[Winstonm]

Quote

A little-noticed provision slipped into the Patriot Act in 2005 allows the President to appoint “interim” U.S. attorneys for an indefinite period of time, without Senate confirmation. On Jan. 18, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales assured the Senate Judiciary Committee that the administration never intended to take advantage of it:

GONZALES: 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.

Quote

But in mid-December, an e-mail by Gonzales’s chief of staff, D. Kyle Sampson (who resigned yesterday), showed that the Justice Department clearly intended to skirt the Senate altogether and use the Patriot Act provision to appoint U.S. attorneys that would serve until the end of Bush’s term:

There is some risk that we’ll lose the authority, but if we don’t ever exercise it then what’s the point of having it?

Quote

UPDATE: Also on Jan. 18, Gonzales stated, “I think I would never, ever make a change in a United States attorney for political reasons or if it would in any way jeopardize an ongoing serious investigation. I just would not do it.”

Quote

D. Kyle Sampson, chief of staff to Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales, came up with a checklist. He rated each of the prosecutors with criteria that appeared to value political allegiance as much as job performance.

He recommended retaining "strong U.S. attorneys who have … exhibited loyalty to the president and attorney general." He suggested "removing weak U.S. attorneys who have … chafed against administration initiatives."

What say ye? In or out?

[luke warm]

in or out of what? are we accusing the AG of lying, or are we accusing him of breaking the law?

[Winstonm]

luke warm, on Mar 25 2007, 02:21 PM, said:

in or out of what? are we accusing the AG of lying, or are we accusing him of breaking the law?

In or out of his position as AG - no one is accusing him of anything - but there seem to be discrepancies between his comments. Do these descrepancies cause him too much loss of trust to be effective?

[mike777]

If the AG goes expect the list of those doing the Perp walk up to Congress to grow and grow and nothing else in government to get done. Of course most of the forum posters predicted just this happening once the Dems got in so...no surprise so far.

[Winstonm]

mike777, on Mar 25 2007, 02:47 PM, said:

If the AG goes expect the list of those doing the Perp walk up to Congress to grow and grow and nothing else in government to get done. Of course most of the forum posters predicted just this happening once the Dems got in so...no surprise so far.

It might be argued that attempting to ensure the integrity of the Justice Department is worth setting other less pressing issues aside.

[mike777]

I hope you are not suggesting that integrity is not important at Commerce, The White House or Agriculture or the EPA departments.

[hrothgar]

>in or out of what? are we accusing the AG of lying, or are we accusing him of breaking
>the law?

Here's how I see things:

There are three basic accusations being levies against AG Gonzales

1. Gonzales is politicizing the office of the Attorney General to an unacceptable degree. Gonzales' hasn't been able to separate himself from his earlier position as personal counsel to George Bush.

2. Gonzales has been lying to congress and the press about his activities while in office. There is clear evidence that Gonzales was willing to destroy the professional records of subordinates in order to cover up what he was doing

3. Gonzales isn't particularly good at his his job

I say string the bastard up...

[jikl]

On a sort of related note, how many people will Bush pardon when he leaves office?

Sean

[Gerben42]

Quote

On a sort of related note, how many people will Bush pardon when he leaves office?

Probably all kinds of crooks... To an outsider it seems like an incredibly unfair bypass of the justice system.

[Winstonm]

I can't speak for other, but the Bush administration has to me a strong Nixonian flavor to it with its emphasis on loyalty. For me, I am more comfortable with those whose allegiance lies with their oath of office, their duties, and upholding constitutional principles, not with loyalty to individuals.

I think the crux of this matter will turn out to be the wiretapping issue and not the firings of the U.S. attorneys.

[Winstonm]

mike777, on Mar 25 2007, 03:06 PM, said:

I hope you are not suggesting that integrity is not important at Commerce, The White House or Agriculture or the EPA departments. 

What I am inferring is that the departments under the umbrella of the executive branch are a reflection of the leaders - integrity does not form from the bottom up but from the top down.

[mike777]

Let the perp walk start, so many and yet time is running out. As predicted we can shut down the government and just bring up hundreds of guys and gals starting with the AG, Rove or Bush.

[Winstonm]

Quote

we can shut down the government

This may be the best idea you've ever had, Mike.

[Winstonm]

Quote

There are three basic accusations being levies against AG Gonzales

1. Gonzales is politicizing the office of the Attorney General to an unacceptable degree. Gonzales' hasn't been able to separate himself from his earlier position as personal counsel to George Bush.

2. Gonzales has been lying to congress and the press about his activities while in office. There is clear evidence that Gonzales was willing to destroy the professional records of subordinates in order to cover up what he was doing

3. Gonzales isn't particularly good at his his job

I believe there is a fourth concern, and that is AG Gonzales places loyalty to an agenda in higher regard than the laws of the land.

[mike777]

Winstonm, on Mar 25 2007, 06:46 PM, said:

Quote

There are three basic accusations being levies against AG Gonzales

1. Gonzales is politicizing the office of the Attorney General to an unacceptable degree. Gonzales' hasn't been able to separate himself from his earlier position as personal counsel to George Bush.

2. Gonzales has been lying to congress and the press about his activities while in office. There is clear evidence that Gonzales was willing to destroy the professional records of subordinates in order to cover up what he was doing

3. Gonzales isn't particularly good at his his job

I believe there is a fourth concern, and that is AG Gonzales places loyalty to an agenda in higher regard than the laws of the land.

Winston do you really really believe this?

[Winstonm]

Quote

Winston do you really really believe this?

Let me refresh your memory, Mike: John Mitchell, Bob Haldeman, John Erlichman, Spiro Agnew....do you really think people in powerful positions do not break the law to protect the "boss" or support his agenda or just out of some kind of inspired blind loyalty?

Here is the "bigger story within the story" -

"

Quote

President Bush personally blocked a Justice Department office from investigating the role of department lawyers in creating and overseeing the NSA's warrantless eavesdropping program, according to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. "

"The memos from OPR chief H. Marshall Jarrett to Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty, in February, March and April of this year show that while Gonzales publicly told the Senate that OPR was investigating, Jarrett was complaining to higher-ups that he was "unable to move forward" because of the lack of security clearances for himself and six staff members"

Do I believe that persons in positions of power can lie, steal, cheat, and break the law for the own personal agenda? Well, simply because I live in Sand Springs doesn't mean I just fell of the turnip truck.

[mike777]

So Gonzales is guilty because others were?

In any event I get the impression from posts like this that so many really believe the USA is lead by:

war crimes
torture
murder
stealing oil from others at the point of a gun
ignoring the law for loyalty, personal gain. other
denying human rights
invasion of privacy

and then we relect the government, knowing all of this.

[jikl]

Quote

and then we relect the government, knowing all of this. 

I think this is due to lack of choices. Which conservative government will I vote in to office? Oh? Voting isn't compulsory? I think I will play bridge instead.

Sean

[Winstonm]

So Gonzales is guilty because others were? I have never said this. I have simply stated that there is precedent for powerful persons to violate the law. My question has been whether you think his credibility has been diminished to the point where he should be replaced - not if he is guilty of crimes or even lying.
In any event I get the impression from posts like this that so many really believe the USA is lead by:

war crimes
Isn't an unprovoked invasion considered a war crime?
torture
Not only did we legalize this but the AG approved it - again, a war crime.
murder
"See the move, The Godfather. President's and Senators don't have people killed. Who's being naive, now?"
stealing oil from others at the point of a gun
Ensuring price rise by disrupting output.
ignoring the law for loyalty, personal gain.
See Mitchell, Haldeman, etc.
denying human rights
See Military Commissions Act, Guantenemo Bay, etc
invasion of privacy
See National security letters and the F.B.I., NSA wiretapping, etc.

and then we relect the government, knowing all of this
We re-elected this government because of the successful fear-mongering propaganda of the "war on terror" - it was somehow thought to be wrong to change presidents while the "threat" was still viable. "The "War on Terror" was one of the great re-election slogans of all time.** And we were duped by it.

**See The War on Terror at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7032301613.html (25 March 2007)

[pclayton]

I'm so over all these shenanigans.

Less than 2 years to go.