Isn't a great thing that Alberto Gonzales ordered his US attorneys to prosecute Dems and leave Reps alone?

Question

I mean, shouldn't every President have an attorney general that prosecutes based upon someone's party affiliation, not the facts of the case?

Answer 1

THAT'S REAL REPUBLICANISM AT WORK

Answer 2

He has made a mockery of one of the things that made this country great- an impartial justice system. What has bitten his sorry behind is that they had opened so many investigation on Dems. Investigations into Democrats were at a 7:1 ratio over Republicans. There were 298 investigations of Democrats versus just 67 of Republicans. The problem they ran into was that there was more evidence being turned up on Republicans than on the people they had hoped would have been dragged down.

One of the worst performing US Attorneys was one in WI. He had a woman tried and convicted on specious evidence and then during the election, tried to link her to the incumbent Gov and claimed his administration was corrupt. It did not work and he was re-elected. This woman was sentenced to 20 years. She appealed the case and the appellate court job threw out the case in less than an hour, wrote in the brief about the abuse of power and that the US attorney needed to be investigated. He still has his job because he did the political bidding of this Atty General instead of actually doing his job based on facts and justice not persecution BUT 5 out of the 9 US attorneys who in the course of their investigations found corruption on the part of Pubs, well they got canned. This really scares me, these people have the power to take your possessions and your freedom and have now turned "lady justice" into "lady persection"
Edit: to the person below and his comment about Clinton being the first. It is painfully obvious that you are and continue to be one of the dumbed down masses that the adminstration falls in love with. You spout absolute crap and believe it to be the truth. For your education- Presidents before him did it and one that comes to mind over the past 20-30 years who did it, that is "fire" US attorneys en masse was .... Ronald Reagan.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/03/13/DI2007031300985.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2007/03/14/publiceye/entry2571144.shtml

Maybe if you would take your head of the ground and actually read and do research instead of relying on pundits like the morons of Faux News, Matt Drudge. Rush Limpbaugh and their ilk, may you would not look like so daft

Answer 3

Your fine use of irony will not deter extremists from attacking you. But it is one forceful way of asking the real question, which is, "Should Alberto Gonzales be removed from office as attorney general and/or be impeached for having ordered governmental servants of each man's right in the U.S. to target those politically opposed to his imperial-presidency advocating infallibility-spouting boss and leaving the much richer, less ethical and more crime-prone members of his own statist party unprosecuted?

Put that way the answer is, "Yes he should be removed from office and/or impeached for such an offense, one apparently practiced by many other officials within his boss's administration.

And the answer to your ironic question is of course: It's the categorical moral-ethical opposite of a great thing. It's treason according to our constitution, extensions of the Hatch Act, and anyhow number of other reasons.

Answer 4

To the Repubtards who assert that Clinton fired them all, EVERY PRESIDENT ASKS FOR THE US ATTORNEYS' RESIGNATION AT THE BEGINNING OF THE TERM. Reagan did it, Bush '41, Clinton and GWB all did. However, in this century only 9 attorneys have been fired mid-term and never based on political ideology.
What Bush did was unprecedented and wrong, if not criminal.
If anybody can refute these facts, "Bring 'em On!"

Answer 5

The question is does Gonzales remember even being on the job to fire the attorneys, he seems to have lack of memory.

Answer 6

We felt it first-hand here in democrat-leaning Philadelphia. Sued a couple of weeks before the November 06 election. This is a dispicable abuse of power. It is one thing to push an agenda, for example if you decide you want to heavily prosecute gun violence or immigration, but to bring suits for partisan gains and to interfere in the election process is undemocratic.

Answer 7

properly, the Democratically controlled congress has somewhat not something greater useful to do. curiously all is going completely in our u . s ., to the place we basically desire government it fairly is barely out to get the different guy. i comprehend that each and everything is right. I’m satisfied paying a third of my earnings in taxes. I’m gentle to comprehend that I’ll in all probability never get social protection for retirement. i admire the way the conflict is going, and that i’m basically tickled crimson that i'm getting to assist the monetary gadget by potential of having gas at $3.50 in step with gallon! Our borders are hermetic, I’m particular we’ll never be afflicted by potential of terrorists returned, crime is almost nonexistent, and corruption is a element of the previous. with the aid of fact all of us stay in this perfect Utopia of a worldwide, i will work out why congress could have not something greater useful to do than petty bickering. thank you to bypass adult men!

Answer 8

Yeah, kind of like how Clinton was the first President in history to purge ALL US Attorneys. Your point is what?

Answer 9

No, it is not a great thing but a sad thing and an action against the impartial justice.

Answer 10

Absolutely. It's the American dream...

Answer 11

He should have done like the Clinton's did and just fire them all in mass.