rushmc 23 #51 July 16, 2007 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Because he did not do anything illeagal? This fact (at this point despite your greatest hopes) that he has not been convicted of anything illeagal. Come on kallend, this is for the courts to decide. Just like they did with Libby. You defended that procedure vehomanlty. Do you now have a change of heart in the justice system?? Libby resigned prior to being convicted. Agnew resigned prior to being convicted. Nixon resigned prior to being charged. Delay resigned prior to being convicted. This thread is about resignation, not conviction. Gonzales is an embarrassment to his position. It is inappropriate for someone who lies in congressional hearings, who advises the president to circumvent the Constitution and who considers the Geneva Conventions "quaint" to be the AG of the USA. Even though I disagreed with Ashcroft, he was an honorable man. Gonzales is not. Ooook, so running someone out of office politically is ok when it agrees with your postion. In this case a court and trial does not count? I think you missed this bit: Libby resigned prior to being convicted. Agnew resigned prior to being convicted. Nixon resigned prior to being charged. Delay resigned prior to being convicted. This thread is about resignation, not conviction. OK, so I think we should go throw out charges against say Pelosi. Then, because someone has made and accusation or charge she should resign. At least that is what I am getting from you logic"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #52 July 16, 2007 QuoteI think you missed this bit: Libby resigned prior to being convicted. Agnew resigned prior to being convicted. Nixon resigned prior to being charged. Delay resigned prior to being convicted. This thread is about resignation, not conviction. With all these people, charges had been made or it was clear that some form of prosecution was in the works. Neither scenario applies to Gonzalez. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #53 July 16, 2007 QuoteQuoteI think you missed this bit: Libby resigned prior to being convicted. Agnew resigned prior to being convicted. Nixon resigned prior to being charged. Delay resigned prior to being convicted. This thread is about resignation, not conviction. With all these people, charges had been made or it was clear that some form of prosecution was in the works. Neither scenario applies to Gonzalez. If this is the way kallend thinks it is supposed to work then he should be screaming that Jefferson from LA resign too."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #54 July 16, 2007 No, no...Dems don't have to resign until they're charged (and sometimes not even then)...didn't you get the memo?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #55 July 16, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteI think you missed this bit: Libby resigned prior to being convicted. Agnew resigned prior to being convicted. Nixon resigned prior to being charged. Delay resigned prior to being convicted. This thread is about resignation, not conviction. With all these people, charges had been made or it was clear that some form of prosecution was in the works. Neither scenario applies to Gonzalez. If this is the way kallend thinks it is supposed to work then he should be screaming that Jefferson from LA resign too. He should, but that is NOT this thread.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #56 July 16, 2007 Quote Quote Quote Quote I think you missed this bit: Libby resigned prior to being convicted. Agnew resigned prior to being convicted. Nixon resigned prior to being charged. Delay resigned prior to being convicted. This thread is about resignation, not conviction. With all these people, charges had been made or it was clear that some form of prosecution was in the works. Neither scenario applies to Gonzalez. If this is the way kallend thinks it is supposed to work then he should be screaming that Jefferson from LA resign too. He should, but that is NOT this thread. How duplicitous of you"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tbrown 26 #57 July 17, 2007 Quote The guy has no respect for the Constitution, nor the civil liberties of Americans. How has he not been kicked out of office? Because neither does his boss and the Congress hasn't got the guts to impeach the bastard. Next question ? Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity ! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #58 July 27, 2007 www.nytimes.com/2007/07/27/washington/27gonzales.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tbrown 26 #59 July 29, 2007 It's starting to get interesting lately. Talk of perjury. I think Bill Clinton was impeached for that. And folks, this ain't about no blowjob either. This is about lying under oath to questions about wiretapping American citizens without warrants. Even though there are special courts created to issue those warrants in secret proceedings. Secret as they are, those courts were bypassed by our Monarchist President and his torture happy AG. An impeachable offense. Fuck yeah ! Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity ! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
birdshit 0 #60 July 29, 2007 grow up... I am a rabid liberal and I see the writing on the wall. When you own the AG, and Appoint a few Justices, and you have control or at least some level of sway with every major corporation in america you are bullet proof. They could catch these assholes with blood covered diamonds and they would get off Scott free... It makes me disappointed that I gave four years of my life in service of this country. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #61 July 30, 2007 QuoteI wonder what he has on Bush..... just a thought... www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/29/AR2007072901327.html?hpid=topnews... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
funjumper101 15 #62 July 30, 2007 Quote I'm trying to figure that one out, myself...especially seeing as how, in '93, Clinton/Reno fired 93 of them... You have been corrected on the "Clinton fired 93 Prosecutors" BS on a few occasions. Once again, please research US attorneys and how they are nominated and confirmed. (Except for the sneaky shit the rescumlicans slipped into the Anti-Patriot act, allowing this whole mess to occur.) As has been pointed out before, when the party in president's office changes (that would be when the Dems take over from the rescums, or the rescums take over from the Dems) the US attorneys are normally replaced by the new administration. Until the sneaky shit the rescums pulled, nominees for US Attorney had to be confirmed by Congress. In other words, quit parroting the rescummy talking point about "Clinton did it first". You are wrong on so many levels that it is laughable. What Gonzo, Rove, and the children did was WAY BEYOND anything that Clinton/Reno did. Comparing the two could be considered a prime example of abject ignorance. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #63 July 31, 2007 QuoteQuote I'm trying to figure that one out, myself...especially seeing as how, in '93, Clinton/Reno fired 93 of them... You have been corrected on the "Clinton fired 93 Prosecutors" BS on a few occasions. Once again, please research US attorneys and how they are nominated and confirmed. (Except for the sneaky shit the rescumlicans slipped into the Anti-Patriot act, allowing this whole mess to occur.) As has been pointed out before, when the party in president's office changes (that would be when the Dems take over from the rescums, or the rescums take over from the Dems) the US attorneys are normally replaced by the new administration. Until the sneaky shit the rescums pulled, nominees for US Attorney had to be confirmed by Congress. In other words, quit parroting the rescummy talking point about "Clinton did it first". You are wrong on so many levels that it is laughable. What Gonzo, Rove, and the children did was WAY BEYOND anything that Clinton/Reno did. Comparing the two could be considered a prime example of abject ignorance. I've not been 'corrected' on anything, sorry to disappoint you... the Dems *did* fire them. Abject ignorance is pretending that it's no problem when the Dems do something, but a crime when the Repubs do...something quite rife in this branch of the forum.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
