Comments on: The WSJ On The Politics Over Alberto Gonzales http://hispanicpundit.com/2007/03/26/the-wsj-on-the-politics-over-alberto-gonzales/ Thu, 04 Dec 2008 21:31:33 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.2 By: HispanicPundit http://hispanicpundit.com/2007/03/26/the-wsj-on-the-politics-over-alberto-gonzales/#comment-142416 HispanicPundit Wed, 28 Mar 2007 17:03:45 +0000 http://hispanicpundit.com/2007/03/26/the-wsj-on-the-politics-over-alberto-gonzales/#comment-142416 Also, read the editorial, Bush has <i>already</i> done more than he should and more than he is obligated to do yet that just makes Democrats hungrier for more. In other words, it is Democrats that are playing politics with this, not Bush. Also, read the editorial, Bush has already done more than he should and more than he is obligated to do yet that just makes Democrats hungrier for more.

In other words, it is Democrats that are playing politics with this, not Bush.

]]> By: HispanicPundit http://hispanicpundit.com/2007/03/26/the-wsj-on-the-politics-over-alberto-gonzales/#comment-142414 HispanicPundit Wed, 28 Mar 2007 16:59:11 +0000 http://hispanicpundit.com/2007/03/26/the-wsj-on-the-politics-over-alberto-gonzales/#comment-142414 If Bush gave in it would set a precedent where congressional authority erodes executive privilege. In other words, it would result in the (however slight) erosion of the separation of powers, the very foundation of the United States Constitution. If Bush gave in it would set a precedent where congressional authority erodes executive privilege. In other words, it would result in the (however slight) erosion of the separation of powers, the very foundation of the United States Constitution.

]]> By: Julissa http://hispanicpundit.com/2007/03/26/the-wsj-on-the-politics-over-alberto-gonzales/#comment-142413 Julissa Wed, 28 Mar 2007 16:56:53 +0000 http://hispanicpundit.com/2007/03/26/the-wsj-on-the-politics-over-alberto-gonzales/#comment-142413 If he (Bush) "gave in" wouldn't that make him the bigger person? I'm so sick of this crap. I love my country, but I'm just over the games that both sides play. If he (Bush) “gave in” wouldn’t that make him the bigger person? I’m so sick of this crap. I love my country, but I’m just over the games that both sides play.

]]> By: HispanicPundit http://hispanicpundit.com/2007/03/26/the-wsj-on-the-politics-over-alberto-gonzales/#comment-142411 HispanicPundit Wed, 28 Mar 2007 16:15:17 +0000 http://hispanicpundit.com/2007/03/26/the-wsj-on-the-politics-over-alberto-gonzales/#comment-142411 No evidence, speculation only, and even then after Bush has already handed over thousands of emails and offered Democrats a chance to interview who they like in private. But Democrats don't want that, they want to play politics, and politics on something so fundamental as constitutional separation of powers. Which is why I would be very disappointed if Bush gave in. No evidence, speculation only, and even then after Bush has already handed over thousands of emails and offered Democrats a chance to interview who they like in private. But Democrats don’t want that, they want to play politics, and politics on something so fundamental as constitutional separation of powers.

Which is why I would be very disappointed if Bush gave in.

]]> By: Michael http://hispanicpundit.com/2007/03/26/the-wsj-on-the-politics-over-alberto-gonzales/#comment-142403 Michael Wed, 28 Mar 2007 14:00:21 +0000 http://hispanicpundit.com/2007/03/26/the-wsj-on-the-politics-over-alberto-gonzales/#comment-142403 There is also Congressional oversight in the constitution. There is evidence of possible hindering of investigations with phone calls coming from members of congress. It also is clear that executive privielge does not apply to convesations where the VP or Pres are not involved. There is also Congressional oversight in the constitution. There is evidence of possible hindering of investigations with phone calls coming from members of congress.

It also is clear that executive privielge does not apply to convesations where the VP or Pres are not involved.

]]> By: HispanicPundit http://hispanicpundit.com/2007/03/26/the-wsj-on-the-politics-over-alberto-gonzales/#comment-142360 HispanicPundit Tue, 27 Mar 2007 20:07:19 +0000 http://hispanicpundit.com/2007/03/26/the-wsj-on-the-politics-over-alberto-gonzales/#comment-142360 But again, there is no evidence, speculation yes but not evidence, that these Attorney Generals were in the middle of any serious White House investigation. Based on what we know now, what the Democrats are asking is to see the private executive privelage memos of internal White House deliberations...and that is a constitution separation of powers. Again, Bush should not give in to any of the Democrats demands. The Constitution demands it. But again, there is no evidence, speculation yes but not evidence, that these Attorney Generals were in the middle of any serious White House investigation.

Based on what we know now, what the Democrats are asking is to see the private executive privelage memos of internal White House deliberations…and that is a constitution separation of powers.

Again, Bush should not give in to any of the Democrats demands. The Constitution demands it.

]]> By: Michael http://hispanicpundit.com/2007/03/26/the-wsj-on-the-politics-over-alberto-gonzales/#comment-142355 Michael Tue, 27 Mar 2007 19:03:08 +0000 http://hispanicpundit.com/2007/03/26/the-wsj-on-the-politics-over-alberto-gonzales/#comment-142355 Duke Cunningham was investigated, tried and convicted by US attorney Carol lamb who was amongst the 8 terminated. Several others received pressure from the White House and Republicans Congressmen and Senators to investigate Democrats. They refused and were fired. White House officials have testified hundreds of times under oath in front of congress. condelzza Rice did it for the 9/11 committee. Even a sitting President himself (Gerald Ford) has testified under oath. They are not testifieng to cover their asses. Duke Cunningham was investigated, tried and convicted by US attorney Carol lamb who was amongst the 8 terminated. Several others received pressure from the White House and Republicans Congressmen and Senators to investigate Democrats. They refused and were fired.

White House officials have testified hundreds of times under oath in front of congress. condelzza Rice did it for the 9/11 committee. Even a sitting President himself (Gerald Ford) has testified under oath. They are not testifieng to cover their asses.

]]> By: HispanicPundit http://hispanicpundit.com/2007/03/26/the-wsj-on-the-politics-over-alberto-gonzales/#comment-142350 HispanicPundit Tue, 27 Mar 2007 16:21:36 +0000 http://hispanicpundit.com/2007/03/26/the-wsj-on-the-politics-over-alberto-gonzales/#comment-142350 The US Attorneys themselves, as far as I know, do not claim to have been investigating Republicans, or conducting any serious investigation on the administration. That, in itself, is enough to convince me that no such investigations were taking place. The reason the White House is refusing to testify under oath is principle - as the Wall Street Journal editorial said, "this or any other President has the right–we’d say the obligation–to protect the confidentiality of internal White House discussions, especially over Presidential appointments. If Congress can solicit any email concerning advice to the President, or haul any White House official before Congress, then executive branch deliberations will soon be an oxymoron". I would be very disappointed if the President gave in to any Democrat demands. The US Attorneys themselves, as far as I know, do not claim to have been investigating Republicans, or conducting any serious investigation on the administration. That, in itself, is enough to convince me that no such investigations were taking place.

The reason the White House is refusing to testify under oath is principle - as the Wall Street Journal editorial said, “this or any other President has the right–we’d say the obligation–to protect the confidentiality of internal White House discussions, especially over Presidential appointments. If Congress can solicit any email concerning advice to the President, or haul any White House official before Congress, then executive branch deliberations will soon be an oxymoron”.

I would be very disappointed if the President gave in to any Democrat demands.

]]> By: Michael http://hispanicpundit.com/2007/03/26/the-wsj-on-the-politics-over-alberto-gonzales/#comment-142330 Michael Tue, 27 Mar 2007 04:28:56 +0000 http://hispanicpundit.com/2007/03/26/the-wsj-on-the-politics-over-alberto-gonzales/#comment-142330 Obviously Gonzalez thought there is something wrong with firing the US attorneys for political reasons is wrong or else he would not have first stated that it was for performance reasons, a point he has later backed off from. If your political reason is that the attorney is investigating too many Republicans and not enough democrats then there is something wrong with that. You should not get a free pass to commit corrupt acts because your party is in power. Perhaps they were terminated for legitimate political reasons like not pursuing enough immigration cases as they state. That could be plausible, we will never know if the participants in this action do not testify under oath in public with a transcript. We seem to be learning more and more inconsistencies in there statements as more documents are released and as more officials give interviews. There seems to be some criminal activity now since one of Gonzalez advisors in the jstice department has taken the fifth for fear rhat if she testifies honestly under oath in front of congress she will have to admit to some kind of criminal activity she committed. Obviously Gonzalez thought there is something wrong with firing the US attorneys for political reasons is wrong or else he would not have first stated that it was for performance reasons, a point he has later backed off from.

If your political reason is that the attorney is investigating too many Republicans and not enough democrats then there is something wrong with that. You should not get a free pass to commit corrupt acts because your party is in power.

Perhaps they were terminated for legitimate political reasons like not pursuing enough immigration cases as they state. That could be plausible, we will never know if the participants in this action do not testify under oath in public with a transcript. We seem to be learning more and more inconsistencies in there statements as more documents are released and as more officials give interviews. There seems to be some criminal activity now since one of Gonzalez advisors in the jstice department has taken the fifth for fear rhat if she testifies honestly under oath in front of congress she will have to admit to some kind of criminal activity she committed.

]]> By: HispanicPundit http://hispanicpundit.com/2007/03/26/the-wsj-on-the-politics-over-alberto-gonzales/#comment-142314 HispanicPundit Mon, 26 Mar 2007 22:11:30 +0000 http://hispanicpundit.com/2007/03/26/the-wsj-on-the-politics-over-alberto-gonzales/#comment-142314 My point here is that the alleged lie, even if it was a lie which I am not granting, is a lie about nothing - it is perfectly acceptable to fire U.S. Attorneys for political reasons. If I was Gonzales I would have said 'yes, I did fire them for political reasons, so what'. Nothing wrong with that. My point here is that the alleged lie, even if it was a lie which I am not granting, is a lie about nothing - it is perfectly acceptable to fire U.S. Attorneys for political reasons.

If I was Gonzales I would have said ‘yes, I did fire them for political reasons, so what’. Nothing wrong with that.

]]>