Should Alberto Gonzalez resign or be forced out of his job?

[Pro Street]

Originally Posted by MTdream

yeah, so we go after someone for something that has no merit?

BTW, I could do some smart mouthed comment to you as well, that has something to do with reading...as you obviously didnt...but this is a tired defenseless position that people are taking over this issue...I am out...got to catch a flight...

You contiunally state this is without merit, or that there's no wrongdoing when there clearly has been. You're relating Clinton firing the sttorneys after an election to the AG's office sending out memos regarding the change in JD politics.

If you're going to say things like, "this has no merit" you need to do more than just say it.

[Pro Street]

Originally Posted by MTdream

and that the senate in history has never had significant issue with any appointees being handled as appointees, so, there was not a need to have it go through the senate...it was a foregone conclusion that they would be replaced...

people really need to get more informed about things before they start making scathing comments with no merit, especially when it is the norm to do those actions...

No, appointments have not been the norm... not indefinite as redefined by the Patriot Act.


I'll just c/p this since it's easier than writing it out:

The Alberto Gonzalez Appointments

Generally speaking, U.S. Attorneys are recommended by Senators and Representatives in their home state, nominated by the President and then after background checks, presented to the Senate for approval.

That was the process, until the recent language in the reauthorization of the PATRIOT ACT in 2006 changed it. According to the US Code (Title 28, Chapter 35, Section 546), the following applies:

(a) Except as provided in subsection (b), the Attorney General may appoint a United States attorney for the district in which the office of United States attorney is vacant.

(b) The Attorney General shall not appoint as United States attorney a person to whose appointment by the President to that office the Senate refused to give advice and consent.

(c) A person appointed as United States attorney under this section may serve until the earlier of

(1) the qualification of a United States attorney for such district appointed by the President under section 541 of this title; or

(2) the expiration of 120 days after appointment by the Attorney General under this section.

(d) If an appointment expires under subsection (c)(2), the district court for such district may appoint a United States attorney to serve until the vacancy is filled. The order of appointment by the court shall be filed with the clerk of the court.

In March of 2006, President Bush signed the USA PATRIOT IMPROVEMENT AND REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2005. In addition to all of the other contents of this Act, it amended Subsection (c) of Section 546 (the original law is noted above) and eliminated Subsection (d) in its entirety.

Section 502 of HR 109-333 is the relevant section and is reproduced below:

Section 546 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by striking subsections (c) and (d) and inserting the following new subsection:

(c) A person appointed as United States attorney under this section may serve until the qualification of a United States Attorney for such district appointed by the President under section 541 of this title.

So, basically, what happened here is that (1) the 120 day 'interim' rule was eliminated, and (2) the matter was taken completely out of the hands of the district court. Not only that, but the effect here is that any 'interim' US Attorney can by appointed and can theoretically serve until the end of the appointing President' s term. Additionally, the Attorney General now has the power to appoint an 'interim' US Attorney who can serve, in the immediate case, until the end of 2008.

What this does, in effect, is allow the Attorney General to appoint anyone so long as the appointee was not previously submitted and refused by the Senate. Once again, the powers of the Legislative Branch are being stripped from the process and shifted to the Executive Branch. Further, this is currently being questioned as potentially unconstitutional in that it is delegating the authority to make such appointments from the President (under Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution) to the Attorney General.

While it is important to see the relationship between the 'interim' US Attorneys who have been appointed, as well as to uncover any and all reasons why an unusual number of US Attorneys abruptly resigned, we shouldn't forget the process behind this. The importance of this Administration's consolidation of power in all areas -- including the power to investigate without fear of retribution -- should not be ignored.

In fact, it should be highlighted as another in a long line of, at a minimum, potential abuses of power that this Executive Branch has committed over the past six years.

[motivez]

Yeah, it's a very different situation. And, I really don't care what Clinton did, that was then and we can't change what has already happened.

What's interesting is that there is very obviously something wrong done here and it was spelled out very clearly in a one paragraph memo detailing their plan.

They may be political appointees, but selectively prosecuting cases based on the political whims of whoever is in the White House? Or being punished for not following a purely political agenda?

Give me a break. How would you feel if the head of FEMA or Homeland Security decided to only respond to disasters or security threats in red or blue states depending on who was in office?

It's very clearly bullshit..

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by SoFlaJDM

that's not out of context at all... and that's completely relevant to this as well


oh, and that's the NYT... i thought everything that came from them was lies anyway

The Hubbell Standard
Hillary Clinton knows all about sacking U.S. Attorneys.

Wednesday, March 14, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT

Congressional Democrats are in full cry over the news this week that the Administration's decision to fire eight U.S. Attorneys originated from--gasp--the White House. Senator Hillary Clinton joined the fun yesterday, blaming President Bush for "the politicization of our prosecutorial system." Oh, my.
As it happens, Mrs. Clinton is just the Senator to walk point on this issue of dismissing U.S. attorneys because she has direct personal experience. In any Congressional probe of the matter, we'd suggest she call herself as the first witness--and bring along Webster Hubbell as her chief counsel. As everyone once knew but has tried to forget, Mr. Hubbell was a former partner of Mrs. Clinton at the Rose Law Firm in Little Rock who later went to jail for mail fraud and tax evasion. He was also Bill and Hillary Clinton's choice as Associate Attorney General in the Justice Department when Janet Reno, his nominal superior, simultaneously fired all 93 U.S. Attorneys in March 1993. Ms. Reno--or Mr. Hubbell--gave them 10 days to move out of their offices.


OpinionJournal - Featured Article





I am not trying to make excuses. But it is all legal and done before.

[thomez]

"Bill and Hillary Clinton's choice"

I love how that guy puts Hillary in the decision making role in the White House when she was never president

Anything and everything is just peachy as long as we can somehow say that a Clinton did it too!

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by motivez

I hate how the typical response came up several times in this thread in place of actually discussing the merits of the issue

It seems like instead of actually acknowledging that this is wrong and debating the merits of whether or not Gonzales should be fired, Republicans / neocons in general always want to to point to something that Bill Clinton did wrong (surprise! ) and then proceed to ignore the rest of the issue.

And Democrats never constantly bring up Republican party history and comparisons when Demcorats get into controversy? Not to mention full blown media coverage of said responces once the spin is in place. Give me a break. It anyone wants to set standards of debate then be prepared to live by them because I have a good memory.

Where did I suggest that Bush or Gonzales have done something not political? I can't prove it has been done before and the Justice Department did not crumble without being a Bush neocon attack dog?

Who is getting over sensitive at the mere suggestion of the Clinton Administration?

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by MTdream

and that the senate in history has never had significant issue with any appointees being handled as appointees, so, there was not a need to have it go through the senate...it was a foregone conclusion that they would be replaced...

people really need to get more informed about things before they start making scathing comments with no merit, especially when it is the norm to do those actions...

Now that's just more Neocon Clinton Bashing!

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by thomez

"Bill and Hillary Clinton's choice"

I love how that guy puts Hillary in the decision making role in the White House when she was never president

Awesome. Now we can blame half of the Iraq clusterfuck on Laura.

Originally Posted by thomez

Anything and everything is just peachy as long as we can somehow say that a Clinton did it too!

Certainly seems to be a pattern, doesn't it?

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by thomez

I love how that guy puts Hillary in the decision making role in the White House when she was never president

We could start another post about that issue. But she has in fact been running for President with her husband in tow and saying what a great President he was. So it might be a good idea to consider some portions of that record before making these kinds of comments in the press? Just my advice.

[motivez]

And still it continues. Who cares what Clinton did? It's irrelevant. You're making my point for me every time you bring it up.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by motivez

And still it continues. Who cares what Clinton did? It's irrelevant. You're making my point for me every time you bring it up.

Um, it matters what other presidents did, especially the darling of the left when it comes to them attacking Bush. Why does it matter? Because it's not illegal, they did nothing wrong, and you people are upset about NOTHING.

[Rouger2]

Nothing is going to come of this. They had the right to fire them. So now we are going to bombarded with bull over this for days. Big waste of time and effort but it will get big tv time. It happens all the time and it is all so stupid and mind numbing it turns ones mind to mush.

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by motivez

And still it continues. Who cares what Clinton did? It's irrelevant. You're making my point for me every time you bring it up.

Now we can't even respond to the name calling posts!

[thomez]

http://www.libertylounge.net/forums/...uld-fired.html

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by thomez

http://www.libertylounge.net/forums/...uld-fired.html

Crazy liberals must have brainwashed them.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Um, it matters what other presidents did, especially the darling of the left when it comes to them attacking Bush. Why does it matter? Because it's not illegal, they did nothing wrong, and you people are upset about NOTHING.

@ "you people"

No one said it was illegal, but wrong? Most definitely. If it wasn't wrong, why would Gonzales admit mistakes were made? Why would Bush be troubled by those mistakes? Why would certain Republicans be calling for him to be fired alongside Democrats?

Give me a break, like I said, certain political appointees aren't supposed to only do their job when it's convenient for the current administration's politics, or avoid certain things because of it. It wouldn't be a very good policy for the head of FEMA to only respond to disasters that happened to redstate or bluestate people, and the same is true for US Attorneys.

Also, to clarify, I have no problem with a comparison of situations, the problem is that the Bushites always want to talk about the other situation while excluding the current one. Like it's a justification. It's not, plain and simple.

It's no strange coincidence that no one has taken the time to answer the real questions about the current situation, instead preferring to discuss what happened 8+ years ago in a sad attempt to avoid having to admit mistakes. Why? It's the standard operating procedure and it happens every time the GOP makes a mistake.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by motivez

@ "you people"

Yes, you people getting all worked up over nothing.

No one said it was illegal, but wrong? Most definitely. If it wasn't wrong, why would Gonzales admit mistakes were made? Why would Bush be troubled by those mistakes? Why would certain Republicans be calling for him to be fired alongside Democrats?

For political purposes...gotta try to please the masses, even if the masses are all worked up over nothing, like you people.

[motivez]

They're obviously worked up over something legitimate enough that it's becoming a huge scandal. For details on why it's "something," see the rest of my previous posts.