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

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by MTdream

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?

Have you even read anything in this fucking thread?


I would suggest you do before responding to me.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

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

Seriously, after Bush leaves office I'm going to compile all these scandals and outright lies and show how much more manipulative and immoral this presidency was than Clinton could ever hope...and Clinton had a special prosector spending millions of dollars to investigate him...Bush only gets in trouble when he gets caught with his mistakes in public, who knows what private ones he has...he could be the most corrupt president in history, we're already 99% sure he's going to be rated the worst.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by MTdream

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

Perhaps you should read the thread before responding, US Attorneys have always been considered different because of the nature of their job.

[MTdream]

Originally Posted by Scrum

Have you even read anything in this fucking thread?


I would suggest you do before responding to me.

yeah every word of it...now what was your point?

[MTdream]

Originally Posted by motivez

Perhaps you should read the thread before responding, US Attorneys have always been considered different because of the nature of their job.

have done so, but thanks...

Sorry, you are wrong...but political appointees are never considered different...regardless of the position...sorry...just not true...

If you had read the forum as you are requesting I had, you would have seen that I have posted in it multiple other times...and the same refusal to admit it is politically motivated on the left is not accepted...


you cant get it that this is purely political from both sides...

admit it, and move on...

[MTdream]

Originally Posted by motivez

Perhaps you should read the thread before responding, US Attorneys have always been considered different because of the nature of their job.

and

Originally Posted by Scrum

Have you even read anything in this ******* thread?


I would suggest you do before responding to me.

thanks...but if you had read pages 2,4,5, or 7 you would have known that I had read the thread...

[motivez]

Skimming it doesn't equate to reading

US Attorneys are political appointees, but they've always been shielded from executing their job tasks based on the political whims of the Administration in charge.

That's just a fact. This is different because they're being fired for refusing to aggressively go after Democrats in the run up to the '06 election despite having good performance reviews.

This is about ethics, pure and simple.

This has been one of the most unethical Administrations in recent history. No one is claiming this is an illegal action, however it's most certainly unethical for any Administration to expect US Federal Prosecutors to take or reject cases on the basis of political desires rather than the facts of the case and the law.

[grembert]

If U.S. attorneys were dismissed whenever it suited the president's administration, then our court system would be more like a branch of the political party in power. This is a " separation of powers" issue.

[RMNIXON]

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..

I know it is nothing new. Do you claim that practice is not political and perfectly ethical? I guess by firing all 93 they had no problem sorting out who would and would not do things the Clinton way? Saved a lot of time and paperwork. Now Bush and Gonzales must justify 8 people and make sure their politcal opposition is satisfied with every single one?

[motivez]

[Thorgrim]

Did anyone here note that what Clinton did....Reagan did as well?

It's absolutely amazing the ignorance in this thread, "cleaning house" putting in fresh blood immediately after an election is something both parties do...having your own prosecutors you supported for years with excellent performance reviews being fired for "poor performance" after failing to investigate Democrats on command or for investigating Duke and others linked to him is a violation of judiciary branch

If you guys can't understand the difference between saying "Ok, you've been here for 4 years under Carter, time for someone new"/"Ok, you've been here for 4 years under Bush I, time for someone new" and "Hey, why aren't you investigating Democrats, and why are you investigating convicted Republicans...uhh...you're a bad prosecutor...oh wait you're an excellent prosecutor...well...i don't like...uhm...you're fired"

It's setting the precedent that federal prosecutors can't go after the corrupt, they are only agents of partisan politics, want to go after corrupt congressmen being bribed? Better check with the WH first or you'll get fired...want to go after gangsters murdering people...better check first"

Everyone, moderate, liberal, conservative, is shocked by this new step and is horrified by the possible outcomes...only complete bush sackriders are defending this...ardent supporters of the President in the Senate and House who make a living out of defending everything GOP are questioning this...that you guys aren't...you've truely gone blind

[Thorgrim]

WP: DOJ praised attorney it later fired - washingtonpost.com Highlights - MSNBC.com

Seriously...revolting

[tbone]

Originally Posted by MTdream

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

Wow, that's the pot calling the kettle black! (Troll alert)

Iglesias says he believes he was dismissed for resisting pressure from two members of Congress before last year's election to rush indictments in a Democratic kickback investigation.

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.

6abc.com: Domenici asked fired U.S. Attorney About Investigation

I would appreciate any other comments from you directed at me, to have a bit more respect, and you can expect the same from me in return.

[MTdream]

Originally Posted by tbone

Wow, that's the pot calling the kettle black! (Troll alert)


6abc.com: Domenici asked fired U.S. Attorney About Investigation

I would appreciate any other comments from you directed at me, to have a bit more respect, and you can expect the same from me in return.

respect is earned, as it is displayed, and demonstrated...

you conveniently left out your slam of me...as is the norm, in this thread, pretending your the only ones to actually read this stuff...

Here is your quote in full...which I bolded the section I was referring to...which is a completely non provable position purely based upon your hatred of Bush...

Originally Posted by tbone

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



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

Context usually helps...but then again, I am sure I have not been reading...or as someone else said, only skimming yet they replied and conversed with me several times on the same issue...

you guys cannot get it that this is just all politics, and yet when one side says but Clinton, you are the first to defend clinton with but Slick didnt do it that way...

and to decieve yourself thinking Slick did not conduct massive amounts of injustice, and personal pushing of... well lots of things...your completely conducting revisionistic history...



I may respect the person...however, your positions...do not get respect...unless they are deserved...you post them, it is open for debate...that is the glory of free speech...

[tbone]

Originally Posted by MTdream

respect is earned, as it is displayed, and demonstrated...

you conveniently left out your slam of me...as is the norm, in this thread, pretending your the only ones to actually read this stuff...

Here is your quote in full...which I bolded the section I was referring to...which is a completely non provable position purely based upon your hatred of Bush...



Context usually helps...but then again, I am sure I have not been reading...or as someone else said, only skimming yet they replied and conversed with me several times on the same issue...

you guys cannot get it that this is just all politics, and yet when one side says but Clinton, you are the first to defend clinton with but Slick didnt do it that way...

and to decieve yourself thinking Slick did not conduct massive amounts of injustice, and personal pushing of... well lots of things...your completely conducting revisionistic history...



I may respect the person...however, your positions...do not get respect...unless they are deserved...you post them, it is open for debate...that is the glory of free speech...

I addressed your bolded section, maybe you don't think it was adequate, but as the rules of this forum dictate, keep to the topic of the post and not the poster. Feel free to debate me or question what I posted in response, but please stop making it about me.

you conveniently left out your slam of me...as is the norm, in this thread, pretending your the only ones to actually read this stuff...

This has nothing to do with the topic. I gave you a bad reputation point on that post, it's not a slam, nor is it public unless you point out in a thread. I directly addressed your question without making it about you. I would appeciate the same, thus my first post request as much and the reason you go thte bad reputation point. Any further posts specifically about me will result in you being the first person on my ignore list. I prefer to debate everyone and not ignore people, but this means you have to adhere to the basic concepts of debate.

[MTdream]

Originally Posted by tbone

I addressed your bolded section, maybe you don't think it was adequate, but as the rules of this forum dictate, keep to the topic of the post and not the poster. Feel free to debate me or question what I posted in response, but please stop making it about me.



This has nothing to do with the topic. I gave you a bad reputation point on that post, it's not a slam, nor is it public unless you point out in a thread. I directly addressed your question without making it about you. I would appeciate the same, thus my first post request as much and the reason you go thte bad reputation point. Any further posts specifically about me will result in you being the first person on my ignore list. I prefer to debate everyone and not ignore people, but this means you have to adhere to the basic concepts of debate.

ditto and back at you!!!

[grembert]

I would think that really true conservatives would be concerned about some of the things that have happened in the Bush administration. Aren't conservatives supposed to be suspicious of political power? Wasn't it Reagan who said " the government is not the solution, the government is the problem" ? And now we see that the FBI has overreached it's power to wiretap, and Gonzales has apparently overreached by dismissing these judges ( and then not gotten his story straight ). Conservatives in the past have reacted to theis kind of thing more strongly than liberals.

[Pro Street]

latest news says the AG may be getting the boot soon.

[tbone]