Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, for the first time called for the resignation of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.
“The buck should stop somewhere,” Clinton told ABC News senior political correspondent Jake Tapper, “and the attorney general — who still seems to confuse his prior role as the president’s personal attorney with his duty to the system of justice and to the entire country — should resign.
Clinton said the evidence so far pointed to “direct interference with the way U.S. attorneys are supposed to operate — to be impartial. There’s evidence of political interference and political pressure being put on them to engage in partisan political activities.” Clinton added there were “so many examples of an abuse of power, of going in and removing people not on the basis of performance but, in fact, because they were performing well, they were fulfilling their responsibilities as a U.S. attorney, and that wasn’t within the political agenda of the administration.”
When Clinton’s husband took office in 1993, one of the first actions his attorney general took was to remove every U.S. attorney.
Amazing, all the right wing blogs say that Clinton fired 93 US attorneys when he entered office, and all the left wing blogs say that he didn’t. Oh, and you can’t find the “facts” anywhere but left or right leaning blogs. Since when is the truth debatable? I’d pay good money to anyone who could find the answer on CNN, BBC, or Foxnews, and not on the Huffington post or FreeRepublic.
Good point Chris. Even some of the leftwingers are saying the firing happened, but that its routine for all administrations, which I’d never heard before. I’d be surprised if FoxNews hasn’t adopted the Rpublican talking point. Somehow, the other networks never made the connection, and some networks never reported it in 1993 while the others dropped the issue after a few days. This ‘scandal’ was the first time I’d heard that attorneys have 4 year terms too. Nevertheless, I’d like to see poeple look into just what caused these 8 to be fired. If it’s to stop the prosecutions of Republicans, then thats impeachable. If it was to get more prosecutions of (Democrat) voter fraud, thats fine with me.
would someone explain to me what “libs” are? Seems to me that this term is bantered around so much, mostly by people who spout a lot of radio-talk-show harping points, that it’s lost any meaning what-so-ever? Is is just anyone who doesn’t agree with you? WTF? I’m not getting it. Please, clarify, and explain how/why people are considered liberal now, and also explain to me what conservative means.
thank you
I call for Hillary to resign.
Why is it OK for Democrats to call for investigations to help their political prospects, as they are doing with this ‘scandal’, but not OK for Republicans to do the same as the Dems are accusing them of doing with this firing?
Plus what is wrong with firing attorneys for not going after vote fraud or immigration violations? (Other than that it could lead to the President’s prosecution)
#33, the same could be said about the term “neocon”
#33,
“libs” is a term used by right wing nuts with a lisp to refer to the human organ between the nose and chin. They are readily noticeable on the right wing nuts by the blathering with spittle flying in all directions.
#33, 36 – You’re on to the problem: the terms don’t mean what people envision anymore.
Go back and listen to speeches made by such “liberal” shining lights like JFK and Hubert Humphrey. They actually sound more “conservative” than most of todays so-called conservatives.
What I’d love to see is a simple list, by year, of how many US Attorneys were fired by the presidential administration in power for that year, going back, say, 20-30 years.
If it shows that Democratic presidents have fired as many US attorneys as Republican presidents have during comparable years in office, then ok, Republicans have a point.
Otherwise, Republicans don’t have a point, or worse, are obfuscating the issue.
#37 — small history lesson — “neocon” was coined as a neologism by a former Liberal writer who found his way to more fun and profit by espousing conservative causes — a wry term at the time ~50 years ago.
It was adopted as self-descriptive by the New American Century crowd to differentiate themselves from traditional conservatives they call RINO’s, Republicans In Name Only.
Their choice.
I think its a shame what those republicrats are doing to poor Speedy’s brother!!
Arena! Arena!.