His Name Was Dragged Through The Mud

[ECW]

I sat and listened to this delusional whining from Chimpy before he hopped on a plane to Bozoland and could barely believe my ears. The BS never ends with this doofus. Here's the full quote:

"After months of unfair treatment, that has created a harmful distraction at the Justice Department, Judge Gonzales decided to resign his position and I accept his decision," Bush said. "It's sad that we live in a time when a talented and honorable person like Alberto Gonzales is impeding from doing important work because his good name was dragged through the mud for political reasons."

Political reasons! Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Gonzo was full of political reasons when he shitcanned the nine USAs because they WERE NOT political enough for him. Gonzo had politics written all over him when he went to John Ashcroft's hospital room to try and get him to sign off on the secret spying program that Ashcroft wouldn't sign when he was coherent and not drugged up on medication. Gonzo made no secret of his politics when he lied to Congress about his political maneuvers. He was also politically motivated by appointing "yesmen" USAs who would file political cases right before elections to try and influence the outcome as well as ignoring wrongdoing by Republicans during that same time frame. Justice was not blind in the Gonzo DoJ. It was Republican. Better yet, it was neocon Republican, read: biased up the wazoo.

The assertion that Bush's buddy is a "talented and honorable guy" has been put to rest a long time ago but since Bush doesn't read the newspapers he may not know that. If his name got dragged thru the mud it was because there was so much dirt there to begin with and that whole crowd is all wet in their neocon ignorance if they think we are buying Gonzo's innocence on Bush's "just because."

Dragged thru the mud, indeed.

</rant>

[David Hume]

The only mud on Abu Gonzalez is that which he lathered on himself. . .

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,


ECW wrote:
"Political reasons! Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Gonzo was full of political reasons when he shitcanned the nine USAs because they WERE NOT political enough for him."


1. Same like when Clinton fired the 99 eh, am I right?
2. Hehehehehe,......what false charges the Neoliberals tend to invent and run with having their fingers in theri ears.
3. The Neoliberals have broke the law is you asked me.
4. Bringing false charges, if I were Mr. Gonzales I would sue the cr@p out of those who brought these false charges.
5. And bag millions.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[AnnEsthesia]

Gee and you do not see the difference in firing people when you arrive in office and firing them when they are busy investigating your cronies? Yea, I doubt you do, Chess.

[Truth_and_Power]

Gee and you do not see the difference in firing people when you arrive in office and firing them when they are busy investigating your cronies? Yea, I doubt you do, Chess.


I think when we tell him that for like the 100th time he will finally stop ignoring it. What do you think?

[AnnEsthesia]

I don't know Truth. I think he knows it but is just choosing not to believe it because his whole purpose in posting is to piss people off. Too bad. I hear he actually has decent debate skills.

BTW, Truth, just because I disagree with you on the drug issue, does not mean I dislike you. ;) Glad to see you are willing to talk in other threads. :)

[ECW]

But Clinton didn't disparage the 93 USAs the way that Gonzales did the Nine. Clinton let them go because he cleaned house as is his right with a new administration. The Nine were let go because they followed the rule of law not the Rule of Rove. Sorry you can't see the difference. It must be a neocon thing, eh, Chess?

[ViolaLee]

Gee and you do not see the difference in firing people when you arrive in office and firing them when they are busy investigating your cronies? Yea, I doubt you do, Chess.




Gee and you do not see the difference in firing people when you arrive in office and firing them when they are busy investigating your cronies? Yea, I doubt you do, Chess.


I think when we tell him that for like the 100th time he will finally stop ignoring it. What do you think?

Chessy would rather believe the Limbaugh/Hannity/O'Reilly/Rove/GOP lies and spin than the truth about ALL presidents replacing the attorneys when they come into office, including baby Bush. He'd rather compare Clinton's doing what all the other president's did to what Bush did, which has never been done before. It's a dishonest comparison, but that's just what Chessy likes.

[Labrocca]

I don't recall the nine fired lawyers name being dragged through the mud. Can you tell me where BEFORE the investigation the administration did this? Wasn't their firing very quiet until Dems got hold of this? As a matter of fact wasn't it the fired people that actually made the stink?

I believe Bush is correct in his statement.

[ViolaLee]

I don't recall the nine fired lawyers name being dragged through the mud. Can you tell me where BEFORE the investigation the administration did this? Wasn't their firing very quiet until Dems got hold of this? As a matter of fact wasn't it the fired people that actually made the stink?

I believe Bush is correct in his statement.


What???

Bush is talking about Gonzo, not the fired attorneys.

The Justice Dept fired them and when they attorneys balked at the firings because they knew they'd been either contacted by republican Senators trying to push them into indicting democrats or they'd been indicting and convicing republicans, the Justice Dept said they were fired for performance reasons.

That turned out to be untrue. There were no bad performance reasons to fire any of them.

Gonzo tried to smear them with lies.

[Labrocca]

ECW claims that Bush's statements was the "pot calling the kettle black".

This line is rather amusing.

The assertion that Bush's buddy is a "talented and honorable guy" has been put to rest a long time ago but since Bush doesn't read the newspapers he may not know that.

I guess Bush should be choosing his buddies based on the newspapers.

Gonzales is gone...what more does the extreme left need?

[ViolaLee]

We need justice.

[Marley]

March 23, 1993: At her first news conference as Attorney General, Janet Reno announces the firing of all U.S. Attorneys, the 93 top federal prosecutors in the nation, saying the administration wants to put in its own people.

[April15]

Gonzalase was not drug through the mud. He perjured himself. What is that? Surly not mud!

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. But Gonzales didn't break any law, when he fired these attorneys.
2. He could fire all of them and hire others.
3. Then fire them, without breaking any laws.
4. Show me where it states in a *Law*, he broke it?
5. This is nothing but grinding of a person into submission.
6. Its one good reason the Neoliberal in government have a 16% approval rating.
7. Americans see what you neoliberal approve of, and do, and they are sick of you people.
8. Wait and see in 2008.
9. You stole the last election, but don't think you can do it again in 2008.
10. We shall over come you again.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[Buck Laser]

Sorry bout that,
9. You stole the last election, but don't think you can do it again in 2008.
10. We shall over come you again.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

:lmao:
Dream on, little man! Dream on. Democrats simply aren't as adept at thievery as publicans.

[April15]

Sorry bout that,

1. But Gonzales didn't break any law, when he fired these attorneys.
2. He could fire all of them and hire others.
3. Then fire them, without breaking any laws.
4. Show me where it states in a *Law*, he broke it?
5. This is nothing but grinding of a person into submission.
6. Its one good reason the Neoliberal in government have a 16% approval rating.
7. Americans see what you neoliberal approve of, and do, and they are sick of you people.
8. Wait and see in 2008.
9. You stole the last election, but don't think you can do it again in 2008.
10. We shall over come you again.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

His perjury is what is his biggest problem. He tried to justify his actions with a lie. If he come clean and explained why he fired personel that had just weeks earlier got rave reviews for poor performance he might still be AG. But his boss would be on impeachment row!

[Achilles]

Sorry bout that, Chess

Its rather obvious to all America that Bush is the biggest "If you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" type of president (which is the EXACT opposite of Lincoln). He put people into office that helped his agenda not the agenda of the people. Realizing this helps viewers see that whenever Bush backs one of his fellow republicans, he's doing nothing than returning a favor.

And now the CWN rant:
*I*, the great *TWERPMASTER*, See the big picture.
hehehehe........and now for something completely different.

Regards,
SirMaxwellofCalifornia

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. Like I said before, Neoliberals are not held to any standard, much less a *Higher Standard* like Republicans are.
2. That's why *The Neoliberals* have lost all credibility.
3. Everyone with half a brain has to hate the hell out of all Democrat Neoliberals Politicians.
4. I can't change the facts folks, thats how it is.
5. I don't think the Neoliberals can redeem themselves either.
6. Its way to late, after seeing they put John F. Kerry forward last time.
7. Man thats just all out screwed up for the whole Democratic Party.
8. Ain't nothing *EVER* going to change that now.
9. Like I said years ago, they should of closed down their Party after John F. Kerry, and started a new one, calling it, *The Moving Forward Party*.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[Achilles]

Sorry bout that,

1. Like I said before, Neoliberals are not held to any standard, much less a *Higher Standard* like Republicans are.
All elected officials are held up to the same standards. These standards usually arn't kept on a fine line but it's obvious when someone is royally sucking.

2. That's why *The Neoliberals* have lost all credibility.

The elected Liberals in office? Yes. But it still doesn't mount up to the name Bush has made for himself

3. Everyone with half a brain has to hate the hell out of all Democrat Neoliberals Politicians.

Well, then I guess your the only one who thinks you have a whole brain.

4. I can't change the facts folks, thats how it is.

Yes you can, your doing it right now the only place you can.

5. I don't think the Neoliberals can redeem themselves either.

I don't think Bush can redeem himself, his reputation, or anything for that matter.

6. Its way to late, after seeing they put John F. Kerry forward last time.

WoW, Chess. Were you watching the last election? it was actually really close.

7. Man thats just all out screwed up for the whole Democratic Party.
8. Ain't nothing *EVER* going to change that now.
9. Like I said years ago, they should of closed down their Party after John F. Kerry, and started a new one, calling it, *The Moving Forward Party*.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas


this is just CWN rant.

[ViolaLee]

Chess, the Attorney General and the President cannot legally hire or fire attorneys according to their party affiliation. Monica Goodling admitted she did this. Gonzales denied it. The White House cannot influence US attorneys on party lines or have RNC meetings on the clock with them as Karl Rove did and Gonzales denied, according to documents obtained by congress. As the AG, Gonzales is supposed to look into any problems with attorneys, not just fire them because a Republican Senator says he should. This is how Iglesias was fired and then Gonzales said it was performance issues, which was a lie. These are some of the reasons Gonzales is in trouble.

All Presidents including Bush the second, replace the attorneys when they take office.

This is the first time a President fired 9 all at once, in the middle of the term.

Chess, learn the truth. Stop repeating the same old tired lie about how this is the same as Clinton replacing all the attorneys, like Carter, Reagan, Bush one, and Bush two all did when they took office. That's when the attorney's terms are finished, that's when they are always replaced by the new pres.

[ECW]

And that is exactly what Clinton did: removed the USAs at the beginning of his term. After 12 years of Reagan/Bush, many of those attorneys had became entrenched in those positions. Clinton did not claim that they were fired for "performance reasons" the way that Gonzales did (and is getting sued for it by many of the fired prosecutors). He merely asked them to turn in their resignations, which they did. You will be hard pressed to find any violation of the law in what Clinton did but you don't have to go far to see all of the possible (I say possible only because they have not been adjudicated yet) violations of the law that Gonzales is responsible for.

That's why he was being investigated by the Congress and why George Walker Bush is whining like a bitch about Gonzales' name being dragged thru the mud. Oversight = mud to this president.

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. Still no actual, *Law* was brought forth that was broken.
2. I need an actual *Law* stating you can't fire attorneys during the middle of a *Presidential Term*.
3. I have to disagree with your theories, they are flawed and biased.
4. The Neoliberals hounded a *Good Man* out of office.
5. That is another reason the *General Public*, can't stand the Neoliberals.
6. I see this as not changing, even when Gonzales gifted his resignation to them, they still won't shut the hell up over him.
7. The General Public, is watching, and they won't vote for them when that day comes, so keep it up, *Works For Me*.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[Marley]

"the Attorney General and the President cannot legally hire or fire attorneys according to their party affiliation."

ROTFLMAO

In March of 1993, Bill Clinton's newly sworn-in attorney general — Janet Reno — fired every single U.S. attorney in the country, all 93 of them, in the opening salvo of the Clinton Years. That administration never hesitated to reward loyal FOBs — Friends of Bill, whether the jobs were in the justice system or the White House travel office.


The clean sweep of U.S. attorneys in '93 may have been the most comprehensive, unmistakable, unprecedented, and politically motivated dismissal of federal prosecutors in American history. For surely they couldn't all have been incompetent. At the time, Bill Clinton tried to make it seem unexceptional: "All those people are routinely replaced," he claimed, "and I have not done anything differently."

[Deadshot]

Dude's gone, we won - you lost. Time to move on to the next fight.

[Marley]

Yep, Bush won, twice.

Time to move on.

Gonzo's gone, Bush won.

Time to move on, I agree.

Just please, quit lying like Viola's doing.

[AnnEsthesia]

How about the firing of an attorney while your pal was being investigated in order to end the investigation into your pal. You don't think that might have been a wee bit of an issue? Most of those fired were in the process of investigating Republicans, among others.

[NortheastCynic]

It is absolutely ridiculous to say that politics doesn't come into play in the firing and hiring of US Attorneys...Sorry, it's the nature of the beast. It is equally ridiculous to say that Alberto Gonzales has not lied or perjured himself. He has done this in two ways.

First, when accused of firing those 19 attorneys for political reasons he denied doing so before Congress. He needed only to say, "of course I fired them for political reasons, they are political appointees" and that would have been that. His super-human stupidity, however, got the best of him and he denied doing so.

Second, he claimed, again, under oath that he did not attempt to take advantage of John Ashcroft's condition while in a hospital by trying to have him sign off on a wiretapping program that everyone knew to be unconstitutional. Gonzales' testimony before the Judiciary Committee was contradicted by the Director of the FBI. He perjured himself, it is simply a fact.

So I don't understand the indignation from the left regarding political appointees being fired for political reasons, nor do I understand the right's willingness to defend someone who has clearly perjured himself.

-NC

[AnnEsthesia]

The 'left' is mad because this is just another case of this administration doing whatever it wants in an attempt to remove oversight and dodge responsibility of wrongdoings. If the Clinton administration had chosen to remove attorneys in the middle of his term, and all those attorneys were actively investigating democrats, I do not believe that republicans would sit back and say he was just exercising his ability to fire his employees.

[NortheastCynic]

I'm sure they would not. That, however, is irrelevant. Political appointees are subject to political litmus tests. Whether or not Republicans would be angry at Democrats for doing the same they are doing does not matter. What does matter is that Republicans would be equally baseless in their indignation regarding the political firings of political appointees as Democrats and others are now.


-NC

[AnnEsthesia]

Baseless? I don't think so. And I am glad to hear that the attorneys are suing the government over the smears of their reputation. How dare Gonzales lie and say they did not perform satisfactorily when they were doing their jobs well, hell, too well.. they were investigating politicians who were involved in criminal activities, regardless of what their party affiliation was and whether the president and his administration would approve. If they valued their positions or were doing what was desired, they would not have been investigating them.

Good for them for standing up and saying they did nothing wrong and they want the people who smeared them to be held accountable.

[NortheastCynic]

Baseless? I don't think so. And I am glad to hear that the attorneys are suing the government over the smears of their reputation. How dare Gonzales lie and say they did not perform satisfactorily when they were doing their jobs well, hell, too well.. they were investigating politicians who were involved in criminal activities, regardless of what their party affiliation was and whether the president and his administration would approve. If they valued their positions or were doing what was desired, they would not have been investigating them.Well now you've changed the criticism. Initially the anger was a result of the attorneys being fired for political reasons, which is a perfectly legal and common practice. Now you are criticizing the AG for lying about the reason for which he fired the attorneys. You won't get an argument from me here, Anne. The AG lied [under oath] regarding the reason for which he fired the US attorneys, that is perjury and a crime. My point stands that the simple act of firing those attorneys for political reasons was perfectly legal. Lying about that reason, as you have said and with which I agree, is not.

-NC

[AnnEsthesia]

No, I am still pissed at this latest ploy of the Bush administration to not have them and their party held accountable for their actions.

[ECW]

"the Attorney General and the President cannot legally hire or fire attorneys according to their party affiliation."

ROTFLMAO

In March of 1993, Bill Clinton's newly sworn-in attorney general — Janet Reno — fired every single U.S. attorney in the country, all 93 of them, in the opening salvo of the Clinton Years. That administration never hesitated to reward loyal FOBs — Friends of Bill, whether the jobs were in the justice system or the White House travel office.


The clean sweep of U.S. attorneys in '93 may have been the most comprehensive, unmistakable, unprecedented, and politically motivated dismissal of federal prosecutors in American history. For surely they couldn't all have been incompetent. At the time, Bill Clinton tried to make it seem unexceptional: "All those people are routinely replaced," he claimed, "and I have not done anything differently."


Quotes without a link to go with them are just made-up BS on this board. Show us where you got this "opinion" and I'll tell you how wrong you are for posting it as "fact."

[ClayBarham]

Let's face it, it is all in the numbers and who is doing it. Clinton dispatched all but one and Bush kept all but 9. Clinton used his option for the spoils system by giving his followers those jobs held by Bush and Reagan appointees to whom he could not count on in a pinch like White Water. Bush just let those go who prioritized the wrong cases according to Bush, not Clinton, and he is the one who is wrong. Why don't you just come out and say that, whatever liberals/democrats do is swell, and whatever conservatives/republicans do is mean and awful? Quit the blather and admit what you really mean. We are all adults and do not need the BS.

[AnnEsthesia]

Did you not notice that Clinton did what every resident of the White House does, he REMOVED the attorneys and replaced them when he came into office. Guess what? Bush did the same thing in 2001. I don't recall anyone making any comment then, do you?

[underdawg]

I think that Gonzales created his own problems by claiming not to remember much of anything when questioned by congress. It just shows that he can not be trusted to perform his duties as attorney genreral. When you claim to not remember that much it shows that either you have a serious memory problem which should make him unfit for duty, or either he is trying to cover his tracks by lying to congress. Either way, that is enough to make him lose all confidence that people had in him to serve as attorney general.

[ECW]

Because until the neocons took over the GOP there were Republican ideas that had merit and were worth discussing and did get discussed with reason and intelligence. Sadly, that's not the case now and if the neocons aren't using fear mongering to make their points they are lying about circumstances and situations and cherry picking facts to make the point.

Clinton was well within his rights to wholesale remove the USAs because it was the beginning of his term and all of the USAs were appointed by Reagan & Bush.

Bush had the Nine fired "for cause" because they did not politicize the office the way that Rove and Gonzales wanted them to.

Strange concept here but justice, true justice, is blind. It does not favor one party or the other. It applies the Rule of Law equally to everyone. As was pointed out in the cases of David Iglasius and others, that was not the case. Pressure was applied to them to pursue cases of a partisan nature in the last few weeks before the 2006 election something which, by tradition and long standing practice, was not done out of a sense of fairness. That sense of fairness did not exist in the Gonzales Dept of Justice and the Nine were held accountable for not making their offices more political. So they got fired.

Priortizing cases is one thing. Using the publicity generated and the timing of the filing for those cases to win elections is another thing entirely and something that neocons could give a shit less about because everything is fair to them when they hold the power. They only "find" a sense of justice when someone else holds the reigns of power.

[ViolaLee]

..... My point stands that the simple act of firing those attorneys for political reasons was perfectly legal. Lying about that reason, as you have said and with which I agree, is not.

-NC
It's not legal to fire them for political reasons and it's not legal to hire them according to their political affiliation. That's why Monica Goodling insisted on testifying under immunity. She knew she broke the civil service laws.

Goodling also testified on Wednesday that she may have gone "too far" and inadvertently "crossed the line" in asking political questions of applicants for nonpolitical jobs at the Department of Justice. Goodling testified that she acted in good faith but that she "may have taken inappropriate considerations into account" when reviewing applications for career positions.

Goodling has been under investigation by the department for grilling potential career employees for their political affiliations, which is a potential violation of federal law. She sought and was granted immunity from a federal court for Wednesday's testimony.

Goodling said that she even looked at the political donations of some potential hires.

Asked who gave her the authority to look at this, Goodling said, "Kyle Sampson," Gonzales' former chief of staff.

http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/Politics/Story?id=3204287&page=2

[ECW]

And don't think for a second that Sampson wasn't telling Gonzales everything he did. He knew full well that he was breaking the law which is why his memory failed him in front of Congress. He just wasn't man enough to come clean. You see, the mud that Alberto got dragged thru was mud of his own creation. His boy George had to spin that because telling the truth was too painful. George has the same step-up-to-the-plate problem about being a man that Gonzales does.

[Truth_and_Power]

NC how can you not see the difference between doing your switches all at once, en masse, at the beginning so that it is clear it is the usual switcherooo and firing selected attorneys in the middle of a term? Even gonzales knows the difference, THATS WHY HE LIED TO CONGRESS. Because he knew it was wrong, so he was trying to cover it up with 'performance reasons'. I feel like i'm banging on a brick wall here with a rubber hammer. I mean I expect it of emale and chess, but I would think you would see the difference.

[Marley]

There is no "difference."

No crime committed, no ethical lapse, nothing.

Where is it written these firing must happen according to some sort of time table?

You're just making crap up!!!

[Deadshot]

There is no "difference."

No crime committed, no ethical lapse, nothing.

Where is it written these firing must happen according to some sort of time table?

You're just making crap up!!!


Then why did AG resign? If he did nothing wrong, why quit? Republicans were even saying that they were losing confidence in the AG.

Believe what you will, but something smells rotten in Denmark.

[Marley]

You'll have to ask the AG.

Are you claiming George Stephenopolos "did something wrong" when he resigned from the Clinton administration? LOL For some reason, to you, every resignation is due to doing "something wrong?" What a joke!

My story turned out wrong, because my story was if Janet Reno could make across the finish line, ANY AG can.

But of course Janet Reno could oversee the murder of a 100 women ans children by government agents, public state that she would take responsibility, ultimately do NOTHING about it, and have the liberal media conveniently FORGET it.

So, see, that;s why American MUST elect Republicans!!!

Republicans are held to scrutiny by the 4th estate and Democrats aren't.

[AnnEsthesia]

Ah yes, when in doubt, bring up Waco. *rolls eyes* Talk about needing to scrounge to come up with some semblance of an argument. You can do better than that, emale.

Oh, and funny you are talking about Republicans being held accountable, all the while the president is making damned sure anything that could make him accountable is hidden from view.

[NortheastCynic]

Viola, specifically what law are you claiming that he broke regarding the firings?

TaP, I'm looking at this strictly from a legal perspective. If you can find the law that his actions break, I will be happy to change my mind, until then, there is no reason for me to.

-NC

[Marley]

Sorry Ann, I can't just roll my eyes at the murder of 100 women and children by government agents.

It sucks that you can be so cavalier about such a horrible event.

I'll grant you, those cowboy AFT agents starting that sh*t were probably card carrying Republicans, but those vicitms were sentenced to death without trial for daring to make the Clintons look bad on TV.

That event was very, very, very wrong on the most fundamental level of right and wrong.

Reno stated she would take responsibility for it, and did NOTHING.

If Reno could make across the finish line, GWB could nominate SATAN HIMSELF and do no worse.

[AnnEsthesia]

No, I am rolling my eyes at the fact that instead of arguing about Gonzales, you bring in Reno as a smoke screen. And I have seen reports that the fire started within the house, not from anything outside. So it is just as likely that they burned themselves to make a statement. It is not like cults never commit suicide rather than face authorities.

[Truth_and_Power]

Viola, specifically what law are you claiming that he broke regarding the firings?

TaP, I'm looking at this strictly from a legal perspective. If you can find the law that his actions break, I will be happy to change my mind, until then, there is no reason for me to.

-NC


So if it's legal, it's ok for a president to do it, across the board? Oh *cough* *cough* I mean Attorney General.

[Marley]

"you bring in Reno as a smoke screen."

No, I don't.

I brought up Reno for EXACTLY the reasons mentioned in my post.

YOUR cognitive dissonance is making up "smoke screens."

Rules are rules are rules, what ever the rules dictated in the past, dictate today.

The reason Roe v. Wade is "law" is this exact reason. Roe v. Wade isn't a "smoke screen" is it? It's CONSISTENT APPLICATION of the rules.

Again, if Reno could make it across the finish line, Gonzo could've.

Buit Reno had no shame I guess and Gonzo does. Whatever.

PLEASE spare me a bunch of sh*t about bullshit little details, Clinton's government played cowboy -- with citizens, a big distinction -- and rode rough shod over the law until ultimately 100 women and children were DEAD.

I gotta love the way you liberals want so much for a bunch of friggin terrorist in Cuba and don't give a f*ck about US citizens. It shows me the TRUTH about liberals.

[ViolaLee]

Viola, specifically what law are you claiming that he broke regarding the firings?

TaP, I'm looking at this strictly from a legal perspective. If you can find the law that his actions break, I will be happy to change my mind, until then, there is no reason for me to.

-NC


I've already told you. It's the civil service laws that say you cannot hire or fire a civil servant on the basis of party affiliation or party donations.


[quote=NortheastCynic]
..... My point stands that the simple act of firing those attorneys for political reasons was perfectly legal. Lying about that reason, as you have said and with which I agree, is not.

-NC
It's not legal to fire them for political reasons and it's not legal to hire them according to their political affiliation. That's why Monica Goodling insisted on testifying under immunity. She knew she broke the civil service laws.

Goodling also testified on Wednesday that she may have gone "too far" and inadvertently "crossed the line" in asking political questions of applicants for nonpolitical jobs at the Department of Justice. Goodling testified that she acted in good faith but that she "may have taken inappropriate considerations into account" when reviewing applications for career positions.

Goodling has been under investigation by the department for grilling potential career employees for their political affiliations, which is a potential violation of federal law. She sought and was granted immunity from a federal court for Wednesday's testimony.

Goodling said that she even looked at the political donations of some potential hires.

Asked who gave her the authority to look at this, Goodling said, "Kyle Sampson," Gonzales' former chief of staff.

I have a question for you NC. If Gonzales fired them for a legal reason, why did he lie and say it was for performance reasons?

[NortheastCynic]

Because saying "I fired them for political reasons" doesn't sound as good as "I didn't fire them for political reasons". It's a basic PR move. And as far as I know, the attorneys were not fired due to party affiliation, but failure to act as political tools. Now, that isn't right nor is it something I will defend...but it is legal. And TaP, I never called anything 'okay', only legal. And I'm right.

-NC

[AnnEsthesia]

Aw emale, you have no idea what I think about anything, but that does not seem to stop you from trying to label me based on your wrong and biased ideas about what liberals think. Yes emale, we could care less about you. We would walk across your dead body and kill you ala Waco if it would serve our purposes. Certainly we would.

Just because you have interpreted the information one way, does not make it so. Reno was NOT convicted of any crimes. She actually remembered what happened and she answered the questions put to her. Gonzales did not and for that and that alone, he was wrong.

If you say that she is responsible for the deaths (unfortunate certainly) of those inside the compound in Waco because she may or may not have had an error in judgment, then I guess Bush should be held accountable for the THOUSANDS of people killed due to his lack of judgment, eh?

I have yet to see one report that says she or anyone in her direct command definitely and intentionally set that compound on fire. (Oh, and I would also like proof that they did not set fire to themselves to be martyrs.) Thanks.

[April15]

Because saying "I fired them for political reasons" doesn't sound as good as "I didn't fire them for political reasons". It's a basic PR move. And as far as I know, the attorneys were not fired due to party affiliation, but failure to act as political tools. Now, that isn't right nor is it something I will defend...but it is legal. And TaP, I never called anything 'okay', only legal. And I'm right.

-NC
To use the justice department for political purpose is not legal! If the case could get to the SCOTUS it would effect that result. If I was a district Attouney and used my position to discredit opponents that is illegal.

[NortheastCynic]

April, once again, you are free to show me what specific law was broken.

The only one cited prohibits firing and hiring on the basis of party affiliation and/or donations. Gonzalez fired the attorneys for neither.

In the case of the firings he didn't break a law...Until he lied under oath about said firings.

-NC

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. More LibbyScooter Fabrications.
2. No laws were broken firing the lawyers.
3. Neoliberals saying, *Get some one on the witness stand and see if we can catch something that sounds like a lie*.
4. Gutter Politics.
5. American People are smart enough to see this cr@p.
6. And we won't forget it either next time we make a vote.
7. I say sooner or later the more I keep explaining the *Big Picture*.
8. People will have their eyes opened by *The Great CWN*.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[April15]

April, once again, you are free to show me what specific law was broken.

The only one cited prohibits firing and hiring on the basis of party affiliation and/or donations. Gonzalez fired the attorneys for neither.

In the case of the firings he didn't break a law...Until he lied under oath about said firings.

-NC
He lied because he fired for political affiliation, The lawyers (ag) did not stop investigating real crime for a which hunt. That is why they were fired. Not for performance review but not dropping a valid crime for a made up one.
Now I don't know about you but that is not legal.

[ECW]

There is no "difference."

No crime committed, no ethical lapse, nothing.

Where is it written these firing must happen according to some sort of time table?

You're just making crap up!!!


Well, I could say the same about you. You still haven't provided a link for this citation.

In March of 1993, Bill Clinton's newly sworn-in attorney general — Janet Reno — fired every single U.S. attorney in the country, all 93 of them, in the opening salvo of the Clinton Years. That administration never hesitated to reward loyal FOBs — Friends of Bill, whether the jobs were in the justice system or the White House travel office.

The clean sweep of U.S. attorneys in '93 may have been the most comprehensive, unmistakable, unprecedented, and politically motivated dismissal of federal prosecutors in American history. For surely they couldn't all have been incompetent. At the time, Bill Clinton tried to make it seem unexceptional: "All those people are routinely replaced," he claimed, "and I have not done anything differently."
[/quote]

You will notice that I made the charge first that you were making stuff up.

Quotes without a link to go with them are just made-up BS on this board. Show us where you got this "opinion" and I'll tell you how wrong you are for posting it as "fact."

Now you can ignore the realities of the politics all you want but you are whining about Clinton's removal of all of the USAs when your boy George DID EXACTLY THE SAME THING when he took office. Only neocon crybabies who had gotten used to running things with their own little USAs under thumb objected to Clinton bringing in his own USAs. Notice that no one pitched a bitch when George did it.

What they are bitching about is the removal of USAs in the midterm of a president and then lying about the reasons for those removals. The AG, contrary to popular belief, cannot hire or fire a USA. Only the president can do that but he does so on the advice (usually) of his AG. In this case, his AG abdicated his responsibilty and turned it over to one of his underlings (Monica Goodling) who then proceeded to break the law by asking illegal questions and apply illegal standards to the hiring of the new USAs (mentioned previously by ViolaLee). Then, the AG lied about why the Nine were replaced citing "performance reasons" when it was because the Nine in question were not political enough for Rove, Gonzales, and the President. They wanted USAs which would prosecute voter fraud cases as the highest priority so they could rail against the Democrats and give Republicans running for office some cover. The Nine decided to follow a more non-partisan line and were given the sack.

Bush was within his rights to terminate them but it was all the lying and covering up of the uber-partisan reasons behind the firings that got everyone in a lather. Poor little Mr Libby's lesson was not learned by the dumbasses in the WH or the DoJ and that is, "Do NOT lie to official investigators." THAT is the crime and that is what the main problem is right now.

That all may change when the independent investiation that is proceeding within the DoJ concludes and more stuff may come out about more wrongdoing in this whole scandal. The inquiry by the department’s inspector general and the Office of Professional Responsibility is wrapping up and then the fireworks may go off big time.

The point is that any mud in this whole affair was generated by Gonzales himself and if was dragged thru anything it was of his own accord and due to his own incompetence. After all, you cannot appoint a real estate lawyer to the nation's top Cop job and expect prosecutorial genius to shine thru where none existed before.

We won't even go into the Abu Gharab mess, the memo about torture and how provisions prohibiting it under international law were considered "quaint" by Gonzales, and the spying scandal that he had a hand in creating. There's more mud than you can shake a stick at with this clown.

[NortheastCynic]

April,
Were all 19 Attorneys Democrats? I honestly don't know, I'm asking. I would have a hard time believing that they were 19 Democrats, and frankly, there need be only 1 Republican for the process to be, by definition, a bi-partisan firing and therefore completely legal.

The lying, on the other hand, was not.

-NC

[ViolaLee]

NC you still don't get it. It's illegal to hire and fire civil employees for political reasons. Carol Lam was fired because she got Duke Cunningham convicted and was getting ready to indict more republicans. David Iglesias was fired because he refused to make public a sealed indictment against a Democrat before the election as pressured to do by two Republican Senators. Bud Cummins of Little Rock, Arkansas was fired to make room for Karl Rove's croney. Read about the pressure the AG's office put on him. http://www.pbs.org/now/news/311.html That's only three of them. You can google to find out about the others. It's illegal to fire them to punish them for indicting Republicans.

Gonzales knows that and that's why he lied and said they were fired for performance reasons. And that's why he keeps lying about how they got on the list to be fired and who made the list and if he was in meetings about the list. He's lied and lied about the whole process because he knows it's illegal to do what he did.

[Labrocca]

Chess, the Attorney General and the President cannot legally hire or fire attorneys according to their party affiliation.


Any chance you can back that claim up?

Goodling has been under investigation by the department for grilling potential career employees for their political affiliations, which is a potential violation of federal law.

Exactly what law? Sorry if I don't trust this obscure comment by ABC news. Show me the freaking law he broke.

Here is the truth behind the firings...they don't need a reason!!! They can hire and fire AT THE WILL OF THE PRESIDENT. No reason need be given. Remember these are 9 lawyers..I am sure if they were fired for unjust reasons why haven't they filed a suit? Tell me that answer. Instead a couple have a bitch and moan press conference to smear the POTUS and Gonzales. Dragged through the mud indeed.

And notice the quote..it talks about GOODLING and the grilling of employees political affiliation. FIRING is not part of the comment.

[NortheastCynic]

NC you still don't get it. It's illegal to hire and fire civil employees for political reasons.No, it's not that I 'don't get it'. I simply disagree. According to the law you've cited, it is illegal to fire civil employees based on 'political affiliation' and/or 'donations'. That is not what happened. I agree that the firing was unethical, but according to the very law you've cited, it is not techincally illegal. It SHOULD be illegal, but it isn't as of now. Gonzales lied because he knew [and was right] that telling the truth would bring about questions of ethics.

I am certainly no fan of Gonzales, and I'd love to add one more crime on his rapsheet, but again, according to the civil service law that you have cited, technically he did not break a law in this specific case.

-NC

[BoogyMan]

NC you still don't get it. It's illegal to hire and fire civil employees for political reasons.No, it's not that I 'don't get it'. I simply disagree. According to the law you've cited, it is illegal to fire civil employees based on 'political affiliation' and/or 'donations'. That is not what happened. I agree that the firing was unethical, but according to the very law you've cited, it is not techincally illegal. It SHOULD be illegal, but it isn't as of now. Gonzales lied because he knew [and was right] that telling the truth would bring about questions of ethics.

I am certainly no fan of Gonzales, and I'd love to add one more crime on his rapsheet, but again, according to the civil service law that you have cited, technically he did not break a law in this specific case.

-NC


Viola, if hiring or firing for political reasons was illegal, it would be illegal for a new president to expect the resignations of previous appointees upon entering his term in office.

[Marley]

Like the English as offical langauge thread WORDS MEAN THINGS.

SPECIFIC things.

What is a "civil employee."

My bet is it AIN'T these fired people. A "civil employee," I bet, is some schmuck who's, for instance, also a member of the government employees union.

I think the crooked liberals are blowing smoke up the stupid liberals and whipping them up in their ignorance and stupidity.

But, of course I have an open mind. IF I'm wrong here, I welcome explainations.

[ECW]

You were wrong to post a quote without a citation to back it up. Start with that one first. Then we can discuss the other stuff you said.

[ECW]

Chess, the Attorney General and the President cannot legally hire or fire attorneys according to their party affiliation.


Any chance you can back that claim up?

Goodling has been under investigation by the department for grilling potential career employees for their political affiliations, which is a potential violation of federal law.

Exactly what law? Sorry if I don't trust this obscure comment by ABC news. Show me the freaking law he broke.

Here is the truth behind the firings...they don't need a reason!!! They can hire and fire AT THE WILL OF THE PRESIDENT. No reason need be given. Remember these are 9 lawyers..I am sure if they were fired for unjust reasons why haven't they filed a suit? Tell me that answer. Instead a couple have a bitch and moan press conference to smear the POTUS and Gonzales. Dragged through the mud indeed.

And notice the quote..it talks about GOODLING and the grilling of employees political affiliation. FIRING is not part of the comment.


Here ya go. (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/23/washington/23cnd-monica.html?ex=1188705600&en=73b0d8218f2c6f06&ei=5070)