With Gonzales On The Way Out....

[Scalliwag]

GW has always picked people very zealous to the point of absolute lunacy and not let a little thing like the constitution get in the way of trampling peoples rights.
First we had the nutjob Ashcroft that took it upon himself to spend $8000 to put robes on statues http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/statues-r...l?oneclick=true
Then he was replaced by Alberto and it sure looks like he lied under oath. One of the lawyers that was fired was a little too good at her job. She was the one that led to the embarrassing conviction of Duke Cunningham and some of the emails about her talk about how she has been a real problem lately. My guess is that those that wrote that will get a chance to answer exactly what problems she was causing.

It is not a question of if but when Alberto walks the plank and the next AG has to be confirmed by a democrat controlled senate. There is a lot that has to be covered up at the justice department. Bush has to appoint another corrupt cronie to protect him. They are already shopping for his replacement. Do you guys have any ideas?
He could pick a senator from a state with a repub guv. So my guess is John Cornyn.
My hope is that they put him through the meat grinder and don't confirm him.
Anybody close to GW should not be confirmed. The person needs to be more independant and not a rubberstamp for everything Bush wants.

[Blue Midnight]

The interesting thing about all this is not really the fate of Gonzales at all. Gonzales was picked to replace Ashcroft because he is a "yes man", a guy who would do what the administration wanted when it wanted it and then defend the actions. Illegal wiretapping of American citizens being exhibit A. But again, it is not really Gonzales who is pursuing these policies. He was not picked for his brain, after all, but for his loyalty to GWB.

So, the question becomes whether Gonzales leaves and that is the end of it. It is clear that somebody higher up in the food chain ordered these firings. It wouldn't surprise me at all if this thing led back to Rove himself (who would have had to receive GWB's permission, one would assume, for ordering Gonzales to fire these attorneys). Rove is in charge of protecting the political standing of Republicans, and if these attorneys were in fact uncovering untoward deeds committed by Republicans, then it makes sense that Karl Rove would want to be rid of them. We shall see whether he agrees to testify under oath, although my guess is that the president will claim executive priviledge under some lame national security pretense, Gonzales will be sacrified at the alter, the Democrats will claim to have attained some great "victory", and that will be that.

[Scalliwag]

The Whitehouseshould be known as the whitewash, want to have Karl Rove and Harriet Miers "meet" with lawmakers behind closed doors, not under oath and no transcript of the conversation. The same thing that GW wanted when him and Cheney testified together not under oath during the 911 investigation.
This is not playing out well for them and the senate is going to issue subpoenas. While there is separation of powers involved here it will not sell to the public as anything short of a coverup if Bush tries to use executive priviledge.
GW has to really be squirming pretty good about now. Damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.

Rove under oath in front of a dem majority that hates his guts and has his number. Kinda like Clinton, lie or tell the truth, either is going to dig the grave a little deeper. RIP GOP

[Scalliwag]

I wish GW would nominate Vincent Bugliosi. He is the greatest prosecutor of all time. Something tells me that GW may not care to much for him though. http://www.thenation.com/doc/20010205/bugliosi

When he was a prosecutor in LA he got Charles Manson put away for life even though he was not even at the crime scene. Succesfully prosecuted 105 of 106 cases while there. Interesting and incredibly smart.... yet two more reasons the Bush administration would not want him