« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Leahy, Specter Lay in to Gonzales
If there's been a more brutal treatment of a cabinet official before Congress in recent memory, I haven't seen it.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Ranking Member Arlen Specter (R-PA) failed to disguise their contempt for Alberto Gonzales in their opening statements. Leahy, after running down the laundry list of Gonzales' failures and instances of questionable testimony, said that the administration's stance on their surveillance programs was "just trust us." Well, "I don't trust you," said Leahy.
Specter was no more sparing in his criticism. Pointing out that the Justice Department suffered from a "lack of credibility, candidly, your credibility," Specter went on a tear of his own ("the list goes on and on"). On Gonzales' infamous visit to John Ashcroft's hospital bed in order to get the ill attorney general to sign off on the president's surveillance program, Specter said "It’s just decimating, Mr. attorney general, to your judgment and your credibility."
Below is Leahy's opening statement as prepared.
From Leahy's written opening statement:
Three months ago, when Attorney General Gonzales last appeared before this Committee, I said that the Department of Justice was experiencing a crisis of leadership perhaps unrivaled during its history. Unfortunately, that crisis has not abated. Until there is independence, transparency and accountability, it will continue. The Attorney General has lost the confidence of the Congress and the American people. Through oversight we hope to restore balance and accountability to the Executive Branch. The Department of Justice must be restored to be worthy of its name. It should not be reduced to another political arm of the White House. The trust and confidence of the American people in federal law enforcement must be restored.
With the Department shrouded in scandal, the Deputy Attorney General has announced his resignation. The nominee to become Associate Attorney General requested that his nomination be withdrawn rather than testify under oath at a confirmation hearing. The Attorney General’s chief of staff, the Deputy Attorney General’s chief of staff, the Department’s White House liaison and the White House Political Director have all resigned, as have others. I would joke that the last one out the door should turn out the lights, but the Department of Justice is too important for that -- we need to shine more light there, not less.
The investigation into the firing for partisan purposes of United States Attorneys, who had been appointed by this President, along with an ever-growing series of controversies and scandals have revealed an Administration driven by a vision of an all-powerful Executive over our constitutional system of checks and balances, that values loyalty over judgment, secrecy over openness, and ideology over competence.
The accumulated and essentially uncontroverted evidence is that political considerations factored into the unprecedented firing of at least nine United States Attorneys last year. Testimony and documents show that the list was compiled based on input from the highest political ranks in the White House, that senior officials were apparently focused on the political impact of federal prosecutions, on whether federal prosecutors were doing enough to bring partisan voter fraud and corruption cases, and that the reasons given for these firings were contrived as part of a cover up.
What the White House stonewalling is preventing is conclusive evidence of who made the decisions to fire these federal prosecutors. We know from the testimony that it was not the President. Everyone who has testified has said that he was not involved. None of the senior officials at the Department of Justice could testify how people were added to the list or the real reasons that people were included among the federal prosecutors to be replaced. Indeed, the evidence we have been able to collect points to Karl Rove and the political operatives at the White House. The stonewalling by the White House raises the question: What is it that the White House is so desperate to hide?
The White House has asserted blanket claims of executive privilege, despite officials’ contentions that the President was not involved. They refuse to provide a factual basis for their blanket claims, have instructed former White House officials not to testify about what they know, and then instructed Harriet Miers to refuse even to appear as required by a House Judiciary Committee subpoena. Now, anonymous officials are claiming that the statutory mechanism to test White House assertions of Executive privilege no longer governs. In essence this White House asserts that its claim of privilege is the final word, that Congress may not review it, and that no court can review it. Here, again, this White House claims to be above the law.
My oath, unlike those who have apparently sworn their allegiance to this President, is to the United States Constitution. I believe in checks and balances and in the rule of law.
Despite the stonewalling and obstruction, we have learned that Todd Graves, U.S. Attorney in the Western District of Missouri was fired after he expressed reservations about a lawsuit that would have stripped many African-American voters from the rolls in Missouri. When the Attorney General replaced Mr. Graves with Bradley Schlozman, the person pushing the lawsuit, that case was filed and ultimately thrown out of court. Once in place in Missouri though, Mr. Schlozman also brought indictments on the eve of a closely contested election, despite the Justice Department policy not to do so. This is what happens when a responsible prosecutor is replaced by a “loyal Bushie” for partisan, political purposes.
Mr. Schlozman also bragged about hiring ideological soulmates. Monica Goodling likewise admitted “crossing the line” when she used a political litmus test for career prosecutors and immigration judges. Rather than keep federal law enforcement above politics, this Administration is more intent on placing its actions above the law.
The Attorney General admitted recently in a video for Justice employees that injecting politics into the Department’s hiring is unacceptable. But is he committed to corrective action and routing out the partisanship in federal law enforcement? His lack of independence and tendency to act as if he were the President’s lawyer rather than the Attorney General of the United States makes that doubtful. From the infamous torture memo, to Mr. Gonzales’ attempt to prevail on a hospitalized Attorney General Ashcroft to certify an illegal eavesdropping program, to the recent opinion seeking to justify Harriet Miers’ contemptuous refusal to appear before the House Judiciary Committee, the Justice Department has been reduced to the role of enabler for this Administration. What we need instead is genuine accountability and real independence.
We learned earlier this year of systematic misuse and abuse of National Security Letters, a powerful tool for the Government to obtain personal information without the approval of a court or prosecutor. The Attorney General has said he had no inkling of these or other problems with vastly expanded investigative powers. Now we know otherwise. Recent documents obtained through Freedom of Information Act lawsuits and reported in The Washington Post indicate that the Attorney General was receiving reports in 2005 and 2006 of violations in connection with the PATRIOT Act and abuses of National Security Letters. Yet, when the Attorney General testified under oath before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence in April 2005, he said that “[t]he track record established over the past three years has demonstrated the effectiveness of the safeguards of civil liberties put in place when the Act was passed.” Earlier this month, in responses to written questions I sent to the Attorney General about when he first learned of problems with National Security Letters, he once again failed to mention these reports of problems.
Only with the openness and honesty that brings true accountability will the Department begin to move forward and correct the problems of the last few years. Instead, we have leadership at the Department of Justice whose expressions of concern and admissions that mistakes were made only follow public revelations and amount to regrets that their excesses were uncovered.
In the wake of growing reports of abuses of National Security Letters, the Attorney General announced a new internal program. This supposed self-examination, with no involvement by the courts, no report to Congress, and no other outside check, essentially translates to “trust us.” With a history of civil liberties abuses and cover-ups, this Administration has squandered our trust. Earlier internal reviews, like the Intelligence Oversight Board and the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board have been ineffective and inactive, failing to take action on the violations reported to them. Only with a real check from outside of the Executive branch can we have any confidence that abuses will be curbed and balance restored.
A tragic dimension of the ongoing crisis of leadership at the Justice Department is the undermining of good people and the crucial work that it does. Thousands of honest, hard-working prosecutors, agents, and other civil servants labor every day to detect and prevent crime, uncover corruption, promote equality and justice, and keep us safe from terrorism. Sadly, prosecutions will now be questioned as politically-motivated and evidence will be suspected of having been obtained in violation of laws and civil liberties. Once the government shows a disregard for the independence of the justice system and the rule of law, it is very hard to restore the people’s faith. This Committee will do its best to try to restore independence, accountability, and commitment to the rule of law to the operations of the Justice Department.
Comments (113)
RB-Chicago wrote on July 24, 2007 11:13 AM:Gonzales should be IMPEACHED - TODAY!
Jake D. wrote on July 24, 2007 11:14 AM:Fine, Senators. Stop calling Gonzales to testify then. The President obviously trusts him, so unless you are going to impeach one (or both) of them, let's stop wasting each other's valuable time.
Official A wrote on July 24, 2007 11:14 AM:Scold him and scold him good. That ought to straighten him out.
On second thought,
http://www.impeachbush.org
Go to Washington on September 15.
tbhull wrote on July 24, 2007 11:16 AM:More words when action is so necessary.
Anonymous wrote on July 24, 2007 11:16 AM:RB-If they aren't going to impeach, why, in the name of everything Good, does the Senate embarrass themselves like this? Gonzo can barely prevent himself from laughing in their faces. Don’t they have any pride?
Slim Pickin's wrote on July 24, 2007 11:18 AM:He should be impeached today - but every moment he is on the job (and in front of the Judiciary Com.), he pushes the republican party deeper into a hole that they will not be able to crawl out of for many decades. The American people are nowhere - NOWHERE - near the Administration's position on the one. Keeping Albertross on the job is the definition of a "Pyrrhic Victory"
Jake D. wrote on July 24, 2007 11:18 AM:Too bad that's all the leftie moonbats will get from Democrats today -- EMPTY WORDS!!!
Anonymous wrote on July 24, 2007 11:21 AM:If they won't impeach, why, in the name of everything Good, does the Senate embarrass themselves like this? The guy can barely prevent himself from laughing in their faces. Don’t they have any pride?
Leahy is on CSpan now, he said it’s up to the President to ask Gonzo to resign, but he doesn’t think history will judge Bush well for keeping Gonzo. He was asked about contempt, Leahy said something like, “it may come to that if nothing changes.” These guys are like abused wives.
Harriet in the MIre wrote on July 24, 2007 11:22 AM:Jakie-Poo: Try testifying yourself. See how mired you'll get.
Slim Pickin's wrote on July 24, 2007 11:25 AM:DAMN!
"Be fair to the truth - and answer the question!"
Go Pat.
Will be funny to see how empty the fascists bootlickers think the words are in 2008.
Official A wrote on July 24, 2007 11:26 AM:"Don’t they have any pride?"
Obviously not. It's pitiful. They break more teeth every time they try to bite.
Jake D. wrote on July 24, 2007 11:26 AM:Back to the topic, however, I disagree with Leaky Leahy that the Attorney General has lost the confidence of ALL the Congress and/or ALL the American people. As for "political considerations" being a factor in the replacement of United States Attorneys, Clinton and Carter did the same -- the only thing that was "unprecedented" was that they happened all on one day with no need for Congressional confirmation -- the revised Patriot Act "loophole" allowing that has since been closed. If Congress really wants to make U.S. Attorney positions non-partisan, then there has to be legislation to that effect for FUTURE "violations" not PAST witch hunts.
Harriet in the MIre wrote on July 24, 2007 11:30 AM:Of course, Jakie-Poo - they haven't lost our confidence. We love the Mire!
Official A wrote on July 24, 2007 11:31 AM:"If Congress really wants to make U.S. Attorney positions non-partisan, then there has to be legislation to that effect for FUTURE "violations" not PAST witch hunts."
I agree, except that we can't wipe the slate clean. Violations of law should be prosecuted. Can we agree that only prosecutable crimes (lying to Conngress among them) and/or impeachment should be pursued at this point?
Anonymous wrote on July 24, 2007 11:31 AM:last i checked, the person who says 'i don't recall' over and over is the only one who's wasting anybody's time.
KYJurisDoctor wrote on July 24, 2007 11:33 AM:Why Gonzales doesn't quit is beyond belief!
http://osi-speaks.blogspot.com/2007/07/ag-alberto-gonzales-is-back-on-senate.html#links
Jake D. wrote on July 24, 2007 11:38 AM:Obviously, Official A, if Gonzales lied to Congress, he should resign immediately, or be impeached -- even if he's simply indicted on such charges he should resign -- then he should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. The Democrats won't do that. Also, I'm not sure why you think I'm making fun of Cindy Sheehan -- if she actually files the paperwork to run against Pelosi, I will definitely make a campaign contribution.
anon wrote on July 24, 2007 11:38 AM:... Gonzo can barely prevent himself from laughing in their faces...
He sure doesn't look worried.
Official A wrote on July 24, 2007 11:39 AM:"Why Gonzales doesn't quit is beyond belief!"
It's easy to explain. Bushco is lowering the expectations of the populace. If we can get used to Gonzo's crimes and misdemeanors, then we'll be more tolerant of any future crimes and misdemeanors that are revealed. They are lowering the bar on us an inch at the time. They've been doing it for seven years and now even a snake like Cheney can slither over it. The Republicans/Conservatives have morphed into the moral relativists they so often denounced in the past.
Official A wrote on July 24, 2007 11:44 AM:Jake D.: The Democrats won't do that.
You are right. They are pitiful.
As to Cindy Sheehan, if I have misinterpreted your chants of "Run, Cindy, Run" as facetious, I apologize most sincerely. I do not really care whether she runs against Pelosi, though the threat of it may exert some pressure and attract some attention to the issues. But I do applaud her for standing up for what she believes in, something too few of us are doing. I do agree with her 100% that Speaker Pelosi had no right to take impeachment off the table.
Jake D. wrote on July 24, 2007 11:47 AM:No, I seriously wanted Mother Sheehan to run against Feinstein back in 2006, and I want her to run against Pelosi next year.
anon wrote on July 24, 2007 11:48 AM:I love that after Gonzales confers with his lawyers, he says "I am told I..." Nice.
Seems to me that Schumer and Co need to take Gonzales to the wall and get him to take the fifth. Regardless of how he gums up everything, surely they can come up with questions that _require_ the fifth. Schumer's getting close but...
Peter Vander Arend wrote on July 24, 2007 12:00 PM:There is no more need to be namby-pamby about this matter anymore. All decorum and civility which should be accorded to government officials is meaningless in today's context with Alberto Gonzales' testimony. Any chump can see he is no more than Rope-a-Dope in front of the Judiciary Committee. So why bother with the verbal threats?
Instead, Leahy and Spector (who needs to re-read his oath to uphold and protect the Constitution) should slam the hammer down on Gonzales. Cite him with contempt of Congress, and begin impeachment proceedings ASAP to remove him from the Justice Dept.
Remove Gonzales and all of his Christian fundamentalist shills who were placed there swearing an oath of abject loyalty to Bush-Cheney-Rove and then one will start to restore ANY respect for the Justice system in our nation. The scope of the problem goes way beyond the inability of a monkley in a suit trying to bob and weave his way around the truth.
Jake D. wrote on July 24, 2007 12:07 PM:Peter:
You do realize that SENATORS Leahy and Spector cannot "begin impeachment proceedings" ASAP or legally at all -- the U.S. House "impeaches" and the Speaker over there says that option is off the table -- even if all 100 Senators wanted to convict.
RUN, CINDY, RUN!!!
rik @ work wrote on July 24, 2007 12:08 PM:PLEASE!
Henk wrote on July 24, 2007 12:08 PM:Make it stop.
THEY DON'T CARE WHAT CONGRESS THINKS OR DOES - THEY CARE EVEN LESS ABOUT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
REPEAT AFTER ME: THEY DON'T CARE - THEY DON'T CARE - THEY DON'T CARE.
Cheney should address the American people and tell them to "Go F themselves". THAT IS WHAT THIS IS ABOUT.
YOU ARE NOT GOING TO GET A STRAIGHT ANSWER, A CONFESSION OR MEA CULPA.
GOD, I HATE THESE PEOPLE.
What a bunch of whiners we have here. Have any of you actually read Leahy's statement? It's pretty damn good in my opinion.
Before you get to the impeachment you must investigate. The closer they get to Bush the more outrageous his claims of executive privilege become. The more outrageous the claims the more outraged the American people become and the less likely they are to support Republicans.
The only problem with all this is that the Mainstream Media is too corrupt to report what is actually going on. That is where your anger should be directed. Not at Democrats trying to do their job.
One more thing: Bitching about Democratic investigations is a Republican talking point. It surpises me that so many on this website have internalized it.
Official A wrote on July 24, 2007 12:10 PM:It is a sad day when one must choose sides between corruption and cowardice. But those are our two choices. The two-party system deserves to be put out of its misery.
See you September 15 in Washington.
Official A wrote on July 24, 2007 12:14 PM:Jake D.:"SENATORS Leahy and Spector cannot "begin impeachment proceedings" ASAP or legally at all"
True, but they can ceratinly call for such, or at least support Sen Feingold in his efforts at censure. If Obama can dismiss impeachment as he did last week, then others may call for it. But none are, and none will, so it's up to us.
chimpeach wrote on July 24, 2007 12:16 PM:Interesting. Gonzo's a toady who actually looks like a toad.
pat wrote on July 24, 2007 12:17 PM:I do wish that those who still say "Clinton did it too" would finally realize that the Bush administration put these people into office, and when they didn't like the way they did their jobs, they got rid of them for purely politial reasons, and are now trying to obsfuscate that fact.
BUSH, as far as I know, replaced ALL the AGs when he took office, just as Clinton did. Can someone who knows for sure, PLEASE CONFIRM so we can GET RID of the "Clinton did it too" BS?
Jake D. wrote on July 24, 2007 12:18 PM:Henk:
I watched Katie Couric last night (is that MAINSTREAM enough for you?) bemoan the loss of 4 American servicemen as a horrible day in the war. I agree the MSM is too corrupt to report what is actually going on, or keep anything in perspective -- during WWII or the Civil War, it would have been shocking to only lose 4 servicemen per day -- our country has forgotten what it felt like on 9/11. Are you one of those who think the MSM should be reporting that Bush planted the explosives at the WTC?
pat wrote on July 24, 2007 12:18 PM:I do wish that those who still say "Clinton did it too" would finally realize that the Bush administration put these people into office, and when they didn't like the way they did their jobs, they got rid of them for purely politial reasons, and are now trying to obsfuscate that fact.
BUSH, as far as I know, replaced ALL the AGs when he took office, just as Clinton did. Can someone who knows for sure, PLEASE CONFIRM so we can GET RID of the "Clinton did it too" BS?
bejammin075 wrote on July 24, 2007 12:20 PM:Even Specter kicked his ass so hard, he'll need his foot surgically removed from Alberto.
Official A wrote on July 24, 2007 12:20 PM:"One more thing: Bitching about Democratic investigations is a Republican talking point. It surpises me that so many on this website have internalized it."
That is to say that if the Republicans stick to their talking points, then Democrats must also stick to theirs. This business of surrogate argument Reminds me of Plato's objection to art as a "copy of a copy".
I think we need to get real, and if Democrats are disgusted with the inability of their elected "representatives" to rein in the ubiquitous criminality, then they need to say so and demand better, not defend them because they're "our guys". Partisanship must be dispensed with and honest debate must be restored.
Sorry, I realize that's not "pragmatic," but I'm not really satisfied with where pragmatism has gotten us so far.
pat wrote on July 24, 2007 12:20 PM:I do wish that those who still say "Clinton did it too" would finally realize that the Bush administration put these people into office, and when they didn't like the way they did their jobs, they got rid of them for purely politial reasons, and are now trying to obsfuscate that fact.
BUSH, as far as I know, replaced ALL the AGs when he took office, just as Clinton did. Can someone who knows for sure, PLEASE CONFIRM so we can GET RID of the "Clinton did it too" BS?
(sorry if this is appearing more than once. not sure it is posting, so I keep trying)
Jake D. wrote on July 24, 2007 12:26 PM:Official A:
The argument can be made that "censure" of the President is un-Constitutional.
Official A wrote on July 24, 2007 12:27 PM:Pat: "I do wish that those who still say "Clinton did it too" would finally realize..."
I understand that, but I wish all of us on the "other side" would realize that Clinton did indeed look straight into the camera lens and lie to us, then lied (or at least prevaricated) under oath. If we'd acknowledge that lying is wrong under any circumstances, then our claims against Bushco's deceptions would have more credibility.
We don't need to defend Clinton, we need to remove this mob from office.
RUN, CINDY, RUN!
;-)
Jake D. wrote on July 24, 2007 12:28 PM:pat:
How do you know Clinton didn't do the same? He was never investigated like this for all of his replacements.
Josen Uan wrote on July 24, 2007 12:29 PM:the republicans are stratefied, an impeachment would band them together. think dammit, think!
they may not like bush but they are still going to protect their party.
JNagarya wrote on July 24, 2007 12:30 PM:Fine, Senators. Stop calling Gonzales to testify then. The President obviously trusts him, so unless you are going to impeach one (or both) of them, let's stop wasting each other's valuable time.
Posted by: Jake D.
Date: July 24, 2007 11:14 AM
Leahy is presenting an increasingly detailed, hard evidence-based, case for impeachment. And there is ongoing investigation -- multiple invetigations -- which are finding and establishing the scope and nature of the gov't-wide subversion of the rule of law by those you defend, and against the accountability to laugh and mock Constitution and rule of law.
You've claimed to be a lawyer -- ever more obviously a lie -- therefore should respect democractic due process of law, and the proper conduct of investigations. You either know zero about any of that, or you simply hate our system of laws, and will excuse and aid any assaults upon it so long as committed by your party, and your party's placing of its intersts above and beyond Constitution and rule of law, and country.
By contrast, democratic due process -- unlike the lynch mob "justice" in which you believe -- takes time. It requires openness and accountability -- exactly as the Leahy and Conyers committees are doing and showing.
The contrast between that, and the contempt for Constitution and rule of law -- for this country -- by those in control of the Executive, and those who support them, is increasingly illuminated as stark. As stark as the difference between democracy, on one hand, and on the other dictatorship. Congress has Constitutional authority and duty to oversee the conduct of the Executive. The Executive now claims Congress has no such authority and duty -- Constitution be damned.
The latter is that you and your fellow dead-enders support and cheer: the destruction of our system of laws in favor of a morally bankrupt, anti-American criminal enterprise which you believe to be superior not only to the rule of law but also even to reason.
The problem is not with Congress, ass; the problem is with the lawless Executive, and shitheads such as you who attack Congress in behalf of the Executive. You have nothing of value to offer; in fact, all you offer is contrary to the health, well-being, and survival of our system of laws against the evil that bullied and stole its way into office. So back off and shut the fuck up, punk: the vast majority of Americans have heard all they want of what you anti-American slime believe and have to say: they have made their decison, and it is against you and the criminal enterprise you unconscionably cheer and defend. Crawl back under your rock, or back into the sewer from which you were evicted.
Jake D. wrote on July 24, 2007 12:32 PM:Official A:
It's a little late for those who strongly defended Clinton for lying back then, but now suddenly "admit" that lying is wrong under any circumstances just so their claims against Bushco's (alleged) deceptions would have more credibility. See, Hypocrite, definition of.
Official A wrote on July 24, 2007 12:35 PM:"The argument can be made that "censure" of the President is un-Constitutional."
It's merits can be debated in the Senate. They can pass it if they choose, and then the courts can rule it unconstitutional. I would be interested in hearing Sen Feingold discuss its constitutionality, my guess is he's given it more than a little thought.
But you are right, we do know impeachment is constitutional. And if Bush is impeached and acquitted, there is no constitutional prohibition that says he can't be impeached again.
Gotta start somewhere.
Floyd wrote on July 24, 2007 12:35 PM:Stop talking and show some action IMPEACH him now.
Floyd wrote on July 24, 2007 12:36 PM:Stop talking and show some action IMPEACH him now.
J Q P wrote on July 24, 2007 12:36 PM:I say let the democrates talk. The more they say now makes it better when they run on the policy of change.
Jake D. wrote on July 24, 2007 12:37 PM:Calm down, JNagarya, and keep reading. I clearly told Official A that if Gonzales lied to Congress, he should resign immediately, or be impeached -- even if he's simply indicted on such charges he should resign -- then he should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Not sure how you can jump from that to your ad hominem attacks, but I'm sure that won't stop you.
Floyd wrote on July 24, 2007 12:37 PM:Stop talking and IMPEACH him.
john Ryan wrote on July 24, 2007 12:37 PM:Jake open your eyes buddy the sun is out and there are many wonderfull things to see.
JNagarya wrote on July 24, 2007 12:40 PM:Too bad that's all the leftie moonbats will get from Democrats today -- EMPTY WORDS!!!
Posted by: Jake D.
Date: July 24, 2007 11:18 AM
Keep it up, punk, and the world will do to you and your fellow dead-enders that it did to Linda Thompson and her fellow thugs.
You are seeing not "EMPTY WORDS" but instead democratic due process of law. Care to try again to convince that you're a lawyer, shithead?
Congress has multiple responsibilities, one of which is to inform the public of its actions. That is done with words, ass, not by such as shooting people in the face, then getting drunk.
jak1 wrote on July 24, 2007 12:41 PM:>>I watched Katie Couric last night (is that MAINSTREAM enough for you?)<<
You must have been the ONLY one watching Katie. Did you know she is the least watched?? (is that MAINSTREAM enough for you?)Kaite Curic, mainstream?????
You should have went with Katie Holmes, and her ordeal with Tom Cruise. Now that's Important!!!!
Jake D. wrote on July 24, 2007 12:41 PM:Well, Official A, Senator Feingold misspoke on "Meet the Press" Sunday about MULTIPLE Presidents being censured; I'm not so sure he knows that much about it.
wasabifan wrote on July 24, 2007 12:41 PM:Well, for one difference. Clinton's appointees were approved by Congress. I think that would be enough to show that these appointees were not only based on political decision. And no, Clinton did not clean the slate in his second term.
Though, I will not stand up for Clinton. He too lied under oath like this administration. Though he did do it for personal reasons, as opposed to grabbing more political power and urinating on the constitution.
chimpeach wrote on July 24, 2007 12:42 PM:Interesting. Gonzo's a toady who actually looks like a toad.
Official A wrote on July 24, 2007 12:44 PM:Jake, it will interest you to know that I favored Clinton's impeachment and would not have bemoaned his conviction, had that occured. I don't like liars-under-oath on my payroll.
As to the charge of hypocrisy, I think it is a fair one to level against those who defend Clinton but denounce Bush. On the other hand, as my mama taught me, two wrongs don't make a right, and that anyone excuses Clinton doesn't excuse Bush. Jesus said "Go and sin no more," not "You have one sin credit you can use."
Honesty has to start somewhere, and I would favor here and now.
Peg wrote on July 24, 2007 12:49 PM:I joined Cindy Sheehan with about 400 others yesterday, July 23, to visit with Conyers to discuss his introducing Articles of Impeachment.
She met in his office for about an hour, and came into the hall where we were waiting, and told us the results.
Conyers refused to introduce them, because there are not the numbers in the House to vote for it.
He told us that it will not happen, and our only choice to get rid of Bush is the election of 2008, during which we presumably will vote more Democrats in.
How's that for some mighty BS !!!
JakeDsux wrote on July 24, 2007 12:51 PM:Jake D is a republican shill, just like gonzo...the current administration makes Nixon look like a saint...if they were not hiding things, they would go ahead and testify under oath...so far, nobody did it, nobody recalls doing it, and nobody seems to know who did it, I believe that, it all makes sense, these people are too stupid to know anything...or too smart to admit knowing anything...
Tom wrote on July 24, 2007 12:55 PM:What is the difference between the US Congress and the Iraqi Parliment? About 6,000 miles. Other than that, neither of them really are getting anything done except talk.
Official A wrote on July 24, 2007 12:55 PM:Thanks for trying, Peg. I will join you September 15.
PaulB wrote on July 24, 2007 12:56 PM:"if Gonzales lied to Congress, he should resign immediately"
Nice to hear you support Gonzalez' resignation, Chuckles, since it's already been documented that he lied to Congress on multiple occasions.
But since you're lying about your point of view, you will, of course, continue to play silly games and post mindless partisan drivel.
Kelly in Montana wrote on July 24, 2007 12:56 PM:Official A--
I couldn't agree with you more. In response to your request, Clinton did not do what Bush did in firing these eight U.S. attorneys. Reagan, Clinton, and GW Bush fired all US attorneys when they entered office the first time. What GW Bush did was NOT done by Reagan, Clinton, or any other president that I know of--He selected eight US attorneys to fire at the end of his first term. And testimony by the AG and others has shown that this was done for political reasons (e.g., not filing indictments against democratic candidates in close races). This is why Congress is investigating. This is why Arlen Specter is saying that the A.G. has lost all credibility--Because he has spit on the noble office he holds. This is a dangerous practice in a nation of laws. The administration of justice is supposed to be apolitical--Think about Janet Reno appointing a special prosecutor to investigate allegations of wrongdoing by the President who appointed her. Its not supposed to work like this--Where the president will direct the firing of U.S. attorneys in an attempt to use criminal charges to sway the results of close political races. And let's not forget the commutation of Scooter Libby's sentence to make sure that he keeps quiet and doesn't sell out Cheney and Rove before heading to prison. This administration makes the New Jersey mafia look law-abiding.
JNagarya wrote on July 24, 2007 12:58 PM:pat:
"How do you know Clinton didn't do the same?"
Because -- unlike with the Bushit criminal enterprise -- there's no EVIDENCE that he did. Is that too complicated for you to grasp, smearmongering shithead?
"He was never investigated like this for all of his replacements."
Clinton was the most investigated president in history. All they found was a non-illegal consensual heterosexual affair between an admitted-stalker and Clinton. Had anything else whatsoever been found, we would never have heard the name "Lewinsky".
Posted by: Jake D.
Date: July 24, 2007 12:28 PM
We know what you are, "Jake"; you aren't in the least clever; you're as transparent as to intents as unpolluted air.
Gonzales is only one person in a vast subversion of the rule of law; of the gov't. Impeaching Gonzales would be the equivalent of trimming a toenail from a gangrenous leg. The error made with Watergate was to stop the investigations, etc., when Nixon resigned: the cancer was ON the presidency, not simply confined to the criminal Nixon. That error left the cancer intact and functioning, and we've seen it reassert itself with every subsequent Republican-controlled Executive, each time more egregious, extreme, and exposed for what it is.
Gonzales serves a dual function: on one hand, he is the obstacle between the Bushit criminal enterprise, and Congress and We the people; on the other, he keeps the issues alive and front-and-center, and continues to damage that criminal enterprise, and the Republican party. Your alarm is "justified" as to the increasingly public self-destruction of your anti-American party -- and the patience being exercised in continuing the multiple investigations, and the inevitable ripening of the issues to an impeachment not limited to relatively small potatoes Gonzales, is the proper functioining of democratic due process of law.
The fact is that you are a worm, a weasel, and my considtently pointing to that fact is not -- because it is the fact -- _ad hominem_.
lucy lu wrote on July 24, 2007 12:59 PM:you guys are funny. I leave hypocrisy to the hypocrites. republican democrats means the same thing "get me rich." when republicans do something democrats cry. when democrats do something republicans cry. Its so funny to be looking at you two from the outside. America is laughing at both of you
pat wrote on July 24, 2007 1:00 PM:I believe Clinton WAS impeached in the House, following the procedure laid out in the Constitution. The Senate declined to remove him from office.
The difference is that Bush and Cheney and their toady AG are serial liars on much more important issues than what the meaning of "is" is. So let's have the House pass articles of impeachment, and see what happens in the Senate. Should be fun.
Walrus wrote on July 24, 2007 1:04 PM:Shame on you Jake D. Shame on you. Drop the blind sheep attitude, its so 8 years ago..
Remember this panel was lead by a Democrat AND a Republican. You need to understand that you're political power as a voter at this time is no longer partisan. Its either with the American People or against America (pro-bush).
JNagarya wrote on July 24, 2007 1:06 PM:I joined Cindy Sheehan with about 400 others yesterday, July 23, to visit with Conyers to discuss his introducing Articles of Impeachment.
She met in his office for about an hour, and came into the hall where we were waiting, and told us the results.
Conyers refused to introduce them, because there are not the numbers in the House to vote for it.
He told us that it will not happen, and our only choice to get rid of Bush is the election of 2008, during which we presumably will vote more Democrats in.
How's that for some mighty BS !!!
Posted by: Peg
Date: July 24, 2007 12:49 PM
Wake up: Kucinich introduced a resolution to impeach Cheney. If the votes were there -- your disbeleiving Conyers based upon wishful thinking -- then the resolution would have more than a handful of sponsors.
That isn't Conyers' fault, as he is for impeachment. And it isn't Kucinch's fault. It is the fault of REPUBLICAN foot-draggers.
As for the Senate: the Democratic majority is essentially illusion.
But watch what begins happening in September-October-November.
Jake D. wrote on July 24, 2007 1:09 PM:Kelly in Montana and JNagarya:
After his re-election, Clinton did replace many of the very same U.S. Attorneys he had brought on at the beginning of his term. Here are just a few of those replacements:
1997: Beverly Martin, Douglas Jones, Thomas Scott, Mary Lou Leary, and Sharon Zealey.
1998: Byron Jones, Denise O’Donnell, Paul Warner, Scott Lasser, Paul Seave, Ellen Curran, Stephen Robinson, Richard Deane Jr., Alejandro Mayorkas, Robert Green, Harry Litman, and Jose Rivera.
1999: Melvin Kahle, Gregory Vega, Thomas Strickland, Donna Bucella, Daniel French, Quenton White, Jackie Williams, Mervyn Mosbacker Jr., and Carl Schnee.
2000: Daniel Webber Jr., Norman Bay, Steven Reed, Ted McBride, and Audrey Fleissig.
I do agree that Clinton was the most investigated President in history. However, he was never investigated like this for any of these replacements. Even if I were a worm, a weasel, etc., attacking me personally instead of dealing with those facts is indeed "ad hominem". Look up the definition of said logical fallacy if you don't believe me.
Pat wrote on July 24, 2007 1:23 PM:Open up national security methods and operations so that Democrats can funnel the information to news sources. Get real folks terrorists can read and have internet access. Quit sacrificing our security for political gain.
WasteNJ wrote on July 24, 2007 1:28 PM:Republicans always cry whenever the other side tells the truth. The they spit on you and call it ice cream. Thank God that these words are in the congressional record. Future generations will no doubt look back on the worst administration in the history of the US with curious minds.
anonymous wrote on July 24, 2007 1:31 PM:Those that do not know their history are doomed to repeat it, and we do not want a repeat of the Bush administration.
JakeD: "However, he was never investigated like this for any of these replacements."
Again, you lie by implication.
This issue is "firing" not "replacing."
I know its hard for a "Stanford Law" yuckster like you to understand the difference between the two, but there are plenty of online dictionaries for you to consult.
Start browsing.
rt wrote on July 24, 2007 1:34 PM:There is a vital reason that Gonzales has not yet resigned. Bush needs time. Bush cannot afford to have a fair or impartial AG, as the investigations could lead to very bad things for him and his administration. I am not sure what the critical time is, but the intention to delay is obvious. Democrats need to move forward now and upset the timetable.
bob wrote on July 24, 2007 1:34 PM:
Jake D. wrote on July 24, 2007 1:35 PM:I think the only way to cure this infection ,
is to eradicate it ,,, NOV .2008
then we can have honesty and accountability
Thanks to BUSHY,,,, we are in debt to every country in the world.
anonymous:
Since there were no investigations into the REPLACEMENTS, we obviously never got to uncover which were FIRED, if any. There, does that make you happy?
jagrio wrote on July 24, 2007 1:42 PM:feingold called to censor this administration. let's start there, then impeach the S.O.B.'s. we have psycopath's running and ruining this country. books not bombs. medicine, not mayhem. water, not war. help, not hurt. understanding, not standing over. concern, not contrite. if you want peace, talk with your enemies, not your friends. gas was $1.90 when we entered Iraq, it's $3.50 today. mexico's are friend, not are enemy. yet we build a stupid wall, a wall that will have to encompass from coast to coast...it's been the end to many once great civilizations. and one thing " WHERE THE HELL IS OSAMA BIN LADEN?". i think he's in texas..........
anonymous wrote on July 24, 2007 1:49 PM:JakeD: "Since there were no investigations into the REPLACEMENTS, we obviously never got to uncover which were FIRED, if any. There, does that make you happy?"
Uh, nope, because there were investigations into Clinton's actions with respect to USAs who left their positions and only two were fired.
This is a fact.
More importantly, since you have no evidence that Clinton fired more than two, you have no argument.
Investigated to your satisfaction or not, Bush fired 9 or more USAs, without proper procedure or documentation, for improper reasons, and this is known.
What Clinton did or didn't do is ultimately irrelevant to whether Bush and Gonzales are guilty as charged.
Jake D. wrote on July 24, 2007 1:52 PM:What Clinton "investigation" and Bush/Gonzales "crime" are you referring to?
Mel in Vermont wrote on July 24, 2007 2:06 PM:"That is done with words, ass, not by such as shooting people in the face, then getting drunk."
Posted by: JNagarya
This is mud-slinging at its most scurrilous and irresponsible. I have seen no evidence that our Vice President wasn't drunk before he shot the old guy in the face.
ken lang wrote on July 24, 2007 2:35 PM:KEEP IT UP!
Austin Cooper wrote on July 24, 2007 2:36 PM:These public spankings do a lot to help bring out the true underhanded ways of today's GOP.
This kind of pull his britches down and spank him in front of God and everybody gives the truth a shot at coming out in this otherwise corrupt and controlling administration!!!
Why do people continue to feed Jakey?
Do you understand this is a substitute for (or an aid to) masturbation for him/her?
There's certainly no substance to argue with. Ignore It.
pee' my pants wrote on July 24, 2007 3:32 PM:once a rotten apple bcomes wormy its time to throw it away.
Aeon wrote on July 24, 2007 3:45 PM:Correct, Austin Cooper.
Jakey is most likely a paid troll by the Repugs who put PARTY above Country... called TREASON.
Cindy Sheehan is not perfect, but are "you"?
Do you not see Rove's sticky fingers and regular modus operation all over this? It is what he and the crime family have done for years... second nature.
Sheehan and others were ARRESTED for asking our Congress critters to SUPPORT THE CONSTITUTION.
PEOPLE - talk to your families and friends - do not take the "it's not polite" meme to heart...
THINK about the soldiers stuck in an illegal occupation or OIL - exposed to Depleted Uranium - like the innocent Iraqi's... cancer is us.
STOP THE MADNESS.
Evelyn wrote on July 24, 2007 3:54 PM:IMPEACH - NOW - NO AUGUST RECESS.
RESTORE THE RULE OF LAW = RESTORE OUR DEMOCRACY.
-------------------------
We are the people who run this country. We are the deciders. And every single day, every single one of us needs to step outside and take some action to help stop this war. Molly Ivins (1944-2007)
--------------------------
There's just two kinds of folks, son, us and the help." ... G.H.W.Bush (reportedly overheard by the help at a private Florida county club)
------
"This is slavery: not to speak one's thought." -Euripedes
We have a constitutional crisis, and the remedy is to impeach Bush,Cheney and Gonzales. If congress will not, we need to question the committment of every congressperson reguarding his or her commitment to the rule of law,the constitution,and the welfare of this nation, WAKE UP CONGRESS AND DO YOUR JOB-or have the grace to resign. evelyn
Leftside Annie wrote on July 24, 2007 4:01 PM:God. I will be so damn glad when we elect a Democrat in 2008 - and all these scary reichwing authoritarian fascist cockroaches will scuttle back under the refrigerator where they belong!!
Krashkopf wrote on July 24, 2007 4:09 PM:As John Nichols said "Impeachment is NOT a constitutional crisis. Impeachment is the CURE for a constitutional crisis."
Bush/Cheney/Gonzalez, with their ongoing disregard for constitutional checks and balances ARE causing a constitutional crisis.
It is time to IMPEACH THE BASTARDS!
It is THE most important issue of our times - bar none!
Dave Adams wrote on July 24, 2007 4:16 PM:The Senate does not impeach, it tries cases referred to it by the House, which does impeach.
If you agree that Gonzales should be impeached, you should contact your Representative and demand it.
I've been doing that, and I'm going to keep doing that.
Electricphoto wrote on July 24, 2007 4:17 PM:In the game of corruption - the key position to control is the prosecutor. Then you can investigate all you want but stop any charges from being brought or any arrests being made.
This is how it works in corrupt city and state governments and this is how it works in the Whitehouse run by Bush. Gonzales controls prosecutions.
Then you pay parrots like Jake D. to constantly flap their jaws with the party cover stories so that people will get sidetracked from the real issue.
Jakes gets his marching orders from the V.R.W.C (starts with vast - goolge it). The requirement for being a party parrot is a low intelligence, an unquestioning mind and a gift for lying and it helps to be a ass too. Does it pay good jake?
QueenBoadicca wrote on July 24, 2007 4:53 PM:There's nothing wrong with Leahy's address -- it seems that the complainers have bought into the Repug strategy -- as more and more of the lies and brazen contraventions of the Constitution by the WH and its minions become apparent, the right wing press are resorting to castigating the Democrats as weak or ineffectual. Don't buy into this. They are our only hope. Back them up and urge them to keep pushing -- Impeachment would be great, but at this point, even bringing all of the evil into the light is an improvement on what went before. Remember the days when we were called "unpatriotic" and most were afraid to speak the truth? The truth is coming out -- and with each revelation, the WH loses face and credibility, and their supporters' stupidity and pigheadedness becomes more apparent.
God wrote on July 24, 2007 4:55 PM:***********
Anonymous wrote on July 24, 2007 5:52 PM:***********
The Democrats say they want to look tough. They'll even support a war that is a crime, trying to look tough. But when it comes to REAL, SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES, those of OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, etc., committed by this administration, the Democrats show their Pansie little selves for who they are and run away like scared little children. The American people will not forget this. The American people don't want weaklings leading them. Democrats are scared little weaklings.
the Bush administration put underqualified political operatives as attorneys to do things like throw out legitimate civil/voter rights complaints or announce indictments against democrats shortly before election day. to get around congressional oversight/confirmation, a loophole was snuck into the Patriot Act at the last minute (by someone from Specter's office), specifically for this purpose. and that is something that Carter, Reagan, Bush1, and Clinton did not do.
Anonymous wrote on July 24, 2007 5:57 PM:a quote for the 'Clinton did it too' crowd, via Slate:
"The chart compares the Clinton protocol for appropriate contacts between the White House and the DoJ on pending criminal cases with the Bush protocol. According to Whitehouse, the Clinton protocol authorized just four folks at the White House to chat with three folks at Justice. The chart had four boxes talking to three boxes. Out comes the Bush protocol, and now 417 different people at the White House have contacts about pending criminal cases with 30-some people at Justice...
M. Sagrada wrote on July 24, 2007 6:28 PM:It seems that just about everyone in the White House, including the guys in the mailroom, had a vote on ongoing criminal matters."
Slim, your comment was: 'Will be funny to see how empty the fascist bootlickers think the words are in 2008.'
Hate to break it to ya, but don't you think this crowd, that considers themselves above the law, has contingency plans for when the votes don't go their way? They do. By hook or by crook (no pun intended), they will remain in power, whether via stealing the election or declaring marshal law. Go here, read it and weep:
Mike wrote on July 24, 2007 7:04 PM:http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Oldline_Republican_warns_somethings_in_works_0719.html
It breaks my heart that Hunter S. Thompson is not here with us to witness the materialization of his prophecies.
angry_diane wrote on July 24, 2007 7:33 PM:People, instead of insulting each other (shithead et al) put your money where your mouth is and stand up for what you believe. To sit here and just trade crap back and forth does nothing to correct this situation. Yes, Clinton lied about having consensual sez, remember all of the republicans who were so outraged? Hmmm, quite a few of them got caught with THEIR hand in the cookie jar. This presidents lies are of national importance as we have sent way too many people off to death, maimed, etc.....and here again today, he still refuses to take a good look and maybe admit things didnt go as they thought they would, but how can we now fix this whole mess? I would rather have a man with an easy zipper, who has a brain and USES it (and he isn't the only one that got caught folks - read your history) But instead of dropping the issue, as of course GOP now is trying to do with their current problems, they went after him like a witchhunt...anyway, its their public behavior and the way they run the country that ultimately counts - what can anyone say THIS president has done for us ? Oh other than bankrupting us, and making us more hated in this world than was ever imagined, and still crying WOLF - even if it is true, AQ is on its way, who believes anything they say anymore? sigh.....
LLindauer wrote on July 24, 2007 7:33 PM:I have, for six years now, been on a single-minded quest to expose George W. Bush and his administration for the demons they are. To no avail. I am now convinced I have been going about this all wrong. W. and his minions are on a spiritual quest and I've been fighting Spirit with water. I must fight Spirit with Spirit.
The government of the United States is the Beast of Revelation and the church is the whore. All the hate and venom poured out against the beast serves only to feed the beast. It is time for the Church to be the Church.
"For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places" (Ephesians 6:12).
Enough. We must, each of us with eyes to see, ears to hear, fall to our knees and pray that God will defeat the demons who have overtaken the world and its governments - including and most especially ours.
Anonymous wrote on July 24, 2007 7:36 PM:I have, for six years now, been on a single-minded quest to expose George W. Bush and his administration for the demons they are. To no avail. I am now convinced I have been going about this all wrong. W. and his minions are on a spiritual quest and I've been fighting Spirit with water. I must fight Spirit with Spirit.
The government of the United States is the Beast of Revelation and the church is the whore. All the hate and venom poured out against the beast serves only to feed the beast. It is time for the Church to be the Church.
"For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places" (Ephesians 6:12).
Enough. We must, each of us with eyes to see, ears to hear, fall to our knees and pray that God will defeat the demons who have overtaken the world and its governments - including and most especially ours.
busdrivermike wrote on July 24, 2007 7:50 PM:But the democrats will not impeach him, do their sworn duty to The Constitution, because their is a presidential election year coming up.
That is why I have walked away from the Democratic Party.
The Democrats better show me something,like an impeachment hearing or two, instead of promising me something if they want my vote in 2008.
GeneOnLine wrote on July 24, 2007 7:53 PM:Why is the Bush, Cheney, AG, etc all so cocky?
Well keep your eye on August - when Congress is away? Something is coming to allow all those Bush Executive Orders to be implemented and throw a lot of people into the $825M Halliburton Detention Camps. All built and ready to go!
Another Inside the Secret Government 911.
Too late for impeachment then.
Got to:
infowars.com
and learn all about it.
Thanks
Gene
parrot wrote on July 24, 2007 8:52 PM:How about the Congress call him to answer directly for his dereliction of duty and his failure to uphold his oath, the contempt that he and the Bushites have for the law. They only respect raw power and it is getting past time for the Congress to exercise what power they have to rein these thugs in.
Austin Cooper wrote on July 24, 2007 9:29 PM:Is it just me, or does anyone else feel we've crossed a little into another dimension... "a dimension of sound, a dimension of sight, a dimension of mind... between the pit of Man's fears, and the summit of his knowledge" ?
I mean, I thought only trolls would show up and post about The Beast and detention camps, as a method of disrupting actual discussion between regular posters, and reducing that discussion to the level of airing videos of 'Seth'.
But... they wouldn't do mean things like that. Would they?
Not So Rich wrote on July 24, 2007 10:21 PM:Trolls like Jake.... This is the reason that Cheney won't release the names and job descriptions of the people working for him. Get it? Your tax dollars at work. Politically, Oh Trolls, the more Gonzo testifies, the lower the approval ratings of that vile, subhuman criminal filth that stole the White House and his ever- shrinking legions of negative- IQ sycophants. Stanford law? I teach law, man, and I'd certainly fail you. Try reading the Constitution. Of the United States. Moron.
Not So Rich wrote on July 24, 2007 10:34 PM:2 More things-- if your argument is that "Clinton did it ,too," then you are calling for Bush's impeachment, just like Clinton was impeached. Right? Just following your own logic.
And-- is it a big surprise that the worst and stupidest President in history has chosen the worst and stupidest AG in history? Shrub has an IQ of 91, far and away the lowest of any President, less than half of Bill Clinton's, and nearly 10 percent below the average of 100. Using an IQ of 75 as an arbitrary base of minimal functionality, that would place the 26% who approve of Bush (and who understand the question) with IQ's between 76 and 90. That doesn't get you into law school, no matter who your daddy is (Bush tried to get into law school twice, and was rejected. Cheney flunked out of or quit law school before his first year was completed). Stupid people are really funny when they try to act like they aren't stupid.
Not So Rich wrote on July 24, 2007 11:07 PM:One more thing-- I would have to go along with the Bush White House's basic contention that it is not really beholden to the Constitution of the U.S., as it is not really a branch of the government per se. It is, rather, an independent, massive, criminal operation of unparalleled, historic proportions. As such, the occupants of the White House, no longer affiliated with a branch of government, should be subject to immediate arrest. That would obviate the need for impeachment. By their own logic, again, of course.
Jake D. wrote on July 25, 2007 12:36 AM:You "teach law" and you think it is "logic" that because Clinton was impeached for something completely different than U.S. Attorney replacements, then Bush should be impeached for U.S. Attorney replacements? Please don't tell me your students also have IQs of 91.
Jake D. wrote on July 25, 2007 12:42 AM:Oh, BTW, the "Bush IQ of 91" is an Internet hoax circulating for years now -- I'm surprised someone who "teaches law" would be so easily fooled:
http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/hoaxes/presiq.htm
Pokey wrote on July 25, 2007 2:17 AM:Why is he still a lawyer? Doesn't Texas have disciplinary counsel?
Enough.
NEM wrote on July 25, 2007 2:18 AM:All talk, no action. Shit or get off the pot. I expect that, sometime tomorrow, your committee will file inherent contempt charges against Gonzales and issue warrants for his congressional arrest, PERIOD. Nothing less is acceptable.
DancingBear wrote on July 25, 2007 8:34 AM:Y'know, Jake, you keep throwing out these lists. Google f'in exists:
Your list:
1997: Beverly Martin, Douglas Jones, Thomas Scott, Mary Lou Leary, and Sharon Zealey.
Martin--Appointed by Clinton to the Federal bench
Jones--served 1997 until replaced by Bush in 2001
Scott--can't find any Clinton AG appointee by this name
Leary--Moved to Department of Justice; was appointed to an Acting Attorney General position by Clinton again in 2000
Zealey--served 1997 until replaced by Bush in 2001
Do you care even a small bit about maintaining any level of credibility?
Jake D. wrote on July 25, 2007 3:57 PM:DancingBear:
Exactly, Martin was later appointed to the federal bench. In 1997, however, he nominated Martin to replace a U.S. Attorney that he had previously nominated in 1993. That was a list of replacements, above, not the names of the U.S. Attorneys they replaced -- you will really change your mind if I give you the original names as well?
DancingBear wrote on July 25, 2007 6:01 PM:It would certainly be helpful if you would post the names of those replaced. But if all you are saying is that some 1993 nominees served out their four years and were replaced, that's hardly shocking now, is it?
DancingBear wrote on July 25, 2007 6:09 PM:Again, it would be helpful if you would list the names of those replaced, to effectuate the debunking of your implications. With a little bit of work, it appears that Sharon Zealey succeeded Edmund Sargus as US Attorney for the SD-Ohio. Sargus was appointed by Clinton to the Federal District Court bench.
dancingbear wrote on July 25, 2007 7:18 PM:Jake--
Okay, ran down another one. Douglas Jones replaced Lynwood Smith as US Atty for ND-AL, when Smith was nominated to the Federal bench by Clinton.
Still waiting for that list.
John Bonnes wrote on July 25, 2007 8:26 PM:There's plenty of evidence to have the whole of the administration up on charges of perjury, treason, and crimes against humanity. These hearings are nothing but a tease and I grow weary knowing the democrats will just lip service this to death. I want indictments and arrest anything else makes the democrats look complicit and negligent.
globalstomp wrote on July 25, 2007 8:27 PM:There's plenty of evidence to have the whole of the administration up on charges of perjury, treason, and crimes against humanity. These hearings are nothing but a tease and I grow weary knowing the democrats will just lip service this to death. I want indictments and arrest anything else makes the democrats look complicit and negligent.
Jess Wonderin wrote on July 25, 2007 11:11 PM:OMFG . . . Jake, been following your scat too long - I hope your "legal" arguments have a greater basis in fact than the crap you push around here . . . like playing poker with her little brother waiting for the hot sister to get ready to go out - amusing but a waste of time . . . Bush has perverted 200 years of democracy, and Clinton got a JB - seems the Republic Party does not object to undisclosed extra-martial homo/hetero sex except when NOT paid for . . . and if our Repuiblic Congresscritters had paid more attention to the Constitutional Pages, instead of Congressional Pages, Captain Codpiece may have been stopped sooner . . .