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

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by Pro Street

This is a Bush Administration thing, with a WH adviser communicating with the AG on firing attorneys based on their loyalty to Bush, and their investigations. It is based upon what should be separate powers in government. It is based upon Gonzalez stating he, nor the WH had anything to do with this when they had quite a bit to do with it.

This keeps getting ignored.


If the WH and Gonzalez did nothing wrong, why lie about it?

[Stylerod]

Originally Posted by Scrum

This is only a Republican thing!!! Unless you have some proof that Democrats had these people fired?

This has nothing to do with Clinton.


Jesus fucking Christ.

Except for precedent.

Which is worse, firing 8 or firing 96? Was there a reason for each of the 96 that were fired? So far I have found reasons for some of the 8. As far as I can tell no one has it all listed as to who got fired why. But then, when my company fires someone they don't run and tell the papers why either.

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by Scrum

This keeps getting ignored.


If the WH and Gonzalez did nothing wrong, why lie about it?

P-O-L-I-T-I-C-S

[tbone]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

There's some stuff that makes sense, and some that isn't quite so clear. That doesn't mean that some of the firings aren't completely legit. Yet I see no one on your side admitting that. It's all and you somehow want to bash him for doing anything that you think "might" have been inappropriate.

He selected 8 out of how many? Push the fucking Clinton button all you want but it seems he (or his people) selected the few that they didn't want, not a wholesale clearing like Slick did, and that was a much better way of doing things. Have you never worked somewhere where they fired people for not doing what the boss wanted?

Apparently reading previous pages before posting is out of style. This has been addressed on page 5. Here is the recap:

Quote:
"Ethics experts said Domenici's conduct may have violated Senate rules, which generally bar communications between members of Congress and federal prosecutors about ongoing criminal investigations."

LA Daily News - N.M. senator denies effort to pressure prosecutor

One is borderline ethical, the other is unethical. Fire people when you enter office, ethical. Pressure people due to not aggressively pursuing the other politcal party, and then eventually fire them, unethical*.

*According to the US Senate

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

Except for precedent.

Which is worse, firing 8 or firing 96? Was there a reason for each of the 96 that were fired? So far I have found reasons for some of the 8. As far as I can tell no one has it all listed as to who got fired why. But then, when my company fires someone they don't run and tell the papers why either.

The more you can count on media disinterest the greater the numbers?


You don't think the average reporter wakes up and googles for the worst thing they can find on the Bushites for the day to report on do you? That would not be fair!

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by tbone

One is borderline ethical, the other is unethical. Fire people when you enter office, ethical. Pressure people due to not aggressively pursuing the other politcal party, and then eventually fire them, unethical*.

*According to the US Senate

So getting people out of the way as soon as you enter office for no other reason than to put your trusted cronies in place is ethical?

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

Except for precedent.

Which is worse, firing 8 or firing 96? Was there a reason for each of the 96 that were fired? So far I have found reasons for some of the 8. As far as I can tell no one has it all listed as to who got fired why. But then, when my company fires someone they don't run and tell the papers why either.

It's perfectly normal for a president to clean out the attorneys.

It's not normal for 8 to be fired halfway through a presidents term when they had good performance reviews. It's also unusual for there to be e-mails talking about them being fired for not playing ball and actually following the law. Why does Bush have a political adviser running things behind the show?

You want precedent? How about the fact that Bush's appointees have been shit since day one. Look at those fucking clowns he sent to Iraq. Most had no experience in the fields they were responsible for and that has cost lives and money.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

P-O-L-I-T-I-C-S

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

So getting people out of the way as soon as you enter office for no other reason than to put your trusted cronies in place is ethical?

Having a group that you want as part of a plan (something Bush knows nothing about) is fine.


Watching them to see if they dare go against you by enforcing the law, something they are supposed to do, and firing them is wrong.

I can't wait until we get a liberal in office and they pull this shit. You monkeys will be jumping through hoops while the rest of us admit how wrong they are.

[tbone]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

So getting people out of the way as soon as you enter office for no other reason than to put your trusted cronies in place is ethical?

I did add the word "borderline", but yes poltical appointees are frequently replaced with new administrations. Had Bush fired all attorneys upon taking office, it would be better then firing 8 who didn't do what GOP Senators wanted them to do. (Note: I'm not saying GOP senators tried to coerce, but the perception is they did).

[MTdream]

Originally Posted by tbone

Pressure people due to not aggressively pursuing the other politcal party, and then eventually fire them, unethical*.

*According to the US Senate

can you show evidence to your inflammatory quote (highlighted) or are you just jumping in to this insightful dialog as it is fun?

[Thorgrim]

According to CBS he is gonna get let go next week

[motivez]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

So getting people out of the way as soon as you enter office for no other reason than to put your trusted cronies in place is ethical?

It's typical for a President to request a resignation of everyone at once when coming into office.

US Attorneys have always been sort of shielded from the political aspect of their political appointment.. they haven't been pressured or forced to pursue cases based on purely political grounds, or forced to resign because of the same type of thing, and that's what's different in this case.

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by motivez

It's typical for a President to request a resignation of everyone at once when coming into office.

US Attorneys have always been sort of shielded from the political aspect of their political appointment.. they haven't been pressured or forced to pursue cases based on purely political grounds, or forced to resign because of the same type of thing, and that's what's different in this case.

So you just get rid of the people who you "think" wont tow your line in court before they even do? This is OK, but the later is wrong even if legal? I be confused??????

[grembert]

Originally Posted by motivez

It's typical for a President to request a resignation of everyone at once when coming into office.

US Attorneys have always been sort of shielded from the political aspect of their political appointment.. they haven't been pressured or forced to pursue cases based on purely political grounds, or forced to resign because of the same type of thing, and that's what's different in this case.

This is a good point. We are getting on that ' slippery slope " when a governing administration starts removing US attorneys during a term because of political differences. The executive branch is then crowding out the judicial branch. It is bad enough for a president to replace all attorneys when coming into office, but that has been a common practice.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

So you just get rid of the people who you "think" wont tow your line in court before they even do? This is OK, but the later is wrong even if legal? I be confused??????

Er, a new administration coming in replacing every political appointee and replacing them is nothing new. New Secretary of Defense, Education, etc, a new Attorney General, as well as US Attorneys.

The difference here is that it's mid-term and being done for political reasons that don't generally jazz with the performance reviews..

[MTdream]

Originally Posted by Scrum

This is only a Republican thing!!! Unless you have some proof that Democrats had these people fired?

This has nothing to do with Clinton.

Who cares if it was because they wore pink ties and skated to work...

they are political appointees...they serve at the will of the president...

end of story, except the media et al. will do whatever it/they can to bring ridiculous charges with zero basis...

I admit it is political...why is it so tough for others to admit their argument against is only politically motivated?

[MTdream]

Originally Posted by motivez

Er, a new administration coming in replacing every political appointee and replacing them is nothing new. New Secretary of Defense, Education, etc, a new Attorney General, as well as US Attorneys.

The difference here is that it's mid-term and being done for political reasons that don't generally jazz with the performance reviews..

who cares what the reason and timing is...politcal appointees are exactly that...they have no assurances of employment!!!!

[Thorgrim]

YouTube Video

This is disgusting, from a politician who time after time tried to act like the "moral" president
<