Should Alberto Gonzalez be fired?

Question

John Sununu says he should. And, actually, Gonzalez might have lied under oath - he did tell Congress that no abuses of the PATRIOT Act were taking place.

Actually, Eric, the mainstream media has, in fact, reported about Clinton firing US attorneys. The difference is, he fired them, as many Presidents do, when he took office. Most Presidents clean house when they're coming into office. Not many Presidents fire US attorneys they've been working with for a term and a half, suddenly, because word is coming out that legislation that those Presidents pushed through Congress has been abused by people within the President's oversight. There's a very marked difference between the two things. Bush is not a new President, so this action is suspicious.

Answer 1

He definitely should be on trial now with his efforts to coerce.

Answer 2

The Clinton admin dismissed something like 67 federal attorneys for those they felt suited themselves better. But you won't hear this on the "mainstream" media for obvious reasons. This is a made up scandal in a time when the Dems want to get elected.

I do think the Bush admin shows incredible weakness yet again in not simply stating the facts: Presidents can dismiss federal attorneys at their whim, just as Clinton did.

Answer 3

Well, If Shumer resigned then this has some traction otherwise exactly what did Gonzalez be fired for? Might have is not a definate.

Answer 4

The entire White House should be fired. Not just Gonzalez.

Answer 5

Fired, and then put on trial for treason.

Answer 6

He has done nothing wrong. At the time of his testimony, he had no knowledge of the errors in the FBI.

Answer 7

yes

Answer 8

hell yes