President Bush Stubborn In Alberto Gonzales Scandal

Not even close. They were all fired.

Imagine if Hillary Clinton were president and she sent messages to the justice department or had her underlings send messages to the Justice department saying that anyone who twisted her name in a forum were to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and tried as a terrorist.

The message is sent to the US Prosecutor in your state. It obviously has no bearing in the law. So the independant prosecutor doesn't prosecute d16man. Hillary, or her underlings, then fire that prosecutor...for ....say incompetence....or some other unsupported reasoning.

In so doing all other prosecutors are made aware...either they prosecute everyone who twists her name or they are fired.

The law has been horrendously twisted.

That is what is currently going on.

 

There is no twisting. Let's keep it honest for once. US Attorneys serve at the President's pleasure. Period. Creating hypothetical scenarios doesn't change the fact. Clinton did the same thing on a much grander scale.

It's ironic that one calls to prosecute everyone, but doesn't hold the same standard for when democrats do the same thing. The law is the same for democrat Presidents too, though. They serve at the President's pleasure. Just thought I'd point that out

 

to respond to your first statement, they were not all fired...clinton fired them all, all 93 of them. Bush did not, it was only a handful.

To respond to the rest...each attorney is only given a 4 year term, when that term is over, the president has the choice of whether to rehire or not. The reason this is not an issue is that there terms were over, and gonzalez chose not to rehire them.

As stated previously, the dems are just on a fishing trip over nothing.

 

Virtually all commentators, including those on the left side have acknowledged this aspect (which I highlighted).

But there is no twisting! The law also states that the president and his administration cannot (in my words) inject politics into the law.

That is where the controversy arises.

If the president could do whatever he wanted whenever he wanted this would be a dictatorship. Simple. Point closed. Dictatorship or Democracy.

That is why there are investigations.


Speaking of investigations into politics intruding into not only the law but governance itself there are new investigations into actions by the administtration, Rove, and their government interactions (interference) with the justice department and other sections of the government: http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-probe24apr24,0,3535547.story?coll=la-home-headlines

Excerpts from the article:

democracy or dictatorship?

 

How exactly is terminating someone who is, for lack of a better term, an "at will" employee considered "injecting politics into the law"?

 

Excerpts from interview with fired attorney, Iglesias:

There are strong laws in place to separate political elements from the process of governing....and very importantly practice of the "rule of law"

This is what is being investigated.

 

The most recent revelations and testimony about this issue come from former Deputy Attorney General James Comey. Comey testified that Gonzalez and Andrew Card tried to bully a sick John Ashcroft into okaying Bush administration wire taping that the Justice Department had independently reviewed as being illegal.

What a lapdog.

The underlying issue behind all this is how extensively did the Bush administration work to twist the independance of the Justice Department into a legal/political wing of the white house?

No wonder Gonzalez can't remember anything in testimony. No wonder Bush doesn't want Rove to testify on this issue.

Twisting legal independance and rule of law is the first step to dictatorship. It is a truly scary thing.