Gonzales resigns

[geoguy]

If it's a known terrorist you tap the phone and get a warrant after the fact under FISA. That's not the issue. The tapping was occurring and nobody was bothering with the paperwork, and the possibility that warrants couldn't have been issued anyway because they were tapping the phones of people that weren't known terrorists, so there was no probable cause to justify a warrant.

 

So true. Unfortunately the attorney general was working with the FBI and CIA to sidestep the Constitution and infringe on rights. The attorney general, in contrast, should be vigilant in protecting those rights. The momentum under Gonzales is in the wrong direction. He was an agent of Bush and not the People. The Attorney General is not suppose to be the President's sock puppet.

[CDarwin]

The Attorney General is not suppose to be the President's sock puppet.

 

How can you expect that from a cabinet position, though?

[Pangloss]

The attorney general has always been the president's "sock puppet". Why is it that Republican attorney generals (attorneys general?) are "sock puppets", but Democratic ones aren't? One of them was the president's BROTHER, for pete's sake. Janet Reno was arguably one of the most obbious sock puppets in the entire history of that office.

 

 

(Socks puppet?)

[bascule]

Bascule, stop dodging and don't change the subject.

 

I asked you for a source to back up your assertions. That's "dodging and changing the subject"?

 

Your question is based on the assertions I asked you to source. Give me a source and I'll answer the question. I'm wanting to evaluate both sides of the argument before responding. It'd be helpful if you could provide this information.

 

As for Comey, I didn't say he was wrong, I said I have no reason to take his word on faith.

 

Comey and Mueller's testimony is mutually supporting. Gonzales's is contradictory. Who should I trust?

 

You're assuming he's correct, accepting his story, questioning nothing, and you're doing it in spite of the fact that this man is a Republican appointee and therefore your sworn enemy, so you're doing it not because he's trustworthy but because he's telling you something you want to hear. If he were saying something you didn't want to hear you'd be ignoring him or casting aspersions on his credibility. That makes your comment spin-doctoring, not fact-finding.

 

Based on how you believe I'd hypothetically respond to a different situation, I'm spin-doctoring? Zuh?

[Pangloss]

I asked you for a source to back up your assertions. That's "dodging and changing the subject"?

 

Your question is based on the assertions I asked you to source. Give me a source and I'll answer the question. I'm wanting to evaluate both sides of the argument before responding. It'd be helpful if you could provide this information.

 

That's an inaccurate description of events, but since you've answered my question (below) I'll happily help you out of your little Iraq by moving forward.

 

Comey and Mueller's testimony is mutually supporting. Gonzales's is contradictory. Who should I trust?

 

Of course it's mutually supporting. Convenient, isn't it? Do we even need to ask Andrew Card whether he can corroborate Gonzales's testimony that Ashcroft was lucid and attentive? Please, I've got a big red bridge over San Francisco Bay if you're interested. I'll even get you 3.5% with no closing costs! And pay no attention to the falling concrete.

 

The answer to your question is that you should trust neither Comey/Mueller nor Gonzales. But you have elected to trust one party over the other (Comey/Mueller). In my opinion that is a mistake.

 

I'm not making two wrongs a right, and I'm not even disrespecting your opinion. I'm simply pointing out that you're cherry-picking facts that are attractive to you because of ideological predisposition, and that in fact you lack sufficient evidence for anything LIKE "trust". That's it.