Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
LIVERWURST*

Gonzales Fires Attorneys For Political Reasons?

Recommended Posts

The whole story: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17607199/

 

WASHINGTON - Embattled Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said Wednesday it is up to President Bush whether he remains in the administration and said he wants to stay and explain to Congress the circumstances surrounding the firings of eight U.S. attorneys.

“I work for the American people and serve at the pleasure of the president,” Gonzales said. Defending himself amid an escalating political row over the replacement of a host of federal prosecutors, Gonzales said he had done a good job in the country’s top law enforcement position.

 

...

 

The firestorm of criticism has erupted in the wake of the disclosure of e-mails within the administration which showed that Gonzales’ chief of staff, Kyle Sampson, had discussed the possible firings of U.S. attorneys in early 2005 with then-White House Counsel Harriet Miers.

Gonzales accepted Sampson’s resignation this week; Miers had left the administration earlier this year.

 

...

 

As for the firings, Bartlett said White House officials had heard complaints from members of Congress regarding prosecutors and Bush had raised the subject during an October 2006 meeting with Gonzales. He described the exchange as “offhand” and said Bush did not name any specific prosecutors but did identify their states.

“This briefly came up and the president said, ‘I’ve been hearing about this election fraud issue from members of Congress and want to be sure you’re on top of it as well,’” Bartlett said.

Bartlett said that Gonzales had responded, “I know, and we’re looking at those issues.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

now this is a story. i saw a few minutes of olbermann last night and he was showing gonzalez sayi gthis crap. it's ridiculous. how much longer will the people of the united states stand for this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
now this is a story. i saw a few minutes of olbermann last night and he was showing gonzalez sayi gthis crap. it's ridiculous. how much longer will the people of the united states stand for this?

 

As long as underlings keep giving themselves up, people will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1597085,00.html

 

Here are the three main firing issues to come out thus far...

 

Though Attorney General Alberto Gonzales insisted to Congress that "I would never, ever make a change in a U.S. attorney position for political reasons," critics were outraged at the December dismissals, among them the firing of an Arkansas U.S. attorney to make way for Timothy Griffin, a prot�g� of White House political guru Karl Rove. The outcry forced Griffin to withdraw. Gonzales' top deputy later claimed the firings were necessary because of "performance-related" issues. But it was later revealed that all but two of the dismissed prosecutors had won outstanding evaluations for competence.

 

 

.....

 

 

One of the fired prosecutors, David Iglesias of New Mexico, testified that he felt "leaned on" by Sen. Pete Domenici over a case he was pursuing. Iglesias said the New Mexico Republican and former mentor hung up on him after learning Iglesias would not seek indictments in a criminal investigation of Democrats before the 2006 election. "He said, 'Are these going to be filed before November?'" Iglesias recalled. "I said I didn't think so... to which he replied, 'I'm very sorry to hear that.' And then the line went dead."I had a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach," Iglesias testified. "Six weeks later I got the call that I had to move on." The ousted prosecutor also said that Heather Wilson, a Republican House member from New Mexico, had called him about the same issue.

 

 

.....

 

 

Yet another sacked U.S. attorney, John McKay of Seattle, declared that a top aide to Rep. Doc Hastings, the former Republican chairman of the House Ethics Committee, had called him to ask detailed questions about a politically charged investigation McKay was conducting into the disputed 2004 election of Washington state's Democratic Gov. Christine Gregoire. Hastings and his aide have denied the allegation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
it's ridiculous. how much longer will the people of the united states stand for this?

 

think about how many scandals there have been in your life alone at the top levels. then factor in the expansive media permeation since the late 80's/early 90's and splash scandals all over the tube and on every newspaper (and now across the net) on a routine basis...

scandals are so woven into the fabric that it's just a big disconnect like you're watching a show on tv.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if i was an alien looking down on earth and peeping this shit i'd think the scandals were pre-rigged or something. walter reed was a pretty big deal, with some core issues, but it's pretty much gone. before that it was libby...gone. before that? who knows. next week it will be something else...just keep the momentum focused on a very narrowly defined debate parameter and spin the fuck out of it with lightweight opinion and partison bickering until the next one...then do it all over again until the one after that...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really.

 

I agree that the media tends toward the horse race and the hysterical. However the constant headlines this administration produces has nothing to do with either.

 

Chenney had a meeting behind close doors for energy execs - benefiting whom? The Patriot Act (with its ridiculous clauses) is passed undermining core elements of the constitution - who benefits? The Iraq war was founded on fabricated documents - benefiting whom? Haliburton receives non-competitive contracts - benefiting whom? Elections laws are upheld/passed which deny paper trails are upheld as multiple election scandals break out in key states - who benefits? Scooter Libby was found guilty of lying - LIES benefiting whom? US attorneys (who are appointed politically, but sworn to the legal process and objective judgment) are fired for not acting on the bequest of the White House - who benefits? What signal was sent to the Attorneys who remained?

 

These are real things, not soap operas - it is the politicians and the "we" they represent that allows it to happen day to day.

 

I will partisan bicker you with my fist if it means the above stories wouldn't happen. Who was it that said " You Can't Be Neutral on a Moving Train "? If a scandal breaks out every week that is based in fact and not about a blow job, than we are simply living in a corrupt time - not that we should be apposed to the reporting that informs us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not really.

 

I agree that the media tends toward the horse race and the hysterical. However the constant headlines this administration produces has nothing to do with either.

 

Chenney had a meeting behind close doors for energy execs - benefiting whom? The Patriot Act (with its ridiculous clauses) is passed undermining core elements of the constitution - who benefits? The Iraq war was founded on fabricated documents - benefiting whom? Haliburton receives non-competitive contracts - benefiting whom? Elections laws are upheld/passed which deny paper trails are upheld as multiple election scandals break out in key states - who benefits? Scooter Libby was found guilty of lying - LIES benefiting whom? US attorneys (who are appointed politically, but sworn to the legal process and objective judgment) are fired for not acting on the bequest of the White House - who benefits? What signal was sent to the Attorneys who remained?

 

These are real things, not soap operas - it is the politicians and the "we" they represent that allows it to happen day to day.

 

I will partisan bicker you with my fist if it means the above stories wouldn't happen. Who was it that said " You Can't Be Neutral on a Moving Train "? If a scandal breaks out every week that is based in fact and not about a blow job, than we are simply living in a corrupt time - not that we should be apposed to the reporting that informs us.

 

well, think about how many scandals our parents saw. (this goes for the 25 and up crowd). think about how many scandals their parents saw. it goes on and on, but the u.s. is becoming more and more passive as time goes on. larry does have a point.

 

to quote that rage against the amchine song "how long? not long. 'cause what you reap is what you sew."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
These are real things, not soap operas - it is the politicians and the "we" they represent that allows it to happen day to day.

 

exactly, now reread my reply to what casek wrote. everything you said is perfectly true, however the point i was trying to make was that the general populace is so accustomed/bombarded with scandals from the absurd to scandals that should be causing riots that 'life' outside of your own bubble has become a massive spectacle of overwhelming proportions...it's year in year out, over and over and over again. everybody knows these guys are total scumbags, yet they still hold power with reckless abandon. the average american has either little time to devote to grassroots activism, they simply don't care, are lazy, or their spirit is crushed by the onslaught of helpless indifference brought on by a highly cynical, ironic, diabolical culture that engulfes them 24-7.

it takes alot of commitment, time and energy to battle corrupt power, more than most people can muster while they work 40+hrs/week, raise kids, stay in shape, have hobbies and pursue 'happiness' and dreams. for good or for bad, that's the general reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

back on track...

 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-03-20-460663543_x.htm

 

WASHINGTON — Six of the eight U.S. attorneys fired by the Justice Department ranked in the top third among their peers for the number of prosecutions filed last year, according to an analysis of federal records.

In addition, five of the eight were among the government's top performers in winning convictions.

 

The analysis undercuts Justice Department claims that the prosecutors were dismissed because of lackluster job performance. Democrats contend the firings were politically motivated, and calls are increasing for the resignation or ouster of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

 

Immigration cases -- a top Bush administration priority, especially in states along the porous Southwest border -- helped boost the total number of prosecutions for U.S. attorneys in Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, San Diego, San Francisco and Seattle.

 

Four of the prosecutors also rated high in pursuing drug cases, according to Justice Department data analyzed by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University. Only one of the eight received a better-than-average ranking in prosecuting weapons cases.

 

Several of the attorneys who were told last Dec. 7 to resign complained their reputations were sullied when the Justice Department linked the firings to underwhelming results in each of the eight districts -- in Arizona, Little Rock, Ark., Grand Rapids, Mich., Nevada, New Mexico, San Diego, San Francisco and Seattle.

 

"I respectfully request that you reconsider the rationale of poor performance as the basis for my dismissal," Margaret Chiara, the former prosecutor in Grand Rapids, Mich., complained in an e-mail. The description, in part, she said, "is proving to be a formidable obstacle to securing employment."

 

Top Justice aide Michael Elston wrote back that "our only choice is to continue to be truthful about this entire matter."

 

"The word performance obviously has not set well with you and your colleagues," wrote Elston, chief of staff to Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty. "By that word we only meant to convey that there were issues about policy, priorities and management/leadership that we felt were important to the Department's effectiveness."

 

The data on prosecutions and convictions, provided to TRAC by the Justice Department's executive office that oversees U.S. attorneys, indicates the majority of the fired prosecutors were hardly slackers.

 

They show:

 

_Except for Chiara and Bud Cummins in Little Rock, the group ranked in the top third among the nation's 93 U.S. attorneys in contributing to an overall 106,188 federal prosecutions filed last year.

 

_Of those six, all but Kevin Ryan in San Francisco also scored among the top third in winning a collective 98,939 convictions.

 

_Three districts -- Arizona, New Mexico and San Diego -- were among the five highest in number of immigration prosecutions. Given their proximity to the Mexican border, the results come as little surprise. The Justice Department, however, attributed former San Diego prosecutor Carol Lam's firing in part to lagging immigration prosecutions and convictions.

 

The TRAC data confirm immigration prosecutions in San Diego dropped from 2,243 in 2002 to 1,715 in 2006. Meanwhile, convictions dropped from 1,763 to 1,449 over the five-year period Lam led the office.

 

_In drug prosecutions, Arizona, New Mexico, San Diego and Seattle were ranked among in the 20 highest number of cases brought. Only Little Rock fell into the bottom third among all 93 U.S. attorneys' offices.

 

_Seven of the eight districts received mediocre rankings in weapons prosecutions. The exception was Arizona, which prosecuted 199 of the nation's 9,313 weapons cases -- the tenth highest in the country.

 

_None of the eight districts ranked particularly high in bringing terrorism or public corruption cases.

 

Justice spokesman Brian Roehrkasse attributed the high number of prosecutions and convictions in the border states to immigration cases that inflated overall statistics there. He called the number of immigration convictions last year "the highest ever."

 

Justice officials have cited poor management skills, insubordination and, in Cummins' case in Little Rock, political favoritism for replacements as other factors that led to the firings.

 

That underscores another apparent consideration in the dismissals: loyalty to the Bush administration, said former Justice Department inspector general Michael Bromwich.

 

"The notion that the rug can be pulled out from under them because they may not toe the line on death penalty issues or their immigration prosecution statistics may not be high enough really undermines the system of independent U.S. attorneys," said Bromwich, inspector general during the Clinton administration and now a partner in Washington law firm Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver and Jacobson.

 

An estimated 3,000 pages of e-mails and other Justice Department documents released this week indicate anew that the White House was eager to bring in new blood to the politically appointed prosecutors' posts.

 

"Administration has determined to ask some underperforming USAs to move on," wrote Kyle Sampson, Gonzales' former chief of staff, in a Dec. 5, 2006, e-mail to Associate Attorney General Bill Mercer. The term "USAs" is shorthand for U.S. attorneys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Register for a 12ozProphet forum account or sign in to comment

You need to be a forum member in order to comment. Forum accounts are separate from shop accounts.

Create an account

Register to become a 12ozProphet forum member.

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×