The DOJ Scandal Becomes Clearer

[red states rule]

Ret sgt?

Are you serious with this gibberish of yours and excuses of yours?

YOU can NOT be that partisan....or can you be?

Care

If there is no issue to bitch about - Dems will create one

 

[Gunny]

Ret sgt?

Are you serious with this gibberish of yours and excuses of yours?

YOU can NOT be that partisan....or can you be?

Care

Once again, there's that bogus accusation. When all else fails and no argument can be made, just call conservatives partisans.

 

[Care4all]

wait her term was up? Then she wasn't fired at all, she was replaced when her term expired or shortly there after. And last I checked if someone resigns they were in fact NOT fired.

And her term was up AFTER the election. Again you are claiming the election was the reason for firing them.... umm why were they fired AFTER the election ( or resigned) when your claim is they were fired to affect said election?

I know you won't be around but I thought I would clarify this for you...

There are two issues at hand...

1. Were they fired because they would not prosecute certain Democratic corruption cases before the election, as some of these attorneys are wondering themselves....? Or were they fired because they dropped some of the election fraud cases that involved Democrats before the election, and not persue them as requested by some Republicans?

Those request would be unlawful requests, if it were deemed that they were "trying" to affect an outcome of an election.

2. Were they fired because they successfully prosecuted key Republicans that committed several felonies like Duke Cunningham (R), and were persuing other Republicans for criminal charges that still worked in the whitehouse which came out of her investigation of cunningham, Dusty Foggo?

Truthmatters has posted an article on this further up.

This would be obstruction of justice.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

So far, 4 Justice Dept employees of Gonzales's have resigned regarding the handling of this firing of attorney's issue.

While trying to investigate they find 5 million emails missing from the whitehouse staff.

It was discovered that Justice Dept staff and white house staff were using an email system of the RNC to do the government's business so that no record of their doings could be kept, which is also breaking a law or rule...

Gonzales had no answers to the Senators questioning him in the hearing other than "I can't remember" or "I don't recall"....OVER 60 times is what was mentioned in the news...

Now I don't know what is going on here, but it appears something is amiss...something needs further investigation in order to get down to the TRUTH...., don't you think?

Put yourself in my shoes only under a Clinton Administration, with something like this going on with 4 of his people quitting and Clinton refusing to let his people testifying before Congress on a serious issue like the very fabric of our Justice system and it's "justness" and "Fairness" at stake?

Oh and I forgot to ment that part on the staff not being allowed by the president to testify to get to the bottom of this unless it was behind closed doors, with no recording or transcript of the meeting... what is this crap all about?

There are Republicans asking for the resignation of Gonzalez on this, you know it is NOT Just a partisan issue....?

Care

 

[red states rule]

Bottom line is

There was nor crime committed

and these lawyers were not doing their jobs

So Bush fired them - real shocker

 

[Care4all]

Bottom line is

There was nor crime committed

and these lawyers were not doing their jobs

So Bush fired them - real shocker

They were doing their jobs but 1 of them and many of the 8 were held in the very highest esteem and considered some of the best prosecutors our country has had.... up with the best of them.

We DON'T KNOW if a crime was committed because justice is being obstructed to get to the bottom of this with people quitting and people taking the fifth so they won't incriminate themselves, with repeating 60 times under oath that you can't recall or don't know by the attorney general for goodness sakes.... a position that is over all law enforcement justice for our entire country! Not just the president's personal attorney? And then you got the president denying public access for questioning or under oath questioning....

It has been like pulling teeth to get to the truth.

WHY?

why?

Why not just let the sun shine in if the Justice Dept has nothing to hide?

Don't questions like these ever come to your mind? Don't you wonder what the heck is going on here that stinks to high heaven?

I do....and ADMIT that you would be too if this were Clinton and his administration doing all of this!!! Come on, admit it!!!

Care

 

[red states rule]

Maybe because there is nothing to this made up issue?

Or is that to hard for the Bush haters to understand?

 

[Care4all]

Maybe because there is nothing to this made up issue?

Or is that to hard for the Bush haters to understand?

How do you know it is nothing but a made up issue and if so why did 4 people get fired or resigned that were involved in this and one of them plead the 5th in order to not incriminate herself in this....?

Why did Gonzalez, the Attorney General of the United States of America, make a mockery out of Congress by stating he "did not recall" to over 60 questiones asked of him, UNDER OATH, by Senators of the judiciary committee investigating this attorney firing issue?

WE DON'T KNOW....is the answer... but we need to find out, the truth is the solution that will settle it, once and for all....

Please give justice a chance....if nothing was done wrong...then it is JUST as IMPORTANT to get this information to those in the "know" and the public!

And if something was done wrong then the public can see that we caught it, and have taken steps to correct it and bring fairness and justice back in to the light of the Justice dept.

BOTH are very healthy for our Democracy imo.

Care

 

[red states rule]

How do you know it is nothing but a made up issue and if so why did 4 people get fired or resigned that were involved in this and one of them plead the 5th in order to not incriminate herself in this....?

Why did Gonzalez, the Attorney General of the United States of America, make a mockery out of Congress by stating he "did not recall" to over 60 questiones asked of him, UNDER OATH, by Senators of the judiciary committee investigating this attorney firing issue?

WE DON'T KNOW....is the answer... but we need to find out, the truth is the solution that will settle it, once and for all....

Please give justice a chance....if nothing was done wrong...then it is JUST as IMPORTANT to get this information to those in the "know" and the public!

And if something was done wrong then the public can see that we caught it, and have taken steps to correct it and bring fairness and justice back in to the light of the Justice dept.

BOTH are very healthy for our Democracy imo.

Care

Care

Care were you this outraged when Clinton fired 96 lawyers as your are over the 8 Bush has fired?

Give me a break - libs walk through life looking for things to bitch about

 

[Truthmatters]

Heres the problem with saying nothing is wrong here.

Obstruction of Justice.

Defamation of charactor.

Vote fraud.

Retalitory prosicution.


Fact!
Even the President is NOT above obstruction of justice.
These attorneys were Urged to prosicute cases which did not have a viable case.
Some were investigating high ranking Republicans at the time they were removed.
NONE were investigating Top Dems.


FACT!
You see you cant announce that someone has done a bad job in the national news unless they did do a bad job and you can prove it.

Most of the fired attorneys had the TOP ratings you can get in their field.
This means their prosicution rates and successes were top rate.

FACT!
The cases which they had been urged to prosicute and didnt involved voter fraud which would hurt the democrats , they were urged to bring the cases BEFORE the 2006 election.

FACT!

Even the president is not above retalitory prosicution.
If you knowingly bring a case against someone which can be proven to have no merrit you can charged.


Here is your NOTHING .

Face it this is a very big SOMETHING!

 

[Care4all]

Care were you this outraged when Clinton fired 96 lawyers as your are over the 8 Bush has fired?

Give me a break - libs walk through life looking for things to bitch about

I wasn't upset, because I didn't know about it, I was politically ignorant at the time and very happy at that during the clinton years and all years previous to 2000!

But I have read a great deal about it and the Republicans caused a TIZZY FIT when Clinton did this according to what I have read!

It left several attorney general positions opened for over a year because Clinton was not prepared and did not have enough replacements for those attorney's dismissed and ready to be consented on by the senate. As a country, this left us vulnerable and backlog of cases started happening.

Anyway, the republicans caused a fit over it, and from what I have read, rightly so.

But replacing a previous president's attorney generals from an opposing party for certain, is common in our history....

And as I have explained before on this thread, President Bush has also replaced all of Clinton's attorney generals in his first term, yes near all 93 of them, just as Clinton had done...

HOWEVER, serving at the pleasure of the president is NOT what this case is about....or maybe it is, we just don't know yet.

Care

 

[red states rule]

Nets Didn't Care About Clinton Firing 93 U.S. Attorneys, Lead With Replacement of 8
Posted by Brent Baker on March 13, 2007 - 22:12.
The broadcast network evening newscasts, which didn't care in 1993 about the Clinton administration's decision to ask for the resignations of all 93 U.S. attorneys, went apoplectic Tuesday night in leading with the “controversy,” fed by the media, over the Bush administration for replacing eight U.S. attorneys in late 2006 -- nearly two years after rejecting the idea of following the Clinton policy of replacing all the attorneys. Anchor Charles Gibson promised that ABC would “look at all the angles tonight,” but he skipped the Clinton comparison. Gibson teased: “New controversy at the White House after a string of U.S. attorneys is fired under questionable circumstances. There are calls for the Attorney General to resign.”

CBS's Katie Couric declared that “the uproar is growing tonight over the firing of eight federal prosecutors by the Justice Department” and fill-in NBC anchor Campbell Brown teased: “The Attorney General and the firestorm tonight over the controversial dismissal of several federal prosecutors. Was it political punishment?” Brown soon asserted that “it's a story that has been brewing for weeks and it exploded today” -- an explosion fueled by the news media.

ABC's World News, the CBS Evening News and the NBC Nightly News on March 13 led with and ran multiple stories on the controversy, which were clearly propelled, in part, by attacks by Senate Democrats who demanded the resignation of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. But Justice Department clumsiness, which provided hooks for those Democratic attacks, does not absolve the news media of the responsibility for putting the replacement of U.S. attorneys into greater context for viewers so they would understand how Bush's predecessor removed every one (actually all but one as Brit Hume explained) so that Clinton, as is being charged in the current case, could replace them with attorneys more favorable to the administration's agenda.

Unlike ABC, CBS and NBC watchers, cable viewers got a hint of context as Steve Centanni, on FNC's Special Report with Brit Hume, pointed out how “the White House acknowledged there were talks in 2005, just after the President won his second term, about terminating all 93 U.S. attorneys just as President Clinton unceremoniously did 1993 after he won the White House.” The point made it onto CNN's The Situation Room -- barely -- thanks to guest Terry Jeffries who raised it during the 4pm EDT hour of the program.

Last week, on the same day as the Libby verdict, Katie Couric introduced a full March 6 CBS Evening News story by Sharyl Attkisson, who failed to remind viewers of Clinton's wholesale firings:


“Another big story in Washington tonight also involves federal prosecutors, or at least former prosecutors. Eight U.S. attorneys were axed by the Bush administration last year, and some Democrats say the firings were politically motivated. Today some of those ex-prosecutors told Congress about the pressure they felt from top Republicans.”
Back in 1993, the networks weren't so interested in Clinton's maneuver. The April 1993 edition of the MRC's MediaWatch newsletter recounted:

Attorney General Janet Reno fired all 93 U.S. attorneys, a very unusual practice. Republicans charged the Clintonites made the move to take U.S. Attorney Jay Stephens off the House Post Office investigation of Ways and Means Chairman Dan Rostenkowski. The network response: ABC and CBS never mentioned it. CNN's World News and NBC Nightly News provided brief mentions, with only NBC noting the Rosty angle. Only NBC's Garrick Utley kept the old outrage, declaring in a March 27 "Final Thoughts" comment: "Every new President likes to say 'Under me, it's not going to be politics as usual.' At the Justice Department, it looks as if it still is."
“Washington Area to Lose 2 High-Profile Prosecutors; All U.S. Attorneys Told to Tender Resignations,” read a front page story in the March 24, 1993 Washington Post. Two days later, in an article on page A-22, according to Nexis, “Clinton Defends Ousting U.S. Attorneys; GOP Steps Up Criticism of Attorney General's 'March Massacre,'” Dan Balz cited how then-Clinton operative George Stephanopoulos, who appeared on Tuesday's Good Morning America and World News to comment on the current controversy, defended Bill Clinton's decision:

President Clinton yesterday attempted to rebut Republican criticism of the administration's decision to seek resignations from all U.S. attorneys, saying what he was asking was routine and less political than piecemeal replacements.

"All those people are routinely replaced and I have not done anything differently," Clinton told reporters during a photo opportunity in the Oval Office. He called the decision more politically appropriate "than picking people out one by one."

But Republicans in Congress pressed their criticism of the decision, announced Tuesday by Attorney General Janet Reno, with Senate Minority Leader Robert J. Dole (R-Kan.) describing the decision as "Reno's March Massacre."

Rep. Richard K. Armey (R-Tex.) urged the administration to allow Jay B. Stephens, the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, to stay on the job until he completes his investigation of the House Post Office scandal and the role House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dan Rostenkowski (D-Ill.) may have played in it.

Stephens said Tuesday he was about a month away from "a critical decision with regard to resolution" of the probe....

Presidential spokesman George Stephanopoulos said it was not unusual for a president to ask for such resignations, although Republicans said presidents in the past have not asked for mass resignations, replacing them over a period of time as replacements were found.

Stephanopoulos said only those U.S. attorneys who are in the middle of trials will be allowed to continue working and said an interim appointee could capably pick up Stephens's investigation of the House Post Office scandal, with no serious disruption or political interference....


For a flavor of Tuesday night, March 13 coverage on ABC, CBS and NBC, the leads on each:

ABC's World News. Anchor Charles Gibson's tease:


“Tonight: new controversy at the White House after a string of U.S. attorneys is fired under questionable circumstances. There are calls for the Attorney General to resign.”


Gibson's opening:

“The Attorney General of the United States is under fire. Alberto Gonzales is fending off charge that he carried out a purge, firing eight U.S. attorneys for political reasons on orders from the White House. Across the country there are 93 U.S. attorneys. They prosecute cases for the government. They can be hired and fired by the President. The accusation is these eight were fired because they refused to do the Bush administration's political bidding. We look at all the angles tonight, starting with Pierre Thomas at the Justice Department.”
After Thomas, Gibson did a Q and A with Jan Crawford Greenburg and George Stephanopoulos about the situation, but Stephanopoulos, who stuck to assessing the status of Gonzales, did not mention his defense of Clinton's action.

CBS Evening News. Katie Couric led:


“Hello, everyone. The uproar is growing tonight over the firing of eight federal prosecutors by the Justice Department. The department had told Congress the White House was not involved in the firings, but e-mails released today show that the firings had been discussed for two years by officials of the Justice Department and the White House. So we'll begin at the White House tonight with correspondent Jim Axelrod.”
Following Axelrod, CBS went to a second full story from Bob Orr on how a former U.S. attorney charged that Gonzales “has let politics infect the justice system” and then Couric conducted a brief Q and A with Axelrod and Orr over whether Gonzales will be fired. Couric also noted how Axelrod's younger brother worked for one of the fired prosecutors.

NBC Nightly News. The tease from fill-in anchor Campbell Brown:


“The Attorney General and the firestorm tonight over the controversial dismissal of several federal prosecutors. Was it political punishment?”
Brown opened:

“Good evening. The Attorney General of the United States is under fire but vowing he will not resign. It's a story that has been brewing for weeks and it exploded today. The key issue, a decision by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to fire eight federal prosecutors and questions about whether that decision was politically motivated and driven by the White House. Attorney General Gonzales' top deputy has already resigned, but the President is standing by his man. We begin tonight with chief White House correspondent David Gregory.”
Following a piece on Joint Chiefs Chairman Peter Pace's remarks about homosexuals, Brown discussed both topics with Tim Russert.

http://newsbusters.org/node/11399

 

[Truthmatters]

An L.A. Times article, citing a Senate study noted: "Reagan replaced 89 of the 93 U.S. attorneys in his first two years in office. President Clinton had 89 new U.S. attorneys in his first two years, and President Bush had 88 new U.S. attorneys in his first two years," and citing a Department of Justice list, noted that "in 1981, Reagan's first year in office, 71 of 93 districts had new U.S. attorneys. In 1993, Clinton's first year, 80 of 93 districts had new U.S. attorneys."

Presidents rarely dismiss U.S. attorneys they appoint, and extremely rarely do Presidents dismiss several U.S attorney appointees in a short period of time. The Congressional Research Service, a public policy research arm of Congress, investigated the precedent of U.S. Attorneys who have not served their full four-year terms from 1981 through 2006. Over the 25-year period studied, the investigation identified 54 attorneys who did not serve their full term. Of these, the report only found evidence of two attorneys being involuntarily dismissed: William Kennedy (dismissed in 1982) and J. William Petro (in 1984). Both were Reagan appointees. Note however, that all of the U.S. Attorneys dismissed in this controversy were in office longer than four years, while in "holdover," beyond the scope of the Congressional Research Service study.

From wiki

 

[red states rule]

Heres the problem with saying nothing is wrong here.

Obstruction of Justice.

Defamation of charactor.

Vote fraud.

Retalitory prosicution.


Fact!
Even the President is NOT above obstruction of justice.
These attorneys were Urged to prosicute cases which did not have a viable case.
Some were investigating high ranking Republicans at the time they were removed.
NONE were investigating Top Dems.


FACT!
You see you cant announce that someone has done a bad job in the national news unless they did do a bad job and you can prove it.

Most of the fired attorneys had the TOP ratings you can get in their field.
This means their prosicution rates and successes were top rate.

FACT!
The cases which they had been urged to prosicute and didnt involved voter fraud which would hurt the democrats , they were urged to bring the cases BEFORE the 2006 election.

FACT!

Even the president is not above retalitory prosicution.
If you knowingly bring a case against someone which can be proven to have no merrit you can charged.


Here is your NOTHING .

Face it this is a very big SOMETHING!

CBS and NBC Pursue Gonzales and Rove, But ABC Raises Clinton and Lack of Illegality
Posted by Brent Baker on March 15, 2007 - 21:03.
ABC's World News separated itself from the media pack Thursday night. Though ABC's coverage was keyed to how e-mails supposedly show that Karl Rove was at “the center” of early 2005 discussions about replacing all 93 U.S. attorneys, anchor Charles Gibson pointed out how “these U.S. attorneys do serve at the pleasure of the President. He can fire them at any time. So did anything really get done that was wrong?” Jan Crawford Greenburg answered, in a broadcast network evening newscast first, by informing viewers of how “President Clinton, in fact, fired all the U.S. attorneys when he came into office from the previous Republican administration.”

Meanwhile, NBC and CBS continued the obsession on the story for the third night in a row. NBC Nightly News anchor Campbell Brown breathlessly teased her lead, “The prosecutor purge: Did the idea of firing all U.S. Attorneys start with inner circle adviser Karl Rove? If so, what now?” The CBS Evening News led with two stories on the subject, starting with Jim Axelrod on Republican Congressman Dana Rohrabacher's call for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to resign. Next, Bob Orr looked at how Gonzales “was tangled in controversy" before becoming AG. “As the President's chief lawyer, Gonzales sanctioned the widespread use of warrant-less wiretaps,”Orr thundered, thus “allowing the government to snoop on Americans without court orders.” Plus, “he also approved the so-called 'torture memo'” and “under Bush-Gonzales policies, prisoners were allowed to be held indefinitely at Guantanamo Bay with no access to U.S. courts,” policies reflecting an “attitude,” Georgetown law professor David Cole charged, in Orr's words, which “led directly to the abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib.”

(My transcription of the CBS Evening News was impeded tonight by college basketball which aired instead of the CBS Evening News on the CBS affiliate in Washington, DC, so I had to transcribe from the Web-cast.)

The MRC's Brad Wilmouth corrected the closed-captioning against the video for the March 15 coverage on ABC's World News. Anchor Charles Gibson announced:


"The Bush administration launched a new defense of its controversial decision to fire a handful of U.S. attorneys without making the reasons immediately clear. Today top White House aide Karl Rove said several of the prosecutors had been fired because they did not make administration policy their top priority. And he said the critics are motivated by politics."

Karl Rove, before a group in Alabama: "Now, we're at a point where people want to play politics with it. And that's fine. I would simply ask that everybody who's playing politics with this be asked to comment about what they think about the removal of 123 U.S. attorneys during the previous administration, and see if they had the same superheated political rhetoric then that they're having now."

Gibson: "What Rove didn't say but we now know from White House e-mails released just tonight is that Karl Rove was more involved in the firing of U.S. attorneys than the administration has previously acknowledged. ABC legal correspondent Jan Crawford Greenburg joins me now from Washington. Jan, I had a chance to read this e-mail that you first learned about today, and it does show that a lot of people at the White House, very early on, were discussing the firing of U.S. attorneys, including Rove, but do they show there was political motivation involved?"

Jan Crawford Greenburg, a former Chicago Tribune Supreme Court reporter who recently joined ABC News: "Well, the emails that were released tonight show that Rove was at the center of these discussions from the beginning along with Alberto Gonzales. These emails took place a month before Gonzales was confirmed as the Attorney General. Now, Rove was asking whether any decisions had been made about whether to fire the U.S. attorneys, whether they should just target certain ones, so these emails show he was in on that from the beginning."

Gibson: "But to come back to the point the White House makes, was anything necessarily wrong? These U.S. attorneys do serve at the pleasure of the President. He can fire them at any time. So did anything really get done that was wrong?"

Greenburg: "Well, that's exactly right. And President Clinton, in fact, fired all the U.S. attorneys when he came into office from the previous Republican administration. Of course, a President can fire U.S. attorneys when he chooses. The problem for the White House now and the Justice Department is that these e-mails seem to suggest the White House, at least that's what Democratic Senators are saying tonight, the White House hasn't been forthcoming with how this whole plan began, and they show that Rove was in on it from the beginning."

Gibson: "This issue consumes Washington, and there will be many hearings on this with Karl Rove called to testify?"

Greenburg: "Karl Rove is unlikely to testify. The White House right now is discussing whether any White House officials will go up in the Hill and try to explain their role in the matter. The White House believes that goes to the core of separation of powers and executive privilege issues. So they now, there's a large contingent of people in the White House who think that they should not allow Rove or former White House counsel Harriet Miers to testify about those discussions. But as this email shows today, it will be difficult for them to resist because Democrats are stepping up the calls to hear from them."

http://newsbusters.org/node/11452

 

[Truthmatters]

That article of your has flat out lies in it.

 

[Truthmatters]

An L.A. Times article, citing a Senate study noted: "Reagan replaced 89 of the 93 U.S. attorneys in his first two years in office. President Clinton had 89 new U.S. attorneys in his first two years, and President Bush had 88 new U.S. attorneys in his first two years," and citing a Department of Justice list, noted that "in 1981, Reagan's first year in office, 71 of 93 districts had new U.S. attorneys. In 1993, Clinton's first year, 80 of 93 districts had new U.S. attorneys."

Presidents rarely dismiss U.S. attorneys they appoint, and extremely rarely do Presidents dismiss several U.S attorney appointees in a short period of time. The Congressional Research Service, a public policy research arm of Congress, investigated the precedent of U.S. Attorneys who have not served their full four-year terms from 1981 through 2006. Over the 25-year period studied, the investigation identified 54 attorneys who did not serve their full term. Of these, the report only found evidence of two attorneys being involuntarily dismissed: William Kennedy (dismissed in 1982) and J. William Petro (in 1984). Both were Reagan appointees. Note however, that all of the U.S. Attorneys dismissed in this controversy were in office longer than four years, while in "holdover," beyond the scope of the Congressional Research Service study.

From wiki

here

 

[red states rule]

That article of your has flat out lies in it.

Why, because Keith Overbite said it was?

 

[red states rule]

Then we have the objective liberal media - who never shows a slant in the news


CNN's Cafferty Calls Alberto Gonzales 'Glorified Waterboy' and 'Weasel'
Posted by Brad Wilmouth on March 15, 2007 - 23:43.
Catching up on an item from Monday's The Situation Room on CNN, which has already been covered by conservative talk radio host Mark Levin, CNN's Jack Cafferty condescendingly labeled Attorney General Alberto Gonzales as a "glorified waterboy for the White House" as he called for Gonzales to resign over the controversial firing of U.S. attorneys. After asking viewers to email him with their thoughts, Cafferty further called Gonzales a "weasel." Cafferty: "If you look up the word weasel in the dictionary, Wolf, you'll see Alberto Gonzales' picture there."

Below is a complete transcript of Cafferty's comments on Alberto Gonzales from the March 12 The Situation Room on CNN:

Jack Cafferty, about 4:15 p.m.: "All right, for the sake of the nation, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales should step down. Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer also said Gonzales putting politics above the law and that he's shown more allegiance to President Bush than to Americans' legal rights. As examples, Schumer points to the FBI's illegal snooping into people's private lives, as well as the controversy surrounding the Justice Department's firing of federal prosecutors. Schumer isn't the only one questioning Gonzales. Democratic Senator Joe Biden says Gonzales has 'lost the confidence of the vast majority of the American people.' A New York Times editorial says the Attorney General, quote, 'has never stopped being consigliere to Mr. Bush's imperial presidency,' unquote. And it's not enough that the Attorney General of the United States is a glorified water boy for the White House. The Bush administration also is admitting now that its number one political hack, Karl Rove, passed along complaints from Republican lawmakers about U.S. attorneys to the Justice Department and to the White House Counsel's Office -- a political advisor playing a role in the hiring and firing of U.S. attorneys. It's disgraceful. Here's the question: Should U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales resign?"

After providing his email address, Cafferty continued:

Cafferty: "If you look up the word weasel in the dictionary, Wolf, you'll see Alberto Gonzales' picture there."

Blitzer: "You don't like him?"

Cafferty: "That's correct. I don't."

Blitzer: "Jack Cafferty will be back with your e-mail shortly. Thank you, Jack, for that."

Shortly before 5:00 p.m., Cafferty was back with viewer emails:

Blitzer: "Check in with Jack Cafferty for 'The Cafferty File.' Jack?"

Cafferty: "Several people in Congress, the United States Senate are suggesting that it's time for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to resign. And we asked this hour if you thought that was a good idea. Don writes from Florida: 'Jack, a better question is: How soon should Alberto Gonzales resign? And what should be the punishment for his crimes?'

"Ralph writes: 'Nah. They'd just replace him with somebody more dangerous, somebody who knows how to run a police state without getting caught.'

"John in Philadelphia: 'Actually, he should have been fired. We all know how long that takes, though. Remember Rumsfeld? This worm is exactly the type of hatchet man that Bush likes. Don't ever do the people's work. Just do my dirty work.'

"Larisa in Seattle: 'Alberto Gonzales should have resigned yesterday or last year or two years ago. Look at the guy's legacy: torture memos, spying on Americans, and now substituting GOP cronies for lawyers who are supposed to be defending the public good and upholding the Constitution.'

"Robert writes from Ohio: 'Resign? He ought to be perp-walked.'

"J. writes: 'Jack, of course he ought to resign, but we both know he won't. His role right now is to cover the backside of the most corrupt administration in history, which is a tall order for such a little man.'

"Jody in Tennessee: 'Yeah, he ought to, but that won't happen. He's a Bush buddy. Every time I see him on TV, he looks like he's laughing at us.'

"And Jenny in New York: 'From this administration? No way. He's doing a heck of a job.'

"We got no letters suggesting that Alberto Gonzales was doing a great job, and that we were out of line by quoting some of the people, like Chuck Schumer in the Senate, who are calling for the man's resignation. Nobody wrote and said, 'This guy is doing a good job.'"

Blitzer: "Out of how many? About hundreds? Did we get thousands?"

Cafferty: "I don't know. Yeah, it was 800, 900 e-mails. I didn't read 800 or 900 of them, but I spun through probably a couple of hundred. There were none, none. Nobody wrote to say Alberto Gonzales is doing a good job as the Attorney General of the United States. I mean, that alone says something, doesn't it?"

Blitzer: "It certainly does. Jack, thank you very much."

http://newsbusters.org/node/11454

 

[Truthmatters]

He has been Bush's butt boy since 1994


Gonzales was an attorney in private practice from 1982 until 1994 with the Houston law firm Vinson and Elkins, where he became a partner. In 1994, he was named general counsel to then-Texas Governor George W. Bush, rising to become Secretary of State of Texas in 1997 and finally to be named to the Texas Supreme Court in 1999, both appointments made by Governor Bush.

Outside of his political and legal career, Gonzales was active in the community. He was a board director of the United Way of the Texas Gulf Coast from 1993 to 1994, and President of Leadership Houston during this same period. In 1994, Gonzales served as Chair of the Commission for District Decentralization of the Houston Independent School District, and as a member of the Committee on Undergraduate Admissions for Rice University. He was chosen as one of Five Outstanding Young Texans by the Texas Jaycees in 1994. He was a member of delegations sent by the American Council of Young Political Leaders to Mexico in 1996 and to the People's Republic of China in 1995. He received the Presidential Citation from the State Bar of Texas in 1997 for his dedication to addressing basic legal needs of the indigent. In 1999, he was named Latino Lawyer of the Year by the Hispanic National Bar Association.

As counsel to Governor Bush, Gonzales helped Bush be excused from jury duty when he was called in a 1996 Travis County drunk driving case. The case led to controversy during Bush's 2000 presidential campaign because Bush's answers to the potential juror questionnaire did not disclose Bush's own 1976 misdemeanor drunk driving conviction. Gonzales' formal request for Bush to be excused from jury duty hinged upon the fact that, as Governor of Texas, he might be called upon to pardon the accused in the case.

As Governor Bush's counsel in Texas, Gonzales also reviewed all clemency requests. A 2003 article in The Atlantic Monthly asserts that Gonzales gave insufficient counsel, and failed to second-guess convictions and failed appeals. Only one death sentence was over-turned by Governor Bush (The state of Texas executed more prisoners during Gonzales' term, and still has more prisoners on death row, than any other state.)

 

[red states rule]

Not to give your a headche - but what law was violated wuth the 8 firings?

I know it is hard for Bush haters to put aside logic, reason. truth, and facts - but try

 

[Truthmatters]

Well Red that is why we have this little procedure called a hearing.