DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum 8 U.S. Attorneys fired by Atty.Gen. Gonzales...petty politics???

This story broke today about Gonzales dismissing these 8 US Atorneys. He claimed it was for efficiency reasons....others have a different opinion. This is becoming a big story as it looks like political smackdown.
Several US Senators have demanded federal investigations to see if the firings were politically motivated.


WHITE HOUSE CONSIDERED FIRING ALL U.S. ATTORNEYS

AP - The chief White House lawyer floated the idea of firing all 93 U.S. attorneys at the start of President Bush's second term, but the Justice Department objected and eventually recommended the eight dismissals that have generated a political firestorm two years later.

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said Monday that then-White House Counsel Harriet Miers raised with an aide to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales the prospect of asking all chief federal district prosecutors to resign in 2004 as a logical way to start a new term with a new slate of U.S. attorneys. . .

The U.S. attorneys, the chief federal law enforcement officials in their various districts, typically are appointed to four-year terms by the president on the recommendation of state political leaders, but serve the pleasure of the president and can be dismissed at any time - like the attorney general and other Cabinet officers.

Democrats in Congress have charged that the eight dismissals announced last December were politically motivated and some of those fired have said they felt pressured by powerful Republicans in their home states to rush investigations of potential voter fraud involving Democrats.THE END!!!!

2:02 PM 0 comments
LET ME GIVE IT TO YOU CLEARLY .... It is only about politics! These people are hired politically and serve the President at his will. To replace one with another is political payback and is done all the time.
If you think I am misinformed read the next article
http://www.prorev.com/indexa.htm

"RECOVERED HISTORY: ANOTHER US ATTORNEY PURGE

DAVID JOHNSTON, NY TIMES, MAR 24, 1993 - Attorney General Janet Reno today demanded the prompt resignation of all United States Attorneys, leading the Federal prosecutor in the District of Columbia to suggest that the order could be tied to his long-running investigation of Representative Dan Rostenkowski, a crucial ally of President Clinton.

Jay B. Stephens, the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, who is a Bush Administration holdover, said he had advised the Justice Department that he was within 30 days of making a "critical decision" in the Rostenkowski case when Ms. Reno directed him and other United States Attorneys to submit their resignations, effective in a matter of days.

While prosecutors are routinely replaced after a change in Administration, Ms. Reno's order accelerated what had been expected to be a leisurely changeover.

Mr. Stephens left the strong impression that Ms. Reno's actions might disrupt the investigation as he moved toward a decision on whether to seek charges against the Illinois Democrat, who is chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee. "This case has been conducted with integrity," Mr. Stephens said, "and I trust the decisions in this case will not be made based on political considerations."

Nonetheless, lawyers who have followed the investigation have said that Mr. Stephens has been concerned that the Democratic Administration might try to upset his investigation. . .

All 93 United States Attorneys knew they would be asked to step down, since all are Republican holdovers, and 16 have resigned so far. But the process generally takes much longer and had usually been carried out without the involvement of the Attorney General. . .

The comments of Ms. Reno and Mr. Stephens evoked the pitched battles of the past, when independent United States Attorneys resisted removal by new administrations." THE END!!!

Clinton's team fired 93 in one day...Bush's team fired 8 in 6 1/2 years.

Post deleted by Referee 3

Thanks for the read biz!

Yes, thanks.....it's always nice to read an "article" from an author named "litigatormom"

Gonzales acknowledges mistakes in firings

He brushes aside calls for resignation in case involving 8 attorneys

WASHINGTON - Attorney General Alberto Gonzales acknowledged that mistakes were made and accepted responsibility Tuesday for the way eight federal prosecutors were fired.

At a news conference Tuesday, Gonzales said he would find out what went wrong but said he would not resign. "I acknowledge that mistakes were made here. I accept that responsibility," Gonzales said amid growing calls for his own termination.

Democrats in Congress have charged that the eight dismissals announced last December were politically motivated and some of those fired have said they felt pressured by powerful Republicans in their home states to rush investigations of potential voter fraud involving Democrats.

Justice Department officials, led by Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty, told lawmakers under oath that the decision to fire eight U.S. attorneys in December was made solely by the Justice Department and said the decision was based on performance, not politics.

E-mails released Tuesday, however, revealed that the firings were considered and discussed for two years by Justice Department and White House officials.

‘I stand by that decision’
"Obviously I am concerned about the fact that information — incomplete information was communicated or may have been communicated to the Congress," Gonzales said. "I believe very strongly in our obligation to ensure that when we provide information to the Congress, it is accurate and it is complete. And I very dismayed that that may not have occurred here."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17592698/

Sounds almost like the Scooter Libby defense huh? Yes Shep,it is better coming from the horses mouth!


BTW- There's more to the article if anyone cares to read it.......

Wow, something wasn't handled properly so all the senators want an apology and somebodys resignation... there's a shocker.

Have you seen what congrress was told? Then the facts that came out later? Seen the emails from White House officials yet? It's not a simple matter of something being "handled poorly" and I think you know that.

"REVIEW & OUTLOOK

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009784

The Hubbell Standard
Hillary Clinton knows all about sacking U.S. Attorneys.

Wednesday, March 14, 2007 12:01 a.m.

Congressional Democrats are in full cry over the news this week that the Administration's decision to fire eight U.S. Attorneys originated from--gasp--the White House. Senator Hillary Clinton joined the fun yesterday, blaming President Bush for "the politicization of our prosecutorial system." Oh, my.
As it happens, Mrs. Clinton is just the Senator to walk point on this issue of dismissing U.S. attorneys because she has direct personal experience. In any Congressional probe of the matter, we'd suggest she call herself as the first witness--and bring along Webster Hubbell as her chief counsel.

As everyone once knew but has tried to forget, Mr. Hubbell was a former partner of Mrs. Clinton at the Rose Law Firm in Little Rock who later went to jail for mail fraud and tax evasion. He was also Bill and Hillary Clinton's choice as Associate Attorney General in the Justice Department when Janet Reno, his nominal superior, simultaneously fired all 93 U.S. Attorneys in March 1993. Ms. Reno--or Mr. Hubbell--gave them 10 days to move out of their offices.

At the time, President Clinton presented the move as something perfectly ordinary: "All those people are routinely replaced," he told reporters, "and I have not done anything differently." In fact, the dismissals were unprecedented: Previous Presidents, including Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter, had both retained holdovers from the previous Administration and only replaced them gradually as their tenures expired. This allowed continuity of leadership within the U.S. Attorney offices during the transition.

Equally extraordinary were the politics at play in the firings. At the time, Jay Stephens, then U.S. Attorney in Chicago, was investigating then Ways and Means Chairman Dan Rostenkowski, and was "within 30 days" of making a decision on an indictment. Mr. Rostenkowski, who was shepherding the Clinton's economic program through Congress, eventually went to jail on mail fraud charges and was later pardoned by Mr. Clinton.

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 FOB, 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.





And it may be this very amateurism that explains how the current Administration has managed to turn this routine issue of replacing Presidential appointees into a political fiasco. There was nothing wrong with replacing the eight Attorneys, all of whom serve at the President's pleasure. Prosecutors deserve supervision like any other executive branch appointees.
The supposed scandal this week is that Mr. Bush had been informed last fall that some U.S. Attorneys had been less than vigorous in pursuing voter-fraud cases and that the President had made the point to Attorney General Albert Gonzales. Voter fraud strikes at the heart of democratic institutions, and it was entirely appropriate for Mr. Bush--or any President--to insist that his appointees act energetically against it.

Take sacked U.S. Attorney John McKay from Washington state. In 2004, the Governor's race was decided in favor of Democrat Christine Gregoire by 129-votes on a third recount. As the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and other media outlets reported, some of the "voters" were deceased, others were registered in storage-rental facilities, and still others were convicted felons. More than 100 ballots were "discovered" in a Seattle warehouse. None of this constitutes proof that the election was stolen. But it should have been enough to prompt Mr. McKay, a Democrat, to investigate, something he declined to do, apparently on grounds that he had better things to do.

In New Mexico, another state in which recent elections have been decided by razor thin margins, U.S. Attorney David Iglesias did establish a voter fraud task force in 2004. But it lasted all of 10 weeks before closing its doors, despite evidence of irregularities by the likes of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or Acorn. As our John Fund reported at the time, Acorn's director Matt Henderson refused to answer questions in court about whether his group had illegally made copies of voter registration cards in the run-up to the 2004 election.





As for some of the other fired Attorneys, at least one of their dismissals seemed to owe to differences with the Administration about the death penalty, another to questions about the Attorney's managerial skills. Not surprisingly, the dismissed Attorneys are insisting their dismissals were unfair, and perhaps in some cases they were. It would not be the first time in history that a dismissed employee did not take kindly to his firing, nor would it be the first in which an employer sacked the wrong person.
No question, the Justice Department and White House have botched the handling of this issue from start to finish. But what we don't have here is any serious evidence that the Administration has acted improperly or to protect some of its friends. If Democrats want to understand what a real abuse of power looks like, they can always ask the junior Senator from New York."


Copyright © 2007 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

What is all the hubbub about????? Bush has political problems with 8 of his appointees. He fires them thru Gonzales. It is political and hurtful but this is politics.
In 1993 the new President fires all 93 US attorneys thru Janet Reno and Hubbell. It is claimed as being normal replacements, but it is actually unprecidented at the time. The Bush l team is wiped out and replaced by the Dem. presidents choices....IS THIS NOT POLITICAL????
It's not like these 8 Attorneys stuffed classified documents in their pants and socks or lied to grand juries or Congress but they fell out of favor with the Administration and they canned them. Only in DC can 8 be a larger story than 93!!!!

This is rather amusing Ralphie.

You do know that these guys are appointees,right? And you DO know that both Clinton AND Bush cleaned house when they were elected and appointed ALL new U.S. attorneys right?

Well,that's the 93 you're referring to. Just like when Bush first took office and cleaned house. He had mass firings and cleaned house too,just like Clinton did.

What "some of us" are talking about,is replacing one's LATER in your administration that you yourself appointed! Apples and oranges Ralphie. He simply fired his OWN appointees who do not "tow the party line". Replacing one's who "don't do your political bidding."

But see,you wish to cloud the issue with a non factor.


It's two seperate issues Ralphie. EVERY administration when first elected clean house and make appointments to these appointed offices. They all do. Clinton,Bush and every other president. What Clinton DIDN'T do is after 6 years in office,start firing those who didn't toe the party line.

If you bother to look into it at all rather than to just buy into this rettoric,you'll see what I'm saying.

It doesn't look like this guy was a "problem" Ralphie?


Fired U.S. attorney was going places

Observers had David C. Iglesias pegged as a rising GOP star.
By Nicholas Riccardi, Times Staff Writer

March 7, 2007

Fired U.S. attorneys testify before Congress

Until recently, David C. Iglesias was best known in New Mexico as one of the role models for the military lawyer Tom Cruise played in "A Few Good Men."

A trim, straight-backed former Navy lawyer, Iglesias rode that all-American reputation to high levels in Republican politics: He nearly became the state attorney general and was appointed U.S. attorney.

Now Iglesias has a new role: star witness. The Bush administration fired him in December and contended it was for poor job performance. On Tuesday, Iglesias, 49, told the Senate Judiciary Committee that two prominent Republican politicians had called him to ask whether indictments would be filed before the November election against Democratic politicians in an ongoing criminal investigation. In the weeks that followed, Iglesias and seven other federal prosecutors were forced to resign.

"I felt sick afterwards," Iglesias said of his response to the second call, which was made by Sen. Pete V. Domenici (R-N.M.).

To friends and observers in New Mexico, the only surprise is the speed at which the GOP establishment has turned on one of its rising stars.

"You'd be hard pressed to find a more ethical, straight-shooter type than David Iglesias," said Jerry Walz, an Albuquerque lawyer and longtime friend for whom Iglesias briefly worked. "Here you have this dramatic rise to a very prominent position. He has movie-star good looks in his own right. He has everything going for him, and this is why this is such a dramatic event."

Iglesias, an evangelical Christian, was born in Panama, where his father was a missionary. His family moved to New Mexico when he was 12. After graduating from the University of New Mexico's law school, Iglesias became a Navy judge advocate general.

In 1986, he was one of three JAGs who represented Marines accused of attempted murder for a hazing incident that their lawyers argued was encouraged by commanders at Guantanamo Bay. The successful defense helped the Marines avoid serious penalties, and the case inspired the hit Broadway play "A Few Good Men" and the later film. Iglesias was not consulted during the production of the play or movie.

He left the Navy but remains a captain in the reserves. He returned to New Mexico to start a family. Iglesias left a job in the Albuquerque city attorney's office to become a White House fellow in the Clinton administration. He then returned to New Mexico and ran for state attorney general in 1998, narrowly losing.

After George W. Bush was elected president in 2000, New Mexico Republicans, led by Domenici, lobbied for Iglesias' appointment as U.S. attorney. The expectation was that he would follow up his tenure with another run for public office.

"They felt they were grooming him for a political career," said Joe Monahan, a New Mexico political blogger.

Iglesias didn't make an initial splash. "He was very quiet," Monahan said. He earned the ire of the state GOP by refusing to prosecute anyone for voter fraud after the 2004 elections, despite some Republicans' contention that 15-year-olds voted. Iglesias said he could find no federal crimes.

The highlight of his term was the prosecution of state Treasurer Robert Vigil for extortion. Though Vigil is a Democrat from a prominent New Mexico political family, Iglesias' prosecution was seen as nonpartisan and was supported by Democratic Gov. Bill Richardson. The first trial ended in a mistrial, but Vigil was convicted last year.

At the same time, New Mexico media were full of speculation about Iglesias' investigation of local Democratic politicians' involvement in the construction of an Albuquerque courthouse. That was the case that Domenici and Republican Rep. Heather A. Wilson had inquired about. The two politicians have denied they were trying to influence Iglesias.

David Campbell, a Democrat who was Albuquerque's city attorney when Iglesias worked in the office, said his friend's actions showed his character.

"As a Bush appointee he's a stellar appointment, a right-wing evangelical Christian but somebody who plays his professional life with a lot of integrity," Campbell said. "You couldn't say a bad word about the guy."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
nicholas.riccardi@latimes.com

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/la-na-iglesias7mar07,1,6537901.story?coll=la-news-politics-national

Maybe he was "too good"?

Quote:

---

What is all the hubbub about????? Bush has political problems with 8 of his appointees. He fires them thru Gonzales. It is political and hurtful but this is politics.

---

Ralpie....If this entire situation is no big deal and Gonzales did nothing wrong, WHY DID GONZALES' CHIEF OF STAFF RESIGN?

Gonzo's Chief of Staff , Kyle Sampson, resigned his position on Monday, March 12.

Guess he just needed a vacation, right?

Quote:

---

EVERY administration when first elected clean house and make appointments to these appointed offices.

---

You do know that this is patently untrue don't you Pit? Up until Clinton the norm was to allow the prosecutors period to expire and rather than renewing it, put in somebody else.. that's why the transitions were smooth and not newsworthy because they were staggered and it allowed a transition period between the old prosecutors and the new ones. Clintons act of firing them all at the same time was quite unprecedented so please stop acting like Presidents have been doing this for a hundred years, because they have not. Clinton was the first.. And I would like for you to show me where George Bush cleaned house of 90+ prosecutors at the beginning of his presidency.....

Quote:

---

He simply fired his OWN appointees who do not "tow the party line". Replacing one's who "don't do your political bidding."

---

He fired the ones who were not aggressively pursuing voter fraud allegations Pit. I thought you were all about getting to the bottom of voter fraud? I would think you would be all up in arms about a democratic prosecutor who has "better things to do" than pursue voter fraud allegations in a district where the vote was decided by less than 200 votes, in favor of a democrat, with some serious allegations of wrongdoing still pending... but evidently you think firing that prosecutor was a bad idea.. perhaps that voter fraud is insignificant.

You have always said that Bush needs to own up to his mistakes and be prepared to make changes to his policies and his personnel when it's warranted. Well here we have a case where he appointed prosecutors, found them to be derelict in their duties, fired them so he could replace them with people who would be more vigilant... and you are going to bitch about that. Evidently it is true what they say Pit, there is absolutely NOTHING George Bush can do that is going to make you happy.

The problem is DC,when a prosecuter DOES look into voter fraud,(as it is stated he did) and can't find enough evidence to build a case,he gets fired?

And aren't these appointments for "four years"? Which would mean if you're appointed when a president is elected,your term of appointment is up when his term is up?

And yes,there are many things he could do that would "make me happy".

Target terrorists,not governments.

Stiffen his stance on immigration instead of offering amnesty to millions of criminals.

Stand up to Dick Cheney.

I could go on,but many of the things that would make me happy,would also make you happy I believe?

And DC,if this is all so "innocent" as you claim,why did Gonzales chief of staff resign? Why did Gonzales admit mistakes in this if nothing was done wrong? That wouldn't make much sense would it?

You might want to read all the articles, Pit, as one of them above CLEARLY states that the prosecutor REFUSED to look into the matter. Once again, are you ignoring the facts because they don't suit your need to bash all that is Bush or you just didn't bother reading? Probably a little of both

Oh, and could you provide a link that said that Bush fired 93 prosecutors when he took over. I'd like to see you provide the facts instead of just ranting , especially since the article Ralphie posted states that Clinton was the only one to do such a thing. .

Quote:

---

And aren't these appointments for "four years"? Which would mean if you're appointed when a president is elected,your term of appointment is up when his term is up?

---

Well, sort of. If the President takes office in late January and spends the next 6 months filling those positions then they will expire over a period of 6 months into the next administration and they will expire over a period of time, not all on the same day.

Quote:

---

The problem is DC,when a prosecuter DOES look into voter fraud,(as it is stated he did) and can't find enough evidence to build a case,he gets fired?

---

Maybe he didn't look deep enough... Who stated that he looked into it and found nothing?

As an example.... if Gonzalez held a press conference and said he had looked into some of Bush's issues and found "nothing" so he now had better things to do than pursue it.. would that satisfy you?

Well coach,the article I posted is what Iglasious told congress. That he couldn't find voter fraud to go forward with a case. It's not a writers opinion. It's what the man who was fired told congress. I like "straight from the horses mouth" sources when I can find them. People on the outside of the case and ASSume and poiint fingers if they like. It doesn't make them right.

But if you're looking at what the actual guy who was fired said,I think you'll get somebody that "did work" the case and KNOWS what he did and didn't find.

Just clicking...

Carol Chien-Hua Lam (born June 26, 1959), a former U.S. Attorney (interim) for the Southern District of California. Lam was sworn into office on September 4, 2002. On November 12, 2002, Lam was further sworn in as a presidential appointment. Most prominently, Lam oversaw the Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham military contracting corruption case.


Anti-corruption activity
Lam was active in securing indictments against Central Intelligence Agency official Kyle "Dusty" Foggo and contractor Brent Wilkes, both of whom were involved in the Randy "Duke" Cunningham case.

Lam was actively investigating Republican Congressman Jerry Lewis at the time of her dismissal.
web page
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Charles Jeremy "Jerry" Lewis (born October 21, 1934), an American politician, has been a Republican member of the United States House of Representatives since 1979, representing the 41st District of California.

Controversies
On September 20, 2006, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) released its second annual report on the most corrupt members of Congress, titled "Beyond DeLay: The 20 Most Corrupt Members of Congress (and five to watch)". Lewis was one of the 20. The organization said "His ethics issues stem primarily from the misuse of his position as Chairman of House Appropriations Committee to steer hundreds of millions of dollars in earmarks to family and friends in direct exchange for contributions to his campaign committee and political action committee."

Relationships with lobbyists

Bill Lowery and the firm of Copeland Lowery
Main article: Jerry Lewis - Lowery lobbying firm controversy
There is currently a large amount of controversy over the relationship between Lewis and a lobbying firm, Copeland Lowery Jacquez Denton & White, where his good friend and former U.S. Congressman Bill Lowery was a partner between 1993 and 2006. No individual has been formally charged with any wrongdoing, but there is now an ongoing federal investigation being run by the U.S. Attorney's office in Los Angeles, and a federal grand jury in Los Angeles has issued subpoenas to at least ten local governments, universities, and firms.

The basic allegations are that Lewis, by virtue of his chairmanship of the House Appropriations Committee (since January 2005), and his prior chairmanship of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, has been able, through earmarks and other methods, to steer hundreds of millions of dollars to clients of Lowery's firm. Lowery and his firm have earned millions of dollars in fees from these clients. Lowery and others in his firm, in turn, have given hundreds of thousands of dollars to Lewis' campaign committee and political action committee. Defense contractors who are clients of the lobbying firm have also given hundreds of thousands of dollars. Lewis, who has not faced serious opposition in his re-election campaigns in the past ten years, has used his campaign and PAC funds in support of other Republicans, something that helped him become chairman of the House Appropriations Committee.

In addition, two key individuals on Lewis' staff (Letitia White and Jeff Shockey) went to work for Copeland Lowery, earning millions of dollars for themselves; Richard White, Letitia's husband, has seen a steep increase in his income since he switched to being a lobbyist for defense firms; Lewis' stepdaughter has benefited from his ties to the lobbyists; and Jeff Shockey, upon returning to work of Lewis in 2005, was paid two million dollars by Copeland Lowery as "severance", based upon projected revenues of the lobbying firm for the eleven months following his departure.

For this incident, the magazine Rolling Stone ranked him one of America's worst congressmen and gave him the nickname "The King of Payoffs" .


U.S. Attorney Carol Lam was actively investigating Lewis when she became one of eight U.S. attorneys controversially dismissed in February 2007.

web page
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I think this explains U.S. Attorney Carol Lam's dismissal by the Bush administration...don't you?

Quote:

---

It's what the man who was fired told congress. I like "straight from the horses mouth" sources when I can find them. People on the outside of the case and ASSume and poiint fingers if they like. It doesn't make them right.

---

Sorry Pit, I don't accept your straight from the horses mouth example. I'm not saying the guy is lying... but he has obvious reason to. What would you expect him to say? "I found some voter fraud allegations to have merit but for political or personal reasons decided to do nothing and I really did deserve to be fired."?????

It just drips with irony that if Bush or Cheney or Rove or anybody else in the adminstration makes a statement you are immediately sure that it's a cover-up and a grand conspiracy.... this guy makes a statement and its to be believed because it's "straight from the horses mouth".... I wish I had your crystal ball to judge who was telling the truth and who wasn't like that....

Sorry, Pit, but you're either ignoring what doesn't suit your needs (again) or didn't read the whole article posted. Here's the quick quote:

"Take sacked U.S. Attorney John McKay from Washington state. In 2004, the Governor's race was decided in favor of Democrat Christine Gregoire by 129-votes on a third recount. As the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and other media outlets reported, some of the "voters" were deceased, others were registered in storage-rental facilities, and still others were convicted felons. More than 100 ballots were "discovered" in a Seattle warehouse. None of this constitutes proof that the election was stolen. But it should have been enough to prompt Mr. McKay, a Democrat, to investigate, something he declined to do, apparently on grounds that he had better things to do."

So, where is that refuted in what you posted? Oh, it doesn't, does it?

It's a pretty simple equasion DC.

1. Gonzales chief of staff resigned

2. Gonzales apologizes for mistakes in the firings

3. The testimony given to congress.

Does any one of things indicate anything? Maybe sightly. But all THREE of them strung together? That's a pattern. A cumulative effect. Once again DC,I'll try this question.

IF everything was "squeeky clean",why did Gonalez Chief of Staff resign and Gonzales apologise?

And yours refutes nothing of mine.
Guess we're even huh?

Same question Coach.

IF they are "squeeky clean" why did Gonzales Chief of Staff resign and Gonzales apologise?

Quote:

---

IF everything was "squeeky clean",why did Gonalez Chief of Staff resign and Gonzales apologise?

---

From everything I've read Pit, I'd say the resignation and the apology are for screwing up the process... not firing the wrong people. It is possible to do the right thing but do it the wrong way.... it happens all the time.

If you really believe that,then that's your perrogative. I can't see a guy resigning for a "simple mistake". And one thing is for sure,thus far we haven't the proof to say for sure one way or the other. But it sure looks fishy.

And,there are emails already that give some indication that political pressure had a lot to do with these firings. I don't have anyone "found guilty" in my mind,but I do see plenty of cause for suspicion in some of these cases.

Yes, it does. You claim that the voter fraud was investigated. I showed you a case where the U.S. attorney didn't investigate. Of course, your bias won't allow you admit that...not surprising, though.

You need to look at those names again coach. They are two different people.


When did I ever say ALL of these firings were questionable? I didn't. But there are a few that don't add up.

Now remember,eight of them were fired,not one. I'm not questioning all of them coach. So far,I'm questioning "one" and looking into a couple more of them I find very questionable at this time. The guy you're refering to is "not on my list". As a matter of fact,I really had no reason TO question his firing. But each one of these men are individuals. And in "some" of these cases,things don't add up.

Are we on the same page now?

LOL, I KNOW they aren't the same people. You just didn't read the article and then spouted off that voter fraud had been investigated. I refuted that generalization.

No, we're not on the same page. You throw as much against the wall as possible to get it to stick to this administration and I look for actual facts. You are a conspiracy theorist looking for anything possible to slam them for. I look for actual evidence. We're hardly on the same page.

Quote:

---

I can't see a guy resigning for a "simple mistake".

---

Pit, this is Washington DC... people fall on the sword for a variety of reasons... and to prevent a superior from being held responsible for a mistake is often one of them... When a mistake happens, the other party wants blood, they want a resignation... do you not see that in every freakin' political controvery? SOMEBODY has to resign.... so the junior folks often are the ones that go. It's like a blood sacrifice from one party to the other so the other party won't dig so deep.... it's sick and it's perverted, but it happens that way a lot.

Quote:

---

And,there are emails already that give some indication that political pressure had a lot to do with these firings.

---

I wouldn't doubt it... I really don't care. Do you think Clinton fired 93 prosecutors because they weren't doing their job? No, he fired them so he could dole out 93 favors to state representatives and other powerful people who helped him get elected by giving the positions to their friends, spouses, and children.... in return he expected a certain amount of party loyalty....

Y'know Pit, I hate that I have become so cynical about politicians... it really bugs me. I always try to find the best in people but my inability to trust a single politician any more really bugs me.

Well see,I have no problem openly admiting and seeing that Clinton did just what you say. An "incoming president" has every right to use such appointed offices to put people in such places. Bush had that same right. But some of these guys were pretty above board dyed in the wool conservatives that from everything I can gather,were doing a pretty damned good job. Some weren't. But I have to say,Clinton did not go around firing people that were hired during his administration six years into his term.

I will have no problem if "firings" weren't politicly motivated. If there was merrit for their firings,that's fine. But no matter where you work,or who you work for,there should be legitimate reasons for firing people.

Now when you first take over power? You can appoint who you wish. But once you appoint them (give them the job) I think it's only fair to have a legitimate reason for firing them if you decide to. I haven't really had time to look at each individual case. But the David Iglesias case looks VERY questionable. I plan to look at each case seperately as time permits. But as of now,that's the one I really have my doubts about.

And yes,I'm very cynnical too. I've seen it both ways. The Dems cried corruption during the Nixon administartion,only to be corrupt themselves. Then? The GOP cried corruption during Clinton. Now,I think they're just as corrupt if not more so than Clinton's administration. Our political system has become nothing more than pot meet kettle. And that's pretty sad IMO

Quote:

---

Well see,I have no problem openly admiting and seeing that Clinton did just what you say. An "incoming president" has every right to use such appointed offices to put people in such places.

---

Even when one of those attorneys was investigating Whitewater at the time? See there is an old saying that the best place to hide a body is in the middle of a battlefield... well the best way to get rid of one lawyer with less suspicion, is to fire them all.... What Clinton did was unprecedented and completely politically motivated to save his own butt and the butt of his cronie in Chicago who was about to be indicted... so 91 other attorneys were fired on the spot so he could hide the 2 he really wanted gone.... yet you defend it as "his right"... he was the first to do it Pit.... something is either "right" or it's not... Either the President has the right to fire these people or he doesn't.... it doesn't matter who hired them or when..... either firings should be justified or they don't have to be, which is it? Hell Clinton fired the whole Whitehouse travel office too.. and those folks aren't appointed, they are lifers with the government with a pay grade and a pension to work for.... he (I should say Hillary) canned the whole group of them on the spot right after taking office.... and some of them had been there through 3 or 4 different administrations.... Clinton fired whoever Clinton needed fired for his own personal benefit....

Quote:

---

I think it's only fair to have a legitimate reason for firing them if you decide to.

---

Well that would be great but "fair" has nothing to do with it. Do you know what it means to "serve at the pleasure of the President"? That means if the President says you're gone, you're gone.... you may not think that's fair, but that's the deal they enter into... no explanation required.

Well DC,wheather you're Clinton,Bush or Lincoln,the legislative branch should not involve its brand of politics on the judicial branch. That "woulldn't be prudent".

Especially IF you pressure an attorney to try to do something that may not be considered "judicial prudence". Like bring charges or investigate something without merrit. To try to "build a case" where the evidence is not there for a case. If they were asked to do something borderline illegal and failed to comply with such tactics and it cost them their jobs,(any or some of them) there's something terribly wrong no matter who the president is we're speaking of DC.

If I had thousands of people like Pitt crying bloody-murder everytime I didn't dot my "i" or cross my "t", I'd probably resign too.

"You want to lump them all in one pile.,excuse it all and refuse to even consider something "could be wrong here". But,everybody can read."

Find one post where I excused anything. Oh, that's right, there isn't one. You're right, though. EVERBODY CAN READ...that's where you have your downfall. Sadly, not eveyon can comprehend, as evidenced by your posts Again, I want evidence before I start saying something was done as you suggest. That's the difference between us.

Quote:

---

Well DC,wheather you're Clinton,Bush or Lincoln,the legislative branch should not involve its brand of politics on the judicial branch. That "woulldn't be prudent".

---

Well then it's good that that doesn't happen...

You are speaking in generalities now Pit... and in general, I agree with you...

Well coach,it's a good thing our national intelligence community,FBI and local police departments don't share your view. Luckily they don't wait for "concrete evidence" to "investigate" a case or arouse their suspicion. They don't wait untill the case solves itself before they begin to look and dig for the evidence. Thank God huh? Some people don't need to be hit in the head with a brick before they figure out someone is throwing bricks.


They look for "suspicion" and signs of "possible" wrongdoing and investigate it. Much as I've stated I will try to do here. I have stated I see things that look "fishy". That I plan to look into these things case by case. That's not "accusing anyone of guilt". I've already said (twice now) that nobody is "guilty in my mind".

But appearantly,you don't feel people should "look into things" when they see signs that may look out of place. That's fine coach. I guess if you have no desire to try to get to the thrux of things,that's your business. But I have NOT said anyone was guilty of anything. I have said certain matters look quite suspicious. But you wish to misquote or say things I simply didn't post. A pretty typical MO for you coach.