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

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by motivez

That's a topic of conversation for another thread and doesn't really relate to the current situation either

I have no problems with people bringing up issues to compare to current situations, the problem is this tactic of avoiding the current issue while pointing to a past one as justification for all kinds of bullshit. Just because someone else from the other side of the isle did the same thing doesn't mean I (or really most everyone on the forum) is going to spend time defending them while saying the current situation is still wrong, it'd be hypocritical to the extreme.. so bringing it up is just a diversion from the issue at hand.

I agree.

[Rouger2]

The president did not want to look bad and firing people for political reasons looks bad especially when you fire eight people. Of course he fired them for political reasons , but what can you do, that's life in Washington.

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by Rouger2

The president did not want to look bad and firing people for political reasons looks bad especially when you fire eight people. Of course he fired them for political reasons , but what can you do, that's life in Washington.

It took four pages for somebody to get it!

[Scrum]

More coming out on the situation with Gonzalez and of course Rove is involved.

From the Judiciary Committee:

Conyers Demands More Answers from Attorney General Gonzales

National Journal reports that Gonzales may have advised President Bush to shut down OPR inquiry on warrentless wiretapping

(Washington, DC)- Today, House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI) sent a letter to U.S. Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales demanding he answer allegations that he may have advised the President to shut down an Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) inquiry into the Administration’s domestic wiretapping surveillance program because of his role in the program.

An article posted in today’s online version of the National Journal alleges that Gonzales anticipated the inquiry would focus on his role in the wire-tapping project so he advised the President to end it by denying necessary security clearances to investigators.

“It would be an extraordinary abuse of authority if you advised the President on this matter after learning that your own conduct was to be investigated,” Conyers wrote. “The decision by the President to shut down the OPR investigation by denying security clearances to key Department personnel was itself extremely unusual, controversial and, in our view, improper. But the issue of your role in advising the President on this question raises what may be even more serious concerns.”

Conyers sent the letter this afternoon and advised the Attorney General to respond immediately to the letter and provide copies of any documents relating to his answers.

The letter is available at: http://judiciary.house.gov/Media/PDF...down070315.pdf

The letter comes as ABC News breaks the following story:

EXCLUSIVE: E-Mails Show Rove’s Role in U.S. Attorney Firings
Jan Crawford Greenburg, ABC News - March 15, 2007

New unreleased e-mails from top administration officials show that the idea of firing all 93 U.S. attorneys was raised by White House adviser Karl Rove in early January 2005, indicating Rove was more involved in the plan than the White House previously acknowledged.

The e-mails also show that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales discussed the idea of firing the attorneys en masse while he was still White House counsel, weeks before he was confirmed as attorney general.

The e-mails directly contradict White House assertions that the notion originated with recently departed White House counsel Harriet Miers, and was her idea alone.

Two independent sources in a position to know have described the contents of the e-mail exchange, which could be released as early as Friday. They put Rove at the epicenter of the imbroglio and raise questions about Gonzales’ explanations of the matter.

UPDATE: House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, Jr. comments on the ABC News story:

These latest reports, if true, are proof positive that lower level officials in the Justice Department are being hung out to dry as the original source of this sordid plan to fire well-qualified and well-performing United States Attorneys. This goes all the way to the top of the Justice Department and to the most senior White House staff. They also raise extremely troubling questions about the truthfulness of testimony given to the United States Congress. In open, public hearings, the Justice Department testified that this plan did not originate in the White House. Not only was this untrue, but these reports appear to indicate that the Attorney General himself was involved in this plan while employed as the White House Counsel. The notion that the President’s top political advisor was so deeply embroiled in this decision is the final nail in the coffin of the Administration’s contention that this was done for performance related issues, and not politics of the lowest kind.

The White House and Justice Department owe us answers, not cover stories, and the patience of the Congress is running out.

Congresswoman Linda Sánchez, Chairwoman of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law, also comments:

“These emails, if the reports are accurate, are the clearest evidence that the Bush Administration has been lying to the public, the Congress, and perhaps even among its own ranks, about its scheme to purge federal prosecutors. This would be a deliberate attempt to place partisan ideology at the center of the justice system in a way not seen since the Watergate scandal.

“It is time for the Bush Administration to come clean. Who made the decision to fire these U.S. Attorneys, why did they do it, and who orchestrated the attempts to mislead the public on this issue?”

The Gavel » Blog Archive » Chairman Conyers Writes to Attorney General Gonzales

[Pro Street]

wow, if there are emails proving Rove had a hand on this, I honestly don't know what to think.

Rove is an unelected adviser who already seems to have just as much power as a VP.. he essentially has Bush's ear.

[Pro Street]

some of the emails have been released so far. I see it on TV, and am looking for links online.

wow.

[Pro Street]

E-mails released by Justice Department - Politics - MSNBC.com

here they are

[Pro Street]

Wow...

As an operational matter, we would like to replace 15-20 percent of the current U.S. Attorneys - the underperforming ones. (This is a rough guess; we might want to consider doing performance evaluations after Judge comes on board.) The vast majority of U.S. Attorneys, 80-85 percent, I would guess, are doing a great job, are loyal Bushies, etc., etc.

s a political matter, each of our U.S. Attorneys has been recommended by one or more political leaders in their home State. I suspect that when push comes to shove, home-State Senators likely would resist wholesale (or even piecemeal) replacement of U.S. Attorneys they recommended (see Senator Hatch and the Utah U.S. Attorney). That said, if Karl thinks there would be political will to do it, then so do I.

David - Karl Rove stopped by to ask you (roughly quoting) "how we planned to proceed regarding US Attorneys, whether we were going to allow all to stay, request resignations from all and accept only some of them, or selectively replace them, etc." I told him that you would be on the hill all day for the Judge's hearing, and he said the matter was not urgent Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, -Colin

[MTdream]

Originally Posted by Pro Street

Wow...

oh no...we have a full fledged scandal on our hands...Rove a political adviser gave political advise...

er wait...

Rove a political adviser asked a question in 2005, said it wasnt urgent...so lets wait till 2007...sounds pretty hasty..

er wait...Rove just read about Perato's Principle and realized that not all AG's are worth having...



mismanaged...yes...

politically motivated....no brainer

crime....not even close

[Pro Street]

Originally Posted by MTdream

crime....not even close

of course it's not a crime..


however it shows to what lengths the Bush Administration has tried to take more power

[MTdream]

Originally Posted by Pro Street

of course it's not a crime..


however it shows to what lengths the Bush Administration has tried to take more power

take more power? please that argument is specious at best...they have the power to do so, there is no power grab at all...

it is within their purview to do so...all parties agree that it is merely political in the firings...why can you admit it is only political to make this much stink over it...

[Pro Street]

Originally Posted by MTdream

take more power? please that argument is specious at best...they have the power to do so, there is no power grab at all...

it is within their purview to do so...all parties agree that it is merely political in the firings...why can you admit it is only political to make this much stink over it...

now that they aren't limited to 120 days, of course.


it's nice to just bypass the Senate, as was the goal described in one of the emails.

it's nice to know the administration is looking for ways to get around those annoying checks and balances.

[Stylerod]

Originally Posted by Pro Street

of course it's not a crime..


however it shows to what lengths the Bush Administration has tried to take more power

Where is this coming from? I guess he wants less power then Clinton since Clinton fired ALL of his U.S. Attorneys.

We should be saying; "8? That's all?"


Good God you people

[Pro Street]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

Where is this coming from? I guess he wants less power then Clinton since Clinton fired ALL of his U.S. Attorneys.

We should be saying; "8? That's all?"


Good God you people

[SoFlaJDM]

[MTdream]

Originally Posted by Pro Street

now that they aren't limited to 120 days, of course.


it's nice to just bypass the Senate, as was the goal described in one of the emails.

it's nice to know the administration is looking for ways to get around those annoying checks and balances.

that there is a stretch!!!

[MTdream]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

Where is this coming from? I guess he wants less power then Clinton since Clinton fired ALL of his U.S. Attorneys.

We should be saying; "8? That's all?"


Good God you people

could have predicted the goofy answer below yours...

people seem to forget that history teaches lessons, and puts things in perspective...

isnt it funny that people whom are conservative have admitted that this is political...yet the Bush bashers, cannot admit what they are doing is purely politically based???!!!??!!!

but then again hypocrisy is normal in politics...

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

Where is this coming from? I guess he wants less power then Clinton since Clinton fired ALL of his U.S. Attorneys.

We should be saying; "8? That's all?"


Good God you people

They fired the attorney that got a conviction against Duke Cunningham.

This was a blatant attempt to fire people who were doing their job. The Republicans want to move people in who won't go after corrupt Republicans. That goes against the very foundation of our country.

It's too bad you people can't see that.

[Pro Street]

Originally Posted by MTdream

that there is a stretch!!!

"The White House was not involved in these decisions"