Gonzales to resign

MJMANDALAY

Registered User
Jan 26, 2005
13,145
1
0
#2
Word is Bush is picking a Jersey native to fill the spot.
























One Glenn Dandy I hear
 

krisko

Mrs. Fuckin Funny
Jul 29, 2005
28,300
1
191
Cupcake Capital, USA
#3
anyone surprised about this? Bush's people are dropping like flies, i'm actually surprised it took this long for him to resign. If the atty general were a hispanic democrat and had some judges canned would everyone be calling for his resignation? or would they say that he's a strong brave man who did what he had to do and is a great role model for mexicans everywhere. this is why i have ulcers :arrrh:
 

seeinred

White Death
Apr 29, 2007
13,713
0
196
Sterling Heights, MI
#4
anyone surprised about this? Bush's people are dropping like flies, i'm actually surprised it took this long for him to resign. If the atty general were a hispanic democrat and had some judges canned would everyone be calling for his resignation? or would they say that he's a strong brave man who did what he had to do and is a great role model for mexicans everywhere. this is why i have ulcers :arrrh:
Well of course that's what they'd say. Double standards FTL eh?
 

Sinn Fein

Infidel and White Interloper
Wackbag Staff
Aug 29, 2002
31,567
2,219
898
Florida's Nature Coast
#5
anyone surprised about this? Bush's people are dropping like flies, i'm actually surprised it took this long for him to resign. If the atty general were a hispanic democrat and had some judges canned would everyone be calling for his resignation? or would they say that he's a strong brave man who did what he had to do and is a great role model for mexicans everywhere. this is why i have ulcers :arrrh:
Exactly.
 
Jun 30, 2005
10,834
2,033
681
outsiddah Boston
#6
i just like to read cnn's report and then fox news' report and locate the middle ground...Fox news plays it out like he is a superbowl quaterback that blew out his knee, and could keep playing but the coach decides it's best if he retires...jeez...
 

TrybalRage

Registered User
Aug 5, 2004
2,035
2
533
Kennesaw, GA
#7
As a card-carrying republican and 2 time Bush voter, I hated this fucking guy and I'm glad he's gone.
 

TheDrip

I'm bi-winning.
Jan 9, 2006
5,051
3
228
#8
As a card-carrying republican and 2 time Bush voter, I hated this fucking guy and I'm glad he's gone.
QFT!!


About the 'if he was a democrat'. Well, if he tried to pull all the same shit that he pulled, you could rest assured that there would be people calling for his head. Remember, hatred of him actually crossed party lines. Gonzales clearly showed he couldn't give a rat's ass about civil liberties or the Constitution. What's even more scary is knowing that at one point Bush was thinking Supreme Court for this jackoff.
 

krisko

Mrs. Fuckin Funny
Jul 29, 2005
28,300
1
191
Cupcake Capital, USA
#9
QFT!!


About the 'if he was a democrat'. Well, if he tried to pull all the same shit that he pulled, you could rest assured that there would be people calling for his head. Remember, hatred of him actually crossed party lines. Gonzales clearly showed he couldn't give a rat's ass about civil liberties or the Constitution. What's even more scary is knowing that at one point Bush was thinking Supreme Court for this jackoff.
i'm not saying he's the bees knees i'm just saying that if his party was switched there wouldn't be such an outcy, and if there was the people that were calling for his firing would be racists who are just trying to keep minorities down
 

Razor Roman

Save the USH!
Aug 27, 2002
10,393
0
366
Sayreville NJ
#10
i'm not saying he's the bees knees i'm just saying that if his party was switched there wouldn't be such an outcy, and if there was the people that were calling for his firing would be racists who are just trying to keep minorities down
:clap::yclap::love::love::love::love::love::love2:
 

Kris_LTRMa

LoseTheRadio.net's Ma
Nov 17, 2006
9,749
1
333
right where I wanna be
#14
And who will take his place? Michael Chertoff. So not like it's getting any better.

Be afraid .... be very afraid .... but wait, does Chertoff has a juris doctorate (law degree??)

The Democrats are all up in arms over Bush's firing of the U.S. attorneys, but where was the Republican outrage over Clinto firing all 93 U.S. attorneys in March of 1993? Clinton claimed that each administration "routinely replaces" the U.S. attorneys

If that's the case, where's the problem with Bush firing the ones he fired? Think about when this "investigation" began and you'll see that it was nothing more than a Democratic ploy to garner votes during an election year.
 
#15
Be afraid .... be very afraid .... but wait, does Chertoff has a juris doctorate (law degree??)

The Democrats are all up in arms over Bush's firing of the U.S. attorneys, but where was the Republican outrage over Clinto firing all 93 U.S. attorneys in March of 1993? Clinton claimed that each administration "routinely replaces" the U.S. attorneys

If that's the case, where's the problem with Bush firing the ones he fired? Think about when this "investigation" began and you'll see that it was nothing more than a Democratic ploy to garner votes during an election year.
First of all the dismissal of the attorneys is well within the jurisdiction of the AG to do. As with all things like this the issue is why. Several of these attorneys were in investigations that yielded convictions of high profile figures like Duke Cunningham. The case has also been made that some of these attorneys were being pressured to go after political opponents and with their refusal they were dismissed.


At a glance in a Wiki article this sums up one issue.

Prior to the 2006 midterms Senator Pete Domenici called to ask about the progress of an investigation, New Mexico U.S. attorney David Iglesias said he felt this inquiry was trying to "pressure" him to speed up indictments in a federal corruption investigation that involved at least one former Democratic state senator. When Iglesias said an indictment wouldn't be handed down until at least December, "the line went dead." Iglesias was fired one month after the election by the Bush Administration as part of the Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy. Also in October, Representative Heather Wilson called about the indictments in a federal corruption investigation that involved at least one former Democratic state Senator.

Allen Weh, chairman of the New Mexico Republican Party, said said he complained in 2005 about then-U.S. Attorney David Iglesias to a White House aid for Rove, asking that Iglesias be removed.[6] Then in 2006 Rove personally told Weh “He’s gone,” Rove said



You see the act in itself one does, as seen time and time again in history may be perfectly fine and legal. The situations and circumstances surrounding them are what leads to the issues.

The second issue is after many of these attorneys were dismissed they were then made out to be derelict in the public forum. Like David Iglesias. Who received a high performance rating just prior.

If any of these attorneys were dismissed due to their paths through investigations that would later yield possible convictions of administration officials or associates then it is a serious indictment. If any of them were removed due to their refusal to be used to go after political opponents then that is against the law.

The Department of Justice is designed to remain at a certain distance from the day to day political posturing. Politicizing the Department of Justice is a serious matter.
 

TrybalRage

Registered User
Aug 5, 2004
2,035
2
533
Kennesaw, GA
#16
I just hate him because of his stance on assault weapons.

Enforce the law asshole, keep your fucking opinions to yourself.
 

Kris_LTRMa

LoseTheRadio.net's Ma
Nov 17, 2006
9,749
1
333
right where I wanna be
#17
First of all the dismissal of the attorneys is well within the jurisdiction of the AG to do. As with all things like this the issue is why. Several of these attorneys were in investigations that yielded convictions of high profile figures like Duke Cunningham. The case has also been made that some of these attorneys were being pressured to go after political opponents and with their refusal they were dismissed.


At a glance in a Wiki article this sums up one issue.

Prior to the 2006 midterms Senator Pete Domenici called to ask about the progress of an investigation, New Mexico U.S. attorney David Iglesias said he felt this inquiry was trying to "pressure" him to speed up indictments in a federal corruption investigation that involved at least one former Democratic state senator. When Iglesias said an indictment wouldn't be handed down until at least December, "the line went dead." Iglesias was fired one month after the election by the Bush Administration as part of the Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy. Also in October, Representative Heather Wilson called about the indictments in a federal corruption investigation that involved at least one former Democratic state Senator.

Allen Weh, chairman of the New Mexico Republican Party, said said he complained in 2005 about then-U.S. Attorney David Iglesias to a White House aid for Rove, asking that Iglesias be removed.[6] Then in 2006 Rove personally told Weh “He’s gone,” Rove said



You see the act in itself one does, as seen time and time again in history may be perfectly fine and legal. The situations and circumstances surrounding them are what leads to the issues.

The second issue is after many of these attorneys were dismissed they were then made out to be derelict in the public forum. Like David Iglesias. Who received a high performance rating just prior.

If any of these attorneys were dismissed due to their paths through investigations that would later yield possible convictions of administration officials or associates then it is a serious indictment. If any of them were removed due to their refusal to be used to go after political opponents then that is against the law.

The Department of Justice is designed to remain at a certain distance from the day to day political posturing. Politicizing the Department of Justice is a serious matter.
I agree to a point ... going back to Clinton (who I voted for - twice) ... according to what I read and what I remember hearing on tv, his dismissal of the 93 attorneys, replacing them with his own people, was actually unprecedented. Each administration does replace some of the attorneys, but the entire staff? And for what reason?

Hilary is claiming that Bush was trying to politicize the US Attorney's office, but didn't her husband do that as well by putting all of his people in there?

Or am I missing something?