Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Gonzo lied, again.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
deminks Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 06:10 PM
Original message
Gonzo lied, again.
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/05/17/griffin-120-days /

Gonzales Allows Karl Rove-Protege To Remain As U.S. Attorney, Even Though His Term Has Expire

On Jan. 18, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales told the Senate Judiciary Committee, under oath, that he never intended to take advantage of a Patriot Act provision that allows the President to appoint interim U.S. attorneys for an indefinite period of time, without Senate confirmation:

(snip)

Before the Patriot Act was changed in 2005, the Attorney General could appoint interim U.S. attorneys to serve for a maximum of 120 days. After that time period, they needed to receive Senate confirmation or the federal district court in the vacant offices district would name a replacement.

As emptywheel notes at Firedoglake, Griffins 120 days were up on April 20. Griffin has announced that he had made the decision not to let my name go forward to the Senate. Yet the Bush administration has not named a replacement candidate.

(snip)

UPDATE: The Arkansas Blog notes that Griffin was appointed under the Patriot Act, and therefore is legally allowed to serve indefinitely. Yet nevertheless, Gonzales still promised senators that he never intended to take advantage of the provision.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rurallib Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 06:12 PM
Response to Original message
1. that's like saying night is dark ain't it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Duer 157099 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 06:12 PM
Response to Original message
2. Didn't Congress vote to remove that provision?
If they did, then it should certainly be retroactive.

Anyone know for certain?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
samplegirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 06:14 PM
Response to Original message
3. No rule of Law for Bush
he has effectively taken over.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Crunchy Frog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 08:11 PM
Response to Original message
4. Why would they have such a provision if they never intended
to take advantage of it? Has anybody ever thought to question them about that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tabasco Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 08:13 PM
Response to Original message
5. Don't post this in late breaking news.
It will be news when he tells the truth, if ever.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Dec 12th 2017, 10:44 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC