Former DOJ official says Gonzo's approach was "appalling"

[Care4all]

That authority, which was "slipped in to the Patriot Act" during its "conference", that Congress gave the president in the Patriot act, was for the replacements of empty positions in districts where enemy combatants were being held and in need of an immediate trial, with no time to fill the position through the Senate's normal vetting and appointment process.

The Administration and our Attorney General, circimvented the Law.

Did NOT use it for its intended purpose.

 

[Truthmatters]

They have used every inch of government to try and create a one party system in the US.

Every nook and every cranny.

They have been the cause of the government losing thousands of life long non partisan experts in vertually every corner of our government.

People have left in disgust and I pray at least some of them return after these goombas are gone.

 

[CockySOB]

That authority, which was "slipped in to the Patriot Act" during its "conference", that Congress gave the president in the Patriot act, was for the replacements of empty positions in districts where enemy combatants were being held and in need of an immediate trial, with no time to fill the position through the Senate's normal vetting and appointment process.

The Administration and our Attorney General, circimvented the Law.

Did NOT use it for its intended purpose.

What part of Congress PASSING the law is unclear for you? This wasn't a power-grab by the Executive Branch, but a transfer of authority BY Congress on FROM Congress TO the Executive. This means that there are TWO ways to correct this faulty (IMHO) legislation.

1) Congress can repeal the portion of the Act which abdicated their confirmation/oversight/advice and gave that authority to the Attorney General; or,

2) Someone can try to get SCOTUS to address the issue of whether such a transfer of oversight authority was in fact Constitutional, and hopefully SCOTUS would say, "no." However since the law was passed through BOTH houses of Congress, and POTUS signed it into law, the Judiciary would have to make a pretty strong case for the action being un-Constitutional.

Personally, I would like to see Congress repeal that portion of the Patriot Act and restore confirmation/oversight authority to the Senate. But does Congress have the will to do this? I doubt it.

 

[CockySOB]

Stop LYING, I never accused YOU of any such thing. I asked you a couple of questions WHICH YOU have still managed to AVOID and not answer?

Truth is important, bullshit is just that Cocky, bullshit. And I don't get baffled easily by bullshit.

So answer my question, if you can, regarding WHY you think the Bush Administration decided to circumvent the Constitution and not bring these nominees before the Senate for their approval and for the Checks and balances you said our system had?

Care

I have no doubt that you don't get baffled by bullshit - it's the FACTS which confound and confuse you.

 

[CockySOB]

That authority, which was "slipped in to the Patriot Act" during its "conference", that Congress gave the president in the Patriot act, was for the replacements of empty positions in districts where enemy combatants were being held and in need of an immediate trial, with no time to fill the position through the Senate's normal vetting and appointment process.

The Administration and our Attorney General, circimvented the Law.

Did NOT use it for its intended purpose.

Irrelevant. The way the law is worded makes their implementation legal, even though I find it a distasteful exercise. I would like to see Congress repeal the act and either trash the idea of "temporary appointments via the Attorney General" altogether, or at least set up some stringent requirements and restrictions before putting such an act back into the legislative pipeline.

 

[Truthmatters]

The FACTS are that what they have done and how they have done it could be proved to be an obstruction of justice.

You can pretend they are above the laws of the land but they are not.

 

[Truthmatters]

The mere fact that they slandered the fired attorneys in public should tell you they had something to hide.

They had to retract the commnets about the attorneys being fired for bad performace records when the acttual records came out.

All the fired attorneys were working on cases which could hurt the Rs chances in the elelction.

That would NOT look like nothing to a jury.

So your guys defense is full of shit.

It doesnt matter that he changed the law to make political hirings and firings easier because they are against the law when they obstruct justice.'

I have yet to see any one of you say snything but Nu uh about this FACT!

 

[Gunny]

The onus of proof rests with those who claim that the President has an authority he doesn't possess. The law does not give the President the authority to fire U.S. Attorney's for whatever reason he wants and you cannot find a single provision of the Constitution or U.S. law that grants the President the authority to fire U.S. Attorney's for whatever reason he chooses. On the contrary, the only provision you would be able to cite is the provision that grants the President the authority to remove U.S. Attorney's but that provision doesn't say that he can do it for whatever reason he wants and U.S. law clearly bars him in several specific instances from doing so such as race, color, religion, national origin, disability, age or sex. These are specific reasons he cannot fire U.S. Attorney's and it negates your claim that his authority is an absolute one when it comes to firing U.S. Attorney's so the burden now rests with you to provide a provision of the Constitution or law that bars the Senate and House from investigating the reasons for the firing of Senate appointees as theirs is the hiring authority while the President basically acts as the HR. Director who recommends to his CEO who should be hired. In fact, without the Congress having delegated to the President the authority to remove U.S. Attorney's he wouldn't possess it by virtue of his office and if they see fit they can limit or even revoke that right through legislative action.

You're playing semantics. In your first respones to me you state: Congress delgated tha authority to fire the attorneys. End of story. It doesn't matter how he got it, but until such time as Congress DOES revoke said authority, he has it.

That you and others wish to attempt to deflect from that by saying that the law does not specifically state that he can do it for whatever reason he wishes shows who the ignorant ones in this argument are.

The fact remains Bush did NOTHING out of the ordinary, nor that he did not have the authority to do. The rest is just a partisan witch hunt.

 

[Gunny]

gunny,

fyi
I don't think you know that it is AGAINST THE LAW to hire one of those prosecutors for political reasons. By Law, they are not even allowed to discuss what party they even belong to or what POLITICAL views those hired believe in.

And by LAW, those prosecutors hired can not be fired in the middle of their term for any political reason.

Monica Goodling testified that she broke the LAW, AND POLITICAL posturing was a part of their considerations for replacements.

Sure Prosecutors are hired At the discretion of the President and with the approval of the Senate, but with no political agenda allowed! BY LAW! and this is how it should be.

Disclaimer:

I have not read the entire thread yet so if someone has pointed this out already, I apologize.

Doesn't matter if it has been pointed out already since it is irrelevant. You know and I know and anyone who got past 6th grade knows they are political appointees.

Monica Goodling testified that SHE broke the law. Since she was granted immunity, I guess you and the lynch mob will have to eat THAT one.

When you can show me where President Bush, John Ashcroft, and/or Alberto Gonzales confess to hiring for political reasons, let me know. THEN you'll have an argument. Until then, you and TM are just part of the partisan fishing expedition praying and hoping to catch Bush at something -- it doesn't matter what.

 

[Gunny]

They have used every inch of government to try and create a one party system in the US.

Every nook and every cranny.

They have been the cause of the government losing thousands of life long non partisan experts in vertually every corner of our government.

People have left in disgust and I pray at least some of them return after these goombas are gone.

You are so full of shit. There is NOTHING of substance to your bullshit accusations.

Just plain, outright lies. Period.

 

[Gunny]

The FACTS are that what they have done and how they have done it could be proved to be an obstruction of justice.

You can pretend they are above the laws of the land but they are not.

I don't have to prove shit. YOU just get on here running your suck, but substantiate nothing, unless with some left-wing-slanted garbage.

 

[Gunny]

The mere fact that they slandered the fired attorneys in public should tell you they had something to hide.


They had to retract the commnets about the attorneys being fired for bad performace records when the acttual records came out.

All the fired attorneys were working on cases which could hurt the Rs chances in the elelction.

That would NOT look like nothing to a jury.

So your guys defense is full of shit.

It doesnt matter that he changed the law to make political hirings and firings easier because they are against the law when they obstruct justice.'

I have yet to see any one of you say snything but Nu uh about this FACT!

More bullshit from TM. Really, you should change your ID.

What do you expect someone to say to bogus allegations from your partisan so-called brain? There's no need to prove lies/flase accusations are false. YOU are the one making the accusations, and doing a piss-poor at best job of backing them up.

 

[Truthmatters]

Dont you watch the news?

DOJ claimed these attorneys were performing badly so they removed them.

They were then forced to withdrawl that when they attorneys ratings and records were released.

They were some of the top performers in the nation.

That is slander.

Publicly telling lies about someone which harms their reputations.

Come on you can do better than just say its not true.

 

[mattskramer]

If Gonzales lied, let’s punish him for perjury. If he committed some other crime, let’s punish him for that too. If he fired people in an unethical manner, let’s say “shame on you”. How long should this investigation go on? Congress should hurry up and move to more important stuff.

 

[Gunny]

Dont you watch the news?

DOJ claimed these attorneys were performing badly so they removed them.

They were then forced to withdrawl that when they attorneys ratings and records were released.

They were some of the top performers in the nation.

That is slander.

Publicly telling lies about someone which harms their reputations.

Come on you can do better than just say its not true.

Obviously YOU don't pay attention to information readily available that doesn't agree with your partisan agenda. Here're the facts:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/032107A.shtml

Point out in there where this great administration conspiracy exists? I don't see it. I see some administrative incompetence on the parts of a few people.

So fire them. Who cares? But QUIT trying to make this some big bullshit conspiracy that leads to Bush (as you seem to think they ALL do), and live up to your damned ID and TELL THE F-ING TRUTH.

 

[Gunny]

If Gonzales lied, let’s punish him for perjury. If he committed some other crime, let’s punish him for that too. If he fired people in an unethical manner, let’s say “shame on you”. How long should this investigation go on? Congress should hurry up and move to more important stuff.

The voice of reason is not authorized for display in any truthmatters thread. Ask him.

 

[Care4all]

If Gonzales lied, let’s punish him for perjury. If he committed some other crime, let’s punish him for that too. If he fired people in an unethical manner, let’s say “shame on you”. How long should this investigation go on? Congress should hurry up and move to more important stuff.

TELL the whitehouse THIS matt!!!!!!!!!!

so far, the white house has done NOTHING to help move this case along.

they have refused emails requested,

they have refused to testify under oath,

they have refused to have their people testify in public,

they have had 5 people in the DOJ resign because of it,

they have had employees plead the 5th, refusing to incriminate oneself in a crime,

they reported 5 million emails missing, not saved, as the law requires, some involved with this case that congress requested.

they have used emails doing the gvt business on the RNC system, claiming they are lost... so congress couldn't get them,

Gonzalez testified 68 times in the one session before congress ''THAT HE COULD NOT RECALL'' as the answer to their questions...regarding this case.

so PLEASE express your concern to the WHITEHOUSE and their staffs for prolonging this issue and for TWISTING the truth, making it as though it is congress prolonging this investigation when it HAS BEEN the Whitehouse and Gonzalez and the justice dept that has done the STALLING!

 

[dilloduck]

TELL the whitehouse THIS matt!!!!!!!!!!

so far, the white house has done NOTHING to help move this case along.

they have refused emails requested,

they have refused to testify under oath,

they have refused to have their people testify in public,

they have had 5 people in the DOJ resign because of it,

they have had employees plead the 5th, refusing to incriminate oneself in a crime,

they reported 5 million emails missing, not saved, as the law requires, some involved with this case that congress requested.

they have used emails doing the gvt business on the RNC system, claiming they are lost... so congress couldn't get them,

Gonzalez testified 68 times in the one session before congress ''THAT HE COULD NOT RECALL'' as the answer to their questions...regarding this case.

so PLEASE express your concern to the WHITEHOUSE and their staffs for prolonging this issue and for TWISTING the truth, making it as though it is congress prolonging this investigation when it HAS BEEN the Whitehouse and Gonzalez and the justice dept that has done the STALLING!

I love it----now liberals want the Whitehouse to HELP them to get some shit to stick on the wall. Pretty incompetant use of this great "mandate" of theirs.

 

[Care4all]

I love it----now liberals want the Whitehouse to HELP them to get some shit to stick on the wall. Pretty incompetant use of this great "mandate" of theirs.

ARE YOU IMPLYING, that our Constitution does NOT give oversight of executive power to our Congress?

care

 

[Gunny]

I love it----now liberals want the Whitehouse to HELP them to get some shit to stick on the wall. Pretty incompetant use of this great "mandate" of theirs.

Welcome back to the loony bin, dillo. I see you picked the perfect thread.