On Thursday, President Bush said the nation would remain without a permanent Attorney General if Democrats voted against Mukasey.
President Bush: "As Judge Mukasey explained in a letter to committee members, he cannot do so for several reasons: First, he does not know whether certain methods of questioning are in fact used, because the program is classified -- and therefore he is in no position to provide an informed opinion. He has not been read into the program, and won't until he is confirmed and sword in -- won't be until he is confirmed and sworn in as the Attorney General."
I'd like to say that I have nothing to say, because what good would it do?
but...
Sorry, I can't.
Michael Vick's statement, after his court appearance, contains something we've heard over and over for the last several years:
I’m [sic] upset with myself and through this situation I found Jesus and asked him for forgiveness and I just turned my life over to God. I think that’s the right thing to do as of right now. Euroweb.com
As the Church Lady would say, "How convenient." Does this mean that they lost Jesus?
As far as Gonzales and Rove, they didn't need to say that they found Jesus. They are part of the compassionate conservatism espoused by their boss and that should mean that everything they did was because of Jesus.
What's that new new car commercial? Oh, yeah. D'uh!
Could the U.S. Attorneys firing scandal be bigger than Americans know?
For months, the Bush administration has declined to directly answer a key question posed by Congress: were more top federal prosecutors targeted for dismissal beyond the nine that have been publicly identified?
glad you could join the rest of us ABC.
More telling is the first commenter to the ABC story/question:
User Comments
Now let me get this straight. Unless you have a contract of employment, you work at the pleasure of the boss, right? So where is the problem. If you're not doing the job the way the boss wants it done, you get fired. Lets forget the fact the Bill Clinton fired 93 US attorneys as soon as he took office for what remains as "undisclosed reasons". I don't remember Congress making an issue then like they are now. I just don't get it. Wait, I know why. It's because it was done by George Bush. How silly of me to forget.
Posted by: Me | Aug 15, 2007 10:23:15 AM
another D'uh!!
me obviously has no connection or understanding to the workings of either George W's administration or Congress. There was a very specific reason that the Founding Fathers put in place three branches of government. First to keep the others in check and second to prevent the nightmare of a imperial presidency that they had just fought against with the first George, the III.
If you want a real interesting take on what the ultimate fear is check out this website entry: Conquering the Drawbacks of Democracy. The moneyquote to watch for:
President Bush can fail in his duty to himself, his country, and his God, by becoming “ex-president” Bush or he can become “President-for-Life” Bush: the conqueror of Iraq, who brings sense to the Congress and sanity to the Supreme Court. Then who would be able to stop Bush from emulating Augustus Caesar and becoming ruler of the world? For only an America united under one ruler has the power to save humanity from the threat of a new Dark Age wrought by terrorists armed with nuclear weapons.
scary shit. huh?
isn't this what Hugo Chavez is trying to do down in Venezuela?
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, under fire at home with calls for his resignation, is spending some time in Iraq.
The Justice Department said that Gonzales arrived in Baghdad on Saturday for his third trip to Iraq to meet with department officials who have been there to help fashion the country's legal system. Huffington Post, "Embattled AG Gonzales Visits Baghdad"
We can only guess what fashion sense that is taking.
Former employees of the Civil Rights Division are channeling their workplace rage into lobbying force. The government lawyers say they were ignored, disrespected and kicked out by Bush appointees. The attorneys describe an increasingly partisan workplace, where political appointees intimidated career lawyers and undermined civil rights to push political agendas. Politico.com
What they are doing is letting the Judiciary Committees know all about it.
One result
The lawyers claimed their first scalp last weekend, when David Palmer withdrew his nomination to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Two weeks ago, a group of eight former managers, lawyers and career professionals who worked with Palmer in the employment litigation section of the Civil Rights Division sent a forceful letter to Congress opposing the nomination.
Rather than payback, I hope that these attorney's are making their decisions and actions in order to reestablish the American Justice system to its true path and by using the most important three words from the Bourne Ultimatum when describing the extra-legal black-ops program in the movie- "This isn't us.", CIA officer Pamela Landy, as played by Joan Allen.
The fallout from the US Attorney scandal is starting to settle into the day to day operations of the courts and having an effect that anyone should have foreseen. From today's LA Times June 17, 2007:
U.S. attorneys fallout seeps into courts
Defense lawyers in a growing number of cases are raising questions about the motives of government lawyers who have brought charges against their clients. In court papers, they are citing the furor over the U.S. attorney dismissals as evidence that their cases may have been infected by politics.
In effect, what could happen is that any defense attorney can say that the prosecution of her/his client is politically motivated and the seed is planted. The justice behind any case could be in question.
thanks, Mr. Gonzales. You've bolstered the justice system in ways that are unique...
In a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee, the two officials who are leading an internal Justice Department investigation of the dismissal of nine U.S. attorneys last year said their inquiry includes the Gonzales meeting, which was revealed during testimony last month from former Gonzales aide Monica M. Goodling.
"This is to confirm that the scope of our investigation does include this matter," wrote Glenn A. Fine, the inspector general, and H. Marshall Jarrett, counsel of the Office of Professional Responsibility.Washington Post
Not only is the House and the Senate investigating the case of the US Attorneys so is the Department of Justice - and its boss to boot!
oh, my! what is the honorable thing to do? be the Attorney General of the United States under indictment OR retired so as not to embarrass your boss?
and by your boss, i am not referring to mr. gonzales but his boss - you know who...
WASHINGTON, June 11 — Senate Democrats fell short this afternoon in their effort to hold a vote of no confidence in Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales but still registered a strong, if symbolic, rebuke of the nation’s chief law enforcement officer.
The Senate voted 53 to 38 to end debate and allow a vote on the no-confidence motion itself. Since 60 votes were required to shut off the debate, or invoke cloture, supporters of the motion were lacking seven votes. But Mr. Gonzales’s critics could console themselves with the knowledge that they mustered a majority.... New York Times, June 11, 2007
It was expected, of course, and that some Republicans voted for proceeding with the vote of no confidence is encouraging. However, it still doesn't answer a lot of questions, and there is one more big question that I have.
Not Voting - 7 Biden (D-DE) Brownback (R-KS) Coburn (R-OK) Dodd (D-CT) Johnson (D-SD) McCain (R-AZ) Obama (D-IL)
With Coburn and Johnson I might be able to accept a plausible explanation.
Aren't the others all running for presidential nominations? Would it not have been wise for them to have at least appeared and voted present?
just asking...
oh, and there was a second part to Trent Lott's statement about the Senate not being the British Parliament - “...and I hope it will never become the British Parliament.”
Adam Kokesh being arrested at the Senate Hart Office Building on April 26, 2007 because “what you are doing constitutes a political protest and you are subject to arrest.” He is a veteran of the Iraq conflagration and was honorably discharged last November.
and...
Adam Kokesh keeping score of the number of times that Alberto Gonzales said I don't recall during his congressional hearing.
and...
Washington, DC - Marine Corps veteran and IVAW member, Adam Kokesh, is facing a military hearing on June 4th that could result in his discharge status changing from “Honorable” to “Other Than Honorable” due to taking part in activities critical of the U.S. occupation in Iraq. Kokesh, who served in Fallujah in Iraq and was honorably discharged in November 2006, recently rejected a plea bargain offered by the military saying that it “risks the free speech rights of veterans and threatens to silence the voices of those whose experiences are most relevant in the most pressing debate before the nation.”Iraq Veterans Against the War
He's not just speaking out against Iraq for himself but for his fellow service men and women who are in a difficult position with what daily is becoming more and more difficult if not hopeless.
I agree with him. When was political protest against the law? We have the right of assembly and the right of free speech. He was charged with “Unlawful Assembly – Loud and Boisterous.” When you read his account, you will see that he didn't say a word the entire time he was in the Senate office building. If it was because there is a rule that political protests cannot happen in a place like the Senate office building, why? How else would the politicians hear the protestations the people have? Do you think they watch television or surf YouTube.com?
I don't think so. Adam and his friends are trying to make them listen and to be less insulated. The American people have a voice. The voice isn't being heard. There was a powerful and loud statement made by the people last November, when Adam was honorably discharged. The politicians either didn't really hear it or are ignoring it.
These politicians need to help Adam on Monday and not let his voice be taken away by the USMC under the orders of who knows whom.
I first posted about the the US Attorney mess back in January before it was really widely known. In my incessant reading I saw a little post somewhere about the "firing" of the USA's and kept seeing other brief mentions pop up here and there. Then a letter that Sen. Diane Feinstein sent to both the Senate Majority Leader Reid and Minority leader McConnell on February 26, 2007 surfaced and what looked not just interesting now had added to it more questions of what exactly was going on here. [You can read the letter at: TPMmuckraker.] All of the fired USA's had received excellent ratings and evaluations.
So, now, everyone in the country is more than aware of what this is all about. I really haven't posted much more on it because, well, to tell the truth, everyone else is.
Wednesday, the smarminess of Gonzales really caught my attention when I viewed his remarks that Deputy Attorney General McNulty had final say over the firings. In case you're not familiar with the word smarmy it means ingratiating and wheedling in a way that is perceived as insincere or excessive; eg a smarmy unctuous reply according the the Oxford American Dictionary.
Here is a video from Youtube of Keith Olbermann's reporting and comments of Gonzales' National Press Club performance that he calls the Blame Game and uses the catch phrase throw 'em under the bus. Watch carefully starting at about 1:09 of the video when Gonzales says, "At the end of the day...."
Pay particular attention to his mouth. He appears to be doing everything in his being not to smile. This is the number one indicator of smarminess. Also, watch where his eyes are looking. There is a field of study known as neurolinguistics that includes research into eye movement and recollection of thoughts/actions/memories in the brain.
And today, about the vote of no confidence that the Democrats along with some key Republicans are calling for, according to Czar George through his mouthpieces, made this claim: White House: Anti-Gonzales Vote a Stunt
The White House on Friday called the Senate's upcoming no-confidence vote over Attorney General Alberto Gonzales a "political stunt."
President Bush's support for his longtime ally and friend will not waver, said White House spokesman Tony Fratto.
Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn., on Thursday became the fifth Republican senator to demand that Gonzales leave. Meanwhile, Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo., suggested that Bush consider ejecting Gonzales if he decides Gonzales is doing more harm than good.
In addition, with the newest charges of interference with FISA and the NSA, through trying to intervene with Ashcroft approving the warrantless attacks:
Asked twice during a news conference Thursday whether he personally ordered Gonzales to Ashcroft's hospital room, Bush refused to answer. Fratto also refused to discuss the scene, or even to confirm that it happened.
Low-level disputes of this nature are commonplace in everyday government operation, and the point at which such a dispute becomes a constitutional crisis is difficult to define precisely. However, a good guideline is that a crisis occurs when one or more parties to the dispute refuses to recognize the right or power of another constitutional body to resolve or arbitrate the dispute.
We are at this point in time with the executive branch repeatedly indicating that it has the final say. The Czar is so entrenched behind his minions there seems to be no leeway or wiggle room.
