yet again documents have surfaced showing that Gonzales has lied about the sacking of the justices. Why should the public have trust in a man who continually lies??
2007-07-25 19:23:27 · 11 answers · asked by Robert A 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Probably for the same reason he got the job. He's corrupt and that suits his bosses.
2007-07-25 19:28:49 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Because he is Baby Bush's buddy.
All those whining how Clinton also fired fed attorney's, that is not the issue at all. Your smokescreen means nothing on this matter. Keep focused!! Had Gonzales simply said he fired them cause his boss wanted them fired or whatever, he would not be questioned now. But for whatever reason he fired them, Gonzales felt he had to lie about it. It is his lying that got him into trouble. Now you can talk about Clinton & lying. Perhaps Gonzales can escape that charge like Clinton did. Or maybe not. But he needs to hurry up & get convicted so Baby Bush can do his executive thing. If a conviction comes too late after the next election, the conviction & sentence may actually stick!
Interesting talking points from Barry - straight from Republican Headquarters. I know since I too am a Republican. One of many angry with the current administration. Barry assumed I am one of the Socialist Liberals when in fact I am far from it. The very thing he complains of is what he is living. He complains it is just a lie when it suits me - actually when it suits Socialist Liberals. Then he goes on to claim Gonzales did not lie when even an FBI adminstrator & emails from within the Whitehouse contradict Gonzales' statements. But he did not lie, now did he? Not to a die hard, "My country - Right or Wrong" Republican's definition.
Bush's greatest stength is he belief "My buddy - Right or Wrong." As his buddies bring him down further & further.
Oh, Barry, the turd you speak about, it is Gonzales & Baby Bush is tying his best to keep ahold of the clean end but it is oh so slippery.
2007-07-26 04:29:36 · answer #2 · answered by XPig 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I don't know if he continually lies and neither do you. However, it does appear that he has committed a provable act of perjury. It is time for Gonzales to resign. If he fails to do so I fully expect the Congress to demand a Special Prosecutor with an eye towards bringing charges and forcefully removing him from office. We cannot have the nation's highest ranking legal officer committing crimes.
MissDeviance: Who cares? I do for one. This is no longer about the firings of US attorneys, which was legal whether anyone likes it or not, but committing perjury is another matter. His perjured testimony did not involve the US Attorney matter, but was instead related to questions before Congress about meetings regarding Domestic Spying.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070726/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/congress_gonzales
2007-07-26 02:31:00 · answer #3 · answered by Bryan 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
If Gonzales was a dimokrat , and this was a conservative accusation, the Liberal Socialist would be calling the Conservatives "ANTI- LATINO", and would have Illegals marching in the streets to protest this mean-spirited action !!!!! Slick Willie fired a 100 , so get over "Gonzales" ! If you`re so outraged about 8 firings , please let us know , and show us the same contempt you showed about the firing of the 100 by Slick Willie , or stop asking these liberal talking point questions and showing your bias` and your hypocrisy ? You have the audacity to ask about the public trusting a man that lies`, you must have gone bonkers during the 8 years of Slick Willie ?? Did you get over Billary firing all of the employees of the travel office that she said she had nothing to do with . Yet all the testimony by her staff made her out to be lying . In her testimony she said over 50 times she had "no recollection" pertaining to her involvement in the firings , regardless of what the witnesses said ??
2007-07-26 02:40:30 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
I know, lets change the name of Gonzales to Clinton.
There, that's better, a more factual question.
2007-07-26 07:14:03 · answer #5 · answered by jonn449 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The Attorney General cannot "sack" any 'justices' - do you mean U.S. Attorneys?
Bill Clinton fired every US Attorney upon taking office - where were you then?
2007-07-26 02:33:31 · answer #6 · answered by jack w 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
It does not matter what is in the papers they can fire the justices for what ever they want. That IS the law.
Even if it is for going after what Bush thinks is the wrong people.
2007-07-26 02:36:18 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Duh. He's Hispanic and our country is race-crazy. For some reason, it doesn't matter if you're the most qualified for the job... it's that every single realm of employment is "diverse" in terms of race.
I don't know about you, but an attorney who is likely to be eating tacos instead of practicing law shouldn't be an attorney.
He should go be the life coach for Antonio Banderas or something. They can both wear his horrendous cologne and jack each other off.
2007-07-26 02:37:15 · answer #8 · answered by law_student_to_be 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The public doesn't have trust in him -- certain individuals still do, including Bush.
But, just wait -- it's clear that both parties in Congress are getting fed up with his "incorrect" answers under oath.
2007-07-26 02:40:14 · answer #9 · answered by coragryph 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
The "lying sacks of sh*t" asking him the questions still have their jobs, so why shouldn't he?
Seriously, Congress needs to get off this already.
WHO F***ING CARES?
There are so many more important issues they need to be addressing. What a wasted use of a majority.
2007-07-26 02:32:33 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
dems love censuring and non-binding resolutions. maybe when the realize they are actually the congress and not a student council, they'll act on somrthing......it'll probably involve a tax increase
anyway i think AG AG thought his job was to do what bush/cheney wanted him to
destroy the constitution.....yes, sir
fire everyone that doesn't want to frame liberals....yes, sir
2007-07-26 02:31:00 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋