Slashdot Mirror
U.S. Attorney General Resigns
willie3204 is one of many to mention that U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has resigned. One of Gonzales' main opponents praised his decision stating that: "'For the previous six months, the Justice Department has been virtually nonfunctional and desperately needs new leadership,' said the Schumer statement. 'Democrats will not obstruct or impede a nominee who we are confident will put the rule of law above political considerations. We beseech the Administration to work with us to nominate someone whom Democrats can support and America can be proud of.'"
They were the ones who first latched onto the US Attorney firings. It was through their investigative reporting that congress got involved.
Talking Points Memo
photosMy Photostream
Do you have any idea of the duties of the Attorney General? The Attorney General is not the President's private counsel. The Attorney General is the PEOPLE'S COUNSEL. As such, his loyalties are to the People of the United States, NOT the President.
People need to brush up on their civics lessons.
How is this News for Nerds?
it takes some effort to make john ashcroft look like a brave defender of american's freedoms. and ag ag did that, by acting like some sort of blitzkrieg operative for the extension of capricious and dubious powers. all very shady, all very slick, all very despicable, and forever afterward in my mind ag ag was worthy of not just resignation, but prosecution and punishment
now it looks like, like a previous white house operative (ag was the general counsel of gw bush in texas), that he's just the fall guy for his higher ups. resigning and taking the heat that rightfully should lead to dick cheney, karl rove, and gw bush
i'm not one for impeachment, it's a radical act, but i'm wondering where all the self-righteous a-holes who were ready to pillory clinton for whitewater and getting a blowjob from an intern are on the subject of gw bush, (or iran-contra, for that matter). or is it just a partisan game to get the other team at all costs, regardless of any actual judgment of the scale of wrongdoing?
personally, clinton could have had roman orgies on the scale of caligula in the white house. compared to what bush has done to this country's image in the world, orgies in the white house ranks as an impeachable offense a couple of orders of magnitude below what the shocktroops of chicanery the gw bush team has given us
gw bush: the usa's worst president, ever. he's just a moronic drunk rich kid. he wasn't even rightfully elected by the will of the american people. can you imagine how different things would be on the world stage today if al gore was in the white house?
the 2008 elections cannot come fast enough
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
"The AG's job is to represent the federal government's side in the supreme court and meanwhile give legal advice to the other cabinet positions and the executive offices."
Not exactly. It is the Solicitor General who represents the government's position in the Supreme Court. The Attorney General is the "the head of the Department of Justice and chief law enforcement officer of the Federal Government." Seems like a position whose holder should be very scrupulous about following as well as enforcing the law and maintaining the integrity of the Department of Justice, doesn't it? {Prof. Jonathan}
Lets assume for one moment, before he took this position that he was a good lawyer. But to be led by a man who has destroyed so many other reputations is no easy task.
Gonzales has been with Bush since Texas. That's how long his poor judge of character has been in place.
As for him being a good lawyer, that's hard to say. I'm more concerned about whether he's an ethical and moral lawyer, which he is not; and, that didn't start when he took the AG job. Remember that it was Alberto Gonzales that convinced the president that the Geneva Conventions prohibiting torture were "quaint" and don't apply to the U.S. We have the detentions at Guantanamo of "foreign combantants" and the suspension of Habeas Corpus for Americans suspected of ties to terrorism because of him.
Gonzales was amongst the crew strongarming former Attorney General John Ashcroft in the ICU to approve the warrantless wiretapping program. The polital firings of U.S. attorney's is just the last straw on a big pile of straws.
Some people have a way with words, and some people, um, thingy.
This is the guy who testified to the Senate that the right to habeas corpus is not guaranteed to US Citizens.
What a strange 6 years we have lived through since 9/11. I'm hoping it will be over soon. At least the Gonzalez chapter is.
There's an agreement between the president and the Senate Leader Reid to no longer due this. If the President breaks that agreement, it'll upset folks, plus the Senate can be kept perpetually in session by having a senator come in every few days throughout the normal recess. It's not legally binding, of course, but if the President wants to accomplish anything in the next year, I suspect he'll keep his word.
Probably nothing, legally.
Yes, yes: "they serve at the pleasure of the President."
Fine, fire them all because it's raining out. Or even fire them for political reasons, like they didn't donate enough money to your campaign. I'll give Bush the right to fire them for whatever reason, political or otherwise.
But, don't you think we have at least the right to know whether people were fired because they wouldn't investigate democrats in the months leading up to elections? Don't we at least have the right to know that people are being selectively prosecuted because of their party affiliations? Don't we at least have the right to know that justice is being meted out fairly?
Just because they are political appointments, doesn't mean that once appointed, the appointees are the stooges of the White House. They still have to follow the law. And it would be interesting to know if they were being fired for not being stooges.
And if you don't think the Congress has the right (nay, duty) to investigate such things, you're smoking crack.
Content aside, that's the funniest misheard/mistyped term I've seen in a while. It's not roarshark, it's Rorschach . I'm normally not a pedant on things like this, but had to correct this one.
I only post comments when someone on the internet is wrong.
There's one big reason why I won't advocate impeaching Bush: President Dick Cheney
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Shit like this really REALLY pisses me off.
Right, Left, Rebulican, Democrat...we are all AMERICANS. When will you people get that through your thick skulls?
There are no "teams" here, people. We are all in this boat together. The more of you that put a letter after your name, the more this country falls apart.
The "team" nature that this country has become obsessed with is the marking of our downfall. People like the person quoted in this post are the EXACT reason why this country is fucked. It's not because he is for the liberals or because he is for the conservatives...it's because he is declaring a "side" as "winning".
The instant you do that, we all lose.
Living With a Nerd
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Disposition of EC votes is strictly up to the state to decide. Well, within constitutional limits. Nebraska and Maine are not winner take all states, last time I looked a few years ago.
This particular governmental power was hastily repealed in 1802 when it became likely that Thomas Jefferson (a staunch opponent of the act and those who passed it) would win the next presidency.
Is this the same Thomas Jefferson who was elected President in 1800?
I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
First past the post elections systems tend to become two party systems after a long enough period of time.
The UK would be considered a two party system, the Labour and Conservative parties are the major parties with the Liberal Democrats a distant third (the 2005 UK election results shows this well, even though the Lib Dem got 22.1% of the vote they only got 9.6% of the seats. Also look at the difference between Labour and the Conservative vote, 35.3% vs. 33.3% of the vote but 55.2% vs. 32.7% of the seats respectively. Just for note, the small parties with a few seats each are mostly parties with significant local issues i.e. Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales)
In order to have a strong multi party system you would need to change election system from a first past the post system. My personal experience is with proportional representation as used in Ireland (single transferable vote).
This uses multi seat constituencies with a single transferable vote. Looking at the results of the 2007 election you can see that while two major parties still exist, there exists a number of strong smaller parties. It is also interesting to see that the percentage of seats in the Dáil (parliament) is relatively close to the percentage of first preference votes. This also means that in order to have a single party government you need the majority or very close to the majority of the votes.
Independence? That's middle-class blasphemy. We are all dependent on one another, every soul of us on earth. G.B Shaw
Actually, the law was written so that it would pass out of effect after the end of the presidential term. They planned to just pass it again after another Federalist became president.
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
I'm terrified of the power that any of these goons in office hold. I just wish the government would be drastically reduced.
But where do you think the power will go? It doesn't just go away.
We did the mistake of voting in term limits here in Oregon for legislators. The result has been essentially a transfer of power and influence from legislators to their aids and the lobbyists - who don't get removed after so many terms.
Voter turnout less than 20%? That's what the entrenched parties want. If you can get the middle to be apathetic and not turn out then all you have to do is activate your base more than the other guy. The middle voters are so unpredictable that it's better to keep them at home and unwilling to participate.
Were you around during the Clinton presidency?
No war?
You don't remember Somalia, Kosovo (and the bombing of Belgrade, where the US managed to bomb the Chinese embassy), and the bombings in Iraq (Desert Fox, anyone?), and missile attacks in the Sudan and elsewhere?
And as for terrorism, the WTC bombing in '93, the USS Cole, US embassies in Africa? Where hundreds died?
It's quite true there wasn't a conflict like Iraq, and we didn't lose over three thousand US troops in combat. But thousands died, just most of them weren't Americans.
Yes, the Clinton years were years of relative peace compared to now. But the idea that there was "no war" (and I'm speaking of conflict directly involving the US military; obviously there were a lot of other wars going on) is pretty peculiar.
Go tell the citizens of Yugoslavia, Sudan, Somalia, Kosovo, and even Iraq that there was "no war" in the Clinton years. You might get quite an earful.
Holmwood.
No, he's saying that you can lie to a grand jury about anything the *judge* determines is not a material fact in the case. And he's 100% correct. If you want to tell a grand jury investigating a murder that the Sun revolves around the Earth, even though you know it for a fact to be untrue, you haven't committed perjury because it has nothing to do with the case.
The point of defining perjury in this way was specifically BECAUSE you are required to answer all questions put to you before the grand jury or in a deposition, and objections on the basis of relevance are only dealt with afterwards, when he damage is already done. So grand juries and depositions can be used as free-for-all fishing expeditions by an unscrupulous attorney, and in return you are allowed to lie to his face without breaking the law if he's asking you about things he isn't authorized to compel your testimony on.
Of course, you take the risk that the judge will disagree with your assessment of what is or is not a material fact in the case.
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
, and a republican win in 08 is nearly assured.
Hardly, given the crop of craptacular Republican candidates. What a Hillary nomination will do, is hurt their down ticket races in Republican states.
Sorry, but I think that after watching some of the hypocrisy of the past seven years, many Americans now know the difference between substantive policy and "talking things."
Of course, if the Repubs wanted to "co-opt" these issues by regulating business and trade practices, building a better education system, cutting pollution, and ensuring that the citizens of the world's richest country have access to health care, then I'd be all for them, but I somehow doubt that their shareholders...er, major donors want anything to do with it.
Tags != Comments, and -1 (Troll) != -1 (I Would Respond Angrily To This Poster So They Must Be Trolling)
364 Total Executive Orders Issued, 381 Total Executive Orders Issued, too bad he hadn't more time.
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
Clinton still lied no matter how you slice it.
Wrong again. During the trial, there was quibbling over the definitions of words, particularly "sexual relations". Starr wanted to use a definition so broad that merely bushing past someone on a narrow bus or airplane aisle could be considered sexual relations. Clinton rightfully complained that this was way too broad, and the judge agreed. Under the restricted definition, Clinton and his lawyer interpreted it to mean either penis in vagina or him giving oral sex to someone else. Since he wasn't cleaning Monica's carpet, and since blow jobs are not penis in vagina, he did not in fact have "sexual relations" with Monica. In fact, since he didn't fuck her, saying he did have "sexual relations" with her would have been a lie. Obviously this is all hair splitting on the part of both the defense and the prosecution, but splitting hairs is not lying.
In any case, on the legal front, he could have lied about having ever knowing Monica, and it wouldn't have been perjury, because the judge ruled that whatever happened between Bill and Monica was irrelevant to the Jones case. And if it's not relevant, it's not perjury. For example, if prosecutors had asked Martha Stewart what her weight was during her trial, she could have lied and said she weighed 120 when she knew she weighed 150, because that question would have been irrelevant to the charges of insider trading.
In any case, on the moral front, when someone asks you a question that is noneoftheirfuckingbusiness, they have no right to an honest answer. Bill's infidelity was an issue for his family and Monica. Anyone else, and it was noneoftheirfuckingbusiness.
If there was any real justice, Starr and the Republicans in Congress would have served nice jail terms for malicious prosecution.