P2P-Zone  

Go Back   P2P-Zone > Political Asylum
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Political Asylum Publicly Debate Politics, War, Media.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 15-03-07, 05:16 PM   #1
theknife
my name is Ranking Fullstop
 
theknife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Promontorium Tremendum
Posts: 4,391
Default 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:

Quote:
Shortly before Attorney General Alberto Gonzales advised President Bush last year on whether to shut down a Justice Department inquiry regarding the administration's warrantless domestic eavesdropping program, Gonzales learned that his own conduct would likely be a focus of the investigation, according to government records and interviews.

Bush personally intervened to sideline the Justice Department probe in April 2006 by taking the unusual step of denying investigators the security clearances necessary for their work.

It is unclear whether the president knew at the time of his decision that the Justice inquiry -- to be conducted by the department's internal ethics watchdog, the Office of Professional Responsibility -- would almost certainly examine the conduct of his attorney general.

Had it not been quashed, a Justice Department inquiry into the domestic eavesdropping program would likely have examined the actions of Alberto Gonzales.

Sources familiar with the halted inquiry said that if the probe had been allowed to continue, it would have examined Gonzales's role in authorizing the eavesdropping program while he was White House counsel, as well as his subsequent oversight of the program as attorney general.

Both the White House and Gonzales declined comment on two issues -- whether Gonzales informed Bush that his own conduct was about to be scrutinized, and whether he urged the president to close down the investigation, which had been requested by Democratic members of Congress.
theknife is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-03-07, 05:53 PM   #2
JackSpratts
 
JackSpratts's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: New England
Posts: 10,013
Default

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.
JackSpratts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-03-07, 07:10 PM   #3
Nicobie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 5,522
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JackSpratts View Post
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~~~~~~~~~~~~
__________________
May your tote always stay tight and your edge eversharp :wink:
Nicobie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-03-07, 01:42 AM   #4
Drakonix
Just Draggin' Along
 
Drakonix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 1,210
Default

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
__________________
Copyright means the copy of the CD/DVD burned with no errors.

I will never spend a another dime on content that I can’t use the way I please. If I can’t copy it to my hard drive and play it using the devices I want, when and where I want, I won’t be buying it. Period. They can all take their DRM, broadcast flags, rootkits, and Compact Discs that aren’t really compact discs and shove them up their bottom-lines.
Drakonix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-03-07, 07:40 AM   #5
theknife
my name is Ranking Fullstop
 
theknife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Promontorium Tremendum
Posts: 4,391
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drakonix View Post
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:
Quote:
The White House and DoJ are now under fire because, in disrespecting the post of U.S. attorney, they appeared to interfere with the independence of that office in a way that’s unprecedented. In the previous quarter-century, according to the Congressional Research Service, no more than five and perhaps only two U.S. attorneys, out of 486 appointed by a president and confirmed by the Senate, have been similarly forced out—in the middle of a presidential term for reasons not related to misconduct. “It would be unprecedented for the Department of Justice or the president to ask for the resignations of United States attorneys during an administration, except in rare instances of misconduct or for other significant cause,” White said when she testified in February about the Bush firings before much was known about them. Previous midterm removals include those of a Reagan U.S. attorney fired and convicted for leaking confidential information and a Clinton appointee who resigned under pressure after he lost a major drug case and allegedly went to an adult club and bit a topless dancer on the arm.
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.
theknife is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-03-07, 10:09 AM   #6
JackSpratts
 
JackSpratts's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: New England
Posts: 10,013
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by theknife View Post
sorry, that's not the case here:

the Bush adminstration fired the US Attirney's 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.
JackSpratts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-03-07, 11:17 PM   #7
theknife
my name is Ranking Fullstop
 
theknife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Promontorium Tremendum
Posts: 4,391
Default

bedtime for gonzo
theknife is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-03-07, 08:13 PM   #8
theknife
my name is Ranking Fullstop
 
theknife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Promontorium Tremendum
Posts: 4,391
Default

Quote:
White House searching for Gonzales' replacement, source says
By Ron Hutcheson and Greg Gordon

WASHINGTON - The White House began floating the names of possible replacements for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales Monday as the Justice Department released more internal documents related to the firings of eight U.S. attorneys last year.
how about Patrick Fitzgerald?

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/16936165.htm
theknife is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-03-07, 04:37 PM   #9
theknife
my name is Ranking Fullstop
 
theknife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Promontorium Tremendum
Posts: 4,391
Default

what a crock:
Quote:
The White House offered to arrange interviews with Rove, Miers, deputy White House counsel William Kelley and J. Scott Jennings, a deputy to White House political director Sara Taylor, who works for Rove.

``Such interviews would be private and conducted without the need for an oath, transcript, subsequent testimony or the subsequent issuance of subpoenas,'' Fielding said in a letter to the chairman of the House and Senate judiciary committees.
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?
theknife is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-03-07, 08:37 PM   #10
RDixon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 3,742
Default

Congress should do some domestic spying on the white house.
If they aren't doing anything wrong....
RDixon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-03-07, 09:42 AM   #11
RDixon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 3,742
Default

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
RDixon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-03-07, 10:55 AM   #12
JackSpratts
 
JackSpratts's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: New England
Posts: 10,013
Default

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.
JackSpratts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-03-07, 11:10 AM   #13
RDixon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 3,742
Default

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.
RDixon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-03-07, 03:29 PM   #14
Sinner
--------------------
 
Sinner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,379
Default

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.

Quote:
Also at the time, allegations concerning some of the Clintons' Whitewater dealings were coming to a head. By dismissing all 93 U.S. Attorneys at once, the Clintons conveniently cleared the decks to appoint "Friend of Bill" Paula Casey as the U.S. Attorney for Little Rock. Ms. Casey never did bring any big Whitewater indictments, and she rejected information from another [friend of Bill], David Hale, on the business practices of the Arkansas elite including Mr. Clinton. When it comes to "politicizing" Justice, in short, the Bush White House is full of amateurs compared to the Clintons.

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.
__________________
The Enemy of My Enemy is My Friend
Sinner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-03-07, 07:14 PM   #15
theknife
my name is Ranking Fullstop
 
theknife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Promontorium Tremendum
Posts: 4,391
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sinner View Post
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.----
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.
theknife is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-03-07, 07:44 PM   #16
albed
flippin 'em off
 
albed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the real world
Posts: 3,231
Default

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)

Last edited by albed : 22-03-07 at 09:04 AM. Reason: theknife: my fuck-up. sorry,went to quote and edited you by mistake. my bad,feel free to re-insult me at will,i earned it.
albed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-03-07, 08:44 AM   #17
Sinner
--------------------
 
Sinner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,379
Default

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
__________________
The Enemy of My Enemy is My Friend
Sinner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-03-07, 09:16 AM   #18
Ramona_A_Stone
Formal Ball Proof
 
Ramona_A_Stone's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 2,948
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sinner View Post
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.
Ramona_A_Stone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-03-07, 09:17 AM   #19
albed
flippin 'em off
 
albed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the real world
Posts: 3,231
Default

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.
albed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-03-07, 06:13 AM   #20
malvachat
My eyes are now open.
 
malvachat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Oxford uk
Posts: 1,409
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by albed View Post
Or just shut the fuck up.
Please so us how it's done.
__________________
Beer is for life not just Christmas
malvachat is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Peer-To-Peer News - The Week In Review - March 17th, '07 JackSpratts Peer to Peer 1 14-03-07 11:04 AM
Peer-To-Peer News - The Week In Review - January 20th, '07 JackSpratts Peer to Peer 6 21-01-07 08:33 AM






All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:50 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© www.p2p-zone.com - Napsterites - 2000 - 2024 (Contact grm1@iinet.net.au for all admin enquiries)