Gonzales aide to invoke Fifth Amendment

[Charade]

First, they're all politically motivated. Clinton made the most of his opportunity as did George Bush in 2001.

Second, here's the difference: While Clinton, and every other president before him, had to get Congressional approval to replace those attorneys, George Bush had no such restriction after the passage of the Patriot Act. He could hire, and fire, at will. No questions asked and no oversight needed.

So why did a Democratic Congress "approve" Clinton's firing of all 93? If Clinton can get away with firing 93 US Attorneys for political reasons, Bush can surely fire 8 without anyone batting an eye. Was there any outrage when Clinton did that? My guess is no.

 

[Anewman]

So why did a Democratic Congress "approve" Clinton's firing of all 93? If Clinton can get away with firing 93 US Attorneys for political reasons, Bush can surely fire 8 without anyone batting an eye. Was there any outrage when Clinton did that? My guess is no.

Do you not understand that Bush had already replaced most of the judges when he took office, just as you pointed out that Clinton did. These 8 now fired judges were appointed by Bush when he cleaned house at the beginning of his first term.

When a president is elected he is expected to appoint his own staff/cabinet/judges/etc... Those are not "political reasons", firing a member to cover up corruption by the republican party is.

 

[Zippa D Doodah]

Help needed!!!!

I consider myself to be fairly analytical, and to be in possession of a reasonable IQ. Yet I am having a hard time understanding this story. Why is the firing of these attornies -and the subsequent actions of DoJ officials -a story? I am sort of embarrassed to say that I can't understand this issue, but that's pretty much how it is. Anyone want to educate me?

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

Do you not understand that Bush had already replaced most of the judges when he took office, as you pointed out that Clinton did.

When a president is elected he is expected to appoint his own staff/cabinet/judges/etc... Those are not "political reasons", firing a member to cover up corruption by party is.

...and he used a brand new provision in the 2006 Patriot Act, which no former President had, that gives the President the right to appoint a new US Attorney without Congressional approval in emergency situations such as cases where the attorney is killed in a terror attack. If any former President wanted to replace a US attorney had to go through Congress. The whole thing is extremely sleazy if you ask me! He raps himself in the flag and twists these loopholes, while our soldiers are dying in Iraq and 3000 New Yorkers perished in the WTC, and he uses them to cover his ***! It sickens me!

 

[eclectics]

I find it ironic that by taking the 5th to protect her boss, she is most likely putting the final nail in his coffin...... And another one bites the dust. I wonder what next month's scandal will be?

 

[salmoneous]

. Yet I am having a hard time understanding this story. Why is the firing of these attornies -and the subsequent actions of DoJ officials -a story?

Let's see...

Bush fired 8 of his own appointed US attorneys. That is very unusual. The "Clinton fired 93 attorneys is different matter - he replaced the previous guys attorneys - as did Reagan, Bush 1 and Bush 2. Standard practice for a new President. What Bush did was unusual.

By itself, no big deal. What is a big deal is that it looked like some of the fired folks were fired for investigating Republicans too closely, or not bringing charges against Democrats. If those were the reasons (BIG IF) that would have been very bad. So people started asking questions...

When asked why the attorney were fired, the Attorney General of the United States and other representatives of the Justice Department Lied. That's really, really bad. I think everybody should understand that.

Congress still wants the Justice Department to answer why these 8 attorneys were fired, as well as why they were lied to earlier. Bush refuses to let them testify, unless it isn't under oath and not written down.

 

[Zippa D Doodah]

Thanks for the details. How do we know the AG is lying? And doesn't the AG have the perogative to fire anyone in his department?

 

[LuvDuke]

So why did a Democratic Congress "approve" Clinton's firing of all 93?
If Clinton can get away with firing 93 US Attorneys for political reasons, Bush can surely fire 8 without anyone batting an eye. Was there any outrage when Clinton did that? My guess is no.

You just don't get it do you. It is common practice for each president to fire the previous president's US attorneys. No one is debating that point. But, your president decided to take it one step further.

Bush fired the attorneys HE appointed and he replaced them when there was no Congressional oversight required. Unlike, that is, Bill Clinton and Daddy Bush and Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford and Richard Nixon and Lyndon Johnson and so on and so on, who were required to get Congressional approval.

Frankly, why the hell should there be outrage over a traditional practice of firing the previous president's attorneys? There was no outrage in 2001 when Bush fired Clinton's attorneys because that's the way things work.

If George Bush hadn't fired the attorneys he appointed and replaced without the Congressional oversight requirement needed to replace them, we wouldn't be having this discussion. And adding insult to injury, this administration can't even their story straight as to why.

Bush is hiding something and there's a long Bush tradition of smoke = fire when it comes to the inner workings of this WH.

 

[LuvDuke]

Thanks for the details. How do we know the AG is lying? And doesn't the AG have the perogative to fire anyone in his department?

We don't know if the AG is lying, but given the last mass memo release over the weekend, we do know he wasn't telling the whole truth. Something doesn't add up which is why Congress is exercising it's oversight responsibilities.

Congress has the perogative to investigate what goes in in the AG's office. Unfortunately, the Republican Congress thought their job was to look the other way and rubberstamp whatever came out of the WH.

 

[Zippa D Doodah]

So where do we think this all leads? AG fires some lawyers for shaky reasoning (combination of incompetence and disloyalty perhaps --- I have fired people for such, but then again I'm not the Attorney General ). AG steps down and new person is appointed. What is accomplished? Who "wins"? Do you (average American) feel sleep better at night and/or feel that the DoJ is more just?

 

[Anewman]

Thanks for the details. How do we know the AG is lying? And doesn't the AG have the perogative to fire anyone in his department?

Sure it is his prerogative, but if you deny any knowledge and involvement(as did Gonzales) only for it to be shown that you were in fact present at the meeting where the firings were discussed...

 

[LuvDuke]

Let's see...

Bush fired 8 of his own appointed US attorneys. That is very unusual. The "Clinton fired 93 attorneys is different matter - he replaced the previous guys attorneys - as did Reagan, Bush 1 and Bush 2. Standard practice for a new President. What Bush did was unusual.

By itself, no big deal. What is a big deal is that it looked like some of the fired folks were fired for investigating Republicans too closely, or not bringing charges against Democrats. If those were the reasons (BIG IF) that would have been very bad. So people started asking questions...

When asked why the attorney were fired, the Attorney General of the United States and other representatives of the Justice Department Lied. That's really, really bad. I think everybody should understand that.

Congress still wants the Justice Department to answer why these 8 attorneys were fired, as well as why they were lied to earlier. Bush refuses to let them testify, unless it isn't under oath and not written down.

Let's distinquish between WH staff (Rove, Meiers, etc) and Gonzales (the AG). Gonzales is NOT part of Bush's protection racket. He can be subpeoned and required to testify, although he can take the Fifth.

And he can do so right in front of the Congressional judiciary committees, the tv cameras, the newspaper reports, the American public, God, and everybody else. Unlike the Republican Arlen Spector-run Judiciary committee, Gonzales will be required to testify under oath.

Once again, thank you to the American voter for November 7, 2006. There's a new sheriff in town.

 

[4greatboys]

I dont believe for a minute her excuses.

I dont believe the excuses either. I guess some people think others will believe anything. When really they are just making a fool of themselves.

 

[LuvDuke]

So where do we think this all leads? AG fires some lawyers for shaky reasoning (combination of incompetence and disloyalty perhaps --- I have fired people for such, but then again I'm not the Attorney General ). AG steps down and new person is appointed. What is accomplished? Who "wins"? Do you (average American) feel sleep better at night and/or feel that the DoJ is more just?

Maybe the AG fired the attorneys because they were getting a little to close to a Bush crony (Goss) in CA?

Maybe the AG fired the attorneys because they were being a bit too vehement in investigating voter fraud in AR?

Maybe the AG fired the attorneys because a Republican senator asked him to because the attorney was getting a little too close for comfort in AZ?

Or maybe this is just another case of the legendary Bush administration incompetence where they can't find their *** with both hands and a mirror and they managed to screw up a simple "You're fired"?

That's why we have investigations.

Btw, I think the average American sleeps much better at night knowing someone's minding the store in Congress and performing their oversight responsibilities. That's what the average American voted for.

Now when a Democratic Congress starts investigating Bush's Christmas card list, the way the Republican Congress investigated Clinton's, is when I think they've gone too far.

 

[salmoneous]

So where do we think this all leads? AG fires some lawyers for shaky reasoning (combination of incompetence and disloyalty perhaps --- I have fired people for such, but then again I'm not the Attorney General ). AG steps down and new person is appointed. What is accomplished? Who "wins"? Do you (average American) feel sleep better at night and/or feel that the DoJ is more just?

Let's go through this piece by piece.

First, there is no "incompetence" in the equation. That's where the AG really messed up - suggesting that the attorneys were fired for performance reasons. The attorneys got upset (as you might image) and the AG has had to apologize for that smear.

Second, had the attorney's been fired for not loving Bush enough, and the AG had just said that, there would be no problem. However, they can't be fired for "any reason". If they were fired because they were prosecuting guilty Republicans, and the AG wanted to protect Republicans, that would be a problem.

If Gonzales steps down, what would be accomplished? Well, for starters, we would have an AG that doesn't feel it OK to lie under oath to Congress. Personally, I think that's a very good thing. Second, we would send a message to all future high office holders they can't just make <stuff> up and lie to people. Again, a good thing.

How do we know that AG lied? Well, here a just a couple choice quotes…

And so let me publicly sort of preempt perhaps a question you’re going to ask me, and that is: I am fully committed, as the administration’s fully committed, to ensure that, with respect to every United States attorney position in this country, we will have a presidentially appointed, Senate-confirmed United States attorney.

(we know have emails from the Justice Department directly contradicting this as they plot to avoid Senate Confirmation).

OR

I would never, ever make a change in a United States Attorney position for political reasons, or if it would in any way jeopardize an ongoing serious investigation,” Attorney General Alberto Gonzales told the Senate Judiciary Committee on January 18th. “I just would not do it.”

(keep this quote in mind as people claim there's no problem firing people for not being "loyal Bushies". It might not be illegal, but lying about it sure is.

 

[Anewman]

AG steps down and new person is appointed. What is accomplished? Who "wins"? Do you (average American) feel sleep better at night and/or feel that the DoJ is more just?

If misconduct is proven, I think the country wins.
I dont see how having a corrupt US Attorney General stay in office can be considered good for the US.

Only issue now is, will Bush cooperate with the investigation or will he keep playing the ignorance card?

 

[eclectics]

So where do we think this all leads? AG fires some lawyers for shaky reasoning (combination of incompetence and disloyalty perhaps --- I have fired people for such, but then again I'm not the Attorney General ). AG steps down and new person is appointed. What is accomplished? Who "wins"? Do you (average American) feel sleep better at night and/or feel that the DoJ is more just?

So we should just let misconduct fall by the wayside because it won't accomplish anything? Hey, anyone who said that during the Clinton scandal was set upon and devoured. Why should it be different because it's a Bush scandal?

 

[mommaU4]

Why can't people just be honest?

Good question.
Actually, great question.

I don't believe the excuses either. I guess some people think others will believe anything. When really they are just making a fool of themselves.

I couldn't have said it any better myself.

 

[User Name]

Which shows how little you understand the topic. Not only did Clinton fire all 93...but they were ALL politically motivated. Just as they were when Shrub did it when he took office, when Bush1 did it, and when Reagan did it before him.

But those wholesale changes at the beginning of presidential terms have nothing in common with these firings. These people were fired because they had the unmitigated gall to prosecute Republicans, and for no other reason. To Rove and the other scum, loyalty to the party is more important than justice, and this just further proves that.

You're close. They had the unmitigated gall to presecute Republicans for no reason.

But, seriously... these attorneys serve AT THE PLEASURE OF THE PRESIDENT. They can be fired at any time for any reason. And, they were. So, what's the problem. It was OK for Clinton to do it at the beginning of the term, just as it is if he wanted to on day 547 of his term. Same for Bush. Or any president.

And, I'm surprised that people are bashing someone for exercising their right to invoke the 5th ammendment.

Funny, the libs are always clammering about their freedom of speech. But, they want to deny someone their right to not speak. More hypocracy.

 

[salmoneous]

They can be fired at any time for any reason. And, they were. So, what's the problem.

Two problems...

1) You can't fire someone at any time for any reason.

2) You can't lie about it, especially in testimony to Congress.

Is that really so hard to understand?