TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Charges Against Gonzales on the Horizon?

Charges Against Gonzales on the Horizon?

Starts to look that way when you hear these things from the U.S. Inspector General:

quote:

Gonzales could be prosecuted, McKay says By Bill Morlin Staff writer October 20, 2007 The U.S. Inspector General may recommend criminal prosecution of departed Attorney General Alberto Gonzales at the conclusion of an investigation, possibly as early as next month, the fired former U.S. attorney for Western Washington told a Spokane audience Friday. His refusal to open a federal criminal investigation into voter fraud allegations in Gov. Chris Gregoire�s razor-thin victory over Republican challenger Dino Rossi in 2004 may be the reason he was fired, John McKay told the Federal Bar Association. Appointed by President Bush in October 2001 to the top law enforcement job in western Washington, McKay said he believes he and seven other U.S. attorneys were fired last December by Gonzales for political reasons, perhaps with former White House chief of staff Karl Rove pulling strings. Career prosecutors in his office and FBI agents agreed there was no reason to go forward with a federal investigation of the Gregoire-Rossi election, and issues associated with it were more properly addressed by state officials, McKay said. Some also have suggested his dismissal may have been tied to his relentless push to solve the 2001 murder of Tom Wales, an assistant U.S. attorney in Seattle. �I consider that a disgusting (explanation),�� McKay said, explaining he didn�t need to justify aggressively pursuing the investigation of a prosecutor �killed in the line of duty.� McKay said he was summoned to Washington, D.C., in June and questioned for eight hours about possible reasons for his firing by investigators with the Office of Inspector General, who will forward their final report to Congress. �My best guess is it will be released sometime next month,�� and likely will include recommendations for criminal prosecutions of Gonzales and maybe others, McKay said. Gonzales �lied about� reasons for the firings when questioned under oath in July by the Senate Judiciary Committee and now has hired a lawyer and is refusing to answer questions from the Inspector General, McKay said. The White House said McKay was fired for poor performance ratings of his office, but the ex-U.S. attorney said he and his office got exemplary reviews just three months before he was fired. �The chief law enforcement officer for the United States should not lie under oath,�� McKay told the bar association. It was reported last week that Gonzales has now retained a high-profile defense lawyer, and apparently is refusing to answer questions from the Inspector General, which could signify the investigation is nearly complete, McKay said. �When it lands � it is going to be an extremely negative report on President Bush�s Justice Department,�� McKay told the packed conference room, which included federal prosecutors and judges. �There was a conspiracy to politicize the Justice Department,�� the former U.S. attorney said, �and they did not get away with it.� Under increasing pressure, Gonzales resigned Aug. 27. Now a law professor at Seattle University, McKay said he thinks his counterparts, David Iglesias, fired as U.S. attorney for New Mexico, and Carol Lam, forced out as U.S. attorney in San Diego, also were targeted for political reasons. Iglesias has said he was pressured to bring an indictment against a popular Democratic official before last November�s mid-term election. Iglesias has filed a Hatch Act complaint, alleging Rove and other White House officials may have violated that federal law in his firing. Lam has said she believes her firing was tied her office�s aggressive investigation of Rep. Randy �Duke� Cunningham, a Republican congressman who later pleaded guilty to conspiracy and tax evasion. It spawned a wider investigation into congressional corruption, and Cunningham is now serving an 8-year prison term. Immediately after his firing, McKay said he thought about �going quietly,�� but then he began comparing notes with the seven other U.S. attorneys dumped at the same time in a historically unprecedented move by the White House. �They led each one of us to believe we were the only one told to resign,�� he said. �None of us particularly sought the spotlight.�� McKay said he is now speaking out, giving his �unvarnished thoughts,�� because he believes the 90 U.S. attorneys � who serve at the pleasure of the president � still should remain independent in choosing criminal cases, while exercising fairness and compassion. His counterpart, Jim McDevitt, the U.S. attorney for Eastern Washington, was in Washington, D.C., for Justice Department meetings Friday and wasn�t in the large crowd of attorneys and federal judges who heard McKay speak to the Federal Bar Association at the Davenport Hotel. McKay spoke fondly of his friendship with McDevitt and said the two would have coffee early today at the downtown hotel. http://www.spokesmanreview.com/tool...pf.asp?ID=12036

Just couldn't be happening to a nicer lying little weasel of a man. One too many little fibs for the Administration.

This would be too good to be true, I seriously doubt it. The closest we've been able to get to these people is Libby and he was commuted. Anything like this is wishful thinking at this point. The democrats haven't lived up to their promises, they're just waiting for the election and thats all we can hope for.

quote:

Originally posted by josh4 The closest we've been able to get to these people is Libby and he was commuted.

now don't go fooling yourself (somehow i doubt that won't happen). thats the "closest you have gotten" because these people are in favor with the law, nothing more.

quote:

Originally posted by josh4 This would be too good to be true, I seriously doubt it. The closest we've been able to get to these people is Libby and he was commuted. Anything like this is wishful thinking at this point. The democrats haven't lived up to their promises, they're just waiting for the election and thats all we can hope for.

Do you think that the Republicans blocking and the President vetoing many of the Democrat's legislation that this perception that they "aren't living up to their promises" is not their own doing completely?

Sure I think they are tying to get re-elected again (who isn't? that's what politics is about) and possibly a larger majority, but because their majority it so slim, it's hard for them to get their legislation through when you have many attempts at getting stuff done by the Democrats stopped by the Republicans, like with this S-CHIP bill. Many attempts at troop withdrawal's have been defeated as well due to this slim majority.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo now don't go fooling yourself (somehow i doubt that won't happen). thats the "closest you have gotten" because these people are in favor with the law, nothing more.

more like their version of the law they think they're above. whats the official count now, 130 some odd signing statements? nevermind the ABA has gone on record to condemn such acts as, well, unlawful.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo now don't go fooling yourself (somehow i doubt that won't happen). thats the "closest you have gotten" because these people are in favor with the law, nothing more.

Gotta call BS on this. I've been charged 5 times in criminal court, but have never been convicted. It isn't because I'm in 'favor with the law' quite the opposite. It is simply because I'm a scumbag with a good lawyer and money to burn. I was in the wrong and breaking the law every time, but in America the only true crime is not being able to afford competent legal assistance.

I truly believe that Gonzales is a good man. But what I am against is that he put his friendship and loyalty towards Bush above the law

quote:

Originally posted by LatinLover I truly believe that Gonzales is a good man. But what I am against is that he put his friendship and loyalty towards Bush above the law

So putting your personal interests above the law is some how being a good man? Sure it's one thing if you're some average city official in a rural district. But this guy was the ATTORNEY GENERAL.

Sounds like a bad man to me.

it's starting to look a lot like Christmas...

quote:

Originally posted by Zild Gotta call BS on this. I've been charged 5 times in criminal court, but have never been convicted. It isn't because I'm in 'favor with the law' quite the opposite. It is simply because I'm a scumbag with a good lawyer and money to burn. I was in the wrong and breaking the law every time, but in America the only true crime is not being able to afford competent legal assistance.

yeah i just can't equate you jacking car stereos or whatever local level street crime you were involved in with VERY public officials at the highest levels of government accused of things like treason or obstruction or any number of Federal level falsehoods leveled upon the Administration by the Democraps in any of the 100 odd investigations that have been played out to the public's dis-interests.

at the end of the day, or 8 years, Bushitler and all his wicked men and women walk away with not so much a scratch to show for some of the most virulent politics of modern times. but like Josh4 said, you'd think they would have more than just Libby's career on a platter by now.

after all this time and effort, demagoguery and rhetoric, you'd think the law would work just once in your's and the Democrap's favor...but alas, eventually the word "hype" comes to mind.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo yeah i just can't equate you jacking car stereos or whatever local level street crime you were involved in with VERY public officials at the highest levels of government accused of things like treason or obstruction or any number of Federal level falsehoods leveled upon the Administration by the Democraps in any of the 100 odd investigations that have been played out to the public's dis-interests. at the end of the day, or 8 years, Bushitler and all his wicked men and women walk away with not so much a scratch to show for some of the most virulent politics of modern times. but like Josh4 said, you'd think they would have more than just Libby's career on a platter by now. after all this time and effort, demagoguery and rhetoric, you'd think the law would work just once in your's and the Democrap's favor...but alas, eventually the word "hype" comes to mind.

Have to mostly agree with you here, except the word "hype" doesn't come to my mind. More like the words, "spineless", "status quo", "Beltway consultants", and "incompetent" tend to describe it better for me.

Not so sure this is a "Democrat against a corrupt Republican" type of an issue here, however. Last I checked the Inspector General is a nonpartisan, unbiased figure, so whatever it is that he found and is investigating on his own was not because of partisan reasons. Granted, the Democrats were able to shed some light on Gonzales' misconduct through hearings and investigations, but the reason of the IG considering charges against Gonzales is not the result of the IG being a partisan figure himself. Therefore any evidence he is turning up and utilizing for his own investigation is hopefully done in a nonpartisan manner.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo yeah i just can't equate you jacking car stereos or whatever local level street crime you were involved in with VERY public officials at the highest levels of government accused of things like treason or obstruction or any number of Federal level falsehoods leveled upon the Administration by the Democraps in any of the 100 odd investigations that have been played out to the public's dis-interests. at the end of the day, or 8 years, Bushitler and all his wicked men and women walk away with not so much a scratch to show for some of the most virulent politics of modern times. but like Josh4 said, you'd think they would have more than just Libby's career on a platter by now. after all this time and effort, demagoguery and rhetoric, you'd think the law would work just once in your's and the Democrap's favor...but alas, eventually the word "hype" comes to mind.

You're right it is slightly different because I never hurt anyone much less the whole country. However the basics still stand. If you have connections and money you will be OK because that is what the law favors. This isn't about partisanship either because I'm no democrat. I was just pointing out the way criminal law works in our country since I'm intimately familiar with it having worked in the field for years and been through the processes myself many times.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo yeah i just can't equate you jacking car stereos or whatever local level street crime you were involved in...

Wrong, how about not taking shit from asshole hick cops in Texas and dishing it back.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.