"I would fire Gonzales"

[STAGE 2]

When during the first Bush admin did they use a hastily passed and conveluted law (the Patriot Act) to give wide sweeping authority to the Attny general to appoint state attny's without oversite? Then when did they compile loyalty lists and punish those that did not behave themselves? Then when did they lie to congress about it?

Loyalty lists have been around since the beginning of our nation and probably as long as there has been government. If congress didn't want to give the executive the power to appoint prosecutors without approval then thet shouldn't have passed the act. Its that simple.

You can't tell someone "ok I'll give you the authority to do this" and then when they use it say "I can't believe your using this authority". Thats totally bogus.

That is my main concern. If they had no hidden agenda and felt they were just doing business as usual then why lie to congress?

When we start criminalizing hidden agendas I'll grab my torch and pitchfork. Till then I'm only concerned with criminal misconduct. There hasny been any here. Quite the opposite. This is simply the executive exercising its authority.

 

[Playboypenguin]

First of...you did not answer my question. When has the same circumstance ever existed?

If congress didn't want to give the executive the power to appoint prosecutors without approval then thet shouldn't have passed the act. Its that simple.

Yes, and we all know how much choice and power the democrats had to stop this bill from passing.

This is simply the executive exercising its authority.

No, lying to congress is a crime. Plain and simple.

 

[SecDef]

This is simply the executive exercising its authority.

Wrong.

Let's be really clear. This issue isn't about USA's being fired. It is about Gonzales LYING to congress. That would be what, a felony?

The specifics of the lies are in the WaPo (Jan 19, 2007) describing comments made to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Read it and get back to us. I would think you would be outraged at his behavior.

 

[STAGE 2]

First of...you did not answer my question. When has the same circumstance ever existed?

The same circumstances have existed with every administration. Because the executive is using a power that congress gave to it makes this no different.

Yes, and we all know how much choice and power the democrats had to stop this bill from passing.

Irrelevant. An act validly passed by congress is law. You can't complain about something if its been properly put into law. You beef isn't with the executive, its with the legislature.

No, lying to congress is a crime. Plain and simple.

Lets first get one thing straight. In this case, congress should NOT be asking questions about this firing. As has been explained ad nauseum, these USA's can be fired for every reason under the sun. Schumer and company know that, and yet they have been pressing the issue even before Gonzales testified. They shouldn't. The only, and I mean ONLY reason they are pressing this issue is to drum up more bad press for Bush. Thats totally dishonest.

Personally, I would have preferred that Gonzalez had said that, "this is an executive matter which has been executed according to the requirments of the law and the constitution, and no reason needs to be given for the firings" or something to that effect. He didn't.

The excuse that was given was that these folks were fired for "performance" reasons. Does anyone here care to give an all inclusive definition of what "performance" means. I don't, because it can't be done. All of this posturing and mumbo jumbo word games is simply stupid. We'll have spent time and money and at the end of the day , the democrats are going to walk away because legally there isn't anything actionable here.

Gonzales said they were fired for performance reasons. Guess what. The constitution gives Gonzales via Bush the right to define what "performance" means. Thats why this is a stupid political witch hunt. Performance can mean spending too much time at the water cooler, working too hard, or not hard enough, or not being able to gel with co-workers, or anything else I want it to mean.

Bottom line, Bush gets to sack who he wants when he wants. Bush gets to make up the rules and definitions. Its been this way with every president that has ever served.

 

[Hkmp5sd]

Sasquatch...you accused the "democrats" of doing the same thing.

I ask again...site an example.

Hmmm....remember Travelgate? Ever hear the term "F.O.B." aka "Friend of Bill"?

 

[Playboypenguin]

Hmmm....remember Travelgate? Ever hear the term "F.O.B." aka "Friend of Bill"?

How is that even remotely related to this situation???

The same circumstances have existed with every administration

That is just not true. Name a time when high ranking state legal officials have been systematically fired under dubious circumstances and replaced without senate oversight due to a tacked on provision in an equally dubious bill like the patriot act and then the people that did the firing lied to congress aboutt the method and reason of their replacement.

You can't complain about something if its been properly put into law

You mean like people that did not vote for gun control laws cannot object to them now nor can they speak to having them repealed and repaired? The dems did not agree with that provision then (fearing possible abuse which has happened) and theydo not agree with it now. They have every right to try and repeal it and change the law back to one that allows proper oversight.

Lets first get one thing straight. In this case, congress should NOT be asking questions about this firing

So you are saying it is okay that they lied to congress because they should never have had to answer the question???
Let's get this straight. Congress has the right to investigate govt inpropriety at any time and even though these people can legally be replaced for "no reason at all" they cannot legally be fired for the "wrong" reasons (such as how a worker can be let go here in oregon for "no reason at all" but they cannot be let go because they are catholic or other illegal reasons). If there was reason to believe their was conspiracy then they had the right to ask questions.

 

[old 12 gauge]

maybe it's time for President Cheney and VP Rove to get on the tube and tell everyone that they'll hire and fire whom they want to.. where is Bush at now anyway? Do they have him still touring South A?

 

[GoSlash27]

Stage2,

Lets first get one thing straight. In this case, congress should NOT be asking questions about this firing.

Are you suggesting that it's legal to lie to congress just because they're asking questions they shouldn't? And if so, what does that say about Clinton's impeachment?
Or do your rules change depending on who's doing the lyin'?

 

[SecDef]

No, stage is simply ignoring the law at his convenience. Of course congress can ask anything it wants.

Now whether the response given to congress was a lie, therein lies the controversy.

 

[OBIWAN]

"As have other presidents, IIRC. That's not the issue. It's not 2001, so this isn't relevant."

It speaks to hypocrisy...what is not relevant is the current firings

These attorneys serve "at the pleasure of the President"

Why is it national news if the Justice Dept decides to get rid of 8

Hillary tried to not just fire but actually ruin the travel office manager and replace them with a travel agent friend from Little Rock

And now she is raising a stink about 8 lawyers...come on

Pop Quiz

What SPECIFIC lie did the AG tell?????

 

[SecDef]

Why is it national news if the Justice Dept decides to get rid of 8

It's not, but it is certainly fine for congress to ask questions because this wasn't the pro-forma washing out of USA's at the beginning of a president's term, it was replacing some that BUSH had appointed.

Just normal oversight to an unusual situation. (I know, oversight, what's that again?!!? )

What SPECIFIC lie did the AG tell?????

Well, I already linked to it.
AG Gonzales: "As far as prosecutors who have been asked to leave, Gonzales characterized the changes as routine personnel decisions based on evaluations of each prosecutor's performance."
and
"I would never, ever make a change in a United States attorney for political reasons or if it would in any way jeopardize an ongoing serious investigation. I just would not do it."

- This after some of these USA got good reviews
- This after dems have been investigated more than repubs by all USA's at a ration of 7:1 (not unusual so much by itself, such is the nature of things) and at least one of the USA's "released" was the one that prosecuted Duke Cunningham and was looking at Jerry Lewis.
- Gonzales just went to the public and talked about how there are 110,000 people in the DOJ and he just doesn't know everything that occurs.. except he made comments under oath to congress about it.. how can he not know what was happening?

It's fishy, it's sad, and it will be investigated.

POP QUIZ back at you:
Do you know the difference between an investigation and a verdict?

 

[invention_45]

The excuse that was given was that these folks were fired for "performance" reasons. Does anyone here care to give an all inclusive definition of what "performance" means

I suppose I could look it up, but I'll wing it.

Everybody knows what a job is, no? You do work and get paid. You continue to do work and get paid if your company does well enough to support you and your performance warrants it.

To this end, nearly all companies give each and every employee a review of his performance each year, and out of this performance review, given by the employee's immediate supervisor, comes the basis for being retained and for any pay increases that ensue.

Now, if any boss wrote only on your performance that you should be let go because of "bad performance", there would probably be problems. That is because your performance is usually supported in writing on your review form.

Does anyone here who's an employee have a differing experience with performance reviews so far?

OK. Now it would appear that the fired US Attorneys have all had at least adequate performance, as defined by whatever their boss wrote down to support their being retained in the past.

Firing them for bad performance then begs the question of why they were REALLY fired, since it is unlikely that 8 out of 93 US Attorneys suddenly, at the same time, developed poor performance.

Performance is indeed defined. Performance is, again without my Funk & Wagnalls, the carrying out of your work; in this context, how well you carry out your work.

So performance is not this nebulous concept upon which we cannot get a handle. It is well-defined, though what constitutes performance certainly varies from business to business and one business relationship to another.

I don't pretend to know how it works in the government employee world, but in the private world firing me for poor performance without supporting documentation after years of retaining me with good performance as a reason to do so, and doing that firing on such a public level that it becomes published in the media would cause me a loss and would be defamatory. I do believe I would have standing and cause for a fat lawsuit.

So even though I do serve, in my job, at the pleasure of the owner and my boss, I'm not going to be fired because he doesn't like my tie.

Goslash: I am glad you asked that question so I didn't have to.

 

[SecDef]

Oh, and additionally, there is the violation of the Presidential Records Act which requires mandatory record-keeping, which looks like it is being circumvented in the case of the emails that are coming to light. I.e. the domains used are not archived as they should be.

Gonzales as both WH counsel and AG could potentially be on the hook for this, too.

 

[GoSlash27]

Just to reinforce my take on the whole matter: They may or may not decide to throw Gonzales under the bus, but if they do the gesture would be purely symbolic. Gonzales is a muppet. Fire him and he will merely be replaced by another muppet. The act would only give the illusion of change.

The rest of the squabbling about the definition of "performance" (strangely reminiscent of the arguments surrounding "is" and "sex") is just a political smokescreen designed to cloud the real issues.

 

[Playboypenguin]

Hillary tried to not just fire but actually ruin the travel office manager and replace them with a travel agent friend from Little Rock

Come on....surely you are not in anyway suggesting that replacing a travel agent is the same as setting up "yes men" in posistions of legal power throughout the country. Positions that will be making decisions such as whether or not to prosecute rep. politicians for crimes committed while in office. That would be absurd to even try to compare the two situations.

 

[OBIWAN]

"That would be absurd to even try to compare the two situations."


They both are either a use...or a misuse of power

Hillary had the power to replace the White House travel office with her people

The Justice department can can any/all USA's if they want to

Based on what I see here, Gonzales should be fired because he was not smart enough to just fire all the USA's

Instead he went after those that ignored requests to actively pursue voter fraud cases


Still waiting for a SPECIFIC LIE that was told

 

[SecDef]

Still waiting for a SPECIFIC LIE that was told

Try reading post #31.

Ranking 93 USA's by their loyalty is pretty dang political. Denying it under oath is your specificity.

 

[STAGE 2]

That is just not true. Name a time when high ranking state legal officials have been systematically fired under dubious circumstances and replaced without senate oversight due to a tacked on provision in an equally dubious bill like the patriot act and then the people that did the firing lied to congress aboutt the method and reason of their replacement.

First, there isn't anything "dubious" about this situation. There also isn't anything dubious about the patriot act. How many years has it been since it passed? Did not every single congressman and senator have a chance to read every single provision before they cast their vote? Does not the responsibility lie with them as it was CONGRESS that gave Bush this power?

It absolutely kills me that people here are dumping on the executive branch for something the legislature allowed it to do.

You mean like people that did not vote for gun control laws cannot object to them now nor can they speak to having them repealed and repaired? The dems did not agree with that provision then (fearing possible abuse which has happened) and theydo not agree with it now. They have every right to try and repeal it and change the law back to one that allows proper oversight.

Fine, but your fake outrage should not be directed at the president. Blame the folks who passed the law. They would be in the legislature.

So you are saying it is okay that they lied to congress because they should never have had to answer the question???
Let's get this straight. Congress has the right to investigate govt inpropriety at any time and even though these people can legally be replaced for "no reason at all" they cannot legally be fired for the "wrong" reasons (such as how a worker can be let go here in oregon for "no reason at all" but they cannot be let go because they are catholic or other illegal reasons). If there was reason to believe their was conspiracy then they had the right to ask questions.

Lets get one thing settled. There is zero... ZERO evidence that any of these people were fired for race, ethnicity, national origin or religion. Since thats off the table EVERY OTHER REASON IS KOSHER.

I understand that congress has the right to ask questions, but they don't necessarily have the right to have their questions answered in the manner of their liking. Because Gonzales picked the word "performance" as opposed to something far more vague we are sitting here and playing word games. Thats dishonest, and a waste of taxpayer money.

And most importantly, none of this changes the fact that "conspiracy" or otherwise canning these folks was perfectly legal.

Are you suggesting that it's legal to lie to congress just because they're asking questions they shouldn't? And if so, what does that say about Clinton's impeachment?
Or do your rules change depending on who's doing the lyin'?

No, stage is simply ignoring the law at his convenience. Of course congress can ask anything it wants.

Now whether the response given to congress was a lie, therein lies the controversy.

Utter baloney. As I have already pointed out, someone can be fired for "performance" if they aren't performing to the political expectations of the president. Someone can be fired for performance if they aren't prosecuting cases aggresively enough, or too aggressively. The president and gonzales can define performance ANY WAY THEY WANT. THEY AREN'T CONSTRAINED BY ANY WEBSTERS DEFINITION. As long as they weren't satisifed with the way those USA's were doing their job, then they were canned for their "performance".

Thus, if you want to catch Gonzales in a lie, by all means go ahead. It will be legally impossible to prove.

 

[pesta2]

Gonzales, man I read this post and thought is said Gonzaga and was about the NCAA playoffs!

 

[SecDef]

if you want to catch Gonzales in a lie, by all means go ahead. It will be legally impossible to prove.

Regardless of how we feel here, there will be an investigation. Oversight is a good thing, and there are six years to make up for where exactly ZERO oversight was done. You are confident in your position, great! Why do you spend any time at all debating it on the Internet?

There are two AG things I'm more concerned about:
1) The fact that much of the email evidence coming forward is from domains that are not being archived according to law. It is reminiscent of Nixon and his penchant for taping things.

2) The obstruction of justice and that Gonzales did not recuse himself in the NSA wiretap investigation (the one that was ended because investigators were not given clearance)

Blame the folks who passed the law. They would be in the legislature.

Not as many are anymore after the 2006 elections.