President Bush Stubborn In Alberto Gonzales Scandal

The Attorney General Alberto Gonzales affair shows how out-of-touch George Bush is on political issues and why his poll numbers are below the freeze mark.

Then, this is George Bush. This is the President who does not care about the political “fall outs”. One only needs to look east to Iraq and remember how he has completely ignored chief advisors and independent commissions.

http://www.bayoubuzz.com/News/Business/President_Bush_Stubborn_In_Alberto_Gonzales_Scandal__3506.asp

 

We'll see alot of changes in coming years.

 

This is such a non-story. It's like the whole Imus thing. The only people that give a F**K about this are polliticians and the media. Regular people don't give a damn about any of this.

 

What exactly is the "Attorney General Alberto Gonzales affair"? That attorneys were fired; when they were allowed to be fired? Shocking!

 

Hmm.. interesting.. another from the miserable failure..

 

As Jack Blood says he should be Alberto GONEzales.

 

For what AGS? What did gonzalez do that was illegal? Fire his employees? Shocking!

 

How many attorney's did clinton fire? oh yeah, ALL OF THEM!! And he never got in trouble...as ly2 said, this is a none story...all it shows is that Dems have nothing to do other than try and create a story out of nothing...yet they can't seem to give our troops funding...hmm....now thats a real story.

 

President Bush does the right thing, not the popular thing. He leads, does not follow.

 

That is strictly not true he stands directly behind Mark Foley before he thrusts

 

This is so true. It doesn't matter if his ratings have dropped. As long as he is doing the right thing (which I believe he is) then it doesn't matter.

 

Did little correction


Miserable Bush does the wrong thing,. He Misleads, and the sheeps follow

 

He did not do anything illegal but definitely something unethical. He might be a nice guy but definitely not right one for the job, goes with the trend in this administration, every single one of those SOBs is incompetent. They have ruined my country and make me feel ashamed of my government.

 

If anyone knows something about unethical; its you. Right?

 

again, why was this not an issue what clinton fired all 93? Oh yeah, cause he is a liberal democrat....

 

Read this thread. It makes that post FAR more amusing.

http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=305236

Skip to page 4 or 5, and you'll see the definition of irony here.

 

lol....that is funny...so guru, how much other stuff have you plagerized? (only to say that its not copywrited?) lmfao!!!

 

Ahh... good... you're back.

Speaking of unethical, you ever going to answer to and/or apologize for the way you attempted to lie, deceive, spam, steal, abuse, and generally rip off others in this thread?

http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=305236

Thanks man.

-Michael

 

These firings are intrisically different than what any other president ever did.

Early during the first part of his term, Clinton fired all the US attorneys as had many other presidents, including republicans. It is the prerogative of the president to appoint people of his own choice. It is particularly appropriate when presidents and parties change. Reagon appointed all new US attorneys also at the beginning of his term.

These firings occurred late within a president's term. It is particularly questionable when presidents start firing US attorney's mid term.

The key issue is the separation between the political and the rule of law.

There is a key element to long term American Democracy. It has to do with the rule of law. It is long established.....since the beginning of the government that the rule of law is separate from the executive branch.

In fact, one of the key steps in the change of Germany from a democracy in the 1920's and 1930's to a nation run by Hitler and the Nazi's was the destruction of the separate character of the rule of law and its reduction to a wing of the ruling party.

Current American law makes it illegal for people in office to contact prosecuters involved in political corruption cases.

There is a possibility that the contacts by Senator Dominici and Representative Wilson from New Mexico violated that law.

Further in order to maintain a strong level of separation between the rule of law and politics or political policy past precedence created a strict minimal contact between Department of Justice personnel and White House personnel as it affected prosecutions of cases.

For instance during the Clinton administration only 4 White House personnel were authorized to speak to a minimal number of Justice Department personnel concerning the prosecution of cases. During the Clinton administration this included the President, Vice President, chief counsel and assistant counsel to the President.

As noted during Gonzales's testimony currently in excess of 400 White House personnel are allowed to speak with Justice Department personnel concerning the prosecution of cases. In effect much of the White House is now allowed to follow discuss, bring influence upon and direct the prosecution of cases...as never before allowed.

Further there has been a long history of independance between the various prosecutors and the Justice Department. This was established to further create distance between policy, politics, beaurocratic influence and the independant rule of law. Obviously this too has changed.

The serious underlying questions have to do with understanding how much the administration was trying to influence the rule of law etc.

Questions are enormous. Most of the fired prosecutors were involved or not involved in political trials. Carol Lam who was fired, was involved in investigating one of the Republican congressmen who were just investigated by the FBI. Serious questions arise as to whether the fired prosecutors were responding to pressure from the Republican party to investigate certain types of voter fraud that if it were in fact to occur would result in disenfranchising types of voters who tend to vote democratic.

In fact a recent independant study claimed that after years of investigation these types of voter fraud do not occur in any even marginal amount of occurances.

In that Gonzales's testimony included over 60 times that he could not remember an answer to a question--even after he had about one month to prepare and review documentation, it questions both his competency, his willingness to be honest, and the essence of his testimony in front of Congress.

After having about 1 month to prepare and the ability to review countless documents that type of testimony indicates an unwillingness to be honest to Congress.

It was bad enough to have at least 3 Republican Senators ask for his resignation.

The deeper questions involve understanding just how much politics played a part in trying to influence the rule of law.

There is still much to learn.

 

The reason it was done mid term is because that is when their contracts expired...their contracts were not renewed, hence the use of the word "fired".