Comments on: Will Gonzales Fall For Attorney Firings?

Sources: AG's Ouster Is Inevitable; Fired Attorney Blames Partisan Politics

[randalds]

"Will Gonzales Fall For Attorney Firings?"

Who is attorney Firings? Is that attorney Jane Firings? Or attorney Jim Firings? If it's attorney Jim Firings then does Peter Pace know about this? Does Sam Brownback? How about signinrick? Or Agimn? Don't they know Gonzales might be falling for attorney Jim Firings as we speak! Hot man on man attorney lust!!

Oh wait....wrong thread...sorry....

[sandaliog1]

It is a sign of the hypocrisy and moral decay of this government that the Congress is going "all out" to get to the bottom of the firing of 8 U.S. Attorneys and find out if there was "political" misconduct, and yet they have not shown a scintilla of interest in the case of a cover-up of alleged "criminal" misconduct by high level officials of the Executive Branch involving numerous murders during the course of a federal drug investigation, even though it involves high level officials including a U.S. Attorney and agency/department heads in Washington, D.C., in other words politics are more important than murders...thihs story that has been totally ignored by the so-called mainstream media...nice, don't you think? Bottom line is the media is just as, or more corrupt than the government...want to talk about it?

[johnkick]

I like that jack nicholson movie where he goes in the mad house and the big indian kills him with a pillow.

[johnkick]

My name is Deryle.
And, I approve this message.

[johnkick]

I aint thinkin' about that stuff. You best not be coming at me with that there stuff. I don't think that is funny. Hell no.

[johnkick]

We've got your Jesus under surveillance.

[frankly6]

rhs648

Sounds like you and Bush want the Justice Department to be turned into the "Just Us" Department.

[johnkick]

Do you want men
or mice?

[frankly6]

rhs648


The question is, do you want law enforcement officials to work for the people and have there loyalty be to the law and the Constitution or would you rather they be political tools of the President?

Unfortunately for you and Bush, the Constitution has placed checks and balances in the structure of our government to prevent this from happening.
However, there are countries where it works the way you prefer it but they are all dictatorships. Perhaps you'd like to live in one of those places. Russia is nice this time of year.

[johnkick]

The air is thin
in the field of Mars

[frankly6]

rhs648




They are apointed by the President and he certainly has the right to fire them. But they serve the Constitution and the law and are not political tools of the President to be used to attack his enemies. That's called a dictatorship.

It has always been the case that when Presidents fire U.S. attourneys. However, their replacements must go through a vetting process carried out by Congress. This is to insure that the replacements are not political cronies but impartial public servants. Bush and Co. skirted this by inserting a secret loophole clause into the Patriot Act. The question is, do you want law enforcement officials to work for the people and have there loyalty be to the law and the Constitution or would you rather they be political tools of the President? I don't think you want to live in that kind of country.

[johnkick]

Knocking on some mad bugger's wall.

[markbeaulieu]

Some people get what they deserve. Gonzales played the deceptive politico, not a man of justice, or fairness. May the ghost of Abraham Lincoln haunt him to the end.

[firststate]

Gonzalez can be removed without his resignation or being fired by the President. The mechanism for removing any civil officer of the United States, including Cabinet level officers is impeachment. Although it remains unused, it is an available option.

When the Senate is closely divided, it's much more likely that a lesser official could be convicted in the Senate than could a sitting President. The lesser official would be judged more fairly because the pressure to follow the party, right or wrong would be less intense than if it were the party's leader.

The authority for this process is the same as for a Presidential impeachment, except the Chief Justice wouldn't preside in the Senate trial. This process wouldn't attach criminal jeopardy, so the officer could still face criminal prosecution for the underlying offense(s).

United States Constitution - Article II.
Section. 4.
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

[johnkick]

Did they get you trade
your heroes
for ghosts?

[freefallf]

Do not refer to Junior Bush as "President." Bush is a Pretender--the head of an illegitimate regime. Gonzales never should have been approved by the Senate for Atty Genl; evidence showed he had approved legal justification for the crime of torture.

News Media have done a poor job by failing to focus on the underlying truth: Republican cheating in elections was to be masked by a smokescreen of bogus accusations of Democratic cheating. And prosecutors who put the facts and the law above the White House political agenda were sacked. The sneaky way they took out the role of the Senate in US atty appointment ought to have all 100 Senators looking for pitchforks and torches. But as a midwest congressman said 90 years ago: "Of all the cowards, no other is so cowardly as the average politician."

[johnkick]

The grass was greener.
The light was brighter.
The taste was sweeter.
The nights were warmer.

[judster43]

I would just like to say that the media controls so much of what we hear and why in the world, when we have so much more that needs to be reported are we hearing about this bs. don't be suckered into the dems spending more of our tax dollars investigating something that is obviously not a crime and start looking into oil companies. When oil prices are going down are we paying more for gas? doesn't anyone, someone, american people start demanding some investigating this? Let's go consumers, get to writing your media, politicans and put some pressure out there. We don't have to take this. I've been complaining about this for months but now it's time to jump up.

[rhs648]

Congress confirms the presidential nominees. Is congress required or entitled to approve their dismissal? I don't think so. Obviously, no administration wants all of the leftovers from a previous administration. New appointees will be selected on criterial such as their philosophy, support of the president, judicial history, etc. Once appointed, the administration will decide whether these people are still suitable based upon their performance and loyalty to the administration. When a democrat becomes president, he or she do the same thing. This is built into the system.

[johnkick]

Ice is forming on the tips of my wings.
Unheeded warnings,
I thought I thought of everything.
No navigator to find my way home.
Unladen, empty and turned to stone.