Were there other attorneys targeted for dismissal?
By on Aug 15th, 2007 at 11:00 am
Were there other attorneys targeted for dismissal?
The Justice Department refuses to answer a simple question: Were more top federal prosecutors targeted for dismissal beyond the nine that have been publicly identified? The Blotter reports a new letter from the DoJ dances around the issue, saying only that the answer was contained in information shared earlier. At a July hearing, Gonzales admitted, “There may have been others” besides the nine already identified, adding, “I certainly find out.” Recall, all the U.S. attorneys were ranked based on their loyalty to Bush and Gonzales.
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Bush
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Hannity
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Iraq
Justice
Kristol
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Maddow
McCain
Media
Military
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Public Plan
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Technology
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
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.
ArchivesBlog Roll
What was the crime again?
August 15th, 2007 at 11:05 amIt’s not they refuse to answer, it’s that they don’t recall.
August 15th, 2007 at 11:05 amAs the likes of Insannity harp on about how the Democrats are politicizing the war, Alberto has proudly shown the politicization of the Justice Department.
Can anyone remember a dumber AG than Gonzo? Even Ashcroft had some ethics, refusing to give in to Gonzo & Hadley in the hospital.
I guess in a weird way, Alberto’s competence matches his bosse’s.
August 15th, 2007 at 11:07 amNobody gives a hoot about this non-scandal.
August 15th, 2007 at 11:11 amI guess in a weird way, Alberto’s competence matches his bosse’s.
Comment by Zimzone — August 15, 2007 @ 11:07 am
Contrary to the common saying, like actually attracts like.
Birds of a feather…
Bad money drives out good…
The Good Ship Bush isn’t sinking. It’s sunk…
Glub… glub… glub…
August 15th, 2007 at 11:11 amIt’s not they refuse to answer, it’s that they don’t recall.
They must be taking their cue from Hillary Clinton(D), DFL presidential nominee.
August 15th, 2007 at 11:12 amYou mean based on their Rank loyalty to Dear Leader and Torquemada.
August 15th, 2007 at 11:12 amNobody gives a hoot about this non-scandal.
Comment by Ringo — August 15, 2007 @ 11:11 am
you’re not exactly in a position to speak for everybody. Yes, some of do care about this shamelss, wholly partisan attempt to politicize and corrupt the DoJ.
August 15th, 2007 at 11:13 amWhat was the crime again?
August 15th, 2007 at 11:13 amThey must be taking their cue from Hillary Clinton(D), DFL presidential nominee.
Comment by Chaff-Foil Strips To Confuse Radar — August 15, 2007 @ 11:12 am
Irrational, meaningless comment.
August 15th, 2007 at 11:14 amRepublican Rules:
Bill Clinton fires travel office staff:
Republican response=A moral outrage! The poor staffers lost their jobs for “political reasons”! Investigate, investigate, investigate!
George W. Bush fires numerous US attorneys: It’s OK, Bill Clinton did the same thing!
-GSD
August 15th, 2007 at 11:14 amThey must be taking their cue from Hillary Clinton(D), DFL presidential nominee.
Comment by Chaff-Foil Strips To Confuse Radar — August 15, 2007 @ 11:12 am
Tht’s up to the investigative committees to determine. They’re doing the job they’re supposed to do.
August 15th, 2007 at 11:14 am“I can find out.” Jesus. Criminal, or incompetent. Either way, he should go.
August 15th, 2007 at 11:15 amYes, some of do care about this shamelss, wholly partisan attempt to politicize and corrupt the DoJ.
So unlike the last dem POTUS who just fired everyone.
August 15th, 2007 at 11:15 amConsidering the cases that the DoJ has decided to ignore (especially regarding voter fraud), I think that this is an issue that everyone who believes in democracy should care about….
oh I forgot, people like Ringo don’t believe in democracy except where it justifies war in Iraq
August 15th, 2007 at 11:15 amGeorge W. Bush in 2000.
“I will restore honor and dignity to the Whitehouse”
George W. Bush 2007.
“Congress hasn’t PROVEN that Alberto Gonzales has committed any crimes.”
-GSD
August 15th, 2007 at 11:16 amSo unlike the last dem POTUS who just fired everyone.
Comment by Chaff-Foil Strips To Confuse Radar — August 15, 2007 @ 11:15 am
Once, again, a false argument. It is quite common for an incoming POTUS to let go the DAs. It is unprecendented to let them go mid-term for strictly partisan reasons. Your comment is a strawman.
August 15th, 2007 at 11:17 amTht’s up to the investigative committees to determine. They’re doing the job they’re supposed to do.
Again, what CRIME was supposedly committed? Is the committee fishing or do they have a crime in mind, and if so, lets hear them say it out loud.
August 15th, 2007 at 11:17 amOnce, again, a false argument. It is quite common for an incoming POTUS to let go the DAs. It is unprecendented to let them go mid-term for strictly partisan reasons.
The operative word is “unprecedented”; the only way to set a precedent is to do it first.
You were aware that the DA’s are let go for partisan reasons so that the new POTUS can appoint his own people for….hold on….partisan reasons?
“Unprecedented” isnt criminal, it may be unusual, but its not illegal.
August 15th, 2007 at 11:21 amSo they were not ranked on intelligence, skill, or loyalty to the republic and Constitution – they were ranked based on loyalty to Bush and Fredo. Hmm, does that sound sorta TREASONOUS to anybody but me?
August 15th, 2007 at 11:22 amIt is unprecendented to let them go mid-term for strictly partisan reasons.
Arent the DA’s appointed AND released at the discretion of the President? Isnt that his purview?
August 15th, 2007 at 11:22 amIs the committee fishing or do they have a crime in mind, and if so, lets hear them say it out loud.
Comment by Chaff-Foil Strips To Confuse Radar — August 15, 2007 @ 11:17 am
I think we need to let them decide that. The’re not thru yet. Neither you nor I know what evidence they’re looking at. If no crime was committed, why did Monica Goodling resign so abruptly and take the 5th? Bush has said he did not fire the DAs. If the DAs serve at Bush’s pleasure, why did he not have anything to do w/ their firing? He has said he didn’t know about it. Funny business, to say the least.
August 15th, 2007 at 11:22 amHmm, does that sound sorta TREASONOUS to anybody but me?
Nope, just you. But feel free to rant.
August 15th, 2007 at 11:23 amIsnt that his purview?
Comment by Alan-MT — August 15, 2007 @ 11:22 am
Bush ahs said he had nothing to do w/ it. If it’s his perview, and he had nothing to do w/ it, then who did fire them, and why?
August 15th, 2007 at 11:23 am“Unprecedented†isnt criminal, it may be unusual, but its not illegal.
Comment by Chaff-Foil Strips To Confuse Radar — August 15, 2007 @
And the investigations are not over. We will just have to wait for this to play out. Please keep drawing attention to this. the simple fact taht you need to rebutt this gives it all validity. Please keep arguing.
August 15th, 2007 at 11:25 am“So unlike the last dem POTUS who just fired everyone.
Comment by Chaff-Foil Strips To Confuse Radar”
As did Bush at the start of his first term, and Bush 1 at the start of his first term, and Reagan at the start of his. Do you see the pattern? As to your other, even more stupid post asking about the crime: It should be a crime to interfere with a criminal investigation by firing the prosecuter. Carol Lam was fired when she dug too deep into the duke cunningham crime family. jerry lewis was next on her agenda and she was fired. It should be illegal to use prosecute people for political reasons. Igliseas was fired when he refused to prosecute a democrat during political campaign because when he looked into the case he didn’t see any crimes. If there had been something there, the next guy, appointed by gonzo would have gone ahead with the prosecution. Same with the guy in MN. The SA in Washington was fired because he was investigating the murder of another SA who was killed by a republican. I am sure you will dismiss this post with FauxNews talking points, I don’t care. You people are unamerican scum.
August 15th, 2007 at 11:25 am“Unprecedented†isnt criminal, it may be unusual, but its not illegal.
Comment by Chaff-Foil Strips To Confuse Radar — August 15, 2007 @ 11:21 am
It is unprecedented to let them go mid-term, for partisan reasons. Not quite sure which part of that statement you didn’t get, but I can repeat it for you.
August 15th, 2007 at 11:26 amUnprecedented†isnt criminal, it may be unusual, but its not illegal.
Comment by Chaff-Foil Strips To Confuse Radar
August 15th, 2007 at 11:27 amlying to congress is illegal.
chafffoils is an extremely honest name. he is trying to confuse the issue by sending up false chatter.
August 15th, 2007 at 11:28 amI think we need to let them decide that. The’re not thru yet. Neither you nor I know what evidence they’re looking at.
How long has this been going on? How long should it take this investigation to produce SOMETHING other than “We think Bush and AGAG are jerks.”
If the the dems think a crime was committed, lets hear them say what crime they think it was. They cant, this is a fishing expedition with an impending perjury trap about a passing conversation from two years ago being the only result.
August 15th, 2007 at 11:30 amlying to congress is illegal.
As a certain dem President would know.
August 15th, 2007 at 11:31 amre # 27
chafffoil isn’t interested in having a thoughtful back-and-forth discussion of the issues, he want’s to confuse and derail the disusssion, hence his choice of screen name.
August 15th, 2007 at 11:32 amchafffoils is an extremely honest name. he is trying to confuse the issue by sending up false chatter.
You dont send up chaff, you drop it. Get your facts straight.
August 15th, 2007 at 11:32 amlying to congress is illegal.
As a certain dem President would know.
Comment by Alan-MT
And what was your resonse to that? You impeached him. You howled at the moon at how he was unfit for public service. where is your moral outrage now? hypocrite.
August 15th, 2007 at 11:33 amChaff to confuse Radar, here is a story that is a classic example with criminal implications that resulted directly from the DOJ orchestrated removals for partisan reasons:
August 15th, 2007 at 11:35 amhttp://harpers.org/subjects/DonSiegelman/SubjectOf/BlogEntry
You dont send up chaff, you drop it. Get your facts straight.
Comment by Chaff-Foil Strips To Confuse Radar
Whatever….the effect is the same. the chaff is “dropped” to hide something. what are you hiding?
August 15th, 2007 at 11:35 amIt is unprecedented to let them go mid-term, for partisan reasons. Not quite sure which part of that statement you didn’t get, but I can repeat it for you.
Maybe you need to spend some time studying.
“Unprecedented” in this case isnt “illegal”. Hiring and firing DA’s is the the right of the POTUS, he can do so whenever he likes and no reason needs to be given.
Bush or any other POTUS can hire and fire DA’s until the very last day they serve in office. He could hire them all today and fire them all tomorrow; would that be unusual and unprecedented, yes, but not illegal.
Do I need to repeat that for you?
August 15th, 2007 at 11:37 amBush or any other POTUS can hire and fire DA’s until the very last day they serve in office. He could hire them all today and fire them all tomorrow; would that be unusual and unprecedented, yes, but not illegal.
Do I need to repeat that for you?
Comment by Chaff-Foil
but he can’t fire them to cover up crimes. he can’t fire them becuse they won’t commit crimes. do I need to repeat that for you?
August 15th, 2007 at 11:40 amMore bullshat about nothing; the feckless dems doing their feckless best to hide their own incompetance.
Dont bother chatting with these dolts, chaffy, they manage to blame everything from hurricanes to their toast getting burned on Bush. Irrational retards all.
August 15th, 2007 at 11:41 amre # 37
as someone else has already pointed out: bush has claimed that he didn’t fire them. gonzo has lied, under oath, about the firings. miers and rove have ignored supoenas to testify. if they didn’t do anything wrong then what do they have to hide?
August 15th, 2007 at 11:43 ambut he can’t fire them to cover up crimes. he can’t fire them becuse they won’t commit crimes. do I need to repeat that for you?
Whatever. Bush opens his desk drawer and the dems scream “CONSPIRACY!”
The dems got out their fishing poles and decided to make the firing of eight AG’s a national priority. Pointless, useless, partisan, foolish.
And to think the left wonders why their new majority suffers from a single digit approval number.
August 15th, 2007 at 11:44 amUh oh, dickwurst is getting all in a frenzy, before you know it he will start frothing at the mouth about secret gulags and Cheney’s private stormtrooper army.
August 15th, 2007 at 11:46 amWhat was the crime again?
Comment by Chaff-Foil Strips To Confuse Radar — August 15, 2007
Refusing to answer questions is the same thing Clinton was impeached for, OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE!
Why are apologists the most ignorant people this country has to offer?
August 15th, 2007 at 11:46 amAnd to think the left wonders why their new majority suffers from a single digit approval number.
Comment by Chaff-Foil Strips To Confuse Radar — August 15, 2007
It is simple…the single digit approval rating includes the obstructionist, bootlicking, rubbernecked, thugs of the reichwing. They are morons like you who think the rest of us are not smarter than you ignorant, knuckle dragging, troglodytes. Get a life sparky…28% is a minority even in your trailer park home school.
August 15th, 2007 at 11:49 amAgain, what CRIME was supposedly committed? Is the committee fishing or do they have a crime in mind, and if so, lets hear them say it out loud.
Comment by Chaff-Foil Strips To Confuse Radar — August 15, 2007 @ 11:17 am
Right now, nobody has been charged with anything. However, if one sees a significant amount of smoke where it ought not to be, the reasonable thing to do is investigate for a possible fire. This is, essentially, what’s going on with the Senate. (Bush shouldn’t feel picked on — this was done to Bill Clinton too, and led to his eventual impeachment).
This has been explained many, many times in TP threads, but I will go over it again. The USAs serve at the pleasure of the president, and he may dismiss any of them any time he wants. Where it gets to be a crime is if he dismisses them for refusal to perform acts that are illegal, or if he dismisses them in order to install another person for the purpose of committing illegal acts. There has been enough “smoke” surrounding this whole mess that it warrants some fire checking.
So, if nobody ever intended for any illegal or unethical actions to be done by the USAs, why in the world is everybody on the Bush staff acting so incredibly guilty? Why can’t Bush just say, “I fired these people because I wanted to. I can do that.” Why in the world does everybody have to hide behind “executive privilege” (as if this has anything to do with national security)? Why do the few people who do wind up testifying say “I don’t recall” or “I can’t answer that” over and over?
When Congress is satisfied there has been no crime committed (no fire, even though there’s smoke), they will drop it.
August 15th, 2007 at 11:49 amAnd to think the left wonders why their new majority suffers from a single digit approval number.
Comment by Chaff-Foil Strips To Confuse Radar — August 15, 2007
Link to this mythical poll, please.
August 15th, 2007 at 11:50 amfly away pretty bird. you’re in over your head here., and mommy needs you to pick up your room. I’ve given resonable responses to the usual republican talking point posts that you trolls puke up, yet chaffy can’t respond with reason or logic. your chirping shows your fear.
August 15th, 2007 at 11:52 amHi missmolly,
I tried talking nice to the trolls this morning, it hasn’t worked. chaffy (or whoever) just ignores fact and logic, (it’s why he’s a republican troll) and something called a bird has flited in with pointless snark.
August 15th, 2007 at 11:55 amIf these attorneys would like to contend they were wrongfully terminated, they should make their case in court instead of participating in a democrat media fiesta.
Comment by Nachos of Justice — August 15, 2007 @ 11:53 am
And just WHERE would this court be where they would be treated fairly?
August 15th, 2007 at 11:55 amHi missmolly,
I tried talking nice to the trolls this morning, it hasn’t worked. chaffy (or whoever) just ignores fact and logic, (it’s why he’s a republican troll) and something called a bird has flited in with pointless snark.
Comment by Bobwurst — August 15, 2007 @ 11:55 am
I realize the folly of teaching a pig to sing — it’s a waste of time and it annoys the pig. Thanks for the reminder!
August 15th, 2007 at 11:56 amNachos of justice”
‘“unprecented†is not necessarily illegal.’
and illegal isn’t always selfevident. how can any crime be proven without an investigation first? by your logic there shouldn’t be any invesitgations of any crimes. people should just be somehow magically prosecuted, without evidence and found guilty.
the dems are trying to investigate, and are being obstructed by the bush adminsstration. but according to the trolls on this site, the fact that they don’t have evidence of a crime before they investigate proves somehow that there was no crime. Some trolls here have whined about the length of the investigation, ignoring the constant footdragging of the whitehouse, and the 10 year, 80 million dollare whitewater investation they were so proud of just a few years ago.
August 15th, 2007 at 12:03 pmComment by Bobwurst — August 15, 2007 @ 12:03 pm
And there have been trolls here who, in rebuttal to some calling for impeachment hearings, claimed impeachment was impossible because there had been no indictments and no convictions.
It’s hard to reason against troll logic like that…
August 15th, 2007 at 12:11 pm“probably no crime to be investigated”
Says who? the people who are being investigated? you, a kneejerk apolgoist for the bush adminstration?
“Leave the validity, the legality, the constitutionality of their terminations up to an impartial U.S. district judge to decide. ”
And who’s going to prosecute the case? Alberto? someone who has taken the loyality oath? Tell you what, assign a special prosecuter, give him a budget and let’s see what happens.
“not pertinent to my judgment”
August 15th, 2007 at 12:30 pmAnd who are you to be making this judgement? Congress is acting well within their powers and responsiblities by providing oversight for th executive branch.
all the wingnuts ask
what crime? what crime?
Gee, where to start. How about a criminal scheme to force prosecutions on Dems that the local Repugs wanted to get rid of to give their candidate a shot? Uh, can you say FEDERAL CONSPIRACY TO MANIPULATE THE RULE OF LAW?
You wingnuts truly are blind. You see a “crime” when a Prez gets a blowjob yet you can’t manage to comprehend it when the admin. IN TOTAL engaged in many criminal activities and is actively covering it up, or trying to. Their incompetence bit them in the ass, because they stupidly sent tons of emails showing their crimes, many of which have been “leaked”
August 15th, 2007 at 12:34 pmThe USAttorney crimes are just ONE of the many Federal offenses they have committed. The International crimes, violation of the War Crimes Act and the Geneva Conventions not enough for you?
You are all traitors and UnAmerican. Leave now and take your puppet satan president and his ridiculous delusional Xtian crusade with you.
The day will soon come when ALL of them will be indicted and all of YOU will be proven to the world to be just what you are, supporters of a criminal, just like Nazi sympathizers. Keep your head in the sand, but eventually you will not be able to hide. Any decent Republican has long ago left the party. It now consists of only idiot, ignorant, racist chickenhawk warmongers with a collective IQ of about 3.
“This is a personnel issue,”
As has been posted adnausem, if the firings were made to cover up a crime (carol lam) or because a SA refused to go ahead with politically movtived prosecutions that would help the party in power, then there are potential crimes to be investigated. I went into detail about this earlier on this thread, but in typical troll fashion, you folks simply skim past those posts, then later on make the same talking point post. If you want to be taken seriously, be serious. if you want a flaming continue trolling.
August 15th, 2007 at 12:35 pmLOL Carole Lamm? Try SEGELMAN. Try judicial influence. Try EVIDENCE. Rove did not leave because he wanted to, he is GOING DOWN.
August 15th, 2007 at 12:38 pmYou are a top notch fool bobworst
Chafed beyond reason, Why bother to continue?I gave you the exact example of what all of this boiled down to in one precise case. Judge Fuller seems like a bitter partisan out for retribution to me. Follow the pork too. Alabama, 4th on the list.
August 15th, 2007 at 12:39 pmJustice
Thank you, I pride myself on being the best.
August 15th, 2007 at 12:45 pm“So unlike the last dem POTUS who just fired everyone.
Comment by Chaff-Foil Strips To Confuse Radar”
The irony here is that bush would have been better off if he *had* simply fired everyone, which is the standard practice with each new administration.
Instead, what he did was attempt to effectively gerrymander DOJ by selectively firing those attorneys not considered sufficiently partisan or politically reliable.
You *do* understand why this is a bad thing, don’t you?
August 15th, 2007 at 1:28 pmSORRY Bob, for referring to you when I meant my posts to CT and his various aliases and counterparts.
August 15th, 2007 at 1:38 pmSo unlike the last dem POTUS who just fired everyone.
Comment by Chaff-Foil Strips To Confuse Radar — August 15, 2007 @ 11:15 am
Another tired Repub “Clinton did it too” talking point that doesn’t hold water. Yes, Clinton fired all the USAs when he took office, and appointed different ones. GEORGE W. BUSH DID THE SAME THING when he took office. So did Ronald Reagan. So did pretty much every president who took over the White House from a different political party.
This doesn’t compare to firing YOUR OWN APPOINTEES in the middle of your term for suspicious reasons.
Next, please.
August 15th, 2007 at 1:46 pmI’ve been saying this for over a year…
Can anyone think of anything more corrupting to the national jury pool than this bullsh(t!
Want to get out of Fed. jury duty?
Tell the judge you can’t give the corrupt, Repugniscum run DoJ the benefit of the doubt.
Mention that there is no way to know which DoJ employees (especially ALL USAs) are not sucking up to the Repugniscums and the White House!
Tell the judge you believe the DoJ should be purged from top to bottom.
Ask the judge if he or she is a Repugniscum?
YOU WILL BE DISMISSED!
Or you could keep your mouth shut and work to nullify the jury from within!
August 15th, 2007 at 8:05 pmSo unlike the last dem POTUS who just fired everyone.
Comment by Chaff-Foil Strips To Confuse Radar — August 15, 2007 @ 11:15 am
It has already been explained here dozens of times that it is not unusual for new presidents to fire all the US Attorneys and hire new ones at the beginning of his term of office. (Can’t you trolls find a better line by now?) But, just to set the record straight, Bill Clinton did not in fact fire all 93 of them. At the request of Senator Bill Bradley of New Jersey, he retained Michael Chertoff. Yes, the same M. Jerk-off who now heads the Dept. of Homeland Security.
August 16th, 2007 at 3:03 amDoes it matter? They are all “At Will”, meaning they can be terminated at any time, as well as resign at any time. No one needs an excuse to do either.
August 16th, 2007 at 1:37 pm