Fire Gonzales

markjs

Banned
It just keeps getting better and better. Perhaps they will give me what I want for Christmas: impeachement hearings!

The Washington Post said:
Justice Dept. Probing Whether Gonzales Lied

By Dan Eggen and Paul KaneWashington Post Staff Writer and washingtonpost.com Staff Writer
Friday, August 31, 2007; Page A01

The Justice Department's inspector general indicated yesterday that he is investigating whether departing Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales gave false or misleading testimony to Congress, including whether he lied under oath about warrantless surveillance and the firings of nine U.S. attorneys.
The disclosure by Inspector General Glenn A. Fine in a letter to Congress signals an expansion of the department's internal investigations into Gonzales's troubled tenure, probes that were not previously known to be focused so sharply on the attorney general and his testimony.

Fine's office has also separately expanded a probe into whether senior Gonzales aides improperly considered partisan affiliations when reviewing applicants for nonpolitical career positions. As part of that inquiry, Fine sent hundreds of questionnaires in the past week to former Justice Department job applicants.
In the questionnaires, Fine asks applicants whether they were quizzed by political appointees about their party affiliation, favorite politicians and judges, voting history, campaign contributions, and views on the death penalty and terrorism, according to a copy of the Aug. 24 questionnaire obtained by The Washington Post. Recipients are also asked to say whether White House aides participated in the interviews and to confirm if they were asked "what kind of conservative you were (law and order; social; fiscal)."

Gonzales announced his resignation Monday after seven months of sustained conflict with Congress over the prosecutor dismissals and other issues, telling aides that his credibility with lawmakers had been too damaged for him to continue. Democrats and some Republicans had urged him to resign amid allegations that he and his aides repeatedly let political considerations taint the law enforcement mission at Justice.

The scope and pace of the investigations suggest that public attention on Gonzales will probably continue long after he leaves his job on Sept. 17. But officials declined yesterday to say whether Fine's expanding investigations played a role in the attorney general's resignation.

Gonzales had said as recently as late July that he was intent on staying on the job to "fix the problems" at Justice. But his contradictory or murky congressional testimony, including his repeated assertions that he could not recall key events related to the firings, prompted several Senate Democrats to call on the Justice Department to appoint a special prosecutor to consider perjury charges against him.

Fine, in a letter yesterday to Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), said his office "has ongoing investigations" related to Gonzales's testimony on several key issues, including the prosecutor firings and allegations of improper hiring practices, the National Security Agency's Terrorist Surveillance Program, the FBI's use of national security letters, and Gonzales's characterizations of his conversation with an aide before a House hearing.

Fine had previously confirmed that he was looking at whether Gonzales tried to improperly influence potential testimony by talking about the prosecutor firings with the aide, former senior counselor and White House liaison Monica M. Goodling.

Goodling testified in May that she had "crossed the line" by considering political criteria in hiring career professionals at Justice, including looking up political donations by some applicants. She and D. Kyle Sampson, Gonzales's former chief of staff, also admitted using such criteria in the appointment of administrative immigration judges, who are considered career employees.

Leahy, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said in a statement that questions about Gonzales's testimony had "eroded the public's trust and undermined morale" at Justice. "The current Attorney General is leaving, but these questions remain," he said. "It is appropriate that the Inspector General will examine whether the Attorney General was honest with this and other Congressional committees about these crucial issues."
Fine has the authority to refer cases for criminal prosecution, including on perjury or obstruction-of-justice charges, if warranted. He and H. Marshall Jarrett, head of the department's Office of Professional Responsibility, can also recommend internal disciplinary action for violations of department rules and guidelines, although many Gonzales aides involved in the controversial actions have left the government.

Leahy had asked Fine earlier this month to include parts of Gonzales's testimony in his investigation. Fine said in yesterday's letter that those subjects were already being examined by him and Jarrett, who is working with him on several aspects of the probes. "We believe that through those investigations and other OIG reviews we will be able to assess most of the issues that you raise," Fine wrote, using the abbreviation for the Office of the Inspector General.

Fine's office declined to comment on the letter yesterday. The Justice Department also declined to comment.
In a letter sent with the questionnaire for former job applicants, Fine said that he and Jarrett "are conducting a joint investigation of allegations regarding Monica Goodling's and others' hiring and other personnel decisions," and that recipients of the letter "may have been interviewed by or spoken with" Goodling or others about job openings at Justice.

In addition to Goodling, the letter names Sampson, former White House liaison Jan Williams and former aide Angela Williamson as possible interviewers of job applicants. Williams and Williamson, who no longer work at Justice and have not previously been identified in connection with the investigation, could not be reached for comment.
The period covered by the surveys is Jan. 1, 2004, to April 2007, indicating that investigators are also looking at hiring practices under then-Attorney General John D. Ashcroft, who was replaced by Gonzales in February 2005.
The questionnaire includes separate sections for applicants who sought political jobs and for those who were interviewed for career positions, but both groups are asked whether they were questioned about political beliefs and ties.

Both groups are also asked if they filled out a White House "non-career appointment form" seeking information about their voting history, candidate contributions and campaign experience.
None of the key aides who testified about the prosecutor firings on Capitol Hill -- including Goodling and Sampson -- have been approached by Justice investigators, according to defense lawyers and others familiar with the investigation. That indicates that investigators are in the early or middle stages of their inquiries and may not be planning to contact the central figures in the probe until they have finished speaking to others, defense lawyers said.

The White House said yesterday that President Bush is unlikely to choose a nominee to replace Gonzales until after Bush returns from a trip to Australia next month. Solicitor General Paul D. Clement will serve as acting attorney general.

Source.
 

Gonz

molṑn labé
Staff member
More hypocrisy considering you keep ignoring the rest of the things he's investigated for.

WTF are you rambling on about?

the following story said:
Gonzales announced his resignation Monday after seven months of sustained conflict with Congress over the prosecutor dismissals and other issues

7 months & the best they can get is contradictory or murky congressional testimony?
DEMOCRATS ARE NOT HOME
Sign reads
*gone fishing*

OK, I googled it. I like how when republicans face accusations, they are innocent, and even if they are later to be proven guilty, they are to be presumed innocent until convicted, and even then you've always got some ready excuse, or accusation to aim at a democrat to divert attention.. Democrats, however, well they are just guilty, of anything they are accused of automatically and deserve no such presumption of innocence.
Ya know, Willie has a long history of womanizing. This is not far fetched.

Kinda like the ID Senator-when you see a pattern, it doesn't seem so unlikely.
 

spike

New Member
WTF are you rambling on about?

Look at your first quote then go back and look at how much you cut out from the actual quote.

Did you thnk nobody would notice :rolleyes:

7 months & the best they can get is contradictory or murky congressional testimony?

Reminds me of the Clinton investigation.


Ya know, Willie has a long history of womanizing. This is not far fetched.

The Bush administration and his appointees have a long history of shady activities. Nothing far fetched here either. Big pattern actually.
 

Gonz

molṑn labé
Staff member
gave the White House political team unprecedented power to intercede in the affairs of the Justice Department, allowed his department to illegally hire attorneys based in part on their loyalty to the Republican Party and the Bush administration, dissembled and misled about the administration’s spying activities, and lied in stating that all Bush appointees would be Senate-confirmed.
Those aren't charges. They're political whining.

The Bush administration and his appointees have a long history of shady activities.
Again, nothing but political mudslinging. If there was anything substantial, they'd be all over the impeachment thing-in payback for Clinton.
 

spike

New Member
Those aren't charges. They're political whining.

Investigating illegal activity is whining? No, the Clinton investigation was whining.

Again, nothing but political mudslinging. If there was anything substantial, they'd be all over the impeachment thing-in payback for Clinton.

More substantial than your "long history" attributed to Clinton.

I think you've made it abundantly clear in this thread that you have two completely different sets of rules for one side or the other. A Democrat actually acquitted of charges and you still act like they were convicted (libel). Let any Republican perjure himself and it was just a trap and nothing that they should be held accountable for.

Such a prime example of hypocrisy it should be used in text books.
 

Gonz

molṑn labé
Staff member
Since he was adquitted, tell me wise one, why did he pay Paula Jones eight hundred thousand dollars & why did he lose his law license?
 

markjs

Banned
None of this bullshit has anything to do with Bush corruption. Whatever Clinton did, or did not do, is in the past and has absolutely no relevance today, or have any bearing on today's issues. No amount of trying to divert attention to the sins of the past excuses the sins of the present. It's a lot like saying, Oh it's ok for black people to have white slaves, because years ago white people had black slaves. Two wrongs, will never make a right, only 3 lefts can do that! :grinyes:
 

Inkara1

Well-Known Member
Whatever Clinton did, or did not do, is in the past and has absolutely no relevance today, or have any bearing on today's issues.

So why do I always hear about how "Clinton's lies didn't kill anyone" and stuff like that?
 

catocom

Well-Known Member
we'll be pay a price for Clinton screw-ups, probably for the rest of my life, if not longer.

He started many downfalls for America, Bush has just compounded them...
PC, NAFTA, lowered moral standards...

You can laugh, but our foundation IS crumbling even as we speak.

I thought Bush would restore these things, but has only made them worse,
and effectively cover it up until the congress changed hands.
 

Cerise

Well-Known Member
Whatever Clinton did, or did not do, is in the past and has absolutely no relevance today, or have any bearing on today's issues.

pathto911new_big2.jpg


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20381551/site/newsweek/
The report also criticized intelligence problems when Bill Clinton was president, detailing political and legal “constraints” agency officials felt in the late 1990s. In September 2006, during a famous encounter with Fox News anchor Wallace, Clinton erupted in anger and waived his finger when asked about whether his administration had done enough to get bin Laden. “What did I do? What did I do?” Clinton said at one point. “I worked hard to try to kill him. I authorized a finding for the CIA to kill him. We contracted with people to kill him. I got closer to killing him than anybody has gotten since.”
clinton-wallace.jpg

Clinton appeared to have been referring to a December 1999 Memorandum of Notification (MON) he signed that authorized the CIA to use lethal force to capture, not kill, bin Laden. But the inspector general’s report made it clear that the agency never viewed the order as a license to “kill” bin Laden—one reason it never mounted more effective operations against him. “The restrictions in the authorities given the CIA with respect to bin Laden, while arguably, although ambiguously, relaxed for a period of time in late 1998 and early 1999, limited the range of permissible operations,” the report stated. (Scheuer agreed with the inspector general’s findings on this issue, but said if anything the report was overly diplomatic. “There was never any ambiguity,” he said. “None of those authorities ever allowed us to kill anyone. At least that’s what the CIA lawyers told us.” A spokesman for the former president had no immediate comment.)

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/cont/node/3212

Mistakes and missed opportunities by the Central Intelligence Agency failed to follow up on the growing threat of al Qaeda and left America open to attack on September 11, 2001, an investigation within the CIA concludes.
Other probes into September 11 intelligence lapses have yielded similar findings. This one was ordered by Congress to study personal accountability for successes or failures within the CIA.

http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/si/sept02/homeland.asp

Should the 9/11 attacks have taken us by surprise? In retrospect, indications that the United States in general and New York's Trade Towers in particular had been singled out for attack by the terrorists were abundant:......Run-ins between U.S. Rangers and groups loosely affiliated with Al Qaeda occurred in Somalia in 1993....The Trade Towers were bombed by Moslem militants in 1993, as were the Khobar Towers in Dahran, Saudi Arabia in July 1996.... Attacks on U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in August 1998 were followed by that on the USS Cole in October 2000—evidence, if more were needed, of the seriousness of Osama bin Laden's declaration of war on America....

gordon450.gif
 

2minkey

bootlicker

don't think harvey keitel had much to do with it either!

nah you can blame clinton all you want.

fact is bush wasn't paying close enough attention either.

it's a massive, collective failure.

either that or it was hardly preventable under any reasonable operating conditions.

either way, it ain't one person/party.
 

catocom

Well-Known Member
yeah free trade sucks. :rolleyes:

you some sorta pro-union commie? :hippy:

Nope, I'm pro-union in some fields, and definitely anti-union in some fields.

I (feel Very strongly) for giving Americans the opportunity to compete against Slave labor.

EDIT: and more non-regulated businesses/countries that make it harder to compete against because of cutting those corners.
 

catocom

Well-Known Member
The guys' theory there, have had so many holes poked it, that it resembles a voodoo doll.

It's a real shame these guys don't do something actually constructive. They seem extremely good at presentation.
 

Gonz

molṑn labé
Staff member
fact is bush wasn't paying close enough attention either.


No US President since Carter has paid enough attention. Had Jiminy left the Shah alone or had the balls to stop Khomeni, none of this would be happening.
 

2minkey

bootlicker
No US President since Carter has paid enough attention. Had Jiminy left the Shah alone or had the balls to stop Khomeni, none of this would be happening.

yeah, um, might be a little more complicated than that.:rolleyes:
 

Gonz

molṑn labé
Staff member
Yea? You can trace a straight line back to 1978 as far as Americans & terrorists are concerned.
 
Top