Democrats urge perjury probe of Gonzales »
Posted by: Xaos 1 year, 1 month ago366 Comments Report this Story
Senate Democrats called for a perjury investigation against Attorney General Alberto Gonzales on Thursday and subpoenaed top presidential aide Karl Rove in a deepening political and legal clash with the Bush administration.
Read Full Story at news.yahoo.com
Join the Discussion 
+ Add Comment
Comments So Far: 366
-
0%
elzorro21621 year, 1 month ago
Gonzo, Myers and bush are NOT above the law. If they got subpoenas and didn't show up, they deserve it.
Z
Reply-
0%
questionseverything1 year, 1 month ago
Gonzales is at the center of the U.S. attorney controversy, but the call for a perjury probe involved alleged conflicts between testimony he gave the Judiciary Committee in two appearances, one last year and the other this week. The issue revolves around whether there was internal administration dissent over the president's warrantless wiretapping program
Reply-
0%
capecoralM1 year, 1 month ago
"We have now reached a point where the accumulated evidence shows that political considerations factored into the unprecedented firing of at least nine United States attorneys last year," said Leahy, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Wow that sounds really serious. What an idiotic statement! These clowns and the media are disgraceful. I watched every second of the testimony. He told a reporter something about the dissent among Admin' officials concerning a Security Program and two days later corrected his statement. Hardly perjury. Not to mention that not even Schumer mentioned the word perjury the media made that up. This coming from a body of people that opens up every statement they make with the phrase "with Permission to revise and extend my remarks" "Without objection". And the AP and other Fictional story outlets don't even question the validity of the remarks they make only the seriousness of the claims these bozo's are making.
Reply-
0%
questionseverything1 year, 1 month ago
the perjury comes from him testifying before he was confirmed as ag...he said there was no dissent in the doj ovr warrentless wiretaps
as we know from the ashcroft hosp visit and the testmony from the acting ag ...there was plenty of dissent about the program
basically what gonzoles is saying is,no that dissent was about ANOTHER program but the peops that were in the "gang of 8" say the meeting held that day was about the wiretapping
looks like gonzoles perjured himself to the senate to get confirmed as ag
Reply-
0%
capecoralM1 year, 1 month ago
That is correct and when pressed on the issue by Schumer for details offered to testify behind closed doors during that testimony to give details because of the classified nature of his answer. This is a circus a fund raising activity for the moveonorg. I would like to know why the Democrat(ic) leadership, especially Schumer, who is the Director of the Fund raising arm of the Democrat(ic) party, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, is putting on these show trials chock full of false assertions and character assassinations by the democrat(ic)s. Was Schumer directed by large donor organizations to do this or is this a fund raising strategy he came up with on his own?
Reply-
0%
capecoralM1 year, 1 month ago
You think a member of the Select intel committee is going to go out in public and say Yes It was another program? Now we know or better suspect that there is another not so secret intel program now because of all this. So when will we and our enemy read in the NYT a story about how we are collecting information on our enemy. When will it be leaked? They cannot tell Leahey or Press hound Schumer as neither is qualified or able to handle classified info. And even and I stress EVEN IF any of these false assertions the Democrat(ic)s are making were true their handling of this in a public forum in the clownish circus like manner and which all of the world is watching is harming the United States image even more in real life than that claimed by the far left about the Iraq war. These people are not statesmen. Perhaps that is why their national approval rating is in the low teens. What a disgrace on the American profile the Democrat(ic)s pushing for this crap have become.
Reply-
0%
questionseverything1 year, 1 month ago
"The dissent related to other intelligence activities," Gonzales testified at Tuesday's hearing. "The dissent was not about the terrorist surveillance program."
"Not the TSP?" responded Sen. Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y. "Come on. If you say it's about other, that implies not. Now say it or not."
"It was not," Gonzales answered. "It was about other intelligence activities."
A four-page memo from the national intelligence director's office says the White House briefing with the eight lawmakers on March 10, 2004, was about the terror surveillance program, or TSP.
The memo, dated May 17, 2006, and addressed to then-House Speaker Dennis Hastert, details "the classification of the dates, locations, and names of members of Congress who attended briefings on the Terrorist Surveillance Program," wrote then-Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte.
Reply-
0%
capecoralM1 year, 1 month ago
"The disagreement referenced by Jim Comey in March 2004 was not about the particular intelligence activity that has been publicly described by the president," Roehrkasse said. "It was about other highly classified intelligence activities that have been briefed to the intelligence committees."
Where is the text of the Memo. Every media outlet is saying the "four page memo" but there is no memo. Hmmm
Reply-
0%
capecoralM1 year, 1 month ago
COMEY: I've actually thought quite a bit over the last three years about how I would answer that question if it was ever asked, because I assumed that at some point I would have to testify about it. The one thing I'm not going to do and be very, very careful about is, because this involved a classified program, I'm not going to get anywhere near classified information. I also am very leery of, and will not, reveal the content of advice I gave as a lawyer, the deliberations I engaged in. I think it's very important for the Department of Justice that someone who held my position not do that.
TRANSCRIPT May 15, 2007 COMMITTEE HEARING
Reply
-
-
-
0%
Dave591 year, 1 month ago
Hell Capecoral if you want to know why just look at the circus Newt Gingrich caused over the contract with America, the Clinton impeachment circus, The White Water scandal, that nothing ever came out of, Ronnie Reagan's "Trickle down economics". Newt's contract was never written let alone adhered to. It was all a stupid sham to get his people elected to office. It worked and all the fools voted for the Republicans. That's because they thought the Republicans were such high minded "Christians". The candidates did do a pretty good job of faking it. Now the Fundies find out these politicians don't really give a crap about fundamental values, they just want the high paying government jobs. And the Republican party sure hasn't done anything good for the working people that support them.
It looks like the Democrats are using the tech of Karl Rove in reverse.
It sucks to be on the wrong side of the equation doesn't it?
Reply-
-
0%
marlenebomer1 year, 1 month ago
No, dumdum... it's called checks and balances!
The GOP sat on their a$$ for years and fiddled while the USA burned. If it were up to me, every one of those GOP bums would be in jail for a decade or two instead of people who abused drugs and did nothing else.
Willful ignorance is one of the most despicable crimes against these who purport to represent the people!
Reply
-
-
-
lovermanComment removed: User banned.
-
-
0%
mesodude1 year, 1 month ago
"I would like to know why the Democrat(ic) leadership, especially Schumer, who is the Director of the Fund raising arm of the Democrat(ic) party, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, is putting on these show trials chock full of false assertions and character assassinations by the democrat(ic)s."
Wouldn't it behoove you more to contemplate why it is that REPUBLICANS have asked Gonzales to resign? You love regurgitating partisan CRAP about "the democratics" but you don't ask yourself why so many people associated with this incident have RESIGNED and why it is that members of YOUR OWN PARTY asked Gonzales to resign. Why are you deliberately ignoring the fact that it's not only Democrats who have concerns about Alberto Gonzales? Why?
Reply -
0%
capecoralM1 year, 1 month ago
offered to testify behind closed doors during that testimony to give details
WTF is wrong with the AG going behind close doors (Not letting our enemy know) to protect Americans in our everyday life from a terrorist attack?
Reply-
JohnQPublicComment removed: User banned.9 Replies
-
0%
MajJohn1 year, 1 month ago
The borders remain open because of the lack of desire to enforce the laws on the books. The prosecution of the border guards for doing their duty is a real crock. This is an area where I REALLY disagree w/ the President. What bothers me also is I see no candidate in either party willing to make the tough choices to secure our borders and then enforse our immigration laws. You'd think in this war on terror we'd at least make it more difficult for the terrorists to get in.
Republican inaction, or maybe the incorrect or lack of action. Instead of farting around with the US attorney's firings in order to make political hay get something important done. Securing the borders would secure the White House for the Democrats, but they don't seem to care either.
Reply-
JohnQPublicComment removed: User banned.5 Replies
-
0%
MajJohn1 year, 1 month ago
Gee, I said I really disagreed with Bush on this. I totally agree with what you just said and I'll go further to say I'm concerned that no other candidate gives a crap about border security either. I don't blame congress, I blame the Department of Homeland Security and the President.
As an aside are you so used to giving me negative votes that you just went ahead and did it without reading what I said? Just wondering, that's all.
Reply-
JohnQPublicComment removed: User banned.3 Replies
-
-
0%
PapaWolf1 year, 1 month ago
Hate to jump in here, but I believe JQP, and I, read your:
>>Instead of farting around with the US attorney's firings in order to make political hay get something important done.
as disagreement w/the investigation into the AG firings. I have to agree w/JQP on this: the firings should be investigated.
My problem w/the whole "border security" issue is the building of a wall. That seems to me to be more for keeping people in than keeping them out, as well as a bit hypocritical. For years, we demanded that the USSR tear down the Berlin wall. Now we condone the building of a wall on Palestinian land by Israel, and we want to build our own wall.
Reply -
JohnQPublicComment removed: User banned.
-
-
-
-
-
0%
Obaku1 year, 1 month ago
I agree with you on border enforcement. You can thank that other Republican 'hero' for creating the current fiasco, with his amnesty program, and setting the precedent for the complete non-enforcement of the sham that passes for the current law.
Try and justify the pardon of Scooter Libby, in the context of Ramos and Campeon rotting in jail.
And FYI, the integrity of the justice system, and thus the rule of law itself, is the MOST IMPORTANT thing.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
capecoralM1 year, 1 month ago
I would not that the term "NSA wiretapping " is not entirely accurate. From what is known the program would be more accurately described as the NSA data mining program. From what is in the public domain the program identifies calls coming into the U.S from from areas of the world that are known to be populated with Islamic Extremists, financing centers, and or operational and control individuals. As COMEY testified the right thing was done by the President in satisfying his, Comey's, concerns. In addition FISA rules were amended to address the issues and conditions, mostly related to technology, that did not exist when the rules were written. As Such FISA now Presides over the NSA Data Mining operation as many requested. As far as the NSA program operators, I do not believe they are randomly picking numbers out of a hat and then by chance listing in on my phone conversations. If you're not getting calls from the aforementioned areas of the world I don't think you need worry.
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%
xpansion1 year, 1 month ago
How could the terrorists use any of the information in question?
I am pretty sure that info pertaining to the firing of US attorneys and the probable perjury of the AG has no bearing WHATSOEVER as a National Security risk.
If this was really an issue let them go behind closed doors, but under oath, and recorded. That eliminates your National Security risk strawman. That excuse is about as asenine as Tony Snow's -
"The FBI director didn't contradict the testimony," Snow said. "It is inappropriate and unfair to ask people to testify in public settings about highly classified programs."
The hiring and firing of US attorneys is highly classified? ROFL, tell me another one. Logic is anathema to this admin and its blind supporters.
Reply -
0%
dunkirk1 year, 1 month ago
"WTF is wrong with the AG going behind close doors (Not letting our enemy know) to protect Americans in our everyday life from a terrorist attack?"
Maybe you can tell us all how sacking attorneys for going after corrupt REPUBLICANS is making us safe from terror??
It appears this Administration is adamant about NOT testyfing under oath. Seems they are very very afraid after the FACTS come out that the stories they;ve been telling just someohow wont match those FACTS. But you know the ole phrase REPUBLICANS loved to say during the Clinton years "If you have nothing to hide....." Based on how hard Bushies fight testifying under oath it appears they have quite a bit to hide.
Reply
-
-
0%
MiraJane1 year, 1 month ago
issuing subpoenas as a fund raising activity?
that is one of the most bizarre statements I have ever read.
Reply -
lovermanComment removed: User banned.
-
-
0%
capecoralM1 year, 1 month ago
You know the details of this meeting how? You know which program was being discussed how? You Don't! You don't and presenting yourself as a judge and jury in this matter is a stretch of the imagination IMO.
Reply-
0%
questionseverything1 year, 1 month ago
WASHINGTON - FBI Director Robert S. Mueller said Thursday the government's terrorist surveillance program was the topic of a 2004 hospital room dispute between top Bush administration officials, contradicting Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' sworn Senate testimony.
Mueller's statement came hours after Senate Democrats called for a perjury investigation against Gonzales and subpoenaed top presidential aide Karl Rove in a deepening political and legal clash with the Bush administration.
Reply-
0%
questionseverything1 year, 1 month ago
Both chambers also have an "inherent contempt" power, allowing either body to hold its own trials and even jail those found in defiance of Congress. Although widely used during the 19th century, the power has not been invoked since 1934 and Democratic lawmakers have not displayed an appetite for reviving the practice.
if the ag stonwalls congress they need to take it into their own hands
Reply -
0%
capecoralM1 year, 1 month ago
Mueller was not in the hospital room at the time of the March 10, 2004, confrontation (I insert meeting here CCM) between Ashcroft and presidential advisers Andy Card and Gonzales, who was then serving as White House counsel. Mueller told the House Judiciary Committee he arrived shortly after they left, and then spoke with the ailing Ashcroft.
"Did you have an understanding that the discussion was on TSP?" asked Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas, in a round of questioning that may have sounded to listeners like bureaucratic alphabet soup.
"I had an understanding the discussion was on a NSA program, yes," Mueller answered.
Reply-
0%
Dave591 year, 1 month ago
Here you state categorically that Mueller was not in the hospital room.
"March 10, 2004, confrontation (I insert meeting here CCM) between Ashcroft and presidential advisers Andy Card and Gonzales, who was then serving as White House counsel. Mueller told the House Judiciary Committee he arrived shortly after they left, and then spoke with the ailing Ashcroft." This is directly from your comment Capecoral.
I note you were not present at that meeting as far as I know. So in fact you can not say of your own knowlege that Mueller was not there. You assume Mueller was not present given the information you have read. Unless you really were present for that event. Were you actually there? If you were not present then you can not say who was or who was not in that meeting.
Please don't try to fool people with poor representation. You seem to state the "Facts" to suit your self.
I think you don't know any more about it than I do.
Reply-
0%
capecoralM1 year, 1 month ago
I did not state that Mueller was not present Mr.Dave59. The article that this post is based on stated that Mueller was not in the hospital room at the time of the March 10, 2004 meeting. 3 YEARS AGO meeting. I was not present neither was Mueller according to this article. Did you even read the article Mr.Dave59?
Reply-
0%
Dave591 year, 1 month ago
I will ask again how do you know he was not? I don't really care what an article said. My point is that you started off by saying definitively he was not present at that time. That is a misrepresentation. Go back and read the first line of your post, this is the quote from it.
"Mueller was not in the hospital room at the time of the March 10, 2004, confrontation." That was your opening statement. It sounded pretty definite to me.
If you did not intend to mislead then why did you use this opening with out qualifying it in advance?
You implied you had stated a fact then backed off by quoting something you had read. By my definition that is misleading.
If it was a fact then show evidence. If it is hear say then state it as such.
I know full well the tactic you are using. It works fine with some people you can get jacked up so they say stuff you can hammer. However I find it rather juvenile.
Reply-
-
-
-
0%
capecoralM1 year, 1 month ago
COMEY:...They turned and walked from the room. And within just a few moments after that, Director Mueller arrived. I told him quickly what had happened. He had a brief -- a memorable brief exchange with the attorney general and then we went outside in the hallway.
SPECTER: So the president backed you up. And it was necessary to make changes in the terrorist surveillance program to get the requisite certification by the acting attorney general that is you? COMEY: And I may be being overly cautious, but I'm not comfortable confirming what program it was that this related to. And I should be clear. The direction as I said, I met with the president first, the Director Mueller did. COMEY: And it was Director Mueller who carried to me the president's direction to do what the Department of Justice thinks is right to get this where the department believes it ought to be. And we acted on that direction.
Reply-
0%
capecoralM1 year, 1 month ago
COMEY: I don't want to get into what -- the reason I hesitate, Senator Specter, is the right thing was done here, in part -- in large part because the president let somebody like me and Bob Mueller meet with him alone. And if I talk about that meeting, I worry that the next president who encounters this is not going to let the next me get close to them to talk about something this important.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
dunkirk1 year, 1 month ago
"Mueller was not in the hospital room at the time of the March 10, 2004, confrontation (I insert meeting here CCM) between Ashcroft and presidential advisers Andy Card and Gonzales,"
THAT is directly from your post. Righties like to change history but its a little tough when what you're trying to change is the post prior tothe one your answering.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
capecoralM1 year, 1 month ago
COMEY:...They turned and walked from the room. And within just a few moments after that, Director Mueller arrived. I told him quickly what had happened. He had a brief -- a memorable brief exchange with the attorney general and then we went outside in the hallway. TRANSCRIPT May 15, 2007 COMMITTEE HEARING
Reply-
0%
capecoralM1 year, 1 month ago
I post the Testimony that many are frothing over that verifies what the article states and at Your complete disbelief That the Attorney General's testimony has been verified. You may become disoriented but hold on to your sanity. I am completely empathetic to the fact that your reality is shattered and your state of denial. How could this testimony from COMEY be different than what you have been fed by the Left wing media? It is hard to understand why they would lie to you. When I was a boy of about 10 years old I read something in the newspaper I knew was totally incorrect because I was there. The fictional story was way off and I told my mother about it. Her advice was "Don't believe everything you read in the newspaper" Yet my friend's on the left, the Bush haters anonymous crowd, this is the truth you seek, the actual testimony of COMEY. You have been misled. You have been given false information. The sources of your information have intentionally misled you!
Reply-
0%
questionseverything1 year, 1 month ago
wether mueller was in the room or not doesnt change anything,mueller was told what was going on and im gonna assume that comey told him the truth esp since ashcroft confirmed comeys story
ag story HAS NOT been verified (unless u count tony snow and that perino) and if gonzoles is telling the truth and the dissent was about an even worse illegal program then he is in bigger trouble than ever
fox news should of called u ovr the weekend cape since they couldnt find a single republican anywhr that would go on air and defend gonzoles
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
spkguy1 year, 1 month ago
Comey's Revelations Suggest Either Gonzales Is Lying Or More Spying Programs Exist
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales faces new legal problems after yesterday's testimony of former Deputy Attorney General James Comey.
In a 2006 hearing, when Sen. Chuck Schumer asked him about Comey's objections to the NSA wiretapping program, Gonzales denied there was any "serious disagreement about the program":
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/05/16/swire-on-go...
Reply
-
-
0%
spkguy1 year, 1 month ago
The White House was pleased with Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' testimony in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and it's easy to see why. Instead of making up excuses for why the U.S. attorneys were fired, Gonzales looked the committee members in the eye and straightforwardly told them he just didn't remember what had happened--64 times.
Evasive?
Reply-
0%
Searchbeam1 year, 1 month ago
Anybody with an ounce of brain, some memory and a pair of eyes that can see can easily understand where this is headed:
In case you were not born yet, or too young to understand, this is Watergate scandal all over again. The names are different but the underlying facts are the same - LYING AND COVER-UP!
This House of Cards is about to collapse because it is based on lies and deception (and I am not making a pun here about Andrew Card, The chief of Staff of POTUS.)
Now more people are using the word IMPEACHMENT!
From now on, it is going to be SHOWTIME!
Fasten your seat belts, Folks. You are in for a phenomenal historic ride, the likes of which you have never seen or experienced before!
Reply-
-
-
-
0%
PapaWolf1 year, 1 month ago
Didn't he get confirmed by the Rep-led Congress? They were rubber-stamping basically everything W put in front of them, so it's not too surprising.
What surprises me is that anyone can still say he's competent enough to do the job after listening to any of his testimony. Then again, almost 30% still believe that the Iraq war is going well.
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%
hoppy1 year, 1 month ago
Memory loss,but all is not lost,,,he'll do work others won't...rotf
Reply
-
-
0%
capecoralM1 year, 1 month ago
# cosmogenium
# jordan11
# StarLord
# searchbeam
# amesburyroad
# scott4261
# gamahuche
# IneedIwantIgottahave
# JohnQPublic
# GHOSTWHOWALKS
# tronness
# e2718
# sundowner9293
# inaroundabout
Do you punks have an opinion or just a negative vote?
Reply-
JohnQPublicComment removed: User banned.7 Replies
-
0%
MajJohn1 year, 1 month ago
Uhh, I agreed to one of your above comments since you were right on. But......remember when I was called a twit for evidently failing to answer a post (my server connection failed) and now you pontificate that it's you right to respond or not. Oh cheeze! Skip the "skippy" and I'll have to admit one is certainly entitled to respond or not no matter what the vote. We've probably given positive votes also w/o comment. No big deal.
Reply-
JohnQPublicComment removed: User banned.5 Replies
-
-
JohnQPublicComment removed: User banned.3 Replies
-
0%
Searchbeam1 year, 1 month ago
cape,
Your nasty comments do need some response. So, here goes.
You are trying to frame yourself as an intelligent and articulate person, but you have proven yourself wrong several times.
You have submitted only the convenient portion of the Patriot Act, and in spite of repeated suggestions to correct your mistakes, you have gone ranting and raving about people who have submitted hundreds upon hundreds of well-thought out comments on this board in this community. When you start insulting these highly intelligent and skilled debaters, you expose yourself as an empty suite.
Talking about empty suites, why didn't you post something meaningful on your profile? What are you afraid of? That people will see through you? If you want to play the game, be prepared to bring your credentials and skill, and also be prepared to take a hit with a curve-ball!
More..
Reply-
0%
Searchbeam1 year, 1 month ago
Contd..
If you want to be a mamma's boy and cry every time someone says something that you don't like, don't come to play.
Most of us are all mature adults here. When we occasionally mis-speak or mis-state a fact, we hasten to correct it and apologize for it. That is called being respectful to your friends here, and also being respectful to the truth.
We have a lot of people posting and commenting here, and some of them have differing political, social, religious and economic views than the others. We do have verbal fist-fights once in a while, but we seldom get into mud-slinging or personal insults. We consider that a sign of immaturity and ignorance.
Some people come here for a while, rant and rave, show their lack of intelligence and flame out in short order.
More..
Reply-
0%
Searchbeam1 year, 1 month ago
Contd..
If you wish to participate in the debate here I suggest you start bringing some respect, knowledge and understanding to the table. If you have nothing to offer but vengeance, you will soon be blocked out, and you will not exist for most participants here. If, however, you want to carry some weight to the threads here, come prepared. Then you will be welcome.
That, and post something about yourself in your profile. Don't be shy, nobody is going to tease you if you have alternative lifestyle, different or no religion, if you are single, double or multiple, or you believe in paranormal.
It's OK as long as you have some common courtesies, and something valuable and meaningful to share.
There, my friend, you have it!
Peace and Blessings!
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
MajJohn1 year, 1 month ago
Usually agree with you but no need to go the "punks" route. Sorry, now I'll have everyone mad at me.
Reply -
0%
gamahuche1 year, 1 month ago
Cape Coral: I am no punk and if you get around on netscape you'll know that I'm perhaps sometimes even reckless with my opinionising.
I came late to this board - I offered some opinions on another thread about the validity of the documents in this case. I live in a 6-9hr different timezone than you, assuming that you are a US resident, which means that sometimes I find threads which are virgin territory and sometimes they're already spun out.
My opinion of your opinion is that you are completely mistaken. The fact that you take up so much time and airspace doesn't help your case.
You have been robustly challenged by some intelligent commentators already and I don't at this moment have any different or fresh information to offer.
I shall continue to give goods and bads according to my convictions and opinions. If you choose to ding me for every post of mine that you ever see I am not going to lose one wink of sleep over it.
Are we clear now?
Reply -
0%
DoerNotASayer1 year, 1 month ago
Whats wrong cape, got a problem with people voting?
Oh, of course you do, you're a neocon. Only people who look and think like you should be allowed to vote.
Reply -
0%
jovial1 year, 1 month ago
Don't like negatives? Stop arguing in favor of a corrupt and unjust Justice Dept. Even some Republican Senators are aware of his malice. Why do you keep defending it? Then you wonder why you get negatives and attack those who do. Wake up and smell the coffee.
Reply
-
-
lovermanComment removed: User banned.
-
-
-
0%
StarLord1 year, 1 month ago
Bulldust. The neocons had him in their sights the moment they found the stained dress - it didn't matter WHAT he said. Also, two additional points: one, his (possible) lies had nothing to do with national security or the integrity of the political process (whereas Gonzales' possible lies have had quite a bit to do with these), and two, Clinton's (unproven) misdemeanors have nothing to do with the situation today.
Reply-
lovermanComment removed: User banned.
-
0%
marlenebomer1 year, 1 month ago
Star, the neocons were going after Clinton the nanosecond her was declared the winner. How *dare* that bubba defeat *their* chosen one! Didn't he know the presidency belongs to them and them alone??
Had Clinton not pushed back the neocon fascist agenda back eight years, AFAIC we would've invaded Iraq on some ficticious reason and would be in a dictatorship already.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
TednGilbertAZ1 year, 1 month ago
I was in media at a very high profile rock station when we were a Top-20 radio market (we're now in the Top-10) for a while and let me tell you... the AP then was so inaccurate... we'd get a wire only to be followed bi another wire saying something different without saying it was a correction... WE had to sift through the stories and figure out which version we would go with over the airwaves... it was ridiculous. Recently, the AP has gone very liberal and slanted and yes, still inaccurate.
oh... and this is hardly 'unprecedented.
Bill Clinton took out hundreds for political reasons... lol.
Reply -
0%
marlenebomer1 year, 1 month ago
Sorry, I was supposed to give you a negative... I just *love* sycophants who say anything to justify what these criminals have done to this country!
Reply
-
-
-
0%
star531 year, 1 month ago
elzorro their no crime here bush has the right to fire attorney at will -clinton fired all 93- this is much to about nothing -the dems are just been hypocrites -their beginning to overplay their hand but keep it up maybe the people begin to see the truth
Reply-
0%
questionseverything1 year, 1 month ago
star altho gonzoles did perjure himself ovr the us attorneys when he said he would nevr fire an us att for political reasons,,,,thats not the perjury this article is about...try and keep up
Reply -
0%
scott42611 year, 1 month ago
God, I get so tired of explaining this to you brain-dead dumbasses, but here goes:
Yeah, Bill Clinton fired all 93 U.S. Attorneys when he became president. And he replaced more, but ALL were subject to U.S. Senate confirmation.....and BTW, so did Ronald Reagan....so did George H.W. Bush....this is standard procedure.
But in this current scandal with the DOJ, the replacements for the fired prosecutors were not subject to Senate confirmation due to an obscure provision in the USAPATRIOT Act (which has since been removed). And everything we know thus far points to a deliberate attempt by the Department of Justice to OBSTRUCT justice in an attempt to disenfranchise voters and thus to game elections.
This should outrage everyone who believes in government OF, FOR, and BY the people....and BTW, party affiliation should have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH IT!
God, I pray for my country!
Reply-
0%
spkguy1 year, 1 month ago
BTW....
The Bush pardons
Now this is Rich: They include a Watergate felon, a Cuban exile terrorist and a Pakistani heroin dealer. But where was the outrage then?
The widely and justly criticized pardons of Caspar Weinberger and other Iran-Contra defendants by George Herbert Walker Bush should have been just the beginning of that story. Yet, for reasons best known to the incorruptible watchdogs of the Washington press corps, Poppy's self-interested mercy upon Weinberger instigated no searching examination of the other pardons granted by the departing president. Indeed, the final dozen pardons given by Bush -- including the unexplained release of a Pakistani heroin trafficker -- received virtually no coverage at all.
http://archive.salon.com/news/col/cona/2001/02/...
Reply -
0%
capecoralM1 year, 1 month ago
Ok. I am one of the the so called "Dumbasses" I think yo may be refering too. I am trying to understan the Democrat(ic) pasition on this isu of firn pple. I lukd up on the itnet the law and found a cople of thangs n thawt I shud put it hear. I wuz wondern if it is the law ?
TITLE 28 > PART II > CHAPTER 35 > § 541
§ 541. United States attorneys
(a) The President shall appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, a United States attorney for each judicial district.
(b) Each United States attorney shall be appointed for a term of four years. On the expiration of his term, a United States attorney shall continue to perform the duties of his office until his successor is appointed and qualifies.
(c) Each United States attorney is subject to removal by the President.
To amend chapter 35 of title 28, United States Code, to preserve the independence of United States attorneys.
Reply-
0%
Searchbeam1 year, 1 month ago
What you ignore (or are ignorant about) is the part of Patriot Act that says the replaced attorneys NEED NOT BE CONFIRMED BY THE SENATE!
Get it? No confirmation by the Senate!
Which means you can put any doorknob or a Mafia Hit man to that post, and s/he will automatically become US ATTORNEY, regardless of his veracity, incorruptibility, honesty or unimpeachable credentials as the nation's lawyer.
S/he could be a floor-sweeper, for all that we know, and there is no way to check and verify the eligibility.
This has got corruption written all over it!
Now do you get it?
Reply-
-
0%
jordan111 year, 1 month ago
I'm going to add to her intelligent remarks. See if you can keep up;
1. 2005: Behind closed doors, someone slipped an 11th hour provision into the Patriot Reauthorication bill, which wiped out US attorney's requiring Senate confirmation. http://uspolitics.about.com/od/legislatio1/a/HR...
2. This change was not shared with Congress before the vote.
3. The clowns start firing US attorney's, and quickly replacing them, without confirmation.
4. Congress gets wind of it, and questions why they weren't confirmed. Then that piece of trash slipped into the Patriot bill comes out. So Congress, naturally, wants to know what the hell is going on. They ask questions. They're told those fired did poor jobs. The one's fired flipped! Seems they did a fine job. http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/printer_04180...
5. The fired attorneys testified they had been told to file bogus charges against democrats, & they refused.
Reply -
0%
jordan111 year, 1 month ago
6. Meanwhile, the DOJ appeared to have knowledge that caging had been done by one 'Tim Griffin', a pal of roves. Caging, or the suppression of voters, is a felony. The Republican party is under a federal court order (has been for years) not to do that.
7. The DOJ did NOT follow through on the commission of the caging felony, & did nothing to Tim Griffin.
8. Tim Griffin was put in the ARK position of US attorney, after the US attorney was fired.
9. Monica Goodling spilled the beans during her testimony to Congress.
10. Griffin resigned, but still the DOJ has not brought him up for charges. His road leads to Karl Rove.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
