Gonzales countdown
 

color him gone by this time next week. if lying to Congress about the US Attorney purge doesn't do him in, this should:

it gets worse. these guys were using new big brother patriot act powers to destroy their american political competitors. they'll be lucky to escape jail.

- js.

We'll be unlucky if he ecsapes jail~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Clintons know all about sacking U.S. Attorneys. Willy with the wayward willy sacked all 93 of them at once. Yes, there were political undercurrents there.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editor...l?id=110009784

sorry, that's not the case here:
the Bush adminstration fired the US Attorneys who were either investigating Republicans or not investigating Democrats to thier satisfaction - and the AG went in front of Congress and lied about it. the post of US Attorney is certainly a political post and they do serve at the pleasure of the Prez - however, they do not pursue justice at the pleasure of the Prez and his minions.

always with the clinton thing...

yeah, that's way off drak. they all bring in new guys when they take office or are re-elected. this is not that. instead it's a very big deal. gonzales is gone, and it's going to be conservative republicans - not your clinton lovers - who factor in his removal. they know the difference. further, it's the abuse of the patriot act that may spell big trouble for gonzales, as it should.

- js.

how about Patrick Fitzgerald?

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/16936165.htm

what a crock:
right. this is the White House deal: aides can talk - not testify. no oath, nothing written down, no follow-up, and if they lie, they can't be subsequently subpoenaed. some fucking deal - let the subpoenas fly.

edit -: short answer from the White House: we reserve the right to lie.

what are they afraid of?

Congress should do some domestic spying on the white house.
If they aren't doing anything wrong....

Karl Rove!
Come on down!
You're the next contestant on perjure yourself for fun and jail time.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070321/...ed_prosecutors

the bush family will do whatever it takes to prevent this, up to and including putting it before a receptive supreme court comprised mostly of loyal members appointed by them. not because of any fired prosecutors but because pointed questions under oath can pierce a vein leading right to the heart of bush (and cheney's) white house malfeasence.

in other words, impeachment.

today begins the long awaited dismantling of the most dangerous administration this country has ever experienced.

six ugly years of corruption, ignorance and systemic abuse of presidential power on a scale never before seen nor hardly even imagined.

thank you america for electing the democrats and sending the only people in the united states who have the courage to stand up and shut him down.

- js.

In the meantime whilst waiting for the Supremes to make their decision, Mr. Rove can and should be sitting in the DC jail for contempt of Congress.

Let the frog marching begin...

He avoided perjury charges the last time he was under oath only because the bush admin had a mole in Patrick's office that gave Rove a heads up to the fact that Pat was preparing an indictment and Rove's memory suddenly was jogged and he talked Pat into allowing him to make an 11th hour amendment to his testimony.

Funny how a serious threat of going to jail can clear up the fuzzy memory syndrome.

This is a non-story and a non-scandal and will go away very soon, and to say this is not like what Clinton had done is complete bullshit. Clinton set the standard by requesting resignations within 10 days. Clinton also fired at least two US Attorneys who were working on corruption cases involving high profile Democrats, one of them being himself.


There is not even a hint of Clinton’s actions in what the Bush (43) Justice Department has done.


----The White House is attempting to protect a very important Constitutional principle, that of the Separation of Powers. By that doctrine, the President is not obliged to reveal the inner workings of the Executive Branch as it relates to the deliberative process within the White House or between the White House and the various government departments. But by releasing select e-mails and documentation as it has done, the White House undermines its own argument.----

It would have been better if President Bush had explained the principle of Separation of Powers, characterized the matter from the White House’s perspective, cited previous precedent, called this a non-scandal, chided the Democrats, and moved on. There should have been no offer of cooperation beyond testimony from the Attorney General. There should have been no release of internal White House documents and e-mails. If the White House thought that it was going to make the Democrats appear to be unreasonable in their requests for information, it has misjudged both the way in which the press will report on this story and the way that the general public will receive it.----


Edit -- > The other side is entitled to whatever it takes to win, because for them winning is the goal. Conservatives are limited because the goal is a better society.

bunk.

notice the Prez has yet to explain why the USA's were fired? because he can't - this is very much a real story and it is exactly what it appears to be: USA's were fired for either not going after Dems or going after Repbulicans. notice the e-mails released, from just last month, where officials are scrambling around to figure out how to explain the firings. at issue is the integrity of the Justice Department, and whether White House aides orchestrated a pre-emption of Justice Department business when investigations (or lack thereof) became politically inconvenient for them.

what's even more striking is that, in the midst of two unfinished wars and a host of other unresolved issues (Katrina, health care, climate change, immigration, homeland security etc etc), the Prez chooses to bring the country to a screeching halt over this. he could resolve it by simply having his aides testify truthfully under oath, as any witness should, as one would expect any honest person to do, as the public should be able to expect from an elected official's tax-payer funded staff. so why won't he? not because of some vague presumption of consitutional power - it's because the actions of his people won't be able to withstand public scrutiny.

Wow, the country came to a "screeching halt" eh? I never even noticed.

Take your meds knife. You're in for yet another letdown, though it seems you'd be used to it since it's happened time after time with official after official.

So Gonzales'll be gone by tomorrow huh?

(reconstructed somewhat by albed)




Oh yeah; Ramona's a pompous windbag. (we're even)

Few problems knife, one - Congress has no power to subpoena White House officials who work in the Executive Office of the President. That's due to the Constitution of the USA.


---Executive privilege may properly be asserted in response to a congressional subpoena seeking testimony by the Counsel to the President concerning the performance of official duties on the basis that the Counsel serves as an immediate adviser to the President and is therefore immune from compelled congressional testimony.

That is the conclusion of a Department of Justice brief on the subject prepared for President Clinton by Attorney General Janet Reno and dated September 16, 1999. Here's some more:

Advice to the President and other deliberative communications and materials fall within the scope of executive privilege. See generally United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 705-13 (1974); Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, 433 U.S. 425, 446-55 (1977). The Supreme Court has recognized
the necessity for protection of the public interest in candid, objective, and even blunt or harsh opinions in Presidential decisionmaking. A President and those who assist him must be free to explore alternatives in the process of shaping policies and making decisions and to do so in a way many would be unwilling to express except privately. These are the considerations justifying a presumptive privilege for Presidential communications. The privilege is fundamental to the operation of Government and inextricably rooted in the separation of powers under the Constitution.

United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. at 708. It is thus well established that not only does executive privilege apply to confidential communications to the President, but also to "communications between high Government officials and those who advise and assist them in the performance of their manifold duties."---


Read the whole thing from the link below. Also - You find me an honest polititain, I will show you a flying pig.

Honest I will.


http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/falnpotus.htm

:hystery:

It should be sinking into the administration by now that they'd be a whole lot better off if they'd learn to say "no comment" now and then.


Or just shut the fuck up.

Please so us how it's done.:KSY: