Grilled Gonzalez...

Bullypulpit

Senior Member
Jan 7, 2004
5,849
384
48
Columbus, OH
I thought I smelled something burning on Thursday, but when I watched the C-SPAN stream of Alberto Gonzalez's testimony yesterday, I figured out what it was...Grilled Gonzalez. Not only grilled, but roasted, burnt and fried.

Pobrecito Alberto, poor little Alberto. I almost felt sorry for him as he stumbled and grasped for answers like a drowning man grasping after any straw to keep himself afloat. The questioning by the Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee were particularly savage. One could almost see them standing behind poor little Alberto at the bus-stop, just waiting to push him under the bus. But this is little more than political gamesmanship. They see the hand-writing on the wall, and in order to try and save their political asses in '08, Congressional Republicans will happily eat one of their own.

And Alberto's memory lapses were nothing short of tragic. Such memory lapses are indicative of early onset Alzheimer's. In which case, poor little Alberto needs to step down from his position as the stress can only exacerbate the condition. He needs a structured, stress-free environment, and he should start taking Aricept as soon as his physician writes the prescription. It can't reverse the progression, but it can slow it.
 
We can start with the Presidential Records Act of 1978, as many of the communications between the White House and Justice on this matter were conducted on the RNC servers or "lost".

What law was broken when Pres Bush fired the lawyers?
 
Its funny, when one of the chairman in the commity was quoting Gonzales, he reply's "I dont recall, umm where are you reading that from?" The chairman reply's "Your prepared testimony for todays hearings?"

haha what an idiot.

How could you not know that US attorneys were being fired so suddenly. Is he not the Attorney General? Get him off the stage already.
 
Thanks for proving my point

Since when have Dems cared about the law?
it may not necessarily be ILLEGAL to abuse the power of office for purely partisan political gain, but it sure as hell ain't very fuckin' SMART to get caught at it.... and then LIE about it.

oh...and how much did Dick Nixon or John Poindexter or Duke Cunningham care about the law? You act so blameless as if republican politicians are so sweet sugar wouldn't melt in THEIR mouths.

LOL
 
I have two questions. If a president, republican, democrat or other fires people, is that a crime?. It is my understanding that people, the people who were hired by the president, serve at his discretion. am i wrong?, if so please explain why. I dont care if im wrong, as long as you dont tear me a new one, when explaining why :).

Second. How do you lose 5 million emails?. I cant even lose 5 emails :p
 
it doesn't necessarily have to be a crime to be wrong. For example....if those attorneys were pursuing corruption cases against republicans, let's say...and Bush fired them and replaced them with his pals who dropped those investigations.... criminal? maybe yes, maybe no. wrong? definitely. An abuse of power? certainly
 
That is a brilliant point my friend. If they were fired, because they were pursuing corruption charges, whats to stop it, if they were republicans lawyers and democrats fired them?, and how do you prove they were not fired for pursuing corruption?
 
it doesn't necessarily have to be a crime to be wrong. For example....if those attorneys were pursuing corruption cases against republicans, let's say...and Bush fired them and replaced them with his pals who dropped those investigations.... criminal? maybe yes, maybe no. wrong? definitely. An abuse of power? certainly

Of the 90 plus attorneys that Clinton fired soon after he took office, weren’t at least some of those people reviewing some possible Democrat wrongdoing? I’m surprised that there was not nearly as much uproar when so many attorneys were fired by the Clinton administration? I don’t think that it is much of a stretch to see some degree of hypocrisy or double standard. Oh well. Politics is politics.
 
Clinton cleaned out the Bush I appointees and installed his own..... perfectly legitimate. Bush cleaned out nine of his OWN appointees.... and it appears that there is not a convincing case that the reason WAS poor performance. apples and oranges.
 
Clinton cleaned out the Bush I appointees and installed his own..... perfectly legitimate. Bush cleaned out nine of his OWN appointees.... and it appears that there is not a convincing case that the reason WAS poor performance. apples and oranges.

I did not know that Bush II actually had appointed the attorneys that he had fired. Okay, in my book, that makes something of a difference.
 
Of the 90 plus attorneys that Clinton fired soon after he took office, weren’t at least some of those people reviewing some possible Democrat wrongdoing? I’m surprised that there was not nearly as much uproar when so many attorneys were fired by the Clinton administration? I don’t think that it is much of a stretch to see some degree of hypocrisy or double standard. Oh well. Politics is politics.

Uproar from the liberal media over what a Clinton does?
 
Uh. Hello? I am not “the liberal media”. I am not even a liberal. I’m an independent, open-minded, thinking individual. I don’t blindly follow a “leftist” platform or a “conservative” platform.

I was answering the question - it was NOT directed at you

The liberal media will always circl the wagons arounf Bill and Hillary

Even they cannot protect Hillary over her falling poll numbers

BTW, I posted the link to the poll that shows 50% of the voters interviewed will NOT vote for her
 
I did not know that Bush II actually had appointed the attorneys that he had fired. Okay, in my book, that makes something of a difference.

Yes, bush appointed the attorneys and the senate approved them. They were some of the best attorney's, leading investigations like the email cover up in the white house. Thats why they were fired.
 

Forum List

Back
Top