Gonzo is Gone!

[maineman]

didn't Clinton fire all of the Bush/Reagan US attorneys wholesale? I am unaware of any he fired that he himself had appointed....

and if he, himself, after filling the entire US attorney pool with Clinton appointees, then, under suspicious circumstances, fired eight of them citing performance as the rationale for firing when the record would show that those eight were among the top performers... and then news came to light that the eight had all been working on cases against Clinton cronies, do you not think that the republicans in congress would have a feeding frenzy? really?

 

[Alpha1]

didn't Clinton fire all of the Bush/Reagan US attorneys wholesale? I am unaware of any he fired that he himself had appointed....

and if he, himself, after filling the entire US attorney pool with Clinton appointees, then, under suspicious circumstances, fired eight of them citing performance as the rationale for firing when the record would show that those eight were among the top performers... and then news came to light that the eight had all been working on cases against Clinton cronies, do you not think that the republicans in congress would have a feeding frenzy? really?

You are unaware of any he fired that he himself had appointed.... ?

So whats your point? They serve at his pleasure....who hired them is irrelevant

Bush fired eight of them citing performance ?

Clinton fired all but one of them citing nothing....he just cleaned house, obviously he wanted him own loyal people in ......and it could be assumed Bush wanted some people in there that were more to his liking....

The double-standard is alive and well and it may well come back to bit the Dims in the ass in 1/09....and I hope it does....

 

[jillian]

They most assuaredely ARE Political appointees. They serve at the WHIM of the President. You know it, you just pretend otherwise.

As for you and Edwards laughable comments on the power of Congress, Once again, Congress can not force the President to do what they want simply by demanding it. THAT is checks and balances. They don't like what he has offered, they have another option, TAKE it to COURT. Failing that the President most surely can make any requirement he chooses for the participation of HIS branch of Government in this matter.

If it is so cut and dried, why hasn't there been a petition before a court to settle the matter? That is after all the role of the Courts in our Government.

I'd suggest you go back and read my post. I never said they weren't political appointees. Many jobs are the result of political appointments. What I SAID, however, was they aren't GOP operatives.

And they aren't... no matter how much he wanted them to be. I won't try to explain what happened however, you seem to be unable to follow it anyway.

Go read up on a little thing called checks and balances.. Congress can absolutely check up on what the pres does. (Though I know your guys HATE anyone being able to hold them accountable).

 

[maineman]

You are unaware of any he fired that he himself had appointed.... ?

So whats your point? They serve at his pleasure....who hired them is irrelevant

Bush fired eight of them citing performance ?

Clinton fired all but one of them citing nothing....he just cleaned house, obviously he wanted him own loyal people in ......and it could be assumed Bush wanted some people in there that were more to his liking....

The double-standard is alive and well and it may well come back to bit the Dims in the ass in 1/09....and I hope it does....

are you suggesting that George Bush should have not appointed his own cabinet? Are you suggesting that he should have kept Clinton's white house staff on and not fired any of them?

Clinton clearned house. Bush fired high performing attorneys because they were getting ready to prosecute his cronies.

 

[Alpha1]

are you suggesting that George Bush should have not appointed his own cabinet? Are you suggesting that he should have kept Clinton's white house staff on and not fired any of them?

Clinton clearned house. Bush fired high performing attorneys because they were getting ready to prosecute his cronies.

What I'm 'suggesting' is that from the AG to the entire US Atty. contingent have their positions because the President hired them...and can fire any or all of them at his discretion...

Are you suggesting that the Attys. Clinton fired weren't high performing attorneys..??
They weren't doing their jobs?

Its laughable...its politics...
Clinton even went so far as to freekin' fire the entire travel office..
Clinton had hardly been sworn in when he fired the entire staff of the White House travel office. The object, it seems clear, was to divert business to friends of the Clintons. The firings were so obviously unsupportable that the FBI was told to issue a press release suggesting criminality in the travel office. The head of the office was indicted and tried, but acquitted almost instantly.

Thats how Dims. will smear anyone that gets in the way, even the innocents in the travel office....thankfully a jury acquitted the poor bastard...the Clintons certainly didn't give a **** whose lives they ruined....

 

[maineman]

What I'm 'suggesting' is that from the AG to the entire US Atty. contingent have their positions because the President hired them...and can fire any or all of them at his discretion...

but if the reason he fires them is to specifically prevent criminal prosecution of cronies.... that is a different thing entirely, is it not?

 

[Alpha1]

but if the reason he fires them is to specifically prevent criminal prosecution of cronies.... that is a different thing entirely, is it not?

Gotta agree with that....but think back and you'll see the double standard is alive and well....

 

[mattskramer]

Because Bush ordered them not to respond. ... the President most surely has the power to control what and who in his Segment of the Government talks to Congress on matters not specifically spelled out in law. And despite edwards little Tirade the US Prosecutors are POLITICAL appointments, and the ONLY role Congress has in them is agreeing to their hiring, they have no say and no power on when or why the President choses to fire them. As any other Political appointment, they serve at the whim of the President. He can fire them any time he wants for any reason he wants, to include NO reason.

Congress wants to talk to the Executive branch? It has to deal with the President. He has stated more than once he will order his people to tell Congress anything they want, as soon as the Congress agrees not to put them under oath.

We have already been through several threads where the power is shown to exists and has since George Washington was President. I do not recall howls from the left when Clinton Invoked the Power. Nor do I recall any complaints when Clinton fired EVERY single Prosecutor including one within 30 days of bringing charges in a case effecting the democratic party.

Even when not under oath, the people being questioned were instructed by Bush to not say much. See the web site below.

http://fe4.news.re3.yahoo.com/s/bloo...erg/aokwuck9ma

J. Scott Jennings was the person being questioned. He said that he was bound by Bush's order not to describe internal administration discussions about the dismissals. The 29-year-old aide refused even to say if he was involved in the appointment of U.S. attorneys.

I understand the reasons for “executive privilege”. I simply contend that Bush and his buddies use it to an entertainingly and embarrassingly high degree – as did the Clinton administration if I am not mistaken. I think that we can reduce the extent to which “executive privilege” is used without tying up the government too much.

I’m not suggesting that congress instruct the executive branch on whom to hire and fire. I’m just saying that I think that the public has a right to know what is going on to a stronger degree and that a little more forthrightness is not going to hamstring government.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Even when not under oath, the people being questioned were instructed by Bush to not say much. See the web site below.

http://fe4.news.re3.yahoo.com/s/bloo...erg/aokwuck9ma

J. Scott Jennings was the person being questioned. He said that he was bound by Bush's order not to describe internal administration discussions about the dismissals. The 29-year-old aide refused even to say if he was involved in the appointment of U.S. attorneys.

I understand the reasons for “executive privilege”. I simply contend that Bush and his buddies use it to an entertainingly and embarrassingly high degree – as did the Clinton administration if I am not mistaken. I think that we can reduce the extent to which “executive privilege” is used without tying up the government too much.

I’m not suggesting that congress instruct the executive branch on whom to hire and fire. I’m just saying that I think that the public has a right to know what is going on to a stronger degree and that a little more forthrightness is not going to hamstring government.

Your not listening. Until Congress agrees to the terms Bush has set OR until a Court orders otherwise, President Bush has ordered them to invoke the power. It doesn't matter if they are or are not under Oath, until Congress agrees to the President's conditions he will prevent the testimony.

WHY? Because of the concept and the power of the Presidency. Congress has no authority to compel Executive Branch personel to talk to them except as authorized by law or agreed to by the President. President Bush was already burned once by allowing his people to talk "under" Oath.

The matter at hand is a witch hunt, nothing more. If the Congress were serious and actually thought they had a case for anything significant, it would be in a court already. If Bush backs down he wipes away a power of the president, he eliminates one of the checks and balances that exist between the branches of Government and he ties the hands of ANY future President.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You are unaware of any he fired that he himself had appointed.... ?

So whats your point? They serve at his pleasure....who hired them is irrelevant

Bush fired eight of them citing performance ?

Clinton fired all but one of them citing nothing....he just cleaned house, obviously he wanted him own loyal people in ......and it could be assumed Bush wanted some people in there that were more to his liking....

The double-standard is alive and well and it may well come back to bit the Dims in the ass in 1/09....and I hope it does....

It gets even better, most if not all of them had served the original term of the original hiring. They were not replaced at the end of the agreed on term.

 

[Scenic Point]

was the exaggerated importance placed upon it by the democrats for no other reason than to be a royal pain in the behind.

I have seen the democrats forge witch hunts many times in the past, but they never cease to turn my stomach.

This got way out of control and liked or, not Gonzales deserved none of the scrutiny and pressure exerted upon him during the course of this so-called 'scandal.'

In fact, the greatest shame was brought upon not the man, but the country who persecuted him so mercilessly.

Tsk, tsk.....

 

[Edward]

If either house of Congress decided to pursue a contempt citation, the case would be referred the U.S. attorney for Washington, D.C., seeking criminal charges. Assuming the current prosecutor, a Republican political appointee, agreed to do that, he would seek an indictment from a grand jury.

If indicted for "refusal of witness to testify or produce papers," the reluctant White House staffers would face a trial. In court, they could raise the defense of executive privilege or claim that what Congress wanted wasn't pertinent to the issue of the prosecutor firings.

The penalty is a misdemeanor, up to a $1000 fine and a year in jail. Anyone convicted could appeal, all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

I wasn't speaking of a statutory contempt citation instead I was speaking of inherent contempt. In other words I was talking about the Congressional power to order the Sergeant at Arms of the Congress to personally arrest those in contempt of Congress, and to hold them until they testify. This same power goes for them being able to order the Sergeant at Arms to compel members of Congress to come to session and to force a Quorum. A relucant Senator or Congressman or those conspiring to prevent a Quorum can be compelled by force to attend Congress. There is no appeal to a charge of inherent contempt of Congress nor do the Courts have any say in the matter. The Congress created statutes dealing with civil and criminal contempt of Congress as a result of not wanting to deal personally with trying those in contempt of Congress but they still have that power and the Parliment of the United Kingdom of Great Britain also held that power to compel testimony. The Courts have also ruled on this matter. This is a power the President is aware of and I am sure he isn't happy with the thought that his staff may be arrested by the Sergeant at Arms of the Congress and brought before them and forced to testify. They could argue executive privelige before the Congress but it wouldn't do much good since Congress doesn't agree with the President on this account. The President could seek redress from the Courts but the Courts would point out that Congress has had this power since the country was formed and they will not interfere with its due exercise of that power which means that his staff would be tried before the Senate and House for contempt of Congress. Of course Congress may choose not to take this route and choose to use the civil or criminal statutes put into place to deal with such matters but if it is determined that there is a wider problem outside of one individual Congress is more likely to hold a trial before the Senate and House.

 

[Edward]

Ah..no harm in preaching....but he should have at least a rudimentary understanding of the subject.....the AG himself, and all US attys. serve at the discretion of the President... he alone "hires" them, with advice and consent of the Senate.....the AG himself can't fire at US atty....Bush gave them the job and Bush can take that job away...just a Clinton did with the entire 96 man fleet of them .... he gave no reasons..he didn't need one....
As a matter of fact these attys. were hired by him....Its just the same of double standard Repubs. are held to that the Dims routinely get away with....
let the Dims take it to the Courts..they WON'T do it....because they will lose
Clinton himself set the precedent...

How many times must you be told that you are ignorant of the Constitution and the law. Please provide the provision of the Constitution that grants the President the power you claim he possesses? You won't be able to because there is none. Then provide the provision of the U.S. Code that grants him the power to remove U.S. Attorneys and you will find that this power is a creation of the Congress and falls under the Consitutional authority to make any and all laws for the Judiciary, Executive and Legislative departments of government and any officers of the United States. The authority of the President to terminate a U.S. Attorney is an exercise of a Congressional authority over officers of the United States. He has no constitutional authority to terminate them and the Congress has every right to investigate why U.S. Attorneys were fired.

Let's also be clear that the President merely recommends those he thinks are qualified to serve as an officer of the United States and they don't serve until they are hired by the Senate. They don't serve at his pleasure. The Congress has the power to create the office, to define its authority and scope, and to appoint and remove people from those offices under the Constitution. The President only has the power to recommend people he thinks are qualified for the office. In other words, "He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments."

The words "by and with the advice and consent of the Senate" make it quite clear that the appointment of officers of the United States is done through the U.S. Senate. Here the President has no power to appoint officers of the United States except it is through the Senate. The Constitution goes on to make it clear that Congress may by "law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments." How you arrive at U.S. Attorneys who are numbered among the inferior officers mentioned here serve at his whim is beyond me since the Constitution and the law are quite clear that they do not. Congress has not chosen to vest their power of appointment of U.S. Attorneys in the President alone instead they retain that power and require that the President nominate and recommend someone he thinks is qualified. Anyone with a basic grasp of the English language understands that this provision provides that the appointment is "through" the Senate and with their "consent." These words when being used in the business world show the relationship between a H.R. Director and the Owner of the company. The H.R. director will "by and with the consent of the Owner" hire personnel.

Simply stated the Congress is the one with general control over who serves as an officer of the United States and the President has no constitutional power of appointment over U.S. Attorneys. Even when it comes to general officers of the military (who are officers of the United States) the Congress makes the final decision in the appointment of these officers. The role of the President isn't one of "giving them their jobs." That you conveniently ignore the role Congress plays in the appointment of all officers of the United States and the role the President plays in those listed in the Constitution proves you are truly ignorant because the President has no constitutional authority in respect to appointing U.S. Attorneys. Congress may decide how they will be chosen. It is obvious that you don't even realize that Congress could decide that the President doesn't get to nominate U.S. Attorneys and could basically delegate their right to appoint these officers to someone such as the Attorney General or a Deputy Attorney General. If the President is the one giving them their jobs then HOW THE HELL COULD THE CONGRESS SAY TO THE PRESIDENT THAT HE CAN NO LONGER APPOINT U.S. ATTORNEYS AND GIVE THAT POWER TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, ETC. The answer is that they are the ones with the final decision on who serves as an officer of the United States.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

How many times must you be told that you are ignorant of the Constitution and the law. Please provide the provision of the Constitution that grants the President the power you claim he possesses? You won't be able to because there is none. Then provide the provision of the U.S. Code that grants him the power to remove U.S. Attorneys and you will find that this power is a creation of the Congress and falls under the Consitutional authority to make any and all laws for the Judiciary, Executive and Legislative departments of government and any officers of the United States. The authority of the President to terminate a U.S. Attorney is an exercise of a Congressional authority over officers of the United States. He has no constitutional authority to terminate them and the Congress has every right to investigate why U.S. Attorneys were fired.

Let's also be clear that the President merely recommends those he thinks are qualified to serve as an officer of the United States and they don't serve until they are hired by the Senate. They don't serve at his pleasure. The Congress has the power to create the office, to define its authority and scope, and to appoint and remove people from those offices under the Constitution. The President only has the power to recommend people he thinks are qualified for the office. In other words, "He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments."

The words "by and with the advice and consent of the Senate" make it quite clear that the appointment of officers of the United States is done through the U.S. Senate. Here the President has no power to appoint officers of the United States except it is through the Senate. The Constitution goes on to make it clear that Congress may by "law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments." How you arrive at U.S. Attorneys who are numbered among the inferior officers mentioned here serve at his whim is beyond me since the Constitution and the law are quite clear that they do not. Congress has not chosen to vest their power of appointment of U.S. Attorneys in the President alone instead they retain that power and require that the President nominate and recommend someone he thinks is qualified. Anyone with a basic grasp of the English language understands that this provision provides that the appointment is "through" the Senate and with their "consent." These words when being used in the business world show the relationship between a H.R. Director and the Owner of the company. The H.R. director will "by and with the consent of the Owner" hire personnel.

Simply stated the Congress is the one with general control over who serves as an officer of the United States and the President has no constitutional power of appointment over U.S. Attorneys. Even when it comes to general officers of the military (who are officers of the United States) the Congress makes the final decision in the appointment of these officers. The role of the President isn't one of "giving them their jobs." That you conveniently ignore the role Congress plays in the appointment of all officers of the United States and the role the President plays in those listed in the Constitution proves you are truly ignorant because the President has no constitutional authority in respect to appointing U.S. Attorneys. Congress may decide how they will be chosen. It is obvious that you don't even realize that Congress could decide that the President doesn't get to nominate U.S. Attorneys and could basically delegate their right to appoint these officers to someone such as the Attorney General or a Deputy Attorney General. If the President is the one giving them their jobs then HOW THE HELL COULD THE CONGRESS SAY TO THE PRESIDENT THAT HE CAN NO LONGER APPOINT U.S. ATTORNEYS AND GIVE THAT POWER TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, ETC. The answer is that they are the ones with the final decision on who serves as an officer of the United States.

Your ignorance is astounding.

 

[Alpha1]

Edward is quite freekin' bonkers... .and obviously has no concept of what "advise and consent" means.....
Eddie boy...let me know the next time the Congress hires a US Atty. or hires the next Atty. General....
Simply...the Senate "consents" to the appointments of the President....and not the other way around.....the Senate appoints no one.....they either agree with the Presidents choices or they so not...and if they happen to be in recess, they have no say at all in the President choices....

 

[jillian]

Edward is quite freekin' bonkers... .and obviously has no concept of what "advise and consent" means.....
Eddie boy...let me know the next time the Congress hires a US Atty. or hires the next Atty. General....
Simply...the Senate "consents" to the appointments of the President....and not the other way around.....the Senate appoints no one.....they either agree with the Presidents choices or they so not...and if they happen to be in recess, they have no say at all in the President choices....

Which is why Bush lurves his recess appointments... no transparency... because he knows that he engages in the worst sort of partisanship and croneyism and loves his incompetents... you know, like the dude from the mining industry he put in charge of safety... or the AG who loves torture and violating the Fourth Amendment.

It isn't something I'd be proud of if I were you. Nor is it funny to choose people who can't even get the support of the pres's own party. It's sad and pathetic really since it's we who pay the price for it.

 

[mattskramer]

You are missing my point. See the middle paragraph on post number 31. You said that

He has stated more than once he will order his people to tell Congress anything they want, as soon as the Congress agrees not to put them under oath.

Jennings was not under oath. Yet, he would answer very few questions, if any. Yes, I know that congress has no authority to compel Executive Branch personnel to talk to them except as authorized by law or agreed to by the President.

It is pretty hard to decide if you have a case if/when no one is willing to answer questions. I remember the difficulty that government had in getting any information out of Clinton’s cronies. We are having the same trouble with Bush and his cronies.

Bush does not make law. He would not eliminate one of the checks and balances that exist between the branches of Government and he ties the hands of ANY future President if he were to simply, in one instance, say the following to his team.

“Okay, guys. When congress asks you a question that is remotely related to the issue concerning the firings, go ahead and answer it. If you do not know the answer, say that you do not know the answer. Otherwise, be forthright and honestly answer the questions.”

That would not mean that every president after him would have to do the same.

 

[Gunny]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/27/w...gin&adxnnlx=1188217138-0Lj+3QAR1WKCQz833O2DAw

about fuckin' time!

Who cares? I never cared for him, but I doubt Bush is going to appoint a liberal/Democrat to replace him.

 

[eots]

Bird Cage Liner Changed, Illegal Spying Stays
Gonzales' exit does little to undo the damage inflicted on the Constitution

Prison Planet | August 28, 2007
Paul Joseph Watson
The bird cage liner has been changed but the illegal spying, warrantless wiretapping and torture embracing precedents remain following the resignation of Attorney General Alberto "Mengele" Gonzales.

The ineffective liberal left celebrates the exit of Gonzales like it's some major victory when in fact it changes nothing and every assault on the Constitution that was crafted with his help remains on the books.

Why are the left so naive as to believe that just because a token figurehead is toppled this somehow makes amends for the fact that the infrastructure of a totalitarian state has been implemented over the last six years?

"Unfortunately, Gonzales's incompetence will live on in a string of dubious legal arguments largely rubber-stamped by a pliant Congress and maintained through claims of executive privilege and state secrecy," writes Burke Hansen of the Register .

"Ultimately, it will be up to the courts to undo the damage done, as Gonzalez spent so much time walking all over the fundamental rights of Americans he's practically left footprints on the Bill of Rights. Thanks to his stewardship, American citizens can now be classed as enemy combatants, spied on without warrants, imprisoned indefinitely without charges or redress to the courts, and subjected to "enhanced interrogation" techniques."

Where is the pressure for Democrats to repeal the Military Commissions Act, the John Warner Defense Authorization Act and innumerable other police state measures that were passed with their willing consent?

Only when we get the unconstitutional laws that Gonzales was responsible for pushing through stricken can we even begin to make progress.

The left likes to label itself as a "progressive community" yet they are seemingly content to wait and do nothing until Hillary Clinton gets in office so that she may enjoy the smorgasbord of tyranny that the Bush administration has laid out for her since 2001.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You are missing my point. See the middle paragraph on post number 31. You said that

Jennings was not under oath. Yet, he would answer very few questions, if any. Yes, I know that congress has no authority to compel Executive Branch personnel to talk to them except as authorized by law or agreed to by the President.

It is pretty hard to decide if you have a case if/when no one is willing to answer questions. I remember the difficulty that government had in getting any information out of Clinton’s cronies. We are having the same trouble with Bush and his cronies.

Bush does not make law. He would not eliminate one of the checks and balances that exist between the branches of Government and he ties the hands of ANY future President if he were to simply, in one instance, say the following to his team.

“Okay, guys. When congress asks you a question that is remotely related to the issue concerning the firings, go ahead and answer it. If you do not know the answer, say that you do not know the answer. Otherwise, be forthright and honestly answer the questions.”

That would not mean that every president after him would have to do the same.

He already did that once and the result was a PERJURY charge against Libby. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.