Was Gonzales’ hospital visit illegal?
By on May 21st, 2007 at 4:05 pm
Was Gonzales’ hospital visit illegal?
“[C]ongressional sources tell U.S. News that Democrats will ask the Texas Bar Association to determine whether Gonzales violated his code of professional responsibility or broke laws by bringing up the NSA program in the hospital in front of Ashcroft’s wife, who lacks security clearances.” More HERE.
View Most Popular
Advertisement
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
Reports
In depth studies on select topics
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bailout
Big Oil
Bolton
Bush
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Earmarks
Economy
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
GI Bill
Global Warming
Guantanamo
Health Care
Immigration
Iran
Iraq
Justice
Kristol
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
McCain
McClellan
Media
Military
O'Hanlon
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Politics
Race
Radical Right
RNC Convention
Rove
Terrorism
Third Bush Term
Torture
Veterans
Wiretapping
Women's Rights
ArchivesBlog Roll
Yes, it was illegal.
May 21st, 2007 at 4:07 pmYes.
May 21st, 2007 at 4:10 pmIf not illegal, Gonzales’ hospital visit was immoral by any standard.
Any standard, that is, unless you’re a href=”http://www.perrspectives.com/blog/archives/000617.htm”>Newt Gingrich…
May 21st, 2007 at 4:10 pmGonzales serves at the pleasure of the President and if President has deemed it was legal, it is legal.
May 21st, 2007 at 4:12 pmI stood behind Al, ….and in front of the hospital bed
May 21st, 2007 at 4:13 pmQuit fiddle farting around Dem’s and just impeach all these basterd’s..Gees much more of the word’s and non action and I will be wanting all your asses out as well as the reich winger’s…Stop the bull shit, your pissing this old woman off….Blessings
May 21st, 2007 at 4:13 pmI’m so confused. Was this event an example of the “compassionate conservatism”, “family values”, or “rule of law” that BushCo campaigned on? How can one possibly be expected to follow their fine example when it so indelicately intermingled with various concepts?
May 21st, 2007 at 4:15 pmGonzales serves at the pleasure of the President and if President has deemed it was legal, it is legal.
Comment by BottomBoy — May 21, 2007 @ 4:12 pm
Didn’t you mean Gonzales serves TO PLEASURE the President?
May 21st, 2007 at 4:20 pmStop the bull shit, your pissing this old woman off….Blessings
Comment by Sharon
I’m right behind you Sharon. Maybe we need to have an “Old Ladies’ March on Washington”!
May 21st, 2007 at 4:21 pmI don’t know if it was illegal, but certainly appears to be unethical.
PS I posted a comment over at redstate. It was extremely mild, tasteful, and I thought added something to the debate over there. I was immediately banned. That seems like a strange way to have a conversation. I think it tells you a little something about the difference between the two sides. Progressive sites allow Republicans to come and debate and often they are hostile and full of hate. Republicans won’t allow even the friendliest of debate from the other side.
May 21st, 2007 at 4:23 pmAt this point?
WHATEVER IT TAKES to get rid of these criminals is fine with me… No matter how tiny of a technicality he broke - pursue it to the fullest extent of the law.
May 21st, 2007 at 4:28 pmThe Chimperor has already proclaimed that Gonzo’s done nothing wrong. So get over it and quit playing politics. Jeeze!
May 21st, 2007 at 4:28 pmGonzales serves at the pleasure of the President and if President has deemed it was legal, it is legal.
Comment by BottomBoy — May 21, 2007 @ 4:12 pm
Seriously ButtBoy, pull your head out of your ass and look around. If Bush is the “decider” of what’s legal or not, why do you need a Supreme Court? “Bush is God” is only a motto for you sycophantic whores.
May 21st, 2007 at 4:29 pmThat would be so cool if Gonzo got suspended for ethics violations.
May 21st, 2007 at 4:31 pm#10: Ben. That’s what I’ve been wondering about you dems and progressives. Why are you trying to engage in a dialogue, when it’s obvious that you can only lose ground that way? Never, ever give your political opponent a chance to talk back or voice an alternative. It’s a lose-lose proposition. Either you’re beaten by an opponent who’s smarter than you or really does have a better argument, or you lose face by exhibiting mortal weakness (i.e. allowing your opponent to try to challenge you).
In politics, you are always right - there is no alternative and therefore no need for debate.
May 21st, 2007 at 4:33 pm“Didn’t you mean Gonzales serves TO PLEASURE the President?
Comment by Shane — May 21, 2007 @ 4:20 pm”
Does that mean the Chimp is into S&M then? :D
May 21st, 2007 at 4:35 pm“Either you’re beaten by an opponent who’s smarter than you or really does have a better argument, or you lose face by exhibiting mortal weakness (i.e. allowing your opponent to try to challenge you).
Comment by BottomBoy — May 21, 2007 @ 4:33 pm”
I’ve been her for over a year and a half and I have NEVER seen a conservative win a debate with a liberal.
Explains why you guys won’t allow us a voice - you know you can’t win.
May 21st, 2007 at 4:39 pmOk ButtBoy,
Here’s your chance to impress all of us Progs with your superior intellect. Defend your statement that if the president has deemed it to be legal, it is legal.
You won’t, because you can’t. It’s a moronic and ridiculous statement that just reveals the depth of your Bush worship.
And you are a still a sycophantic whore.
May 21st, 2007 at 4:40 pmGonzales serves at the pleasure of the President and if President has deemed it was legal, it is legal.
Comment by BottomBoy — May 21, 2007 @ 4:12 pm
Just one more example of the devastatingly effective troll strategy of making it impossible to parody them.
I mean, really, how do you do anything other than shake your head in disbelief at the idiocy of a statement like this?
May 21st, 2007 at 4:42 pmNever, ever give your political opponent a chance to talk back or voice an alternative. It’s a lose-lose proposition. Either you’re beaten by an opponent who’s smarter than you or really does have a better argument, or you lose face by exhibiting mortal weakness (i.e. allowing your opponent to try to challenge you).
In politics, you are always right - there is no alternative and therefore no need for debate.
Comment by BottomBoy — May 21, 2007 @ 4:33 pm
… or there’s always the chance that one or both of you could learn something you didn’t know before and thus be better prepared to participate in the political process…
NAH! That will never happen, at least not with Regressives. They don’t believe in learnin’ or no facts. Theirs is a faith-based initiative.
May 21st, 2007 at 4:47 pm#17: Explains why you guys won’t allow us a voice - you know you can’t win.
Oh, sometimes we could we by honest arguments and sometimes we probably couldn’t. Why even take a chance?
#18: Of course we can’t defend it, but we can still say it (as loud and often as possible) and some people will believe it. That’s good enough for us.
May 21st, 2007 at 4:52 pmCome on ButtBoy, step up bitch! You wanted a chance to argue your case, say something instead of regurgitating this morning’s smag from KKKarl.
May 21st, 2007 at 4:56 pmWouldn’t Comey also likely be guilty? I assumed he talked to Ashcroft before Gonzales got there and might have mentioned it. I’d hate to see this bring him down as well.
On Another front, aren’t all White House employees requires to submit when inadvertant (or otherwise) secruity breaches occur to an in-house inspector? I recall an exchange in congress recently about this very topic with respect to Karl Rove and Scooter Libby (that wasn’t done).
May 21st, 2007 at 5:00 pmIf it was unethical, illegal or unprofessional conduct Gonzo could have his right to practice law revoked. That would put a damper on his right to act as AG.
May 21st, 2007 at 5:00 pmOf course we can’t defend it, but we can still say it (as loud and often as possible) and some people will believe it. That’s good enough for us.
Comment by BottomBoy — May 21, 2007 @ 4:52 pm
Yeah, it’s kind of got to be good enough for you, seeing as you have little else to lean on in making a convincing case for your policies or leaders. Thus is displayed the politics of low expectations, personified in the figure of George W. Bush.
May 21st, 2007 at 5:01 pmI’m sure the TBA will say “no” and that’ll be the end of that…
May 21st, 2007 at 5:05 pm#15, etc. reads like a description of the “Terrible Twos”. That’s how two-year-olds try to get their way: make noise, cause a scene, go limp, respond to any attempt at dialoge by throwing a tantrum.
Oh the world is such a cruel place for two-year-olds and republicans.
May 21st, 2007 at 5:15 pmInteresting that an argument procedure for a whole ‘grown-up’ political party is based on early child development.
“Oh, sometimes we could we by honest arguments and sometimes we probably couldn’t. Why even take a chance?
Comment by BottomBoy — May 21, 2007 @ 4:52 pm”
I was also a conservative for 33 years - I assure you - the odds of that are slim, because the conservative view of the word is too shallow to have a valid shot at reality-based issues. It’s why I jumped ship…
Why take a chance? You mean - winning is everything, and compromise or educating yourself of a fellow human being’s point of view is beneath you? That very attitude explains why you guys can’t win.
May 21st, 2007 at 5:44 pm“That’s good enough for us.
Comment by BottomBoy — May 21, 2007 @ 4:52 pm”
November 2006 showed that, apparently, it isn’t…
Keep up with that strategy though… We like your odds in 2008 as a result of it.
May 21st, 2007 at 5:46 pmMonica Lewinsky served at the pleasure of the President. Just sayin’
May 21st, 2007 at 6:02 pmLaws? We don’t need no stinking laws. Bubbleboy and Gonzo don’t follow any laws, they only get in the way of the crimes they commit.
Hating the Repukian Mafia daily
May 21st, 2007 at 6:55 pmIf Gonzo is disbarred, can he still be the Attorney General? And when he is gone, can we see the list? Nixon had a list; you can bet this bunch has one too. Chances are a lot of the folks that comment on this blog are on the list.
And I am honored to be in the company of so many, who like me, disagree. If it is a crime to disagree with W and his cronies, I proudly plead guilty as all hell.
May 21st, 2007 at 7:20 pm