jfuh
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2005
- Messages
- 16,631
- Reaction score
- 1,227
- Location
- Pacific Rim
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
SourceThe former chief of staff to Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales testified today that contrary to Mr. Gonzales’s earlier assertions, the attorney general was involved in discussions to fire United States attorneys.
“I don’t think the attorney general’s statement that he was not involved in any discussions about U.S. attorney removals is accurate,” the former Gonzales aide, D. Kyle Sampson, said under questioning at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing.
“I don’t think it’s accurate,” Mr. Sampson repeated under questioning by Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the panel’s ranking Republican. “I think he’s recently clarified it. But I remember discussing with him this process of asking certain U.S. attorneys to resign, and I believe that he was present at the meeting on Nov. 27.”
Who cares, no law was broken..........Why can't we talk about important things like SS and medicare?
Yeah important things like anonymous postings on a message board wishing ill will towards Tony Snow!
No law was broken there either my friend it was just rather tacky by people on the left.......
Did you see my comment on James Webb on the other thread?
I almost hope, for your sanity, that someone goes to jail. You would sure sleep better. But alas, it's not going to happen.If this is true, then that would mean that Gonzales would be guilty of of perjury in his statement in Jan.
Perjury is a felony. Or have you forgotten?Who cares, no law was broken..........Why can't we talk about important things like SS and medicare?
How kind of you to be so considerate. Yes indeed I would sleep better if all these two face corrupt politicians were locked up in jail.I almost hope, for your sanity, that someone goes to jail. You would sure sleep better. But alas, it's not going to happen.
Keep wishing.How kind of you to be so considerate. Yes indeed I would sleep better if all these two face corrupt politicians were locked up in jail.
Perjury is a felony, have you forgotten?
Source
If this is true, then that would mean that Gonzales would be guilty of of perjury in his statement in Jan.
How kind of you to be so considerate. Yes indeed I would sleep better if all these two face corrupt politicians were locked up in jail.
Perjury is a felony, have you forgotten?
I haven't forgotten. When you find some, let us know.Perjury is a felony, have you forgotten?
Who cares, no law was broken...
Was it a statement under oath?
“I don’t think it’s entirely accurate, what he said,” Mr. Sampson replied. He went on to say that he did not know if the attorney general had seen dismissal-related documents, but that he was sure Mr. Gonzales was involved in discussions about the firings early on."
I heard Gonzales say he wasn't involved in the direct deliberation's as to who and why. Which is reasonable.
What is the beef here?
"In his opening remarks, Mr. Sampson, who appeared before the committee voluntarily, insisted that while the firings of eight United States attorneys had brought “confusion, misunderstanding and embarrassment” to the Justice Department, none of the eight had been dismissed for any improper reason.
Mr. Sampson portrayed the firings as a good-faith but badly handled initiative, properly conceived but “poorly explained.”"
Huh? What is the issue?
Right, there's no issue. Lying is only perjury in certain venues, correct?
During a press conference, a lie is only an inconsistency... And that type of lie is okay with you, right?
But they will press Sampson on inconsistencies between Gonzales's assertions of ignorance and documents produced by the Justice Department that show the Attorney General approved the firings and was involved in at least some of the deliberations.
Also, the firings were only over 'performance,' and though 'mistakes were made' the firings were done in 'good faith,' supposedly.
But, if that's the case, why are there so many 'inconsistencies' in the process,
like the misinformation by Gonzales regarding his part in the firings and the claim that there was no White House involvement?
When the scandal broke, Gonzales and other Justice Department officials assured lawmakers that the firings were over performance, not politics, and that the White had not been directly involved. But e-mails released this week show several White House officials to have been deeply engaged in the firing decisions.
Was it a statement under oath?
“I don’t think it’s entirely accurate, what he said,” Mr. Sampson replied. He went on to say that he did not know if the attorney general had seen dismissal-related documents, but that he was sure Mr. Gonzales was involved in discussions about the firings early on."
I heard Gonzales say he wasn't involved in the direct deliberation's as to who and why. Which is reasonable.
What is the beef here?
"In his opening remarks, Mr. Sampson, who appeared before the committee voluntarily, insisted that while the firings of eight United States attorneys had brought “confusion, misunderstanding and embarrassment” to the Justice Department, none of the eight had been dismissed for any improper reason.
Mr. Sampson portrayed the firings as a good-faith but badly handled initiative, properly conceived but “poorly explained.”"
Huh? What is the issue?
DUH, so what? They can fire them for whatever reason they choose, it's none of Congresses business and they have no business trying to interfer with Bush running policy matters of the WH as he was elected to do.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0315/p01s02-uspo.html?page=2
First, I was just yanking your chain with my commentary, but it was done endearingly (not maliciously).
Second, yes, I saw your Webb comment.
After watching Schumer and the Democrats today that lady is doing the right thing taking the 5th...Let them eat cake.....
You've hit on the important point. Since the White House can fire those attorneys for whatever reason they choose, what's with all the inconsistencies and mistakes and denial?
Like, why deny Karl Rove was involved?
Sampson testified today that Gonzales's statements regarding his involvement were not true. Why was Gonzales denying his part?
Never said they were the most competent when it came to fending off the Democrat attacks.]
You know what? Alberto Gonzales is history. He's gone. He could have avoided that by being open and straightforward at his press conference, but he chose to be cocky and arrogant. That was another mistake he made. He's the President's man, but all of them answer to us and our representatives.
I know, as she would definitely incriminate herself. I believe Alberto Gonzales may be stepping down.
I agree. This Administration thinks it does not have to answer to anyone. It's absolutely appalling. I love it when what goes around, comes around.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?