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

LOL, there you go projecting, Phil...I mean Pit. You misquote and make things up whole cloth to post constantly. In fact, that's the whole of your posts here. Every time there is something printed, you find every conceivable way to twist, poke, prod, and pray you can twist this into some sort of scandelous action by the administration.

Oh, and last time I checked, you weren't in law enforcement. If so, you wouldn't be tokin on the pipe all the time before posting. Maybe all that has finally taken it's toll on the brain cells and you actually think you are some sort of vigilante for justice.

E-mails lay out plan to dismiss U.S. attorneys

From Bill Mears
CNN Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- An e-mail from the Justice Department's Kyle Sampson in March 2005 laid out a simple formula for evaluating whether the 93 U.S. attorneys should stay or go.

On a chart given to then-White House Counsel Harriet Miers, Sampson -- chief of staff to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales -- listed attorneys in three categories:

"Bold = Recommend retaining; strong U.S. attorneys who have managed well, and exhibited loyalty to the president and attorney general.

"Strikeout = Recommend removing; weak U.S. attorneys who have been ineffectual managers and prosecutors, chafed against administration initiatives, etc.

"Nothing = No recommendation; have not distinguished themselves either positively or negatively."

Sampson was in charge of deciding which U.S. attorneys would be removed in a shakeup last year. Eight prosecutors were eventually removed. Sampson resigned from his post Monday, just as the e-mails he wrote were released publicly.

The e-mails show how closely officials in the White House and the Justice Department coordinated in deciding which names to include for firing, as well as the method and timing of the announcements. (Read Sampson's e-mail exchanges with administration officials - pdf)

The White House disclosed Tuesday the shakeup was first proposed by then-White House Counsel Harriet Miers, who wanted to replace all 93 U.S. attorneys with "fresh blood" after President Bush's re-election in 2004, spokesman Tony Snow said.

In a three-page memo dated January 1, 2006, Sampson noted the practical and political obstacles of dismissing U.S. attorneys.

"Wholesale removal of U.S. attorneys would cause significant disruption to the work of the Department of Justice," he wrote. "Individual U.S. attorneys often were originally recommended for appointment by a home-state senator who may be opposed to the president's determination to remove the U.S. attorney."

But Sampson concluded, "None of the above obstacles are insuperable," suggesting instead "the replacement of a limited number of U.S. attorneys," not the wholesale changes Miers wanted.

He then went on to recommend three U.S. attorneys for dismissal: Margaret Chiara of Michigan, Henry "Bud" Cummins of Arkansas and Carol Lam of California.

From the winter through the fall of 2006, Miers and Sampson traded e-mails, adding names and outlining the political fallout that might result from the prosecutors themselves and their congressional allies.

One e-mail involved efforts to replace Cummins with Timothy Griffin, a former aide to top White House official Karl Rove. (Read documents on Griffin's nomination - pdf)

"We have a senator problem," noted Monica Goodling, a Justice Department liaison to the White House, over Cummins' pending dismissal. The August 18 e-mail also suggested a possible "confirmation issue with Griffin."

Word of Cummins' pending departure and Griffin's nomination was leaked to an Arkansas newspaper in late August, one memo notes.

About a month later, on September 13, Sampson placed Little Rock-based Cummins on the list of U.S. attorneys "in the process of being pushed out."

Miers thanked him four days later, but noted she had not had much time to focus on the issue. "Things have been crazy," she wrote.

Two months later there still was no decision from the White House on the final "cut" list. In a November 15 memo, Sampson urged Miers to reach out to Rove's office as a "pre-execution necessity I would recommend."

Messages anticipate 'political upheaval'
He added, "I am concerned that to execute this plan properly we must all be on the same page and be steeled to withstand any political upheaval that might result. ... If we start caving to complaining U.S. attorneys or senators then we shouldn't do it -- it'll be more trouble than it is worth."

Three weeks went by and Sampson was getting anxious waiting for the "green light" from the White House counsel's office.

Finally, on December 4, William Kelley, Miers' deputy, gave the word: "We're a go for the U.S. attorney plan. WHU leg (office of legislative affairs), political (office), and communications have signed off and acknowledged that we have to be committed to following through once the pressure comes." (Read how officials dealt with the reaction - pdf)

A detailed memo outlined each U.S. attorney to be let go, and the names of key senators or party officials from the prosecutors' home states who would be informed.

Talking points were suggested to help "prepare to withstand political upheaval." Such points included that "the administration made the determination to seek the resignations (not any specific person at the White House or the Department of Justice)."

The White House says President Bush never directed the Justice Department to fire a U.S. attorney, and that concerns about the performance of certain prosecutors were appropriate.

As Sampson suggested back in January 2006, Chiara, Cummins and Lam were among the eight fired prosecutors. In Arkansas, Cummins' post was filled by former Rove aide Griffin on an interim basis, but he said last month he would not seek Senate confirmation because of the "partisan circus" surrounding the firings.

The reaction on Capitol Hill to the dismissals was mixed. Deputy White House Counsel Kelley told Sampson and Miers in a December 8 memo of "disgruntlement" in Nevada. Republican Sen. John Ensign "is very unhappy about the decision" to let U.S. Attorney Daniel Bogden go, he said.

But in New Mexico, Kelley reported, Republican Sen. Pete Domenici was "happy as a clam" and offered to quickly provide names of possible replacements.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/13/fired.emails/index.html

Wow, those bolded statements mean what, exactly? Are you implying just how terrible it is for the U.S. attorneys to be alligned with the administrative initiatives? If that's what you're saying, then there should never be any type of appointments when administrations change.

Or are you trying to insinuate that these bolded statements are some sort of evidence that the administration wants the attorneys to somehow ignore the laws and be selective in what they investigate? If so, then you must be related to Stretch Armstrong to get that conclusion.

Again, you are projecting, Pit. A personal attack? I said you weren't in law enforcement. Is that not true? I did add a JOKE to the end and in the next sentence (hence the laughing smileys). I guess it's ok for you to take shots but no one should respond. Same old Pit, and to use your phrase, "everybody knows it".

A White House Hand in the Firings?

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has characterized the controversial firing of eight U.S. attorneys as an "overblown personnel matter." If so, it is a personnel matter that appears to have involved the White House. A spokeswoman for the President revealed the White House's deep involvement in the decision to dismiss the prosecutors, a step that involved former White House Counsel Harriet Miers, Presidential adviser Karl Rove and, apparently, even Bush himself. Meanwhile, Kyle Sampson, chief of staff to Gonzales and the official in charge of drawing up the list of fired prosecutors, has resigned amid continuing allegations that the eight — all Republicans — were ousted for political reasons, including their refusal to bring corruption charges against Democrats in the period leading up to last year's mid-term elections.

As the scandal escalated, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino cast doubt on whether President Bush was personally told about, or shown, a list of the targeted prosecutors. But Perino confirmed that Rove had discussed dismissing all U.S. attorneys after the 2004 election — as proposed by then-counsel Harriet Miers — and argued against the idea. But Bush did speak directly with Gonzales to pass along complaints from Republican lawmakers about prosecutors, according to the New York Times. Senator Pete V. Domenici, Republican of New Mexico, was among those who complained to the President. Domenici was particularly focused on David Iglesias of New Mexico in the period leading into the 2006 congressional election.

After Iglesias was dismissed, Domenici's chief of staff was "happy as a clam," according to an e-mail sent by Miers's deputy, William Kelley, released by the White House today. Gonzales' deputy Sampson wrote in an e-mail about a week later: "Domenici is going to send over names [of possible replacements] tomorrow (not even waiting for... the body to cool)." Since his alleged role in the controversy broke last week, Domenici has retained a lawyer to assist him in potential Senate ethics proceedings concerning his conduct in seeking the ouster of his state's federal prosecutor.

The latest revelations from the White House appear to be a belated attempt to get ahead of the increasingly damaging controversy, which has already resulted in calls by Democrats in Congress for Gonzales to resign, as well as promises of a fuller investigation, which Republicans appear reluctant or unable to oppose. "Mistakes at the Department of Justice have been compounded by trashing the reputations of loyal U.S. attorneys," said Mark Corallo, a former Justice Department spokesman and close aide to former attorney general John Ashcroft. "Republicans on the Hill have been put in a terrible position and, at this point, it's unclear what they will be prepared to do."

The Democrats have reacted with pointed commentary. Sen. Charles Schumer, a key Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, has suggested that Rove testify about his role in the affair, voluntarily if possible, or under subpoena if necessary. Said Patrick Leahy, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee: "The White House and the Attorney General have dodged Congress's questions and ducked accountability as if they still were dealing with a rubberstamp Congress. I am outraged that the Attorney General was less than forthcoming with the Senate while under oath... It is deeply disturbing that this plan appears to have originated from high-ranking officials at the White House and executed in secret with a complicit Department of Justice."

Over the weekend, Allen Weh, a senior Republican official in New Mexico told McClatchy newspapers that he had called Rove to obtain the dismissal of the state's U.S. attorney, David Iglesias. "Is anything ever going to happen to that guy?" Weh said he asked Rove at a White House holiday event. "He's gone," Rove said, according to Weh. But White House spokeswoman Perino is quoted in reports as saying, "White House officials including the President did not direct DOJ to take any specific action with regards to any specific U.S. attorney." In other words, decisions about which federal prosecutors should be fired were apparently made at the Justice Department by Gonzales or his subordinates.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1598540,00.html?cnn=yes

Let's just look at these bolded statements:

"Meanwhile, Kyle Sampson, chief of staff to Gonzales and the official in charge of drawing up the list of fired prosecutors, has resigned amid continuing allegations that the eight — all Republicans — were ousted for political reasons, including their refusal to bring corruption charges against Democrats in the period leading up to last year's mid-term elections."

DC already addressed this with his statement that there may have been errors in the process while doing the right thing.

" Since his alleged role in the controversy broke last week, Domenici has retained a lawyer to assist him in potential Senate ethics proceedings concerning his conduct in seeking the ouster of his state's federal prosecutor. "

OMG, STOP THE PRESSES! Someone has retained legal counsel in case he is called before a congressional committee! It's the smoking gun! Seriously, Pit, are you SERIOUSLY suggesting this proves some sort of guilty? You wouldn't hire an attorney if you were going through a legal proceeding?

" "Republicans on the Hill have been put in a terrible position and, at this point, it's unclear what they will be prepared to do."

They sure have. They are being put in a position where opponents are on a witch hunt and using this as political fodder.

""The White House and the Attorney General have dodged Congress's questions and ducked accountability as if they still were dealing with a rubberstamp Congress. I am outraged that the Attorney General was less than forthcoming with the Senate while under oath... It is deeply disturbing that this plan appears to have originated from high-ranking officials at the White House and executed in secret with a complicit Department of Justice."

Maybe you should have put in bold the important part of this quote, Patrick Leahy, DEMOCRAT.

"Allen Weh, a senior Republican official in New Mexico told McClatchy newspapers that he had called Rove to obtain the dismissal of the state's U.S. attorney, David Iglesias. "Is anything ever going to happen to that guy?" Weh said he asked Rove at a White House holiday event. "He's gone," Rove said, according to Weh. But White House spokeswoman Perino is quoted in reports as saying, "White House officials including the President did not direct DOJ to take any specific action with regards to any specific U.S. attorney." In other words, decisions about which federal prosecutors should be fired were apparently made at the Justice Department by Gonzales or his subordinates. "

Wow, you mean Carl Rove may have had prior knowledge to the dismissals? OMG, ANOTHER SMOKING GUN! So, because Rove knew what was going to take place and told someone about it, without saying he was initiating it, that proves what? Oh, yeah, it proves he knew what was going on with people that were appointed.

Nice try, Pit. Keep slinging it, and some might stick.....there's not much actual evidence in your bolded statements....well, not much evidence of any wrongdoing...but evidence of one political party trying to discredit the other.

No I'm not saying it makes anybody "guilty" at all coach. I never did. I'm simply saying there are enough odd circumstances that the matter should be looked into. That's all.

The story that was told to the senate under oath,said that it was all the Justice departments doing. That the White House had no input in this. But facts have surfaced that they did. Does that make anyone "guilty"? Nope. But it's worth looking to why that was done.

That's been my point all along coach. There are enough conflicting reports and odd circumstances that it's worthy of a closer look. Nothing more.

This is amusing,Pit. Do you know the first President to fire all the US Attorneys upon taking office????
That would be the President elected in 1992, Bill Clinton, just when the White Water scandal was heating up. He is the first to sack the lot of them.

Most of the 8 that were fired this week were dragging their feet on voter fraud cases, in their jurisdictions, the Administration wanted action upon. No action...no job! Politically motivated yes! ....But was it more so on the part of the 8 who refused to act on the fraud issues???? Stay tuned.

Yes I was aware of that Ralphie. And he was wrong too! I call them like I see them and Clinton had more than his share of major screw ups too. It's not a Dem/GOP thing. It's about accountability upon the part of our government no matter who's in power.

If the political landscape stays on the course that it is currently,we may very well have a Dem. president in 08. If and when that happens,everyone will see that I will treat them NO differently. Our government works for us,no matter the party. And if I think there's cause for questions,I don't care what party they belong to.

LOL, whatever, Pit. As I said before, you take anything and everything and try to twist it, no matter how thin, to make it something worth investigating. Pathetic and sad.

Thanks for your input on the subject matter. Without your insight on these topics and helpfull links pertaining to these issues,we would be missing vast amounts of information that helps answer the questions that are raised.

Quote:

---

Most of the 8 that were fired this week were dragging their feet on voter fraud cases, in their jurisdictions, the Administration wanted action upon. No action...no job! Politically motivated yes! ....

---

Feinstein: Lam Fired Over Cunningham Prosecution

WASHINGTON -- Sen. Dianne Feinstein said Wednesday she believes the ouster of San Diego U.S. Attorney Carol Lam was connected to Lam's prosecution of former Republican congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham, even though the Bush administration has denied it.

"In my heart of hearts I do, no matter what they say," Feinstein, D-Calif., a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said in an interview with The Associated Press.

"The fact is there are additional investigations that have come from that. The fact is that the day before she left office she filed two additional indictments," Feinstein said, referring to charges Lam filed last month against an ex-CIA official and a defense contractor tied to Cunningham.

"Now they weren't of members of Congress," Feinstein added. "But whether this has had a chilling effect over that investigation I don't know. But I'm concerned about it."

Feinstein's comments came amid a growing furor over the firing last year of eight U.S. attorneys in a Justice Department purge. Critics contend the dismissals were politically motivated and President Bush said Wednesday he is troubled by the Justice Department's misleading explanations to Congress on the situation.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales defended himself on talk shows Wednesday morning. "I would never retaliate, nor would I ever expect a decision with respect to the removal of a United States attorney that would interfere with an ongoing investigation," he said on ABC's "Good Morning America."

A number of leading Senate Democrats including Majority Leader Harry Reid have called for Gonzales to resign, but California's senior senator said she is not ready to go that far. She said she thought it was appropriate to "get all the facts before you make decisions, and I don't think we're quite there yet."

E-mails released Tuesday show that long before Lam drew public attention for the Cunningham case she was being noticed by political advisers at the Justice Department -- and shortlisted for termination.

In the e-mails, which date back more than two years, Justice Department chief of staff Kyle Sampson recommended to White House counsel Harriet Miers that Lam be removed, striking her name along with those of at least three other U.S. attorneys he considered "ineffectual managers and prosecutors" who "chafed against Administration initiatives."

Sampson, who resigned Monday, did not specify what initiatives he was referring to.

Lam, who is now working as a lawyer for San Diego-based wireless technology company Qualcomm Inc., declined to comment Tuesday. In testimony March 7 before the Senate Judiciary Committee, she said she had never been told the reason she was told to resign last December.

Lam's office began investigating Cunningham and his associates on bribery allegations in July 2005. Cunningham pleaded guilty and was sentenced in March 2006 to more than eight years in federal prison for taking more than $2.4 million in bribes from defense contractors.

Last month, actually two days before Lam left her post, her office obtained indictments of one of the defense contractors and a former top CIA official accused of fraud in the expanding corruption investigation.

Lam, who was appointed in 2002, also tightened prosecution guidelines at the border during her tenure, raising the violation requirements in an effort to manage the flood of immigration cases referred to her office.

Later e-mails between Sampson and Bill Mercer, the associate attorney general, indicated concern over the drop in border prosecutions in San Diego.

"Has ODAG (Office of the Deputy Attorney General) ever called Carol Lam and woodshedded her re immigration enforcement? Has anyone?" Sampson wrote Mercer in May 2006.

White House adviser Karl Rove has said Lam was removed for failing to file immigration cases. William Moschella, an associate deputy attorney general, has said she was let go because her prosecution of gun crimes and immigration violations "just didn't stack up."

Feinstein wrote to Gonzales last June questioning border prosecution guidelines in Lam's district, but received a reply from Moschella in which he described Lam's immigration smuggling caseload as rising "favorably" in 2006.

web page

j/c

First GOP senator calls for Gonzales firing

Bush ‘not happy’ about handling of attorney firings, but stands by AG

Updated: 5:29 p.m. ET March 14, 2007
WASHINGTON - Sen. John Sununu of New Hampshire on Wednesday became the first Republican in Congress to call for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' dismissal, hours after President Bush expressed confidence in his embattled Cabinet officer.

"I think the president should replace him," Sununu said in an interview with The Associated Press.

Gonzales has been fending off Democratic calls for his firing in the wake of disclosures surrounding the ousters of eight U.S. attorneys.

Sununu said the firings, together with a report last Friday by the Justice Department's inspector general criticizing the administration's use of secret national security letters to obtain personal records in terrorism probes, shattered his confidence in Gonzales.

"We need to have a strong, credible attorney general that has the confidence of Congress and the American people," said Sununu, who faces a tough re-election campaign next year. "Alberto Gonzales can't fill that role."

"I think the attorney general should be fired," Sununu said.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17607199/

There is more to the article,but it's mostly rehashed information that's previously been posted on this thread. I'll try to add any new information I find on this issue as things develop. But rather than post the entire articles,I'll only post "new information" out of the article and a link to the article for any who may wish to read them in their entirety.

Make sure you post all the "new information", not just what you can figure out a way to twist into some dark conspiracy.

Why do I need a link to refute what you put in bold as evidence of some wrongdoing? Common sense doesn't need a link, Pit. I love how you and mac point to the Dems' statements as some sort of proof that there is something sinister that took place. It's called politics and mudslinging. Because of your agendas, you both swallow it as Gospel.

You know Pit....since the November elections I thought we'd have a Dem. President also in 2008. It looks 60/40 Dems both the margin is closing. It is closing because Hillary is no longer hiding her shrill,nasty side when she deals with Obama's people and contributors. The true Hillary on display will be devastating to her just as McCain's nasty side occassionally slips into public view.
When Hillary has already trotted out "Bill Clinton" for promo, enthusiam purposes so early in the campaign she looks weak,indecisive and unable to do the job alone. She would have been better off holding him until later in her campaign.

It will be interesting to see how she destroys Obama and when it happens she will be seen less as an astute politician but more as a mean spirited bully using her husband's clout to get her votes...It won't work.

DC agreed with the resignation, too. So do I. As DC said, mistakes were made but that doesn't mean that it wasn't the right thing to do or that there was some sinister plot involved. I don't see where Sununu accused the White House of any wrongdoing in your quote. Yet, I'm sure you'll consider this as evidence of it.

Panel OKs subpoenas in U.S. attorney probe

Committee postpones authorizing subpoenas for President Bush's top aides

Updated: 52 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - The Senate Judiciary Committee Thursday cleared the way for subpoenas compelling five Justice Department officials and six of the federal prosecutors they fired to tell the story of a purge of U.S. attorneys that has prompted demands for the ouster of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

The voice vote to authorize the panel to issue subpoenas amounts to insurance against the possibility that Gonzales could retract his permission to let the aides testify voluntarily, or impose strict conditions.

The committee also postponed for a week a vote on whether to authorize subpoenas for President Bush's top aides who were involved in the eight firings, including political adviser Karl Rove, former White House Counsel Harriet Miers and deputy White House Counsel William K. Kelley.

The committee approved subpoena power for key Justice Department officials involved in the firings: Michael Elston, Kyle Sampson, Monica Goodling, Bill Mercer and Mike Battle.

Sampson, Gonzales' chief of staff, quit this week. Elston is staff chief to Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty and Mercer is associate attorney general. Goodling is Gonzales' senior counsel and White House liaison, and Battle is the departing director of the office that oversees all 93 U.S. attorneys.

Gonzales has said he would allow the aides still at the Justice Department to testify voluntarily. It was unclear whether Sampson would agree to tell his story without a subpoena.

The panel also approved subpoena power for six of the eight U.S. attorneys fired since December. The six, all of whom testified last week under oath before the House Committee, are: Carol Lam of California, Bud Cummins of Arkansas, Paul Charlton of Arizona, John McKay of Washington state, Daniel Bogden of Nevada, David Iglesias of New Mexico.

The subpoenas are a warning to the embattled administration to follow through on promises in recent days by Gonzales and Bush to tell the whole story of the firings, beyond the selected details that Associate Deputy Attorney General William Moschella revealed to the House panel last week.

"I want to obtain their cooperation and all relevant information," Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy said. "But I want people to know that if I do not get cooperation, I will subpoena, we will have testimony under oath in this committee. We will find out what happened."

Ranking Republican Arlen Specter said he would do the same thing if he were still chairman, but he cautioned against passing judgment on Gonzales and the aides before the facts are fully known.

"I agree that this committee should get to the bottom of this issue," Specter, R-Pa., said. "I would hope that we would do so with at least a modicum of objectivity."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17627463/from/RS.1/

Thanks for the update, Pit. ANOTHER SMOKING GUN!!! The Democrats are on a political witch hunt! That proves that the firings were a sinister plot that is illegal.

Oh, and your link to DC says "unusual", not unethical, illegal, or anything else....just unusual. I would say that it is "unusual" for U.S. attorneys to refuse to investigate voter fraud, too.

You mean the "one out of eight" that you've shown? You mean the one I agreed with you on? Or the other seven?

Well, since you don't have access to the files, nor do these reporters, or the reasons they were let go, you know as much as I do about the terminations, despite your claims to the contrary.....oh, wait, that's right, you are swallowing the Dims' political babblings as fact. That's a good little sheep. Someone rants against the Bush Administration and you salivate like Pavlov's dogs (I'll explain that to you in PM if you need me to).

Spectre is a GOP Sanunu members of the GOP. FOX News which was one of the sources of one of the articles in not sympathetic to the DEMS either. But keep reaching Coach.


Here are the members of the Senate Judiciary committee Coach who approved the subpenas.

Edward M. Kennedy
D-MASSACHUSETTS

Arlen Specter
RANKING MEMBER, R-PENNSYLVANIA

Joseph R. Biden, Jr.
D-DELAWARE

Orrin G. Hatch R-UTAH

Herb Kohl D-WISCONSIN

Charles E. Grassley R-IOWA

Dianne Feinstein D-CALIFORNIA

Jon Kyl R-ARIZONA

Russell D. Feingold D-WISCONSIN

Jeff Sessions R-ALABAMA

Charles E. Schumer D-NEW YORK

Lindsey Graham R-SOUTH CAROLINA

Richard J. Durbin D-ILLINOIS

John Cornyn R-TEXAS

Benjamin L. Cardin D-MARYLAND

Sam Brownback R-KANSAS

Sheldon Whitehouse D-RHODE ISLAND

Tom Coburn R-OKLAHOMA

http://judiciary.senate.gov/members.cfm

Now in case you're having trouble counting,there are NINE MEMBER FROM EACH PARTY! That's called "bi-partisan" Coach.

Of course if you actually had a grip on what the Senate Judiciary was and who was on it,you would have known that instead of simply spewing meaningless drivel. And at least TWO of these Republicans I have shown above approve of these subpenas. So it's not just "Democratic crap".

Your comments hold no validity and your assertions of the matter are bogus.

But thanks for playing coach. And as a concelation prize,I'll send you the home version of

*Learn More About Your Government So You Have Some Clue As To What The Hell You're Talking About"

* By Hasbro*

So, supply the links where these Republicans are already convicting the administration for some sinister plot. That's what I'm referring to. Could it POSSIBLY be that the republicans approved it to actually prove there was nothing to the accusations from your beloved left? WOW, WHAT A CONCEPT! BTW, I think it's time for you to change the tin foil hat....those Bush thought stealing machines can only be held off so long before you have to replace those, you know.

Maybe you should actually try reading the articles and the posts before replying Coach.

1. I stated that "nobody was guilty in my mind". TWICE! Which means I haven't seen enough evidence to accuse guilt upon anyone.

2. I've seen enough to cause "suspicion" that deserves and calls for it to be investigated further. Now,try reading what these two GOP officials are saying. Pretty much the same thing I did.



But keep ranting about things that were never said and trying to pretend they approved investigating someone with no grounds to investigate them. Makes perfect sense................for you.

Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), the top Republican on the committee, cautioned against acting too hastily in issuing subpoenas.

"I agree that this committee should get to the bottom of this issue," he said, adding, "I would hope that we would do so with at least a modicum of objectivity."

Sen. John Sununu, R-N.H., left, speaks in Concord, N.H. in this May 31, 2006 file photo. Sununu became the first Republican in Congress to call for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' dismissal, hours after President Bush expressed confidence in his embattled Cabinet officer. "I think the president should replace him," Sununu said in an interview. (AP Photo/Jim Cole, File) (Jim Cole - AP)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...av=rss_politics

I agree with Spectre who is a GOP and I think Sanunu is jumping the gun on this. So my position is it needs investigated because there is reasonable cause and reason to do so.

You wish to make it sound otherwise Coach. But if that's so,all you have to do s quote anywhere that I've stated otherwise. Good luck with that BTW..............

LOL, you may have said it twice, but your other posts show your real message, Pit. You have already proclaimed many times that this was some sinister plot. I love how you constantly claim one thing then wrap yourself in the cloak of objectivity when called on it. Thanks for the consistently good laugh, though.

Probe heats up over fired U.S. attorneys

White House e-mail differs from statements; Gonzales fights to keep job

WASHINGTON - The White House is being pulled further into the intensifying probe over federal prosecutor firings amid new questions about top political adviser Karl Rove’s role and as GOP support for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales erodes.

President Bush’s top legal aides were to tell congressional Democrats on Friday whether and under what conditions they would allow high-level White House officials, including Rove, to testify under oath in the inquiry.

Subpoenas could come as early as next week.

E-mails released this week, including a set issued Thursday night by the Justice Department, appear to contradict the administration’s assertion that Bush’s staff had only limited involvement in the firings of eight U.S. attorneys, which Democrats have suggested were a politically motivated purge.

Each new piece in the rapidly unfolding saga of how the prosecutors came to be dismissed has made it more difficult for the White House to insulate itself from the controversy.

The latest e-mails between White House and Justice Department officials show that Rove inquired in early January 2005 about firing U.S. attorneys.

The one-page document, which incorporates an e-mail exchange in January 2005, also indicates Gonzales was considering dismissing up to 20 percent of U.S. attorneys in the weeks before he took over the Justice Department.

In the e-mails, Gonzales’ top aide, Kyle Sampson, says that an across-the-board housecleaning “would certainly send ripples through the U.S. attorney community if we told folks they got one term only.” But it concludes that “if Karl thinks there would be political will to do it, then so do I.”

Sampson resigned this week over the prosecutors’ firings and the Justice Department’s misleading of Congress about the process.

‘In the middle of this mess’
The e-mails “show conclusively that Karl Rove was in the middle of this mess from the beginning,” said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y. “Every time new information comes out, it proves that the White House was not telling the truth.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17643624/

Look at every post except for the two where you say you haven't made up your mind yet. ALL OF THEM show nothing but articles and your own statements about how this in a negative way. How about you actually quote a post where you posted something other than those saying the administration was to blame for the firings? How about you quoting where you looked at the other side of the issue. You won't because you don't. It's obvious by your posts that are here in this thread. You are on a witch hunt, as usual. Again, if you were so undecided, why do you only show one side of the coin? As you said, it's right here in this thread. You are so focused on trying to find some sort of scandel that you are too blind to see your own bias. So, show me one of your posts that aren't making accusations and are actually showing the other side's point of view. Of couse, there aren't any and I'm sure you'll have several excuses as to why. You always have a way to defend your biased witch hunts.

So you have no quotes of mine saying anyone is guilty of anything? That's what I thought.

So you have no quotes of mine asking for Gonzales resignation? That's what I thought.

Carry on Coach.........................

You have no quotes that point to this being nothing but political nonsense and stirring the pot? You have no quotes that look at the other side while you claim to be objective? That's what I though. Carry on, Pit.

I have shown reason for "suspicion" in this case. If you have anything to add,feel free to post it. But you're too lazy to do the homework. All you can do is attack the messenger not the message. Throwing attacks at those who post articles that you don't like or positions you disagree with. I'm no longer willing to play your silly and petty fifth grade game Coach. If you have an oposing view you can back up with sources,post it.

If not,rant on.

What view do you have? You claimed not to have found them guilty. That must mean that you surely would want to bring both sides of the issue to the discussion. Of course, you don't want to do that because no matter how many times you deny it, you are gleefully on a witch hunt, yet again. If you aren't wanting to play fifth grade games, you should stop doing it and doing it with such hypocrisy. You claimed to not be biased and I called you on it by proving you were. Seems like you want to attack the messenger for the message you want to deny, that you're biased.

If you want to claim objectivity, show both sides instead of constantly supporting just one. If not, rant on. It sucks when someone applies your standards to you and holds you to them, huh, Pit.

The Long Arm of Karl Rove

Newly disclosed e-mails indicate the president’s political guru was more involved in the controversial firing of U.S. attorneys than the White House has previously let on.

By Michael Isikoff
Newsweek
Updated: 50 minutes ago
March 15, 2007 - Karl Rove participated in a discussion about the firing of U.S. attorneys in 2005, asking White House lawyers “how we planned to proceed” on the issue and whether the prosecutors would be selectively dismissed or fired en masse, according to newly disclosed White House e-mails.

The e-mails, obtained by NEWSWEEK, appear to show that Rove had a greater level of involvement in the dismissal of the prosecutors than the White House has previously acknowledged. The messages may also raise new questions for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. While the attorney general insisted to reporters this week that he had rejected “a request from the White House” to fire all U.S. attorneys two years ago, the new e-mails show the plan was conceived while Gonzales himself was the White House counsel.

The controversy over the firing of the U.S. attorneys erupted in recent weeks, after some of the fired prosecutors testified that they believed they were improperly dismissed because of political pressures. Seven U.S. attorneys were fired last December and given no explanation for their dismissals. Another U.S. attorney, Bud Cummins of Little Rock, was fired last summer, in order to make room for a former Rove aide.

On Jan. 6, 2005, a White House lawyer, Colin Newman, sent a brief e-mail to David Leitch, then the deputy White House counsel under Gonzales. The subject line read: “Question from Karl Rove.” Newman wrote that “Karl Rove stopped by to ask you (roughly quoting) ‘how we planned to proceed regarding U.S. attorneys, whether we are going to allow all to stay, request resignations from all and accept only some of them, or selectively replace them, etc.’”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17637053/site/newsweek/

Okay Coach,now you can do some more of this................

Really, why? This shows an email asking what was going on. Wow, that really means alot, doesn't it? He was asking if all were going to be fired or just certain ones. Yeah, that sounds like some serious involvement since he was asking what was going to happen. Keep trying, Pit.