Bush reaffirms support for Gonzales

[maddezmom]

Source: Associated Press

By LARA JAKES JORDAN, Associated Press Writer
2 hours, 38 minutes ago



WASHINGTON - President Bush is standing firmly behind his embattled attorney general despite Justice Department documents that show Alberto Gonzales was more involved in the decisions to fire U.S. attorneys than he previously indicated.

Gonzales said last week he was not involved in any discussions about the impending dismissals of federal prosecutors. On Friday night, however, the department disclosed Gonzales' participation in a Nov. 27 meeting where such plans were discussed.

That e-mail only added to the calls for Gonzales' ouster.

Dan Bartlett, counselor to the president, said Saturday that Bush continues to support Gonzales despite the latest disclosures.

Bartlett also said he was not aware of any negotiations under way between the White House and congressional Democrats over how current and former Bush aides could provide information about the firings to lawmakers.



Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070324/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/fired_prosecutors

---

and more from DOJ spokesperson:

But while admitting that the meeting between Gonzales and Sampson took place, Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse insisted there was still no proof the two discussed the upcoming firings.

"The information available to us does not indicate that there was discussion at this meeting about which US attorneys should or should not be on the list," Roehrkasse said.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070324/pl_afp/uscongresspolitics_070324165719

How many ways are they going to spin this? He lied, he lied, he lied.

[nadinbrzezinski]

1. His ass is cooked

You are douing a heck of a job brownie

You will be in my administration until the end (regarding Rummy the dummy)

See a pattern here?

[Demeter]

7. You Mean, An Early End to this Administration?

I only wish!

[MasonJar]

2. There is no telling what Gonzales has on Bush. He better stick by him!

[ClintonTyree]

5. Got that right....

Gonzo knows where all the bodies are buried, literally and figuratively. Unless Gonzo resigns of his own accord, perhaps to "spend more time with his family", Bush will stick with him until the bitter end. Gonzo has the goods on Bush, and those are a LOT of goods!

[rodeodance]

3. so, the Dems are not negoiating? only the Repugs are? specter, cornyn

that I know of.


.....Bartlett also said he was not aware of any negotiations under way between the White House and congressional Democrats over how current and former Bush aides could provide information about the firings to lawmakers.

[Botany]

4. bush might want to keep him on to shelter him from questions.

Pat Leahy, John Conyers, and Waxman know that Gonzales & Rove had
set up an "off the shelve shadow government" to keep and build on their
ill gotten power.

The U.S. Attorney's were to be the Capos in the Bush Mafia.

[truthisfreedom]

6. This is just toooo rich. bush has a penchant for hanging on way to long to people that are dragging

him down... how far will he go this time? Will he let his poll numbers drop into the low twenties?

[Demeter]

8. He's Exercising His Executive Privilege

Which the voters should remove, stat.

[damntexdem]

9. Oh oh, Gonzalez is in real trouble.:

by now, Dubya is behind him about 1000%. He'll soon be shown the door.

[liberal renegade]

11. not until he gets his medal of freedom....

or whatever the fuck it is Bush hands out for being an imbecile...

[annabanana]

10. Can this guy be impeached?

B*sh says he won't fire him. He's said he won't quit. He must be removed somehow. Can he be impeached?

[IChing]

12. Yes

Gonzales can be impeached

But can the House impeach the attorney general? The Constitution is clear that Congress may impeach "all civil officers of the United States." In our history, the House has impeached two presidents, and just one member of the Cabinet, William Belknap, secretary of war under president Ulysses S. Grant.

Belknap had profited from kickbacks by military contractors. The House began impeachment proceedings, documented the charges, and just before the articles were formally voted, on March 2, 1876, Belknap resigned. But the House voted impeachment anyway. The reason, as House Judiciary Chairman J. Proctor Knott explained to the Senate, "was that his infamy might be rendered conspicuous, historic, eternal, in order to prevent the occurrence of like offenses in the future."

A fine discussion of the Belknap precedent was written last December on the legal website findlaw.com, by, of all people, President Nixon's former legal counsel John Dean. (Astoundingly, the best lawyer the Bush White House can find for advice on stonewalling is another Watergate veteran, Fred Fielding.)>>>snip

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/03/24/gonzales_should_be_impeached/

[annabanana]

13. fascinating history nuggets! - Thank you!. . . . .

"that his infamy might be rendered conspicuous, historic, eternal, in order to prevent the occurrence of like offenses in the future"

We clearly need another conspicuous example. A "booster shot", if you will.