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

[Gunny]

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

care

I'll say again for the umpteenth time ... there's a difference between oversight and witch hunting that has obviously been kept secret from you lefties.

 

[dilloduck]

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

Thanks--being laid up has got me surfing. Oversight----LOL.

 

[Care4all]

I'll say again for the umpteenth time ... there's a difference between oversight and witch hunting that has obviously been kept secret from you lefties.

oh! i absolutely agree!

only, witch hunting is what the republicans did to Clinton, this is true oversight, on an issue that is real, and important.

 

[CockySOB]

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

care

And when Congress abdicated some of their oversight authority by giving the Attorney General the power to install temporary US Attorneys via the Patriot Act, one has to wonder if this ruckus isn't more about covering their Congressional asses than about preserving the Constitutional balance of power.

 

[Gunny]

oh! i absolutely agree!

only, witch hunting is what the republicans did to Clinton, this is true oversight, on an issue that is real, and important.

Right.

 

[Care4all]

And when Congress abdicated some of their oversight authority by giving the Attorney General the power to install temporary US Attorneys via the Patriot Act, one has to wonder if this ruckus isn't more about covering their Congressional asses than about preserving the Constitutional balance of power.

just another bill that they did not bother to read after it came out of the Conference session between the house and senate.... F given to our congress, but F- given to the administration for using a terrorism safety bill, like the patriot act, to do this kind of SHIT with it. F the whitehouse's arrogance!

 

[CockySOB]

just another bill that they did not bother to read after it came out of the Conference session between the house and senate.... F given to our congress, but F- given to the administration for using a terrorism safety bill, like the patriot act, to do this kind of SHIT with it. F the whitehouse's arrogance!

BDS

 

[Gunny]

BDS

It always unravels into a left-wing rant ...

 

[actsnoblemartin]

what are you talking about?

just another bill that they did not bother to read after it came out of the Conference session between the house and senate.... F given to our congress, but F- given to the administration for using a terrorism safety bill, like the patriot act, to do this kind of SHIT with it. F the whitehouse's arrogance!

 

[Care4all]

It always unravels into a left-wing rant ...

it is funny how the truth makes you laugh all the time...

 

[Care4all]

what are you talking about?

Per our constitution and Law, Prosecutors are appointed by the President and Confirmed only after the vetting of the Senate, and their majority vote or their super majority vote if a filibuster occurs. Part of this process the Senate has various depts like the fbi and the cia do background checks, and review the President's nominee's work history and asks questions under oath of them to be certain that these prosecutors for the united states are qualified and that they DO NOT HAVE A POLITICAL AGENDA, but will serve the United States Justice system fairly and just, A-POLITICAL.

In the Patriot Act 2, I believe it was senator Spector, slipped a provision in at the very last second, per the administration's request, without debate or discussion on the Senate floor before the vote to allow the attorney General on an EMERGENCY basis, to appoint prosecutors for EMPTY positions in districts that have terrorists being held and awaiting trial, so t omove the process along.

Our President and the Attorney General decided to fire these 8 prosecutors in question along with others that they fired, and REPLACE these prosecutors without the vetting and approval of our Senate.

These 8 prosecutors that they hired without the Senate vetting and vote per our Constitution, were not for positions that were empty or for any terrorism cases....They skipped the checks and balances and just put in prosecutors that possibly DO HAVE A POLITICAL AGENDA, why else skip the Senate on the confirmation of these people, especially since they are not for any kind of emergency terrorism case, that the Patriot Act revision was intended to be for according to Senator Spector.

Hope that helps!

Care

This is one of the reasons these firings of the 8 is suspicious.

 

[mattskramer]

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!

Even with all of these legal maneuvers by Republicans, I don’t think that it should take congress this long to follow the rule of law and try or “release” Gonzales. By the way, I’d say the same to Ken Starr in his investigation of Clinton. These things seem to drag on and on.

 

[Truthmatters]

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.

The link you provided helps make my case that they told lies about the attorrneys performances and then threatened them if they spoke out about it.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

I agree with steph

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....

 

[Gunny]

it is funny how the truth makes you laugh all the time...

The truth doesn't necessarily make me laugh. Ranting, deluded liberals do though.

 

[Gunny]

The link you provided helps make my case that they told lies about the attorrneys performances and then threatened them if they spoke out about it.

The link I provided doesn't support you, nor your statement in the least.

 

[Truthmatters]

deny, deny, deny.

That is no way to run a country.

How can you govern if you refuse to accept reality?

 

[beowolfe]

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.

What other POTUS fired all the US attorneys at mid term?

 

[beowolfe]

"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.

Actually, that's true and not so true. As the Gonzales case shows, there can be fallout from firing US attorneys because they refuse to use the law for political vendettas. What would you say if next year Obama fired all of his US attorneys because they refused to bring cases against republicans that he wanted brought regardless of the lack of evidence.

 

[hboats]

Afraid not. Just more of your left-wing ka-ka.

Calling facts ca ca does not an arguement make.

The sad thing is that you actually think that because it's posted on wiki that it is a FACT. wiki is known for being inaccurate, and is in no way the bottom line for anything. Just because you found something on wiki that backs up your OPINION does not make it FACT.

Rick