Yahoo news---initial testimony of Gonzales.

[Lemon law]

Just in from yahoo news---initial news on testimony of Gonzales.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070419/ap_...tors;_ylt=AodaNb2m1yL6VuZjxk1MV2Ks0NUE

But the part I find hard to believe is the emphasis on the question if Gonzales was in the loop
regarding the firings of US attorneys---or only played a minor role.

Either way the question still boils down to were the firing justified---or has Gonzales allowed a culture of partisan politics to have any inputs in what is still the American people's dept. of Justice. And when the scandal broke it was incumbent on Gonzales to either re-hire the fired attorneys and fire those partisan elements within his own department---or to endorse the decision and now defend it.---------straddling the fence will not do it.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Either way the question still boils down to were the firing justified---or has Gonzales allowed a culture of partisan politics to have any inputs in what is still the American people's dept. of Justice. And when the scandal broke it was incumbent on Gonzales to either re-hire the fired attorneys and fire those partisan elements within his own department---or to endorse the decision and now defend it.---------straddling the fence will not do it.

You could go one further and say the only thing that matters is whether the firing were legal and allowable under current law/policy.

Now if we found some major conflict of interest in the firings then I would be worried. But it seems that the firings weren?t motivated by the desire to ?hide? some wrong doing by firing the prosecutors.

This seems to be more about politics than anything else.

 

[M00T]

I've been listening to it. The biggest concern at this point is how could Gonzales delegate complete authority to his deputy on making the decision to fire these attorneys and why did he not bother to investigate the claims made by the Republican Senator and Karl Rove about the performance of the attorneys.

The testimony thus far is boiling down to whether or not Gonzales can think on his own or only blindly follow orders from the administration.

Even if we don't find out what motivated the firings, Gonzales has been marked as a shill.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Either way the question still boils down to were the firing justified---or has Gonzales allowed a culture of partisan politics to have any inputs in what is still the American people's dept. of Justice. And when the scandal broke it was incumbent on Gonzales to either re-hire the fired attorneys and fire those partisan elements within his own department---or to endorse the decision and now defend it.---------straddling the fence will not do it.

You could go one further and say the only thing that matters is whether the firing were legal and allowable under current law/policy.

Now if we found some major conflict of interest in the firings then I would be worried. But it seems that the firings weren?t motivated by the desire to ?hide? some wrong doing by firing the prosecutors.

This seems to be more about politics than anything else.

If he has nothing to hide then there shouldn't be any problem. But we ALL KNOW he has something to hide. This process should be completely transparent...any HR person from taco bell to Bank of America will tell you that hiring and firing should be completely transparent. That didnt happen with these prosecutors the moment that the justification for removing them was put into question; ie the moment SOMEONE lied.

Bush should just be thankful he has an AG to shield him from this. At least up to this point.

 

[Lemon law]

To non-Prof John---who notes---Now if we found some major conflict of interest in the firings then I would be worried.

Well then you are a self confessed Alfred E. Newman flat out refusing to worry-----if you see NO CONFLICTS OF INTEREST---you only delude yourself---and are deaf, dumb, and blind.

Or you could just try the simple honesty sniff test---compare what Gonzales said in the past---and the e-mails said in the past---when they don't square with each other. Someone is lying.
Or is lying your expectations from Government?

 

[shadow9d9]

Lieing should be grounds for firing in our governments.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Either way the question still boils down to were the firing justified---or has Gonzales allowed a culture of partisan politics to have any inputs in what is still the American people's dept. of Justice. And when the scandal broke it was incumbent on Gonzales to either re-hire the fired attorneys and fire those partisan elements within his own department---or to endorse the decision and now defend it.---------straddling the fence will not do it.

You could go one further and say the only thing that matters is whether the firing were legal and allowable under current law/policy.

Now if we found some major conflict of interest in the firings then I would be worried. But it seems that the firings weren?t motivated by the desire to ?hide? some wrong doing by firing the prosecutors.

This seems to be more about politics than anything else.

In my best hillbilly voice,

"Now squeal like a pig".

 

[techs]

Interesting how politicians call someone a liar:

The Pennsylvania Republican said Gonzales' description was "significantly if not totally at variance with the facts."

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: techs
Interesting how politicians call someone a liar:

The Pennsylvania Republican said Gonzales' description was "significantly if not totally at variance with the facts."

Surely you see that instead of being a liar, under that description, he could also be suffering from delusions.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: techs
Interesting how politicians call someone a liar:

The Pennsylvania Republican said Gonzales' description was "significantly if not totally at variance with the facts."

Surely you see that instead of being a liar, under that description, he could also be suffering from delusions.

Whatever it takes to "serve" justice.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: PrevaricatorJohn
You could go one further and say the only thing that matters is whether the firing were legal and allowable under current law/policy.

You could IF you wanted to overlook the question of whether Gonzales and his underlings have lied to Congress, which is a separate felony.

You could IF you didn't care that his top assistant resigned and claimed protection under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution against self incrimination for purjury. There are only two possiblities:

1. As a top ranking official in the U.S. Department of Justice, she has already committed the crime of purjury in previous sworn testimont or,
   
2. She's seeking protection against self incrimination FOR A CRIME SHE HAS NOT YET COMMITTED! In that case, all she has to do is NOT lie under oath. In either case, it's damning evidence shes an ethical dwarf.

Now if we found some major conflict of interest in the firings then I would be worried.

Then, you should be worrying a lot.

U.S. Attorney, Carol Lam appears to have been fired because she was successful in prosecuting disgraced former California Congressman and present felon, Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R) for bribery and corruption for taking more than $2.4 million from defense contractors during his tenure on the House appropriations and intelligence committees.

In March 2005, when Sampson sent his list to Miers, Lam ? a longtime federal prosecutor whose specialty is white-collar crime and health care fraud ? was in the midst of prosecuting Tenet Healthcare Corp. on charges that one of its hospitals paid illegal kickbacks to doctors. That case ended in a mistrial, and Tenet later agreed to settle with the government.

Lam was also overseeing cases against two San Diego councilmen accused of accepting bribes from a Las Vegas strip club owner; both cases resulted in convictions, though one was overturned.

In July 2005, her office began investigating Cunningham and his associates on bribery allegations. Cunningham pleaded guilty and was sentenced in March 2006 to more than eight years in federal prison for taking more than $2.4 million from defense contractors during his tenure on the powerful House appropriations and intelligence committees.

Last month, two days before Lam left her post, her office obtained indictments against one of the defense contractors and a former top CIA official accused of fraud in the expanding corruption investigation.

Lam, who was appointed in 2002, also tightened prosecution guidelines at the border, raising the violation requirements in an effort to manage the flood of immigration cases referred to her office, which covers the entire California border with Mexico.

Meanwhile, U.S. Attorney, David Iglesias wasn't even on the list of those to be fired until New Mexico Representative Peter Domenici (R) and New Mexico state sepublican party chairman, Allen Weh intervened and asked Karl Rove to have him removed.

Rove Was Asked to Fire U.S. Attorney
by Margaret Talev and Marisa Taylor

WASHINGTON - Presidential advisor Karl Rove and at least one other member of the White House political team were urged by the New Mexico Republican party chairman to fire the state's U.S. attorney because of dissatisfaction in part with his failure to indict Democrats in a voter fraud investigation in the battleground election state.

In an interview Saturday with McClatchy Newspapers, Allen Weh, the party chairman, said he complained in 2005 about then-U.S. Attorney David Iglesias to a White House liaison who worked for Rove and asked that he be removed. Weh said he followed up with Rove personally in late 2006 during a visit to the White House.

"Is anything ever going to happen to that guy?" Weh said he asked Rove at a White House holiday event that month.

"He's gone," Rove said, according to Weh.

"I probably said something close to 'Hallelujah,'" said Weh.

Weh's account calls into question the Justice Department's stance that the recent decision to fire Iglesias and seven U.S. attorneys in other states was a personnel matter - made without White House intervention. Justice Department officials have said the White House's involvement was limited to approving a list of the U.S. attorneys after the Justice Department made the decision to fire them.

Originally posted by: PrevaricatorJohn
But it seems that the firings weren?t motivated by the desire to ?hide? some wrong doing by firing the prosecutors.

This seems to be more about politics than anything else.

The evidence suggests that, as usual, you're lying, spewing the party line and trying to distract attention from this ethically challenged adminstration. And as usual, your credibility is somewhere far south of ZERO. :roll:

If you want people to stop calling you on your lies, all you have to do is STOP LYING... for a change.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

I was kind of surprised that Specter tore into Gonzalez the way he did.

I was also surprised that Gonzalez was a bit unsteady in answering questions from Leahy and Specter.

I only hear the first 15 minutes or so of testimony but there's no way the Bushistas will come of this looking good. Even Sessions (turd from Alabama) sounded like he was a bit skeptical about Gonzalez's record.

 

[Caminetto]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Either way the question still boils down to were the firing justified---or has Gonzales allowed a culture of partisan politics to have any inputs in what is still the American people's dept. of Justice. And when the scandal broke it was incumbent on Gonzales to either re-hire the fired attorneys and fire those partisan elements within his own department---or to endorse the decision and now defend it.---------straddling the fence will not do it.

You could go one further and say the only thing that matters is whether the firing were legal and allowable under current law/policy.

Now if we found some major conflict of interest in the firings then I would be worried. But it seems that the firings weren?t motivated by the desire to ?hide? some wrong doing by firing the prosecutors.

This seems to be more about politics than anything else.

In my best hillbilly voice,

"Now squeal like a pig".

Now that was funny.

 

[Moonbeam]

Gonzales is toast. Bu Bye!

 

[1EZduzit]

Gonzales defends firings

'A STRETCH'

Gonzales' Justice Department initially said the dismissals were largely performance related but later said they involved policy differences. Recently released documents show loyalty to Bush was also a factor.

Under questioning from lawmakers wanting to know why each of the prosecutors was sacked, Gonzales said concerns about them ranged from their professional judgements to commitment to pursue obscenity, death penalty and immigration cases.

"Mr. Attorney General, most of this is a stretch," said Senator Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican.

"It's clear to me that some of these people just had personality conflicts with people in your office or the White House and we made up reasons to fire them," Graham said.

The plan to fire U.S. attorneys originated in the White House shortly after Bush was re-elected in November 2004. One of the ousted prosecutors was replaced by a former aide to Karl Rove, Bush's chief political adviser.

Congress and the administration are locked in a battle over what Justice Department and White House documents dealing with the dismissals will be provided. Congress also wants to hear from Rove and other White House aides. Bush has vowed to oppose any attempt to compel sworn testimony from White House staffers.

Gonzales appeared before the committee three weeks after his former chief of staff, Kyle Sampson, testified to the same panel that the attorney general was more deeply involved in the firings than Gonzales had initially acknowledged.

Subsequently, Gonzales modified his stand. He said he did participate in discussions about the firings despite earlier statements to the contrary. He also said his role was largely limited to signing off on dismissals following a department review.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Either way the question still boils down to were the firing justified---or has Gonzales allowed a culture of partisan politics to have any inputs in what is still the American people's dept. of Justice. And when the scandal broke it was incumbent on Gonzales to either re-hire the fired attorneys and fire those partisan elements within his own department---or to endorse the decision and now defend it.---------straddling the fence will not do it.

You could go one further and say the only thing that matters is whether the firing were legal and allowable under current law/policy.

Now if we found some major conflict of interest in the firings then I would be worried. But it seems that the firings weren?t motivated by the desire to ?hide? some wrong doing by firing the prosecutors.

This seems to be more about politics than anything else.

So lets assume that the firing was legal. It would still be legal for congress to call anyone and everyone to testify. Why are you so for the president using all of its powers but expect the other branch to lie down and play dead?

 

[gcy]

It?s really bad when republican senators are calling for Gonzales to resign. They can smell the lies and half truth he is spouting. His own staffs contradict him or refuse to testify. he is destroying the credibility of the justice dept.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Gonzales defends firings

'A STRETCH'

Gonzales' Justice Department initially said the dismissals were largely performance related but later said they involved policy differences. Recently released documents show loyalty to Bush was also a factor.

Under questioning from lawmakers wanting to know why each of the prosecutors was sacked, Gonzales said concerns about them ranged from their professional judgements to commitment to pursue obscenity, death penalty and immigration cases.

"Mr. Attorney General, most of this is a stretch," said Senator Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican.

"It's clear to me that some of these people just had personality conflicts with people in your office or the White House and we made up reasons to fire them," Graham said.

The plan to fire U.S. attorneys originated in the White House shortly after Bush was re-elected in November 2004. One of the ousted prosecutors was replaced by a former aide to Karl Rove, Bush's chief political adviser.

Congress and the administration are locked in a battle over what Justice Department and White House documents dealing with the dismissals will be provided. Congress also wants to hear from Rove and other White House aides. Bush has vowed to oppose any attempt to compel sworn testimony from White House staffers.

Gonzales appeared before the committee three weeks after his former chief of staff, Kyle Sampson, testified to the same panel that the attorney general was more deeply involved in the firings than Gonzales had initially acknowledged.

Subsequently, Gonzales modified his stand. He said he did participate in discussions about the firings despite earlier statements to the contrary. He also said his role was largely limited to signing off on dismissals following a department review.

I do not like nor trust Senator Graham's interpretation of the events because it is very convienent to state that there is a personality clash and get away with it.

If there is something more to it than that (and many suspect there is) then we shouldn't just settle for "personality clashes" and be done with it.

Investigations need to continue.

The AG failed to present a persuasive case... I think he is a goner.

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: gcy
It?s really bad when republican senators are calling for Gonzales to resign. They can smell the lies and half truth he is spouting. His own staffs contradict him or refuse to testify. he is destroying the credibility of the justice dept.

Methinks gcy has it nailed---in terms of GWB&co---he does not care what the dems think.
But if the other Republican senators in the committee give a thumbs down to Gonzales, I think his goose is cooked.---with Arlan Specter putting to Gonzales exactly that way--remarking that Gonzales needs to regard this as a reconfirmation hearing.

And if GWB&co. stays stuck on stubborn, any mandate to impeach Gonzales will somewhat start in the Senate Judiciary committee---and if the house does later start such a impeachment process---even GWB&co will be forced to back down.---same exact thing happed during tea pot dome---and congress had to start impeachment against the AG to
get the desired resignation.

But when a tool like Graham is dubious about Alberto's story, the bell has pretty well tolled.---and turn off the light---the party's over.

And while we sleep---I am sure various Republican Senators will still be patiently explaining to GWB&co. by phone, that this scandal has lots of remaining legs---and its time to cut the losses.---and instead of hitting a home run---Gonzales struck out.---and muffed every pitch.

 

[Jhhnn]

Basically, Gonzales now claims that he just rubber-stamped orders from the Whitehouse sent to his subordinates while not paying much attention- entirely different than his original position that the dismissals were performance based...

I suppose they were kinda performance based- any prosecutor who wouldn't play ball with the Whitehouse wasn't performing in the required fashion... and got fired...

Which introduces issues of integrity wrt those who weren't fired. What's more important- serving the public interest in pursuit of justice, or serving the Whitehouse's interest in pursuit of partisan loyalty?

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Basically, Gonzales now claims that he just rubber-stamped orders from the Whitehouse sent to his subordinates while not paying much attention- entirely different than his original position that the dismissals were performance based...

I suppose they were kinda performance based- any prosecutor who wouldn't play ball with the Whitehouse wasn't performing in the required fashion... and got fired...

Which introduces issues of integrity wrt those who weren't fired. What's more important- serving the public interest in pursuit of justice, or serving the Whitehouse's interest in pursuit of partisan loyalty?

The classic Mr. Burns defense, now more popular than ever!

For those of you who don't watch the Simpsons...

Mr. Smithers: Well, your goons DID run her off the road, sir.
Mr. Burns: I can't be held responsible for what my goons were ordered to do!

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Methinks gcy has it nailed---in terms of GWB&co---he does not care what the dems think.

Bush & Co. have not even one pinky toe left in touch with the planet.

BUSH PLEASED WITH GONZALES' TESTIMONY
Posted: Thursday, April 19, 2007 6:10 PM by Mark Murray

From NBC's Mark Murray
Deputy White House press secretary Dana Perino has issued this statement relaying the White House's support of Alberto Gonzales. "President Bush was pleased with the Attorney General?s testimony today. After hours of testimony in which he answered all of the Senators? questions and provided thousands of pages of documents, he again showed that nothing improper occurred. He admitted the matter could have been handled much better, and he apologized for the disruption to the lives of the U.S. Attorneys involved, as well as for the lack of clarity in his initial responses."

More: "The Attorney General has the full confidence of the President, and he appreciates the work he is doing at the Department of Justice to help keep our citizens safe from terrorists, our children safe from predators, our government safe from corruption, and our streets free from gang violence."

If the subject weren't so serious, this would be stranger than a skit from Saturday Night Live.

But if the other Republican senators in the committee give a thumbs down to Gonzales, I think his goose is cooked.---with Arlan Specter putting to Gonzales exactly that way--remarking that Gonzales needs to regard this as a reconfirmation hearing.

You mean like... oh... Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.) or Sen. Thomas Coburn (R-Ok.)?

Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.), a conservative Republican, told Gonzales: "You have a tremendous credibility problem with many members of Congress."

Graham also said he did not buy the attorney general's argument of "limited involvement" in the decision to fire the attorneys, believing instead that the eight had "personality conflicts" with officials in Washington and that "you made up reasons to fire them" afterward.
.
.
Sen. Thomas Coburn (R-Okla.) asked the attorney general, "Why should you not be judged by the same standards you judged these U.S. attorneys?" When Gonzales said, "We all make mistakes" and asked for time to correct his failings, Coburn replied, "Mistakes have consequences."

Disavowing allegations of partisan motive in the firings -- "I know that's the politics of the blood sport that we're playing," he said -- Coburn argued, "The best way to put this behind us is your resignation."

 

[Moonbeam]

Bush also, of course, needs to be impeached.

 

[Jhhnn]

He admitted the matter could have been handled much better, and he apologized for... the lack of clarity in his initial responses."

Heh. Remarkably delicate way to admit that you lied to Congress, Alberto. Too bad you're busted.

"Lack of clarity" is the Bush Admin's basic Modus Operandi...

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Bush also, of course, needs to be impeached.

Too late . . . unless Cheney has a heart attack . . . then we would get the San Francisco Treat (the one that thinks BART is efficient). My guess is the Grand Dragon (or one of his followers) will have her knocked off. Karl will bump him off with rat poison and we will get the first black AND female President. A woman that's presided over the worst US foreign policy in history.