If you could grill Gonzales ... - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Willravel · 04-21-2007, 12:08 PM

Mike, they all do. This was clearly different.

reconmike · 04-21-2007, 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Mike, they all do. This was clearly different.

The only difference is that these attorneys were fired because they didn't tow the president's agenda, there is nothing wrong or illegal with doing that.

If the president wants illegal immigration or the death penalty prosectuted
by HIS US attorney and he does't get it, then it is within his right to fire them.

Willravel · 04-21-2007, 12:58 PM

Did Bell lie about his involvement? Did Clinton lie about his?

trickyy · 04-21-2007, 02:52 PM

gonzales is in trouble not because of the firings (although even he admits that the firings were a disaster) but because he can't answer simple questions

Elphaba · 04-21-2007, 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

I like this one. I'd like to ask Rummy, Cheney and even Bush that same thing. Evil or stupid?

I found this reference to the "Bushies" today: "Mayberry Machiavellis"

host · 04-21-2007, 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by reconmike

The only difference is that these attorneys were fired because they didn't tow the president's agenda, there is nothing wrong or illegal with doing that.

If the president wants illegal immigration or the death penalty prosectuted
by HIS US attorney and he does't get it, then it is within his right to fire them.

reconmike....can you come up with a serious question to ask General Gonzales?
You impress me as being a patriotic American.....but I posted detailed accounts of multiple incidents.....irrefutable evidence (you didn't....haven't ever refuted it....) that both the POTUS and the VP lied over and over.....since late 2002....Bush as recently as last Sept....and Cheney as recently as this month.....that Saddam's relationship with al Q'aida....and specifically with al Zarqawi....was justification for invading and occupying Iraq. I've showed that they both lied about that....and I posted on this thread the exchange between Gonzales and Sen. Schumer concerning the fact that US Attorney Carol Lam was fired without ever being told by anyone at DOJ what her performance deficiencies were.....

Cqrol Lam prosecuted Randy Cunningham and she brought indictments qgainst CIA's #3 Dusty Foggo and his best friend and Cunningham briber Wilkes and cobriber Mitchell Wade. Cqrol Lam was...when she was fired.....investigating Jerry Lewis...the chairman of the congressional committee dealing with defense appropriations that Randy Cunningham served on.....when he was indicted.....details are here:
www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/cats/jerry_lewis/

mike....so far....you've reacted by posting a scroll joke concerning the length of my last post....but no comment about it's damning material about the two leaders who I presume you defend in your last post.....

I ask you and Gonzales the same question now.....was Cunningham acting like a traitor in a time of war? Why was it more important to impede Carol Lam's investigation of the full extent of the crimes of those associated with Cunningham's crimes...?.

aceventura3 · 04-22-2007, 02:26 PM

Mr. Gonzales we all know you serve at the pleasure of the President, that you have stated that you will not resign unless it is at the request of the President, a President by the way not running for re-election, that you have violated no law, and that we are basically wasting everyone's time, was this whole thing some evil genious kinda scheme concocted by the White House to get Congress focus on a trivial matter rather than the serious business Congress has been entrusted to conduct?

dc_dux · 04-22-2007, 03:44 PM

ace.... Congress has been entrusted with many roles - the most important being enacting legsislation, authorizing the allocation and expenditure of funds to run the goverment AND overseeing the actions and administration of the executive branch (the foundation of our system of check and balances).

why dont you think Congress can multi-task? This 110th Congress has been very active in enacting new legislation.

Why do you and Mike continue to believe that a law must be broken in order for Congress to fufill its oversight responsibility? Why do you believe its a trivial matter and a waste of time and money to ensure that the DoJ is managed competently and honestly?

Here is what Norm Orstein of the American Enterprise Institute said about Congressional oversight:

Quote:

Congressional oversight is meant to keep mistakes from happening or from spiraling out of control; it helps draw out lessons from catastrophes in order to prevent them, or others like them, from recurring. Good oversight cuts waste, punishes fraud or scandal, and keeps policymakers on their toes. The task is not easy. Examining a department or agency, its personnel, and its implementation policies is time-consuming. Investigating possible scandals can easily lapse into a partisan exercise that ignores broad policy issues for the sake of cheap publicity. (both parties have expressed outrage at the incompetence of the AG)
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/200611...hecks-out.html

Were we really better off under the last Congress, which completed abrigated its oversight responsibilities?

debaser · 04-22-2007, 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

If you could grill Gozales, what would you ask?

Where is the salt?

reconmike · 04-22-2007, 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

ace.... Congress has been entrusted with many roles - the most important being enacting legsislation, authorizing the allocation and expenditure of funds to run the goverment AND overseeing the actions and administration of the executive branch (the foundation of our system of check and balances).

why dont you think Congress can multi-task? This 110th Congress has been very active in enacting new legislation.

Why do you and Mike continue to believe that a law must be broken in order for Congress to fufill its oversight responsibility? Why do you believe its a trivial matter and a waste of time and money to ensure that the DoJ is managed competently and honestly?

Here is what Norm Orstein of the American Enterprise Institute said about Congressional oversight:

Were we really better off under the last Congress, which completed abrigated its oversight responsibilities?

DC, I understand that it is Congress' responsibility to oversee, but Host continues to post as if Carol Lams firing was something illegal, and it was not,
she was not prosecuting they way her EMPLOYERS want her to.

Host this is a thread about the attorney general, not Bush and his VP, what they said about Iraq, or how the VP is hung like a horse.

And Sen. Schumer is a jack ass, I have the displeasure of having to see his puss on my local news constantly.

And to answer your questions, no Cunningham was not acting like a traitor, he was acting like a thief.

Perhaps you haven't noticed but the investigation of Cunninghams cronies is still happening without the precious Lam.

Willravel · 04-22-2007, 05:14 PM

I don't see anywhere in this thread where Host said th firings were illegal. He called the war illegal, and I wholeheartedly agree with that, but I don't see it.

reconmike · 04-22-2007, 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

I don't see anywhere in this thread where Host said th firings were illegal. He called the war illegal, and I wholeheartedly agree with that, but I don't see it.

Will, it might not be in this thread, but I am certian he has said it in one of his 400 Lam posts, I will find it, it might take me 3 months to reread through all his posts but its there.

And Will I said Host is posting AS IF Lams firing was illegal.

And for the war being illegal all I'll say is UN resolution 1441.

dc_dux · 04-22-2007, 05:43 PM

Quote:

DC, I understand that it is Congress' responsibility to oversee, but Host continues to post as if Carol Lams firing was something illegal, and it was not,
she was not prosecuting they way her EMPLOYERS want her to.

Mike...you can understand why it raises questions when Gonzales (and the WH) said Lam was fired for not being tough enough on immigration...when 8 months earlier, she received a letter of commendation from the US Customs and Border Protection:

Quote:

"In support of CBP referrals for prosecution, your office maintains a 100% acceptance rate of criminal cases, while staunchly refusing to reduce felony charges to misdomeanors...
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/doc...?resultpage=1&

It was like saying David Ignatius was fired because of his frequent absences from the office...when those absences were due to his commitments as an officer in the Navy Reserve.

If Bush had simply said, they are fired because I say so...there would have a short-lived firestorm. Its the lies, the conflicting stories, the faulty memories, etc and further examples of political influence in the judicial process by the WH that keep this alive.

Quote:

And Sen. Schumer is a jack ass

I think Orin Hatch is a jackass...but that has nothing to do with the need for oversight hearings on this DoJ fiasco.

Willravel · 04-22-2007, 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by reconmike

And for the war being illegal all I'll say is UN resolution 1441.

Oh, don't worry about that. I've already proven that the war is illegal.

I know you said 'as if', which is a sign of a red herring and strawman.

host · 04-22-2007, 10:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by reconmike

Will, it might not be in this thread, but I am certian he has said it in one of his 400 Lam posts, I will find it, it might take me 3 months to reread through all his posts but its there.

And Will I said Host is posting AS IF Lams firing was illegal.

And for the war being illegal all I'll say is UN resolution 1441.

reconmike, I hold the opposite opinion of yours, with regard to both the crimes of Randy Cunningham, during a time that your president describes as a "long war"....a period when president Bush uses "war time" as an excuse to usurp extraordinary powers explicitly denied the executive in the plain wording of our US Constitution, and also with regard to the crimes against humanity of pre-emptive war....undertaken in clear violation of international law, and the treaty that organized the UN, and in contradiction to the principles that the US stated in 1945 were the foundation for the prosecutions of the Nazi aggressors at Nuremberg.....and...I have "the goods" to support my argument.....what can you post in support of yours?

I would ask General Gonzales why he not only authorized the firing of Randy Cunningham prosecutor Carol Lam, in view of the following, stated by the DOJ's own prosecutor, and did not demand that Cunningham be prosecuted for the crime of treason, and thus....will be allowed to draw a pension for his 21 year tenure of "service" to the US government....and I would ask Gonzales what he could say to the esteemed former Nuremberg prosecutor and senior expert on international law and the crime of pre-emptive war, to counter Ferencz's argument that implicates Gonzales in the same crimes against humanity with which Ferencz implicates Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair.

I would specifically ask Gonzales for his reaction to this....from the article linked below, by Ben Ferencz....how did Gonzales, with his background as a Texas Judge and counsel to governor and then president Bush, presume to know that this expert was incorrect in her judgment....and for that matter, how do you presume to know this, too....reconmike?:

Quote:

http://www.benferencz.org/arts/83.html
The Legality of the Iraq War

....Elizabeth Wilmshurst, resigned. Her letter of resignation, after more than 30 years of service, stated: "I regret that I cannot agree that it is lawful to use force against Iraq without a second Security Council resolution..." She had, for many years, represented the UK at meetings of the UN preparatory committees for an international criminal court and was recognized as one of the foremost experts on the subject of aggression. Her letter stated..."an unlawful use of force on such a scale amounts to the crime of aggression; nor can I agree with such action in circumstances that are so detrimental to the international order and the rule of law."......

Quote:

http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2006...2_463_2_01.txt
Last modified Saturday, March 4, 2006 9:30 PM PST
North County congressman avoids maximum sentence

By: Mark Walker, William Finn Bennett and Teri Figueroa - Staff Writers

......"He agrees his conduct is a violation of the public trust and his sentence should be severe enough to send a message," Blalack said.

But prosecutor Forge said Cunningham deserved the maximum sentence because of the five years he took bribes starting in 2000.

"He committed crime after crime because he wanted more."

<h3>Assistant U.S. Attorney Phillip Halpern argued that Cunningham effectively turned two "insignificant businessmen" into major defense contractors with Pentagon work that wasn't necessary and took money from other vital defense programs.</h3>

"The defendant sold out his office," Halpern said.

The two contractors he referred to were defense firm founder Mitchell Wade of Washington's MZM Inc., and Brent Wilkes, owner of a Poway defense firm called ADCS. Wade pleaded guilty to bribery and election fraud a week ago and faces 11 years in prison. Wilkes remains under investigation, as does New York developer Thomas Kontogiannis and his son-in-law, John T. Michael.

Prosecutors point to menu

At one point during his address, Halpern waved a plastic evidence envelope containing the "bribe menu" that Cunningham used to lay out his price for securing Pentagon work for the defense contractors.

"It was this memorandum that memorialized the price of betrayal," Halpern said. "He failed to put the nation's interests ahead of his own greed."

In responding to Cunningham's statement that he had made a wrong turn, Burns said it was much more.

"It wasn't a one-time lapse," the judge said to Cunningham. "It wasn't a one time U-turn. You made a U-turn and kept going for five years."

Outside the courthouse after the sentencing, Rick Gwin, special agent in charge of the Pentagon's Defense Criminal Investigative Service western regional office, said that he is not convinced Cunningham has been fully cooperating with the ongoing investigation.

"I don't know that we are necessarily getting all the cooperation we should from him," Gwin said. "Maybe once he is sitting in a jail cell we will get more cooperation."

Blalack said he is hopeful that further cooperation with federal investigators may result in a reduction in the prison sentence. The federal prison system allows only 54 days credit per year for good behavior. Assuming he earns good-behavior credit and there is no further reduction in his sentence, Cunningham will have to serve seven years and one month.

As he left the courthouse, Congressman Hunter said he continues to worry about Cunningham and his family.

"I was here as Duke's friend," Hunter said. "Our job now is to help his family make sure Duke stays alive."

'Sad but well-deserved'

Prosecutors were less merciful.

Speaking to reporters in front of a bank of microphones after the sentencing, Forge said he hoped the prison term would help restore public confidence in elected officials.

"Frankly, today's sentencing is a sad but well-deserved end to Mr. Cunningham's career," Forge said.

Once investigators discovered the bribe menu, which Forge cited as his most "flagrant act," prosecutors said they knew Cunningham's fate was sealed.........

reconmike....this is the background of some of what was occuring while Cunningham was doing what was highlighted in large bold letters in the preceding quote box:

Quote:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in652491.shtml
GIs Lack Armor, Radios, Bullets
What About The Troops, Asks 60 Minute's Steve Kroft
Oct. 31, 2004

......<b>The Army acknowledged to 60 Minutes that there is a shortage of radios in Iraq and a shortage of bullets for training, and says both are in the process of being remedied. There have also been problems with maintenance and replacement parts for critical equipment like Abrams tanks, Bradley personnel carriers and Black Hawk helicopters.</b>

Winslow Wheeler, a long time Capitol Hill staffer who spent years writing and reviewing defense appropriations bills, thinks he knows one reason why those shortages exist, after looking at the current Defense budget. Army accounts that pay for training, maintenance and repairs are being raided by Congress to pay for pork-barrel spending.

Wheeler says $2.8 billion that was earmarked for operations and maintenance to support U.S. troops has been used to "pay the pork bill."

Wheeler, who has written a book called "The Wastrels of Defense," says congressmen routinely hide billions of dollars in pet projects in the defense bill........

Quote:

http://www.benferencz.org/arts/83.html
The Legality of the Iraq War

The following essay was written by Ben Ferencz a few days after the secret information contained therein became public. Since the American Society for International Law had published a comprehensive scholarly review of the legal issues as seen from various perspectives, Ferencz submitted his essay, on April 10, 2005.....

.....On August 3, 2002, UK military spokesmen briefed the Pentagon and US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on the status of UK's preparation. The next day they briefed President Bush. Coordinated plans for the attack on Iraq continued, despite a reported private statement by Britain's Foreign Secretary Straw that "Saddam was not threatening his neighbors, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran." His legal advisers in the Foreign Office had submitted a Confidential 8-page memorandum casting doubt on whether Security Council (SC) resolutions 678 (1990) or 687 (1991), that had authorized members "to use all necessary means" to restore peace in the area" could justify the forceful invasion of Iraq.

Straw made the interesting point that if the SC would again demand that Saddam allow UN inspectors to confirm that he had complied with earlier resolutions to destroy his WMD and, if the inspectors discovered that he had failed to do so, that might justify a renewed use of force. A refusal to accept inspection would also be politically helpful to justify the invasion. The best that could be achieved, however, was SC Res. 1441 of November 8, 2002, again demanding that Iraq disarm and allow UN inspectors to report back within 30 days. The Resolution ''recalled" that Iraq had repeatedly been warned that it would "face serious consequences as a result of its violations". The "decision" taken by the Council was to "await further reports" and then "to consider the situation." Troops were being mobilized for a combined massive military assault but there was still no clear agreement on the legal justification for such action.

<b>On February 11, 2003. Attorney General Lord Goldsmith went to Washington where he conferred with leading lawyers in the Bush administration - including White House lawyer Alberto Gonzales</b>, State Department Legal Adviser William Taft IV, Jim Haynes, Adviser for the Defense Department and US Attorney General, John Ashcroft. A 13- page memo by Lord Goldsmith dated March 7, 2003, still expressed doubts about the legality of the contemplated assault on Iraq but seemed to be softer than the firm stand taken by him at the meeting of July 23, 2002.

Ten days later, on March 17, 2003, and just two days before the war was scheduled to begin, Goldsmith made a summary statement in Parliament in which he noted that a reasonable case could be made "for war without a Security Council resolution." William Taft IV is reported to have commented that the Goldsmith statement "sounded very familiar" - presumably because it echoed the US position.

In his report to his Prime Minister, Goldsmith wrote: " I remain of the opinion that the safest legal course would be to secure the adoption of a further resolution to authorize the use of force...nevertheless, having regard to the information on the negotiating history, which I have been given, and to the arguments which I heard in Washington, I accept that a reasonable case can be made that Resolution 1441 is capable in principle of reviving the authorization in 678 without a further resolution." He noted that such an argument could only be sustainable if there was clear evidence of non-compliance and non-cooperation by Iraq. These qualifying conditions were not mentioned in the 1-page summary given to the Cabinet on March 17.

UK military leaders had been calling for clear assurances that the war was legal under international law. They were very mindful that the treaty creating a new International Criminal Court in the Hague had entered into force on July 1, 2002, with full support of the British government. General Sir Mike Jackson, chief of the defense staff, was quoted as saying "I spent a good deal of time recently in the Balkans making sure Milosevic was put behind bars. I have no intention of ending up in the next cell to him in the Hague." On the eve of war, the British Attorney General's abbreviated statement of March 17 was accepted as legal approval of the official US/UK line. Not everyone in the British government could agree that the war that was about to begin was legal.

Prime Minister Blair chose to rely on the summary opinion of his Attorney General rather than the views of the Foreign Office which, ordinarily, would be responsible for opinions affecting foreign relations and international law. On March 18, 2003, the Deputy Legal Adviser to the Foreign Ministry, Elizabeth Wilmshurst, resigned. Her letter of resignation, after more than 30 years of service, stated: "I regret that I cannot agree that it is lawful to use force against Iraq without a second Security Council resolution..." She had, for many years, represented the UK at meetings of the UN preparatory committees for an international criminal court and was recognized as one of the foremost experts on the subject of aggression. Her letter stated..."an unlawful use of force on such a scale amounts to the crime of aggression; nor can I agree with such action in circumstances that are so detrimental to the international order and the rule of law."

Elizabeth Wilmshurst remembered that the Nuremberg trials had condemned aggressive war as "the supreme international crime" That decision had been affirmed by the UN General Assembly and followed in many other cases. She demonstrated Professor Tom Franck's concluding appeal in the 2003 Agora that "lawyers should zealously guard their professional integrity for a time when it can again be used in the service of the common weal."

Benjamin B. Ferencz
A former Nuremberg Prosecutor
J.D. Harvard (1943).....

Quote:

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/38604/
Could Bush Be Prosecuted for War Crimes?

By Jan Frel, AlterNet. Posted July 10, 2006.

......Perhaps no person on the planet is better equipped to identify and describe our crimes in Iraq than Benjamin Ferencz, a former chief prosecutor of the Nuremberg Trials who successfully convicted 22 Nazi officers for their work in orchestrating death squads that killed more than one million people in the famous Einsatzgruppen Case. Ferencz, now 87, has gone on to become a founding father of the basis behind international law regarding war crimes, and his essays and legal work drawing from the Nuremberg trials and later the commission that established the International Criminal Court remain a lasting influence in that realm.

Ferencz's biggest contribution to the war crimes field is his assertion that an unprovoked or "aggressive" war is the highest crime against mankind. It was the decision to invade Iraq in 2003 that made possible the horrors of Abu Ghraib, the destruction of Fallouja and Ramadi, the tens of thousands of Iraqi deaths, civilian massacres like Haditha, and on and on. Ferencz believes that a "prima facie case can be made that the United States is guilty of the supreme crime against humanity, that being an illegal war of aggression against a sovereign nation."

Interviewed from his home in New York, Ferencz laid out a simple summary of the case:

"The United Nations charter has a provision which was agreed to by the United States formulated by the United States in fact, after World War II. Its says that from now on, no nation can use armed force without the permission of the U.N. Security Council. They can use force in connection with self-defense, but a country can't use force in anticipation of self-defense. Regarding Iraq, the last Security Council resolution essentially said, 'Look, send the weapons inspectors out to Iraq, have them come back and tell us what they've found -- then we'll figure out what we're going to do. <b>The U.S. was impatient, and decided to invade Iraq -- which was all pre-arranged of course. So, the United States went to war, in violation of the charter."........</b>

aceventura3 · 04-23-2007, 05:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

ace.... Congress has been entrusted with many roles - the most important being enacting legsislation, authorizing the allocation and expenditure of funds to run the goverment AND overseeing the actions and administration of the executive branch (the foundation of our system of check and balances).

why dont you think Congress can multi-task? This 110th Congress has been very active in enacting new legislation.

Why do you and Mike continue to believe that a law must be broken in order for Congress to fufill its oversight responsibility? Why do you believe its a trivial matter and a waste of time and money to ensure that the DoJ is managed competently and honestly?

Here is what Norm Orstein of the American Enterprise Institute said about Congressional oversight:

Were we really better off under the last Congress, which completed abrigated its oversight responsibilities?

If I were to rank what I thought were the top 100 priorities for Congress this issue would not make the list.

When Repblicans had a majority they wasted the opportunity, now Democrats seem to be doing the same.

I have no problem with the Congressional role of oversight, in this situation we knew early Gonzales "misspoke" or "lied", nothing new has come out or will come out. And even if it did, the President has the right to terminate the political appointments. This matter could have been investigated and handled out of the spot light in a matter of days by staff.

host · 04-23-2007, 06:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

If I were to rank what I thought were the top 100 priorities for Congress this issue would not make the list.

When Repblicans had a majority they wasted the opportunity, now Democrats seem to be doing the same.

I have no problem with the Congressional role of oversight, in this situation we knew early Gonzales "misspoke" or "lied", nothing new has come out or will come out. And even if it did, the President has the right to terminate the political appointments. This matter could have been investigated and handled out of the spot light in a matter of days by staff.

ace.....my latest post in the "It's Both Parties" thread lines up nicely, next to your last post here. Do you really think that you can simply "rank" the inquiry into Gonzales's misleading statements, lies and obfuscation, as insignifigant, and have any credibility?

I don't know about you (after reading your last post.....I really don't know about you......)....but I do my best to make and support my argument......
Do you think you've done that by posting;

Quote:

.....If I were to rank what I thought were the top 100 priorities for Congress this issue would not make the list.....

With everybody from Bob Ney, to Doolittle's wife, Delay's pastor, Ed Buckham,
and even folks in the VP's office who gave Cunningham briber, Mitchell Wade,
his first government contract, "on board" the "train wreck" for republicans that is coming as a result of fired US Attorney, Carol Lam's prosecution of Randy Cunningham, and her subsequent investigations and indictment of CIA #3, Kyle Foggo.....with nothing posted to support your conclusion, you....ace, post that "there is nothing to see here".....case closed....

Uh-huh.....

aceventura3 · 04-23-2007, 06:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

ace.....my latest post in the "It's Both Parties" thread lines up nicely, next to your last post here. Do you really think that you can simply "rank" the inquiry into Gonzales's misleading statements, lies and obfuscation, as insignifigant, and have any credibility?

Yes.

Quote:

I don't know about you (after reading your last post.....I really don't know about you......)....but I do my best to make and support my argument......
Do you think you've done that by posting;

With everybody from Bob Ney, to Doolittle's wife, Delay's pastor, Ed Buckham,
and even folks in the VP's office who gave Cunningham briber, Mitchell Wade,
his first government contract, "on board" the "train wreck" for republicans that is coming as a result of fired US Attorney, Carol Lam's prosecution of Randy Cunningham, and her subsequent investigations and indictment of CIA #3, Kyle Foggo.....with nothing posted to support your conclusion, you....ace, post that "there is nothing to see here".....case closed....

Uh-huh.....

Host,

I have the ablility to look at information and data and form my own views. I almost never blindly quote the views of others. As you know my ego is pretty big, generally I often think my analysis and the opinions I form are more logical an well thought-out than many of the experts you often rely on to support the views other experts have planted in your mind.

dc_dux · 04-23-2007, 06:26 AM

ace...these oversight hearings have revealed much more than just the lying and incompetence by Gonzales et al with the firings of the US Attorneys.

Most disturbing to me was the revelation that the Bush administration has completely dismantled the firewall between the WH and DOJ regarding pending criminal cases.

Under Clinton, only 4 WH officials (Pres, VP, WH Counsel and WH Dep. Counsel) could speak or have contact with only 3 DOJ officials (AG, Asst AG, Dep, AG) regarding pending or potential criminal cases to help ensure that there was not undue political influence on those cases.

It was revealed at the hearings that the current WH policy allows over 400 political hacks in the EOP (executive office of the pres) to have contact with more than 30 political appointess at DOJ.

It is issues like this that come out in oversight hearings.

I think it is important for the American people to know about such policy shifts that, IMO, should be questioned by anyone concerned with having safeguards against political influences in the judicial process.

aceventura3 · 04-23-2007, 06:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

ace...these oversight hearings have revealed much more than just the lying and incompetence by Gonzales et al with the firings of the US Attorneys.

Most disturbing to me was the revelation that the Bush administration has completely dismantled the firewall between the WH and DOJ regarding pending criminal cases.

Under Clinton, only 4 WH officials (Pres, VP, WH Counsel and WH Dep. Counsel) could speak or have contact with only 3 DOJ officials (AG, Asst AG, Dep, AG) to help ensure that there was not undue political influence on criminal cases.

It was revealed at the hearings that the current WH policy allows over 400 political hacks in the EOP (executive office of the pres) to have contact with more than 30 political appointess at DOJ.

[IMG]

[/IMG]

I think this is important for the American people to know and a policy that should be questioned by anyone concerned with having safeguards against political influences in the judicial process.

That is certainly interesting. However, the number of people in the EOP having contact with appointees at DOJ does not directly correlate to the amount of political pressure. I could argue that one person can inappropriately excert more political pressure than 300.

Just for kicks can you admit that Congress is milking this issue at least a little more than they need to? Would this issue make your list of the top 100 priorities for Congress?

dc_dux · 04-23-2007, 06:48 AM

Gonazles' response when this was revealed by Sen. Whitehouse was:

"I do recall being concerned about that as White House counsel.”

If Congress hadnt "milked it," it is unlikely that this would have surfaced. I obviously think this is more serious than you or Gonzales (who, although "concerned", hasnt done anything about it since moving from WH counsel to AG).

As far as my priorities list...I would have a list of "legislative priorities" and a list of "oversight" priorities, recognizing that Congress can and should do both. Oversight of the DOJ to ensure that our chief law enforcement agency is acting competently and credibly and without undue political influence would certainly be among my top 100 "oversight" priorities.

host · 04-23-2007, 07:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

<b>......Just for kicks can you admit that Congress is milking this issue at least a little more than they need to?</b> Would this issue make your list of the top 100 priorities for Congress?

Absolutely not, ace.....and at least your ego does not discourage you from "reducing yourself" to a level where you can still participate here.....that's a good thing, IMO......

ace....my justification for "knowing" that this is the most important congressional investigation, needs to go no further than to comment on what has happened to the two lead prosecutors investigating Cunningham bribers Brett Wilkes, and Mitchell Wade.....

Carol Lam was fired, and both Gonzales and his COS, Kyle Sampson, admit under oath, that she was never apprised, before she was fired for not "bringing enough" immigrations violations prosecutions, by any DOJ official.

Deborah Yang, LA US Attorney, brought about the investigation of Jerry Lewis, Cunningham's superior on the congressional appropriations committee where Cunningham sold his information and influence of his office to Wilkes and Wade, and admitted doing so in his plea deal from Carol Lam....then resigned and is now working at the law firm that is defending Jerry Lewis, serving on the oversight committee there with Ted Olson, probably the most unscrupulous and rabidly partisan legal "fixer" in the senior level of republican "operatives".....a man reported to be under consideration by the Bush admin. to replace Gonzales....

This mess begs....no....it screams to be investigated.....isn't that right....Mr. Gonzales ???

aceventura3 · 04-23-2007, 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Gonazles' response when this was revealed by Sen. Whitehouse was:

"I do recall being concerned about that as White House counsel.”

If Congress hadnt "milked it," it is unlikely that this would have surfaced. I obviously think this is more serious than you or Gonzales (who, although "concerned", hasnt done anything about it since moving from WH counsel to AG).

You pretty much ignored the point. So I will point out the point again. What if the White House gave authority to the White House janitor to contact appointed members of DOJ making the number 301, in terms of political pressure what would the difference between 300 and 301 be? I think zero.

Quote:

As far as my priorities list...I would have a list of "legislative priorities" and a list of "oversight" priorities, recognizing that Congress can and should do both. Oversight of the DOJ to ensure that our chief law enforcement agency is acting competently and credibly and without undue political influence would certainly be among my top 100 "oversight" priorities.

Again, this matter could have been handled in a matter of days, not months and by staff. As a Washington insider I am sure you can tell us endless stories across every administration about the incompetence of political appointees. Political appontees almost never have real credibility going in, the real work gets done by career staff people - including DOJ. Congress is acting like Don Quixote tilting at windmills.

Quote:

Just then they came in sight of thirty or forty windmills that rise from that plain. And no sooner did Don Quixote see them that he said to his squire, "Fortune is guiding our affairs better than we ourselves could have wished. Do you see over yonder, friend Sancho, thirty or forty hulking giants? I intend to do battle with them and slay them. With their spoils we shall begin to be rich for this is a righteous war and the removal of so foul a brood from off the face of the earth is a service God will bless."

"What giants?" asked Sancho Panza.

"Those you see over there," replied his master, "with their long arms. Some of them have arms well nigh two leagues in length."

"Take care, sir," cried Sancho. "Those over there are not giants but windmills. Those things that seem to be their arms are sails which, when they are whirled around by the wind, turn the millstone."

http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/t...windmills.html

Host, thats for you - to support the tilting thing - since credibility on an anonymous board is oh so important to me.

Willravel · 04-23-2007, 09:49 AM

He should be tried for treason. All the evidence we need is the torture memo. While I agree that what Gonzales did with the US attorneys was absolutely wrong and was a clear indicator of his lackey status and his willingness to do anything to protect the monkey in the oval office, it's not the worst thing he's done by far.

dc_dux · 04-23-2007, 09:50 AM

Quote:

You pretty much ignored the point. So I will point out the point again. What if the White House gave authority to the White House janitor to contact appointed members of DOJ making the number 301, in terms of political pressure what would the difference between 300 and 301 be? I think zero.

Ace...its actually 412 EOP political employees as opposed to 4 previously. You dont think this increases the opportunity and potential for undue political inflluence by the WH on pending criminal cases?

Quote:

Again, this matter could have been handled in a matter of days, not months and by staff.

It could have been handled much more quickly if DoJ (and the WH) had been more cooperative.

We obviously differ on the value of Congressional oversight and what we see as legitimate versus "grandstanding and "milking" and "tilting".

loquitur · 04-23-2007, 10:03 AM

The most revealing thing to me in all this has been what a lightweight Gonzalez is. He has all the gravitas of foam rubber.

I say, get Chertoff in there and let Gonzalez go on a looooooooooong furlough.

aceventura3 · 04-23-2007, 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Ace...its actually 412 EOP political employees as opposed to 4 previously. You dont think this increases the opportunity and potential for undue political inflluence by the WH on pending criminal cases?

No. I also assume some people have the ability to not compromise their principles.

Quote:

It could have been handled much more quickly if DoJ (and the WH) had been more cooperative.

True.

Quote:

We obviously differ on the value of Congressional oversight and what we see as legitimate versus "grandstanding and "milking" and "tilting".

we don't disagree on the Congressional role of oversight, we disagree on the role Congress is taking on this issue.

loquitur · 04-23-2007, 10:28 AM

Just because I am dismissive of Gonzalez doesn't mean I think Congress is doing itself any great credit here. This whole "investigation" has one of the highest noise to substance ratios I have seen in a long time.

trickyy · 04-23-2007, 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Congress is milking this issue

this is what i originally thought before i started looking at the details. then i heard gonzales testify on Thursday and he removed all doubt that there are very serious problems.

gonzales could/should have easily explained the situation. i agreed with the people who said we should "hear him out"

but his convenient "forgetfulness" when confronted with questionable emails, memos, meeting information, etc., combined with several "misstatements" and overall poor management skills should be of concern to anyone with resonable standards for the notion of Justice (rememeber that is what he is supposed to represent).

if this issue not a big deal, why does he obviously have something to hide? it seems as though he twists the truth when convenient ("I don't recall...") ... is a person lacking honesty someone we want leading the primary department of Law and Order in the country? or would you call him an honest man?

loquitur · 04-23-2007, 10:47 AM

........... or it could just be that he is as inattentive and heedless as he seems. In which case he is a friggin' incompetent rather than a fraudster.

host · 04-23-2007, 10:52 AM

dc_dux, you and I post well documented arguments, complete with visuals, footnotes, links......and the response is that they "feel" that we are incorrect, and that they are "spot on"....but they offer nothing to enlighten us....mostly they just feed us our own quotes, with one sentence responses....not very convincing......

Quote:

Originally Posted by loquitur

The most revealing thing to me in all this has been what a lightweight Gonzalez is. He has all the gravitas of foam rubber.

I say, get Chertoff in there and let Gonzalez go on a looooooooooong furlough.

I say.....your advocacy for Chertoff belies why you and I do not even speak the same language....

Chertoff....Whitewater pitbull, the man who made the decision to prosecute Arthur Anderson over the Enron fraud.....the result was the destruction of an accounting firm that had employed 26,000....Chertoff got his conviction, it was overturned on appeal, the government did not retry Arthur Anderson....thanks to Chertoff's misguided prosecution, Anderson had ceased to exist....

....and there's more....nepotism, nazism, NOLA....incompetence, lies......loquitur, tell us what you most admire about Michael Chertoff:

Quote:

http://www.counterpunch.org/barry04012005.html

....."Keep your eye on Michael Chertoff," warned Elaine Cassel in June 2003 when Chertoff was appointed to the court of appeals. Cassel, an attorney who writes for Civil Liberties Watch, observed: "As bad for the law and Constitution as many of Bush's judicial appointments are, Chertoff has been the architect of prosecutions in the 'war on terror.' And he may have big changes in mind for you, me, the courts, and the Constitution.".........

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...091901930.html
Immigration Nominee's Credentials Questioned

By Dan Eggen and Spencer S. Hsu
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, September 20, 2005; Page A01

The Bush administration is seeking to appoint a lawyer with little immigration or customs experience to head the troubled law enforcement agency that handles those issues, prompting sharp criticism from some employee groups, immigration advocates and homeland security experts.

The push to appoint Julie Myers to head the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, part of the Department of Homeland Security, comes in the midst of intense debate over the qualifications of department political appointees involved in the sluggish response to Hurricane Katrina......

...Her uncle is Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers, the departing chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. <H3>She married Chertoff's current chief of staff, John F. Wood, on Saturday......</H3>

Quote:

The Boston Globe

Democrats rap picks by Bush as partisan

By Wayne Washington, Globe Staff, 6/18/2001

WASHINGTON - From the White House counsel's office to the Justice
Department, many of the plum legal jobs in the Bush administration are going
to attorneys who pursued scandal allegations against the Clinton
administration or served on the GOP legal team in the Florida recount.....

.....Michael Gerhardt, a William & Mary law school professor who has written
about presidential appointments, said the Bush administration has an
advantage over Democrats as it puts forward nominees.

''I'm not sure how many people in the country are aware of who these people
are,'' Gerhardt said.

In Washington, however, Democrats know them well.

There's Viet Dinh, who served as associate counsel for the Senate committee
that investigated Whitewater, the Arkansas land deal that brought the
Clintons so much grief. Last year, Dinh also filed a brief that supported
arguments Bush's legal team was making during the Florida recount.

On the same day the Senate voted on Olson's nomination, Dinh was confirmed
as an assistant attorney general. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York
cast the lone vote against his confirmation.

Senator Clinton also cast the single vote against Michael Chertoff, Bush's
pick to lead the criminal division of the Justice Department. <B>Chertoff
worked with former senator Alfonse M. D'Amato, Republican of New York, as he
relentlessly pursued the Whitewater investigation.</B>

''Mr. Dinh and Mr. Chertoff were heavily involved in what I thought was a
misguided investigation,'' said Leahy, who voted for them nonetheless
because, he said, they were only following the orders of their congressional
bosses.

Brett Kavanaugh led independent counsel Kenneth Starr's investigation into
the death of Clinton aide Vince Foster, which spawned numerous conspiracy
theories about the president's role in various scandals. Bush appointed
Kavanaugh as associate White House counsel.

Quote:

http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/index....t/partone.html
AT FREEDOM'S EDGE: Liberty, security and the Patriot Act
PART ONE OF AN OCCASIONAL SERIES
Sunday, July 3, 2005
BY JOHN FARMER JR.

..... "There is no basis to believe the Patriot Act would have changed things," said David Cole, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center and author of the book "Enemy Aliens: Double Standards and Constitutional Freedoms in the War on Terrorism."

"The problem was not that there was any legal barrier that forbade investigation or follow-up," Cole said in a recent interview. "The problem was that there never was sufficient investigation. People didn't connect the dots -- not because they couldn't, but because there were so many dots."

<B>Even Michael Chertoff, who was a driving force behind the creation of the Patriot Act</B> as director of the criminal division at the Justice Department, has expressed uncertainty about whether the act would have enabled the FBI to prevent the attacks during the weeks before 9/11.

"I don't think anybody is ever going to know the answer to that," Chertoff said during a March 6, 2002, panel discussion at Georgetown University, where he shared the dais with Cole. Chertoff, who today is secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, went on to say, however, that "I certainly think that had we had more information-sharing and analysis before September 11, the chances of averting it would have been greater." ........

Quote:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/09/03/kat...off/index.html
Chertoff: Katrina scenario did not exist
However, experts for years had warned of threat to New Orleans

Monday, September 5, 2005; Posted: 2:55 p.m. EDT (18:55 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Defending the U.S. government's response to Hurricane Katrina, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff argued Saturday that government planners did not predict such a disaster ever could occur.

But in fact, government officials, scientists and journalists have warned of such a scenario for years.

Chertoff, fielding questions from reporters, said government officials did not expect both a powerful hurricane and a breach of levees that would flood the city of New Orleans. (See the video on a local paper's prophetic warning -- 3:30 )....

Quote:

http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:...lnk&cd=2&gl=us
Posted on Tue, Sep. 13, 2005

Chertoff delayed federal response, memo shows

By Jonathan S. Landay, Alison Young and Shannon McCaffrey
Knight Ridder Newspapers

WASHINGTON - The federal official with the power to mobilize a massive federal response to Hurricane Katrina was Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, not the former FEMA chief who was relieved of his duties and resigned earlier this week, federal documents reviewed by Knight Ridder show.

Even before the storm struck the Gulf Coast, Chertoff could have ordered federal agencies into action without any request from state or local officials. Federal Emergency Management Agency chief Michael Brown had only limited authority to do so until about 36 hours after the storm hit, when Chertoff designated him as the "principal federal official" in charge of the storm.

As thousands of hurricane victims went without food, water and shelter in the days after Katrina's early morning Aug. 29 landfall, critics assailed Brown for being responsible for delays that might have cost hundreds of lives.

But Chertoff - not Brown - was in charge of managing the national response to a catastrophic disaster, according to the National Response Plan, the federal government's blueprint for how agencies will handle major natural disasters or terrorist incidents. An order issued by President Bush in 2003 also assigned that responsibility to the homeland security director.

But according to a memo obtained by Knight Ridder, Chertoff didn't shift that power to Brown until late afternoon or evening on Aug. 30, about 36 hours after Katrina hit Louisiana and Mississippi. That same memo suggests that Chertoff may have been confused about his lead role in disaster response and that of his department.

"As you know, the President has established the `White House Task Force on Hurricane Katrina Response.' He will meet with us tomorrow to launch this effort. The Department of Homeland Security, along with other Departments, will be part of the task force and will assist the Administration with its response to Hurricane Katrina," Chertoff said in the memo to the secretaries of defense, health and human services and other key federal agencies.

On the day that Chertoff wrote the memo, Bush was in San Diego presiding over a ceremony marking the 60th anniversary of the end of World War II.

Chertoff's Aug. 30 memo for the first time declared Katrina an "Incident of National Significance," a key designation that triggers swift federal coordination. The following afternoon, Bush met with his Cabinet, then appeared before TV cameras in the White House Rose Garden to announce the government's planned action.

That same day, Aug. 31, the Department of Defense, whose troops and equipment are crucial in such large disasters, activated its Task Force Katrina. But active-duty troops didn't begin to arrive in large numbers along the Gulf Coast until Saturday.

White House and homeland security officials wouldn't explain why Chertoff waited some 36 hours to declare Katrina an incident of national significance and why he didn't immediately begin to direct the federal response from the moment on Aug. 27 when the National Hurricane Center predicted that Katrina would strike the Gulf Coast with catastrophic force in 48 hours. Nor would they explain why Bush felt the need to appoint a separate task force.

Chertoff's hesitation and Bush's creation of a task force both appear to contradict the National Response Plan and previous presidential directives that specify what the secretary of homeland security is assigned to do without further presidential orders. The goal of the National Response Plan is to provide a streamlined framework for swiftly delivering federal assistance when a disaster - caused by terrorists or Mother Nature - is too big for local officials to handle.

Dana Perino, a White House spokeswoman, referred most inquiries about the memo and Chertoff's actions to the Department of Homeland Security.

"There will be an after-action report" on the government's response to Hurricane Katrina, Perino said. She added that "Chertoff had the authority to invoke the Incident of National Significance, and he did it on Tuesday."

Perino said the creation of the White House task force didn't add another bureaucratic layer or delay the response to the devastating hurricane. "Absolutely not," she said. "I think it helped move things along." When asked whether the delay in issuing the Incident of National Significance was to allow Bush time to return to Washington, Perino replied: "Not that I'm aware of."

Russ Knocke, a spokesman for the Department of Homeland Security, didn't dispute that the National Response Plan put Chertoff in charge in federal response to a catastrophe. But he disputed that the bureaucracy got in the way of launching the federal response.

"There was a tremendous sense of urgency," Knocke said. "We were mobilizing the greatest response to a disaster in the nation's history."

Knocke noted that members of the Coast Guard were already in New Orleans performing rescues and FEMA personnel and supplies had been deployed to the region.

The Department of Homeland Security has refused repeated requests to provide details about Chertoff's schedule and said it couldn't say specifically when the department requested assistance from the military. Knocke said a military liaison was working with FEMA, but said he didn't know his or her name or rank. FEMA officials said they wouldn't provide information about the liaison.

Knocke said members of almost every federal agency had already been meeting as part of the department's Interagency Incident Management Group, which convened for the first time on the Friday before the hurricane struck. So it would be a mistake, he said, to interpret the memo as meaning that Tuesday, Aug. 30 was the first time that members of the federal government coordinated.

The Chertoff memo indicates that the response to Katrina wasn't left to disaster professionals, but was run out of the White House, said George Haddow, a former deputy chief of staff at FEMA during the Clinton administration and the co-author of an emergency management textbook.

"It shows that the president is running the disaster, the White House is running it as opposed to Brown or Chertoff," Haddow said. Brown "is a convenient fall guy. He's not the problem really. The problem is a system that was marginalized."

A former FEMA director under President Reagan expressed shock by the inaction that Chertoff's memo suggested. It showed that Chertoff "does not have a

full appreciation click to show

for what the country is faced with - nor does anyone who waits that long," said Gen. Julius Becton Jr., who was FEMA director from 1985-1989.

"Anytime you have a delay in taking action, there's a potential for losing lives," Becton told Knight Ridder. "I have no idea how many lives we're talking about. ... I don't understand why, except that they were inefficient."

Chertoff's Aug. 30 memo came on the heels of a memo from Brown, written several hours after Katrina made landfall, showing that the FEMA director was waiting for Chertoff's permission to get help from others within the massive department. In that memo, first obtained by the Associated Press last week, Brown requested Chertoff's "assistance to make available DHS employees willing to deploy as soon as possible." It asked for another 1,000 homeland security workers within two days and 2,000 within a week.

The four-paragraph memo ended with Brown thanking Chertoff "for your consideration in helping us meet our responsibilities in this near catastrophic event."

According to the National Response Plan, which was unveiled in January by Chertoff's predecessor, Tom Ridge, the secretary of homeland security is supposed to declare an Incident of National Significance when a catastrophic event occurs.

"Standard procedures regarding requests for assistance may be expedited or, under extreme circumstances, suspended in the immediate aftermath of an event of catastrophic magnitude," according to the plan, which evolved from earlier plans and lessons learned after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. "Notification and full coordination with the States will occur, but the coordination process must not delay or impede the rapid deployment and use of critical resources."

Should Chertoff have declared Katrina an Incident of National Significance sooner - even before the storm struck? Did his delay slow the quick delivery of the massive federal response that was needed? Would it have made a difference?

"You raise good questions," said Frank J. Cilluffo, the director of George Washington University's Homeland Security Planning Institute. It's too early to tell, he said, whether unfamiliarity with or glitches in the new National Response Plan were factors in the poor early response to Katrina.

"Clearly this is the first test. It certainly did not pass with flying colors," Cilluffo said of the National Response Plan.

Mike Byrne, a former senior homeland security official under Ridge who worked on the plan, said he doesn't think the new National Response Plan caused the confusion that plagued the early response to Katrina.

Something else went wrong, he suspects. The new National Response Plan isn't all that different from the previous plan, called the Federal Response Plan.

"Our history of responding to major disasters has been one where we've done it well," Byrne said. "We need to figure out why this one didn't go as well as the others did. It's shocking to me."

To read the National Response Plan, check our related links above.

aceventura3 · 04-23-2007, 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trickyy

but his convenient "forgetfulness" when confronted with questionable emails, memos, meeting information, etc.,

I think I recall him saying that he did not want to give the appearance of obstructing the investigation by talking to his staff on the subject to clear up details. I am sure if he started asking his staff a bunch of questions about meetings, emails, etc. that would have a much bigger problem.

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

dc_dux, you and I post well documented arguments, complete with visuals, footnotes, links......and the response is that they "feel" that we are incorrect, and that they are "spot on"....but they offer nothing to enlighten us....mostly they just feed us our own quotes, with one sentence responses....not very convincing......

The problem with your well documented arguments, complete with visuals, footnotes, links, etc., is in the failure to answer common sense fundemental questions.

Here is one - What good is going to come from all of this?

I say nothing, therefore Congress is basically wasting time and energy. The country faces monumental issues that will change the course of history, yet Congress goes through this excercise.

loquitur · 04-23-2007, 12:34 PM

Host, Chertoff was a highly respected Asst US Attorney in SDNY when I worked in the courthouse and was a highly respected US Attorney in NJ. He was a federal appeals judge on the Third Circuit. You do'nt like one of his decisions. Big whoop.

My point is that he has gravitas and is a serious guy. He is much more weighty Gonzalez. That was my whole point.

Host, the only person you would ever accept for any position is a Democrat.

dc_dux · 04-23-2007, 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

What good is going to come from all of this?

I say nothing, therefore Congress is basically wasting time and energy. The country faces monumental issues that will change the course of history, yet Congress goes through this excercise.

Ace....more competent, honest and accountable management of an important federal agency may not change the course of history, but it will make for better government and more public confidence in the federal criminal investigation/prosecution process.

The Senate bill passed several weeks ago to overturn the provision in the Patriot Act inserted at the request of the DoJ and by the Repub conference committtee (Dems were excluded) on the process of appointing interim attorneys is not historic, but a positive outcome.

Quote:

Originally Posted by host
dc_dux, you and I post well documented arguments, complete with visuals, footnotes, links......and the response is that they "feel" that we are incorrect, and that they are "spot on"....but they offer nothing to enlighten us....mostly they just feed us our own quotes, with one sentence responses....not very convincing......

I am also still waiting for an answer to the "common sense fundamental question" of why Gonazales felt the investigation of William Jefferson was more "unique" than the investigations of Cunningham and Ney that he would authorize raiding a Congressional office for the first time in the history of Congress. (link)

aceventura3 · 04-23-2007, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

More competent, honest and accountable management of an important federal agency may not change the course of history, but it will make for better government.

Pretty theoretical, but I think history shows polititians generally don't learn from past mistakes or the mistakes of others. Government will not be better or worse after this is all over, in my opinion.

Quote:

I am also still waiting for an answer to the "common sense fundamental question" of why Gonazales felt the investigation of William Jefferson was more "unique" than the investigations of Cunningham and Ney that he would authorize raiding a Congressional office for the first time in the history of Congress. (link)

Purely political. I am not saying that makes it right, it is wahat it is however. The Democrats with get revenge. this cycle is one of our major problems in Washington, don't you agree? Or, are you of the opinion there is no cycle of revenge or that it only goes one way?

dc_dux · 04-23-2007, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Pretty theoretical, but I think history shows polititians generally don't learn from past mistakes or the mistakes of others. Government will not be better or worse after this is all over, in my opinion.

Not theoretical at all. History shows that many politicians, in Congress or the WH/Exec branch, act more openly, honestly and responsibly, at least in the short-term, after they or former colleagues/predecessors are involved in highly publicized scandals.

Quote:

The Democrats with get revenge. this cycle is one of our major problems in Washington, don't you agree? Or, are you of the opinion there is no cycle of revenge or that it only goes one way?

Recent history suggests it goes more one way than the other.

Show me the Dem revenge against Reagan or GHW Bush that approached the Repub Congress "grandstanding" and "milking" of Clinton?

Will this new Congress be more like the Dems of the 80s or early 90s or the Repubs of the mid-late 90s....time will tell. I obviously have more confidence in the Dems than you.

. (You might also take another look at the "Its both parties" thread and my link to the K Street Project and show me a Dem Congress that approached that level of corruption and influence peddling.)

One thing is certain, they will not be as complacent and turning a blind eye to their oversight responsibility as the Repub Congress of 00-06..and I think that is good for the country...even if they resort to what some may call "grandstanding" to be heard above the right wing spinmeisters and bloggers.

aceventura3 · 04-23-2007, 04:30 PM

I agree nothing I recall comes close to the Clinton affair (pardon the pun) and the way the Republican Congress handled it.

Willravel · 04-23-2007, 04:42 PM

It would have been hilarious had Clinton not been responsible for the country.

dc_dux · 04-23-2007, 05:17 PM

ace...when you come up with something to match the hundreds of Repub oversight hearings and subpoenas of the Clinton administration beyond the "affair", we can have a serious "common sense" discussion....but I wont hold my breath.

aceventura3 · 04-23-2007, 05:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

ace...when you come up with something to match the hundreds of Repub oversight hearings and subpoenas of the Clinton administration beyond the "affair", we can have a serious "common sense" discussion....but I wont hold my breath.

So your position is that "it" is a one sided thing. O.k., and you talk about wanting a serious discussion?

The readers of this exchange can determine who has been more objective. We have gotten off topic here and I am not sure I can add any value to Host's other thread.

04-22-2007, 02:26 PM	#47 (permalink)
aceventura3 Junkie Location: Ventura County	Mr. Gonzales we all know you serve at the pleasure of the President, that you have stated that you will not resign unless it is at the request of the President, a President by the way not running for re-election, that you have violated no law, and that we are basically wasting everyone's time, was this whole thing some evil genious kinda scheme concocted by the White House to get Congress focus on a trivial matter rather than the serious business Congress has been entrusted to conduct? __________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

04-23-2007, 06:26 AM	#59 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	ace...these oversight hearings have revealed much more than just the lying and incompetence by Gonzales et al with the firings of the US Attorneys. Most disturbing to me was the revelation that the Bush administration has completely dismantled the firewall between the WH and DOJ regarding pending criminal cases. Under Clinton, only 4 WH officials (Pres, VP, WH Counsel and WH Dep. Counsel) could speak or have contact with only 3 DOJ officials (AG, Asst AG, Dep, AG) regarding pending or potential criminal cases to help ensure that there was not undue political influence on those cases. It was revealed at the hearings that the current WH policy allows over 400 political hacks in the EOP (executive office of the pres) to have contact with more than 30 political appointess at DOJ. It is issues like this that come out in oversight hearings. I think it is important for the American people to know about such policy shifts that, IMO, should be questioned by anyone concerned with having safeguards against political influences in the judicial process. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 04-23-2007 at 06:34 AM..

04-23-2007, 06:48 AM	#61 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	Gonazles' response when this was revealed by Sen. Whitehouse was: "I do recall being concerned about that as White House counsel.” If Congress hadnt "milked it," it is unlikely that this would have surfaced. I obviously think this is more serious than you or Gonzales (who, although "concerned", hasnt done anything about it since moving from WH counsel to AG). As far as my priorities list...I would have a list of "legislative priorities" and a list of "oversight" priorities, recognizing that Congress can and should do both. Oversight of the DOJ to ensure that our chief law enforcement agency is acting competently and credibly and without undue political influence would certainly be among my top 100 "oversight" priorities. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 04-23-2007 at 07:07 AM..

04-23-2007, 04:30 PM	#77 (permalink)
aceventura3 Junkie Location: Ventura County	I agree nothing I recall comes close to the Clinton affair (pardon the pun) and the way the Republican Congress handled it. __________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

04-23-2007, 05:17 PM	#79 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	ace...when you come up with something to match the hundreds of Repub oversight hearings and subpoenas of the Clinton administration beyond the "affair", we can have a serious "common sense" discussion....but I wont hold my breath. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 04-23-2007 at 05:20 PM..

04-21-2007, 12:08 PM	#41 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Mike, they all do. This was clearly different.

04-21-2007, 12:58 PM	#43 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Did Bell lie about his involvement? Did Clinton lie about his?

04-21-2007, 02:52 PM	#44 (permalink)
trickyy ►	gonzales is in trouble not because of the firings (although even he admits that the firings were a disaster) but because he can't answer simple questions

04-22-2007, 05:14 PM	#51 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	I don't see anywhere in this thread where Host said th firings were illegal. He called the war illegal, and I wholeheartedly agree with that, but I don't see it.

04-23-2007, 09:49 AM	#64 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	He should be tried for treason. All the evidence we need is the torture memo. While I agree that what Gonzales did with the US attorneys was absolutely wrong and was a clear indicator of his lackey status and his willingness to do anything to protect the monkey in the oval office, it's not the worst thing he's done by far.

04-23-2007, 10:03 AM	#66 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	The most revealing thing to me in all this has been what a lightweight Gonzalez is. He has all the gravitas of foam rubber. I say, get Chertoff in there and let Gonzalez go on a looooooooooong furlough.

04-23-2007, 10:28 AM	#68 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	Just because I am dismissive of Gonzalez doesn't mean I think Congress is doing itself any great credit here. This whole "investigation" has one of the highest noise to substance ratios I have seen in a long time.

04-23-2007, 10:47 AM	#70 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	........... or it could just be that he is as inattentive and heedless as he seems. In which case he is a friggin' incompetent rather than a fraudster.

04-23-2007, 12:34 PM	#73 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	Host, Chertoff was a highly respected Asst US Attorney in SDNY when I worked in the courthouse and was a highly respected US Attorney in NJ. He was a federal appeals judge on the Third Circuit. You do'nt like one of his decisions. Big whoop. My point is that he has gravitas and is a serious guy. He is much more weighty Gonzalez. That was my whole point. Host, the only person you would ever accept for any position is a Democrat.

04-23-2007, 04:42 PM	#78 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	It would have been hilarious had Clinton not been responsible for the country.