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

[Stylerod]

Originally Posted by Pro Street

you just keep proving my point...all I see is bitching about Clinton over and over


Clinton isn't president right now, is he?


Maybe I'll bitch about the Teapot Scandal! Wow, who cares about any current issues in Washington right now, because of the Teapot Dome scandal, I'll just keep posting that over and over

Hey, you guys will say anything you can about Bush and this thread proves it. He is doing nothing illegal. He is doing nothing that hasn't been done by another president. Hell, he is doing a whole lot less then the person that last held this job. It's only a big deal to you because you don't like him. I'm sure you gave two shits when Clinton did it and even now you say nothing about Clinton doing it except try to use it against me for bring it up. Nice blinders there buddy

But that's politics and I am willing to accept it.

[motivez]

Uh, no one has said it was illegal, so using that to defend it is a rather pointless diversion from the topic at hand.

Secondly, I've said it plenty of times if it was done for the same reasons as this, it was wrong. Firing people because they refuse to pursue a purely political agenda when it comes to law enforcement is bullshit whether it's done by Democrats or Republicans or anyone..

What's interesting is the Bushites on the forum refuse to talk about the current situation and only want to talk about the past to deflect criticism.. it's a sad tactic, but it happens every time something like this arises.

Sure, all you want, but not at the expense of discussing the current issue.. and that's what's happening here.

If there were no problems with this ethically, Gonzales wouldn't have admitted mistakes were made, Bush wouldn't have said he was displeased, and Republicans wouldn't come out saying similar things to Democrats.

It's disheartening to me to see people so engulfed by bitter partisan politics that they refuse to admit any wrongdoing on the part of their party..

[Roonie]

Talk about blinders. Can you honestly not critique Bush because you have so much faith in him and your party?? If Clinton was in office currently than the topic would be about him. Again you bring up the last presidency as proof everything is ok. If it was done last parties term than it is ok this parties term is your reasoning??

Yes it wasn't right to do last parties term. ok are we feeling avenged now. Lets move on and focus on the current leaders in charge and the current issues.


edit; above post beat me to it.

[Pro Street]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

Hey, you guys will say anything you can about Bush and this thread proves it. He is doing nothing illegal. He is doing nothing that hasn't been done by another president. Hell, he is doing a whole lot less then the person that last held this job. It's only a big deal to you because you don't like him. I'm sure you gave two shits when Clinton did it and even now you say nothing about Clinton doing it except try to use it against me for bring it up. Nice blinders there buddy

But that's politics and I am willing to accept it.

blinders? I was just as quick to criticize Clinton back with every other trick that was pulled.

look below my name, I'm not a moderate when it suits me, I don't hold any preference.

but Clinton isn't in office now. Ignoring the current topic to whine about what Clinton did 14 YEARS AGO is ignorant.

[motivez]

Lets make sure to keep this about the topic guys... I don't want to hand out infractions.

[Pro Street]

Originally Posted by motivez

Lets make sure to keep this about the topic guys... I don't want to hand out infractions.

It's hard to keep it on topic when the only responses in defense of these actions are red herrings.

[Stylerod]

So are the Bush haters in here saying he shouldn't have fired any of them? Is there an acceptable number? Clinton fired 93. Bush fired 8. Would 1 have been too many? Does Bush have the right to fire those people? Does he have good reason to?

The supposed scandal this week is that Mr. Bush had been informed last fall that some U.S. Attorneys had been less than vigorous in pursuing voter-fraud cases and that the President had made the point to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Voter fraud strikes at the heart of democratic institutions, and it was entirely appropriate for Mr. Bush--or any President--to insist that his appointees act energetically against it.

Take sacked U.S. Attorney John McKay from Washington state. In 2004, the Governor's race was decided in favor of Democrat Christine Gregoire by 129 votes on a third recount. As the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and other media outlets reported, some of the "voters" were deceased, others were registered in storage-rental facilities, and still others were convicted felons. More than 100 ballots were "discovered" in a Seattle warehouse. None of this constitutes proof that the election was stolen. But it should have been enough to prompt Mr. McKay, a Democrat, to investigate, something he declined to do, apparently on grounds that he had better things to do.

In New Mexico, another state in which recent elections have been decided by razor thin margins, U.S. Attorney David Iglesias did establish a voter fraud task force in 2004. But it lasted all of 10 weeks before closing its doors, despite evidence of irregularities by the likes of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or Acorn. As our John Fund reported at the time, Acorn's director Matt Henderson refused to answer questions in court about whether his group had illegally made copies of voter registration cards in the run-up to the 2004 election.

As for some of the other fired Attorneys, at least one of their dismissals seemed to owe to differences with the Administration about the death penalty, another to questions about the Attorney's managerial skills. Not surprisingly, the dismissed Attorneys are insisting their dismissals were unfair, and perhaps in some cases they were. It would not be the first time in history that a dismissed employee did not take kindly to his firing, nor would it be the first in which an employer sacked the wrong person.

Or are all of you just pissing on Bush because, well, he's Bush and he's stupid and God Damned if he doesn't look like a monkey.

[Roonie]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

Or are all of you just pissing on Bush because, well, he's Bush and he's stupid and God Damned if he doesn't look like a monkey.

That there is funny stuff

[Pro Street]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

So are the Bush haters in here saying he shouldn't have fired any of them? Is there an acceptable number? Clinton fired 93. Bush fired 8. Would 1 have been too many? Does Bush have the right to fire those people? Does he have good reason to?



Or are all of you just pissing on Bush because, well, he's Bush and he's stupid and God Damned if he doesn't look like a monkey.

omg are you honestly bitching about election recounts and fraud?

[Stylerod]

Originally Posted by Roonie

That there is funny stuff

I try

[Stylerod]

Originally Posted by Pro Street

omg are you honestly bitching about election recounts and fraud?

Did I bitch? I don't see me bitching.

[Pro Street]

To answer your mysterious quote (since you didn't link a source),

the emails show that your reasons were not the case in which they were fired.

[Stylerod]

Originally Posted by Pro Street

To answer your mysterious quote (since you didn't link a source),

the emails show that your reasons were not the case in which they were fired.

Woops. OpinionJournal - Featured Article

email?

[Pro Street]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

Woops. OpinionJournal - Featured Article

email?

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




yes, the released emails... you have read those right? considering the contents are what is appalling?

[Stylerod]

Originally Posted by Pro Street

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




yes, the released emails... you have read those right? considering the contents are what is appalling?

You mean the emails that political adviser Karl *spit* Rove talked about firing Attorney's? My God. How horrible.

Here is some info about one of the people fired because Bush is just, well, evil.

On Tuesday, barely 13 months since those high-flying days, Lam, 47, announced she was resigning. She leaves Feb. 15.

Democratic lawmakers speculate that the former judge, who took office in September 2002 after being appointed by President Bush, was forced out by politics. The Cunningham probe had spawned other investigations into Republican lawmakers in Washington, D.C.

A San Diego grand jury issued subpoenas to Congress last month, indicating that the investigation continues. The subpoenas would be unaffected by a change in the leadership of the U.S. Attorney's Office.

The precise reasons for her ouster are not known. Sources told The San Diego Union-Tribune that it was the result not of her high-profile white-collar investigations, but of something much more basic.

The prosecutor was not prosecuting enough cases, especially gun and border crimes.

If that is the case – and Lam has refused to discuss why she is leaving – then her fall can be traced to the unique pressures that exist for the U.S. attorney here.

“In this district, it's hard to ignore the border,” said Chief U.S. District Judge Irma Gonzalez. “You can't.”

Border crime prosecutions in the past had made San Diego the busiest U.S. Attorney's Office in the nation. Lam tried to remake the office's role along more traditional lines, where federal prosecutors go after big fish.


But that policy may have alienated key law enforcement constituencies. The union that represents Border Patrol agents was outspoken in its dissatisfaction. Lam tightened the guidelines for deciding which smuggling and immigration cases her office would undertake, meaning fewer cases went to court. Instead of going after coyotes, the guides who bring illegal crossers into the United States, her office targeted the leaders of smuggling organizations.

An independent research organization based at Syracuse University analyzed prosecution data and concluded that between 2001, before Lam took over, and 2005, prosecutions in San Diego declined to 3,261 from 5,266, or 38 percent.

Lam's legacy | The San Diego Union-Tribune

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by motivez

Wow, I can't believe some of this stuff

Firing ones who prosecute Republicans that commit crimes and firing those who don't go out of their way to bring charges against Democrats just before the election...

Imagine if the tables were reversed. It'd be wrong then, and it's wrong now. It may not be illegal but it's certainly unethical at the very least.

People in a role which has the great responsibility of bringing charges (or deciding not to) should not be making those decisions on anything other than the merits of a case..

This is a good response to this post recently written by one of ours truly...

Originally Posted by DosEquis

History establishes precedence. History is 100% valid when comparing apples to apples.

[Pro Street]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

You mean the emails that political adviser Karl *spit* Rove talked about firing Attorney's? My God. How horrible.

Here is some info about one of the people fired because Bush is just, well, evil.

No

It has to do with Gonzalez insisting the WH, nor he, had anything to do with the firings, and that they were mistakes made.

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.

looks to me performance is based upon loyalty to Bush

As 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.

"If Karl thinks so, then so do I"

who's in charge?



oh, here's more questions:
White House cites 'hazy memories' in fired U.S. attorneys - CNN.com

Also Friday, the Senate Judiciary Committee released letters sent Thursday to two Bush administration officials, asking them to testify before the committee: Scott Jennings at the White House and William Moschella at Justice.

The committee wants to talk to Jennings because of an e-mail released this week that showed he tried to set up a meeting with a Republican activist and Bush donor from New Mexico about the fired U.S. attorney there, David Iglesias.

[Pro Street]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

This is a good response to this post recently written by one of ours truly...

History does not validate unscrupulous actions.