President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Kamala Harris
(R) Donald Trump
80%↑
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) V. Archuleta
98%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Marshall Dawson
95%
5%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd
(D) Adam Frisch
52%↑
48%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(D) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank
(D) River Gassen
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) John Fabbricatore
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen
(R) Sergei Matveyuk
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
50%
50%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
April 20, 2007 06:59 PM UTC
38 Comments
that his inability to recall so much is honest? And if it is, do you want such a forgetful man to remain AG?
The man has not demonstrated any leadership or competency and has done much to politicize the Justice Department. He needs to step down. The sooner the better.
Hang him!
These Senators are always soooo brave when they know the witness cannot really fight back. This AG must have learned long ago how to not let white bullies get him down. Other than there mean little statements for the tv cameras, which were usually off, there was “no there, there” As for not being able to remember, may I remind you of this record:
Number of times that Clinton figures who testified in court or before Congress said that they didn’t remember, didn’t know, or something similar.
Bill Kennedy 116
Harold Ickes 148
Ricki Seidman 160
Bruce Lindsey 161
Bill Burton 191
Mark Gearan 221
Mack McLarty 233
Neil Egglseston 250
Hillary Clinton 250
John Podesta 264
Jennifer O’Connor 343
Dwight Holton 348
Patsy Thomasson 420
Jeff Eller 697
During the Clinton administration, there were just four people in the White House – the President, the Vice President, the White House Counsel, and the Deputy White House Counsel and – who could participate in discussions with the Justice Department “regarding pending criminal investigations and criminal cases.” There were just three Justice Department officials authorized to talk with the White House. This arrangement was intended restrict political interference in the administration of justice.
Yesterday in his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said that it was important that the Justice Department “be independent from” the White House. But as Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) pointed out, the firewalls that had existed during the Clinton administration have been ripped down. In the Bush administration, the rules have been rewritten so that 417 White House officials and 30 Justice Department officials are eligible to have discussions about criminal cases.
Then today, the committee received a letter from a concerned group of justice department officials who make the claim, with witnesses, that new applicants are being screened for democratic party affiliation, “liberal activities”….etc, etc.
You just don’t get it, do you? History has already concluded that the Ken Starr witch hunts into the Clinton administration cost the country 10’s if not 100’s of millions of dollars and achieved nothing. Nothing!
Your tax dollars at work!
…oh, wait, maybe the higher figure included all those other “gates” that the R’s insisted on wasting taxpayer money on.
Did Starr every mention the cigar brand, ring gauge and length? As a smoker, just curious. Also if they were illegal Cubans. Funny how people in high places can get what we can’t.
That would have added to $6 to the cost of the mess.
BTW, where is that dress now? Who owns it? Us, the citizens? Oh, boy.
I’m sorry, but it would seem that if you had something to cover up, you would want to keep those numbers down on who could talk to who. And Bubba, had a lot to keep the lid on. Let’s recap:
Number of individuals and businesses associated with the Clinton machine who have been convicted of or pleaded guilty to crimes: 47
– Number of these convictions during Clinton’s presidency: 33
– Number of indictments/misdemeanor charges: 61
– Number of congressional witnesses who have pleaded the Fifth Amendment, fled the country to avoid testifying, or (in the case of foreign witnesses) refused to be interviewed: 122
what’s in a name?
What does “associated with the Clinton machine” even mean? It could mean just about anything. I only remember one guy from his administration who was indicted – that guy who paid off his girlfriend.
Does Bush have a “machine”? Is every Abramoff indictment associated with it?
When all was said and done, Bubba should have kept the zipper up than the lid on……
mismanagement in the executive branch is an integral function of congress, and it is needed right now more than ever.
And by the way, why can’t Gonzales “fight back” ? I mean, if he is really innocent why dosen’t he fight back? Is he mute or something ?
Just because he is a Harvard educated lawyer with the ear of the president and one of the most powerful positions in government doesn’t mean he isn’t just a helpless victim! How could such a person possibly defend himself against accusations?
If not, from where did they come?
a chart that Senator Sheldon Whitehouse showed during the hearing yesterday.
It’s here:
http://www.beloblog….
You were talking about the “cheap shot” numbers.
I thought you were talking about the other numbers.
Soooo many numbers, so little time.
Whether you agree with the AG, Clinton, Reagan (although there was an excuse there), Bush Sr… the number of government officials with significant memory loss is increasing as the watchfullness of Congress increases.
Personally, I’m tired of our leaders 1)spending so much time creating media mountains over molehill issues and 2)not accepting responsibility and blame.
EXCELLENT Toad, the subject is CORRUPTION in the Bush Whitehouse/Justice Department and you trot out……………………………………………………………………………
CLINTON.
My hero, the toad. You get the award for most stupid talking point of the day. You sir are a Marooon as Bugs the Bunny would say.
it’s Clinton’s fault!
You guys would be funny if you weren’t such believers in your rage.
Lefties always get on the righties case when they bring up something bad that Clinton did. When Bush is gone, are y’all saying that you will never bash bush again or bring up something he did wrong?
Any of you lefties want to agree to not bring up Bush again after January 2009?
I for one intend not to bring up Bush when something is going on with the next Democratic administration that stinks. But as long as the subject is something that is in fact (or opinion) Bush’s legacy then it’s open season on W.
The problem with the post at the top of this thread is that it’s a petulant reply to a serious challenge, and I’m betting he copied it from some right-wing blog just to flame us here. It’s irrelevant, or it should be to those who care more about effective and honest government over team loyalty to one’s party.
I think it is relevant to an extent. It shows that both sides do it, so why attack him for “not remembering” when I’m sure that some of the people who are attacking Gonzo for “not remembering” today are the ones who were defending Clinton officials when they used the same out.
And to that extent, I think it does have some relevancy…
game is one thing: The importance to the public welfare of what it is they are so eager to forget is another.
I’d have to a) ask who exactly all these “Clinton machine” people were and what role they played in government. For example, were any of them cabinet level secretaries who were appearing before the Senate because they appear to have been playing politics and sacking regional officials because they weren’t sufficiently loyal to Clinton? (I know, no such allegations were ever made about the Clinton presidency, but my question is more, Was there any truly parallel scandal under our 42nd president?)
Hillary Clinton, for example. Was it a land deal from ten years before? Or was it deciding to fire 8 USAs a few months ago? I don’t see these as equivalent.
The bottom line priority for Gonzales is that he is there to act as a firewall protecting the inner circle of Bush, Rove, Cheney. Gonzales’ rope-a-dope testimony yesterday may have further trashed his own reputation, but that is obviously not a major consideration–more important is that no hard additional evidence came out.
The immediate problem for Bush et al is the “lost” White House emails. Gonzo will again be the line of defense protecting executive privilege before the Congress and the Supreme Court. He can continue to do that with or without the confidence of the Congress. (It appears that the harshest criticism among Senate Repubs at present is coming from the conservative base, who never trusted him in the first place.) If he goes, the Dems will be filtering for a more independent AG, and that could have unpredictable and dangerous consequences for protecting Bush and Co.
Therefore my prediction is that in the absence of “smoking gun” material evidence that would make a clear case for his impeachment, Gonzales will continue to have Bush’s support. It is a matter of staying with the devil you know.
The next consequence is that Gonzo’s continued stonewalling will put the subordinate Repub operatives in DoJ such as Goodling, Sampson, etc, into the crosshairs of investigation to trade immunity for evidence on the higher-ups.
Right……remember the hissy fit the right wingers had when Alberto’s name was dropped as a possible replacement for Hariet Meiers?
He wasn’t sufficiently pro-life for their taste, not to mention, he had the audacity to remove that $20,000 drape (or drop cloth) that John Asscraft had placed over the nude statue at D.O.J.
such as the recent abortion decision and the up-coming re-veto fo the stem cell bill.
You know when Ashcroft put that drop cloth up on the statue you still could see one big boob !
did Ass-craft blush when that happened? or maybe pop a woody?
Having recused himself from the Domenici ethics probe, our junior senator should have time to review the AG’s performance. I defended Salazar’s decision to vote to confirm Gonzo because, at the time, there really wasn’t much warning about how completely awful he was going to turn out to be. But it’s like the war: with what is now obvious about the total disaster at Justice, Salazar should demand Fredo’s ouster LOUD AND CLEAR!
Fredo was the hapless younger son of the Godfather. Michael finally had to drown him. Seems to fit.
But, wasn’t Fredo the middle son? Michael was the youngest?
And who is the Godfather in your scenario?