Comments (31)

ed mcclendon wrote on January 17, 2007 12:36 PM:

Our Attorney General continues to shred the Constitution, to lie, to further the corrupt legal aims of the Neo Con GOP, and to ruthlessly rule in favor of any illegal process Bush and Cheney choose to abuse their positions. This nation is led by a political Mafia, fully as terrorizing as all the Mid-East nightmares Bush has created. Bush and Cheney must be charged with treason, there is no other way in which to clean-out all the rot.

Anonymous wrote on January 17, 2007 12:41 PM:

Might the Attorney General care to explain his department's actions instead of issuing denials? That would probably be asking too much.

BW wrote on January 17, 2007 12:48 PM:

Sounds familiar

Bush removal ended Guam investigation
US attorney's demotion halted probe of lobbyist
Boston Globe August 8, 2005
http://tinyurl.com/b76k6

MNSpectator wrote on January 17, 2007 12:53 PM:

"In his AP interview, Gonzales explained his expanded powers were necessary because federal judges -- who previously had appointed replacement U.S. attorneys -- were susceptible to cronyism and might appoint unqualified candidates."

Was he smirking as he said that? "Susceptible to cronyism"... Good God... talk about "projection"...

Dana Curtis Kincaid wrote on January 17, 2007 1:05 PM:

"In his AP interview, Gonzales explained his expanded powers were necessary because federal judges -- who previously had appointed replacement U.S. attorneys -- were susceptible to cronyism and might appoint unqualified candidates."

So, Mr. Gonzales is blind to the fact, FACT, sir, that Mr. Bush routinely advances corrupt, unqualified, incompetent LOSERS to all sort of positions? Hell of a job, Shrubbius.

It is a weak, decidedly incompetent man who supposedly runs the Executive Branch at this moment in history, Mr. Gonzales. May I suggest, if you want to change the Patriot Act again, that we insert a little known, seldom used emergency measure to allow CONGRESS to appoint a new President without any input, notice or feedback to or from the other two branches of Government in case of manifest and obvious incompetence?

Who are you, Mr. Gonzales, but a warped, frustrated little man who serves at the pleasure of an idiot?

Resign, Mr. Bush, and take this loser and Condi with you!

doug wrote on January 17, 2007 1:05 PM:

Me thinks they are preparing to send "domestic terror" cases to tribunals....as in military

CroniesActivistsPartisans_Oh_My wrote on January 17, 2007 1:10 PM:

Please carefully understand the AG's position. You apparently didn't get the full impact of his DOJ Jedi mind trick:

Cronies and activists are those who presume they might have power to oppose your position, for whatever technical reason, to hamper your agenda, and may be making progress investigating your so called misunderstood misdeeds.

Qualified professionals are those who work to obstruct or undermine your opponents, who investigate without finding wrongdoing by the administration, and who successfully repress or mollify the unholy rabble who just doesn't understand the value of and necessity of this sort of leadership, and perhaps never will. We don't need to have any of that red tape from requiring any silly Senatorial approval or the embarassment of oversight.

There also seems to be an implication that anyone who says otherwise is a godless, partisan hack out to undermine our selfless, never-ending, ever-vigilant efforts to halt terrorism in all its insidious forms, and to ensure massive contracts to true red-blooded American-friendly corporate allies are given, and paid in full, with bonuses, in accomplishing those ends.

eric wrote on January 17, 2007 1:10 PM:

Once again, I am struck by how truly dangerous Gonzales is.

Anonymous wrote on January 17, 2007 1:17 PM:

"Qualified professionals are those who work to obstruct or undermine your opponents, who investigate without finding wrongdoing by the administration, and who successfully repress or mollify the unholy rabble who just doesn't understand the value of and necessity of this sort of leadership, and perhaps never will. We don't need to have any of that red tape from requiring any silly Senatorial approval or the embarassment of oversight."

Governor Tarkin: The Imperial Senate will no longer be of any concern to us. I have just received word that the Emperor has dissolved the council permanently. The last remnants of the Old Republic have been swept away.
General Tagge: But that's impossible. How will the Emperor maintain control without the bureaucracy?
Governor Tarkin: The regional governors now have direct control over their territories. Fear will keep the local systems in line. Fear of this battle station.

The Congress is just an annoyance. Why should Darth Shrubbius pay any attention to it?

mbbsdphil wrote on January 17, 2007 1:27 PM:

Mr. Bush's Attorney General, suggests that federal judges, appointed for life by their appointing president, "were susceptible to cronyism and might appoint unqualified candidates." I am speechless, except for the thought that Mr. Gonzales' Freudian slip is showing.

mbbsdphil wrote on January 17, 2007 1:31 PM:

Mr. Gonzales' testimony merits review for ethics violations by the Texas Bar. Were it not true. Mr. CheneyRove's judicial appointments might well be susceptible to cronyism and the apppointment of unqualified US Attorneys. Left unsaid, of course, is that that is truer of Mr. Gonzales' superiors than their judges.

Legalize wrote on January 17, 2007 1:54 PM:

They really do not have any regard for the rule of law. Since November when the public roundly rejected their un-Americanism, the rats have stepped up the process setting fire to the burning ship, and locking the doors behind it as they scurry away.

I can understand the rats trying to tarnish their political rivals, but I do not get why they want to tarnish THE COUNTRY in the process. Why can't they just bow out to irrelevance? Why can't W, et al just go fishing and write books like every other past administration does?

Anonymous wrote on January 17, 2007 2:00 PM:

So if the administration do not like the job done by a Congress approved candidate, they fire and replace. Isn't this slightly bypassing the Constitution? And this was approved by Congress? Maybe this administration is right in thinking that others may be unqualified.

Jukesgrrl wrote on January 17, 2007 2:04 PM:

This is without a doubt the most disturbing politically motivated legal maneuver I've ever heard of during my lifetime. It took my breath away like nothing has since the Nixon Era "Saturday Night Massacre" (and I can still remember what room I was in and what I was wearing when that happened). I applaud TPM for bringing this story to light and I intend to spend the afternoon on the phone calling my legislators to demand immediate investigation of this action along with the repeal of the Patriot Act. Mr. Gonzales is about the furthest thing from a patriot I can imagine. This is the stuff of Stalinist Russia.

Dennis wrote on January 17, 2007 2:07 PM:

"In his AP interview, Gonzales explained his expanded powers were necessary because federal judges -- who previously had appointed replacement U.S. attorneys -- were susceptible to cronyism and might appoint unqualified candidates."

Just look who's calling the kettle black. Him and Arlen Specter.

You don't have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

stevix wrote on January 17, 2007 2:12 PM:

Nobody appointed by Bush or derivatively appointed by Bush holds any credibility with me at this point. These folks have undermined our laws and traditions. They should all be re scrutinized at this point and removed with extreme prejudice. Can they impeach Gonzales?

vox clamantis in red state wrote on January 17, 2007 2:12 PM:

Don't impeach them, remove them, exile them to the dark hole they crawled out of!

vox clamantis in red state wrote on January 17, 2007 2:12 PM:

Don't impeach them, remove them, exile them to the dark hole they crawled out of!

parrot wrote on January 17, 2007 2:21 PM:

At what point did the Congress decide that it was better for the Executive decide who was more fit to serve as Federal Attorneys? These hacks are probably willing to let the Executive decide who gets promotions in the military too. It is frightening.

Old Atlantic wrote on January 17, 2007 2:23 PM:

US v. Harvard, Shleifer & Hay
unanswered questions about Bush knowledge. Did Clinton profs and Harvard withhold info from USAO Mass Assistant US Attorney Sara Bloom?

Did Bushco know that by 1998 and get the Iraq Liberation Act during the Clinton impeachment? Did Bushco use this during Bush v. Gore? Did Libby and Marc Rich use it to get the Rich pardon?

Did Pakistan use it in 1998 for their nuke test and then after 9-11 during the General Ahmed and Richard Armitage meeting? Armitage signed the 1998 PNAC letter, when the PNAC group may have known that Clinton officials were withholding info from USAO Mass investigation of Harvard's Russia grant. Is Bush trying to keep the USAO SDNY, Mass, etc. from investigating this?

See link at Old Atlantic on issues involving US v. Harvard, and possible Bush misconduct. Senate Judiciary Committee may have been involved including Senator Hatch through John Yoo, who was also a Silberman and Thomas clerk.

The above is speculation.

My security code is poison.

POD wrote on January 17, 2007 2:29 PM:

Nothing could be more tasty than using the constitution they choose to consistently ignore to remove them from office.

IMPEACH NOW. CHENEY IS ASKING FOR THIS FIGHT. GIVE IT TO HIM. OTHERWISE THIS GRAND EXPERIMENT IS OVER.

DallasNE wrote on January 17, 2007 3:20 PM:

Gonzales, with a smug look and a straignt face, "assured that "United States Attorneys never are removed, or asked or encouraged to resign, in an effort to retaliate against them or interfere with or inappropriately influence a particular investigation, criminal prosecution or civil case.""

Was that even the question asked? From reports I've seen Gonzales was acting on the behest of a Republican Congressman that didn't want this US Attorney snooping around and possibly finding incriminating evidence on him. Gonzales response was to remove that US Attorney, even though that US Attorney was highly regarded for his work.

Never trust somebody when they are being smug as you can bet that they are lying between their teeth.

sports guy wrote on January 17, 2007 3:21 PM:

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/news/story?id=2733743

even espn is covering this scandal!

Fides wrote on January 17, 2007 3:37 PM:

Yes, it's because the judges are the ones with the cronyism problem, not that Bush (*cough* Harriett Miers *cough*) administration.

Honestly, I'm beginning to wonder if this isn't an administration run secretly by Ricky Gervais, as some sort of supremely twisted parody. (I realise he's normally more subtle, but he can go a little more over the top from time to time.)

nofltwlt wrote on January 17, 2007 3:45 PM:

By now this administration knows that everyone hates their guts, and that everyone is watching them like a hawk, and that everyone will publicize every nefarious thing they do; yet they keep politicizing everything.

The little lying sack of shit! Who does he think he is kidding?

SeamusD wrote on January 17, 2007 3:59 PM:

If forcing up to ten US Attorneys, including the one in San Diego who investigated "Duke" Cunningham, to resign without cause, is not politically motivated revenge, I don't know what else it could be called. Gonzales is a lying snake, a poisonous reptile intent on disappearing our Bill of Rights, our Constitution, & our legal system with a Gestapo system of "security police" whose primary duty is to suppress dissent.

Security code "snake"

j swift wrote on January 17, 2007 4:10 PM:

"Gonzales assured that "United States Attorneys never are removed, or asked or encouraged to resign, in an effort to retaliate against them or interfere with or inappropriately influence a particular investigation, criminal prosecution or civil case."

Yeah, he is just doing it for the fun of it. (rolls eyes)

"Gonzales explained his expanded powers were necessary because federal judges -- who previously had appointed replacement U.S. attorneys -- were susceptible to cronyism and might appoint unqualified candidates."

ROFLMAO! Oh that is funny stuff Gonzo, stop it, stop it you killing me here.

Duke Santos wrote on January 17, 2007 9:02 PM:

Once again Speedy Gonzales joins Shrubbie Mc Cokespoon in using the Constitution for comfort tissue.

RR wrote on January 17, 2007 9:02 PM:

Watching this administration is like watching two small boys playing with a crystal bowl, except the little boys are Bush and Rove and the crystal bowl is the constitution. Question: Can the RICO anti-racketeering statutes be used against the Executive Office?

aaron_tx wrote on January 18, 2007 10:44 AM:

Before 2001, I was never ashamed to be from Texas. My whole life I have been proud to be from this state even if I didn't agree with those in power. I voted against GWB twice for governor but didn't mind him too much because the Texas governor is one of the least powerful state governors in the USA. I want to offer my true and heartfelt apology to the rest of the World for the moron in chief and the corrupt political junta currently in power.

paul wrote on January 18, 2007 1:38 PM:

Gonzalez's outrageous and insulting statement about the integrity of the federal judiciary is just misdirection for the lie he's telling about the previous state of the law. Federal judges didn't get to appoint replacement US attorneys unless the President refused to give a nomination for a replacement to the Senate within 120 days. So the slam at the judiciary is just cover for the fact that Bush is bypassing the constitutional requirements of advice and consent for his appointees.