|
|
Post by CMF Newsman on Mar 30, 2007 9:34:41 GMT -5
WASHINGTON (AFP) - A former senior aide to US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales directly implicated him Thursday in a scandal over the sacking of eight federal prosecutors, saying he had approved the dismissals. "I and others made staff recommendations but they were approved and signed off on by the principals," Gonzales's former right-hand man, Kyle Sampson, told US lawmakers. "The decision makers in this case were the attorney general and the counsel to the president," the administration's former official lawyer Harriet Miers, Sampson told the Senate Judiciary Committee under oath. complete story |
|
|
|
Post by daworm on Mar 30, 2007 10:00:09 GMT -5
So. F-----g. What.
The president hired these guys when he was elected to do what he wanted them to do in a manner he wanted them to do it in. Plus, each of them got the job as payback on political favors (like all appointed positions). Later, when they weren't doing what he wanted in the way he wanted, and when he had some more favors to repay (or even by proxy, Rove has some favors to repay), he cans them (whether through Gonzales or not) and brings in some new guys.
Big. F-----g. Deal.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gary on Mar 30, 2007 10:03:39 GMT -5
Yeah, what's the big deal of having the Attorney General lie to Congress? Nope, no big deal at all. It's not like he got a blow job or anything.  |
|
|
|
Post by daworm on Mar 30, 2007 10:04:48 GMT -5
Why should he have had to say word one to congress in the first place?
|
|
|
|
Post by Gary on Mar 30, 2007 10:05:48 GMT -5
Yeah, who needs oversight anyway? Just because that's how it was set up and has been done for the past 200+ years doesn't mean anything.
|
|
|
|
Post by daworm on Mar 30, 2007 10:25:14 GMT -5
Oversight for what? Replacing one political appointee with another?
So far, the only thing I've seen about this that was even the slightest bit fishy from the beginning (in other words, worth even looking at at the time of the firings, not what has happened since) was that they bypassed congressional approval on the new appointees by citing provisions of the Patriot Act. From what I can tell, there was nothing illegal about it, but since it bypassed congress, the democrats got their panties in a wad over it. They didn't and don't give a rats ass about either the 8 canned appointees or the new 8 appointees, all they care about is that they were left out of the process.
Just like Libby got fried over "lying" about his recollection of an event that was not a crime, Gonzales is getting raked over the coals now, for no good reason that I can see. Its just another witch hunt.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gary on Mar 30, 2007 10:28:39 GMT -5
> Oversight for what?
Congressional oversight of the Attorney General. The issue really isn't about the firings themselves, it's about the AG lying to Congress. That's a rather big no-no. Remember, Clinton was impeached not because he had sex with Monica, but because he lied about it.
"Yeah, we fired them because we felt they weren't following the policies and procedures of the Justice Department," would have been the appropriate response to the original question. Instead, we got dishonesty from the one guy who's supposed to be honest.
I have no problem with the firings themselves - I have a problem with an AG who can't be honest.
|
|
|
|
Post by daworm on Mar 30, 2007 12:47:46 GMT -5
My problem is that he shouldn't have been asked in the first place. Once asked, yeah, hold his feet to the fire.
Reading some of the news today about this, I think I see a difference of opinion about "involvement". Gonzales' line appears to use it in the sense that he wasn't involved in all of the paperwork and other work deciding who was to be let go and when, and writing up the dismissal paperwork and such, so that final approval wasn't being "involved". Sort of like a boss telling you to build a web site, and when you are finished saying "That's nice, go with it". He's "involved" in the process, sure, but only in a minimal way. Now whether that flies with Congress is another matter. After all, Nixon didn't break into the Watergate hotel personally.
I guess my point is this should never have been a big enough deal to ask him the first question, and the fact that it is, while other issues are virtually ignored, bothers me. To me, this is about as important as Brittney Spears rehab. Yet now even I'm wasting time on it.
|
|
|
|
Post by legaltender on Mar 30, 2007 17:31:50 GMT -5
Gonzales approved the prosecutor firings and then says "mistakes were made." What mistakes? Won't say.
Operation “Heckuva Job Gonzo” is about to happen. They are just trying to find some Blue Chip Law Firm that will take him.
|
|
|
|
Post by Justin Thyme on Mar 30, 2007 22:23:00 GMT -5
I agree with Worm in that this should never have been an issue to begin with. Gonzales should have just said they were fired because that was our perogative and left it at that. Instead he goes and stirs up a wasps nests by getting defensive. You know the FBI has to be loving all the attention this story is getting.
|
|
|
|
Post by legaltender on Mar 30, 2007 23:08:28 GMT -5
Because Gonzo took the spotlight off their misuse of national security letters to obtain phone, computer and financial records of Americans?
Don't bet on it.
The Robert Hanssen case was described as the most damaging in FBI history. The agency promised that changes were being made. Thirty FBI employees were "red-flagged" after they flunked polygraphs in the wake of the scandal. Not one has ever been fired. Hanssen was spared the death penalty for his treason and his wife receives a portion of his FBI pension.
|
|
|
|
Post by captainjack on Mar 31, 2007 17:53:02 GMT -5
So, who oversees Congress? The lying and dishonesty generated by this body is incredible! This is a witch hunt pure and simple. The Democrats see this as an opportunity to go after Bush on another front. It's no wonder they can't get any real legislation accomplished - they spend all their time trying to "get" the Bush administration. How soon the American public forgets and how sad.
|
|
Ringleman#5
Forumite
The first in his family born without a tail.
Posts: 1,139
|
Post by Ringleman#5 on Apr 1, 2007 5:53:38 GMT -5
So, how many prosecutors did Bill Clinton fire while potus?
|
|
|
|
Post by Justin Thyme on Apr 1, 2007 6:12:17 GMT -5
So, how many prosecutors did Bill Clinton fire while potus? All but one. |
|
Ringleman#5
Forumite
The first in his family born without a tail.
Posts: 1,139
|
Post by Ringleman#5 on Apr 1, 2007 6:28:59 GMT -5
Hi Kettle. Just call me Pot.
|
|
|
|
Post by legaltender on Apr 1, 2007 10:32:35 GMT -5
Clinton and Bush replaced en masse at the change of Administrations. Prosecutors can be removed for the crassest of reasons, but usually not in meaningful numbers after the original purge. Clinton treated the White House travel office as a political fiefdom, sacking veteran employees to give business to a company run by cronies. He earned a clamor of bad press and Congressional fuming.
Gonzales, Sampson and Miers didn't go after weak performers. They just said they had. They sacked one just to give the job to a former Republican National Committee staffer. They also banished some prosecutors who had either gone after Republican politicians or failed to go after Democratic ones. They got rid of some prosecutors that Sampson himself had rated highly. And they broke no law, of course.
It's a tiresome and overcooked scandal. But they shouldn't expect everyone to swallow the fiction that they are strengthening law enforcement.
|
|
osrb
Senior Forumite
Semper Fi
Mostly Harmless
Posts: 3,150
|
Post by osrb on Apr 1, 2007 17:00:31 GMT -5
Now tell me again why is the congress wasting money on this? Since there was no crime committed why are they creating one?
|
|
|
|
Post by Justin Thyme on Apr 1, 2007 20:02:34 GMT -5
Now tell me again why is the congress wasting money on this? Since there was no crime committed why are they creating one? So that they don't have to deal harshly with the FBI. Yeah, LT, I'm being flip but it really does bother me that the FBI is being given a pass on this by all the news folks while this minor incident of bad judgement is being so heavily scrutinized. Yeah I know about Hanssen and many of the other indescretions of the FBI over the past 99 years but just because this is one incident of many doesn't mean they should be given a pass. |
|
|
|
Post by bushcheney08 on Apr 2, 2007 10:42:12 GMT -5
I think prosecutors should be hired and fired in reaction to who they choose to prosecute, and whether or not it would have a favorable outcome for the administration. Well, as long as it's the Bush administration. If Hilary was elected, I'd be pretty pissed off if she fired a bunch of prosecutors because they tried to catch her crooked friends breaking the law. Those sons of bitches should fry, if you ask me.
But that's a hypothetical situation. No point in racking our brains about hypotheticals.
What's not being mentioned is that the authority to circumvent the congress in dismissingi and appointing new prosecutors was given to our brave president via the US Patriot Act. For those of you who are too poorly informed to know what that is, it has to to with terrorism and September 11th, and also has the word PATRIOT in it's title. What more explanation do you need? 2000 Americans died in the WTC and at the Pentagon so that the government could take those rights back. A bunch of soliders have died in Iraq too so that those rights could be wrested from the people, back to the government to protect us. To deny Bush or Hurricaine Alberto the right to use those new powers is like pissing on the grave of every US Soldier, Firefighter, and 9-11 victim combined.
Don't ask questions. It's clearly a matter of national security.
|
|
