J.R. asked in Politics & GovernmentPolitics · 1 decade ago

Do you think the Alberto Gonzales hearings are politically motivated?

It reminds me of the whole Ken Starr investigation.....

21 Answers

  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    The difference is, at least with the Ken Starr investigation, there were real crimes alleged. In this case, as with Scooter Libby, there was no underlying crime being investigated. This is what is known in the legal world as a "perjury trap". In Libby's case the prosecutor already knew who blew Valerie Plames cover and it was no one in the present administration, it was The former deputy secretary of state Richard Armitage (Clinton Administration).

    Yet, the prosecutor put Libby before a Grand Jury and asked him hundreds of detailed questions. Sooner or later, Libby was bound to say something under oath that proved to be untrue. That is what they are doing now to Gonzales. There is no underlying crime. The president can fire those attorneys that serve at his discretion whenever he wants. In fact Bill Clinton fired almost all of them. They are setting the perjury trap for Gonzales, now. Sooner or later he is bound to answer a question wrong and they will want him charged with perjury.

    All of this abuse of the power of congress and the justice system is the latest tool the democrats are using to personally destroy their adversaries rather than defeat them in the political arena.

    This is one of the main reasons not to support the democrats. They are becoming tyrannical.


  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Absolutely they are...

    That being said.

    That doesn't mean they aren't warranted.

    The Clinton investigations were also politically motivated, but necessary at the same time.

    Let's just settle part of this argument for a moment here...

    YES. The president has the authority to fire USA's without giving a reason.

    Here's the problem..... The White House, and the DOJ are supposed to function administratively seperate. When e-mails turn up that show White House officials engaging in discussion with the Attorney General... about the potential replacements "strong republican credentials"....and how to prevent "damage to the white house"....and how he should handle the firings and what and when to tell them.. (which was not followed according to procedure)...how the AG should instruct his people to speak to the media..what to say what not to say.. THAT is unethical if not illegal. The White House can hire and fire AG's and USA's at will...however, they cannot exert administrative or political control over the DOJ...especially when several of the USA's that were dismissed had ongoing or past investigations into the various White House scandals.

    That is the problem... Has nothing to do with the fact that he fired the USA's... Has everything to do with the motivations, and the amount of political influence they exert over the DOJ.

    Seems alot of people are failing to realize the seriousness of what is going on here. This issue is linked to so many other issues and investigations into the Bush administration.... the firing of the USA's was just another tactic to destroy any hope of legal accountability for the Bush administrations actions.

    In this case Harriet Myers did most of the dirty work...what the Senate Judicial committee would like to know...to what extent did the president himself participate.

    The point is... if there is nothing to hide...why hide it ?

    Read for yourself...


  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Federal prosecutors, while they do serve at the pleasure of the President, are supposed to enjoy a level of independence, and an ability to perform their jobs free of politics. The fact that it is usual for them to be replaced with new administrations does not have any bearing on the situation being investigated. These prosecutors were apparently fired in the middle of a term because they were either investigating alleged Republican wrongdoing or refusing to investigate alleged Democratic wrongdoing. If true, this would be a violation of the purpose of the DOJ. Add on to that the now apparent perjury of our nation's top law enforcement official, and you have hearings that are necessary for our nation. If we cannot trust Justice, we cannot trust our government.

    Source(s): BTW, to Jacob W, Armitage was Deputy Secretary of State from 2001 to 2005, under Bush, not Clinton.
  • 1 decade ago

    Wow, people are so clueless. Yes, Bush can fire attorneys, nobody denies that. It is just that they lied about the reason for firing. I am a person of moral and ethics. It is unethical to lie and immoral to lie. I respect the Judiciary Committee (not the DEMOCRATS) because it is the Judiciary Committee that is standing on the side of truth and justice. I do not see why a REPUBLICAN, Spector, would "attack" Gonzo for political reasons. Once again, wow, people don't think for themselves anymore. Half of these answers are straight from Hannity and Colms.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 1 decade ago

    No, the whole issue was brought up by some of the fired U.S. Attorneys after Gonzales' office put out public statements claiming that they were fired for reasons other than what they told the attorneys that stepped down.

    It is not political motivation to want to get to the bottom of the endless lies that keep coming out of the AG's office.

  • 1 decade ago

    Let's see, Clinton was the first President in history to purge all 99 US attornies when he took office, and nobody seemed to notice. Yeah, I think the hearings are politically motivated.

  • 1 decade ago

    Everything done in Washington is politically motivated. Neither Republicans nor Democrats are blameless. This type of thing has gone on forever in our government - we just weren't as aware of it due to lack of media coverage.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    They are politically motivated...what hypocrisy...a Politically motivated inquiry into a case to see if 8 US Attorneys were fired for Political reasons...this is actually to try to get some of the President's advisers to testify under oath so they can ask them questions about the war in Iraq to try to build an Impeachment case...

  • 1 decade ago

    Yep. Ken Starr was investigating Clintons' dealing with Whitewater when it spun into Lewinski. However, there was nothing wrong with firing the prosecutors. If Clinton gets elected and fires any, I think the republicans should be given the right to hold investigations into her also.

  • 1 decade ago

    I'd say congress is FINALLY just doing their job. If Gonzalez had told the truth and had acted honorably in performing his duties, their would be no need for what you call a "politically motivated" investigation.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.