THE PRESIDENT: The Attorney General went up and gave a very candid assessment, and answered every question he could possibly answer, honestly answer, in a way that increased my confidence in his ability to do the job.

That statement right there tells you everything you need to know about Bush's mind. The man is clearly delusional. The AG could hardly remember his own name. How many times did he say 'I don't recall'?

Yes, Gonzales should be one nervous puppy by now even with Bush's 'endorsement'. Remember what happened to those other fellows he congradulated and said were doing a heck of a job. mmmmmm.

beware the cornered rabid animal. lacking in all but the most basic and reptilian faculties, its only concern is its own survival.

bush is employing the middle-finger strategy and we should expect nothing less from him in his last two years. he knows, if he loses anymore of his inner-circle, that light will shine on in and he'll make nixon look like mother teresa.

CO, like all Presidents, he's proteting the loyal....I would too!

Does this sound familiar lefties? You all have such short memories.

"After Attorney General Reno went on several television shows to take responsibility for the fiasco while insisting that the debacle was solely the fault of the Davidians, President Clinton called her up and congratulated her on doing a good job — as if the television appearances were more important than the deaths of the women, children, and men inside the compound."

"Solely the fault of the Davidians?" Yeah right, and Chucky Schummer was all about what was morally right....and pigs fly too!

Or how about Elian Gonzalez? Talk about hypocrisy, or is this somehow different now that there's a Republican in office?

And why should Gonzales be nervous? He hasn't killed innocent Americans as did Reno in Waco, or torn little kids out of their homes to deport them back to Cuba. No, he fired a bunch of lawyers that weren't doing their jobs to the Administration's liking. It's called "employment at will" which, if re-instated nationally, would solve many problems in the workplace and bring back a more competitive atmosphere in the country.

"I don't believe that you're involved in a conspiracy to fire somebody because they wouldn't prosecute a particular enemy of a politician or a friend of a politician," said Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina. "But at the end of the day, you said something that struck me: that sometimes it just came down to these were not the right people at the right time. If I applied that standard to you, what would you say?"

No one thinks Gonzalez made the decision to fire these people on his own. Everyone knows he is a pawn and serves at the pleasure of Karl Rove. But all the same, how rich after all these years to see a Bush crony sit there and squirm! If the Democrats in Congress had any brains or guts they'd have bigger fish sitting there taking the heat.

You've got to give it to Newt Gingrinch, whether it was chasing Clinton beyond all reason and catching the nation's repressed sexual hysteria (while pursuing his own extramarital affair, or course) or shutting down the government over a budget disagreement, Newt painted in bold strokes!

"If the Democrats in Congress had any brains or guts they'd have bigger fish sitting there taking the heat."

Which 90% of Congress lacks....on both sides of the aisle.

But who really cares whether he fired them or not when Janet Reno demanded resignations from all 93 when she took office...no media outrage then, so why now? Just another witch-hunt.

The Justice Department is now on par with FEMA. Only a Democrat in the White House can fix it. Therefore I must conclude it is better that Gonzales stay right where he is through the summer of 2008 as one of the incompetent lightening rods of the republican party. Only danger is now that Justice is now proven to be a political arm of the Republican party they will drum up false Swiftboat investigations of Democrats during the election cycle.

So is this finally done? Are you libs done witchhunting?

Gonzalez is being condemned from both sides of the aisle, so it is only a witch-hunt if you think all of Congress condemning someone is a witch-hunt. Reno defended the FBI from charges they set the compound on fire. She was a strong and overly-aggressive Attorney General who made some mistakes. Gonzalez is just a Bush crony and is being made into a whipping boy by Republicans in Congress mad at Bush for blowing it for them in the last election.

Matt,

If this is a "Non-scandal," I can't wait until we get to the real scandals!

First, D. Kyle Sampson, resigned as Mr. Gonzales’s chief of staff.

Then
Justice Department's White House Liaison Monica Goodling resigned.

Then
Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, said bluntly that there was “no doubt” Mr. Gonzales’s leadership was harming the Justice Department.

Then
Joining a growing list of Republicans, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales should consider resigning. The possible presidential candidate said the botched firing of U.S. attorneys has destroyed Gonzales' credibility as the nation's top law enforcer.

She was a strong and overly-aggressive Attorney General who made some mistakes.

No bias here, eh, navydad?

Yenta2, you are a card...

I think Gonzales did a heckeva job. About on par with the former heads of Fema and dept of defense

Okay then, place your bets. Today is April 23rd, 2007. How many people are willing to bet that in a month, by May 23, 2007, that Gonzo will still be the A.G.?

My bet: when they offer Goodling immunity and compel her testimony in the next couple of weeks, it's bye-bye Alberto.

Any takers?

[comment deleted - impersonating another reader]

"Talk about hypocrisy, or is this somehow different now that there's a Republican in office?"

And this does not apply to you because?

"It's called "employment at will" which, if re-instated nationally, would solve many problems in the workplace and bring back a more competitive atmosphere in the country."

For the millionth time, the issue is not that at the attorneys were dismissed; it's that the Gonzo either lied to Congress about what happened or that the agency completely side-stepped the wishes of an inept Attorney General in firing the attornesy. In either situation, Gonzo does not deserve to remain as AG.

"Now, on to more important things."

That OUR Justice Department is headed by someone with no confidence from Republican and Democratic members of Congress, and from the Department itself, should be alarming to everyone. Was a crime committed? Who knows...but the fact that Goodling pleaded the Fifth (and may soon receive immunity) suggests that this story is not going away any time soon.

Gar Wood

"He may decide based on his authority who lives, or dies in our great nation."

We have the Due Process Clause in the Fifth Amendment to prevent him from doing just that.

Gar Wood

[comment deleted - impersonating another reader]

"In the constitution in fact, the President may decide to execute anyone he sees as a threat to our nation."

Not American citizens. But thanks for the constitutional law lesson, navydad.

The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment says:
"No person shall be...deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

Gar Wood

[comment deleted - impersonating another reader]

"Those rights you mentioned are reserved for real Americans."

You are quite the patriot, Navydad. Where in the Constitution does it say that due process is reserved for "real Americans"? I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and suggest that maybe you and Keefer are referring to Korematsu v. U.S. But if you are relying on that for good law today (though it has not been formally overturned) I worry for you and our democracy.

Gar Wood

Mark

The last two posts are frauds. This guy thinks he's cute, but is fooling no one but himself....and apparently Garwood! Kinda funny in a way.

I'll have a word with Typekey as to why they're allowing duplicates.

Ban him please.

Navydad:

Please point me to the section of the Constitution where it defines "real Americans" by their actions alone.

Additionally, keefer, you say that the President as the Commander in Chief has the right to fire anyone, at anytime, from any job public or private. Assuming you are serious (I can never tell with your crazy rants), please point me to the law that gives him the right to fire, say, the guy serving me coffee at Starbucks.

Thanks, guys, I really do appreciate the lesson in constitutional law you provide.

Those rights you mentioned are reserved for real Americans.

Posted by navydad. at April 23, 2007 06:15 PM

Wow!! Your rights can be taken away in the U.S.A. if you are not a supporter of the policies of this administration.

You know, navydad, (if that is who you are) disagreeing with the current bunch of incompetents does not mean, no matter how hard your try to spin it, that you are supporting the terrorists. You CAN to one without the other.

Looks like he got to you too CO!!

[comment deleted - impersonating another reader]

OK Navydad #2

What are my lifetime accomplishments? No answer will result in being banned....I hope.

This IS, yet another witch hunt, as a means of disposing of each and every person within the Bush
Administration. The Liberal/Radicals, can't do it
in any other ways, other than smear, lie, concoct
doubts on any subject, and finally have ANOTHER INVESTIGATION. Don't you people get it? It's all about getting RID of the President's people, and they would HOPE, to make it to Rove, whom they
absolutely hate. They of course hate Bush, and have been witch hunting from the first day this man took office. I'd like to know what is so very
different here, than what these two-faced fools went through when Clinton took office. The Clintons got rid of not only 93 attornies, but wiped out the whole travel office staff, among so many other people's lives, in "throwing them under
the bus, or getting them killed or jailed AND they
had ongoing investigations on the supposed enemy's
list they kept(keep)and just where was the outrage by the Dems over the Sandy Berger theft of the National Archive Papers? Kinda quiet weren't the Dems? So isn't this kind of a real "DOUBLE STANDARD HERE", when the SAME DEMS DIDN'T SPEAK A WORD AGAINST ALL OF THE ABOVE TACTICS OF THE CLINTONS"?

And Puleeeezzz....don't give me that crap about how we always bring up the Clintons-you have ALL given them the passes they need to continue to try to fool the public, but you won't even let Bush run the business of the country, without a daily attack about him, his people, or whatever else you can throw at the wall, hoping that something WILL STICK. These type of politicos waste a hellava lot of time on this stuff, and are NOT doing the work they were sent to D.C. to do. It is time, money and useless effort wasted-
while they wait to conjure up the "next investigation of the Bush Administration".
Anywhere else, THEY would be fired from a business
where they wasted so much time. Do Your FN jobs,
and forget all this investigation crap, and the "gotchas you keep trying to perpetuate".

"Senator, that I don't recall remembering."
Alberto Gonzales, April 19, 2007.

Sorry, just read the thread. I can assure you I am not the impostor being addressed in the thread. Coincidental timing. Investigate if you like though.

Jo,

Do you disagree with the statement that either Gonzo lied to Congress or his subordinates went around him to implement the attorney firings? Because that goes to the heart of why Congressional Republicans and Democrats are uniting in demanding Gonzo's resignation.

Gar Wood

I wish he would have said, "Could you repeat that Senator McCarthy? I mean Leahy?"

Gonzales' continued presence has become an exercise in humiliation for Republicans in Congress. How many Republican senators and House members have to say they've lost confidence in the attorney general before the White House gives them the time of day?
You want to claim it is principle but the only principles evident are the principles of partisanship and obstinance.

Yeah? Well so's your old man!
Number of times that Clinton figures who testified in court or before Congress said that they didn't remember, didn't know, or something similar.

Bill Kennedy 116
Harold Ickes 148
Ricki Seidman 160
Bruce Lindsey 161
Bill Burton 191
Mark Gearan 221
Mack McLarty 233
Neil Egglseston 250
Hillary Clinton 250
John Podesta 264
Jennifer O'Connor 343
Dwight Holton 348
Patsy Thomasson 420
Jeff Eller 697

If Gonzo don't remember, he's a piker compared to these professional memory lapses.

Why, in the Paula Jones deposition alone the ethical Bill Clinton had his memory fail 267 times; with such gems as; "I would have no way of remembering that" and "I can't deny that, I just -- I have no memory of that at all"

"You want to claim it is principle but the only principles evident are the principles of partisanship and obstinance."

Of course you called for Clinton's resignation, right?

Keefer: We're supposed to be unbiased here? You're a paragon of that yourself. I'll take Janet Reno any day. Isn't the ATTORNEY GENERAL supposed to have some integrity? Gonzalez hemmed and hawed and all but admitted he was a tool of Karl Rove. He didn't even know he fired some of these people! That alone is inexcusable.

Bill Clinton lied about sex, and a bunch of minor figures from his administration (the First Lady was not an appointed or elected official) had similar bad memories... Bad memory is what you do in front of a hostile Congressional Panel. I don't condemn AG for his terrible memory, I condemn him for being a pawn when he's supposed to be the chief law enforcement official in the country. He wasn't enforcing the law, he was enforcing part of Karl Rove's plan for world domination, which is falling apart before our eyes.

I don't condemn Clinton for his terrible memory, I condemn him for being a lying to Congress, to Court and to the american people to save his sorry ass from civil prosecution when he's supposed to be the President of the United States, and for suborning perjury from the list of flunkeys above.
You liberals really ought to get over your obsession with Clinton's sex life; he was impeached as a liar; get over it.

Hypocrisy; thy name is Liberal! !

Yano - at least Gonzalez never ordered tanks driven by the FBI in to kill women and children, like Reno did.

And, just what law did Gonzalez break? Anyone?

>>And, just what law did Gonzalez break? Anyone?

Lying to Congress, for one...

Elian Gonzalas lied to Congress? He wasn't Cuban? He wasn't 6?

Why hasn't he been charged with a crime?

Conservative sympathy for Branch Davidians is truly touching. Clinton was pursued for his sexual misconduct. Remember Ken Starr? Did you read a newspaper in the 1990s?

Clinton lied about his personal life. That is the difference between him and what is going on now. AG, the chief law enforcement official in the country, fired perfectly competent prosecutors because they didn't toe the party line. Bush loyalists don't understand why this is wrong just like they don't understand why torture is wrong, or abridging civil liberties in the name of "patriotism." What a mess all this will be for the next president to clean up.

What a mess all this will be for the next president to clean up.
Posted by: Yeno2 at April 24, 2007 02:26 PM

To regain everything that was lost during the Bush administration's 'reign' will be a monumental task for a mere mortal to accomplish. To once again be a respected voice in the international community, it may take more than one presidential term to achieve.

Articles of Impeachment

"On August 17, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton swore to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth before a Federal grand jury of the United States. Contrary to that oath, William Jefferson Clinton willfully provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony to the grand jury[]

In his conduct while President of the United States, William Jefferson Clinton, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice, and has to that end engaged personally, and through his subordinates and agents, in a course of conduct or scheme designed to delay, impede, cover up, and conceal the existence of evidence and testimony related to a Federal civil rights action"

I told you, Clinton was impeached as a liar. You really need to stop obsessing about Clinton's sex life; it isn't healthy!

"Elian Gonzalas lied to Congress? He wasn't Cuban? He wasn't 6?

Why hasn't he been charged with a crime?"

Rathaven,

I'd like to hear that defense. "Your honor, my client may have lied to Congress. But so did Elian Gonzales, and he wasn't prosecuted! But Janet Reno did blah blah blah blah"

Perceived inconsistencies in the administration of justice are never a defense, and they certainly do not justify lying to Congress, if that's what Gonzo and his lackeys in fact did.

Gar Wood

"abridging civil liberties "

You mean like conspiring to give false testimony before a Grand Jury in a Civil Rights trial? You mean like withholding evidence, obstruct justice, cover up and conceal evidence to prevent a citizen from exercising her civil rights? Okay, that happened and Clinton was impeached. I get it.

But what civil liberties has the Bush administration abridged? Can you name just one?

“Perceived inconsistencies in the administration of justice are never a defense,”

In U.S. law, the constitutional guarantee that no person or group will be denied such protection under the law as is enjoyed by similar persons or groups — i.e., persons similarly situated must be treated similarly. One notable example of the application of the Equal Protection Clause was Bush v Gore, the Supreme Court decision that ended the Florida recount and effectively decided the presidential election of 2000 in favor of George W. Bush. Seven justices found an equal protection problem with Florida's using different criteria to measure voter's intent in different counties. (See: Strict scrutiny)

Be specific, be clear; blanket statements without aforethought are “never” a substitute for research.

Rathaven,

Courts give near total discretion to decisions not to prosecute, so you would have an impossible time showing how the decision not to prosecute Elian or Janet Reno amounted to a denial of equal protection for Gonzo.

Equal protection is totally irrelevant here. It applies only to government action or policy that singles out a specific group of people. There was no government policy that singled out Elian Gonzalez and Janet Reno as a group immune from prosecution, so I'm afraid your inventive defense of Gonzo would fall flat.

Gar Wood

First you tell me Elian Gonzales testified in front of Congress, and now you say Reno decided not to prosecute the 6 year old?

What was his crime?

And what colour is the sky in your world?

AND ... (this is too funny!) If Janet Reno refused to prosecute in defiance of Administration directive that would be a reason for the Administration to fire her ... you know, like the Federal Attorneys Gonzales fired.

“Courts give near total discretion to decisions not to prosecute,”

“Courts” have nothing to do with prosecution decisions.

"“Courts” have nothing to do with prosecution decisions."

I meant "deference," not "discretion." My mistake. My point was just that; courts stay out of an agency or prosecutor's decision whether or not to prosecute.

"First you tell me Elian Gonzales testified in front of Congress, and now you say Reno decided not to prosecute the 6 year old?"

You're funny. Have anything more to say about Equal Protection?

Gar Wood

Clinton was impeached for lying about consensual sex between two adults.
Gonzalez is potentially obstructing an investigation at the expense of his credibility. The Attorney General of the United States needs credibility to perform his duties. I think Gonzalez has lost the trust of the vast majority of congress. Even if just for "performance issues."

I meant to add:
Gonzalez is potentially obstructing an investigation at the expense of his credibility ...and the credibility of our Justice Department.

Clinton lied in a civil deposition about sexual harrassment of an employee and violating a citizen's civil rights. Read the articles Rathaven posted.

Typical liberal; sexual harrassment is "consentual" when it's a democrat, just good clean fun among adults. After all, Paula Jones was asking for it.

Pathetic Clinton dung beetles!

dasien
You are right and wrong. He was impeached on only two of the Articles. Perjury in front of a grand jury (separate from civil) and obstruction in a civil case.
An impeachment is very similar to an indictment. It is not a conviction.
The Senate did not convict on the charge/indictment/impeachment.

Let’s start with the premise that the AG is unqualified for the job and should resign; I’ve always felt that way, no change in opinion. Let’s also agree that the Attorney firings are within the AG’s purview and there are no mitigations that could change that.

Now let’s look at the current show trial going on; Gonzales has had a pathetic showing and more proof that he’s in over his head. The AG position has a long list of less than stellar performers; Janet Reno, Ed Meese, Griffin Bell, John Mitchell, Ramsey Clark, Bobby Kennedy; political favors and payoff for serving the President, nothing to see here.

Being stupid when testifying before Congress isn’t yet a crime and the AG hasn’t been charged with giving false testimony or deliberately misleading Congress in their investigation. Unlike Clinton who was impeached for for intentionally giving false testimony and misleading an investigation into Civil Rights violations. Clinton had his bar ticket “punched” by the State of Arkansas; he is also barred by the US Supreme Court from arguing any case before the Court.

The Bar and the Court recognize that Clinton, as a lawyer has no credibility and the rest of the reality-based world recognize that he forfeited his presidential credibility to protect himself from civil litigation, and prevent him from being exposed as a serial harasser. So your statement “Clinton was impeached for lying about consensual sex between two adults. is factually incorrect, he was asked about his history of harassment of subordinates. I would appreciate honesty from the Clinton dung beetles on this if only once. And for the sake of consistency, because he was an embarrassment to the Executive Branch of Government you called for his resignation as well, right?

As to Gar; the intent of my post was to show that non-lawyers shouldn’t make blanket statements “Perceived inconsistencies in the administration of justice are never a defense,”. Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment certainly does apply to individuals. Actually, after checking with the attorney here on campus I’ve discovered that my analysis was correct and that further, perceived inconsistencies in the administration of justice is a cause of action.

rathaven
Please read the posts before you respond.
I told dasein "You are right..." It was an admission that my post was wrong. (He was also wrong on another matter though.)
Also, I said, "Gonzalez is potentially obstructing an investigation at the expense of his credibility..."
You see that...that word I used..."potentially."

By the way, Clinton's perjury in front of the Grand Jury was not about Paula Jones or other subordinates beyond Lewinsky yet you state, "he was asked about his history of harassment of subordinates." Article 1 concerned his lying about his relationship with Lewinsky. Lewinsky never charged that she was harassed.
And in Article 3, the obstruction charge in the civil case, the charge was also concerning his denial of a relationship with Lewinsky and attempts to cover the relationship up. It was not about Paula Jones.

"Actually, after checking with the attorney here on campus I’ve discovered that my analysis was correct and that further, perceived inconsistencies in the administration of justice is a cause of action."

Rathaven,

Well then I guess it's my word against the word of the lawyer whose reasoning you curiously omit. I think the Supreme Court case Washington v. Davis proves that you're either lying or your campus lawyer is a moron.

Gar Wood

Rathaven,

I'd also like to point out that we were discussing defenses, and not causes of actions. Gonzo, or anyone else, cannot claim as a defense that others similarly situated were not prosecuted. That is what I meant when I said that "perceived inconsistencies in the administration of justice are never a defense." That is why excusing any possible wrongdoing by Republicans on the basis of all the crap that Democrats supposedly got away with is pointless.

Gar Wood

Sorry for jumping in front of my friend Bane, he was referencing the post I made regarding the articles of impeachment so I felt justified to respond.

Actually the First Article of Impeachment read;

“On August 17, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton swore to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth before a Federal grand jury of the United States. Contrary to that oath, William Jefferson Clinton willfully provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony to the grand jury concerning one or more of the following:

(1) the nature and details of his relationship with a subordinate Government employee;
(2) prior perjurious, false and misleading testimony he gave in a Federal civil rights action brought against him;
(3) prior false and misleading statements he allowed his attorney to make to a Federal judge in that civil rights action; and
(4) his corrupt efforts to influence the testimony of witnesses and to impede the discovery of evidence in that civil rights action.”

The Federal civil rights action brought against him; at which he gave the “prior perjurious, false and misleading testimony” was when he was asked by Paula Jones attorneys about his serial harassment of a “subordinate Government employee”.

Spin all you like; Clinton impeachment had nothing whatever to do with “lying about consensual sex between two adults” This is a matter of historical fact. Anyone that says different is a hypocrite and a Clinton sex-obsessed sycophant.

Gar,
You made an appallingly incorrect legal statement and I called you on it. I never offered a defense or mitigation. Washington v. Davis is not germane; Weaver v. Town of Rush, is.

VILLAGE OF WILLOWBROOK, et al., PETITIONERS v. GRACE OLECH

"We granted certiorari to determine whether the Equal Protection Clause gives rise to a cause of action on behalf of a “class of one” where the plaintiff did not allege membership in a class or group.[] These allegations, quite apart from the Village’s subjective motivation, are sufficient to state a claim for relief under traditional equal protection analysis. We therefore affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals, but do not reach the alternative theory of “subjective ill will” relied on by that court.

It is so ordered." US Supreme Court.

So, Who's the be-yotch now?

Rathaven,

I admit, you got me, Rathaven. Just kidding. I said the following: "perceived inconsistencies in the administration of justice are never a defense." You have not shown at all show how the failure to prosecute others could constitute an Equal Protection defense to prosecution. You have cited two cases that mention an Equal Protection cause of action, which is completely different from a criminal defense and what we were talking about in the context of bitching about what Janet Reno got away with. But nice effort and thanks for playing!!!

Gar Wood

Gar,
Your blanket statement is wrong. The Supreme Court and the Constitution said so.

Admission of your inadequacies is the first step toward rehabilitation.

game-set-match!

rathaven
I don't really see how it is relevant how Jones' attorney's characterized actions.
There is certainly some spinning going on. Maybe you can figure out where it's coming from:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/articles122098.htm

I wish he would have said, "Could you repeat that Senator McCarthy? I mean Leahy?" - who can add?