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

Truthmatters

Diamond Member
Joined
May 10, 2007
Messages
80,182
Reaction score
2,265
Points
1,283
Former Justice Department Official Calls Gonzales' Actions 'Appalling'
By Rebecca Carr
Sunday, June 10, 2007
WASHINGTON — Dan Metcalfe says he thought he had seen it all as a former senior Justice Department lawyer whose career stretches back to the Watergate scandal of the Nixon administration.


Over the years, Metcalfe says, he has taken pride in being able to work with Republican and Democratic administrations as director of the department's Office of Information and Privacy, which he co-founded in 1981.


But he says he has never seen anything quite like Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales.
http://tinyurl.com/2zbluw
 

Stephanie

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2004
Messages
70,230
Reaction score
10,859
Points
2,040
Well.....

I found Bj Clinton's blow job being done in the oval office, and then him lying about it Appalling....

I could care less if Gonzales goes..

But....I find Metcalfe's article a little suspicious..

He sure didn't have a problem when Clinton fired all the prosecutors... at the beginning of his Presidency....
 
OP
Truthmatters

Truthmatters

Diamond Member
Joined
May 10, 2007
Messages
80,182
Reaction score
2,265
Points
1,283
I think you need to do more reading on the subject.

This Firing was unprecidented.

You see it IS kinda tradition to replace them all upon entering office and Bush and Clinton both did that.

What is unprecidented is to them Fire them again because they did not prosicute what you wanted them to.

There is ample evidence that this was done in a partisan manner.

Now I do think Clintons BJ had nothing to do with partisan politics although the pursuit of the case against him did.

If you think the two cases are in any way simular than you have a microscopic understanding of the law.
 

Gunny

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2004
Messages
44,689
Reaction score
6,852
Points
198
Location
The Republic of Texas
I think you need to do more reading on the subject.

This Firing was unprecidented.

You see it IS kinda tradition to replace them all upon entering office and Bush and Clinton both did that.

What is unprecidented is to them Fire them again because they did not prosicute what you wanted them to.

There is ample evidence that this was done in a partisan manner.

Now I do think Clintons BJ had nothing to do with partisan politics although the pursuit of the case against him did.

If you think the two cases are in any way simular than you have a microscopic understanding of the law.
I think you need to do a little more reading on the subject. The attorney's serve at the pleasure of the President. He is free to hire and fire them as he sees fit.

The fact Bush did so mid-term is neither unprecedented, nor unlawful. It's really as simple as that.
 
OP
Truthmatters

Truthmatters

Diamond Member
Joined
May 10, 2007
Messages
80,182
Reaction score
2,265
Points
1,283
"dismissal of U.S. Attorneys controversy is an ongoing political dispute initiated by the unprecedented dismissal of seven United States Attorneys by the George W. Bush administration on December 7, 2006 "
 
OP
Truthmatters

Truthmatters

Diamond Member
Joined
May 10, 2007
Messages
80,182
Reaction score
2,265
Points
1,283
"In contrast to the 2006 dismissals, Presidents rarely dismiss U.S. attorneys they appoint.[59][60] Kyle Sampson, Chief of Staff at the Department of Justice, noted in a January 9, 2006, e-mail to Harriet Miers: "In recent memory, during the Reagan and Clinton Administrations, Presidents Reagan and Clinton did not seek to remove and replace U.S. Attorneys they had appointed, but instead permitted such U.S. Attorneys to serve indefinitely under the holdover provision." (underlining original).[62] There is no precedent for a President to dismiss several U.S attorneys at one time while in the middle of their terms."

also from the above link
 
OP
Truthmatters

Truthmatters

Diamond Member
Joined
May 10, 2007
Messages
80,182
Reaction score
2,265
Points
1,283
These actions are also illegal if it is proven it was done to stop investigations or promote false charges.

Both cases have very compelling evidence turning up.
 

Gunny

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2004
Messages
44,689
Reaction score
6,852
Points
198
Location
The Republic of Texas
"In contrast to the 2006 dismissals, Presidents rarely dismiss U.S. attorneys they appoint.[59][60] Kyle Sampson, Chief of Staff at the Department of Justice, noted in a January 9, 2006, e-mail to Harriet Miers: "In recent memory, during the Reagan and Clinton Administrations, Presidents Reagan and Clinton did not seek to remove and replace U.S. Attorneys they had appointed, but instead permitted such U.S. Attorneys to serve indefinitely under the holdover provision." (underlining original).[62] There is no precedent for a President to dismiss several U.S attorneys at one time while in the middle of their terms."

also from the above link
Numbers are irrelevant. You aren't listening. The attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President. They are political appointees, plain and simple. They can be dismissed for whatever reason the President sees fit.

This isn't that hard; yet, you choose to make more of it than is there in your neverending quest to point a finger at the right.
 
OP
Truthmatters

Truthmatters

Diamond Member
Joined
May 10, 2007
Messages
80,182
Reaction score
2,265
Points
1,283
I think you need to do a little more reading on the subject. The attorney's serve at the pleasure of the President. He is free to hire and fire them as he sees fit.

The fact Bush did so mid-term is neither unprecedented, nor unlawful. It's really as simple as that.
They may serve at his pleasure but he would still be in breaking the law by putting a stop to investigations.

It is UNprecidented and history of the DOJ proves that.
 

Gunny

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2004
Messages
44,689
Reaction score
6,852
Points
198
Location
The Republic of Texas
They may serve at his pleasure but he would still be in breaking the law by putting a stop to investigations.

It is UNprecidented and history of the DOJ proves that.
Wrong. It's more partisan witch hunting for Bush doing what every President before him has done.

You can twist and dance and sing all you want, and NOTHING changes that basic fact.
 
OP
Truthmatters

Truthmatters

Diamond Member
Joined
May 10, 2007
Messages
80,182
Reaction score
2,265
Points
1,283
I gave you facts and links to the facts and in the face of facts you do what?

you just say Nu uh?
 
OP
Truthmatters

Truthmatters

Diamond Member
Joined
May 10, 2007
Messages
80,182
Reaction score
2,265
Points
1,283
Is Kyle Sampson, Chief of Staff at the Department of Justice a liar?
 
OP
Truthmatters

Truthmatters

Diamond Member
Joined
May 10, 2007
Messages
80,182
Reaction score
2,265
Points
1,283
Is Dan Metcalfe a thirty plus year DOJ employee a liar?
 

Gunny

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2004
Messages
44,689
Reaction score
6,852
Points
198
Location
The Republic of Texas
I gave you facts and links to the facts and in the face of facts you do what?

you just say Nu uh?
You aren't providing facts. You're providing selected information and opinions to paint a specific picture.

The FACTS are, the President can hire and fire the attorneys as they wish, and the reason is irrelevant.
 
OP
Truthmatters

Truthmatters

Diamond Member
Joined
May 10, 2007
Messages
80,182
Reaction score
2,265
Points
1,283
It was unpresidented and very possibly involved obstruction of justice.

Do you care if they obstructed justice?

Will your partisanship lead you to not care about justice?
 
OP
Truthmatters

Truthmatters

Diamond Member
Joined
May 10, 2007
Messages
80,182
Reaction score
2,265
Points
1,283
I gave you proof it was unpresidented.

Now give me proof you can refute the facts I gave you?
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top