Alberto Gonzales is a stand-up...comedian

[Zkribbler]

There are two possiblities here that scare the hell out of me.

First, although previous administration had made changes to put their people in place to carry out their policies, these firings might well have been made in an effort to turn the U.S. Attorneys into the political hatchetmen of the current administration. That is, the administration doesn't want the U.S. Attorneyes to target certain crimes as much as it wants them to target members of the opposition party.

Second, someone within the Justice Department engineered false testimony to give to Congress. A "talking head" opined that the people who were sent up to testify didn't know the real facts but simply repeated what they'd been told by their superiors, e.g. Samson (now, resigned).

Gonzales clearly knew what was going on, as did Bush and Rove. --What's not known is whether Gonzales, Bush and Rove knew what the AG's people were saying to Congress and/or whether Gonzales, Bush and/or Rove were behind the false testimony.

This adminstration has previously shown a disturbing willingness to abuse power and to lie. So both of the above nightmare scenarios are distinct possibilities.

[snoopy369]

What I think is going, er, under the radar here, is that it sounds like Alberto Gonzalez is in a lot of ways the good guy here.

Note he's the one arguing NOT to purge the attorney generals. Yes, he seems to have committed perjury (although remember here, folks, he's a LAWYER FFS and they have fancy ways of talking to not lie but not tell the truth either). (Maybe he wasn't sworn in when he said the no-white-house thing?)

Attorney generals should not be a political position, period, and more than likely should not be terminated except for cause (and then with hearings and such). They should probably serve for life (like SC justices) and should be subject to recall only for gross misconduct. They still end up being political appointees, but no way around that, and once they're not under pressure any more to behave politically, they can relax and just do their $#% jobs like SC justices often do (often changing their presented views substantially post-appointment).

Anyway, I don't like how everyone's jumping on AG's throat about this. This is plain and simple Bush politics, and it looks like he resisted it every step of the way.

BTW, I was in Santa Fe when the Domenici part of the scandal broke (him and the republican representative 'pressuring' the US Attorney from NM, who was one of the 8 fired) and that US Attorney is full of something. The way he played around with his answers, and his tone of voice, made it clear he was just out to get someone since he was fired and had no interest in the actual truth.

He (David Iglesias, US Attn. - NM) was supposedly harrassed by Sen. Domenici and Rep. Heather Wilson (both R-NM) in october and november of 2006 to step up his investigations into Democrats who were being investigated for fraud and such. Then three months later he's fired. Sounds fishy, doesn't it?

Yes, it does. Because he didn't report the calls until after he was fired, contrary to a procedure he new well. He didn't consider the calls to be a big deal at the time - and even now admits that - but yet, now that he's fired, they're suddenly harrassing and pressuring.

Watch his interviews. He's totally full of it, and he knows it. What pressure could Heather #$%#$ Wilson (a second term rep at the time) put on him ffs? They both expressed what is quite possibly genuine concern that he wasn't moving quickly on relevant investigations (as attorneys often prefer to take their time to make sure everything's 110% accurate before moving forward).

I have no doubt that some of this was Bush administration $#^#$, but I think this has gone way overboard Besides, they've done far worse, haven't they? Given they have the power to do this anyway?

[Bosh]

What pressure could Heather #$%#$ Wilson (a second term rep at the time) put on him ffs?

***** about him to the administration. Seems to have worked too.

[snoopy369]

Heather #$^% Wilson? Who has zero say in the republican party at this point? Who is lucky she still has her seat... she held it by 0.4% of the vote or some such. She's not on any important committees as far as I know.

This is the woman who $#%# cried after seeing Janet Jackson's nipple ffs. She votes party line 90% of the time. She has nothing to offer in terms of pressure, and undoubtedly called him at the request of someone higher than her (the investigation was into a democratic state senator, not into her opponent or anything involving her race).

Anyway, you ignore the meat of the argument, that he didn't complain about it at the time, as he should have ...

[Stuie]

Well, now that Bush gave one of his "Heck of a job" speeches, I'd say the AG's days are numbered.

Heck of a job, Brownie.
Heck of a job, Rummie.
Heck of a job, Gonzo.

[Blaupanzer]

Snoop, how do we know he didn't complain? Isn't that done through channels, Republican channels? It's not done in the newspapers normally.

[Ramo]

Heather #$^% Wilson? Who has zero say in the republican party at this point? Who is lucky she still has her seat... she held it by 0.4% of the vote or some such. She's not on any important committees as far as I know.

Wilson was seen as a rising star in the GOP and heiress apparent for Domenici's seat until she almost lost to Madrid. Anyways:

White House officials are now conceding that complaints by top New Mexico Republicans about then-U.S. Attorney David Iglesias, including his refusal to pursue voter fraud charges in 2004 and his handling of corruption cases, played a part in his dismissal.

[...]

And documents show Iglesias’s name was not included on a list of federal prosecutors to be let go until after he received calls from Sen. Pete Domenici and Rep. Heather Wilson, both Republicans, last October to inquire about a public corruption investigation.

http://www.abqtrib.com/news/2007/mar/14/bush-gonzales-talked-gripes-iglesias/

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Drixnak
Does anyone remember when Clinton had ALL the US attorneys fired? Anyone? Ok, go back to Apolyton land.

I love this line! Clinton comes into office and replaces all of them just like Reagan and Bush Sr did at the beginning of their terms. That's fine and normal.

The problem here is that we are now 6 years into Bush's reign and the White House is selectively firing people for 1) investingating a Republican Congressman for corruption which leads to the Congressman's arrest & conviction 2) Another one got fired for not launching a frivolious case against a Democratic Congressman in the run up to the last election; new guy still doesn't do anything because nothing ever happened which broke the law, 3) A Republican Congressman attempts to intimidate a U.S. Attorneys into breaking legal ethics rules and when he refuses to break the rules he is fired, etc...

U.S. Attorneys are supposed to be independent and simply follow the fact where ever they lead. It is clear the White House and several Republican Congressmen didn't want that to happen. They wanted to trump up cases against Democrats and ignore obvious legal violations done by Republicans like Duke Cunningham. That's why this case has legs but the beginning of term replacements done by Clinton, Bush Sr, and Reagan don't.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
Did Clinton lie about whether he terminated them or why they were being terminated?

Then, of course, we have the lying to Congress side of things. Unfortunately Gonzo wasn't under oath at the time but fortunately the head of the committee has said that Gonzo will be under oath for all hearings from here on out and if he refuses then he will be subpoenaed.

[Jon Miller]

I don't really see how people can vote for republicans currently. The (current) republican party is just a step above as far as corruption goes.

Jon Miller

[Dinner]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
They commit more crimes?

Unlikely. More likely is it's partisan political witch hunting at its worst.

[DinoDoc]

Says you.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Gotta figure with only seven times as many investigations that means the Dems are getting off lightly.

[Dinner]

Says you.

If anything it proves my point. The Democrats, until last January, didn't control anything in the government. If you're bribing someone then you bribe the person who can make the changes you want. Thus, if anything, Republicans were in the positions of power and more likely to be involved in corruption.

I'll let you live in your little fantasy world though. It's cute to see people in denial.

[DinoDoc]

Maybe you missed the part where most of the investigations were of local and not national pols.