Alberto Gonzales to resign..

[NameDropper]

Rumor has it Alberto Gonezales will officially resign this Friday. It is the talk of DC. Another one bites the dust.

[George Gervin's Afro]

:dramaquee :cry

[FromWayDowntown]

Rumor has it Alberto Gonezales will officially resign this Friday. It is the talk of DC. Another one bites the dust.

Bad information. Gonzalez resigned last Friday, according to reports.

Michael Chertoff is the heir apparent.

[ggoose25]

I bet Mike Nifong gets the job

[DarkReign]

They say Chirtoff (sp?) is the likely candidate.

Seems the Texas connection is running out of options.

[clambake]

Owen Wilson took the news hard.

[Holt's Cat]

Chertoff gets the nod for his hard work handling the Katrina response.

[medstudent]

Brownie bout to make a comback?

[CubanMustGo]

Here's CNN's take:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/27/gonzales/index.html

[Holt's Cat]

Brownie bout to make a comback?

Only if a scapegoat is needed.

[Holt's Cat]

Here's CNN's take:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/27/gonzales/index.html




Clay Johnson, deputy director for management at the Office of Management and Budget, would replace Chertoff, the senior administration officials said.

Johnson, a longtime friend of Bush, served as the president's chief of staff and appointments secretary when Bush was governor of Texas. He was executive director of the Bush-Cheney transition team.

Obviously qualified to head DHS.

[Holt's Cat]

01/09 can't arrive fast enough for GWB.

[CubanMustGo]

Every time someone resigns from this administration, it always makes me wonder where they are going to end up:

http://iws.ccccd.edu/Andrade/BritLitI2322/images/NEWINF.GIF

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

Look on the bright side for Gonzales... now that he's going to resign, he can figure out a way to read his own e-mails now that he doesn't have to read mine.

[ChumpDumper]

What's the line on his getting the Medal of Freedom?

[PixelPusher]

01/09 can't arrive fast enough for GWB.
01/09 can't arrive fast enough for everyone else, either.

[ChumpDumper]

I guess we'll have to wait for the blogs to tell the neocons here how to respond to this news (or newz, depending on where you think Darfur is).

[George Gervin's Afro]

What's the line on his getting the Medal of Freedom?



ooohhh... it's got to be 10-1 he's getting one../.

[CubanMustGo]

I guess we'll have to wait for the blogs to tell the neocons here how to respond to this news (or newz, depending on where you think Darfur is).

Neocon response:

http://www.ag.auburn.edu/fish/image_gallery/data/media/100/crickets.jpg

[ChumpDumper]

Well, it'll be nice putting Chertoff in a job he's actually qualified to do as well. Lord knows who is slated to take over DHS.

[Extra Stout]

Well, it'll be nice putting Chertoff in a job he's actually qualified to do as well. Lord knows who is slated to take over DHS.
As far as I can tell, the qualifications for any job in the Cabinet are: "Find a way for the Executive to do as it pleases, without it coming back to reflect badly upon officers of the Executive, much less endanger them legally."

Chertoff has shown only mediocre capability to carry this out, and in fact has found a way to make Bush look bad, even outside the auspices of trying to abet any kind of constitutionally questionable executive initiative, inasmuch as I cannot find any way that administrative failure in emergency response furthers the fortification of the Unitary Executive concept.

[ChumpDumper]

I was talking from a pure CV point of view, but your point is well taken.

[clambake]

I guess we'll have to wait for the blogs to tell the neocons here how to respond to this news (or newz, depending on where you think Darfur is).
maybe gonzo has their computers on lockdown. amazingly quiet, isn't it.

maybe they'll wait until gonzo is selected to head up the world bank.

[xrayzebra]

Just another victim of the dimm-0-crap machine. Don't like
them, destroy them. Seen it time and time again. Of course
they keep their own little screw-ups and hold them in high
esteem. Like Teddy, the swimmer, Kennedy and The whore
house madam Barny freak, I mean Frank.

And as usual all you buzzards circle overhead relishing the
feast. Leave it to the liberals, the most wonderful caring
individuals on earth to enjoy ruining a good man.

[spurster]

http://www.workingforchange.com/webgraphics/WFC/TMW061007.jpg

[ChumpDumper]

Help me out here, x -- in what way was Gonzales "good" and how did liberals "ruin" him?

[clambake]

Just another victim of the dimm-0-crap machine. Don't like
them, destroy them. Seen it time and time again. Of course
they keep their own little screw-ups and hold them in high
esteem. Like Teddy, the swimmer, Kennedy and The whore
house madam Barny freak, I mean Frank.

And as usual all you buzzards circle overhead relishing the
feast. Leave it to the liberals, the most wonderful caring
individuals on earth to enjoy ruining a good man.
you mean the "good man caved in" to the dimmocraps by becoming a quitter?

he bailed on you because he couldn't stand up to dimmocraps?

who else caved in? foley? haggard? rummy? snow? rover?

bush accepted his resignation? why?

[George Gervin's Afro]

Just another victim of the dimm-0-crap machine. Don't like
them, destroy them. Seen it time and time again. Of course
they keep their own little screw-ups and hold them in high
esteem. Like Teddy, the swimmer, Kennedy and The whore
house madam Barny freak, I mean Frank.

And as usual all you buzzards circle overhead relishing the
feast. Leave it to the liberals, the most wonderful caring
individuals on earth to enjoy ruining a good man.


he's a cut-n-runner.. coward


clarification, rather political science calss 101 for Ray

Before you go and blame all 'dimmocraps' for kennedy and Frank, you should blame the people who voted for them.. not people here on spurstalk and the rest of the democrats.

now back to the cowardly cut-n-runner gonzales..he is an embarrassment

[clambake]

So, Yoni, what do think about the "fishing expedition" now?

[ChumpDumper]

The board neocons have been total pussies since last November.

[PixelPusher]

So, Yoni, what do think about the "fishing expedition" now?
Yoni has been MIA for a while now...probably busy re-arming himself for the next "Surge of good news", or perhaps he's bravely serving his country by volunteering for the Romney campaing.

[clambake]

Yoni has been MIA for a while now...probably busy re-arming himself for the next "Surge of good news", or perhaps he's bravely serving his country by volunteering for the Romney campaing.
he's going to link us (ha ha) to a story about iraqis in a swimming pool and the overall success of democracy in baghdad.

[Wild Cobra]

Well, my take of the resignation is simply that he cannot do his job any longer. Republicans tend to do that. Stand down when they can no longer be effective. It is not a sign or weakness, or quitting, to stand down so someone who can be effective can stand up. It's a sign of charactor.

To date, nobody can show he did anything wrong. Just shows how good the left propaganda machine is.

[ChumpDumper]

But if he did nothing wrong, why can't he be effective?

[clambake]

taken down by propaganda. what a weakling. i was hoping these republicans had a backbone afterall.

beaten by their own yellowbelly?

[medstudent]

If I remember correctly, everyone on the Judiciary committee hated him. Especially Arlen Specter. Gonzalez was a fuck up and everyone knew it.

No way to spin this into liberal propaganda. It was clearly a bipartisan push.

[Wild Cobra]

But if he did nothing wrong, why can't he be effective?
Because he has to spend so much time defending himself, he cannot do his job.

I though such things were obvious?

[mrsmaalox]

Just another victim of the dimm-0-crap machine. Don't like
them, destroy them. Seen it time and time again. Of course
they keep their own little screw-ups and hold them in high
esteem. Like Teddy, the swimmer, Kennedy and The whore
house madam Barny freak, I mean Frank.

And as usual all you buzzards circle overhead relishing the
feast. Leave it to the liberals, the most wonderful caring
individuals on earth to enjoy ruining a good man.
I would appreciate hearing your own thoughts on this, but it would be nice if your examples were a little more relevent--or at least from this millenium!!!

[DarkReign]

Because he has to spend so much time defending himself, he cannot do his job.

I though such things were obvious?

I believe the official count for how many times he said "I have no recollection" during one Senate Committee interview was 78.

78 times he said, "I cant remember". 78 times.

[ChumpDumper]

Because he has to spend so much time defending himself, he cannot do his job.

I though such things were obvious?Why does he have to defend himself if he did nothing wrong? How many hours is he spending defending himself?

I can't believe he actually used up that much time since he used the same speech whenever he testified before congress.

[clambake]

as attorney general he was a joke.

remember....against the assault of laughter, nothing can stand.

[ChumpDumper]

"The reality is that your characterization of your participation is just significantly, if not totally, at variance with the facts."

-- noted Democratic propagandist Republican Senator Arlen Specter on Gonzales' testimony

[Wild Cobra]

If I remember correctly, everyone on the Judiciary committee hated him. Especially Arlen Specter.
I didn't follow those things, but if I recall correctly, Specter is a moderate to left leaning republican anyway.


Gonzalez was a fuck up and everyone knew it.
If everyone knew it, how did he get confirmed?

I see that as an unsubstatiated opinion. If you really review some of Gonzalas' court opinions as a judge, you might think otherwise.

No way to spin this into liberal propaganda. It was clearly a bipartisan push.
Yes, it was bipartisan. Republicans do push their own out when the controversy gets unmanageable. This keeps the fire going for democrats to do it over and over as well. Besides, elections are coming soon and people are afraid of being associated with those who are getting bad press coverage.

[clambake]

"The reality is that your characterization of your participation is just significantly, if not totally, at variance with the facts."

-- noted Democratic propagandist Republican Senator Arlen Specter on Gonzales' testimony

it's nicer than saying "you're a liar".

remember...Mild Coma said it was the propaganda machine, only.

[ChumpDumper]

I didn't follow those thingsAin't that the truth :lol
but if I recall correctly, Specter is a moderate to left leaning republican anyway.


Another Republican on the committee, Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.), openly questioned whether Gonzales was telling the truth about the reasons behind the firings.

"Is this really performance-based, or did these people just run afoul of personality conflicts in the office and we were trying to make up reasons to fire them because we wanted to get rid of them?" he asked.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/19/AR2007041902935_pf.html

Graham is a well-known commie.


If everyone knew it, how did he get confirmed?One rises to the level of one's incompetence. No one could predict he simply wouldn't know what was occurring in his department or lie about not knowing it.


Republicans do push their own out when the controversy gets unmanageable.What was in it for Specter? Graham?

[Jamtas#2]

Just another victim of the dimm-0-crap machine. Don't like
them, destroy them. Seen it time and time again. Of course
they keep their own little screw-ups and hold them in high
esteem. Like Teddy, the swimmer, Kennedy and The whore
house madam Barny freak, I mean Frank.

And as usual all you buzzards circle overhead relishing the
feast. Leave it to the liberals, the most wonderful caring
individuals on earth to enjoy ruining a good man.

Ray, you have provided an excellent example of the blinders that party members on this board(and in this country) wear, republican and democrats alike. When someone in your own party screws up, it is forgivable. when the other party does it, unforgivable.

[FromWayDowntown]

I see that as an unsubstatiated opinion. If you really review some of Gonzalas' court opinions as a judge, you might think otherwise.

Now that intrigues me -- what specifically about "Gonzalas' court opinions as a judge" (as opposed to court opinions as a spectator?) would make someone think that he was particularly qualified to serve as Attorney General? I sure didn't think he was.

I'll admit, though, that I'm relieved to know that we can be sure that Alberto Gonzales will never sit on the Supreme Court of the United States. I'm absolutely sure that there was nothing in his "court opinions as a judge" that demonstrated any real qualification for that job.

[Nbadan]

if you don't think the pegs are falling off this administration now there's something really, really wrong with you....


Next?


http://www.hongpong.com/files/_bagnews_images_bush-pelosi-rtca2.jpg

[xrayzebra]

Just the same old junk from the dimms. Politics of destruction
of anyone they think stops them from regaining power.

You think Gonzales got raked over the coals. Watch what happens
on the new nominee. Guess they can call in their number one
mud slinger, Larry Flynn.

Same old story. Just a new chapter.

[FromWayDowntown]

Same old story. Just a new chapter.

Chapter 1 -- The Clinton Impeachment.

[ChumpDumper]

Just the same old junk from the dimms. Politics of destruction
of anyone they think stops them from regaining power.

You think Gonzales got raked over the coals. Watch what happens
on the new nominee. Guess they can call in their number one
mud slinger, Larry Flynn.

Same old story. Just a new chapter.I don't think Gonzales got raked over the coals, he just never gave answers that were credible.

Chertoff will be asked some tough questions about Katrina, but he'll be approved.

Your whining about the politics of destruction is quaint.

[boutons_]

"Stand down when they can no longer be effective."

Holy shit! when ever was gonzo "effective" at DoJ?

Then entire DoJ has been roiled by his politicized incompetence, the Repug Congress won't even defend the mofo.

gonzo is just another chapter in the story of a totally failed Repug administration.

[Wild Cobra]

gonzo is just another chapter in the story of a totally failed Repug administration.
Yes, they are failing. How many people deny that? The republicans are straying away from their base, and they are dooming themselves if they continue along those lines.

I have no problem with those who clearly are moral deviants like Mark Foley being tossed out. I just wish the democrats would do the same to their deviants.

Anyway, there are clearly those who give republicans a bad name.

Many of those leaving try to do good work, but the hatred from the left is so relentless, that anything that can be used to discredit them, is. It is done so many times just as dirty tricks that I have a hard time believing these things have validity when they do!

Read past the headlines and one liners. Make sure you get all the appropriate information in full context. I see it rare that attacks against the republicans are valid to the point of endless inquiries, subpoenas, and the likes. The democrats abuse their powers to the point of personal destruction. Yes, some republicans do too. Neither side should. The democrats are masters at such art, and I cannot support such evil.

[ChumpDumper]

Yes, some republicans do too.:lmao :lmao :lmao

[Wild Cobra]

Chapter 1 -- The Clinton Impeachment.
I'm sorry, but that is different. President Clinton was impeached because he clearly perjured himself during the lawsuit filed by Paula Jones.

Isn't perjury a crime?

[PixelPusher]

I'm sorry, but that is different. President Clinton was impeached because he clearly perjured himself during the lawsuit filed by Paula Jones.

Isn't perjury a crime?
Only when Democrats do it, apparently. (see: Scooter Libby)

[ChumpDumper]

I'm sorry, but that is different.:lmao :lmao :lmao

[FromWayDowntown]

I'm sorry, but that is different. President Clinton was impeached because he clearly perjured himself during the lawsuit filed by Paula Jones.

Isn't perjury a crime?

My bad -- I should have just recalled the entirety of the Clinton presidency. After all, the efforts to find something on Clinton (which reached a crescendo with the Senate's refusal to convict on a charge of purjurious testimony concerning an extra-marital affair) began essentially the day after he won election in 1992. You're right, focusing just on the impeachment was wrong on my part.

[Wild Cobra]

My bad -- I should have just recalled the entirety of the Clinton presidency. After all, the efforts to find something on Clinton (which reached a crescendo with the Senate's refusal to convict on a charge of purjurious testimony concerning an extra-marital affair) began essentially the day after he won election in 1992. You're right, focusing just on the impeachment was wrong on my part.
I could care less about any government officials personal life itself as long as it doesn't interfere with their job. I specifically stated the lawsuit filed by Paula Jones. Please don't make my words mean something I didn't say. The republicans didn't have to hunt for the perjury, it came out in court!

I don't recall very much from back then, and I'm not sure where to start on it if I wanted to research it. Will you agree that the Clinton's were clearly involved in business with people who were handed jail time for illegal activities? I would say there were circumstances to investigate.

Yes, I'm sure some of the investigations were unwarranted. However, I would place good money on a bet that most were warranted, if we could ever determine the actual truth, had merit. Look at how many investigations the democrats do that do have clear simple legal explanations, yet the democrats pursue them anyway. Tit for tat doesn't work here. Look at the circumstances involved. Look at the merit of the complaints and actions. The democrats clearly abuse their powers when it comes to investigations. The republicans usually had good cause.

At least the republicans had a clear case for a proceeding that history will not record as a witch hunt. How many of the hearing are the democrats doing that are clear witch hunts?

Let's also not forget that president Clinton was found guilty of "Contempt of Court," paid a fine, and had his license to practice law suspended.

[clambake]

so, gonzo buckled under to a witch hunt? guess he never heard that "sticks and stones" thing.

[FromWayDowntown]

Tit for tat doesn't work here. Look at the circumstances involved. Look at the merit of the complaints and actions. The democrats clearly abuse their powers when it comes to investigations. The republicans usually had good cause.

Republicans = virtuous and good, acting only when there is perfect justification

Democrats = witch hunting evil, acting on whims and without any justification whatsoever

Got it.

[PixelPusher]

Republicans = virtuous and good, acting only when there is perfect justification

Democrats = witch hunting evil, acting on whims and without any justification whatsoever

Got it.
The intended sarcasm will go over his head. He actually believes that.

[medstudent]

yeah I think politicizing the DOJ when justice is supposed to be blind is doing a great job. Thats the best interests of the country. Going to a sick AG's hospital room trying to get him to sign something that he normally wouldn't.

[Ocotillo]

Well, it'll be nice putting Chertoff in a job he's actually qualified to do as well. Lord knows who is slated to take over DHS.

Hmmmm, if Ralph Lopez wants to switch parties, seeing how he is a Texan he could fit right in with the crew up there. :lol

[ggoose25]

Republicans = virtuous and good, acting only when there is perfect justification

Democrats = witch hunting evil, acting on whims and without any justification whatsoever

Got it.

:lmao

WC pulled the same shit with me when I argued the precedent of a Republican filibuster for a Supreme Court nomination.

OH but that one didnt count cause it was completely justified and the Democrats were just being evil.

[FromWayDowntown]

In actual news, there are apparently some reports that the vacancy might be filled by Paul Clement, who was the Solicitor General when he awoke this morning and will go to sleep as the Acting Attorney General. The WH could avoid the nuisance of a confirmation battle by simply allowing General Clement to remain the Acting AG without ever making a nomination and allowing his deputy, Greg Garre, to become Acting SG for the remainder of the President's term of office.

I would imagine that there will actually be a nomination at some point, but it wouldn't surprise me if the nominee is General Clement, who is less likely to bring the sort of political opposition that Michael Chertoff might. General Clement is a definite partisan and is probably the actual legal architect of most of the Administration's recent legal posturing, but has the benefit of being far less well-known and, thus, less likely to draw significant opposition fire. Plus, General Clement, who regularly argues before the Supreme Court, would have the same sorts of advantages that Chief Justice Roberts had when pressed hard by the Judiciary Committee during the hearings on his nomination.

[Ocotillo]

That would seem quite possible for this administration. I thought with Congress in recess the White House would offer up a recess appointment to avoid an ugly confirmation hearing but allowing Clement to serve as acting-AG also avoids the confirmation hearing.

Speculation is the Fredo was fired. I don't buy that. I think the White House wanted to hang on to him until '09 to protect the White House from investigations that the Justice Department would be responsible for.

FWD do you think Clement would be partisan in the role or conduct himself in an independent manner.

[Ocotillo]

I came across this about Clement........ (http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1073944820670)


"I felt he did an excellent job," Dunham says. "He can make the unreasonable sound reasonable."

Sounds like the kind of guy they need about this time.

[FromWayDowntown]

That would seem quite possible for this administration. I thought with Congress in recess the White House would offer up a recess appointment to avoid an ugly confirmation hearing but allowing Clement to serve as acting-AG also avoids the confirmation hearing.

Speculation is the Fredo was fired. I don't buy that. I think the White House wanted to hang on to him until '09 to protect the White House from investigations that the Justice Department would be responsible for.

FWD do you think Clement would be partisan in the role or conduct himself in an independent manner.

From what I read, I would think that General Clement is a much, much smarter version of Al Gonzales. He's unabashedly a Bush believer and has played a role in formulating the legal strategies employed to defend the Administration's policies -- I'd think that if General Clement were to become AG, his role in policy-making would become more pronounced, and, at the same time, the Administration's legal policies might become more difficult to contest.

[Holt's Cat]

Putting Chertoff up for another Congressional confirmation at this point would be like trying to put out a fire with gasoline for this administration. Bush would be well served to stick with the relative nobody Clement for the remainder of his term.

[George Gervin's Afro]

[QUOTE]Yes, I'm sure some of the investigations were unwarranted. However, I would place good money on a bet that most were warranted, if we could ever determine the actual truth, had merit.


Yes. I would love to find out why Bush and his surrogates knowingly pushed 'questionable and un-verifiable' intelligence information to justify the rush into Iraq. If we could only get the truth.



Look at how many investigations the democrats do that do have clear simple legal explanations, yet the democrats pursue them anyway.

I see so people who aren't truthful to Congress get a pass but lying under oath in a civil proceeding is an impeachable offense.



Tit for tat doesn't work here. Look at the circumstances involved. Look at the merit of the complaints and actions. The democrats clearly abuse their powers when it comes to investigations.

The clinton's were investigated from the day they took office. I am not sure if you have ever been involved with investigative work but it's amazing that the GOP Congress felt the need to start right away. The democrats in turn have been in the majority for 8 months and accoprding to you they have abused the power to investigate when the GOP congress ok'd it for 8 yrs?


The republicans usually had good cause.

If Clinton would not have perjured himself the 8 yrs would have been for naught.. but it's the dems who have abused the power..




At least the republicans had a clear case for a proceeding that history will not record as a witch hunt. How many of the hearing are the democrats doing that are clear witch hunts?

Ken Starr is a republican hack.. history will show that. But in all fairness the GOP didn't and won't invetigate itself (see mark Foley)



Let's also not forget that president Clinton was found guilty of "Contempt of Court," paid a fine, and had his license to practice law suspended.[/QUOTE

[xrayzebra]

yeah I think politicizing the DOJ when justice is supposed to be blind is doing a great job. Thats the best interests of the country. Going to a sick AG's hospital room trying to get him to sign something that he normally wouldn't.


DOJ being politicized! You got to be kidding. Clinton
fired everyone of the Federal Prosecutors and no one
blinked an eye. Al fired eight and you would think some
crime was committed. Of course most of you Dimms do
think that the case. No crime has been committed. The
hearing is for one purpose only. Trying to get someone
to mis-state something so they can be tried for
perjury. Ring a bell.

Federal prosecutors serve at the will of the President. He
can fire them anytime he feels like it, for any reason.

As I have said twice already, the dimm-o-craps are
just doing their normal thing. Politics of personal
destruction.

Can anyone tell me what crime they have uncovered
yet? Come on big mouths tell me just one they have
found with their hearing on the firings.

[smeagol]

Republican support on this board has dwindled down to Xray , the newbie WC and very seldomly, 101A.

Yoni = MIA

Gtown = making a pink ass of himself

vashner = who?

AHF = he is still bitching about Pop or about the refs in some old Bball game

On the other hand, Dems and liberals have flourished.

[FromWayDowntown]

Can anyone tell me what crime they have uncovered yet? Come on big mouths tell me just one they have found with their hearing on the firings.

Um, they found enough that Alberto Gonzales was essentially forced to resign. If there wasn't a real problem with the manner in which DOJ has operated under Gonzales, I'm quite certain that there wouldn't have been a resignation.

And as others have pointed out in this thread, it wasn't just Democrats in Congress that have come to the conclusion that there were major problems with Gonzales' oversight of DOJ; several Republicans (who must also be engaging in the politics of personal destruction, right?) have also reached the same conclusion and expressed those concerns publicly. But you're right, xray -- it's probably better to ignore that fact and pretend that it's just Democrats. Makes for better political vitriol.

Oh, wait, I forgot -- Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity have been expounding on how Al Gonzales is just a great man and a wonderful human being and that no reasonable person could survive the sort of hate mongering that the Democrats in Congress have been serving up. That's right -- Gonzales is just an innnocent victim in all of this. My bad. I'll try to keep up with the prevailing GOP spin before posting next time.

[Holt's Cat]

The problem with Gonzales is that he excelled at creating issues out of non-issues.

[George Gervin's Afro]

DOJ being politicized! You got to be kidding. Clinton
fired everyone of the Federal Prosecutors and no one
blinked an eye. Al fired eight and you would think some
crime was committed. Of course most of you Dimms do
think that the case. No crime has been committed. The
hearing is for one purpose only. Trying to get someone
to mis-state something so they can be tried for
perjury. Ring a bell.

Federal prosecutors serve at the will of the President. He
can fire them anytime he feels like it, for any reason.

As I have said twice already, the dimm-o-craps are
just doing their normal thing. Politics of personal
destruction.

Can anyone tell me what crime they have uncovered
yet? Come on big mouths tell me just one they have
found with their hearing on the firings.



ray it took Ken Starr 6 yrs to finally stumble iunto something on Slick Willy..will you give the dems more than 8 months?

[Oh, Gee!!]

Why would Rush lie to Xray? He's just a kindly old man minding his own business. Why would Rush do that to him?

[George Gervin's Afro]

Why would Rush lie to Xray? He's just a kindly old man minding his own business. Why would Rush do that to him?


well hush is 98% accurate..his own research company says so.. :rolleyes

[xrayzebra]

Um, they found enough that Alberto Gonzales was essentially forced to resign. If there wasn't a real problem with the manner in which DOJ has operated under Gonzales, I'm quite certain that there wouldn't have been a resignation.


ray it took Ken Starr 6 yrs to finally stumble iunto something on Slick Willy..will you give the dems more than 8 months?

Cant think of any crime so you come up with these lame
statements.


well hush is 98% accurate..his own research company says so..

More than most MSM can say. And it isn't his "own"
research company.

You are thinking of the guru of the dimms global warming
crowd. Al Gore who sells himself carbon credits.

[clambake]

Al Gore should resign.

[smeagol]

You guys are too much for ray to handle.

[Oh, Gee!!]

another deep thought from WC:

Bush roolz, Hillary droolz!!

[xrayzebra]

You guys are too much for ray to handle.

No I am too much for them to handle. But then I wouldn't
want their hands on me...........

But then, they know they are wrong and I am right. So
I am quite content.

Hey smeagol, you gonna turn into boutons and bold stuff
now?
:lol

[DarkReign]

No I am too much for them to handle. But then I wouldn't
want their hands on me...........

But then, they know they are wrong and I am right. So
I am quite content.

Hey smeagol, you gonna turn into boutons and bold stuff
now?
:lol

I hope every word you just wrote was steeped in sarcasm sans the blue text.

[George Gervin's Afro]

I hope every word you just wrote was steeped in sarcasm sans the blue text.


No, ray believes everything he wants to. he never lets facts get in the way of his opinion..

[xrayzebra]

No, ray believes everything he wants to. he never lets facts get in the way of his opinion..

And GGA what are facts in this case? Do you have
any idea.

[clambake]

And GGA what are facts in this case? Do you have
any idea.
yes. he resigned because the propaganda out weighed the truth. but don't ask him. i'm sure he can't recall.

[RighteousBoy]

Actually I can't believe he lasted this long, especially after having burned to death all those people at Waco, I think it was something like 75 - about 20 of them were children. For that alone he should be brought to justice, we know what to do to people like that in Texas. Add to that the storming of the house in Florida, to take Elian Gonzalez by force to send him back to Cuba - this guy is just worthless, good riddance.

[CubanMustGo]

yes. he resigned because the propaganda out weighed the truth. but don't ask him. i'm sure he can't recall.

Al Sanchez is this generation's Sgt Schultz.

http://rizak.info/AVATARS/150/sgt_schultz.gif http://www.stukamilitary.com/images/schultz.JPG

[Holt's Cat]

Actually I can't believe he lasted this long, especially after having burned to death all those people at Waco, I think it was something like 75 - about 20 of them were children. For that alone he should be brought to justice, we know what to do to people like that in Texas. Add to that the storming of the house in Florida, to take Elian Gonzalez by force to send him back to Cuba - this guy is just worthless, good riddance.

At least Reno knew how to fire US attorneys for political reasons without getting into trouble for it, I guess.

[smeagol]

Hey smeagol, you gonna turn into boutons and bold stuff
now?
:lol

I've been bolding names since I started posting here.

[Wild Cobra]

so, gonzo buckled under to a witch hunt? guess he never heard that "sticks and stones" thing.
Typical. Ignore the key point that he cannot do his job when all his time is now wasted defending his actions.

Answer that please, instead of ignoring this key relavant fact.

[Wild Cobra]

The intended sarcasm will go over his head. He actually believes that.
Yea right. I usually just ignore such stupid implied thoughts. I use sarcasm too, but a little differently.

If you guys think such things go over my head... Well, I don't know if you're being taunting, or ignorant of my intelligence.

[ChumpDumper]

Typical. Ignore the key point that he cannot do his job when all his time is now wasted defending his actions.

Answer that please, instead of ignoring this key relavant fact.Why couldn't Gonzales simply answer the questions he was asked?

And really, he couldn't do his job because he had to testify to congress a couple of days more than the usual AG has had to? Is he really that incompetent?

[Wild Cobra]

:lmao

WC pulled the same shit with me when I argued the precedent of a Republican filibuster for a Supreme Court nomination.

OH but that one didnt count cause it was completely justified and the Democrats were just being evil.
And you are completely ignorant to the point I was making about it, or you refuse to admit I have a point. I'll admit that this republican/democrat usage of these investigations is not clear cut. The difference in how the filibuster was used for the nominees was clear cut however.

[Holt's Cat]

Typical. Ignore the key point that he cannot do his job when all his time is now wasted defending his actions.

Answer that please, instead of ignoring this key relavant fact.


There was no need to obfuscate about why those attorneys were let go. There was nothing wrong with the reason why those firings happened. If someone was going to dislike the administration about that then they already disliked the administration. Frankly, the same could be said about the wiretap questioning and the bedside visit to Ashcroft. Gonzales is out because he did not handle his Senate visits with candor. Simple enough.

[Wild Cobra]

Yes. I would love to find out why Bush and his surrogates knowingly pushed 'questionable and un-verifiable' intelligence information to justify the rush into Iraq. If we could only get the truth.
This has been asked and answered over and over. You just won't accept the truth that this was the accepted consensus of the intelligence community.


I see so people who aren't truthful to Congress get a pass but lying under oath in a civil proceeding is an impeachable offense.
Who lied when? Just because it was reported doesn't make it fact. If you have evidence of actual lies under oath by the republicans, then I'm sure the democrats would like you to share it with them.


The clinton's were investigated from the day they took office. I am not sure if you have ever been involved with investigative work but it's amazing that the GOP Congress felt the need to start right away. The democrats in turn have been in the majority for 8 months and accoprding to you they have abused the power to investigate when the GOP congress ok'd it for 8 yrs?
I don't have a clear recall of those past events. I am confident however that there was cause for most the investigations.


If Clinton would not have perjured himself the 8 yrs would have been for naught.. but it's the dems who have abused the power..
I don't follow what you mean.


Ken Starr is a republican hack.. history will show that. But in all fairness the GOP didn't and won't invetigate itself (see mark Foley)
And selected by Janet Reno. I don't know. Maybe. Should we also call Fitzgerald a democrat hack? Think about it. A lawyer gets the case of his life. Isn't he or she going to make the best of it? I don't know the politics of either of them. I think they just gave it all they could.

[Wild Cobra]

Um, they found enough that Alberto Gonzales was essentially forced to resign. If there wasn't a real problem with the manner in which DOJ has operated under Gonzales, I'm quite certain that there wouldn't have been a resignation.

And other people say other things. I will grant you that your statement is one of several possibilities. I simply find it far more likely without convincing evidence that Gonzales could no longer do his job while he was being investigated. His defense and inquiries became a full time job itself.

Can anyone step up and agree that is a possibility, or are you all bent on believing the worst?

Let's face it. We will not really know the truth, and most of it is speculation.

[Holt's Cat]

He made himself a friggin' liability by lying to Congress. While that can result in all kind of neat Constitutional sturm und drang, politically it was worse than having just told the truth to begin with. Gonzlaes put himself in a position to where Bush didn't refuse to let one of his buddies go, which he hardly ever does until his buddies' political corpse has had 100 rounds emptied into it and then hung by the neck while immolated. My God, Gonzales fucked up, what is so hard to understand about that?

[clambake]

Typical. Ignore the key point that he cannot do his job when all his time is now wasted defending his actions.

Answer that please, instead of ignoring this key relavant fact.
turns out he can't remember any days on the job. why defend what he's doing if even he can't remember?

bottomline: he quit under the consequences of false accusations? if this is true then he's not an AG.

[Wild Cobra]

another deep thought from WC:

Bush roolz, Hillary droolz!!
I fail to understand why anyone uses such unprovoked childish humor against others on this board. Isn't this thread about Gonzales? Want a thread about me, then start a thread... Then we can have at it without interrupting other threads...

[ChumpDumper]

And selected by Janet Reno.Damn, will you ever get a fact straight? Starr was appointed by a panel of three federal judges.

[clambake]

so, if we/I start a thread about you, should the title be "Minion thoughts for the day"?

[Wild Cobra]

Why couldn't Gonzales simply answer the questions he was asked?I don't know for sure. I do know some of it has with not being required to share information between the branches of government. This is an investigation that should have never happened. If you ask me, the administration is at fault for allowing the dog and pony show.


And really, he couldn't do his job because he had to testify to congress a couple of days more than the usual AG has had to? Is he really that incompetent?
What about the time it takes to review notes and prepare in other ways? You think that's not required?

[Holt's Cat]

Why is it that the representatives elected by the people cannot ask questions of the president's appointees? If it involves a "state secret" or something close then have a closed door session. !@#$.

[clambake]

" I cannot recollect" and " I can't recall" and " I have no recollection of that".

that's like studying for the bar

[Wild Cobra]

Gonzales is out because he did not handle his Senate visits with candor. Simple enough.
I won't dismiss that as a possibility either. It is even suggested that he was let go to appease the democrats in some kind of a compromise. There are too many actual possibilities, and what do we have for solid evidence?

None!

[Holt's Cat]

Is Bush trying to destroy the GOP?

[Holt's Cat]

I won't dismiss that as a possibility either. It is even suggested that he was let go to appease the democrats in some kind of a compromise. There are too many actual possibilities, and what do we have for solid evidence?

None!

We don't have evidence that he lied to the Senate?

[Holt's Cat]

Is there any way this nation can excrete both GWB and his eventual replacement HRC? Someone, anyone...else.

[Wild Cobra]

He made himself a friggin' liability by lying to Congress.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but to my knowledge the only evidence he lied is his testimony is said not to comply with someone else’s testimony.

What if the other person is lying or in error? Why must it be Gonzales that is lying?

What ever happened to being open minded about such things. This is a continuing theme among liberals. Guilty until proven innocent if a republican.

[Holt's Cat]

Problem is, I'm not a "liberal".

[Wild Cobra]

Damn, will you ever get a fact straight? Starr was appointed by a panel of three federal judges.
OK, maybe I'm wrong about that. I do know Reno apponted him on some things against Clinton, specifically which cases, I don't know.

[ChumpDumper]

No. Do some rezearch.

[clambake]

how does one, that admits not to know, still manage to force themselves to play the role of apologist? Is this a paid gig?

[Holt's Cat]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but to my knowledge the only evidence he lied is his testimony is said not to comply with someone else’s testimony.

What if the other person is lying or in error? Why must it be Gonzales that is lying?

What ever happened to being open minded about such things. This is a continuing theme among liberals. Guilty until proven innocent if a republican.

There were multiple pieces of evidence of Gonzales' needless fabrication.

[Wild Cobra]

Is Bush trying to destroy the GOP?
Sometimes I think so.

[Holt's Cat]

If Gonzales had been truthful, or at least a little more adroit, then this would have been an inside the Beltway kind of tussle that no one outside would care that much about. Instead he had to fall on his sword.

[Wild Cobra]

We don't have evidence that he lied to the Senate?
I've only seen "he said, she said" types of evidence. I didn't try to follow the case and I could be wrong. I don't think so though.

What do you know of that is factually verifiable? I sure would like to see it if there is any.

[Wild Cobra]

There were multiple pieces of evidence of Gonzales' needless fabrication.
What are they? I see fabricated news all the time. Which is it?

[Holt's Cat]

I've only seen "he said, she said" types of evidence. I didn't try to follow the case and I could be wrong. I don't think so though.

What do you know of that is factually verifiable? I sure would like to see it if there is any.


link (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/26/washington/26gonzales.html?ei=5070&en=6443464bc9a4827b&ex=1188446400&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1188342583-x3vdUuHYgd62HMbGYXhGUg)

[clambake]

apparently, gonzo did not stand by his statements.

[Wild Cobra]

link (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/26/washington/26gonzales.html?ei=5070&en=6443464bc9a4827b&ex=1188446400&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1188342583-x3vdUuHYgd62HMbGYXhGUg)apparently, gonzo did not stand by his statements.
If you say so.

You're telling me you believe an AP story dated 26 July with no authors name and no quotes from the report?

How about a link with a pdf file of the report so we can independently verify instead of being a lemming? If they have the report, why didn't they show it?

[ChumpDumper]

You're telling me you believe an AP story dated 26 July with no authors name and no quotes from the report?You're telling us to believe you instead?

[Holt's Cat]

What conspiracy theory am I to believe now?

[clambake]

you know how I know? he quit

[Holt's Cat]

If you're going to lie to Congress, at least do it for a good reason, I guess.

[Wild Cobra]

You're telling us to believe you instead?
No. I'm saying not to believe a poorly sourced article just because you want it to be true.

Keep an open mind instead of that guilty until proven innocent attitude.

Isn't that a basic reason why we have a Declaration of Independence? Human rights!

To this date, I have not seen any evidence that Gonzales did anything wrong. Where is is.

Evidence. Not hearsay!

[Holt's Cat]

No. I'm saying not to believe a poorly sourced article just because you want it to be true.

Keep an open mind instead of that guilty until proven innocent attitude.

Isn't that a basic reason why we have a Declaration of Independence? Human rights!

To this date, I have not seen any evidence that Gonzales did anything wrong. Where is is.

Evidence. Not hearsay!

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/washington/2007-08-16powers.pdf

[Holt's Cat]

another link (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/july-dec07/gonzales_07-27.html)

[ChumpDumper]

No. I'm saying not to believe a poorly sourced article just because you want it to be true.

Keep an open mind instead of that guilty until proven innocent attitude.

Isn't that a basic reason why we have a Declaration of Independence? Human rights!

To this date, I have not seen any evidence that Gonzales did anything wrong. Where is is.

Evidence. Not hearsay!Just because you have been ignorant of this story from the beginning doesn't mean it has not, in fact, occurred.

[ggoose25]

WC doesnt believe evidence that isn't spun from neocon mouths

[ChumpDumper]

Gotta love my double negative.

[Wild Cobra]

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/washington/2007-08-16powers.pdf
OK, what am I looking for to dispute his testimony for 3/10/04?

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/gonzo-01.jpg

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/gonzo-02.jpg

[ChumpDumper]

Jesus H. Christ on a popsicle stick! You want us to connect the dots and color in the spaces for you! Get your own crayons!

[Wild Cobra]

Just because you have been ignorant of this story from the beginning doesn't mean it has not, in fact, occurred.
In fact? Can you really state that factually and maintain your integrity? If so, I would suggest you testify to the senate committee.

I have not been completely ignorant of the story, I just haven't tried to follow it closely. I have heard counter arguments that to me are likely, but not necessarily the truth either.

Regardless, I have not seen any evidence against Gonzales!

Just hearsay, innuendo, and he-said-she-said stuff...

[ChumpDumper]

In fact? Can you really state that factually and maintain your integrity?Of course I can. The evidence and testimony are a matter of public record.
Regardless, I have not seen any evidence against Gonzales!You have chosen to remain ignorant, which is no surprise at all.

[Wild Cobra]

Jesus H. Christ on a popsicle stick! You want us to connect the dots and color in the spaces for you! Get your own crayons!
I guess so. I’m so stupid I need help with the crayons. The 3/10 remarks clearly show the hospital meeting to be one to show Comey is now in charge. It doesn't state any quotes by Gonzales.

"Card and J. Gonzales have come and gone." Is J. Gonzales even the same person as Alberto Gonzales? I assume so, but I have never heard of him referred to that way.

Please connect the dots with relevant facts.

If Gonzales was there and left, with others still talking about the events, then why should his testimony covered about what happened after he left?

I must be stupid or something. Please connect the dots with some facts. Those assumptions tend to confuse me.

[Wild Cobra]

Of course I can. The evidence and testimony are a matter of public record.You have chosen to remain ignorant, which is no surprise at all.
Well, I have not been able to find those facts and nobody has been able to show me those facts that show he lied.

I'm still waiting...

[ChumpDumper]

I must be stupid or something.

http://www.coylehospitality.com/mystery-shopping/images/dart-in-bullseye-left.jpg

[Wild Cobra]

So where is the evidence? You say you are a Chump Dumper, but you are the chump if you cannot supply the evidence and persist it is there.

You could have the integrity to place my quote in context:


I must be stupid or something. Please connect the dots with some facts. Those assumptions tend to confuse me.



http://www.coylehospitality.com/mystery-shopping/images/dart-in-bullseye-left.jpg

[ChumpDumper]

You have been given the story, the testimony and the evidence.

You haven't been able to put them together.

You are stupid.

I say this with great integrity.

[Wild Cobra]

You have been given the story, the testimony and the evidence.
I'm given a story that could easily be a fairy tail. I'd like some facts rather than fantasy.


You haven't been able to put them together.
I can easily see how ignorant people are dupped by the stories an accusations. All I'm asking for is fact rather than fiction.


You are stupid.
If you think that my requesting facts over the words of people I don't know is stupid, then I must assume you are facing a mirror.


I say this with great integrity.
As good as you can muster I guess.

There is conflicting testimony between Comey and Gonzales during the senate hearing. Can you acknowledge that maybe, just maybe it is Comey that is wrong or lying? Comey resigned right after this incident you know.

[ChumpDumper]

I'm given a story that could easily be a fairy tail. I'd like some facts rather than fantasy.You were spoon-fed the facts.



I can easily see how ignorant people are dupped by the stories an accusations. All I'm asking for is fact rather than fiction.Nah, your holding your hands over your ears and eyes saying "la la la I'm not listening!"



la la la la



la la la la

[Wild Cobra]

You were spoon-fed the facts.

No I wasn't. How about showing it to me.

This should be easy for you. Pretend I need a step by step tutorial with clear explanations. Since you think my mentality is low, that should be a cinch for you.

[ChumpDumper]

La la la la la la la la la

[Wild Cobra]

Well Chump. Looks like you lost. No facts disputing my logic.

[ChumpDumper]

It's all up there, posted and waiting for you to read. I know you're used to having other people do your thinking for you, but that's your problem.

[Wild Cobra]

It's all up there, posted and waiting for you to read. I know you're used to having other people do your thinking for you, but that's your problem.
My God. I've read it. I'm saying it doesn't wash past hearsay, innuendo, and propaganda. If those are considered facts by you, then you are a lost cause.

[ChumpDumper]

So you are accusing John Negroponte and Bob Mueller of propaganda and innuendo.

Awesome.

[ChumpDumper]

I'll give you a few minutes to find out who they are. :rolleyes

[Wild Cobra]

So you are accusing John Negroponte and Bob Mueller of propaganda and innuendo.

Awesome.
What the hell are you talking about?

Neither of them were there for the 3/10 visit with the AG. By Comey’s own testimony, just before this happened he talked to Mueller by phone. Where was Negroponte suppose to be?

He was in the room with Ashcroft, Ashcroft’s wife, Goldsmith, and Philbin. There may have been a medical person there.

He stepped out to call Mueller.

Came back in, later Gonzales and Card came in the room.

Very short discussion, Gonzales and Card left.

What was spoken about isn’t specified and assumption are made in Comey’s testimony. Negroponte’s memorandum is supplying requested dates and times. Nothing supporting perjury. Same with Mueller’s testimony. He was not present for the assumed perjury. His notes say that at 1940 (7:40 PM) when he arrived:

“Card and Gonzoles have come and gone.”

Anything he says is hearsay.

There is nothing specified that what was spoken about in the room was the same program spoken in other places that support the assumed perjury. Gonzales and others say there are different programs, or something to that effect.

From the hearing transcript:


COMEY:

---snip---

I got out of the car and ran up -- literally ran up the stairs with my security detail.

SCHUMER: What was your concern? You were in obviously a huge hurry.

COMEY: I was concerned that, given how ill I knew the attorney general was, that there might be an effort to ask him to overrule me when he was in no condition to do that.

SCHUMER: Right,

OK. COMEY: I was worried about him, frankly.

And so I raced to the hospital room, entered. And Mrs. Ashcroft was standing by the hospital bed, Mr. Ashcroft was lying down in the bed, the room was darkened. And I immediately began speaking to him, trying to orient him as to time and place, and try to see if he could focus on what was happening, and it wasn't clear to me that he could. He seemed pretty bad off.

SCHUMER: At that point it was you, Mrs. Ashcroft and the attorney general and maybe medical personnel in the room. No other Justice Department or government officials.

COMEY: Just the three of us at that point.

I tried to see if I could help him get oriented. As I said, it wasn't clear that I had succeeded.

I went out in the hallway. Spoke to Director Mueller by phone. He was on his way. I handed the phone to the head of the security detail and Director Mueller instructed the FBI agents present not to allow me to be removed from the room under any circumstances. And I went back in the room.

I was shortly joined by the head of the Office of Legal Counsel assistant attorney general, Jack Goldsmith, and a senior staffer of mine who had worked on this matter, an associate deputy attorney general.

So the three of us Justice Department people went in the room. I sat down...

SCHUMER: Just give us the names of the two other people.

COMEY: Jack Goldsmith, who was the assistant attorney general, and Patrick Philbin, who was associate deputy attorney general.

I sat down in an armchair by the head of the attorney general's bed. The two other Justice Department people stood behind me. And Mrs. Ashcroft stood by the bed holding her husband's arm. And we waited.

And it was only a matter of minutes that the door opened and in walked Mr. Gonzales, carrying an envelope, and Mr. Card. They came over and stood by the bed. They greeted the attorney general very briefly. And then Mr. Gonzales began to discuss why they were there -- to seek his approval for a matter, and explained what the matter was -- which I will not do.

And Attorney General Ashcroft then stunned me. He lifted his head off the pillow and in very strong terms expressed his view of the matter, rich in both substance and fact, which stunned me -- drawn from the hour-long meeting we'd had a week earlier -- and in very strong terms expressed himself, and then laid his head back down on the pillow, seemed spent, and said to them, "But that doesn't matter, because I'm not the attorney general."

SCHUMER: But he expressed his reluctance or he would not sign the statement that they -- give the authorization that they had asked, is that right?

COMEY: Yes.

And as he laid back down, he said, "But that doesn't matter, because I'm not the attorney general. There is the attorney general," and he pointed to me, and I was just to his left. The two men did not acknowledge me. They turned and walked from the room. And within just a few moments after that, Director Mueller arrived. I told him quickly what had happened. He had a brief -- a memorable brief exchange with the attorney general and then we went outside in the hallway.

SCHUMER: OK.

Now, just a few more points on that meeting.

First, am I correct that it was Mr. Gonzales who did just about all of the talking, Mr. Card said very little?

COMEY: Yes, sir.

SCHUMER: OK. And they made it clear that there was in this envelope an authorization that they hoped Mr. Ashcroft -- Attorney General Ashcroft would sign.

COMEY: In substance. I don't know exactly the words, but it was clear that's what the envelope was.


Notice how Schumer leads Comey to easy answers, and disregards pointed questions anyone seeking the truth would ask. He never asks if the program was the same as another incident. He let's assumptions stand.

What about Card's testimony? Goldsmith, and Philbin's testimony? Why do we never hear what they said, or did they even testify? They were in the room! Could they confirm Gonzales' story?

[01.20.09]

GWB is just putting his mark on his legacy.

[ChumpDumper]

:lmao So you're Saying Comey and Mueller are lying in an attempt to smear Gonzales three years in the future.

Awesome.

Why didn't Ashcroft testify?

[Wild Cobra]

:lmao So you're Saying Comey and Mueller are lying in an attempt to smear Gonzales three years in the future.

Awesome.

Why didn't Ashcroft testify?
Ashcroft? I don’t know if he did or didn’t. You tell me. I can assume that he was in no condition to clearly recall the events as he was medicated while in the hospital. With the other people in the room who had their full capacities, I would like to her their viewpoint.

My God man. Do you even absorb my words?

I would suggest that Comey is very carefully parsing the truth. He is playing along with answering question that implicate Gonzales without lying. I haven't see any words of Mueller's to suggest he is trying to do anything. I haven't searched for his testimony however. What is his testimony? I don’t have the time to research everything I would like to. However, the research and viewpoints I have researched and supplied clearly put your posted remarks to shame. Your turn for supplying RELAVENT FACTS. Comey was the deputy yet Gonzales was selected when Ashcroft’s four years were up. Worse yet, he resigned and was likely forced to resign as some say Ashcroft got an agreement by Comey he would sign of on ‘the program’ before Ashcroft went into the hospital. Assuming that is true, Comey violated that agreement. Comey says Gonzales tried to circumvent his decision and won and admits he was upset over it. Is it possible Comey has an axe to grind?

Now I have a serious request. Support you suppositions.

Why is Gonzales guilty? I have repeatedly shown you why the evidence does not support it. I would like you to supply some evidence that does instead of trying to sidetrack me with stupid suppositions and remarks, and asking questions without addressing the viewpoints I have clearly made..

WHERE'S THE BEEF?

[ChumpDumper]

Ashcroft? I don’t know if he did or didn’t. You tell me. He didn't, but why would you believe me?
I can assume that he was in no condition to clearly recall the events as he was medicated while in the hospital. With the other people in the room who had their full capacities, I would like to her their viewpoint.His wife then.
I would suggest that Comey is very carefully parsing the truth.I would suggest he's saying what happened.
I haven't see any words of Mueller's to suggest he is trying to do anything.So you didn't read the documents. Ok.
However, the research and viewpoints I have researched and supplied clearly put your posted remarks to shame.Seeing as you didn't read it, you have no basis for comparison.
Comey was the deputy yet Gonzales was selected when Ashcroft’s four years were up.What does that have to do with anything? Come back with a relevant fact.
Worse yet, he resigned and was likely forced to resign as some say Ashcroft got an agreement by Comey he would sign of on ‘the program’ before Ashcroft went into the hospital."Some say"? Who say? Hearsay? You've got nothing here.
Why is Gonzales guilty?I'm all for a full investigation of this incident. I'm confident Gonzales will be proven to have lied to congress repeatedly.
I have repeatedly shown you why the evidence does not support it.Actually, you have shown nothing. The wild discrepancies between the contemporary documentation and testimony of both Comey and Mueller remain. You're as poor an advocate as Gonzo was an AG. If it was that easy to clear Gonzo, he'd still have a job today.

[Wild Cobra]

So you didn't read the documents.
I'm not sure which one you are talking about. I read everything posted in this thread. I have seen no testimony that where Mueller states facts that differ with the specific time and place that is at issue.

"Some say"? Who say? Hearsay? You've got nothing here.
Yes. It is irrelevant however. It is also hearsay like your stuff is. I'm only pointing out it exists. At least I don’t rely on that level of evidence to make my decisions like you do.

Actually, you have shown nothing. What I have shown is that the accusations have no credible basis. It's almost impossible to prove someone innocent. That's why the burden of proof is to show guilt. You have not shown that.

The wild discrepancies between the contemporary documentation and testimony of both Comey and Mueller remain.
Spell them out to me unless you are unable to show that point. I fail

If it was that easy to clear Gonzo, he'd still have a job today.
Not with the democrats trying to destroy him. They won't let it go.

Ask yourself this. Why would Gonzales need to lie about what was said?

Why are they trying to get him on perjury over this?

Because it's a witch hunt and a drumhead trial!

Do us a favor please. Spell out what Gonzales did wrong, and the specific points of the evidence that show it. If you are right about it, I'm just not seeing it. Wouldn't you like it to see me admit I was wrong again? If so... Where's the Beef?

[clambake]

WC, then what you're saying is that gonzo turned out to be the biggest pussy of them all.

[Wild Cobra]

WC, then what you're saying is that gonzo turned out to be the biggest pussy of them all.
Nope. That was answered. He is involved in too many inquiries to be effective any longer. That is my belief as to his resignation. I am not stating that as fact.

Why are so many of you 'baiters' in this forum? Some of you are even masters at the art.

wiki; Baiter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baiter):


A baiter is someone in an Internet discussion group who deliberately posts aggravating messages on a message board. Often, this is part of a previous conflict between the baiter and the baiter's intended target.

Baiters are different from Flamers because they do not directly insult their target; instead, they post something likely to aggravate him/her.

[clambake]

his involvement is no one elses fault but his own. he already stated, over and over and over how he couldn't recall what he does at work.

he was never effective, you can drop the "any longer".

[clambake]

wiki: how to use the term "baiter":

refer to someone as a baiter when you find yourself without a legitimate arguement.

[ChumpDumper]

I'm not sure which one you are talking about. I read everything posted in this thread. I have seen no testimony that where Mueller states facts that differ with the specific time and place that is at issue.Sure thing counselor, you've really rezearched this well.


Yes. It is irrelevant however. It is also hearsay like your stuff is. I'm only pointing out it exists. At least I don’t rely on that level of evidence to make my decisions like you do.You just did.


What I have shown is that the accusations have no credible basis. It's almost impossible to prove someone innocent. That's why the burden of proof is to show guilt. You have not shown that.Actually there is a huge credible basis for the accusations. Worthy of a full investigation. Gonzo is trying to dodge it by resigning.


Spell them out to me unless you are unable to show that point. I failYou certainly do fail. I'm glad we can agree on that.


Not with the democrats trying to destroy him. They won't let it go.Let what go? You claim he did absolutely nothing wrong, so he's indestructible.


Ask yourself this. Why would Gonzales need to lie about what was said?The reasons are obvious. Why would Mueller lie three years before the hearings?


Why are they trying to get him on perjury over this?Because there are clearly discrepancies between Gonzo's testimony and the evidence contemporary to the events he testified to.


Because it's a witch hunt and a drumhead trial!Not at all. He was given every opportunity to modify his testimony to address these discrepancies. Congressmen on both sides of the aisle were incredulous at his actions.


Do us a favor please. Spell out what Gonzales did wrong, and the specific points of the evidence that show it. If you are right about it, I'm just not seeing it. Wouldn't you like it to see me admit I was wrong again? If so... Where's the Beef?It's ok, it's been proven you aren't very smart. If you don't get it by now, you never will -- so let the grown ups talk about this.

[Wild Cobra]

wiki: how to use the term "baiter":

refer to someone as a baiter when you find yourself without a legitimate arguement.
Actually, I was just trying to have fun with the word. This is a political forum, and just the sheer nature of such we all tend to bait each other to one degree or another. I was hoping someone was intelligent enough to call me a hypocrite over it. Consider this. I do may share of 'baiting', dont I?

Oh well, you guys are no fun.

[Wild Cobra]

Yes. It is irrelevant however. It is also hearsay like your stuff is. I'm only pointing out it exists. At least I don’t rely on that level of evidence to make my decisions like you do.
You just did.

Nope, I don't rely on it. I was pointing out a differing unconfirmed view that may or may not be correct chump.




What I have shown is that the accusations have no credible basis. It's almost impossible to prove someone innocent. That's why the burden of proof is to show guilt. You have not shown that.

Actually there is a huge credible basis for the accusations. Worthy of a full investigation. Gonzo is trying to dodge it by resigning.

I don't see it. I listened and watched various You Tube links. What is more telling than what is asked and said are the obvious questions that should be asked that are not asked. You are falling hook-line-and-sinker for the lefts propaganda. I want you to point individual items out so I can show you why they are not relevant. Point, counterpoint. You are refusing to give me a single correlation. Therefore, your partisanship must be so instilled in your soul, you are blind. I just will not sit down and counter about twenty points I have seen that make Gonzales seem guilty to those who are ignorant to the line of questioning involved.

Again... consider the questions that should have been asked by anyone seeking the truth that were not asked!




Spell them out to me unless you are unable to show that point. I fail

You certainly do fail. I'm glad we can agree on that.

Again, spell the points out please. I'll bet I can show clear holes in every one of them I see you are not up to the challenge.

Chicken.

As for the "I fail," I don't know what got deleted, but there was more to follow. I don't specifically remember, but I was probably saying "I fail to see any assumptions that have other answers." Operator error on the keypad I quess.




Not with the democrats trying to destroy him. They won't let it go.

Let what go? You claim he did absolutely nothing wrong, so he's indestructible.

They won't let their hatred go. If they asked proper questions that would seek the truth, I could be less harsh on them. However, they appear to stay away from the questions that would show Gonzoles is innocent of what they are grand-standing with the media for.




Ask yourself this. Why would Gonzales need to lie about what was said?

The reasons are obvious. Why would Mueller lie three years before the hearings?

Lie about what dammit.

I have repeatedly asked what Mueller and others have said that is in opposition and you cannot tell me. I'm getting a bit pissed at your childish attitude.

What did Mueller say?

Oh... That's right... You are making this up... You are lying about this and have no answer to give me...




Why are they trying to get him on perjury over this?

Because there are clearly discrepancies between Gonzo's testimony and the evidence contemporary to the events he testified to.

Bullshit. He has answered to the supposed discrepancy. It is a reasonable answer and Comey is allowed to imply rather than factually state. They have proven that they will do whatever they can to discredit Gonzales. They are simply after hiss ass at all costs.




Because it's a witch hunt and a drumhead trial!

Not at all. He was given every opportunity to modify his testimony to address these discrepancies. Congressmen on both sides of the aisle were incredulous at his actions.

Sure, he was pretty shaken by the way he was grilled and badgered by Schumer in the hearing. They are clearly after his ass, he knows it, and is nervous. He isn't handling personal attacks very well. Some people handle such things better than others.




Do us a favor please. Spell out what Gonzales did wrong, and the specific points of the evidence that show it. If you are right about it, I'm just not seeing it. Wouldn't you like it to see me admit I was wrong again? If so... Where's the Beef?

It's ok, it's been proven you aren't very smart. If you don't get it by now, you never will -- so let the grown ups talk about this.

Actually, I am in the 99%+++ percentile of intelligence. I see the fine nuances of what is and isn't said. I am simply not ready to jump to conclusions where I see more likely reasons. You obviously don't understand the fine nuances, and take the leftist propaganda at face value.

This is obviously the case because you refuse to show me what I am supposable missing. That's OK. You must be afraid I will prove you wrong.

I dare you. Give me a few clear examples of what constitutes this perjury. I challenge you to see if I can or cannot show a perfectly reasonable explanation that opposes yours. Let's go that far, then we can debate the merits of each.

Or... are you chicken?

Now I have not fully researched everything yet. Little by little I am finding more info. A complete transcript of all testimony would help if anyone knows it's location.

I gotta cut this short. Again, no proof reading so you might have a few more laughs.

[ChumpDumper]

Actually, I am in the 99%+++ percentile of intelligence.:lmao X 99+++

[MannyIsGod]

:lmao @ that claim

[George Gervin's Afro]

:rolleyes

[George Gervin's Afro]

....

Actually, I am in the 99%+++ percentile of intelligence.


:rolleyes

[xrayzebra]

No sweat, the AG IG is looking into it all. I wonder if he was
appointed by Clinton.

I wonder if the dimm-o-craps will ever get around to doing anything
but holding hearings.

One thing about these forums, all the liberal, progressive types
love to stay in lockstep. All you have to do is get one to say
something and all the rest come piling in.

[George Gervin's Afro]

No sweat, the AG IG is looking into it all. I wonder if he was
appointed by Clinton.

I wonder if the dimm-o-craps will ever get around to doing anything
but holding hearings.

One thing about these forums, all the liberal, progressive types
love to stay in lockstep. All you have to do is get one to say
something and all the rest come piling in.



lockstep? it's called reality ray.. It's far easier when you deal in reality. You should try it. The first step would be to get your news from other places besides Fox News and talk radio..

[Oh, Gee!!]

but...but...Janet Reno....errr-err..Clinton.....Lewinsky...ummmmm...ummmm...White water!!!

[DarkReign]

One thing about these forums, all the liberal, progressive types
love to stay in lockstep. All you have to do is get one to say
something and all the rest come piling in.

Well, its about time the party showed some solidarity, theyve been picking at scraps for 15+ years.

Define irony. America's two-party political system is so fucked-up and one party is so defunct, that the only way they gain power is when the other party fucks up so bad, the American people vote them in.

Define "lesser of two evils".

[xrayzebra]

^^I thought I had said that many times.

[DarkReign]

^^I thought I had said that many times.

Well, then youve been right once.

Repubs have always been more organized and focused than Dems.

Dems are a party of cast-offs, of outsiders. Obviously, not every Dem is, but the party does a shit-job of hiding those ultra-liberal types that turn the public off.

Repubs on the other hand have their share of ultra-conservative, "take over the world" types, but the party does a bang-up job of hiding those individuals. Or in Bush's case, masquerading under a mask of patriotism and false pretense.

Dems are associated with East Coast, big city living New York types.

Repubs are the down home, family values, rural MidWest/South types.

One party realizes their message must apply to the masses, full-well knowing that the masses cant reach a consensus by themselves on anything.

The other party thinks everyone in the country thinks exactly like them and only tailors their pitiful policy on a minute scale to appease the masses.

But who gives a shit anymore? Electronic voting is going to replace the need to appease the masses anyway.

[ChumpDumper]

One thing about these forums, all the liberal, progressive types
love to stay in lockstep. All you have to do is get one to say
something and all the rest come piling in.One thing about all these forums, neocon types love to stay in lockstep and try to bring up Clinton whenever some Republican has his ass handed to him.

[Wild Cobra]

One thing about these forums, all the liberal, progressive types
love to stay in lockstep. All you have to do is get one to say
something and all the rest come piling in.
Yes I noticed. It seems I am the only one that holds the views I do even among the more conservative types here. Shows we openly differ, doesn't it?

[Wild Cobra]

Well chump. Looks like you are unable to challenge my contentions. That's OK. I'm tired of talking to walls anyway.

[ChumpDumper]

Well chump. Looks like you are unable to challenge my contentions. That's OK. I'm tired of talking to walls anyway.:lmao X 99+++

If Gonzo did nothing wrong, there was no reason at all to resign. Don't give me any bullshit about having to defend himself against the big bad Democrats -- according to you there was nothing he had to defend. All he did was give the same speech whenever he testified anyway and then said "I don't recall" or "I wasn't part of that decision making process" whenever he was asked a question.

And anyone who talks about their intelligence the way you just did is invariably a dumbass who is butthurt about someone else exposing the fact he is a dumbass.

[clambake]

yep, looks like gonzo fell hook-line-and-sinker to leftist propaganda. he turned out to be weak sauce.

[boutons_]

"99%+++ percentile of intelligence."

self-proclaimed conservatives create their own reality, which is really a fantasy.

eg,
"fair and balanced",
"we are winning, absolutely"
"you're doing a heckuva job, brownie"

[Wild Cobra]

OK, saying so 99%+++, I was being a bit cocky. I new I shouldn't have said anything, or at least used not used so many plusses. I am at the 99.91% IQ at an IQ of 147.

I know some you refuse to believe such things. That's OK. Jumping to conclusions and laughing just show how petty you are about such matters.

[ChumpDumper]

The only petty person is the one posting his IQ after demonstrating he didn't know where Darfur is and blaming the Clinton administration for not intervening there two years after it left office.

[Wild Cobra]

The only petty person is the one posting his IQ after demonstrating he didn't know where Darfur is and blaming the Clinton administration for not intervening there two years after it left office.
You call me petty over responding to your statement of me lacking intelligence? It's a no win with you because you are the petty one, so low in self esteem you have to find fault in other people. Words, words, words... Where is the substance?

Oh that's right, you have nothing to show I'm wrong. You ignore all the pertinent points I make, and switch topic. It doesn't matter what I say. You have made up your mind. Please drop it and stay with the subject of the thread.

You are a loser. You cannot respond on the subject matter to my point.

Please answer my questions in past threads that you ignored. What did Mueller say? What did Negroponte say? You are making claims of my thoughts yet I have not stated such things. I cannot agree with your statements of them without seeing what you say they said.

How the hell can you claim to be intelligent and ASSUME so many things?

[MannyIsGod]

I'd like to interupt this thread to point out that I am at 103+++ intelligence this morning.

[Wild Cobra]

Again Master Chump, what did Mueller say do disagree with Gonzales? During his testimony, Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee cannot get him to confirm it was the TSP which is why the perjury charge is being pursued.

Your assignment. Watch these two videos:

Mueller on Ashcroft (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGx3fVb_Aik)

Fox News clip (http://clips.mediamatters.org/static/video/angle-20070731-gonzales.mov)

Now Master Chimp. Please explain how Mueller contradicts Gonzales. Gonzales stated “other intelligence activities” … “it was not about not about the Terrorist Surveillance Program”

Please, please, please… Show me where Mueller disputes what Gonzales says. Partial transcript of above You-Tube link:


JACKSON LEE: So my question to you, first of all: Did you ever speak with either Mr. Gonzales or Mr. Card while they were at the hospital?

MUELLER: No, ma'am.

JACKSON LEE: And if you did not do that, did any of your agents speak to those individuals?

MUELLER: I don't believe so. We -- I arrived at the hospital after Mr. Gonzales and Mr. Card had left.

OK. This means he doesn't know other than hearsay what Gonzoles says, right?


JACKSON LEE: The discussion -- and I don't know if you did arrive -- it was -- did you have an opportunity to talk to General Ashcroft or did he discuss what was discussed in the meeting with Attorney General Gonzales and the chief of staff?

MUELLER: I did have a brief discussion with Attorney General Ashcroft.

JACKSON LEE: I'm sorry?

MUELLER: I did have a brief discussion with Attorney General Ashcroft after I arrived.

JACKSON LEE: And did he indicate the details of the conversation?

MUELLER: I prefer not to get into conversations that I had with the attorney general. At the time I -- again, he was entitled to expect that our conversations --

JACKSON LEE: And I respect that. Could I just say, did you have an understanding that the discussion was on TSP?

MUELLER: I had an understanding that the discussion was on a NSA program, yes.

He is not willing to agree to TSP. He interjects "a NSA program."


JACKSON LEE: I guess we use TSP, we use warrantless wiretapping, so would I be comfortable in saying that those were the items that were part of the discussion?

MUELLER: I -- it was -- the discussion was on a national -- a NSA program that has been much discussed, yes.


Like I said before, I have been unable to find anything that shows Gonzales lied about the March 2004 meeting. Please, where is the evidence.

[ChumpDumper]

I are 110+++++ smart!

[ChumpDumper]

Why did Gonzales resign if he did noting wrong? Is he just a pussy? Why can't he do his job? Give me real reasons why he could not perform his duties as Attorney General - not this "defending himself" bullshit - you claim there is nothing he had to defend.

[clambake]

agent 99 has inside info. picked it up on his "ham" radio.

[Wild Cobra]

Why did Gonzales resign if he did noting wrong? Is he just a pussy? Why can't he do his job? Give me real reasons why he could not perform his duties as Attorney General - not this "defending himself" bullshit - you claim there is nothing he had to defend.
These questions have been answered as for plausible possibilities. He did not state a reason and I am not stupid like you to assume it was because he was guilty.

What did Mueller or Negroponte say to contradict Gonzales?

You said he did. Why cannot you answer?

Oh... That's right... You lied and cannot admit it.

[ChumpDumper]

These questions have been answered as for plausible possibilities. He did not state a reason and I am not stupid like you to assume it was because he was guilty.

What did Mueller or Negroponte say to contradict Gonzales?

You said he did. Why cannot you answer?

Oh... That's right... You lied and cannot admit it.I didn't lie at all, it's all up there already. You're just being a bitch about it.

And you didn't answer the question why he resigned -- if he did nothing wrong there was no reason to resign.

Why did he resign?

[Wild Cobra]

I didn't lie at all, it's all up there already. You're just being a bitch about it.

And you didn't answer the question why he resigned -- if he did nothing wrong there was no reason to resign.

Why did he resign?
LOL... There are so many possibilities and I covered some of them. I am not foolish like you are to claim something I don’t know with certainty. Resignation IS NOT a sign that he was guilty. He could have done it for the party, he could have done it because he cannot focus on work, he might just be sick of the situation and want to retire from public service. Are you really such a leftist kool-aid drinking lemming to only believe that it is a sign of guilt or weakness? I pity you. I pity those around you for how you must make your life decisions.

I have shown clear evidence to dispute your claims. You have not continued showing support for your claims.

My God. You have such a hard head insisting he is guilty holding on to innuendo as evidence that has clearly been disproved.

Again, you are no chump dumper. You are a first class chump!

What is the damning evidence. The resignation does not count.

[ChumpDumper]

Oops, apparently the Department of Justice doesn't agree that this is such an open and shut case.

Justice Dept. Inquiry Focuses on Gonzales’s Claims

WASHINGTON, Aug. 30 — The Justice Department’s internal watchdog disclosed Thursday that he was investigating whether sworn statements to Congress by Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales were “intentionally false, misleading or inappropriate.”

The disclosure, by Glenn A. Fine, the department’s inspector general, came in a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee and was the first official confirmation that Mr. Gonzales was under investigation within the executive branch over the truthfulness of his testimony.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/31/washington/31gonzales.html

I wonder if Fine is 99++++ smart too....

[Wild Cobra]

Oops, apparently the Department of Justice doesn't agree that this is such an open and shut case.

Now you are saying because the IG is investigating things it shows that he is guilty? They are doing their job and that does not impact anything until they release their findings. They were already investigating the firings anyway. They are suppose to "inspect" things. Especially "general" things withing their sphere of control.

Do you even know what an IG investigation is? Tell me that you are not moronic enough to believe that means he is guilty of perjury.

You still have not answered one simple question that is very pertinent. We need an answer to motive don't we? For the sake of argument, let's say he did lie. Why in the hell did he need to? There was nothing wrong if the truth was that he went to discuss the TSP.

Again chump. What motive did he have to lie?

Don't you see. This is just a witch hunt.

Also, one of his aides stated his reason for quitting was that his credibility with lawmakers had been too damaged for him to continue.

Come on chump. What did Mueller and Negroponte say that shows Gonzales lied.

I'm still waiting.

Stop avoiding the question. Keep doing so and I'm sure others will start seeing you the total fool I see you as.

[ChumpDumper]

I wonder if Fine is 99++++ smart too....

Oh, he is....

Mr. Fine graduated magna cum laude from Harvard College in 1979 with an A.B. degree in economics. Mr. Fine was a Rhodes Scholar and earned B.A. and M.A. degrees from Oxford University. He received his law degree magna cum laude from Harvard Law School in 1985.

So what are your law credentials, WC?

Oh, yeah -- Fine was drafted by the Spurs too....

[ChumpDumper]

Now you are saying because the IG is investigating things it shows that he is guilty?No, I'm saying he's being investigated for just the topic we have been discussing. His guilt will be determined by a trial, if it ever gets to that point.
Do you even know what an IG investigation is?In this case, it's an investigation to see if a crime was committed.

[exstatic]

It won't matter. Even if a jury convicts him, Shrub will just commute.

[Whisky Dog]

It won't matter. Even if a jury convicts him, Shrub will just commute.

It does show that the administration is possibly more corrupt than the dozens that preceeded it, which is no small task. Great, we're getting worse at picking the lesser of two evils.

[Wild Cobra]

Oh, he is....

Mr. Fine graduated magna cum laude from Harvard College in 1979 with an A.B. degree in economics. Mr. Fine was a Rhodes Scholar and earned B.A. and M.A. degrees from Oxford University. He received his law degree magna cum laude from Harvard Law School in 1985.
There you go again, bringing up things that do not have any value in this debate. You idiot. It doesn’t matter because he is not making a claim right now as to Gonzales’ innocence or guilt. I think we can rely on his opinion once he comes to one, but that is in the future. Not in the ‘here and now.’ I’ve seen nothing to suggest Fine will play partisan politics.


So what are your law credentials, WC?
I can read. I have some law books in my library. That’s about it. At least I can discern what information has merit and which doesn’t. More than I can say for you. It’s obvious you cannot determine important information from implied statements. How can you be so damn stupid as to imply I think I know more than Fine? How can you be so stupid as to imply Fine disagrees with me? At least I will not claim Fine will agree with me, but I believe he will. There has not been enough public disclosure of this IG inspection yet.

You still haven’t answered my questions. When can I expect anything intelligent from you? I can clearly dismiss the perjury charge you claim. There are four others you know, that we haven’t discussed. Did you know that? I’ll be glad to move onto another once I get a valid answer from you on the March 10 incident.

[ChumpDumper]

There you go again, bringing up things that do not have any value in this debate.:lmao You brought up YOUR intelligence first, dipshit. I just thought you might like to know the relative intelligence of someone who is actually dealing with this case.
You idiot. It doesn’t matter because he is not making a claim right now as to Gonzales’ innocence or guilt.Neither did I. There are very real problems with Gonzo's tesimony, and this very intelligent man decided it was eoth further investigation.
I think we can rely on his opinion once he comes to one, but that is in the future.Duh


I can read. I have some law books in my library. That’s about it.You want a cookie?
At least I can discern what information has merit and which doesn’t. More than I can say for you.Absolutely not, you're saying you know better than Fine and anyone else who sees very potentially big problems with Gonzo's testimony.
It’s obvious you cannot determine important information from implied statements. How can you be so damn stupid as to imply I think I know more than Fine?Actually, you implied it -- I inferred it. It's these kind of fundamentally stupid errors that lead me to believe you aren't as smart as you now claim to be.
How can you be so stupid as to imply Fine disagrees with me?You say there is nothing worth investigating in Gonzo's testimony. He does. That is a disagreement.
At least I will not claim Fine will agree with me, but I believe he will. There has not been enough public disclosure of this IG inspection yet.What more discourse does there have to be? I said there were issues with Gonzo's testimony. Fine says he's investigating those issues.
You still haven’t answered my questions. Of course I did, and Fine agrees there are enough problems to investigate.
When can I expect anything intelligent from you?I just told you the difference between implying and inferring.
I can clearly dismiss the perjury charge you claim.Why? It's being investigated.
There are four others you know, that we haven’t discussed. Did you know that?Of course I do. I let you know Fine is investigating Gonzo -- how could you infer that I didn't know what issues he was investigating? Only a person of limited intelligence would make such an inference.
I’ll be glad to move onto another once I get a valid answer from you on the March 10 incident.I'm certainly content to let Fine sort this out. You certainly don't come across as being as intelligent as he appears.

[Wild Cobra]

Hey Chumpy Monkey... I'm still waiting for the proof you have that shows Gonzales is guilty.

I never said it doesn't warrant investigation.

I never said he is absolutely innocent. I claim the evidence we have does not bear out as fact for saying he is guilty.

You claim he is guilty.

Technical skills are my specialty. I suck at English. I was a strait A student except for English.

Again. What is the compelling evidence you have that Gonzales lied about the purpose of the March 10 meeting.

Will you ever answer the question?

[ChumpDumper]

Hey Chumpy Monkey... I'm still waiting for the proof you have that shows Gonzales is guilty.You're waiting for me to say Gonzales is guilty, because I never said that.
I never said it doesn't warrant investigation.Are you saying it warrants investigation? Yes or no.
You claim he is guilty.Nope, you inferred that.
Technical skills are my specialty. I suck at English. I was a strait A student except for English.It's "straight" and why are you spending so much energy trying to convince yourself how 99++++ smart you are?

[ChumpDumper]

Here are the search results for the word "guilty" in this thread:

http://spurstalk.com/forums/search.php?searchid=413606

[Wild Cobra]

You're waiting for me to say Gonzales is guilty, because I never said that.Are you saying it warrants investigation? Yes or no.Nope, you inferred that.It's "straight" and why are you spending so much energy trying to convince yourself how 99++++ smart you are?
You're right. You didn't say he was guilty. However, your points of view only lead to such a conclusion that he is because you dismiss the possibility that the only clear testimony against him, Mr. Comey's, has no need to be challenged. If you would have agreed earlier that Comey should also be investigated for perjury, I would not have assumed you to believe Gonzales is guilty. You do believe that without doubt, don't you? I'm right, aren't I?

I'm not meaning to say this warrants an investigation on it's own. I don't think there is any merit from the March 10 incident for an investigation. There was no motive for a lie. The IG office was already doing their job in investigation the firings. Now in these cases, I believe there was no wrongdoing, but internal complaints do warrant an IG investigation to the firings. If an IG investigation was not being conducted under the circumstances of the firings, then the IG office would be derelict in their duties. Patrick Leahy requested an IG investigation citing five items. The IG was already investigating some of the five items as normal policy. I don't recall reading that this March 10th incident will become a part of the investigation by the IG. Was that reported anywhere? Wait a minute... It wasn't even part of the five items noted by Leahy! He's not even asking the IG to look into it.

No, I implied he was innocent. I kept asking you for information showing otherwise and you refused. If I could get the evidence you claim to have, maybe I'll take a different stance. As for mixing the words up before, no I didn't.



It’s obvious you cannot determine important information from implied statements. How can you be so damn stupid as to imply I think I know more than Fine?Actually, you implied it -- I inferred it. It's these kind of fundamentally stupid errors that lead me to believe you aren't as smart as you now claim to be.
You are wrong here. By implied statements, I meant what you read from the leftist propaganda of the mainstream media. You appear to be unable to parse out the truth from suggestive words and patterns they use. Same with leading questions during the hearings. I'll claim guilt for not being specific enough for small minds to understand. The media suggests guilt, but has nothing that actually bears such a claim out. Your inferring it is the basically the same as you saying he is guilty, isn't it?

[Nbadan]

God WC, give it up already........Gonzales was a lousy AG...

Good Riddance


When historians look back upon the disastrous tenure of Alberto R. Gonzales as Attorney General of the United States they will ask not only why he merited the job in the first place but why he lasted in it as long as he did. By any reasonable standard, the Gonzales Era at the Justice Department is void of almost all redemptive qualities. He brought shame and disgrace to the Department because of his lack of independent judgment on some of the most vital legal issues of our time. And he brought chaos and confusion to the department because of his lack of respectable leadership over a cabinet-level department among the most important in the nation.

He neither served the longstanding role as "the people's attorney" nor fully met and tamed his duties and responsibilities to the Constitution. He was a man who got the job not because he was supremely qualified or notably well-respected among the leading legal lights of our time, but because he had faithfully and with blind obedience served President George W. Bush for years in Texas (where he botched clemency memos in death penalty cases) and then as White House counsel (where he botched the nation's legal policy on torture).

For an administration known for its cronyism, and alas for an alarmingly incompetent group of cronies, Gonzales was the granddaddy of them all. He lacked the integrity, the intellect and the independence to perform his duties in a manner befitting the job for which he was chosen. And when he and his colleagues got caught in the act, his rationales and explanations for the purge of the U.S. Attorneys were so empty and shallow and incoherent that even the staunchest Republicans could not turn them into steeled spin. Devoid of any credibility, Gonzales in the end was a sad joke when he came to Capitol Hill.

Even before the Justice Department was exposed under his reign as a politicized den of ideology, Gonzales' work as Attorney General was unacceptable and unworthy of high office. He defended the constitutionality of the National Security Agency's domestic surveillance program even though many conservative and liberal legal scholars alike considered it to be a violation of the law. He endorsed the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which did away with important rights not just for the detainees at Guantanamo Bay but for legal aliens within the borders of the United States. Thus did Gonzales fail to exercise any sort of independent check and balance upon the White House's most controversial legal policies.

Meanwhile, according to the National Association of Police Chiefs and Sheriffs, big-city murder rates have risen by 10 percent over the past two years -- a period that coincides precisely with Gonzales' time as attorney general. The Federal Bureau of Investigation puts the violent crime increase at 3.7% for January-June 2006 and drug use (and production and sales) apparently are on the rise in the nation's heartland. And the Justice Department's record of terror-related prosecutions is a mixed one at best. Thus did Gonzales fail to succeed at the most fundamental task of chief law enforcement official -- to make crime less not more prevalent.

And all the while, Gonzales' Justice Department was crumbling from within, devastated by a cynical strategy of minimizing the role of career nonpartisan professionals within the Department in favor of young ideologues, mediocre attorneys and just plain party hacks. The U.S. Attorney scandal is just the most publicized example of this daring effort to make the Justice Department a house organ for the Bush administration. Less visible career attorneys were pushed out at the expense of rank partisans willing to toe the company line. Even the internship programs for law students were schooled to favor "right" thinking attorneys at the expense of others. One law school, founded by Pat Robertson and rated among the worst in the nation, became a feeder school for the Department. And it was all part of a plan.

If Gonzales knew this was occurring, and allowed it to unfold anyway, then he conspired to participate in one of the worst structural disasters in the history of the Justice Department. And if the Attorney General truly did not know this power game inside his Department was occurring, or why, or how, then surely it is because he did not want to know. See no evil. Hear no evil. Thus did Gonzales preside over the gutting of the Justice Department, turning it in the span of just a few years from a respected institution into a spectacle of rank intellectual corruption.

The pattern here is not hard to see. President Bush elevated to the position of Attorney General a friend and loyal supporter whose record in public office suggested even then that he would not be up to the job. And, in turn, Gonzales and his immediate subordinates elevated to the Department lower-level attorneys who by training and temperament were not likely to be up to their jobs -- or at least not as qualified as the professionals they were chosen to replace. The first bad choice begat a series of other bad choices and together they led us to the unhappy place we find ourselves today.

Because we all benefit from a Justice Department that is fair, impartial, nonpartisan and filled with the best and brightest legal professionals the nation has to offer, we all suffer when it falls short of those ideals. The Justice Department under Gonzales was a miserable failure -- it never even came close to those lofty goals -- and now, finally, it is gone. Good riddance to it.

Link (http://kenburnshatesmexicans.com/)

[Nbadan]

You also might want to read:

Lie, Lie, Lie, Lie, Lie, Lie: Gonzales' Top Six Fibs (http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003920.php)

Gone Gone Gone, He's Been Gonzo Long (http://www.slate.com/id/2172855/)

[ChumpDumper]

You're right. You didn't say he was guilty.:lmao SO it only took how many days for you to get this?
If you would have agreed earlier that Comey should also be investigated for perjury, I would not have assumed you to believe Gonzales is guilty.What? Both statements are going to be investigated. That's what happens in investigations.
No, I implied he was innocent.Someone learned a new word today!
I meant what you read from the leftist propaganda of the mainstream media.Right, because it's all lies -- nothing in the mainstream media could possibly be true. You get your weather reports from right wing blogs.
The media suggests guiltThe media points out the problems with Gonzo, problems that are being investigated.
Your inferring it is the basically the same as you saying he is guilty, isn't it?That is not my inference. I understand that there are notable problems with Gonzo's testimony that are easily explained and understood and they could well be criminal. I'm content to have it investigated and let the chips fall where they may. You have already exonerated him after your exhaustive investigation of right wing blogs. Who is really prejudiced here?

[Wild Cobra]

:lmao SO it only took how many days for you to get this?
Hey, your attitude, considering what you said and didn't say, was that he was guilty. Even though you never said it. That is what I went by. You never said otherwise as I questioned the issue and you refused to give me evidence I asked for. You're a real shit.


What? Both statements are going to be investigated. That's what happens in investigations.
I hope so, but the senate seems only to question Gonzales. They lead Mueller, and fail to ask necessary questions of Comey. You think they will investigate Comey with the same zeal as they investigate Gonzalas? I doubt any word of Comey's testimony not matching Mueller's and Gonzales' will come to light. If you think about it. Mueller's and Gonzales' testimony are not in conflict, are they! That suggests it is Comey that is lying, doesn't it?


Someone learned a new word today!
No, I used them right. However, I'll admit I double checked the definition just in case. Like I said, English is my poorest subject.


Right, because it's all lies -- nothing in the mainstream media could possibly be true.
Generally, the media gives false impressions by the way they present the truth. however, it is outright lies at times. Like I said, you have to learn to parse the truth.


You get your weather reports from right wing blogs.
Ha. Ha. You like assumeing things like that and showing ignorance?


The media points out the problems with Gonzo, problems that are being investigated. That is not my inference.
It looks more like to me the media takes a biased viewpoint of the situation. If they were neutral on the subject and reported pro and con circumstances equally, I wouldn't make such accusations.


I understand that there are notable problems with Gonzo's testimony that are easily explained and understood and they could well be criminal.
I didn't see any problems in the testimony. If you look for problems, you can find them. I'll agree that there are things that could be problems. i just don't believe any investigation will show it.


I'm content to have it investigated and let the chips fall where they may.
As am I. I still want to see where you say Mueller's testimony is in conflict with Gonzales'. You did make that claim. i think I showed otherwise. Were you speaking of something else?


You have already exonerated him after your exhaustive investigation of right wing blogs. Who is really prejudiced here?
Hmmm... Believe it of not, I don't read blogs. When I find one in a search for something, I look for source links. Not a blogs content.

Please don't assume things about me. Usually people are wrong when they assume things about me.

[clambake]

jesus, this guy makes yonivore look brilliant.

[xrayzebra]

jesus, this guy makes yonivore look brilliant.

Maybe someone will come along and make you look....
well just like something.....obviously not brilliant, well
human....yeah that's it. Well no, not really, like animal
life. Like a Clam who spent most of his life in a shell...

[George Gervin's Afro]

jesus, this guy makes yonivore look brilliant.


WC is brilliant.. haven't you heard?