Things we know to date:
a) Alberto Gonzales was talking with the White House in January 2005 about firing all of the U.S. Attorneys at a time when he was still the President's Council,
b) Alberto Gonzales was subsequently nominated to be Attorney General,
c) Gonzales has claimed he was opposed to firing all of the U.S. Attorneys and he swore to the Senate Judiciary Committee, in 2005, he would set aside politics and act a-politically as A.G.,
d) One of the fired U.S. Attorneys was apparently contacted by a Republican Senator and a Republican Congressmember about investigating Democrats in order to shore up that Congressmember's re-election campaign,
e) One of the fired U.S. Attorneys had successfully prosecuted a Republican Congressmember, sending him to prison, and was pursuing further action in the case,
f) One of the fired U.S. Attorneys was in Arkansas - where Sen. Hillary Clinton lived for many years. He was replaced by Karl Rove's assistant.
g) Karl Rove is the President's "political brain,"
h) The Patriot Act contained a little known provision permitting the White House to replace U.S. Attorneys without Senate confirmation, and
i) We know that the firings, although originally proposed in 2005, were pared to a more manageable number and actually completed in 2006-07.
Does this appear to constitute a LOT of coincidences? or
a) Was Alberto Gonzales appointed A.G. to ensure that the firings would happen at a strategically advantageous time and sufficiently prior to the '08 Presidential race to avoid speculation?
b) Was Karl Rove's assistant appointed to the Arkansas post in order to disrupt Sen. Clinton's '08
Presidential campaign efforts?
c) Were the other U.S. Attorneys replaced by people the White House knew would be helpful during the next Presidential race?
d) Did Alberto Gonzales ever stop representing the President? Does he understand that the Attorney General represents the people?
What really happened in Niger?
1 day ago