Originally Posted By ecdc <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/14/justice.mcnulty/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITI CS/05/14/justice.mcnulty/index.html</a> Wow, for something that isn't really a scandal (as we've been reminded by conservative commentators and on these boards), this sure looks like one. Another resignation (after Monica Goodling, the wizard who graduated from Messiah College and was never a prosecutor herself), this time from the number two man at the Justice Department. Of course, Alberto Gonzalez continues to have a memory akin to Dory's and even Republicans turned on him a long time ago (but Bush thinks he's doing a heckuva job!) Sorry to disappoint, but this is a scandal through and through. It's entirely unprecedented to fire U.S. attorney's *mid-term* (just to head-off the continued Republican spin that everyone does it - no they don't, not like this). Truly, what won't this administration sink to? Well now there's this. So much for the symbol of Justice with the blindfold around her eyes. Apparently if you prosecute Republicans or aren't quite quite crazy enough, then you can be thrown out. What's worse, they'll just blame it on you and accuse you of poor performance, even when there's not a scintilla of evidence to back them up.
Originally Posted By gadzuux The integrity and impartiality of the US dept of justice has been compromised by the bush administration, and can no longer be effective under gonzales. That alone is reason enough for him to resign. Under more normal circumstances the continued presence of gonzales as AG would be damaging to the administration. In this case the current administration is so battered and compromised that it really doesn't much matter - unless you have a case pending before the federal court. It's too late for them to try and maintain any pretense of integrity, decency or honor, so gonzales stays. Still, you have to wonder why? It's either a misplaced sense of loyalty or concern for what gonzales knows. If he's forced to resign he could get a book out on the market. But as we've seen repeatedly, in order to sell your book you need juicy dirt. I'm betting that gonzales has a LOT of that, and keeping him in office protects secrets of the administration. The downside is that his continued presence in office perpetuates the scandal. I guess the administration doesn't care about that - after all, with no pretense left of integrity, what else have they got to lose?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh Despite all the speculation by liberals, there's still no evidence of wrongdoing at the Justice Department. Bungling and mismanagement, yes, but wrongdoing? None.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Bungling and mismanagement, yes, but wrongdoing? None.<< A proud legacy for this administration to hang their hats on. "We did nothing wrong. We were incompetent bunglers who mismanaged everything from Iraq, to Katrina, to Walter Reed, to the Justice Department, to bin Laden and the Taliban, to global warming, right on down to Cheney shooting a guy in the face, but we stand by this simple truth: we did nothing wrong." Maybe that can be Bush's quote on his Presidential Library: "Bungler. Mismanager. Not a wrongdoer."
Originally Posted By ecdc On second thought, those things only work if they truly weren't guilty of wrongdoing. But they are. So maybe they'll have to come up with something else.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh Well, no. Every administration makes mistakes. Admitting that doesn't mean they've done everything wrong. They're still better than the last administration.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>They're still better than the last administration.<< We'll see how history judges that one. Good luck, you'll need it.
Originally Posted By Disneyman55 Well, the previous administration's Attorney General was a lot worse than Alberto Gonzalez. Oops, he fired some people mid term. Questionable. Wow. Let's sack him, just so we can make him pay for being stupid enough to take a job under ol Bush's administration. Meanwhile the previous administration's Attorney General was responsible for true stupidity like Ruby Ridge, the Waco Massacre and the Elian Gonzalez fiasco, which more than anything else gave Bush Florida in 2000. I hope that most of you were calling for her resignation also. Oh wait, silly me, she was acceptable because she was smart enough to work for the great one's administration.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "I hope that most of you were calling for her resignation also. Oh wait, silly me, she was acceptable because she was smart enough to work for the great one's administration." Nope. Try again. Didn't vote for Clinton either time and don't intend to vote for the missus, either. It IS possible to be a registered Republican and be thoroughly nauseated by Bush and this Administration, especially Gonzales. And it's true. How sad is it when the only defense even the sycophants can offe rup is "well, they're bunglers but not crooks"? If you didn't laugh at that, you'd cry. Bush wouldn't know competency if it hit him in the face.
Originally Posted By Disneyman55 Personally, right now I am not too fond of this administration either, but I try not to have a knee jerk reaction about everything about it either.
Originally Posted By gadzuux Well, we ARE talking about Alberto "Torture Memo" Gonzales. It's not like this is a sudden 'knee-jerk' reaction. The resentment has been around for quite awhile now.
Originally Posted By Disneyman55 As opposed to Janet "Waco Massacre" Reno? Don't get me wrong, I do not approve of every action he has made (or memo written), but it strikes me that everyone is taking thier frustrations with Bush out on his underlings. If this is truly just dissatisfaction with his job performance and the administration he works for is not even a factor in these feelings, I would hope that everyone here that has a problem with AG Gonzalez and wants him fired would also have wanted the same of Reno. Believe me, her job performance was abyssmal.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 There's a lot more to Gonzalez's shortcomings (to put it mildly) than the attorney scandal, his "selective memory," or even the torture memos. Here's something that describes his attempted end run around, you know, the LAW, when it came to the warrantless wiretapping, as recounted by the former number two at Justice, James Comey. <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/15/AR2007051501945.html?nav=rss_opinion" target="_blank">http://www.washingtonpost.com/ wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/15/AR2007051501945.html?nav=rss_opinion</a> "JAMES B. COMEY, the straight-as-an-arrow former No. 2 official at the Justice Department, yesterday offered the Senate Judiciary Committee an account of Bush administration lawlessness so shocking it would have been unbelievable coming from a less reputable source. The episode involved a 2004 nighttime visit to the hospital room of then-Attorney General John D. Ashcroft by Alberto Gonzales, then the White House counsel, and Andrew H. Card Jr., then the White House chief of staff. Only the broadest outlines of this visit were previously known: that Mr. Comey, who was acting as attorney general during Mr. Ashcroft's illness, had refused to recertify the legality of the administration's warrantless wiretapping program; that Mr. Gonzales and Mr. Card had tried to do an end-run around Mr. Comey; that Mr. Ashcroft had rebuffed them." (snip) "The dramatic details should not obscure the bottom line: the administration's alarming willingness, championed by, among others, Vice President Cheney and his counsel, David Addington, to ignore its own lawyers." And a related piece on how Gonzalez probably lied before Congress in 2006 by claiming there was no serious disagreement in Justice about the legality of the program. <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/16/AR2007051602715.html?hpid=topnews" target="_blank">http://www.washingtonpost.com/ wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/16/AR2007051602715.html?hpid=topnews</a> "The Justice Department said yesterday that it will not retract a sworn statement in 2006 by Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales that the Terrorist Surveillance Program had aroused no controversy inside the Bush administration, despite congressional testimony Tuesday that senior departmental officials nearly resigned in 2004 to protest such a program." (snip) "He (Comey) said a review by the Justice's Office of Legal Counsel in spring 2004 had concluded the program was not legal. Comey said he and the others were prepared to resign when the White House renewed the program after failing to get a certification of its legality -- first from him and later from then-Attorney General John D. Ashcroft, while Ashcroft was ill and heavily sedated at George Washington University Hospital."
Originally Posted By gadzuux This story about accosting ashcroft on his deathbed has been all over the news cycle. It's amazing in it's corruption, audacity and blatant lies, and yet - since we're talking about the bush administration - it's also right in character. Do these people know no shame?!
Originally Posted By ecdc >>This story about accosting ashcroft on his deathbed has been all over the news cycle. It's amazing in it's corruption, audacity and blatant lies, and yet - since we're talking about the bush administration - it's also right in character. Do these people know no shame?!<< It's funny, isn't it? I keep thinking nothing will shock me. Then I was reading this in the New York Times (whose account was actually more measured than the Post) and I think I literally gasped at one point. Ashcroft refused to sign off on it, so they rush to his hospital room to coax him while he's extremely ill and do an end-run around his acting-AG who they know won't sign it. So Bush steps in when Muller, Ashcroft, and Comey all threaten to resign. You know you've got problems when Ashcroft has objections to something. <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/16/washington/16nsa.html?_r=1&oref=slogin" target="_blank">http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05 /16/washington/16nsa.html?_r=1&oref=slogin</a> >>WASHINGTON, May 15 — President Bush intervened in March 2004 to avert a crisis over the National Security Agency’s domestic eavesdropping program after Attorney General John Ashcroft, Director Robert S. Mueller III of the F.B.I. and other senior Justice Department aides all threatened to resign, a former deputy attorney general testified Tuesday. Mr. Bush quelled the revolt over the program’s legality by allowing it to continue without Justice Department approval, also directing department officials to take the necessary steps to bring it into compliance with the law, according to Congressional testimony by the former deputy attorney general, James B. Comey. Although a conflict over the program had been disclosed in The New York Times, Mr. Comey provided a fuller account of the 48-hour drama, including, for the first time, Mr. Bush’s role, the threatened resignations and a race as Mr. Comey hurried to Mr. Ashcroft’s hospital sickbed to intercept White House officials, who were pushing for approval of the N.S.A. program. Describing the events as “the most difficult of my professional career,†Mr. Comey appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee as part of its inquiry into the dismissal of federal prosecutors and the role of Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales. Several lawmakers wanted to examine Mr. Gonzales’s actions in the N.S.A. matter, when he was White House counsel, and cited them to buttress their case that he should resign. Mr. Comey, the former No. 2 official in the Justice Department, said the crisis began when he refused to sign a presidential order reauthorizing the program, which allowed monitoring of international telephone calls and e-mail of people inside the United States who were suspected of having terrorist ties. He said he made his decision after the department’s Office of Legal Counsel, based on an extensive review, concluded that the program did not comply with the law. At the time, Mr. Comey was acting attorney general because Mr. Ashcroft had been hospitalized for emergency gall bladder surgery. Mr. Comey would not describe the rationale for his refusal to approve the eavesdropping program, citing its classified nature. The N.S.A. program, which began soon after the Sept. 11 attacks and did not require court approval to listen in on the communications of Americans and others, provoked an outcry in Congress when it was disclosed in December 2005. Mr. Comey said that on the evening of March 10, 2004, Mr. Gonzales and Andrew H. Card Jr., then Mr. Bush’s chief of staff, tried to bypass him by secretly visiting Mr. Ashcroft. Mr. Ashcroft was extremely ill and disoriented, Mr. Comey said, and his wife had forbidden any visitors. Mr. Comey said that when a top aide to Mr. Ashcroft alerted him about the pending visit, he ordered his driver to rush him to George Washington University Hospital with emergency lights flashing and a siren blaring, to intercept the pair. They were seeking his signature because authority for the program was to expire the next day. Mr. Comey said he phoned Mr. Mueller, who agreed to meet him at the hospital. Once there, Mr. Comey said he “literally ran up the stairs.†At his request, Mr. Mueller ordered the F.B.I. agents on Mr. Ashcroft’s security detail not to evict Mr. Comey from the room if Mr. Gonzales and Mr. Card objected to his presence. Mr. Comey said he arrived first in the darkened room, in time to brief Mr. Ashcroft, who he said seemed barely conscious. Before Mr. Ashcroft became ill, Mr. Comey said the two men had talked and agreed that the program should not be renewed. When the White House officials appeared minutes later, Mr. Gonzales began to explain to Mr. Ashcroft why they were there. Mr. Comey said Mr. Ashcroft rose weakly from his hospital bed, but in strong and unequivocal terms, refused to approve the eavesdropping program. “I was angry,†Mr. Comey told the committee. “ I had just witnessed an effort to take advantage of a very sick man, who did not have the powers of the attorney general because they had been transferred to me. I thought he had conducted himself in a way that demonstrated a strength I had never seen before, but still I thought it was improper.†Mr. Gonzales and Mr. Card quickly departed, but Mr. Comey said he soon got an angry phone call from Mr. Card, demanding that he come to the White House. Mr. Comey said he replied: “After what I just witnessed, I will not meet with you without a witness, and I intend that witness to be the solicitor general of the United States.†Mr. Comey said he reached Theodore B. Olson, the solicitor general, at a dinner party. At the White House session, which included Mr. Olson, Mr. Gonzales, Mr. Comey and Mr. Card, the four officials discussed the impasse. Mr. Comey knew that other top officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, wanted to continue the program. Mr. Card expressed concern about mass resignations at the Justice Department, Mr. Comey said. He told the Senate panel that he prepared a letter of resignation and that David Ayres, Mr. Ashcroft’s chief of staff, asked him to delay delivering it so that Mr. Ashcroft could join him. Mr. Comey said Mr. Mueller was also prepared to quit. The next morning, March 11, Mr. Comey went to the White House for a terrorism briefing. Afterward, he said Mr. Bush took him aside for a private 15-minute meeting in the president’s study, which Mr. Comey described as a “full exchange.†At Mr. Comey’s urging, Mr. Bush also met with Mr. Mueller, who emerged to inform Mr. Comey that the president had authorized the changes in the program sought by the Justice Department. “We had the president’s direction to do what we believed, what the Justice Department believed, was necessary to put this on a footing where we could certify to its legality,†Mr. Comey said. “And so we set out to do that and we did that.†Mr. Comey said he signed the reauthorization in “two or three weeks.†It was unclear from his testimony what authority existed for the program while the changes were being made. Mr. Comey said he shelved his resignation plans that day when terrorists set off bombs on commuter trains in Madrid. Mr. Comey left the Justice Department in August 2006, saying publicly that he had never intended to serve through the end of Mr. Bush’s second term. Privately, he has told friends that he grew weary of what he felt was increasing White House influence on the agency. Tony Snow, the White House spokesman, deflected questions about Mr. Comey’s testimony, but defended the N.S.A. program. Mr. Snow also noted that the Justice Department placed the program under the supervision of a special intelligence court earlier this year, which department officials said placed the program on an even firmer legal footing. “Jim Comey can talk about whatever reservations he may have had, but the fact is that there were strong protections in there,†Mr. Snow said. “This is a program that saved lives, that is vital for national security, and furthermore has been reformed in a bipartisan way that is in keeping with everybody.†Spokesmen for Mr. Ashcroft, Mr. Mueller, and the Justice Department declined to comment. Mr. Card did not respond to a reporter’s inquiries.<<
Originally Posted By gadzuux The hits just keep on comin' . . . More attorneys were on firing list At least 26 targeted -- a far higher number than Gonzales admitted Washington Post, Thursday, May 17, 2007 <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/05/17/MNG4VPSHG51.DTL" target="_blank">http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/ article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/05/17/MNG4VPSHG51.DTL</a> Excerpt - >> The Justice Department considered dismissing many more U.S. attorneys than officials have previously acknowledged, with at least 26 prosecutors suggested for termination between February 2005 and December 2006, according to sources familiar with documents withheld from the public. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales testified last week that the effort was limited to eight U.S. attorneys fired since June, and other administration officials have said that only a few others were suggested for removal. In fact, Gonzales' former chief of staff, Kyle Sampson, recommended more than two dozen U.S. attorneys for termination, according to lists compiled by him and his colleagues, the sources said. They amounted to more than a quarter of the nation's 93 U.S. attorneys. At least 13 of those known to have been targeted are still in their posts. The number of names on the lists demonstrates the breadth of the search for prosecutors to dismiss. The names also hint at a casual process in which the people who were most consistently considered for replacement were not always those ultimately told to leave. When shown the lists of firing candidates late Wednesday, Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., perhaps the most outspoken critic of the way Gonzales handled the prosecutor dismissals, said they "show how amok this process was." "When you start firing people for invalid reasons, just about anyone can end up on a list," he said. "It looks like the process was out of control, and if it hadn't been discovered more would have been fired." << The pattern we're continuously seeing is that if gonzales says something, chances are better than even that it isn't true. And he's the chief law enforcement officer of the nation. And he has the full faith and confidence of the president and his administration. Whadda buncha lowlifes we have representing us as a nation.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <This story about accosting ashcroft on his deathbed has been all over the news cycle. It's amazing in it's corruption, audacity and blatant lies, and yet - since we're talking about the bush administration - it's also right in character.> What it is another attempt by the left to spin the news, just as this whole "scandal" has been. <a href="http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010084" target="_blank">http://www.opinionjournal.com/ editorial/feature.html?id=110010084</a>
Originally Posted By gadzuux Talk about your breathtaking spin. Your editorial at the link attempts to defuse the scandal without actually refuting a single thing of comey's testimony. So everything comey said actually happened, but it was "no big deal" because the president didn't need authorization from the justice dept anyway. Good thing too - because he didn't get it and but enacted the wiretaps without it. Then, when several senior staff members - including comey - threaten to resign in protest, bush capitulates and agrees to limitations to gain the supposedly irrelevant authorization. And then gonzales testifies - under oath to congress - that there was no particular controversy within the department about the wiretaps. If called upon it, he'll say that he couldn't recall - and you'll be the only person who believes him.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Your editorial at the link attempts to defuse the scandal without actually refuting a single thing of comey's testimony.> Like usual, there doesn't seem to be any scandal in this scandal. No laws appear to have been broken, and nothing unethical appears to have happened. All I hear is a lot of hot air.
