holding on to a thread of trust & belief in the republican party.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 30, 2007 8:26 AM

MAL4PREZ

I agree that all this lying and misdirection is making the GOP lose ground with the public. I don't think they realize (or maybe they just don't care?) how bad they're making themselves look. (They meaning Dubya and Gonzo, not the GOP at large.)

However, I don't think Gonzo would be off the hook free and clear if he'd just come clean right away. I think the crap he's pulling now is indicative of the way this administration does everything: with deceit and power lust and no respect for the Constitution or the principles this country is supposed to be about.

The more we know about Gonzo, the more trouble he and Dubya will be in. And I think they know it.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 30, 2007 8:50 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:
Firing U.S. attorneys for political reasons is illegal.

No. Actually its not illegal. It may be unethical, but not illegal. There are certain Presidential powers, usually involving exclusive proprietary functions (like pardons and firings and what to serve at State dinners) that are the sole discretion of the President and can be done for ANY reason...even political.

Or you can cite to the US Code section that governs the condition under which the President can or can not fire a US Attorney. I think I cited it in a prior discussion, along with relevant case law on the subject.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 30, 2007 9:50 AM

FLETCH2

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:
Firing U.S. attorneys for political reasons is illegal.

No. Actually its not illegal. It may be unethical, but not illegal. There are certain Presidential powers, usually involving exclusive proprietary functions (like pardons and firings and what to serve at State dinners) that are the sole discretion of the President and can be done for ANY reason...even political.

Or you can cite to the US Code section that governs the condition under which the President can or can not fire a US Attorney. I think I cited it in a prior discussion, along with relevant case law on the subject.

H

But putting pressure on proscuters to drop or press charges for political aims surely is illegal? Doesn't it come under the headings of actions with intent to pervert justice?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 30, 2007 10:09 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Although not it's original intent, such actions and provisions fall under the RICO act, Fletch.

Read up on it, and you'll laugh yourself silly, given that our entire gov under any party or prez could be considered under the law as an "ongoing criminal conspiracy" - by the book, it is technically so.

How's that for a 'conspiracy theory' ehe ?
Seriously tho, if they had any guts, or intent to do more than grandstand politically, they'd bust his ass under RICO statures.

Prolly drives Hero up a wall, but look it up yourself if you don't believe me.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 30, 2007 2:16 PM

MALBADINLATIN

Here is some of his last testimony in front of congress:

I can't really recall if anyone is lying because I don't recall who he is. I may have have had meetings with him and I don't deny having spoken with him directly but don't recall any details of the conversation I can't really recall if anyone is lying because I don't recall who he is. I may have have had meetings with him I don't deny having spoken with him directly but don't recall any details of the coI can't really recall if anyone is lying because I don't recall who he is. I may have have had meetings with him and I don't deny having spoken with him directly but don't recall any details of the conversation I can't really recall if anyone is lying because I don't recall who he is. I may have have had meetings with him I don't deny having spoken with him directly but don't recall any details of the conversation

If you're not on Malbadinlatin's side, you're with the terrorists.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 1, 2007 2:09 PM

JONGSSTRAW

Quote:
Originally posted by MalBadInLatin:
Here is some of his last testimony in front of congress:

I can't really recall if anyone is lying because I don't recall who he is. I may have have had meetings with him and I don't deny having spoken with him directly but don't recall any details of the conversation I can't really recall if anyone is lying because I don't recall who he is. I may have have had meetings with him I don't deny having spoken with him directly but don't recall any details of the coI can't really recall if anyone is lying because I don't recall who he is. I may have have had meetings with him and I don't deny having spoken with him directly but don't recall any details of the conversation I can't really recall if anyone is lying because I don't recall who he is. I may have have had meetings with him I don't deny having spoken with him directly but don't recall any details of the conversation

If you're not on Malbadinlatin's side, you're with the terrorists.

Ya know, in my job, and I'm sure tons of others here as well, I talk to hundreds of people every week on a wide and expansive range of business issues and work projects. I can just imagine my fate if I ever gave my boss an answer even remotely akin to Gonzales' as you've quoted in regards to an account. In the business world, one day you're a hero, the next you can be history.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 2, 2007 7:05 AM

MALBADINLATIN

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw: Ya know, in my job, and I'm sure tons of others here as well, I talk to hundreds of people every week on a wide and expansive range of business issues and work projects. I can just imagine my fate if I ever gave my boss an answer even remotely akin to Gonzales' as you've quoted in regards to an account. In the business world, one day you're a hero, the next you can be history.

Well said....maybe were just not well connected enough. Besides, nobody is talking in that whole mess anyway. Just like Wolfowitz, and others, these people will continue to get high paying prestigious jobs after they're done working at the Justice Dept as payback for thier silence.

If you're not on Malbadinlatin's side, you're with the terrorists.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 2, 2007 8:02 AM

FREMDFIRMA

This is why such folks seek government employment rather than the private sector, where else is utter incompetence rewarded, neh ?

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE