Schumer Renews Call For Gonzales To Resign, Says Chief Of Staff ‘May Have Obstructed Justice’
Schumer Renews Call For Gonzales To Resign, Says Chief Of Staff ‘May Have Obstructed Justice’
At a press briefing moments ago, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) renewed his call for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to step down, saying the resignation of Gonzales’ chief of staff Kyle Sampson only “raises the temperature” on Gonzales.
“Kyle Sampson will not become the next Scooter Libby, the next fall guy,” Schumer said. “Either Attorney General Gonzales knew what his chief of staff was doing — that’s a pretty severe indictment — or he didn’t, which means he doesn’t have the foggiest idea of what’s going on in the Justice Department.”
Sampson resigned yesterday “after acknowledging that he did not tell other Justice officials who testified to Congress about the extent of his communications with the White House, leading them to provide incomplete information in their testimony.” Schumer said today that Kyle “may well have obstructed justice.” Watch it:
Full transcript:
SCHUMER: This weekend, I called for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to step down. Today’s staff resignation does not take heat off the Attorney General. In fact, it raises the temperature. Kyle Sampson will not become the next Scooter Libby, the next fall guy. Either Attorney General Gonzales knew what his chief of staff was doing — that’s a pretty severe indictment — or he didn’t, which means he doesn’t have the foggiest idea of what’s going on in the Justice Department. We now have direct evidence that Attorney General Gonzales was carrying out the political wishes of the President in at least some of these firings. A startling amount of information about the White House’s role has emerged in the past few days. Attorney General Gonzales’ chief of staff withheld information on the White House’s role in the Justice Department in terms of who was preparing to testify to Congress. Attorney Gonzales’ chief of staff may well have obstructed justice. Political operatives and elected officials in New Mexico complained about one U.S. Attorney’s failure to indict Democrats quickly enough. Those complaints were passed on to Karl Rove and to the President himself. The President weighed in with Attorney General Gonzales and within weeks that U.S. Attorney, David Iglesias, was fired. Indeed, today’s reports make clear that Mr. Iglesias was not on the hit list until October, just when he was staving off inappropriate pressure tactics. So if he wasn’t on the list when the list was made up, and then you get the phone calls from the White House and from legislators and then he’s added to the list? What conclusion other than political interference can one come to? It’s now increasingly clear that only bad actors in this case — sorry, it is now increasingly clear that the only bad actors in this case were top officials in the White House and Justice Department, not — not — U.S. Attorneys, fine public servants who were fired. Attorney General Gonzales has either forgotten the oath he took to uphold the Constitution or just doesn’t understand that his duty to protect the law is greater than his duty to protect the President. He’s a nice man. You meet the Attorney General and you say, he is not one of these sort of, you know, political warriors. But there’s too much at stake here, and to have somebody who is going to let this happen or be part of it happening is just no longer — we can’t countenance it any longer. U.S. Attorneys have always been above politics and this administration has blatantly manipulated the U.S. Attorney system to serve its political needs. Years from now when someone’s indicted and they claim political interference, it’s going to have new truth, even if that person was justifiably indicted, new resonance. That’s the problem here. And we’ve been fed one story after another. That’s why Sen. feinstein and i are so upset, as all of us on the judiciary committee are, from Chairman Leahy on down.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
141 Responses to “Schumer Renews Call For Gonzales To Resign, Says Chief Of Staff ‘May Have Obstructed Justice’”
Register
RSSLogin
What is Chucky drinking these days?
March 13th, 2007 at 11:53 amI am still not clear why it was ok for Clinton to fire Every single US attorney. Bush fired many, but not all and he is the boogy man?
March 13th, 2007 at 11:54 amJUst keep up the fire (ing).
March 13th, 2007 at 11:56 amChuck is a liar. Just like Cllinton. End of story.
March 13th, 2007 at 11:57 amSen. Schumer: since most members of the Senate voted to approve Gonzales as Attorney General, including some Democrats, then it’s the Senate’s responsibility to impeach and remove Alberto from his position.
March 13th, 2007 at 11:57 amSen. Chuck Schumer is a smuck and media whore.
March 13th, 2007 at 11:58 amRogerx2,
FOCUS!! Bush fired those attorneys, not as a matter of routine as other presidents have done, but BECAUSE THEY WOULDN’T GO ALONG WITH POLITICAL INTERFERENCE IN PENDING CASES.
They weren’t toeing the line properly.
They weren’t brown-nosing well enough.
They were too f*cking ethical.
GOT IT NOW?
No….I didn’t think so.
March 13th, 2007 at 12:00 pmGet rid of that grinning idiot Gonzales. Charge him, force him to resign and move on to Karl Rove. He’s the next one who needs to be forced into a permanent state of impotency and he needs to be charged for HIS crimes. These people need to be totally and utterly RUINED, as a sign to the others.
March 13th, 2007 at 12:00 pmSchumer has plenty of meat to chew on with Abu Gitmo Gonzo. The Dems MUST keep the pressure on, investigate, and where appropriate put on trial and impeach those how have stolen our country for their own Imperialist Purposes.
[from: http://news.yahoo.com/ s/ ap/ 20070313/ ap_on_go_co/ congress_prosecutors ]
The chief White House lawyer floated the idea of firing all 93 U.S. attorneys at the start of President Bush’s second term, but the Justice Department objected…
ITMFA!!!
March 13th, 2007 at 12:01 pmSen. Schumer makes a good point.
AG Gonzales either knew what was going on with the egregious firing of the attorneys or he didn’t know what was going on and was just stumbling about knowing nothing at all.
Either AG Gonzales was complicit or incompetent.
By the way, Patrick1, it is people like you that contribute to the lack of respect in America. I always refer to Pres. Bush as “President†even though I think he’s an ass.
March 13th, 2007 at 12:02 pmThis thread has almost all the dumbest trolls out this morning.
March 13th, 2007 at 12:02 pmLeave it to Flaco to say something inane and borderline retarded.
March 13th, 2007 at 12:03 pm#7 But at least Bush gave them a chance to toe the line in the first place. Clinton fired them all without even giving them a chance. Of course both men did it out of purely political mindsets, but it sounds like this is par for the course. The fact that it is standard practice to fire all US attorney simply because the other party nominated them was news to me. I guess we in America are cool with this practice unless Bush does it. LOL. Personally, it sounds like an aweful practice that should stop all together. Costing folks their job for political reasons is nasty IMO.
March 13th, 2007 at 12:04 pmWow! Seems like this article lit a flame under the trolls.
March 13th, 2007 at 12:04 pmThey must have gotten an email with the ! flag from Unka Karl, with their talkin points in bulleted outline format.
#11 ~ If fly paper catches flies, would this thread be trollpaper?
March 13th, 2007 at 12:06 pmZooey > Karl Rove has sent the trolls on here in force, because Dems in Congress are starting to demand that members of Bush’s cabinet resign. Some are even calling for Rove to be forced to testify under oath in the Congress, and then be forced to resign himself, so Karl is very desperate.
March 13th, 2007 at 12:07 pmFor more on the White House connection and all the latest news, hearings, legal filings and other essential documents on the Bush DOJ prosecutor firings, see:
March 13th, 2007 at 12:07 pm“The U.S. Attorney Scandal Documents.”
Yeah- Someone left the troll door open and all the limp wank’s wandered in at once. You have to assume someone has a brain to argue with them, so- c ya.
March 13th, 2007 at 12:08 pm#13 — I knew you wouldn’t get it. Why bother even asking, Dung_Dung?
Your favorite Boy King has never done anything politically nasty. No sir.
March 13th, 2007 at 12:08 pmI’m a “if they break the law, arrest them person! I think we ought to find these people and bring them to justice. And it’s tough because the richer they become the more dangerous they are to democracies.” Comment by GWBush in Latin America just a day or so ago.
“That goes for anybody but persons associated with my administration or the republican congress” would qualify the statement.
March 13th, 2007 at 12:09 pmI agree with this crowd that what happened was wrong, but how can you defend Clinton doing it? It just makes you look like you out on a political witch hunt. Oh wait….
March 13th, 2007 at 12:09 pmTrolls also obsessively love Clinton, they always bring him up as an excuse to think about him.
March 13th, 2007 at 12:10 pmspeaking of dumb trolls, did anyone else here see Bush on Greta van Sustern last night? He talked about all the progress being made on lithium-IONIC batteries for hybrid cars…
March 13th, 2007 at 12:10 pmTrolls- Please go home. Your butts are on the line now, too, and the end is near. Pray for us!
March 13th, 2007 at 12:11 pm.
Sincerely, Karl “Ass-wipe” Rove
Roger_Roger;
March 13th, 2007 at 12:11 pmGeorge Bush got rid of all the Attorney Generals when he took office and put in his own people George Bush is firing the U.S. Attorney Generals he appointed because they weren’t bootlicking unethical toadies.
Bill Clinton appointed new Attorney Generals when he came into office, which is normal. He didn’t try to replace any of his appointees for political reasons. ( Well he didn’t that I know of, if I am wrong please tell me who was fired by Clinton during his term. )
So don’t compare apples and oranges. Please.
“#13
#7 But at least Bush gave them a chance to toe the line in the first place. Clinton fired them all without even giving them a chance. Of course both men did it out of purely political mindsets, but it sounds like this is par for the course. The fact that it is standard practice to fire all US attorney simply because the other party nominated them was news to me. I guess we in America are cool with this practice unless Bush does it. LOL. Personally, it sounds like an aweful practice that should stop all together. Costing folks their job for political reasons is nasty IMO.
Comment by Roger_Roger — March 13, 2007 @ 12:04 pm”
Wrong!!! Bush fired many if not all when he came into office and put these very people in place then. This is normal…… What is NOT normal is firing in the middle for political reasons over performance issues.
Why does the right have such a difficult time with this???? Does morality not exist in the right anymore?
March 13th, 2007 at 12:11 pmLeave it to Flaco to say something inane and borderline retarded.
Comment by Democrat Soldier
But..but..he put it in bold print so it must be true and…and..important…and…and…
March 13th, 2007 at 12:13 pmHey any TPers here know where I can get a good deal on some Carbon Credits? Ebay?
March 13th, 2007 at 12:13 pmI kinda running low right now.
Rogerx2, please try to pay attention. Clinton replaced all USAs at the beginning of his term, as did Bush. That’s normal procedure. Now Bush is replacing the people he himself installed, well beyond the middle of his term, because they were either going after corrupt Republicans, or not going after Democrats aggressively enough to help Republicans win elections.
I know that’s a lot of details to keep in your head, but maybe you could print this out and refer to it when you want to post a comment. Might save you some embrrassment, if you’re capable of that emotion.
March 13th, 2007 at 12:15 pm#7
They weren’t toeing the line properly.
They weren’t brown-nosing well enough.
They were too f*cking ethical.
GOT IT NOW?
No….I didn’t think so.
Comment by Zooey
Such deep political commentary!!! Heh raisin brain!
March 13th, 2007 at 12:16 pm“#21
I agree with this crowd that what happened was wrong, but how can you defend Clinton doing it? It just makes you look like you out on a political witch hunt. Oh wait….
Comment by Roger_Roger — March 13, 2007 @ 12:09 pm”
What do you not understand?????? Bush did it also!!!! When he first came in he did the same thing……. Doing it for retribution because a person values the Law more than politics is the problem here.
Why do the Repubs always bring up Clinton???? Are you 4 year olds? So by your logic…… It would be just fine to have half the country becoming a Jeffery Dohmer (SP?)!
March 13th, 2007 at 12:16 pmEnough lawyering now Albertie.
March 13th, 2007 at 12:19 pmSomeone please give that little Frito bandito a job at Taco Bell stirring the chile.
And is there any evidence that anyone from the Clinton White House contacted U.S. Attorneys and pressured them to go after Republicans and then those same contacted Attorneys being fired? ….. *chirp, chirp*
This is SOP for this administration: from their dealings with the media, to intelligence personnel, to other politicians, to voters, and to the troops. Squash dissent by any means necessary.
March 13th, 2007 at 12:19 pm#31- You can’t argue with a limp dick. Just let the trolls whine thier way to thier dead-end argument and don’t worry about them. They’ll have to justify thier argument with themselves, to themselves.
March 13th, 2007 at 12:22 pm#31 - Why do the Repubs always bring up Clinton???? Are you 4 year olds?…
I wonder if they’re still upset that Bill was able to get some, while still able to properly govern a vast nation.
The only thing ReichWingNuts have to show for their efforts are overnight stays of Jeff Gannon with Bushy, Repugs who chase underage boys, and GOP “leaders” who have affairs while trying to intercept Monica’s stained blue dress.
It’s easy to hide behind “moral” outrage when all they know is how to be the oh so maligned victim of some ill-defined non-existent source of fear.
March 13th, 2007 at 12:22 pmWew, this really gets the trolls going. A hint of justice.
March 13th, 2007 at 12:24 pmstink progressives together now
come on and say it
it is so cute
under the bridge, nasty troll
March 13th, 2007 at 12:24 pmLooks like the Republican Rove-bots got the “Clinton did it spin” orders from Rove’s speech at the Clinton Library.
Like good Rove-bots without an ounce of critical thinking.
These Bush supporters are truly dedicated to their propaganda and their leader.
The leader is never wrong, the sheeps say.
-GSD
March 13th, 2007 at 12:24 pm#28 Flatulence.
March 13th, 2007 at 12:25 pm1. Attach a hose to your car’s tailpipe.
2. Start car in garage.
3. Insert hose in mouth and suck your carbon credits deeply.
way to legitimize the “fall guy” frame, chuck
March 13th, 2007 at 12:25 pm#13 Roger_Roger
C’mon Roger. It’s a routine thing for a president to change the U.S. attorneys at the beginning of his term. Nobody complained when Bush did that in 2001. It was normal. And Clinton did not purge U.S. attorneys later on in his term. It was at the beginning of his first term.
This is different. And in addition to this being an unusual and politically-motivated bunch of firings, it was done after slipping that provision into the Patriot Act re-authorization. Remember? The one that let Bush’s DoJ bypass Senate confirmation for the replacements?
C’mon, pull your head away from the right-wing propaganda and look at the evidence. We not only have a smoking gun, we have a smoking corpse. This AG is done.
March 13th, 2007 at 12:28 pmthey fired attny Frederick A. Black, who was investigating the Abramoff scandal, stopping it before it took any more Repukes down.
March 13th, 2007 at 12:29 pmunder the bridge, nasty troll
Comment by Flaco
Actually, I prefer to have you out in the open where we can be entertained by your spinning in circles, illogical ramblings, and whining when we whack you on the head.
March 13th, 2007 at 12:32 pmI won’t defend Clinton and there can be arguments for and against every President. What is important is now. The evidence is mounting that the current AG is not playing by the rules and, once again, Rove has his hands into the muck.
True Republicans should be just as angry if not more. This group of nimrods will screw up the republican party for years to come.
March 13th, 2007 at 12:32 pmYa see, here’s the problem: right-wingnuts are idiots. So, they don’t understand that it’s SOP to change US attorneys at the BEGINNING of a Presidents term in office. Never before have this many been changed in the MIDDLE of a second term and for sleazy POLITICAL reasons.
Bush and Gonzalez are gonna swing for this…especially since it reminds us that Bush removed the attorney who tried to prosecute Abramoff in Guam a few years back…Oh my, my.
March 13th, 2007 at 12:34 pmBush is neck deep. So the trolls are out and about trying to do damage control. How’s that working out?
.
.
Such deep political commentary!!! Heh raisin brain!
Comment by Flaco
That’s funny, because I see you making NO political commentary.
I still win all of our arguments, sweetie.
March 13th, 2007 at 12:38 pmIs the Iraq war over?
Ah, who cares, this is more juicy stuff. Who wants to hear about a bunch of death, destruction, and torment anyway?
I know that many here will say that this is all part of the process of wresting control back away from the incompetent and immoral group of heinous thugs who call themselves “republicans”, and I understand that argument. But I don’t fully agree with it.
Is “control” really the ultimate goal? What if instead of “control”, the goal was to gain the respect and confidence of the people by performing honorably in enacting the will of the people?
What if our (and, by extension, our elected representatives) efforts were put forth and focused on ceasing the invasion/occupation of Iraq, restoring peaceful and fruitful diplomatic relations with our co-inhabitants of this planet, addressing the global climate crisis, fixing our economy that is on the verge of implosion, and regaining fiscal responsibility.
Restoring the honor and credibility of our government by judiciously addressing corruption and influence peddling is important and should always be an ongoing goal. But we really don’t need to publicly tar and feather every corrupt participant repeatedly and ad nauseam. Especially when such effort then diverts attention and focus from the critical issues I mention above. And we really don’t need to be playing the game of whose team has had the most unseemly characters, either.
They way I see it, that’s what O’Reilly and his ilk do and I do not see that as productive or progressive thinking. We really need to do better, especially when acknowledging what is on the line.
March 13th, 2007 at 12:42 pmI enjoy many of the attacks on the trolls for their wittiness but they are a waste of time if the purpose is to get the trolls to face reality. To do that you have to respond in the form of questions that get them to think - if that is possible. For example, with Roger_Roger and others on the Clinton “firings”: The US attorneys are political appointees and it is routine for new presidents to replace them and other politically-appointed office holders with their own political appointees which makes a lot of sense. They do this not by firing them but by asking for their resignations which they usually get and accept. Now, Roger_Roger and your ilk, what is there about that that you don’t understand?
March 13th, 2007 at 12:42 pmZooey sez:
Not to impugn your forensic skills, Zooey, but I’d hardly classify Flaco’s incoherent gibberings as ‘argument’. ^_^
March 13th, 2007 at 12:43 pmTuber,
To eradicate a cancer from the body, multiple treatments are usually necessary. Sometimes the chemo takes a long time to work, and makes the body itself even more ill in the process. But if we relent in our efforts, the cancer will regenerate and spread, and all our efforts will be for naught.
Tuber, this cancer that is the current administration has dug itself deeply into the body of our nation, and will not be leaving willingly. How badly do you want our nation to be healed?
March 13th, 2007 at 12:47 pmMaybe Schumer should practice what he preaches.
http://www.macsmind.com/ wordpress/ 2007/ 03/ 13/ more-schumer-hypocrisy/
March 13th, 2007 at 12:48 pm#46 Zooey
That’s funny, because I see you making NO political commentary.
I still win all of our arguments, sweetie.
What do you expect? What could he possibly say in defense of unbridled corruption? All the other trolls already used the “But Clinton…” argument. He’s got nothing. Stop being so hard on him.
Now go on, Flaco. You keep talking. One of these days I just know you’re going to say something.
March 13th, 2007 at 12:48 pmhellinabucket:
I thought the Rove connection was being downplayed by the New Mexico Republican Party’s chairman re: David Iglesias?
Raging Gurrl:
Actually, Carter and Clinton BOTH fired more in the MIDDLE of their terms for sleazy POLITICAL reasons too.
March 13th, 2007 at 12:49 pmNot to impugn your forensic skills, Zooey, but I’d hardly classify Flaco’s incoherent gibberings as ‘argument’. ^_^
Comment by TripMaster Monkey
Just a special moment between me and my troll. :P
March 13th, 2007 at 12:49 pmKarp’s disciple sez:
Honestly, my purpose is never to get the trolls to face reality. That is simply not possible, as trolls, by definition, deny reality. My purpose is to keep these trolls from spreading their warped versions of reality to susceptible minds.
March 13th, 2007 at 12:50 pmThis thread starts out with a veritable melee of stupid troll comments. Fittingly the first comment is from Patrick-the-talking-point-robot, who, like Homer Simpson, seems to grow stupider as time marches on.
March 13th, 2007 at 12:51 pmActually, Karp’s disciple (at least according to the New York Times March 24, 1993):
March 13th, 2007 at 12:53 pmAnd IIRC President Carter replaced the US attorney who was investigating the kickbacks at the Hahneman Hospital in Philadelphia, because a local Democrat politician asked him to. Was that O.K.?
March 13th, 2007 at 12:55 pmZooey sez:
Ever since Seixon left, I keep breaking my trolls. I guess I’m just playing with them too roughly. =(
March 13th, 2007 at 12:55 pmThis is a transparent attempt by the Dems to shift the political conversation away from the war — where last seen the Dems had painted themselves into a corner and had nowhere to go.
Nice try Chucky — good luck trying to prove that these firings were politically motivated. Oh, and even if they were, so what? It’s now a crime to behave politically in politics?
Shame on the liberal lemmings here to just follow Chucky’s lead blindly — just like he wants you to. I thought you guys had more on the ball than that. Or maybe you enjoy being duped and led around by the nose.
March 13th, 2007 at 12:56 pmEver since Seixon left, I keep breaking my trolls. I guess I’m just playing with them too roughly. =(
Comment by TripMaster Monkey
They break easily because they’re made of fairy glass. No worries, they’re a dime a dozen. ;)
March 13th, 2007 at 12:57 pmnewsflash: Gonzales has scheduled a press conference today at 2:00.
March 13th, 2007 at 1:01 pmCynicon Implant:
Did you see the Chuckie-Rosie lovefest on “The View”?
March 13th, 2007 at 1:02 pmDid you see the Chuckie-Rosie lovefest on “The View�
Comment by Jake
as opposed to the Cynicon Implant - Jake lovefest here on TP?
March 13th, 2007 at 1:12 pmCynicon Implant:
Did you see the Chuckie-Rosie lovefest on “The View�
Comment by Jake
No, but I can imagine how deep it was. Was it “lightweight” day on The View? Oh wait, Rosie would never allow that as it would be “weightist”
March 13th, 2007 at 1:12 pmwayne:
Please point to any post where I am gushing all over Cynicon Implant — unless I am mistaken, the above question was the first I’ve ever asked him / her.
March 13th, 2007 at 1:15 pmLOL Cynicon Implant — there is a delay on viewing posts here — do you know why that is?
March 13th, 2007 at 1:16 pm#57 Jake
…according to the New York Times March 24, 1993
And when did Clinton start his first term in office? That would have been January, 1993. Right, Jake? So, you’re talking about Clinton firing U.S. attorneys at the beginning of his first term. Have you been following the repeated debunking of that talking point, Jake?
Oh, I see. The only defense that the paid trolls have in this case is to repeat the same stupid arguments over and over and ignore the simple facts that refute them. No matter how many times the simple facts are pointed out to them. Not much of a challenge, is it Jake?
And this one isn’t going to wash, either. Reciting the “But Clinton…” line over and over isn’t going to keep Gonzales from losing his job and possibly facing charges. You guys are fighting a losing battle. Actually, you’ve already lost it.
March 13th, 2007 at 1:18 pmJake, don’t pay attention to Wayne. One of the least coherent contributors here (and that’s saying something!)
I’m not sure about the posting delay — happens sometimes and not others
March 13th, 2007 at 1:21 pmThanks for the info, Cynicon Implant.
P.S. chimpeach — that was just ONE example — BOTH Carter and Clinton fired U.S. Attorneys in the middle of their terms as well.
March 13th, 2007 at 1:25 pmNowadays I look forward to the verbal flailing of these trolls. They’re just so helpless. I can’t even tell what it is they’re supposed to be doing anymore. Are they actually trying to be convincing? Nobody believes them. They’re trying to defend people who are being caught in lies and corruption so frequently now that I just have to refresh the page every five minutes to see a new scam unfold. What a bunch of pathetic losers.
March 13th, 2007 at 1:26 pmFlashback to a day when this stuff just didn’t matter like it does today………
“Attorney General Janet Reno today demanded the prompt resignation of all United States Attorneys, leading the Federal prosecutor in the District of Columbia to suggest that the order could be tied to his long-running investigation of Representative Dan Rostenkowski, a crucial ally of President Clinton.”
March 13th, 2007 at 1:26 pmHmmm…normally I’m not enthused about a 45 minute drive to/from work. But it seems I missed all the fascist suck-ups and Kool-Aid swillers with all their BS talking points courtesy of Rove/Fox Noise Propaganda Channel. I could get used to this.
March 13th, 2007 at 1:27 pm#70 Jake
P.S. chimpeach — that was just ONE example — BOTH Carter and Clinton fired U.S. Attorneys in the middle of their terms as well.
Then why didn’t you cite another example?
March 13th, 2007 at 1:28 pmOh, I see. The only defense that the paid trolls have in this case is to repeat the same stupid arguments over and over and ignore the simple facts that refute them. No matter how many times the simple facts are pointed out to them. Not much of a challenge, is it Jake?
Comment by chimpeach — March 13, 2007 @ 1:18 pm
Jake obviously falls somewhere along an axis between party operative and koolaid drinking party follower. So Jake can’t be helped in any case.
March 13th, 2007 at 1:28 pmchimpeach:
Have YOU read this report about U.S. Attorneys Who Have Served Less than Full Four-year Terms, 1981-2006: http://www.buzzflash.com/ archives/ 07/ US_attrny_rprt.pdf
March 13th, 2007 at 1:29 pmIs “quoting current U.S. law” = talking points now?
Once confirmed by the Senate, U.S attorneys can have their appointments
March 13th, 2007 at 1:34 pmterminated at any time by the President. 28 USC § 541 (c).
#72 Roger_Roger
You’re getting pretty dense, Roger.
March 13th, 2007 at 1:38 pm#70 Jake
P.S. chimpeach — that was just ONE example — BOTH Carter and Clinton fired U.S. Attorneys in the middle of their terms as well.
I repeat: Then why didn’t you cite another example?
Or here’s an idea. Why don’t you try focusing on the abuse of power, the lies, the attempts to obstruct investigations that are going on right now? After you acknowledge what’s happening now, then maybe we can go take a trip down Memory Lane and see what happened in the past. Sound like a plan?
March 13th, 2007 at 1:42 pm#78 WHY? Because some of the fired atternoy’s from Clinton’s day suggested they were fired due to politcal issues based on them investigating Clinton supporters? That is funny. Take that sentence and replace Clinton with Bush and we have the current story. This isn’t kinda the same, it is IDENTICAL.
March 13th, 2007 at 1:47 pmOnce you PROVE there was an abuse of power, lies, and/or attempts to obstruct investigations, then I will gladly acknowledge. Sound like a plan?
March 13th, 2007 at 1:47 pmAlso note that not only Democratic Presidents do this:
William Kennedy, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of
California. Kennedy, appointed by President Reagan, was
reportedly dismissed in 1982 “for charging that the Justice
Department, at the request of the Central Intelligence Agency, was
blocking his attempt to prosecute Mr. [Miguel] Nassar [Haro],
because he had been a key CIA informant on Mexican and Central
American affairs.â€
J. William Petro, U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of
March 13th, 2007 at 1:50 pmOhio. Petro, appointed by President Reagan, was reportedly
dismissed in 1984 because the Department of Justice was
“investigating allegations that Mr. Petro disclosed information about
an indictment pending from an undercover operation and that the
information reached a subject of the investigation.â€
#80 - Roger_Roger, you’re wrong.
The attorneys fired now are being fired for not immediately going to litigation BEFORE the election! Pres. Bush needed something/anything to keep the Senate/House from being lost and he wanted any possible investigation to be pushed to litigation EVEN IF THERE WAS NO GROUNDS AT ALL!
Pres. Clinton fired all the attorney’s when he came into office, just like Pres. Bush fired all the attorney’s when he came into office. (No sex jokes, please.)
Now, 6 years into his administration, Pres. Bush is firing the attorneys for not being partisan enough, fast enough. Pres. Bush is saying “I don’t care about the morality of baseless litigation, I just want ammo, dammit!”
NOW do you see the difference?
March 13th, 2007 at 1:55 pmOnce you PROVE there was an abuse of power, lies, and/or attempts to obstruct investigations, then I will gladly acknowledge. Sound like a plan?
Comment by Jake
Hmmm…somehow I get an image of Jake having spent the last six years with his hands over his ears singing ‘la la la la la la la la’, it’s about the only way one can demand proof when there’s more of it stars in the galaxy. Pull your head out of your @$$ dude.
March 13th, 2007 at 2:01 pmDemocrat Soldier:
6 years into his administration, Pres. Clinton fired attorneys for not being partisan enough, fast enough too. See the similarities?
March 13th, 2007 at 2:02 pm#57: Janet Reno demanded a resignation. Clinton presssured Janet Reno to resign but she didn’t and continued to serve as AG until the Bush regime took over. Asking someone to resign is not exactly the same as firing someone. You have to have grounds to justify a firing; whereas, the person asked to resign can refuse and stay on the job. Did Reno get the resignation she wanted?
March 13th, 2007 at 2:03 pmKarp’s disciple:
Please re-read 28 USC § 541 (c) if you think the President has to have grounds to justify firing U.S. Attorneys.
CONservative:
I did not complain when Clinton fired his U.S. Attorneys. So, what’s your point?
March 13th, 2007 at 2:06 pmThe article to which you link cites no instances of removal of judges by a democratic president before their term was up. Thanks for proving the point for us.
March 13th, 2007 at 2:06 pmLOL - I just heard Chuckie Schumer say: “The latest revelations proved beyond any reasonable doubt that there has been an unprecedented breach of trust, abuse of power and misuse of the Justice Department.”
March 13th, 2007 at 2:10 pmJeff:
I was not aware that U.S. Attorneys = Judges.
March 13th, 2007 at 2:11 pm#85 - Jake, And we’re just supposed to take your word for this becasue. . . . . .. . . .
Link, please.
March 13th, 2007 at 2:12 pmCONservative:
I did not complain when Clinton fired his U.S. Attorneys. So, what’s your point?
Comment by Jake
My point is that you have NO point, other than debunked talking points! At least you spelled my name right.
March 13th, 2007 at 2:13 pm#83 no, the difference was that Clinton decided to fire ALL the attorney’s because he wanted to get rid of a few that were investigating his buddies. Bush simply fired individual’s that didn’t do what he asked or as quickly as he wanted. So on one hand you have a man who fires everyone to get rid of a few and on the other we have a man who simply fires the few he wanted gone. Of course both fired these attorney’s over politcal issues. It is plainly obvious that Bush fired these men because they wouldn’t pump out his agenda at the pace he requested. It is equally as obvious that Clinton purged all the US attorney’s to get rid of the few like the US attorney from the District of Columbia. Either way, both are disgraceful acts.
March 13th, 2007 at 2:13 pmP.S. QUICK: Who were the Presidents for the years 1977-1980 and 1993-2000?
March 13th, 2007 at 2:15 pmGoose-stepping trolls unite! Rush down to your neighborhood recruiter and sign up for active duty, NOW! You’ll look so cute in fatigues and the dry climate is good for your pimply skin. Med-Iraq is waiting for YOU, baby!
March 13th, 2007 at 2:19 pmGonzo is holding news conference now saying it was all his fault but he’s not going to resign.
March 13th, 2007 at 2:23 pmNice.
What is Chucky drinking these days?
Comment by Patrick1 — March 13, 2007 @ 11:53 am
Why, Peadick, does his urine smell funny to you?
March 13th, 2007 at 2:25 pmWhy should Gonzo resign for doing nothing illegal?
March 13th, 2007 at 2:27 pmRoger Roger:
What, again, is “disgraceful” about following the law?
March 13th, 2007 at 2:29 pmAll Gonzo said was that “mistakes were made” — no one (including Chuckie Schumer) has proven anything illegal.
March 13th, 2007 at 2:30 pmEvery time you pluck one troll you get two back in its place.
March 13th, 2007 at 2:32 pmJake, you don’t understand.
It’s OK for Clinton to fire all the attorneys, but not OK for Bush to fire some because Bush is evil and must be brought down. I know he is evil because he:
1. Is a political person who tries to advance his party’s causes (oh wait, they all do this)
2. Is stupid (even though he is demonstrably smarter than my party’s last two presidential candidates)
3. Has destroyed the Constitution (I’m not really sure how he has done this but I know it has something to do with trying to keep track of terrorists)
4. He looks like a chimp
5. He talks funny
All of Clinton’s efforts were pure of heart and he was more eloquent and better looking than Bush, which is why Bush is evil and Hitler-like (or chimp-like) and why he must be impeached!
Now do you get it?
March 13th, 2007 at 2:39 pmI heard they were giving away trolls in Happy Meals at McDonald’s. That must be why there’s so many here today.
March 13th, 2007 at 2:41 pmAgain, is it considered “trolling” to simply cite current law which states that every U.S. Attorney is subject to removal by the President of the United States? See, e.g. 28 USC § 541 (c).
March 13th, 2007 at 2:42 pmThanks again for the info, Cynicon Implant, but are you suggesting they think Clinton’s efforts to NOT touch Monica Lewinsky’s genitalia, anus, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks during HER oral sex of him was “pure of heart” too?! Say it ain’t so!
March 13th, 2007 at 2:46 pmWhat a bunch of pathetic losers.
Comment by chimpeach — March 13, 2007 @ 1:26 pm
They really are pathetic. Defending Alberto Gonzales and Karl Rove is hopeless, but they try anyway. Perhaps ome of them are party operatives, propagandists who would lie to their own mother, but I suspect that most of them are just plain idiots.
March 13th, 2007 at 2:46 pm“ome of them are” (sic)
And, WE are the “idiots”? Yeah, right.
March 13th, 2007 at 2:55 pmI’m not really sure how he has done this
Comment by Cynicon Implant
Exactly. You are not one of those that really mmm… think, do you?
but I know it has something to do with trying to keep track of terrorists
March 13th, 2007 at 2:55 pmAnd that has worked fantastic so far. OBL must be laughing.
Comment by Flaco #6
Welcome Flaccid…
…maybe you’d be half the man Schumer is…
…if you didn’t spend so much time with…
…Bush’sballsinyermouth…
March 13th, 2007 at 2:56 pm“ome of them are†(sic)
And, WE are the “idiots� Yeah, right.
Comment by Jake
So you admit it then, you’re a propagandist! Thanks for clearing that up!
March 13th, 2007 at 3:02 pmWhite House statement:
“We continue to believe that the decision to remove and replace U.S. attorneys who serve at the pleasure of the president was perfectly appropriate and within our discretion,” said White House deputy press secretary Dana Perino. “And we stand by the Department of Justice’s assertion that they identified the seven U.S. attorneys who were removed [in December] for performance and managerial reasons.”
Tony Snow said Miers’ proposal [to fire all 93 U.S. Attorneys] was a suggestion, not a recommendation, to fire all the federal prosecutors. Bush made “no recommendations on specific individuals,” he said. “We don’t have anything to indicate the president made any calls on specific U.S. attorneys.”
March 13th, 2007 at 3:04 pmAnd, WE are the “idiots� Yeah, right.
Comment by Jake — March 13, 2007 @ 2:55 pm
Yeah, a typo is evidence that I’m an idiot. Powerful argument, Jake. Keep ‘em coming.
March 13th, 2007 at 3:07 pmCONservative:
Aren’t you? Here’s the definition:
“one who deliberately spreads information, ideas, or rumors widely to help a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc.”
March 13th, 2007 at 3:09 pmIt wasn’t just the typo, VerbalKint.
March 13th, 2007 at 3:09 pmJake is nothing if not persistent. Reminds of Seixxon before he got beaten down by the elections.
March 13th, 2007 at 3:11 pmIt wasn’t just the typo, VerbalKint.
Comment by Jake — March 13, 2007 @ 3:09 pm
That was the only evidence you presented, though. I bet you rely on secret evidence a lot, because your stated evidence is so weak.
March 13th, 2007 at 3:13 pmIt was not the only evidence I presented.
March 13th, 2007 at 3:18 pmTrolls like Jake are here to do one thing: lay down the same talking point again and again. Don’t persuade. Don’t debate. Just keep repeating Karl Rove’s Big Lie of the day.
March 13th, 2007 at 3:19 pmAdmit it, VerbalKint, you’re a propagandist!
March 13th, 2007 at 3:21 pmCONservative:
Aren’t you? Here’s the definition:
“one who deliberately spreads information, ideas, or rumors widely to help a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc.â€
Comment by Jake
Projection, plain and simple.
March 13th, 2007 at 3:21 pmJake, by the way I really think that the Clinton-porn you wrote in #107 sounds creepy and obsessive. Just thought you should know that.
March 13th, 2007 at 3:21 pmIt cracks me up that you guys think us “trolls” get paid to come here and aggravate you. Talk about paranoid fantasies. We don’t need to get paid — we do it for the fun!
March 13th, 2007 at 3:26 pmDid you mean #105? Another “typo”?
March 13th, 2007 at 3:28 pmJake, by the way I really think that the Clinton-porn you wrote in #107 sounds creepy and obsessive. Just thought you should know that.
Comment by VerbalKint
How else would Clinton-porn sound, but creepy and (self) obsessive?
March 13th, 2007 at 3:28 pmCONservative:
ANYONE who posts on the Internet “deliberately spreads information, ideas, or rumors widely” — correct?
March 13th, 2007 at 3:30 pmSo, what is YOUR motive at ThinkProgress.org if not to “help a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc.â€?
March 13th, 2007 at 3:35 pmDid you mean #105? Another “typo�
Comment by Jake — March 13, 2007 @ 3:28 pm
Well, gosh, it looks like the TP staff has removed it, creep.
March 13th, 2007 at 3:43 pmCynicon Implant sez:
All correct…except the little (self) modifier you tried to slip in there. Nice try, though.
The actual acts described are just heterosexual relations between two consenting adults…something Repubs apparently cannot stand in the least. Homosexual relations, statutory rape, regular rape-rape, child-rape, assault, soliciting sex, child pornography, etc. seem to be OK, though.
Think I’m being extreme? Check here and then try to tell me that. This from the ‘party of moral values’, whose primary campaign platform is that the Democrats are immoral! LOL!
March 13th, 2007 at 3:44 pmComment by Cynicon Implant #122
I’ve NEVER thought trolls got paid to come here and spread their stupidity…
…you’re ALL too dumb to shovel dogdh*t…
March 13th, 2007 at 3:47 pmI’m just suggesting that maybe a few of them are paid. But Exley hasn’t been around much lately, which makes me think he has been furloughed until the next election.
March 13th, 2007 at 4:03 pmAgain, is it considered “trolling†to simply cite current law which states that every U.S. Attorney is subject to removal by the President of the United States? See, e.g. 28 USC § 541 (c).
Comment by Jake
March 13th, 2007 at 4:54 pmI don’t believe any of the anti-trolls are disputing the fact “that every U.S. Attorney is subject to removal by the President.” The problem is the motivation for such removal. If the US attorneys were doing their jobs and Republican crooks were exposed and prosecuted in the process and the latter factor is the Bush Administration’s motivation, then that is an abuse of power. Questions for the trolls: Do you agree that might is right and the Bush Administration can do whatever it wants - including abuse of power, shredding the Constitution, etc.? Do you believe that it is okay to rape Justice, which is supposed to be blind and her principles that are supposed to be non-partisan?
Why should Gonzo resign for doing nothing illegal?
Comment by Jake — March 13, 2007 @ 2:27 pm
There was a typo in your post, Jake:
Why should Gonzo resign for doing everything illegal?
March 13th, 2007 at 5:11 pmIt cracks me up that you guys think us “trolls†get paid to come here and aggravate you. Talk about paranoid fantasies. We don’t need to get paid — we do it for the fun! Comment by Cynicon Implant — March 13, 2007 @ 3:26 pm
Aggravating people is your definition of *fun*? Talk about paranoid fantasies!
The only reason you’re here, is that we aggravate you so much you can’t shut your insecure little pie holes! Having someone challenge your paranoid fantasies throws you loser pansies into tizzie! And you’re welcome for our efforts - we rather enjoy seeing you flounder to defend the indefensible. What you see as aggravation, we laugh at, because we know it’s just your sad desperation! BAHAHAH! LOSER!!!
March 13th, 2007 at 5:43 pmHow else would Clinton-porn sound, but creepy and (self) obsessive? Comment by Cynicon Implant — March 13, 2007 @ 3:28 pm
If you wrote it, it would of course sound just like you. Creepy and self obsessive. Just like your *opinion* that you’re aggravating others with your st*pidity!!!!
I so enjoy aggravating ignorant little putzes like yourself! It’s a blast! Why don’t you put away your Bowtie tucker, and be a man! Iraq could use a few more fools like yourself I hear! Oh wait, you’re a CON, you prefer to have others fight your battles while you pretend to fight *online*!!! Coward!
March 13th, 2007 at 5:45 pmJake, by the way I really think that the Clinton-porn you wrote in #107 sounds creepy and obsessive. Just thought you should know that.
Comment by VerbalKint — March 13, 2007 @ 3:21 pm
March 13th, 2007 at 5:48 pmSounds like a man who’s never had a blow job imagining what it might be like. And since he’s a troll and troll only know how to annoy people it’s safe to say he’ll never get one.
Of course his head is so close he might be able to do it himself.
#39
1. Attach a hose to my car’s tailpipe.
2. Start car in garage.
3. Insert hose in mouth and suck your carbon credits deeply.
Comment by RUCerious —
No wonder the GORACLE is brain dead. He has been gettin his CCs from this asshat. RU u can do the same cheaper, just put the hose in ur ass and suck!!!
March 13th, 2007 at 6:57 pmHeheehhheehehe!!!!!!!!!
No wonder the GORACLE is brain dead. He has been gettin his CCs from this asshat. RU u can do the same cheaper, just put the hose in ur ass and suck!!! Heheehhheehehe!!!!!!!!! Comment by Flaco — March 13, 2007 @ 6:57 pm
Or, we could just use the vacuum in your empty head, and your stretched out an*s, to store all of the excess CO2.
March 13th, 2007 at 7:05 pmKyle Sampson the “Fall Guy”–Wilmer Cook the Gunsel(tm) to Alberto VO5 Gonzales’ Joel Cairo(tm) and Karl Miss Piggy Rove’s Casper Gutman(tm)–Kyle, “I couldn’t be fonder of you if you were my own son. But, well, if you lose a son, its possible to get another. There’s only one” CHIMPya! CHIMPya, “the Dingus,” “the Stuff that NIGHTMARES Are Made Of,” “The Maltese FAG-CON” (with apologies to Dashiell Hammett and John Huston)
March 13th, 2007 at 11:43 pm[…] Think Progress, after Senator Chuck Schumer repeated calls for his head, I see that the New York Times is being used to communicate even Republican […]
March 14th, 2007 at 11:50 am[…] Think Progress, after Senator Chuck Schumer repeated calls for his head, I see that the New York Times is being used to communicate even Republican […]
March 14th, 2007 at 11:50 am[…] Gonzoles in the hot seat, conspiracy a-go-go for real […]
March 14th, 2007 at 2:11 pm