Political Termination of U.S. Prosecutors

QueEx · Mar 15, 2007

A Liberal Point of View ?

<center>Mistakes’ Made on Prosecutors, Gonzales Says</center>

The New York Times
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG and JEFF ZELENY
Published: March 14, 2007

WASHINGTON, March 13 — Under criticism from lawmakers of both parties for the dismissals of federal prosecutors, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales insisted Tuesday that he would not resign but said, “I acknowledge that mistakes were made here.”

The mea culpa came as Congressional Democrats, who are investigating whether the White House was meddling in Justice Department affairs for political reasons, demanded that President Bush and his chief political adviser, Karl Rove, explain their roles in the dismissals.

With Mr. Bush traveling in Mexico, the White House insisted that the president’s role had been minimal and laid the blame primarily on Harriet E. Miers, who was White House counsel when the prosecutors lost their jobs and who stepped down in January.

“The White House did not play a specific role in the list of the seven U.S. attorneys,” said Dan Bartlett, Mr. Bush’s counselor, referring to a Justice Department roster of those to be dismissed. But he said the White House, through Ms. Miers’s office, ultimately “signed off on the list.”

Mr. Bartlett said it was “highly unlikely” that Mr. Rove would testify publicly to Congress but added, “That doesn’t mean we won’t find other ways to try to share that information.”

With Democrats vowing to get to the bottom of who ordered the dismissals and why, the White House scrambled to explain the matter by releasing a stream of e-mail messages detailing how Ms. Miers had corresponded with D. Kyle Sampson, the top aide to Mr. Gonzales who drafted the list of those to be dismissed.

Mr. Sampson resigned Monday. On Tuesday afternoon, at a news conference in an ornate chamber adjacent to his office, Mr. Gonzales promised to “find out what went wrong here,” even as he insisted he had had no direct knowledge of how his staff had decided on the dismissals.

He said he had rejected an earlier idea, which the White House attributed to Ms. Miers, to replace all 93 United States attorneys, the top federal prosecutors in their regions. “I felt that was a bad idea,” Mr. Gonzales said, “and it was disruptive.”

With Democrats, including the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, insisting that Mr. Gonzales step down, his appearance underscored what two Republicans close to the Bush administration described as a growing rift between the White House and the attorney general. Mr. Gonzales has long been a confidant of the president but has aroused the ire of lawmakers of both parties on several issues, including the administration’s domestic eavesdropping program.

The two Republicans, who spoke anonymously so they could share private conversations with senior White House officials, said top aides to Mr. Bush, including Fred F. Fielding, the new White House counsel, were concerned that the controversy had so damaged Mr. Gonzales’s credibility that he would be unable to advance the White House agenda on national security matters, including terrorism prosecutions.

“I really think there’s a serious estrangement between the White House and Alberto now,” one of the Republicans said.

Already, Democrats are pressing the case for revoking the president’s authority, gained with the reauthorization of the USA Patriot Act last year, to appoint interim federal prosecutors indefinitely, without Senate confirmation. The administration has argued that such appointments are necessary to speed the prosecution of terrorism cases. After the dismissals became a big political issue last week, Mr. Gonzales signaled that the administration would not oppose the changes sought by Democrats.

“We now know that it is very likely that the amendment to the Patriot Act, which was made in March of 2006, might well have been done to facilitate a wholesale replacement of all or part of U.S. attorneys without Senate confirmation,” said Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, who serves on the Judiciary Committee. “Who authorized all of this? Who asked for that change?”

Questions about whether the dismissals were politically motivated have been swirling since January. But they reached a fever pitch on Tuesday with disclosures by the White House that Mr. Bush had spoken directly with Mr. Gonzales to pass on concerns from Republican lawmakers, among them Senator Pete V. Domenici of New Mexico, about the way certain prosecutors were handling cases of voter fraud.

The White House took the unusual step of having Mr. Bartlett conduct a hurried briefing with reporters in Mérida, Mexico. He said the president had “all the confidence in the world” in Mr. Gonzales and traced the idea for the dismissals to Ms. Miers, saying she had raised the question of whether the Justice Department should clean house in Mr. Bush’s second term, as is common when a new president takes office.

“What Harriet Miers was doing was taking a look and floating an idea to say, ‘Hey, should we treat the second term very similar to the way we treat a first term?’ ” Mr. Bartlett said.

White House officials repeated Tuesday that Mr. Bush had not called for the removal of any particular United States attorney and said there was no evidence that the president had been aware that the Justice Department had initiated a process to generate a list of which prosecutors should lose their jobs.

But inside the White House, aides to the president, including Mr. Rove and Joshua B. Bolten, the chief of staff, were said to be increasingly concerned that the controversy could damage Mr. Bush.

“They’re taking it seriously,” said the other of the two Republicans who spoke about the White House’s relationship with Mr. Gonzales. “I think Rove and Bolten believe there is the potential for erosion of the president’s credibility on this issue.”

On Capitol Hill, lawmakers from both parties expressed anger about the administration’s handling of the matter. While Democrats voiced the loudest criticism, several leading Republicans — among them Senators Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, John Ensign of Nevada, Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania and George V. Voinovich of Ohio — said Tuesday that they also had concerns.

Mr. Ensign, ordinarily a strong supporter of the White House, said he was “very angry” at how the administration had handled the dismissal of the prosecutors, particularly Dan Bogden, the United States attorney in Nevada. Mr. Ensign said he had been misled or lied to last year when he asked the Justice Department about the dismissal of Mr. Bogden and was told that it had been connected to his job performance.

“I’m not a person who raises his voice very often,” said Mr. Ensign, who is also the chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, which works to elect Republicans to the Senate.

Of his decision to speak out, he said, “I think there are times where you just have to do what you feel is right, and this is one of those times.”

Mr. Coburn called the dismissals “idiocy on the part of the administration.”

Mr. Specter, in a speech on the Senate floor, referred to another of the dismissed prosecutors, Carol C. Lam, who prosecuted Randy Cunningham, the former Republican congressman now serving an eight-year sentence in a corruption case.

Mr. Specter raised the question of whether Ms. Lam had been dismissed because she was “about to investigate other people who were politically powerful,” and he questioned the Justice Department’s initial explanation that those who had lost their jobs had received poor performance evaluations.

“Well,” he said, “I think we may need to do more by way of inquiry to examine what her performance ratings were to see if there was a basis for her being asked to resign.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/14/washington/14attorneys.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

QueEx · Mar 15, 2007

Re: Atty General Gonzales Should Resign

A Conservative Point of View ?

<center>Playing Politics with Politics
The U.S.-attorneys controversy pits incompetence against hypocrisy</center>

The National Review
By Andrew C. McCarthy
National Review Contributor
March 15, 2007 6:30 AM

“Loyalty to Bush and Gonzales,” blared Wednesday’s ominous headline in the New York Times, “Was Factor in Prosecutors’ Firings[.]”

One would hope so.

Of all the Bush-administration controversies, the tempest over the termination of eight United States attorneys, the top federal prosecutors in their jurisdictions, may ultimately rank as the most damaging. And not because it was the most serious, but because it was the most revealing: about the administration’s ineptitude and Washington’s hypocrisy.

As it does peerlessly, the Times has crafted the template for mainstream-media coverage of this saga. Loyalty to Bush and Gonzales — could anything be more sinister? That’s why, we’re told in yet another breathless dispatch, “Congressional Democrats … are investigating whether the White House was meddling in Justice Department affairs for political reasons.”

The storyline makes great theater. It is also absurd. You might as well ask whether Congress is proposing legislation for political reasons, or whether loyalty to the party leaders might have had a teensy-weensy bit to do with what bills got voted.

PROSECUTION AND POLITICS
Our system is political. It is intended to be. A White House meddling with the Justice Department for political reasons? The Justice Department, including the attorney general and all 93 U.S. attorneys, are high-ranking officers in one of our two political branches. The head of that branch, the executive branch, is the president. Under our Constitution, he is vested with all of the executive power, including the police power. That power is not divided among several players; it is singularly reposed in him. The president chooses all the U.S. attorneys, and, after Senate confirmation, they, like all executive-branch officers, serve at his pleasure. He doesn’t need a reason to fire any of them — he can ax them because he thinks it’s time for a change, or because it’s Thursday and his horoscope says the stars are aligned for pink slips.

What could be more political than that? Politics is a dirty word in our lexicon, but this is politics in the classic sense of accountability to voters. As it should be.

Writ large, prosecution is inherently a political undertaking. However obvious that should be to people of good will, it is necessary to elaborate because not everyone is of good will — they are apt to gasp, “Politics!” (bad), when they spot politics (good).

So let’s be clear. The prosecution of individual cases proceeds in accordance with constitutional and statutory protections for the individual. It is inherently a legal, not a political, process. Politics ought never intrude on it. But the same is decidedly not true of prosecution in the macro sense of setting enforcement priorities.

There are hundreds upon hundreds of potential offenses. But resources are sparse. Choices have to be made. Contrary to some legal systems which purport, impossibly, that the authorities should file charges any time they become aware of a crime, our system has always been based on prosecutorial discretion. We rely on the judgment of the government’s lawyer to decide what is worth pursuing and what isn’t.

That authority, though, doesn’t belong to the government’s lawyer. The U.S. attorney in any federal district exercises it as a delegate. The power belongs to the president.

For these purposes, the president’s chief aide is the attorney general. The president, with the attorney general’s assistance, sets priorities that determine how the nation’s prosecutorial resources will be targeted. When we speak of a U.S. attorney’s “loyalty” to the president and the attorney general, we are talking about fealty to those priorities.

Establishing them is a quintessentially political determination. It happens in every administration, Republican or Democrat. President Clinton and Attorney General Reno, for example, put their stamp on health-care fraud — aggressively prosecuting it and successfully lobbying congress to permit investigators to issue administrative subpoenas without judicial supervision (the same sort of thing now causing press paroxysms over the FBI’s issuance of national security letters — though separation-of-powers didn’t seem to concern the media much in the 1990s). Under Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, the Bush administration raised eyebrows when it announced in 2005 that a top enforcement objective would be pornography — not just the exploitation of children but smut of consenting adults, by consenting adults, and for consenting adults.

These are political judgments. They reflect what an administration thinks is important and will resonate with the voters who put it in power. They are precisely the type of judgment for which an administration ought to be accountable. Should we be devoting investigative assets to pornography in the middle of a terrorist war? Are we getting the most bang for our federal-enforcement buck if agents who might be tackling violent crime or drug trafficking are instead pouncing on doctors who bill for phony lab tests?

U.S. ATTORNEYS AND LOYALTY
Often, the administration’s judgments are bad. Or, at least, they miss the point that all crime, like all politics, is local. New York City’s backyard features Wall Street — the securities markets will always be a concern there regardless of how much significance Washington places on corporate fraud. The southwest is plagued by metastasizing illegal immigration even if the administration is not, shall we say, focused like a laser on border enforcement. And on it goes. From Washington, broad guidelines can be set, but a U.S. attorney has to be responsive to unique conditions in the jurisdiction. Inevitably, this invites tension between the U.S. attorney and Central Command.

Moreover, while Washington sets policy, the top prosecutor in a district has to worry about proof. The president may have been elected promising, for example, to enforce the death penalty vigorously. His Justice Department may consequently be predisposed to order capital prosecutions. But the U.S. attorney has to try the cases. He will embarrass his office, infuriate the district bench, and compromise his overall effectiveness by seeking death sentences on weak evidence. Programs are fine, but reality is reality.

And then there is political corruption. We have a two-party system. When corruption is alleged, of necessity, the U.S. attorney must investigate a member of either the president’s own party (which, of course, is generally the U.S. attorney’s party) or the president’s opposition. The pat story lines are whitewash or witch-hunt. Too lax, the U.S. attorney is accused of conflict of interest; too aggressive and politics is being criminalized. And all the while, ethics and politics chafe side by side: demanding that the U.S. attorney go wherever the evidence takes him; dictating that the White House assume a pose of hyper-restraint — amid the popular Washington gotcha-game where administration officials are asked a million times a day to comment on the case and condemned if they are foolish enough to oblige.

There are countless points of tension in the dynamic between the president and the U.S. attorneys he chooses. And that is even before we get to ordinary management considerations — the question whether an individual U.S. attorney is a leader who inspires subordinates, earns the respect of the court and the defense bar, and serves the public interest by moving cases efficiently.

It bears repeating that the authority at stake is the president’s. When a high-profile terrorism prosecution in Detroit disintegrates, the president and the Justice Department take the biggest hit. When a decision is made in Texas to indict not only fraudulent accountants but an entire corporation — putting it out of business and its innocent employees out of work — it is the administration that bears the heat. This is entirely appropriate. Nevertheless, it also illuminates what is always implicit: The buck stops with the president, and he must be able to remove those who act in his name for any reason or for no reason.

JUDGMENT VERSUS LEGITIMACY
It is here that the point is missed by actors on both sides of our political divides — partisan between Republicans and Democrats, and constitutional between the executive and legislative branches. Being an act of political discretion, the removal of eight U.S. attorneys can and should be critiqued as wise or unwise. That goes strictly to whether it’s good judgment, and in making that assessment, it’s equally appropriate to ask whether the critics are acting in good faith or opportunistically changing the rules in mid-game. To be legitimate, however, the removal requires no explanation.

Alas, everyone is in politics but no one, it seems, can admit to acting politically. So the Gonzales Justice Department has committed Washington’s worst sin: It has acted like its reasons were noble when in fact they were political, it has misled Congress about that fact, and, when called on it, it has caved … as if the act itself — rather than the dissembling about the act — was illegitimate. In fact, the act, though not the dissembling, was well within the administration’s rights: Its real-world political rights, not some metaphysical calling to do all that is good and just.

Why pretend there needed to be something high-minded about these removals? Why pretend that the White House had nothing to do with what is a presidential decision? That was guaranteed to turn a non-story into a controversy when, inevitably, it proved to be untrue. Why insist that the decision was performance-based? That was guaranteed to enrage the removed U.S. attorneys, which in turn was certain to galvanize their political sponsors and titillate a media on 24/7 scandal-mode. And if it turned out that there wasn’t clear evidence of poor performance, it was sure to feed the impression that something rotten was afoot.

As it happens, that doesn’t appear to be the case. To the extent ousted U.S. attorneys might have been pressured in the handling of particular investigations, that would have been improper, but the only such pressure seems to have come from Capitol Hill, not the White House. By contrast, to the extent ousted U.S. attorneys might have been pressured to be aggressive in moving the administration’s enforcement agenda, that would have been absolutely proper, but the White House and the attorney general don’t seem to have done much in that regard. President Bush evidently groused at some point about neglected voter-fraud investigations, but the attorney general doesn’t seem to remember the conversation and, in any event, there’s no indication that the removals were spurred by recalcitrance in the pursuit of election chicanery or any other administration bugaboo.

Meanwhile, Attorney General Gonzales’s “when do I run out of feet to shoot myself in?” performance has been more than matched by congressional hypocrisy, especially from Democrats. Most jaw-dropping, but hardly unique, is Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. Seeking the presidency, she is pandering to her Bush-hating base about the firings. But, when her husband took office in 1993, he terminated virtually all of the sitting U.S. attorneys.

It was an act of sheer political muscle and naked political patronage. It mattered not the slightest bit to the media that many very fine U.S. attorneys — some presiding over very sensitive, politically charged cases (including one in Arkansas involving the Clintons) — lost their jobs. Clinton had the power to do it and he wanted his own people in. Period. And you know what? He was entitled. If a Bush-41 appointee had botched a major case, that would have redounded to Clinton’s detriment. If the administration wanted to focus on health-care fraud or other Democrat enforcement priorities, the president wanted to be sure each U.S. attorney would be, yes, loyal to those objectives. Loyalty — not skill, not ethics — was the difference between staying on or being fired.

So we have classic Washington farce. The politicians on Capitol Hill theatrically castigate the politicians in the administration for making political decisions about political appointees based on political considerations. The politicians in the administration reply, “That would never happen,” before conceding that it precisely happened … without their knowledge, of course. And the political press is aghast.

Perfect.
— Andrew C. McCarthy directs the Center for Law & Counterterrorism at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZGE1NTRmMDUxNzlmYmM5NjU3OGU3NmJjYTYzY2IzNzI=

VegasGuy · Mar 21, 2007

Re: Atty General Gonzales Should Resign

What did Gonzales do wrong?

-VG

Temujin · Mar 21, 2007

Re: Atty General Gonzales Should Resign

VegasGuy said:
What did Gonzales do wrong?

-VG

Fired eight U.S. attorneys because they weren't bushie enough. They were not fired because of job performance but strictly because of their political affiliations. U.S. attorneys are supposed to enforce the federal laws of this country and that the enforcement of these laws should be totally non-partisan. Gonzalez by being the good bush bitch he is disregarded everything he knows about the judicial system and seperation of powers by firing individuals whose capacity is 99% judicial.

If they let this shit fly every punk ass district court or circuit court judge or prosecutor looking to move up to U.S. attorney now knows that they will not be judged by their legal abilities/decisions but instead will be judged by their political leanings. Political leanings which ethically as a lawyer should have zero to do with enforcement and adherence to the law.

This is shocking to me for any attorney general but for an attorney general who is now chief justice of the supreme court it amazes me that they let a man with this little ethical backbone reach the pinnacle of juris prudence. If you though clarence thomas was bush 1 and reagans bitch this Gonzalez guy takes being a political flunky to a whole new level.

VegasGuy · Mar 21, 2007

Re: Atty General Gonzales Should Resign

Temujin said:
Fired eight U.S. attorneys because they weren't bushie enough. They were not fired because of job performance but strictly because of their political affiliations.

Were they not all republican lawyers that got canned? I thought I read that / heard that somewhere.

U.S. attorneys are supposed to enforce the federal laws of this country and that the enforcement of these laws should be totally non-partisan. Gonzalez by being the good bush bitch he is disregarded everything he knows about the judicial system and seperation of powers by firing individuals whose capacity is 99% judicial.

All presidential appointments right? What I don't understand is, Clinton fired them all but one. Like 93 of 'em. What was different then?

If they let this shit fly every punk ass district court or circuit court judge or prosecutor looking to move up to U.S. attorney now knows that they will not be judged by their legal abilities/decisions but instead will be judged by their political leanings. Political leanings which ethically as a lawyer should have zero to do with enforcement and adherence to the law.

I still don't get it. Clinton got rid of 93 and Hillary got rid of all those in the travel office. They were doing a good job too. So I still don't get what gonzalas did so different. I'm just trying to understand what is so important about this when I thought the major thrust of the new congress was to pay attention to the needs of the people. So far all I see is more of the same. Lawyers defending other lawyers and preping to have hearings for the next scandal.

-VG

Temujin · Mar 21, 2007

Re: Atty General Gonzales Should Resign

Makkonnen said:
Temujin - Did you peep the guy they fired for prosecuting child molesters on indian reservations? It was something about the FBI being pissed he made them tape confessions and interrogations which isnt their normal policy.

Yes I was thoroughly disgusted. U.S. attorneys have a responsiblity to the public to prosecute crimes but to also make sure that the police, fbi etc are adhering to the law in their enforcement capacity.

I hope the country finally sees how political our criminal justice system is and how the politics force people at the end of the day to be more concerned about their jobs or their paychecks then about justice. The ones that are more concerned about justice don't last to long. The ones that kiss administration ass make it all the way to the top. Soon the most important court in the land will be full of political flunky's. Experts at kissing ass.

Temujin · Mar 21, 2007

Re: Atty General Gonzales Should Resign

VegasGuy said:
Were they not all republican lawyers that got canned? I thought I read that / heard that somewhere.

All presidential appointments right? What I don't understand is, Clinton fired them all but one. Like 93 of 'em. What was different then?

I still don't get it. Clinton got rid of 93 and Hillary got rid of all those in the travel office. They were doing a good job too. So I still don't get what gonzalas did so different. I'm just trying to understand what is so important about this when I thought the major thrust of the new congress was to pay attention to the needs of the people. So far all I see is more of the same. Lawyers defending other lawyers and preping to have hearings for the next scandal.

-VG

I don't know wheter or not they were republican but the reports and the emails from Gonzales aide indicate that they were not friends of the administration.

I don't know where you got that from. Clinton did not fire every U.S. attorney in the country but one I'm sure I would of heard of that.

There is a huge difference between an administrative aide and a U.S. ATTORNEY. Administrative aides are supposed to be political that is their job. U.S. Attorneys are supposed to enforce the federal laws of the United States. Laws inacted by congress. Firing for reasons outside of their job performance is unethical and dangerous to the entire judicial system. When you make the enforcement of laws a political decision you take all credibility away from the system.

QueEx · Mar 21, 2007

Re: Atty General Gonzales Should Resign

The president has the the power to relieve U.S. Attorneys, with or without cause. That is, president can give em walking papers because he feels like giving out walkiing papers.

But, terminating a U.S. Attorney because he/she won't perform political hatchet jobs is a different story. Why, because U.S. Attorneys re forbidden, by law and the canons of ethics, from doing political hatchet jobs.

Who should have been terminated, disciplined or charged? - those who insisted that U.S. Attorneys prosecute their or their party's political enemies.

QueEx

Makkonnen · Mar 21, 2007

Re: Atty General Gonzales Should Resign

VegasGuy said:
All presidential appointments right? What I don't understand is, Clinton fired them all but one. Like 93 of 'em. What was different then?

The difference is Clinton fired all the Reagan/GBush I appointees who were there in place before his election, so he got rid of them like Presidents always do when an administration changes especially along party lines.

I saw you make this point on the main board and I replied in detail but you never came back to the thread.

Bush fired those people midterm which is a very rare thing and all of those who were fired or resigned were asked to leave because they did not fulfill some want of other Republican politicos in pursuing frivolous legal action against Democratic opponents. Those are not the same circumstances as Clinton's dismissals or Reagan's etc.

Add to all that the fact that he dismissed people approved by congress to replace them with congressionally unapproved individuals using a detail snuck into the Patriot Act by a Republican Senator who claims he never knew it was put into the law by his own staff. The White House and Justice Dept also claim that didn't know about it.

That is hardly status quo operation in regard to US Attorney appointments and dismissals.

VegasGuy · Mar 21, 2007

Re: Atty General Gonzales Should Resign

Makkonnen said:
The difference is Clinton fired all the Reagan/GBush I appointees who were there in place before his election, so he got rid of them like Presidents always do when an administration changes especially along party lines.

I saw you make this point on the main board and I replied in detail but you never came back to the thread.

Bush fired those people midterm which is a very rare thing and all of those who were fired or resigned were asked to leave because they did not fulfill some want of other Republican politicos in pursuing frivolous legal action against Democratic opponents. Those are not the same circumstances as Clinton's dismissals or Reagan's etc.

Add to all that the fact that he dismissed people approved by congress to replace them with congressionally unapproved individuals using a detail snuck into the Patriot Act by a Republican Senator who claims he never knew it was put into the law by his own staff. The White House and Justice Dept also claim that didn't know about it.

That is hardly status quo operation in regard to US Attorney appointments and dismissals.

I might have missed the reply because generally I click the NEW POSTS link when I show up but it doesn't always get everying. Crappy ass, overrated vBulletin message board systems suck 3 at once.

At any rate, I appreciate the response and I'll go do some diggin'.

I'm trying not to give a shit about what this rag tag white house political idiots do but it's the latest bullshit story in the press the democrat majority is pushing as more important shit than what they campaigned on to fix. namely Gas Prices, ending the war, Minimum wage and having the most ethical congress ever. And since Al Gore was there talking about his video, that is more cover for that do nothing congress.

I'll get back to it. Thanks.

-VG

muckraker10021 · Mar 21, 2007

Re: Atty General Gonzales Should Resign


I posted most of the below on March 15th in this thread http://www.bgol.us/board/showthread.php?t=1607819


It’s always a sad commentary when people who if you asked them if they were smart, would answer yes, engage in the willful neutering of their own intelligence.

The RepubliKlan US attorneys that Clinton removed had been in their positions for as long as 12 years. 8 years of Reagan and 4 years of Papa Bush. Removal of US attorneys after a different party takes control of the white house is typical, common and makes sense.

However removing your own Republican US attorneys that your own administration (baby bush) selected, who all had excellent performance reviews, in the middle of a second term, because they were prosecuting and locking up crooks in your own party like (Randy “Duke” Cunningham) violates the core credo of the relationship a White House is supposed to have vis-à-vis US attorneys.

Read the article below WASHINGTON BABYLON and tell me why you would fire US attorney Carol Lam. The ONLY reason you fire attorney Lam is because, even though she is a REPUBLICAN she's indicting and sending to jail RepubliKlan scum.

Furthermore READ - Was Carol Lam Targeting The White House Prior To Her Firing? ............
.........And you will understand why Cheney-Rove-bush told Gonzo to ax Lamb.

Instead of acting as a political flunky, following the orders of Cheney-Rove-bush to only indict Democrats even if the cases were weak, Lamb did her job by-the-book. If the evidence adds up, you indict; regardless of party affiliation.

One of the eight fired US attorneys Gozo fired, DAVID C. IGLESIAS, who the Tom Cruise character portrayed in the movie "A FEW GOOD MEN" tells us why he was fired here:
READ - Why I Was Fired

The Randy "Duke" Cunningham bribery & corruption trail was headed directly into Darth Cheney's office.

READ – Washington Babylon

READ -Bush Falsely Claims His Prosecutor Purge Is ‘A Customary Practice By Presidents’

READ – Current situation is distinct from Clinton firings of U.S. attorneys

Makkonnen · Mar 22, 2007

Re: Atty General Gonzales Should Resign

http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070321/NEWS08/703210440

Six of the eight U.S. attorneys fired by the Justice Department ranked in the top third among their peers for the number of prosecutions filed last year, according to an analysis of federal records.

In addition, five of the eight were among the government's top performers in winning convictions.

------------

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/21/AR2007032102713.html

The leader of the Justice Department team that prosecuted a landmark lawsuit against tobacco companies said yesterday that Bush administration political appointees repeatedly ordered her to take steps that weakened the government's racketeering case.

Sharon Y. Eubanks said Bush loyalists in Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales's office began micromanaging the team's strategy in the final weeks of the 2005 trial, to the detriment of the government's claim that the industry had conspired to lie to U.S. smokers.

Makkonnen · Mar 23, 2007

Re: Atty General Gonzales Should Resign

I read this on a political site and it seems pretty damning. Not sure how accurate this is since Im not an attorney- maybe Que or another lawyer can chime in on how true this is

You're a little too cautious about saying there's no impeachable offense in the matter of the US attorneys. If anyone in the WH had took part in trying to influence, pressure, or threaten a US attorney with regard to their actions in a case, then they committed the crime of misprision of felony, that felony being obstruction of justice. This is about the most serious offense, short of treason, that one could commit, because it strikes at the most fundamental requirement of governance- to uphold the rule of law. This is so serious, that any involvement, be it conspiring to commit or abetting this crime, or even having knowledge of it, is prosecutable as a felony. If it is proved the president even knew about, much less participated in the firing of these US attorneys, or in suborning them to undertake prosecutions for political ends, he's done, and it'll happen so fast it'll make Nixon's exit look like a marathon dance contest.

muckraker10021 · Mar 24, 2007

Re: Atty General Gonzales Should Resign

Makkonnen said:
------------

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/21/AR2007032102713.html

The leader of the Justice Department team that prosecuted a landmark lawsuit against tobacco companies said yesterday that Bush administration political appointees repeatedly ordered her to take steps that weakened the government's racketeering case.

Sharon Y. Eubanks said Bush loyalists in Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales's office began micromanaging the team's strategy in the final weeks of the 2005 trial, to the detriment of the government's claim that the industry had conspired to lie to U.S. smokers.

Peeps if your are still confused :confused:

about the methodology of - "the bush crime family" - and are like most Americans, too lazy to read the empirical evidence documented in dozens of books and articles, watch attorney Sharon Eubanks in the video below. Is she another witness that will appear before the senate judiciary committee??? Will this bodacious criminal gang ever be forced to respect the US constitution?????? We'll see. 
-

Former federal prosecutor Sharon Eubanks says she was pressured by bush political appointees. "They actually drafted for me for a position to take on a smoking-cessation remedy, which would reduce what the government had been seeking in the case from $130 billion to $10 billion, without any explanation,"
<div align="right">
<img src="http://www.cbsnews.com/images/2005/08/09/image768196g.jpg" width="170" height="127" align="right"></div>Sharon Eubanks Tells Bob Schieffer
That Political Appointees Interfered With Tobacco Ruling

Video Link if player below fails : rtsp://real.cbsig.net/cbsnews/2007/03/23/video2603626.rm

[RM]rtsp://real.cbsig.net/cbsnews/2007/03/23/video2603626.rm[/RM]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/23/eveningnews/main2602549.shtml

QueEx · Mar 24, 2007

Re: Atty General Gonzales Should Resign

U.S. ATTORNEYS

<center>New U.S. attorneys seem to have partisan records
The replacement of the U.S. attorneys, the voter-fraud
campaign and the changes in Justice Department voting
rights policies suggest that the Bush administration may
have been using its law enforcement powers for partisan
political purposes</center>

McClatchy Newspapers
By Greg Gordon, Margaret Talev and Marisa Taylor
Posted on Fri, Mar. 23, 2007

WASHINGTON - Under President Bush, the Justice Department has backed laws that narrow minority voting rights and pressed U.S. attorneys to investigate voter fraud - policies that critics say have been intended to suppress Democratic votes.

Bush, his deputy chief of staff, Karl Rove, and other Republican political advisers have highlighted voting rights issues and what Rove has called the "growing problem" of election fraud by Democrats since Bush took power in the tumultuous election of 2000, a race ultimately decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Since 2005, McClatchy Newspapers has found, Bush has appointed at least three U.S. attorneys who had worked in the Justice Department's civil rights division when it was rolling back longstanding voting-rights policies aimed at protecting predominantly poor, minority voters.

Another newly installed U.S. attorney, Tim Griffin in Little Rock, Ark., was accused of participating in efforts to suppress Democratic votes in Florida during the 2004 presidential election while he was a research director for the Republican National Committee. He's denied any wrongdoing.

Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said the four U.S. attorneys weren't chosen only because of their backgrounds in election issues, but "we would expect any U.S. attorney to prosecute voting fraud."

Taken together, critics say, the replacement of the U.S. attorneys, the voter-fraud campaign and the changes in Justice Department voting rights policies suggest that the Bush administration may have been using its law enforcement powers for partisan political purposes.

The Bush administration's emphasis on voter fraud is drawing scrutiny from the Democratic Congress, which has begun investigating the firings of eight U.S. attorneys - two of whom say that their ousters may have been prompted by the Bush administration's dissatisfaction with their investigations of alleged Democratic voter fraud.

Bush has said he's heard complaints from Republicans about some U.S. attorneys' "lack of vigorous prosecution of election fraud cases," and administration e-mails have shown that Rove and other White House officials were involved in the dismissals and in selecting a Rove aide to replace one of the U.S. attorneys. Nonetheless, Bush has refused to permit congressional investigators to question Rove and others under oath.

Last April, while the Justice Department and the White House were planning the firings, Rove gave a speech in Washington to the Republican National Lawyers Association. He ticked off 11 states that he said could be pivotal in the 2008 elections. Bush has appointed new U.S. attorneys in nine of them since 2005: Florida, Colorado, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Arkansas, Michigan, Nevada and New Mexico. U.S. attorneys in the latter four were among those fired.

Rove thanked the audience for "all that you are doing in those hot spots around the country to ensure that the integrity of the ballot is protected." He added, "A lot in American politics is up for grabs."

The department's civil rights division, for example, supported a Georgia voter identification law that a court later said discriminated against poor, minority voters. It also declined to oppose an unusual Texas redistricting plan that helped expand the Republican majority in the House of Representatives. That plan was partially reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Frank DiMarino, a former federal prosecutor who served six U.S. attorneys in Florida and Georgia during an 18-year Justice Department career, said that too much emphasis on voter fraud investigations "smacks of trying to use prosecutorial power to investigate and potentially indict political enemies."

Several former voting rights lawyers, who asked to remain anonymous for fear of antagonizing the administration, said the division's political appointees reversed the recommendations of career lawyers in key cases and transferred or drove out most of the unit's veteran attorneys.

Bradley Schlozman, who was the civil rights division's deputy chief, agreed in 2005 to reverse the career staff's recommendations to challenge a Georgia law that would have required voters to pay $20 for photo IDs and in some cases travel as far as 30 miles to obtain the ID card.

A federal judge threw out the Georgia law, calling it an unconstitutional, Jim Crow-era poll tax.

In an interview, Schlozman, who was named interim U.S. attorney in Kansas City in November 2005, said he merely affirmed a subordinate's decision to overturn the career staff's recommendations.

He said it was "absolutely not true" that he drove out career lawyers. "What I tried to do was to depoliticize the hiring process," Schlozman said. "We hired people across the political spectrum."

Former voting rights section chief Joseph Rich, however, said longtime career lawyers whose views differed from those of political appointees were routinely "reassigned or stripped of major responsibilities."

In testimony to a House Judiciary subcommittee hearing this week, Rich said that 20 of the 35 attorneys in the voting rights section have been transferred to other jobs or have left their jobs since April 2005 and a staff of 26 civil rights analysts who reviewed state laws for discrimination has been slashed to 10.

He said he has yet to see evidence of voter fraud on a scale that warrants voter ID laws, which he said are "without exception ... supported and pushed by Republicans and objected to by Democrats. I believe it is clear that this kind of law tends to suppress the vote of lower-income and minority voters."

Other former voting-rights section lawyers said that during the tenure of Alex Acosta, who served as the division chief from the fall of 2003 until he was named interim U.S. attorney in Miami in the summer of 2005, the department didn't file a single suit alleging that local or state laws or election rules diluted the votes of African-Americans. In a similar time period, the Clinton administration filed six such cases.

Those kinds of cases, Rich said, are "the guts of the Voting Rights Act."

During this week's House judiciary subcommittee hearing, critics recounted lapses in the division's enforcement. A Citizens Commission on Civil Rights study found that "the enforcement record of the voting section during the Bush administration indicates this traditional priority has been downgraded significantly, if not effectively ignored."

Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., who chaired the hearing, said, "The more stringent requirements you put on voting in order to get rid of alleged voter fraud, the more you're cutting down on legitimate people voting."

Acosta, the first Hispanic to head the civil rights division, said he emphasized helping non-English speaking voters cast ballots. In 2005, he told a House committee that he made an unprecedented effort to monitor balloting in 2004 to watch for discrimination against minorities.

Justice spokesman Roehrkasse said Acosta "has an impressive legal background, including extensive experience in government and the private sector" and as a federal appeals court clerk.

A third former civil rights division employee, Matt Dummermuth, 33, was nominated to be U.S. attorney in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, last December. Before his appointment, he was counsel to the assistant attorney general for civil rights. He was a special assistant to the civil rights chief from 2002 to 2004.

Details of his involvement in reviewing voter rights couldn't be determined, and Dummermuth, a Harvard Law School graduate, didn't return calls seeking comment.

Bush administration officials have said that no single reason led to the firings of the eight U.S. attorneys. But two of those who were forced to resign said they thought they might have been punished for failing to prosecute Democrats prior to the 2006 congressional elections or for not vigorously pursuing Republican allegations of voter irregularities in Washington state and New Mexico.

Former U.S. Attorney David Iglesias of New Mexico has said he thought that "the voter fraud issue was the foundation" for his firing and that complaints about his failure to pursue corruption matters involving Democrats were "the icing on the cake."

John McKay, the ousted U.S. attorney for western Washington state, looked into allegations of voter fraud against Democrats during the hotly contested governor's race in 2004. He said that later, when top Bush aides interviewed him for a federal judgeship, he was asked to respond to criticism of his inquiry in which no charges were brought. He didn't get the judgeship.

Rove talked about the Northwest region in his speech last spring to the Republican lawyers and voiced concern about the trend toward mail-in ballots and online voting. He also questioned the legitimacy of voter rolls in Philadelphia and Milwaukee.

One audience member asked Rove whether he'd "thought about using the bully pulpit of the White House to talk about election reform and an election integrity agenda that would put the Democrats back on the defensive."

"Yes, it's an interesting idea," Rove responded.

Despite the GOP concerns, Bud Cummins, the Republican-appointed U.S. attorney in Arkansas who was fired, said he had "serious doubts" that any U.S. attorney was failing to aggressively pursue voter fraud.

"What they're responding to is party chairmen and activists who from the beginning of time go around paranoid that the other party is stealing the election," Cummins said. "It sounds like to me that they were merely responding to a lot of general carping from the party, who had higher expectations once the Republican appointees filled these posts that there would be a lot of voting fraud investigations. Their expectations were unrealistic."

Griffin, the interim U.S. attorney in Arkansas who's replaced Cummins, was a Rove protege and a former Republican National Committee research director. He was accused of being part of an attempt to wipe likely Democratic voters off the rolls in Florida in 2004 if they were homeless or military personnel.

Griffin couldn't be reached for comment.

Ed Gillespie, then the RNC chairman, said the Republican Party was following election laws and trying to investigate voter fraud by sending out mailers to addresses of registered voters. If the notices came back, he said, the names were entered into a database and checked to see if the voters were listing actual residences.

"The Republican National Committee does not engage in voter suppression," he said. "The fact that someone was trying to prevent voter fraud should not disqualify someone from being U.S. attorney."

McClatchy Newspapers correspondents Tish Wells and Ron Hutcheson contributed to this report.

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/16962753.htm

actinanass · Mar 28, 2007

Re: Atty General Gonzales Should Resign

*sigh* I guess the minimum wage bill isn't going to well....

Anyway, I find it kinda funny that the republicans are considered the "racist" party when democrats do some of the racist bullshit. I mean come on, no one said shit when Mr.Clinton fired 93 U.S. attorneys. Guess what, he did it because he basically WANTED TOO. Isn't that some shit? The Democrats are just ramping up the investigations because they have NO power. However, the American people wanted this bullshit, now we going to see it.

Oh yea, someone tell Mr. Hagel that you can't impeach a president if the president haven't broken the law.

Bottomline, the democrats are trying to find something to get Bush with.

QueEx · Mar 28, 2007

Re: Atty General Gonzales Should Resign

[1]

I think its funny when people mix party labels with anything (racism, etc.) to explain general phenomena. Parties are made up of individuals and there are all types of individuals in both major parties.

[2]

Not to defend Bill Clinton, but do you not see the difference in exercising the prerogative to discharge appointees - and - discharging appointees because they refuse to assist the party by abusing their broad power to prosecute a party's political enemies ???

I would think it would have been wrong if Clinton had done the same thing. If Clinton were allowed to abuse the power of the presidency, you have to know, realistically speaking, that the next party will have a license to do the same. Justice ought not depend upon whose in power.

[3]

Are the Democrats looking for something to bust Bush's ass with? you damn right they are -- just as the Republicans did everyting thing under the sun to bust Clinton's ass when he was president. You haven't forgotten that, have you ???

I think its sad that both parties spend an inordinate amount of time trying to bust the other. It simply means time wasted and not focused on the real problems. But, for the foreseable future, what goes around comes around, unfortunately.

QueEx

Makkonnen · Mar 28, 2007

Re: Atty General Gonzales Should Resign

actinanass said:
*sigh* I guess the minimum wage bill isn't going to well....

Anyway, I find it kinda funny that the republicans are considered the "racist" party when democrats do some of the racist bullshit. I mean come on, no one said shit when Mr.Clinton fired 93 U.S. attorneys. Guess what, he did it because he basically WANTED TOO. Isn't that some shit? The Democrats are just ramping up the investigations because they have NO power. However, the American people wanted this bullshit, now we going to see it.

First - Why bring up racism and then back it up with nothing?

93 attorneys hired by Reagan and Bush were fired. Midterm firings are rare. Youre 0 for 2

3- Democrats have no power? The controll the house and the senate, that's power. If they had no power republican criminals wouldn't be pleading the 5th and worrying about testifying under oath.

0 for 3

Oh yea, someone tell Mr. Hagel that you can't impeach a president if the president haven't broken the law.

Bottomline, the democrats are trying to find something to get Bush with.

Bottomline, your rant sounds ignorant. At least try to back it up with some relevant facts.

actinanass · Mar 29, 2007

Re: Atty General Gonzales Should Resign

Makkonnen said:
that doesn't mean they dont have any power that means they don't have enough power to override another branch of government, there is a difference

?wtf

? Im missing your point again. Political bigotry? Its politics! The nation has had two partys fighting for a long time. People with one viewpoint tend to disagree with people of opposing viewpoints.
Bush is a republican.
Lieberman is a democrat and most dems hate his bitch ass too. Are you surprised that people from opposing parties are OPPOSED to one another?

Did you miss the past 7 years of Republicans freezing out democrats from the political process????????????

They did it so the president and all his friends would have to fight against their attempt to stop the Iraq war. That way when the next election comes up all the bitches who didn't oppose the stoppage of this fraudulent war can be held accountable. Its called politics. That's not to say that they dont actually want the war to stop too.

Why don't you remind us?

1. In a democrat eyes, thats not power. That was my whole point. Really, whats the point of having the house and the senate if YOU CANT PASS ANYTHING?

2. To add on number one, since they can't pass anything into law, they do the next "best" thing. Discredit the president, and his administration. Thus, this topic arise...

3. A war cannot be fraudulent if both parties had the evidence BEFORE BUSH WAS IN OFFICE. Kinda funny how people forget politics back during the Clinton administration.

4. I didn't miss the republicans doing their jobs. Democrats were just mad because some of the good things *economy, social security, and education* didn't have their name on it.

its obvious that your a liberal, blinded by hate for g.w.bush, so I think its best to agree to disagree...

oh yea.... http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/08/berger.sentenced/

basically explains the whole Sandy Berger thing...

Makkonnen · Mar 30, 2007

Re: Atty General Gonzales Should Resign

actinanass said:
1. In a democrat eyes, thats not power. That was my whole point. Really, whats the point of having the house and the senate if YOU CANT PASS ANYTHING?

??????
The only reason you are complaining is because they do have power. They do not have the numbers to pass everything with and override a veto, that is correct. Again, that does not mean they do not have power.

By the same token they can cut funding to all of the president's activity. Power over the budget is ultimate power.

2. To add on number one, since they can't pass anything into law, they do the next "best" thing. Discredit the president, and his administration. Thus, this topic arise...

The president has discredited himself.30% approval rating. MOST Americans do not like what Bush does. Much of what Bush has been doing has been criminal and now that there is real oversight he will be called on his actions.

3. A war cannot be fraudulent if both parties had the evidence BEFORE BUSH WAS IN OFFICE. Kinda funny how people forget politics back during the Clinton administration.

Bush had his people lie to America and the UN. There was never a nuclear threat from Iraq in this decade.
Clinton has no part in Bush's criminality.
What do parties have to do with the war being bullshit? I am not a member of the democratic party.

4. I didn't miss the republicans doing their jobs. Democrats were just mad because some of the good things *economy, social security, and education* didn't have their name on it.

No. You misunderstood. The Republicans for the last 7 years had held all committee meetings in secret and did not tell the democrats where the meetings were being held and froze them out of participation. That has NEvER happened before. That is not their job. That is corruption. That is abuse of power.

And as for the economy, social security and education, the Repubs have done nothing to improve any of those issues and have hurt 2 of them.

its obvious that your a liberal, blinded by hate for g.w.bush, so I think its best to agree to disagree...

oh yea.... http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/08/berger.sentenced/

basically explains the whole Sandy Berger thing...

Its obvious that you do not know what I am and do not know who or what I hate.
I am by no means a liberal. I am by no means a supporter of an illegitimate President who has abused his power and the people of this nation either.
You should consider looking at things beyond a two party, this or that type of thinking.

Posting an article on Sandy Berger does not explain you mentioning his name as if it is a total statement and argument unto itself. I know who he is. If you care to invoke his name as if it is relevant to some argument you would like to make please follow his name with an actual argument. At least that way I can follow what you are saying rather than trying to read your mind.

actinanass · Mar 31, 2007

Re: Atty General Gonzales Should Resign

Makkonnen said:
??????
The only reason you are complaining is because they do have power. They do not have the numbers to pass everything with and override a veto, that is correct. Again, that does not mean they do not have power.

By the same token they can cut funding to all of the president's activity. Power over the budget is ultimate power.

The president has discredited himself.30% approval rating. MOST Americans do not like what Bush does. Much of what Bush has been doing has been criminal and now that there is real oversight he will be called on his actions.

Bush had his people lie to America and the UN. There was never a nuclear threat from Iraq in this decade.
Clinton has no part in Bush's criminality.
What do parties have to do with the war being bullshit? I am not a member of the democratic party.

No. You misunderstood. The Republicans for the last 7 years had held all committee meetings in secret and did not tell the democrats where the meetings were being held and froze them out of participation. That has NEvER happened before. That is not their job. That is corruption. That is abuse of power.

And as for the economy, social security and education, the Repubs have done nothing to improve any of those issues and have hurt 2 of them.

Its obvious that you do not know what I am and do not know who or what I hate.
I am by no means a liberal. I am by no means a supporter of an illegitimate President who has abused his power and the people of this nation either.
You should consider looking at things beyond a two party, this or that type of thinking.

Posting an article on Sandy Berger does not explain you mentioning his name as if it is a total statement and argument unto itself. I know who he is. If you care to invoke his name as if it is relevant to some argument you would like to make please follow his name with an actual argument. At least that way I can follow what you are saying rather than trying to read your mind.

1. I wonder why they won't DE-FUND the war? Can you say POLITICAL SUICIDE?

2. *sigh* hell how could a man discredit himself when the economy is at record pace, and we are in a war that has the least death rate among ANY OTHER WAR WE HAVE BEEN IN. So how is he discrediting himself?

3. ahh mister mak.....you know clinton had the same evidence? That means MR. Al GORE would have went in just like Bush did. Meaning that argument has been overplayed. Plus, you aren't lying about Clinton doesn't have anything to do with Bush's "scandals". In fact, Clinton had a whole novel full of scandals that has nothing to do with the Bush camp... Funny that you don't point that shit out MAK. Seems kinda partisan to me....

4. Speaking of corruption, I thought that pork was suppose to stop with a democratic congress. Funny how the new funding bill had.........PORK. Funny how democrats forget what they do...

5. look at the stock market, and the unemployment rate. Social security reform was blocked by the democrats in 2002 I think, my bad for that one.

6. The argument was about Atty General Gonzales right? Well I pointed out that in the Clinton camp, you had people doing 12x worst shit that what Gonzales is charged with. Again, you tend to forget everything that happened before Bush.

7. *sigh* mak come on man, not the al gore argument. FOR THE LAST TIME, AL GORE DID NOT WANT TO BE PRESIDENT IN 2000. He had all the power to challenge the count during the 2000 elections, and he DIDN'T DO IT. Ask yourself, would you want a pussy for a president? Because Al Gore was a pussy for not fighting for the office. He wasted YOUR VOTE mak. Therefore, Bush is the legitimate president because HE WANTED IT. Not to mention, BUSH WON HIS OWN STATE. What does that tell you if a person loses his own state like AL GORE did? So please mak, lets be real, these democrats aren't the ones MY GRANDPARENTS grew to love. So please, quit making them out to be the party that I should love. Basically FUCK THE DEMOCRATS UNTIL THEY GROW NUTS!

Makkonnen · Mar 31, 2007

Re: Atty General Gonzales Should Resign

actinanass said:
1. I wonder why they won't DE-FUND the war? Can you say POLITICAL SUICIDE?

They won't defund the war because they really don't give a shit. At best they are cowards and at worst they are complicit.

2. *sigh* hell how could a man discredit himself when the economy is at record pace, and we are in a war that has the least death rate among ANY OTHER WAR WE HAVE BEEN IN. So how is he discrediting himself?

I hope you worked on his campaign. You should take Tony Snow's spot. Good work.

3. ahh mister mak.....you know clinton had the same evidence? That means MR. Al GORE would have went in just like Bush did. Meaning that argument has been overplayed. Plus, you aren't lying about Clinton doesn't have anything to do with Bush's "scandals". In fact, Clinton had a whole novel full of scandals that has nothing to do with the Bush camp... Funny that you don't point that shit out MAK. Seems kinda partisan to me....

How did Clinton have the same evidence that was doctored by the Bush White House? You dont even make sense.
The FORGED letters that supposedly showed Saddam trying to obtain uranium from Niger were not in Clinton's hands so what the fuck are you talking about?

Fuck Clinton. He's a scumbag IMHO. We are not talking about Clinton, who is irrelevant to this discussion, we are talking about Bush. Clinton can go to prison too for all I care. Is that partisan too? :smh:

?

Bush is president right? So its partisan to talk about the president when talking about the president? :lol:

4. Speaking of corruption, I thought that pork was suppose to stop with a democratic congress. Funny how the new funding bill had.........PORK. Funny how democrats forget what they do...

Pork stop? With Democrats? Why would it? They didn't run on a "no pork" campaign. They ran on an "we are not Bush or republicans" campaign and won easily.
Do you read? Conservatives are supposed to be about no pork and they upset many fiscal conservatives with the past few years of spend spend spend bullshit.

We can have a convo but please try to come correct man.

5. look at the stock market, and the unemployment rate. Social security reform was blocked by the democrats in 2002 I think, my bad for that one.

The stock market just crashed. The housing market which the economy has been riding these past years is ready to crumble. The unemployment rate does not count people who's benefits have stopped.

6. The argument was about Atty General Gonzales right? Well I pointed out that in the Clinton camp, you had people doing 12x worst shit that what Gonzales is charged with. Again, you tend to forget everything that happened before Bush.

No brainiac - I dont forget what old presidents did 10 years ago I am just more concerned with what the CURRENT PRESIDENT IS DOING NOW.
:smh:

Go make a clinton thread since you obviously are living in 1997 instead of 2007.

7. *sigh* mak come on man, not the al gore argument. FOR THE LAST TIME, AL GORE DID NOT WANT TO BE PRESIDENT IN 2000. He had all the power to challenge the count during the 2000 elections, and he DIDN'T DO IT. Ask yourself, would you want a pussy for a president? Because Al Gore was a pussy for not fighting for the office. He wasted YOUR VOTE mak.

You are insane. You don't know whether or not I voted and if I did who I voted for so chill out smart guy.
I agree that Gore didn't fight for it and neither did Kerry and I know why. It does not change the fact that Bush obtained and maintained the presidency through a series of dirty tricks and scams.

Therefore, Bush is the legitimate president because HE WANTED IT.

So wanting to be president makes you the president? :lol:

Not to mention, BUSH WON HIS OWN STATE. What does that tell you if a person loses his own state like AL GORE did?

wtf? youre a funny dude

So please mak, lets be real, these democrats aren't the ones MY GRANDPARENTS grew to love. So please, quit making them out to be the party that I should love. Basically FUCK THE DEMOCRATS UNTIL THEY GROW NUTS!

CAN YOU READ??????? I AM NOT A DEMOCRAT. :smh:

Is this guy a buddy of yours Que?

QueEx · Mar 31, 2007

Re: Atty General Gonzales Should Resign

actinanass said:
...

6. The argument was about Atty General Gonzales right? Well I pointed out that in the Clinton camp, you had people doing 12x worst shit that what Gonzales is charged with. Again, you tend to forget everything that happened before Bush.

Interesting. Did you know that Carl Rove is arguing the same thing: "There can be no scandal because everyone's guilty" - which is akin to the old Watergate defense: it didn't start with us, so why are you prosecuting us?

QueEx

actinanass · Mar 31, 2007

Re: Atty General Gonzales Should Resign

Makkonnen said:
They won't defund the war because they really don't give a shit. At best they are cowards and at worst they are complicit.

I hope you worked on his campaign. You should take Tony Snow's spot. Good work.

How did Clinton have the same evidence that was doctored by the Bush White House? You dont even make sense.
The FORGED letters that supposedly showed Saddam trying to obtain uranium from Niger were not in Clinton's hands so what the fuck are you talking about?

Fuck Clinton. He's a scumbag IMHO. We are not talking about Clinton, who is irrelevant to this discussion, we are talking about Bush. Clinton can go to prison too for all I care. Is that partisan too?

? Bush is president right? So its partisan to talk about the president when talking about the president?

Pork stop? With Democrats? Why would it? They didn't run on a "no pork" campaign. They ran on an "we are not Bush or republicans" campaign and won easily.
Do you read? Conservatives are supposed to be about no pork and they upset many fiscal conservatives with the past few years of spend spend spend bullshit.

We can have a convo but please try to come correct man.

The stock market just crashed. The housing market which the economy has been riding these past years is ready to crumble. The unemployment rate does not count people who's benefits have stopped.

No brainiac - I dont forget what old presidents did 10 years ago I am just more concerned with what the CURRENT PRESIDENT IS DOING NOW.

Go make a clinton thread since you obviously are living in 1997 instead of 2007.

You are insane. You don't know whether or not I voted and if I did who I voted for so chill out smart guy.
I agree that Gore didn't fight for it and neither did Kerry and I know why. It does not change the fact that Bush obtained and maintained the presidency through a series of dirty tricks and scams.

So wanting to be president makes you the president?

wtf? youre a funny dude

CAN YOU READ??????? I AM NOT A DEMOCRAT.
Is this guy a buddy of yours Que?

1. So...at least we agree on one thing, the democrats are cowards....enough said about that.

2. The only problem with Bush's presidency is the fact that he inherit most of the problems Clinton swept under the rug. Not to mention that we have people who call themselves MEN, who are scared to take on our TRUE enemy.

3. Clinton isn't irrelevant to this subject. In fact, he is part of the reason we are dealing with most of the problems today. Now, have Bush fuck up on some issues YES. He should of sent more soldiers in on day one. However, Clinton is the one who should of dealt with this situation when Saddam kicked out the first inspectors. So, therefore, he has to take up some of the blame.

4. I swore Nancy Pelosi herself made comments about congress in pork during the opening ceremonies. I might be wrong *looking on youtube*

5. POLITICS IS DIRTY. However, he did what any other president has done. I'm sorry that you feel that you must feel that nothing he does is the right thing. I'm really not a super Bush supporter, however, whats fair is fair. That is why I bring up past political moves to justify current ones.

6. In the case of wanting to be the president, Al Gore didn't want it enough. I mean why are people on this subject when Al Gore could of made things happen? The only thing Bush did was RUN. BTW, you miss the fact that AL GORE DIDN'T WIN HIS OWN STATE. In my book, HE DOESN'T DESERVE TO BE PRESIDENT IF HE DIDN'T WIN HIS OWN STATE. So quit blaming Bush for 2000, it makes you look dumb.

Al Gore is the type of dude who will fold when he has a royal flush. NOT PRESIDENTIAL MATERIAL.

QueEx · Mar 31, 2007

Re: Atty General Gonzales Should Resign

actinanass said:
... I bring up past political moves to justify current ones.

Not in defense of Bill Clinton, but what is the past invasion that was engineered by Bill Clinton where it was alleged that there were weapons of mass distruction (which turned out to be grossly untrue) and where it was alleged there was a connection with Al Qaeda (without any supporting evidence) that you are using to justify the current actions of GW and Iraq ???

Please be specific.

QueEx

QueEx · Mar 31, 2007

Re: Atty General Gonzales Should Resign

actinanass said:
...
Clinton is the one who should of dealt with this situation when Saddam kicked out the first inspectors. So, therefore, he has to take up some of the blame.

I thought Saddam/Iraq was "contained" by the "no fly zones" up through the time of the invasion. Is that not true ??? If not, please elaborate.

QueEx

actinanass · Apr 1, 2007

Re: Atty General Gonzales Should Resign

QueEx said:
Not in defense of Bill Clinton, but what is the past invasion that was engineered by Bill Clinton where it was alleged that there were weapons of mass distruction (which turned out to be grossly untrue) and where it was alleged there was a connection with Al Qaeda (without any supporting evidence) that you are using to justify the current actions of GW and Iraq ???

Please be specific.

QueEx

Ok, have Saddam ever CONDEMN Al Queda for 9-11?

At least Iran did....

QueEx · Apr 1, 2007

Re: Atty General Gonzales Should Resign

`

I asked (not that you had to comply) for "specifics" to back up your argument and you responded with "Ok, have Saddam ever CONDEMN Al Queda for 9-11?" ??? What did Bush say about Saddam Hussein and 9-11 ???:
<center> ......
</center>
Bush: Saddam was not responsible for 9/11


Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington
Guardian Unlimited
Tuesday September 12, 2006

George Bush last night admitted that Saddam Hussein had no hand in the 9/11 terror attacks, ...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/september11/story/0,,1870427,00.html

`

actinanass · Apr 3, 2007

Re: Atty General Gonzales Should Resign

muckraker10021 said:
http://images.dailykos.com/images/user/1237/Bush_Finger.gif



<img src="http://www.quibbles-n-bits.com/archives/bomber/kkk.gif" border="0" height="49" width="50">Anybody surprised at what the RepubliKlan <img src="http://www.smirkingchimp.com/images/topics/republicans.jpg"> under the orders of Cheney-Rove-bush was ordering their butt-boy Gonzales to do at the US Justice Department????


<img src="http://www.quibbles-n-bits.com/archives/bomber/kkk.gif" border="0" height="49" width="50"> The RepubliKlan Party is. 

• Unapologetically Racist
• Homophobic
• Anti-Sex Education
• Anti- Immigrant
• Anti- Minimum Wage
• Anti-Abortion Rights
• Anti-Consumer Protection (pro-tort reform)
• Anti-Social Security Insurance
• Anti- Environmental Conservation Laws
• Anti-Progressive Taxation
• Anti-Banning the Death Penalty
• Anti-Feminism
• Anti-Affirmative Action
• Anti-Small Business Administration
• Anti-Substantially Increasing Foreign Aid
• Anti-Government Student College Tuition Grants
• Anti-ANY Gun Control
• Anti- Non-Christian Religion Tolerance 

<hr noshade color="#0000FF" size="4"></hr>

<table border="1" width="600" id="table1" bgcolor="#375D9C" cellspacing="1" height="100">
<tr><td><img src="http://www.latimes.com/images/standard/latimeslogo.gif"></td>
</tr></table>

Bush's Long History of Tilting Justice
The administration began skewing federal law enforcement before the current U.S. attorney scandal, says a former Department of Justice lawyer

by Joseph D. Rich

JOSEPH D. RICH was chief of the voting section in the Justice Department's civil right division
from 1999 to 2005. He now works for the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-rich29mar29,0,3371050.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail

March 29, 2007

THE SCANDAL unfolding around the firing of eight U.S. attorneys compels the conclusion that the Bush administration has rewarded loyalty over all else. A destructive pattern of partisan political actions at the Justice Department started long before this incident, however, as those of us who worked in its civil rights division can attest.

I spent more than 35 years in the department enforcing federal civil rights laws — particularly voting rights. Before leaving in 2005, I worked for attorneys general with dramatically different political philosophies — from John Mitchell to Ed Meese to Janet Reno. Regardless of the administration, the political appointees had respect for the experience and judgment of longtime civil servants.

Under the Bush administration, however, all that changed. Over the last six years, this Justice Department has ignored the advice of its staff and skewed aspects of law enforcement in ways that clearly were intended to influence the outcome of elections.

It has notably shirked its legal responsibility to protect voting rights. From 2001 to 2006, no voting discrimination cases were brought on behalf of African American or Native American voters. U.S. attorneys were told instead to give priority to voter fraud cases, which, when coupled with the strong support for voter ID laws, indicated an intent to depress voter turnout in minority and poor communities.

At least two of the recently fired U.S. attorneys, John McKay in Seattle and David C. Iglesias in New Mexico, were targeted largely because they refused to prosecute voting fraud cases that implicated Democrats or voters likely to vote for Democrats.

This pattern also extended to hiring. In March 2006, Bradley Schlozman was appointed interim U.S. attorney in Kansas City, Mo. Two weeks earlier, the administration was granted the authority to make such indefinite appointments without Senate confirmation. That was too bad: A Senate hearing might have uncovered Schlozman's central role in politicizing the civil rights division during his three-year tenure.

Schlozman, for instance, was part of the team of political appointees that approved then-House Majority Leader Tom DeLay's plan to redraw congressional districts in Texas, which in 2004 increased the number of Republicans elected to the House. Similarly, Schlozman was acting assistant attorney general in charge of the division when the Justice Department OKd a Georgia law requiring voters to show photo IDs at the polls. These decisions went against the recommendations of career staff, who asserted that such rulings discriminated against minority voters. The warnings were prescient: Both proposals were struck down by federal courts.

Schlozman continued to influence elections as an interim U.S. attorney. Missouri had one of the closest Senate races in the country last November, and a week before the election, Schlozman brought four voter fraud indictments against members of an organization representing poor and minority people. This blatantly contradicted the department's long-standing policy to wait until after an election to bring such indictments because a federal criminal investigation might affect the outcome of the vote. The timing of the Missouri indictments could not have made the administration's aims more transparent.

This administration is also politicizing the career staff of the Justice Department. Outright hostility to career employees who disagreed with the political appointees was evident early on. Seven career managers were removed in the civil rights division. I personally was ordered to change performance evaluations of several attorneys under my supervision. I was told to include critical comments about those whose recommendations ran counter to the political will of the administration and to improve evaluations of those who were politically favored.

Morale plummeted, resulting in an alarming exodus of career attorneys. In the last two years, 55% to 60% of attorneys in the voting section have transferred to other departments or left the Justice Department entirely.

At the same time, career staff were nearly cut out of the process of hiring lawyers. Control of hiring went to political appointees, so an applicant's fidelity to GOP interests replaced civil rights experience as the most important factor in hiring decisions.

For decades prior to this administration, the Justice Department had successfully kept politics out of its law enforcement decisions. Hopefully, the spotlight on this misconduct will begin the process of restoring dignity and nonpartisanship to federal law enforcement. As the 2008 elections approach, it is critical to have a Justice Department that approaches its responsibility to all eligible voters without favor.
 <hr noshade color="#0000ff" size="10"></hr>

Lol@ this propaganda

I wonder if you actually go listen to the other side sometimes. All this "anti" this and "anti" that, but just think if everything was "pro" this instead. Would this be a better country?

Gay marriage is a scam.

I don't care about Affirmative Action.

I own a gun.

Feminism is the reason why black families are in a disarray.

How could the republicans be against small business if the tax cuts went STR8 to the small business owners. *I know because my grandfather own a cleaners in my hood, and he got hooked up during tax time*

Because Republicans cut some school grants do not mean that they are against government grants. The goal on the republican party is to keep taxes low. Would you rather pay $8 for a happy meal for your kids to pay some slacker way through college...?

Minimum wage is a scam. Minimum wage is for "start off jobs". Talking about anti small business, THIS WILL HURT SMALL BUSINESS MORE.

I wish before liberals talk about what conservatives do, go listen to the other side WITH AN OPEN MIND. Maybe you will understand how things actually work.

muckraker10021 · Apr 7, 2007

Re: Atty General Gonzales Should Resign

actinanass said:
Lol@ this propaganda

The dramatic paucity of comprehension you display regarding elementary truths, authenticates that your fealty to republiklan dogma has defiled your reality, and you have become nothing more than a chimerical automaton.

This is a sad but not unique condition. Thousands of current and upcoming republiklan acolytes willfully choose this path. They consciously attend universities that DON'T teach peer reviewed science, DON'T teach modern literature, DON'T teach philosophy, DON'T teach modern psychology.

These schools DO teach an American History where George Washington, who was a mason is depicted as a Christian fundamentalist, they DO teach an American History where the chattel slavery of Africans is justified as biblically legitimate.

Where do graduates of such universities find employment????

They are highly sought out by and hired by RepubliKlan senators and RepubliKlan members of congress.

They are working for butt-boy Gonzales at the US Justice department. 
(The Gonzales staffer Monica Goodling who is taking the 5th amendment rather than testify under oath is a graduate of Pat Robertson's Regent University Law School, and her undergraduate university was Messiah college)

They are also working in the White House working for Karl Rove, Darth Cheney, and baby bush! Are you surprised?? You shouldn't. Who else besides willfully brain dead sycophants would fully support RepubliKlan talking points such as "Intelligent Design" & "There is no-such-thing as global warming."

You can read all about these 'university graduates???????' in the article linked below.
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/06/27/050627fa_fact?currentPage=1

You are more pitiable than the dolts, like Monica Goodling, who have lived their entire lives in a bubble drinking the toxic American Theocracy RepubliKlan kool-aid. As a loyal brainwashed brownnoser at least she got a job and a paycheck. What do you get for you slavish adherence to the RepubliKlan?????????????


Now let's quickly smack down your imagined reality, with empirical "reality based" data, in no particular order.

1. The SBA (Small Business Association) under "the bush crime family" has had its budget cut 40% from $1.1 billion+ per year under the Clinton administration to the $624 million per year it currently receives. In fact "the bush crime family" has tried every year to cut the SBA even more but even a Tom Delay bossed RepubliKlan majority congress wouldn't go for it. To put the paltry $624 million per year into perspective realize that "the bush crime family" is burning 2 BILLION DOLLARS PER WEEK on this Iraq occupation. 2 Billion per week!!!!!!

2. FEMINISM - Black women have been feminist centuries before the word "feminist" had a definition. From before Queen Nzinga to today, Black women have kept African people alive. I took the train to Yankee Stadium earlier this week for the season opener. The train that pulled into the station was being driven by a Black women, the conductor who opened the doors was a Black women, as I entered the train the two police officers who were on patrol were Black women. No, feminism hasn't hurt Black men, institutionalized racism has. If you want a society where women are second & third class citizens you need look no further than most of the theocratic Arab-Persian -North African world. The men who run those countries are fools. They have taken at least 50% of their potential intellectual capital ( their woman) and condemned them to domestic-housewife-harem status.

3. GUNS- The RepubliKlan is against ANY GUN CONTROL, ANY AT ALL.
I have no problem will legal licensed guns. I own registered hand guns, I use them for target shooting. I do have a problem with someone being able to go into any Southern State and in a matter of days purchase crates full of fully automatic military assault rifles with only a bogus cursory background check. On the receipt for the machine guns it will say "hunting rifles". The RepubliKlan has no problem with this. I do.

4. MINIMUM WAGE - without a minimum wage and overtime pay laws you have slavery. It is a simple as that. If you are over the age of 18 and have completed at least a GED you understand this. Look down at your feet. If you are wearing shoes or sneakers they weren't made in the US. Are you wearing sneakers? They were made by a young women in Indonesia, China, Philaphines, Vietnam, Myramar who work 6 days a week, 12-14 hours a day for 20 -50 cents per hour. Here in the US the RepubliKlan talking point, that those earning the minimum wage are just teenagers and entry level workers is a LIE. You see the RepubliKlan talking point creators know that their dumb followers are too stupid, lazy and ignorant to go check the statistics to see if their "Dear Leaders" are liars. They know that the 28% who still swallow their shit listen to Rush, Hannity, Savage, and Beck for their information. For those of us in the "reality based community" we still believe in those stubborn empirical facts. Here are the actual statistics about minimum wage workers compiled by career government employees at The Department of labor for "the bush crime family". If you are too lazy to look at the spread sheets, here are the key numbers - 58% of men earning the minimum wage were between the age of 25- 54 years old and 64% of woman earning the minimum wage were between the age of 25- 54 years old. Here is the link below, look at the numbers , you don't need my MBA or wall street career to add up the 'official' government statistics.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR BUREAU OF LABOR -Statistics Table 7. -Employed wage and salary workers paid hourly rates with earnings at or below the prevailing Federal minimum wage by age and sex, 2002 annual averages

5. GAY MARRIAGE- Gay people deserve the same opportunity to FAIL at marriage as heterosexual couples. Slightly more that 1 out of 2 heterosexual marriages fail. In the Black community that number is higher. In many European countries gay marriage has been legal since the early 1960's; guess what?, the institution of heterosexual marriage was not destroyed.

6. FEDERAL EDUCATION FUNDING - Federal education funding has been cut drastically by "the bush crime family" and interest rates on federal student loans have been raised. If you can't figure out why this is severely detrimental to the US read my post in this thread http://www.bgol.us/board/showthread.php?t=163499

7. AFFIRMATIVE ACTION - American Apartheid, white supremacy, was such an integral, normal part of the American status quo, that without affirmative action, Black lawyers, MBA's, PhD's would still be working in the post office as they were in the 1940's -1950's. Affirmative action as it relates to employment simply says that employers are mandated to look at and consider ALL QUALIFIED CANDIDATES when staffing a position. And they have to prove that they made that effort. These laws have resulted in qualified Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and white women entering the fortune 1000 companies. Prior to these laws many of the nations largest firms (IBM, Texaco, E.F. Hutton, etc.) were lily-white. Affirmative action as it relates to college entrance is an entirely different topic that I won't comment on here.

And let's see what J.C. Watts' father had to say about Republicans and the Republican Party. He said ... "A black man voting for the Republicans makes about as much sense as a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders."



 
<hr noshade color="#ff0000" size="10"></hr>

actinanass · Apr 7, 2007

Re: Atty General Gonzales Should Resign

muckraker10021 said:


The dramatic paucity of comprehension you display regarding elementary truths, authenticates that your fealty to republiklan dogma has defiled your reality, and you have become nothing more than a chimerical automaton.

This is a sad but not unique condition. Thousands of current and upcoming republiklan acolytes willfully choose this path. They consciously attend universities that DON'T teach peer reviewed science, DON'T teach modern literature, DON'T teach philosophy, DON'T teach modern psychology.

These schools DO teach an American History where George Washington, who was a mason is depicted as a Christian fundamentalist, they DO teach an American History where the chattel slavery of Africans is justified as biblically legitimate.

Where do graduates of such universities find employment????

They are highly sought out by and hired by RepubliKlan senators and RepubliKlan members of congress.

They are working for butt-boy Gonzales at the US Justice department. 
(The Gonzales staffer Monica Goodling who is taking the 5th amendment rather than testify under oath is a graduate of Pat Robertson's Regent University Law School, and her undergraduate university was Messiah college)

They are also working in the White House working for Karl Rove, Darth Cheney, and baby bush! Are you surprised?? You shouldn't. Who else besides willfully brain dead sycophants would fully support RepubliKlan talking points such as "Intelligent Design" & "There is no-such-thing as global warming."

You can read all about these 'university graduates???????' in the article linked below.
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/06/27/050627fa_fact?currentPage=1

You are more pitiable than the dolts, like Monica Goodling, who have lived their entire lives in a bubble drinking the toxic American Theocracy RepubliKlan kool-aid. As a loyal brainwashed brownnoser at least she got a job and a paycheck. What do you get for you slavish adherence to the RepubliKlan?????????????


Now let's quickly smack down your imagined reality, with empirical "reality based" data, in no particular order.

1. The SBA (Small Business Association) under "the bush crime family" has had its budget cut 40% from $1.1 billion+ per year under the Clinton administration to the $624 million per year it currently receives. In fact "the bush crime family" has tried every year to cut the SBA even more but even a Tom Delay bossed RepubliKlan majority congress wouldn't go for it. To put the paltry $624 million per year into perspective realize that "the bush crime family" is burning 2 BILLION DOLLARS PER WEEK on this Iraq occupation. 2 Billion per week!!!!!!

2. FEMINISM - Black women have been feminist centuries before the word "feminist" had a definition. From before Queen Nzinga to today, Black women have kept African people alive. I took the train to Yankee Stadium earlier this week for the season opener. The train that pulled into the station was being driven by a Black women, the conductor who opened the doors was a Black women, as I entered the train the two police officers who were on patrol were Black women. No, feminism hasn't hurt Black men, institutionalized racism has. If you want a society where women are second & third class citizens you need look no further than most of the theocratic Arab-Persian -North African world. The men who run those countries are fools. They have taken at least 50% of their potential intellectual capital ( their woman) and condemned them to domestic-housewife-harem status.

3. GUNS- The RepubliKlan is against ANY GUN CONTROL, ANY AT ALL.
I have no problem will legal licensed guns. I own registered hand guns, I use them for target shooting. I do have a problem with someone being able to go into any Southern State and in a matter of days purchase crates full of fully automatic military assault rifles with only a bogus cursory background check. On the receipt for the machine guns it will say "hunting rifles". The RepubliKlan has no problem with this. I do.

4. MINIMUM WAGE - without a minimum wage and overtime pay laws you have slavery. It is a simple as that. If you are over the age of 18 and have completed at least a GED you understand this. Look down at your feet. If you are wearing shoes or sneakers they weren't made in the US. Are you wearing sneakers? They were made by a young women in Indonesia, China, Philaphines, Vietnam, Myramar who work 6 days a week, 12-14 hours a day for 20 -50 cents per hour. Here in the US the RepubliKlan talking point, that those earning the minimum wage are just teenagers and entry level workers is a LIE. You see the RepubliKlan talking point creators know that their dumb followers are too stupid, lazy and ignorant to go check the statistics to see if their "Dear Leaders" are liars. They know that the 28% who still swallow their shit listen to Rush, Hannity, Savage, and Beck for their information. For those of us in the "reality based community" we still believe in those stubborn empirical facts. Here are the actual statistics about minimum wage workers compiled by career government employees at The Department of labor for "the bush crime family". If you are too lazy to look at the spread sheets, here are the key numbers - 58% of men earning the minimum wage were between the age of 25- 54 years old and 64% of woman earning the minimum wage were between the age of 25- 54 years old. Here is the link below, look at the numbers , you don't need my MBA or wall street career to add up the 'official' government statistics.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR BUREAU OF LABOR -Statistics Table 7. -Employed wage and salary workers paid hourly rates with earnings at or below the prevailing Federal minimum wage by age and sex, 2002 annual averages

5. GAY MARRIAGE- Gay people deserve the same opportunity to FAIL at marriage as heterosexual couples. Slightly more that 1 out of 2 heterosexual marriages fail. In the Black community that number is higher. In many European countries gay marriage has been legal since the early 1960's; guess what?, the institution of heterosexual marriage was not destroyed.

6. FEDERAL EDUCATION FUNDING - Federal education funding has been cut drastically by "the bush crime family" and interest rates on federal student loans have been raised. If you can't figure out why this is severely detrimental to the US read my post in this thread http://www.bgol.us/board/showthread.php?t=163499

7. AFFIRMATIVE ACTION - American Apartheid, white supremacy, was such an integral, normal part of the American status quo, that without affirmative action, Black lawyers, MBA's, PhD's would still be working in the post office as they were in the 1940's -1950's. Affirmative action as it relates to employment simply says that employers are mandated to look at and consider ALL QUALIFIED CANDIDATES when staffing a position. And they have to prove that they made that effort. These laws have resulted in qualified Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and white women entering the fortune 1000 companies. Prior to these laws many of the nations largest firms (IBM, Texaco, E.F. Hutton, etc.) were lily-white. Affirmative action as it relates to college entrance is an entirely different topic that I won't comment on here.

And let's see what J.C. Watts' father had to say about Republicans and the Republican Party. He said ... "A black man voting for the Republicans makes about as much sense as a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders."



 
<hr noshade color="#ff0000" size="10"></hr>

for one, I went to college, and was a journalism major. I had every type of class YOU claim many "conservatives" don't take.

Think about this, how long has our people followed the Democrats, and actually PROGRESS under their followship? Do you see any BROKE black republicans? Another thing, please don't think I'm a str8 republican, or anything. However, to act like the republicans are the only ones who act racist, homophobic, and snobbish is just plain ludicrous.

This is propaganda because you do not offer the REASON of such actions the republicans take. You are not being balance in your beliefs, therefore, you seem like a blind activist. BTW, the only reason I really don't feel the democrats is the fact that the ones I DO LIKE, they don't want them to have any power. I would support a Senator like Harold Ford Jr, but look how they did him. I would support Liberman, and look they drove him out of the senate *as a democrat*. This party is too left for me. I don't agree with global warming, I can't stand gay marriage *its a scam*, and I hate any type of gun control. The gun don't kill anyone, its the PERSON. I guess the democratic party do not want the independent vote during the 08 elections...

QueEx · Apr 16, 2007

Re: Atty General Gonzales Should Resign

THE LETTER:

AMERICAN FREEDOM AGENDA
910 SEVENTEENTH STREET, NW SUITE 800
WASHINGTON, DC 20006
WWW.AMERICANFREEDOMAGENDA.ORG

April 16, 2007

Honorable George W. Bush
President of the United States of America
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20500

Honorable Alberto Gonzales
Attorney General
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001

Dear Mr. President and Attorney General:

We, the undersigned co-founders of the American Freedom Agenda, urge the Attorney General to submit his resignation and the President to accept.

Mr. Gonzales has presided over an unprecedented crippling of the Constitution's time-honored checks and balances.

He has brought the rule of law into disrepute, and debased honesty as the coin of the realm.

He has engendered the suspicion that partisan politics trumps evenhanded law enforcement in the Department of Justice.

He has embraced legal theories that could be employed by a successor to obliterate the conservative philosophy of individual liberty and limited government celebrated by the Founding Fathers.

In sum, Attorney General Gonzales has proven an unsuitable steward of the law and should resign for the good of the country.

The President should accept the resignation, and set a standard to which the wise and honest might repair in nominating a successor, who will keep the law, like Caesar's wife, above suspicion.

Sincerely,

//Bruce Fein, Chairman
Richard Viguerie
David Keene
Bob Barr
John Whitehead//

`
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1610767,00.html

blackIpod · Apr 25, 2007

Re: Atty General Gonzales Should Resign

New York Times :lol:

Who else will they ask to resign next GOD!
The president has the power to fire the U.S. attorneys.
He does not need to explain why.
I wish the white house would get more aggressive in defending it's positions and policies!
Keep General Gonzales at the Justice Department.
The department is not falling apart and no laws where broken with the removal of the 8 U.S. attorneys.
Do not give one inch of ground to the DNC, Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi.

muckraker10021 · May 8, 2007

Re: Atty General Gonzales Should Resign

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/6RAd2IYcjN4"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/6RAd2IYcjN4" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>


Resurrecting Jim Crow:
The Erratic Resume of the Voting Section Chief


A collaborative effort by ePluribus Staff Writers: Cho, Standingup, wanderindiana, Aaron Barlow & Roxy

May 6th 2007
 <img height="219" alt="22" src="http://www.epluribusmedia.org/features/2007/images/jim_crow.jpg" width="261" align="left" border="0" />When John K. Tanner replaced <a href="http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F30812FC3B5B0C768DDDAD0894DF404482">Joe Rich as section chief</a> of the Justice Department's Voting Section in 2005, a breathtaking politicization -- already under way after Alex Acosta was put in charge of the Civil Rights Division -- accelerated sharply. The exodus of talent, expertise, and knowledge of civil rights law in the two years under Tanner's stewardship is numbing. <a href="http://judiciary.house.gov/media/pdfs/Rich070322.pdf">Roughly 50% of the staff</a>1 -- attorneys, including many of the top litigators, researchers and analysts -- have left, and Tanner has waged an aggressive effort to remake the section in his own image -- not an image that most people who promote the core mission of the Voting Rights Act, which the Section is primarily responsible for enforcing, would support.
<h3>Why it matters</h3>
Forty years ago, black and white Americans were murdered for trying to stop Jim Crow. Thugs, drunken good old boys and miscreants pulled the trigger, lit the torch, yanked the rope.
 Courageous men and women like Medgar Evers, James Chaney, Andrew Goodman, Michael Schwerner, and Viola Liuzzo fought and lost their lives to get rid of the Jim Crow laws that deprived African-Americans of the right to vote.
 <img src="http://www.epluribusmedia.org/features/2007/images/viola_liuzzo.jpg" alt="24" hspace="10" align="right" />Eventually, with the passage of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, the voting rights of every American citizen were secured. 
But Jim Crow, like the Dark Lord in the popular Harry Potter children's books, never completely died. And the resurrection, assisted by the seeding of political appointees and agreeable new hires within the very government institutions designed to protect the civil rights of Americans, is now dangerously close at hand.
 Tanner, the new Section Chief, who received his law degree by attending American University night school, cites his early civil rights bona fides in a recent <a href="http://www.law.ufl.edu/news/flalaw/pdf/flalaw-061120.pdf">FLA-Law</a> piece "'I would go into the projects and knock on doors and take people to the federal registrars,' explained Tanner, who met [Martin Luther] King during this time."
 Yet according to many insiders, Tanner -- who was born and spent his early years in Alabama, graduating in 1967 from Indian Springs School near Birmingham -- has in just a little over 2 years essentially gutted the ability of the Voting Section to protect the voting rights of these most vulnerable members of our society.
<h3>Partisan Politics in the DoJ Civil Rights Division</h3>
Bob Kengle, in an May 1st interview, <a href="http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003120.php">"Former DoJ Official: I left Due to Institutional Sabotage," </a>reports that:
 [...] by late 2004, I did not believe that I could ensure that following the law and facts would remain a higher priority than partisan favoritism. This was based partly upon my expectation that the Administration, if returned to office, would feel less constraint against heavy-handed management and biased enforcement than had been the case in the aftermath of the controversial 2000 election. To put it bluntly, before 2004 the desire to politicize the Voting Section's work was evident, but it was tempered by a recognition that there were limits to doing so. That such constraints diminished over time is evidenced by the well-known and ham-fisted handling of decisions involving Texas' congressional redistricting plan in late 2003 and Georgia's voter ID law in 2005.
 Critics point to both of these widely-known instances (the 2003 <a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://www.nbc5i.com/politics/2364916/detail.html" target="_blank">Texas congressional redistricting plan </a>and the Georgia voter ID law in 2005) as evidence that the political appointees or "front office" and their all too obliging protégés were using redistricting and voter suppression to manipulate elections.
 According to Department of Justice sources, during the 2003 Texas redistricting, while Joe Rich was still Section Chief,  the career staff unanimously decided the proposed plan was discriminatory.  However, when the "front office" overruled,  Rich refused to sign the recommendation for preclearance, taking a principled stand for civil rights law.  As Steve Bickerstaff, professor of law at the University of Texas noted in his book Lines in the Sand:  Congressional Redistricting in Texas and the Downfall of Tom DeLay:  "Within a week of receiving the recommendation (i.e., on Friday, December 19 [2003]), [Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General] Sheldon Bradshaw sent the Texas secretary of state a letter containing the simple standard wording for a preclearance letter:  'The Attorney General does not interpose any objection,'" allowing the redistricting to go ahead. According to sources, it is extremely rare that the front office, not the Section Chief or career attorneys, would sign such a letter.   Other sources suggest that at the time Tanner was actively, if not openly, seeking to be Section Chief.
 By 2005 and the Georgia voter ID law, Tanner had succeeded in his quest for promotion.  In striking contrast to Rich's behavior with Texas, Tanner went against the near unanimous recommendations of the career staff,  instead falling in line with the desires of the political appointees.
 Tanner's memo, supposedly representing the analysis of the Voting Section, went against the recommendations of four of the five attorneys and analysts to provide "preclearance" or approval for the State of Georgia to institute the new voter  ID law. Toby Moore, former Voting Section political geographer, told <a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/17102317.htm" target="_blank">McClatchy last month</a> that Tanner "doctored the memo ... reversing many of our findings."
 The sole approving attorney was a recent hire from a third-tier law school, the University of Mississippi, Joshua Rogers who had been in the Voting Section just two months. He was <a href="http://scoop.epluribusmedia.org/story/2007/4/28/19023/3956">given a cash award </a>based on his work on the Georgia Voter ID law.
 Although the Georgia law was subsequently struck down as <a href="http://www.columbiatribune.com/2007/Apr/20070422Feat007.asp">unconstitutional.</a> and unable to<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/19/AR2006091901382.html"> withstand judicial scrutiny</a>, a side effect of Tanner's process was to establish a new policy that hamstrung the Voting Section career staff who were dedicated to upholding voter rights.
<h3>Out with the old and in with the new -- The Section 5 Preclearance Process</h3>
As Dan Eggen reported in 2005 <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/09/AR2005120901894.html">Staff Opinions Banned In Voting Rights Case.</a>
 Under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, Georgia, Texas and other states with a history of discriminatory election practices are required to receive approval from the Justice Department or a federal court for any changes to their voting systems. Section 5 prohibits changes that would be "retrogressive," or bring harm to, minority voters. 
For decades, staff attorneys have made recommendations in Section 5 cases that have carried great weight within the department and that have been passed along to senior officials who make a final determination, former and current employees say. 
Preventing staff members from making such recommendations is a significant departure and runs the risk of making the process appear more political, experts said.
 Sources have compared the "old" process to the new for ePluribus Media:
 By taking away this ability to make written recommendations for objections, Tanner essentially eliminated the audit trail and made it impossible for Voting Section analysts and attorneys to say "we recommended an objection, but we were overruled." The only person who gets to make a recommendation now is Tanner. The funny thing is Voting Section analysts still make recommendations NOT to object. In fact, they make a hundred or so every week. But they can't recommend an objection. Instead of writing a "Section 5 Recommendation Memorandum," recommending an objection, they are now forced to write a "Memorandum of Section 5 Analysis," which gives arguments both for and against objection. If the front office decides not to object, or if Tanner himself decides not to object, they can say "well, we found the arguments against objection more compelling."
 In sum, after John Tanner changed the memorandum policy, Voting Section analysts and attorneys could no longer make written recommendations that the Department object to a change in a state's voter laws that would infringe on minorities' voting rights. They could only 1) recommend that no objection be made or 2) provide arguments for and against objection. The ability to recommend an objection in writing has been completely stripped.
 As former Voting Section Trial Attorney David Becker, now the Director of the Democracy Campaign at People For the American Way, explains:  "The primary thing for which the career staff have been hired is to use their experience and judgment to make recommendations regarding their investigations and litigation.  The only possible justification for forbidding such recommendations is to eliminate a paper trail, and thus avoid accountability. "
 <a href="http://www.epluribusmedia.org/features/2007/images/jim_crow2.jpg"><img height="303" alt="23" src="http://www.epluribusmedia.org/features/2007/images/jim_crow2.jpg" width="252" align="left" border="0" /></a> A third troubling precedent occurred in the aftermath of the 2004 election and accusations of widespread voter suppression in Ohio. Again, Tanner seemed willing to serve the political agenda of his bosses. A source who left the Voting Section in 2004 notes that Tanner's <a href="http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/voting/misc/franklin_oh.pdf">June 29th 2005 letter</a> closing the investigation into the distribution of voting machines in Franklin Country, Ohio reads instead like a legal brief supporting the use of disparate numbers of machines in predominantly white and predominantly black precincts, arguing that such disparity did not violate the Voting Rights Act. 
Described by sources as repugnant, Tanner's 4-page letter doesn't merely note that the investigation is closed, but also develops convoluted excuses for why black voters didn't have enough machines and white voters did. Ironically, and apparently undercutting its own excuse-making rationale, the letter whirls around again to praise the election Board's decision to increase the number of voting machines for Franklin county by two fifths, acquiring approximately 2,100 new machines, thus increasing totals from 2,904 to 5,000.
 The letter is notable for two reasons. First, according to the source, historically the DoJ never writes such a letter when it finishes an investigation and determines that there is no reason to proceed. Traditionally, it merely writes that it is closing the investigation. Second, Tanner's signature is the only one that appears on the letter closing the investigation and no other DoJ attorneys were on the distribution list. So, apparently, Tanner was the sole attorney assigned to that investigation, itself unusual since Voting Section cases are always staffed by more than one attorney. The assignment is also odd because Section Chiefs rarely, if ever, handle investigations.
<h3>The confusing ideology of the new section chief</h3>
Tanner's recent activities are far different ideologically than his earlier work when he entered the Voting Section in 1976 as a Civil Rights Analyst while attending [night] law school at American University. At that time, he qualified for the Civil Rights Division's Honors Program and was hired upon graduating to work in the Voting Section. Details of the next 18 years of his life, between 1976 and 1994, are sparse as there seem to be few decisions or activities that distinguish him. The two items that ePluribus researchers could find seem to indicate confused ideology and shallow knowledge of civil rights law. Tanner was the Acting Chief of the Voting Section during part of the Clinton administration. In 1994, when the Division struck down a Louisiana Voter ID Law, Tanner concurred in the recommendation to object. The Louisiana law was remarkably similar to the controversial 2005 Georgia Voter ID law that, under the Bush adminstration, Tanner now precleared over the recommendation of attorneys and analysts to object. Some critics point to this flip-flop as evidence of political opportunism at worst, confused ideology at best.
 The second item ePluribus Media researchers discovered was a case where Tanner's knowledge (or mastery) of the law was questioned. It was also during Tanner's reign as Acting Section Chief that the Department of Justice opened an investigation into potential Voting Rights Act infringement by the New York State legislature. Tanner zealously pursued Section 5 litigation. Tanner's pursuit of this case, was noted by some as an 'abuse of power' by the Department of Justice, as the DOJ did not "confine its Section 5 inquiry to the question of whether the proposed voting change has a "retrogressive" effect on minority voting strength." According to Heather McDonald in the <a href="http://www.city-journal.org/html/5_3_the_feds.html">City Journal</a>:
 It was in court that the full absurdity of the situation became clear. Justice's attack on New York was based on a complete misreading of the law. 
Justice had denied pre-clearance because New York's judicial nominating process, in its view, discriminated against minorities. 
[...]
In New York's case, Justice admitted that the addition of judges had no retrogressive effect on minority voting rights. In fact, the new posts clearly increased minority power by opening up new opportunities for minority judges.
 Even though he failed to win his case, Tanner was not dissuaded and continued appeals to the US Supreme Court:
 Solicitor General Drew Days III instructed the department to withdraw its appeal. "There was no disagreement as to whether our legal position was correct," says Richard Jerome of the voting rights section. "But the solicitor general decided that this was not the best case [factually] to present the issues."
 It was shortly after the New York debacle -- sometime during 1995 -- that Tanner transferred out of the Voting Section where he had worked for nearly 20 years. There is some talk of his leaving because he wasn't offered the permanent position of Section Chief. No matter the reason for his departure, it seems that in the seven years from 1995 to 2002, John Tanner floated from one detail to another -- the White House, Congress -- and finally landed in the Civil Rights Division - Criminal Section. The most interesting report about Tanner during this period is that there are no reports. The sole <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20050423211247/http://www.dccouncil.washington.dc.us/patterson/pages/prinfo/04.05.05JohnKTanner+ceremonial.doc">press release </a>about him was one from the DC Council (the legislative branch of the Washington DC local government) that, in recognizing him for 28 years of distinguished service, notes that while he was with the Criminal Division, Tanner:
 [...] prosecuted cases involving police brutality, racially motivated residential arson, telephone threats and church arson. He also served on the Department's Hate Crimes working group and on the National Church Arson Task Force.
 At the end of that oddly quiet period, in 2002, he returned to the Voting Section. He later took a position created by Alex Acosta, as Special Litigation Counsel in Charge of Minority Language Enforcement. Apparently, the position was superfluous as minority language enforcement was already considered a successful initiative.
<h3>Gutting the Section</h3>
These same sources suggest that after Tanner returned to the Voting section, he set out to undermine then-Section Chief Joe Rich, clearing the position for himself, a career move he is rumored to have planned since 1995. Apparently, once he achieved these goals, Tanner contributed to an environment that has forced out multitudes of career staff, people that had dedicated their professional life to Civil Rights and thus taking with them hundreds of years of civil rights law experience.
 On the same day in April, for example, Joe Rich and Bob Kengle resigned and just like that, over 60 years of voting rights law enforcement knowledge left Justice. That lost knowledge of civil rights law and the experience have not been replaced. Many of these positions remain vacant; others have been filled by Federalist Society and Republican National Lawyers Association members.
<h3>Fear of Reprisal</h3>
ePluribus Media has interviewed former DOJ employees and most of them have asked to be kept anonymous "for fear of retribution from the Department of Justice." The investigations of the firings of the U.S. Attorneys have revealed that some of these political appointees feared retaliation. Our sources tell us this was also the case with career staff. They are reported to have gone after individual attorneys' bar licenses and one source emphasized that these people will not only end one's career with the Justice Department, "they will take your livelihood ... anything else if you are so bold to speak the truth."
 <img height="2" alt="21" src="../../images/ePMedia_line01.JPG" width="324" border="0" />
<h3>Footnotes</h3>
1 From Joe Rich's congressional testimony:
 Based on a review of the personnel rosters in the voting section, 20 of the 35 attorneys in the section (54%) have either left the section, transferred to other sections (in some cases involuntarily) or gone on details since April 2005.
 And in regards to staff, Rich's testimony continues:
 ... especially since the transfer of Deputy Chief Berman from the Section in late 2005, this staff has dropped by almost two-thirds.
 About the Authors: ePluribus Media staff writers, Cho, Aaron Barlow, Standingup, wanderindiana and roxy contributed to this story 
ePluribus Media Researchers, Contributors, Fact Checkers & Staff Writers: Publius Revolts, rba, Avahome, GreyHawk, intranets, luaptifer 
Image Credit: Library of Congress
 <a href="http://scoop.epluribusmedia.org/story/2007/5/7/0657/55601">Discuss</a> this feature...

http://www.epluribusmedia.org/features/2007/20070505_resurrecting_jim_crow.html
 <hr noshade color="#ff0000" size="10"></hr>

QueEx · May 20, 2007

Re: Atty General Gonzales Should Resign

<center>Gonzales likely to resign before no-confidence vote</center>

Washington Post
May 20, 2007

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is likely to resign before the Senate takes up a no-confidence resolution, according to Sen. Arlen Specter (Pa.), the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee. A vote on such a measure could come as early as this week.

"I have a sense ... that before the vote is taken, that Attorney General Gonzales may step down" because of the likelihood that such a resolution would pass, Specter said on CBS's "Face the Nation." "It is a very forceful, historical statement. ... And I think ... that he would prefer to avoid that kind of an historical black mark."

Specter has been critical of Gonzales, and yesterday he called testimony last week by James Comey, a former acting attorney general, about Gonzales's actions in March 2004 "very damaging to Attorney General Gonzales."

But Specter declined to say whether Gonzales should resign or how he would vote on a no-confidence resolution.

Comey told the Senate Judiciary Committee that Gonzales, then White House counsel, and former White House chief of staff Andrew Card went to an ailing John Ashcroft's hospital room to press the then attorney general to renew the administration's warrantless wiretapping program. Ashcroft refused.

Sen. Charles Schumer (N.Y.), one of the sponsors of the no-confidence resolution, signaled that he would seek to widen the inquiry into the hospital episode. He said that he is sending letters to President Bush, Vice President Cheney and Cheney's chief of staff, David Addington, inquiring as to who ordered Gonzales and Card to make the request of Ashcroft.

"The only person who thinks the attorney general should remain attorney general is the president," Schumer said on "Fox News Sunday."

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-talk/2007/05/may_20_gonzales_likely_to_resi.html?hpid=topnews

Political Termination of U.S. Prosecutors

Rising Star

Rising Star

Star

Rising Star

Star

Rising Star

Rising Star

Rising Star

The Quizatz Haderach

Star

Superstar *****

The Quizatz Haderach

The Quizatz Haderach

Superstar *****

Rising Star

Rising Star

Rising Star

The Quizatz Haderach

Rising Star

The Quizatz Haderach

Rising Star

The Quizatz Haderach

Rising Star

Rising Star

Rising Star

Rising Star

Rising Star

Rising Star

Rising Star

Superstar *****

Rising Star

Rising Star

Star

Superstar *****

Rising Star

Similar threads