Senator: Gonzales lied under oath

[gabosaurus]

No word as to whether Gonzales also got blow jobs from interns.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/03/18/sen-schumer-we-do-have-evidence-gonzales-lied-under-oath/


During his January 18, 2006 testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Alberto Gonzales said this:

GONZALES: I would never, ever make a change in a United States attorney position for political reasons or if it would, in any way, jeopardize an ongoing serious investigation. I just would not do it.

When asked on Meet the Press this morning if he "had any evidence that a U.S. attorney was removed and that removal jeopardized an ongoing investigation," Senator Schumer said he does and that the evidence is "becoming more and more overwhelming."

This is why the prosecutor purge is a genuine scandal. Not only is there clear evidence that the firings were unprecedented and purely politically-motivated, but Alberto Gonzales lied about it under oath and the White House keeps changing it's story. What conclusion can we draw from these lies and revisionisms other than they have something to hide? Namely, that these eight prosecutors were selectively fired because they did not sufficiently politicize their offices and succumb to pressure to do so, only later to be fired for "performance-related" reasons despite receiving exemplary evaluations.

[manu1959]

No word as to whether Gonzales also got blow jobs from interns.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/03/18/sen-schumer-we-do-have-evidence-gonzales-lied-under-oath/


During his January 18, 2006 testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Alberto Gonzales said this:

GONZALES: I would never, ever make a change in a United States attorney position for political reasons or if it would, in any way, jeopardize an ongoing serious investigation. I just would not do it.

When asked on Meet the Press this morning if he "had any evidence that a U.S. attorney was removed and that removal jeopardized an ongoing investigation," Senator Schumer said he does and that the evidence is "becoming more and more overwhelming."

This is why the prosecutor purge is a genuine scandal. Not only is there clear evidence that the firings were unprecedented and purely politically-motivated, but Alberto Gonzales lied about it under oath and the White House keeps changing it's story. What conclusion can we draw from these lies and revisionisms other than they have something to hide? Namely, that these eight prosecutors were selectively fired because they did not sufficiently politicize their offices and succumb to pressure to do so, only later to be fired for "performance-related" reasons despite receiving exemplary evaluations.

just out of curiosity...why does it matter why the were fired?

[gabosaurus]

Ditto manu. You fine American patriot. :laugh2:

[manu1959]

Ditto manu. You fine American patriot. :laugh2:

criticizing is easy ..... having an opinion and defending it is difficult ....

as for me being a patriot ... who are you to judge me?

as for firing his staff .... he should be able to fire his staff .... who is the congress or senate to judge .... they get to fire whomever they want .... they don't have to have senate hearings....

[stephanie]

No word as to whether Gonzales also got blow jobs from interns.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/03/18/sen-schumer-we-do-have-evidence-gonzales-lied-under-oath/


During his January 18, 2006 testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Alberto Gonzales said this:

GONZALES: I would never, ever make a change in a United States attorney position for political reasons or if it would, in any way, jeopardize an ongoing serious investigation. I just would not do it.

When asked on Meet the Press this morning if he "had any evidence that a U.S. attorney was removed and that removal jeopardized an ongoing investigation," Senator Schumer said he does and that the evidence is "becoming more and more overwhelming."

This is why the prosecutor purge is a genuine scandal. Not only is there clear evidence that the firings were unprecedented and purely politically-motivated, but Alberto Gonzales lied about it under oath and the White House keeps changing it's story. What conclusion can we draw from these lies and revisionists other than they have something to hide? Namely, that these eight prosecutors were selectively fired because they did not sufficiently politicize their offices and succumb to pressure to do so, only later to be fired for "performance-related" reasons despite receiving exemplary evaluations.


Yeah, I saw that this morning......Keep on trying.......Your all on a roll....
:laugh2: :cuckoo: :cow:

[gabosaurus]

Yes, let's fire everyone who doesn't kowtow to the Bushies.

[avatar4321]

Yes, let's fire everyone who doesn't kowtow to the Bushies.

Considering cowtowing simply means obeying the law as it is and not trying to destroy the United States within the bureacracy. Why exactly would such a method to lay off people be bad?

[gabosaurus]

No, it means they were fired for refusing to bend the law in Bush's favor. Prosecutors are supposed to protect the people of the U.S., not the White House.

[Mr. P]

No, it means they were fired for refusing to bend the law in Bush's favor. Prosecutors are supposed to protect the people of the U.S., not the White House.

So what would you call the 92-3 Bill fired just after taking office? Unprecedented in US history, BTW.

[5stringJeff]

GONZALES: I would never, ever make a change in a United States attorney position for political reasons or if it would, in any way, jeopardize an ongoing serious investigation. I just would not do it.

Saying you would not do something that you eventually ended up doing is not lying under oath. Saying you did not do something you, in fact, did, is lying under oath.

[Baron Von Esslingen]

So what would you call the 92-3 Bill fired just after taking office? Unprecedented in US history, BTW.

It's called the perogative of the president. Every new president is allowed to replace prosecutors when they come into office. The only ones they cannot replace are ones that have active investigations ongoing. Those have to conclude and then, they too, can be replaced. It is a rare sight to replace any US Atty mid-term unless they retire or move to a judgeship. That didn't stop Karl Rove and Big Al from making the move on these eight, however.

The Gonzo-gate Eight were replaced while they had ongoing investigations. 18 U.S.C. Section 1512 (c ) allows a US Atty to be terminated except when that termination "corruptly obstructs, influences, or impedes an official investigation." The investigations were not ones that the Bush White House wanted to see to a successful conclusion. Out the door they went. Despite excellent performance reviews. Despite being loyal republicans. They got tossed because they lacked the Bushie neocon credentials that Gonzales, et al., expected of them when they were appointed.

BTW, that "because Bubba did it too" line of horse hockey doesn't fly anymore. He ain't been president for six years. Junior can't keep blaming Bubba everytime he screws up and you can't get away with using it as an excuse for your boy George's errors, lies, and missteps.

[Gunny]

criticizing is easy ..... having an opinion and defending it is difficult ....

as for me being a patriot ... who are you to judge me?

as for firing his staff .... he should be able to fire his staff .... who is the congress or senate to judge .... they get to fire whomever they want .... they don't have to have senate hearings....

The first test of questioning whether or not your stance is correct is whether or not gabby agrees with you. If she doesn't, you're obviously right.

[manu1959]

Yes, let's fire everyone who doesn't kowtow to the Bushies.

yes lets suck up to the dims .... we wouldn't want to do anything they don't like .... after all there is only their way of doing things and of course it is the only way that works ....

best i can tell ... their plan is to do the opposite of anything a non dim would do.....

[Gunny]

No, it means they were fired for refusing to bend the law in Bush's favor. Prosecutors are supposed to protect the people of the U.S., not the White House.

Is there a point to you posting? You're a freakin' idiot. Everything out of your mouth is just anti-Bush, anti-Republican bullshit at the first grade level.

[Gunny]

yes lets suck up to the dims .... we wouldn't want to do anything they don't like .... after all there is only their way of doing things and of course it is the only way that works ....

best i can tell ... their plan is to do the opposite of anything a non dim would do.....

Well, you killed that bug with one squash.:cheers2:

[Baron Von Esslingen]

Four posts in a row that failed to address the issue. Hmmm. I think you hit a sore spot there, Gabosaurus.

[Birdzeye]

just out of curiosity...why does it matter why the were fired?

Well, if they were fired for 1) prosecuting friends and allies of the administration, and/or 2) not prosecuting opponents and enemies of the administration, that would raise concerns that prosecutions are made (or not) because of politics, not the law.

[Gunny]

Four posts in a row that failed to address the issue. Hmmm. I think you hit a sore spot there, Gabosaurus.

How do you figure? Where is the factual evidence that supports the accusation? There is none. The accusation is nothing but partisan conjecture.

Put something out there that's worth debating and REAL, and maybe you'll do a little better with some actual bait on your hook.

[Gunny]

Well, if they were fired for 1) prosecuting friends and allies of the administration, and/or 2) not prosecuting opponents and enemies of the administration, that would raise concerns that prosecutions are made (or not) because of politics, not the law.

No matter what you're trying to sell or have been sold, since they serve at the pleasure of the President, what would make you think they are not and have not ALWAYS BEEN appointments made because of politics and not the law?

[Birdzeye]

No matter what you're trying to sell or have been sold, since they serve at the pleasure of the President, what would make you think they are not and have not ALWAYS BEEN appointments made because of politics and not the law?

And if there's any suspicion that the president has allowed US Attorneys to be fired for crass political reasons, people have the right to ask hard questions and condemn his actions.

The concerns here are legitimate. The attorneys will not get their jobs back, but the Bush administration deserves to take heat over it. It doesn't help that they can't keep their stories straight; that just makes it look even fishier.

[Baron Von Esslingen]

No matter what you're trying to sell or have been sold, since they serve at the pleasure of the President, what would make you think they are not and have not ALWAYS BEEN appointments made because of politics and not the law?

Ignore 18 U.S.C. Section 1512 at your own risk.

[Baron Von Esslingen]

No matter what you're trying to sell or have been sold, since they serve at the pleasure of the President, what would make you think they are not and have not ALWAYS BEEN appointments made because of politics and not the law?


How do you figure? Where is the factual evidence that supports the accusation? There is none. The accusation is nothing but partisan conjecture.

Put something out there that's worth debating and REAL, and maybe you'll do a little better with some actual bait on your hook.

From the horse's mouth to your plate. (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/21/opinion/21iglesias.html?_r=1&oref=slogin)

When you are done, you can do the usual slamming and rightwing pontificating but when a REPUBLICAN US Attorney gets canned for not being Republican enough...

[Hobbit]

From the horse's mouth to your plate. (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/21/opinion/21iglesias.html?_r=1&oref=slogin)

When you are done, you can do the usual slamming and rightwing pontificating but when a REPUBLICAN US Attorney gets canned for not being Republican enough...

That's an opinion piece written by a guy who's bitter about losing his job. Even if he's right, Bush is the president. He can fire U.S. attorneys for looking at him wrong.

[Dilloduck]

From the horse's mouth to your plate. (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/21/opinion/21iglesias.html?_r=1&oref=slogin)

When you are done, you can do the usual slamming and rightwing pontificating but when a REPUBLICAN US Attorney gets canned for not being Republican enough...

Anyone naive enough to think that there is anything a-political about the Dept of Justice(or for that matter the entire judicial branch of our government) needs a large dose of reality.

[Baron Von Esslingen]

That's an opinion piece written by a guy who's bitter about losing his job. Even if he's right, Bush is the president. He can fire U.S. attorneys for looking at him wrong.

Ignore 18 U.S.C. Section 1512 at your own risk. There are limits to the president's power as far as USAs go.

[Baron Von Esslingen]

Anyone naive enough to think that there is anything a-political about the Dept of Justice(or for that matter the entire judicial branch of our government) needs a large dose of reality.

That was never an assertion here. Sorry. Try again.

[Dilloduck]

That was never an assertion here. Sorry. Try again.

The fired attorney is complaining about the political nature of his firing, is he not?

[Gunny]

From the horse's mouth to your plate. (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/21/opinion/21iglesias.html?_r=1&oref=slogin)

When you are done, you can do the usual slamming and rightwing pontificating but when a REPUBLICAN US Attorney gets canned for not being Republican enough...

I see. One disgruntled employee who may or may not be willing to lash out at those who fired him is factual evidence?

You couldn't even get past the arraignment with that in a court of law.

[Baron Von Esslingen]

The fired attorney is complaining about the political nature of his firing, is he not?


United States attorneys have a long history of being insulated from politics. Although we receive our appointments through the political process (I am a Republican who was recommended by Senator Pete Domenici), we are expected to be apolitical once we are in office. I will never forget John Ashcroft, then the attorney general, telling me during the summer of 2001 that politics should play no role during my tenure. I took that message to heart. Little did I know that I could be fired for not being political.

The DoJ has political groundings. The law is non-partisan and has to be applied as such. There is not one set of laws for Democrats, another for Republicans, another for Libertarians, another for Socialists, etc. Once you are a USA, you apply the law. The Bushies fired him because he applied the law equally, to both Democrats and Republicans. Then Gonzales lied about it. Given that he had open investigations, old AG could be looking at an indictment his own self. That US Code is a real motherf***er to get past if you break it.

[Psychoblues]

It is the facts that ALL AMERICANS, other than maybe you, gunny, are seeking to discover.



I see. One disgruntled employee who may or may not be willing to lash out at those who fired him is factual evidence?

You couldn't even get past the arraignment with that in a court of law.

What "disgruntled employee" are you talking about? Was the article not written by an employee that accepts his demise as a USA as presidential perogative but rejects the only most recent explanation that he was somehow dismissed due to performance issues?

[manu1959]

Four posts in a row that failed to address the issue. Hmmm. I think you hit a sore spot there, Gabosaurus.

its post opens with:

"Senator: Gonzales lied under oath ...No word as to whether Gonzales also got blow jobs from interns."

..... it is unlikely a serious response is warranted .... :fu:

[manu1959]

Well, if they were fired for 1) prosecuting friends and allies of the administration, and/or 2) not prosecuting opponents and enemies of the administration, that would raise concerns that prosecutions are made (or not) because of politics, not the law.

can you get me a link to the cases you are refering to? .....

tell me if you were fired for the reason you state and the press stuck a mic in your face $100 says you say why ....

[Dilloduck]

Four posts in a row that failed to address the issue. Hmmm. I think you hit a sore spot there, Gabosaurus.

That or she's made it on everyones' ignore list.

[Birdzeye]

can you get me a link to the cases you are refering to? .....

tell me if you were fired for the reason you state and the press stuck a mic in your face $100 says you say why ....

The key word in my previous post is "if." The circumstances surrounding their firings raise questions, questions that beg to be answered.

Does this sound like someone who got fired for performance reasons?


Lam began her legal career as a law clerk to the Honorable Irving R. Kaufman of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. She joined the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of California as an assistant U.S. attorney in 1986, where she was chief of the Major Frauds section. In 2000, she was appointed to be a judge of the San Diego Superior Court. In 2002, President Bush appointed Lam to be the United States attorney for the Southern District of California. Lam is an experienced trial lawyer who has litigated complex cases with national impact. Lam is the recipient of both the Director's Award for Superior Performance and the Attorney General's Award for Distinguished Service. She earned her bachelor's degree from Yale University and is a graduate of Stanford Law School.


http://www.qualcomm.com/press/releases/2007/070215_appoints_carol_c.html

Oh, and she's the one who prosecuted Duke Cunningham (R).

[Birdzeye]

Fired U.S. attorney alleges political pressure



He says 2 lawmakers pressed him to step up inquiry into Democrats

11:44 PM CST on Wednesday, February 28, 2007


WASHINGTON – A political tempest over the mass firing of federal prosecutors escalated Wednesday with allegations from the departing U.S. attorney in New Mexico, who said that two members of Congress attempted to pressure him to speed up an investigation of Democrats just before the November elections.

David Iglesias, who left Wednesday after more than five years in office, said he received the calls in October and believes that complaints from the lawmakers may have led the Justice Department to fire him late last year.

Mr. Iglesias also responded to allegations from Justice officials that he had performed poorly and was too often absent, citing positive job reviews and data showing increasing numbers of prosecutions.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/nation/stories/030107dnnatattorney.398bb40.html

[Baron Von Esslingen]

That or she's made it on everyones' ignore list.

Obviously not yours.

[Baron Von Esslingen]

its post opens with:

"Senator: Gonzales lied under oath ...No word as to whether Gonzales also got blow jobs from interns."

..... it is unlikely a serious response is warranted .... :fu:

Obviously lying is the perfect quality in a Republican AG. Don't bother responding.