Gonzales’ racist treatment from Senate

[See previous post]
Now this isn’t ancient history. But for Holder to act as if he was the only person scrutinized with tough questions by an agitated Congress, doesn’t even pass the smell test.

Once the government shows the disregard for the independence of the justice system and the rule of law, it’s very hard to restore the people’s faith.” — Senator Leahy to AG Gonzales.

 

Pat Leahy said in 2007:

“The dep of Justice is experiencing a crisis in leadership perhaps unrivaled in its history. Unfortunately, the crisis is not abated. Until there is independence, transparency, and accountability, the crisis will continue.

The attorney General’s lost the confidence of Congress and the American people. Through oversight we hope to restore balance and accountability to the Executive branch. The Dep of Justice must be restored to being worthy of its name. It should not be reduced to another political arm of the White House, it was never intended to be that. Trust and confidence of the American people in Federal law enforcement must be restored.”

“Investigation into the firing for partisan purposes of United States Attorneys who’ve been appointed by this president, along with an ever-growing series of controversies and scandals, have [revealed] an administration driven by a vision of an all-powerful Executive over our Constitutional system of checks and balances, one that values loyalty over judgment, secrecy over openness, and ideology over competence. The accumulated and essentially uncontroverted evidence is that the political considerations factored into the unprecedented firing of at least 9 Unites States attorneys last year.

The stonewalling by the White House raises the question: what is it that the White House is so desperate to hide?

The justice dep has been reduced to the role of enabler of this administration. What we need instead is genuine accountability and real independence.

His[Gonzales’] lack of independence and tendency to act as if he were the president’s lawyer, rather than the attorney general of the United States, makes that doubtful.”…

“Once the government shows the disregard for the independence of the justice system and the rule of law, its very hard to restore the people’s faith.”

And those are only Leahy’s opening remarks. Leahy told Gonzales “I don’t trust you.

It’s clear that was a blatant racist slur toward Gonzales because he’s Hispanic. Who can deny that? Did anyone say “you just “don’t trust” him because he’s a Hispanic”, that it was racism? I never heard it. Think about how this administration “deals with” any criticism or those kinds of remarks.

When asked about a “Senate trial for contempt,” Leahy told a reporter that there have been subpoenas etc, “but if they don’t respond there will be contempt citations”. And again, clearly because of racism.

Schumer: “Sir, how can you say that you should stay on as attorney general when we go through these exercises like this where you’re bobbing and weaving and ducking to avoid admitting that you deceived the committee.”

“Stay on”??? Sure, try to force the Hispanic out. “Bobbing and weaving and ducking??” I never heard such racist tripe.

Feingold: “When you look at all these statements together, it’s hard to see anything but a pattern of intentionally misleading Congress again and again. Shouldn’t the attorney general of the United States meet a higher standard??”

“Higher standard?” More racist rhetoric, we know what those “dog whistle”-words mean.

And that’s all besides what they said about Gonzales and Bush on the Sunday talk shows or media blurbs. It’s clear the Dems see racism everywhere they want to see it. Great excuse.

Unfortunately, Gonzales didn’t think of calling it racism because he was a Hispanic.
It wouldn’t have mattered anyway.

RightRing | Bullright

Holder: what AG got treatment like that?

First, what initiated Holder’s comments was the exchange with (Tx)Rep. Louie Gohmert:

“I realize that contempt is not a big deal to our attorney general, but it is important that we have proper oversight,” Gohmert said. He was referring to the House of Representatives holding Holder in contempt of Congress in 2012 for refusing to release documents related to the Fast and Furious scandal.

“You don’t want to go there, buddy! You don’t want to go there, okay,” said an angry Holder.

“I don’t want to go there?” Gohmert responded.

“You should not assume that that is not a big deal to me,” Holder said.

 

So Holder went right out to publicly protest it. Here is Holder pleading his, and Obama’s, unprecedented victim status to Al Sharptons’ National Action Network.

Holder on Gohmert exchange: ‘What attorney general has ever had to deal with that kind of treatment? — Daily Caller

“I’m pleased to note that the last five years have been defined by significant strides and by lasting reforms,” said Holder at the conference of black activists, before improvising “even in the face, even in the face, of unprecedented, unwarranted, ugly, and divisive adversity.”

“If you don’t believe that, if you look at the way, forget about me, forget about me, if you look at the way the attorney general of the United States was treated yesterday by a House Committee, it had nothing to do with me, forget that, what attorney general has ever had to deal with that kind of treatment?”

He added, “What president has ever had to deal with that kind of treatment?”

Sure you’re the ONLY one…and its just because you’re black. (do I have a bridge for you)
Hey Eric, how about Gonzales or John Ashcroft, and Bush just for starters? Gonzales was practically burned at the stake. The difference is Republicans went after Gonzales too.

Now Holder complains about unprecedented treatment to the same groups on the Left that railed against Gonzales for firing US attorneys, calling for his resignation & impeachment.

All you have to do is research the Gonzales firing of the federal prosecutors and you’ll find the hearings, and press coverage.

Dems didn’t get up and walk out in protest of the treatment Gonzales received, and neither did Republicans. Dems piled on and, more importantly, the Republicans didn’t protest. Instead, some Repubs joined Schumer and those on the left calling for his resignation.

That isn’t ancient history. For Holder to act as if he was the only guy to get this “treatment” from congress is alternative reality.
 

Open Congress .org / Schumer:

    Calls for A.G. Gonzales to step down
    In March 2007, Sen. Schumer called for the resignation of Attorney General Gonzales. Among his reasons that he cited were lack a respect for the “the rule of law and the Constitution”, specifically, the Bush administration U.S. attorney firings controversy, and the recent scandals surrounding “FBI’s illegal snooping into people’s private lives”

How about Keith Ellison on impeaching white Cheney:

“It is beneath his dignity in order for him to answer any questions from the citizens of the United States. That is the very definition of totalitarianism, authoritarianism and dictatorship.”

“If Libby gets pardoned,” Ellison said, “then he should not have the cover of the Fifth Amendment. He’s going to have to come clean and tell the truth. Now, he could get Gonzales-itis, you know, with 71 lapses of memory within a two-hour period.”

“Gonsales-itis”….sounds pretty racist.

But Ellison also compared Bush to Adolf Hitler in one rant, following Dick Durbin’s lead.

Ellison also compared Bush and 9/11 to how the Reichstag fire was used “as pretext to impose police powers” – presumably with his trusty Attorney General spreading the fire.

After all Eric Holder has done to subvert justice, he is the last person who can claim victim status. He’s like the school bully crying that he’s being bullied. He claims to be “advancing the cause of justice”. And by any relative comparison, he is a whining, elitist radical.

More next post
RightRing | Bullright

The Supreme Shakedown

Pot calls the kettle black

Everyone knows about Obama’s intimidation of the Supreme Court during the case of ObamaCare. But few heard about one Senator railing at  the SCOTUS. That Senator happens to chair the Judiciary Committee, Patrick Leahy.

 (In his diatribe on the floor link)

 The senator advanced the 2000 Bush/Gore decision as an example of the sort of “judicial activism” that “shook the confidence of the American people in the Supreme Court.”  

 Leahy charged the “[Court’s] action will not help restore American’s confidence in the Court to fairly apply the law.”

Now he is concerned about the “confidence” in the Court? You don’t even have to go back to Roe v. Wade to see controversial rulings. For long, the high Court has earned suspicion in the minds of many conservatives. But the problem is the court still enjoys some confidence, and dare I say respect, for the most part.

On the other hand, the body that Leahy speaks from is extremely suspect and fraught with blame in the minds of voters and the public. For good reason. Is this exhibit-A in the pot calling the kettle black?  In times when the Congress hits low double digits, SCOTUS at least has more respect from the people than that.  The Senate will not even bring items like a budget up for vote.

Apparently Leahy is living in a political bubble where he thinks he can lampoon anything that disagrees with his agenda – or lack of as the case may be.

Reference: http://www.westernjournalism.com/senator-threatens-supreme-court/