Getting closer...and you know Bush's voiced support for the AG is like the kiss of death...Why, didn't Rummy get firm Bush support just weeks before being handed his hat?


Justice official to plead the Fifth before Senate panel

Story Highlights

• NEW: White House says decision shows how investigation has become political
• Justice official to refuse to answer questions about attorneys' firings
• Democrats disappointed that Monica Goodling will not testify
• Former Gonzales chief of staff Sampson expected to defend firings

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A Justice Department official will refuse to answer questions during a Senate committee hearing on the firing of eight U.S. attorneys, citing her Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate herself, her lawyer said Monday.

Getting closer...and you know Bush's voiced support for the AG is like the kiss of death...Why, didn't Rummy get firm Bush support just weeks before being handed his hat?
[/i]


http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/4/9/122515.shtml

So what's the big beef about Attorney General Gonzales firing a few U.S. attorneys? Doesn't he have the right? Of course he does. Does he have to justify the firing to anybody, specifically the Democrat Congress? Of course not. Does the Congress have the right to question or investigate the firings — as if Democrats haven't done the same thing many times when they've had the majority? Of course not. So what's it all about?

Is the American public really as dense and uninformed in the workings of politics as this Congress thinks (and hopes) it is? Do Pelosi and Reid think they can convince all likely voters that this is another Watergate, that if they and the media keep stirring up smoke and accusations of skullduggery and malfeasance, that they can make the president look worse than they already have?

What do you think?

The Bush administration maintains that all eight of the attorneys were dismissed for reasons "related to policy, priorities and management." Case closed. 'Nuff said. On to much more important matters like the economy, the war, health care, taxes … right? Hold on; Democrat fishing expeditions will provide juicy camera time for the needy like Sens. Schumer and Leahy, Speakers Pelosi and Reid, and many liberal news anchors, so the really important business of government can wait.

Let's saddle up the donkeys, let loose the bloodhounds, and go fishing for something rotten, even if we have to plant it, or make it up!

Maybe nobody will remind the dumb voters that Bill Clinton fired not just eight, but 93 of the 94 sitting U.S. attorneys (One was spared by the effort of powerful New Jersey Democrat, Sen. Bill Bradley) early in his presidency, motivated almost certainly by anxiety over some of their investigations pending in what became known as the Whitewater scandal. And surely most won't recall that President Carter fired U.S. Attorney David Marston in response to requests from a Democrat congressman whom Marston was investigating regarding financial irregularities in a hospital construction project.

Did the Democrat Congress make any fuss in those instances? No, they just let it be understood that, by law, United States Attorneys serve "at the pleasure of the President." Hmmm.

Oh, but now Teddy Kennedy accuses President Bush of using the attorney replacements to further his administration's "right wing ideology," and to ensure that his appointees are "reliable partisans."

Horrors! What crazed ideologue would attempt such an underhanded thing, senator?

You don't think that Nancy Pelosi trying to get Jack Murtha as her assistant whip had anything to do with his over-the-top, incessant attacks on the president and his handling of the Iraq matter, do you?

That she might have thought he could help her in forcing the commander in chief to give in and let her run the war effort?

Let's be real.

Policy carried on through appointments that outlast the officeholder who did the appointing is big government liberalism's trump card. And bureaucracies that outlast the legislative bodies that created them practically own the whole casino.

Literally for generations now, liberal elites and elitists have groomed their young legions of aspiring (and even well-intentioned) social engineers and fixers to manage the delicate business of taking care of the rest of us. And since there can only be one federal government, it's the casino where we all have to pay its array of economic and social costs, hidden fees, and penalties.

Successful politicians, like, say, successful TV star, may come and go from season to season, may rise or fall or resurrect or be forgotten. But the bureaucratic structures—the production houses, the production crews, just like the agencies and the bureaucrats—will remain.

In the left-right tug of war in the world's democracies, the left and big government side has an enormous natural advantage as long as bureaucracies and bureaucrats don't exit the stage along with the legislative bodies or elected officials who created or appointed them.



:whistle:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/4/9/122515.shtml


So what's the big beef about Attorney General Gonzales firing a few U.S. attorneys? Doesn't he have the right? Of course he does.


:whistle:

Keep telling yourself that. (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/013555.php)


:whistle:

Right to privacy? (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/10/AR2007041000839.html) :killingme


House Panel Issues First Subpoena Over Firings

By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, April 11, 2007; A01

The House Judiciary Committee issued a subpoena yesterday to Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, demanding that the Justice Department turn over hundreds of pages of new or uncensored records related to the firings of eight U.S. attorneys last year.

...

The administration immediately signaled that it might oppose the demand. Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said that the administration would like "to reach an accommodation with the Congress" but added that doing so may not be possible.

"Much of the information that the Congress seeks pertains to individuals other than the U.S. attorneys who resigned," Roehrkasse said. "Furthermore, many of the documents Congress is now seeking have already been available to them for review. Because there are individual privacy interests implicated by publicly releasing this information, it is unfortunate the Congress would choose this option."


Remember the NSA warrantless wiretapping. So what happened to... "If you didn't do anything wrong then you have nothing to hide." The Justice department has no problem with collecting information on us and sharing it with large telecommunications companies.

He's like a worm on a hook now.

:lmao:

Keep telling yourself that. (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/013555.php)


:whistle:


Interesting Video ........ Cunningham (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_Cunningham) certainly was dirtbag that should be in jail for crimes, then further time piled on for abusing his position as a Congress Critter ........... but certainly not the 1st or last who will abuse there positions in Congress .... Murtha (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abscam) or Jefferson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_J._Jefferson) Anyone ....


I know the thread is about firings alleged to cover up Republican misdeeds ....


Oh and I loved the bonus segment ..... talking about Pelosi's trip to Syria all a Republican Ambush ? ah huh and telling bald faced lies to Syrian Gov Officials about Israel wanting to open talks back up was constructive :smack:


:whistle:

Cunningham (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_Cunningham) certainly was dirtbag that should be in jail for crimes, then further time piled on for abusing his position as a Congress Critter ...

If you really believe that, which I believe you do, then let's go get all the other dirtbags he was involved with. Isn't that in our interest? It seems to me that that was exactly what Carol Lam was doing. Don't we want US Attorneys like that? Ones who will put their country's interest above their political party's. Or do we want ones who will only go after one political party depending on who the president is at the time? Why should we accept it when one of them is stopped from doing what is in our best interest because it may be inconvenient politically for the president. He's supposed to be working for us too.

:mad:

If you really believe that, which I believe you do, then let's go get all the other dirtbags he was involved with. Isn't that in our interest? It seems to me that that was exactly what Carol Lam was doing. Don't we want US Attorneys like that? Ones who will put their country's interest above their political party's. Or do we want ones who will only go after one political party depending on who the president is at the time? Why should we accept it when one of them is stopped from doing what is in our best interest because it may be inconvenient politically for the president. He's supposed to be working for us too.

:mad:


Seems Lam had already bagged Cunningham .......... but quite frankly

Crook = jail time .... federal pound me in the ass prison (to quote Office Space) especially for these congressional bastards ......... 5 yrs min in the hole - for any party an affiliation ....... not really sure WTF Gonzales's issue was and we will never know - inspite of what your fellow hacks on Cap Hill want or think they will wave their dicks in the air act all high and mighty, like some struck gold @ that end of town, and in the end waste a crap load of money feeling self important and accomplish nothing ........ but making political hay for the '08 elections ....... I mean that what all this shrill shrieking is about .......... :lalala: