• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Grrr

fff

Well-known member
You almost have to admire the guts of the Bushies. Alberto is being sued for politicizing OUR Justice Department. Does he use Justice Department attorneys? Noooo. He has to have private attorneys, but YOU have to pay for them. Don't you just love the Bush Administration? If they get this turned into a class action lawsuit, will it cost Alberto one thin dime? Probably not, but it will cost taxpayers. :mad:

The Justice Department has agreed to pay for a private lawyer to defend former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales against allegations that he encouraged officials to inject partisan politics into the department's hiring and firing practices.

Lawyers from the Justice Department's civil division often represent department employees who're sued in connection with their official actions. However, Gonzales' attorney recently revealed in court papers that the Justice Department had approved his request to pay private attorney's fees arising from the federal lawsuit.

Dan Metcalfe, a former high-ranking veteran Justice Department official who filed the suit on behalf of eight law students, called the department's decision to pay for a private attorney rather than rely on its civil division "exceptional."

"It undoubtedly will cost the taxpayers far more," he said.

According to a person with knowledge of the case, the Justice Department has imposed a limit of $200 an hour or $24,000 a month on attorneys' fees. Top Justice Department attorneys generally earn no more than $100 per hour. The person spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the case.

Asked why Gonzales made the request, Gonzales spokesman Robert Bork Jr. said that his client "values the work that the department's civil attorneys do in all cases" but thinks that "private counsel can often be useful where (department) officials are sued in an individual capacity, even where the suit has no substantive merit."

Charles Miller, a Justice Department spokesman, said the department wouldn't have any comment on the reasons for the approval and wouldn't answer questions about the cost to taxpayers.

The lawsuit accuses Gonzales and four other former and current Justice Department officials of instituting hiring practices that blocked liberal-leaning applicants from two department programs for law students. Gonzales resigned last year amid a controversy over the alleged hiring practices and over the firings of nine U.S. attorneys.

George J. Terwilliger III, a former deputy attorney general under President George H.W. Bush, is listed in court papers along with two other attorneys from his firm as representing Gonzales in the lawsuit.

It's unclear, however, whether Terwilliger will continue to represent Gonzales or whether another private attorney will take over the case. In court papers, he indicated that the department had to approve Gonzales' choice of an attorney, but added that the department generally defers to the defendant.

Miller wouldn't say whether other defendants in the suit have asked the department to pay for private attorneys. So far, other officials named in the lawsuit haven't indicated to the court whether they've made similar requests.

Metcalfe filed the lawsuit after Justice Department watchdog reports found that department officials under Gonzales weeded out liberal-leaning applicants in favor of conservative ones for various jobs ranging from internships to prosecutor slots and immigration judgeships. In a separate but related report, the two watchdog agencies detailed "substantial evidence" that Republican politics had played a role in several of the firings of the Bush-appointed U.S. attorneys.

The applicants who've sued are all from top-tier law schools, and they allege that their careers were irreparably harmed because they were rejected by the department's honors and summer internship programs. Metcalfe, who's now the executive director of American University Washington College of Law's Collaboration on Government Secrecy, is seeking class action status for the suit.

Attorney General Michael Mukasey, who took over the department after Gonzales resigned during the controversy, has conceded that high-ranking Justice Department officials failed to stop what he described as a "systemic" hiring problem within the department.

Mukasey, however, rejected what he described as "drastic steps" such as prosecuting department lawyers singled out in the reports. He said he'd put a stop to the practices and would attempt to contact applicants who'd been rejected for political reasons and encourage them to reapply for other jobs.

The department sent out letters notifying applicants of the opportunity, but gave them only weeks to respond, according to its Web site. The Web site said that applicants were interviewed last month, but Miller wouldn't say how many people responded.

In court papers, Metcalfe criticized the department's handling of the letters. Several of the rejected applicants contacted him after receiving them, worried that if they agreed to be re-interviewed they might lose their right to participate in a class action lawsuit. Metcalfe questioned why the department hadn't informed the applicants about the suit.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/56078.html
 

alice

Well-known member
Mahoney-Pursley Ranch said:
And WHO do you suppose will be paying for the "First Mutha in Law" to live in the White House ?????????

Somehow, I don't think that's a real good, strong comparison...try again...

Alice
 

Mahoney-Pursley Ranch

Well-known member
alice said:
Mahoney-Pursley Ranch said:
And WHO do you suppose will be paying for the "First Mutha in Law" to live in the White House ?????????

Somehow, I don't think that's a real good, strong comparison...try again...

Alice


You really think taxpayers should pay for whoever the first family choses to have live with them ? What a joke.
 

alice

Well-known member
Mahoney-Pursley Ranch said:
alice said:
Mahoney-Pursley Ranch said:
And WHO do you suppose will be paying for the "First Mutha in Law" to live in the White House ?????????

Somehow, I don't think that's a real good, strong comparison...try again...

Alice


You really think taxpayers should pay for whoever the first family choses to have live with them ? What a joke.

I'm sure the children's grandmother will run up a sizable food bill, while she helps make certain the children are taken care of. :roll:

Guess they could HIRE a nanny. Oh wait! Maybe the first family shouldn't be allowed to take their kids with them, either. :roll:

Good grief...this line of thinking just gets more and more bizarre... :mad:

Alice
 

TexasBred

Well-known member
alice said:
Mahoney-Pursley Ranch said:
alice said:
Somehow, I don't think that's a real good, strong comparison...try again...

Alice


You really think taxpayers should pay for whoever the first family choses to have live with them ? What a joke.

I'm sure the children's grandmother will run up a sizable food bill, while she helps make certain the children are taken care of. :roll:

Guess they could HIRE a nanny. Oh wait! Maybe the first family shouldn't be allowed to take their kids with them, either. :roll:
Good grief...this line of thinking just gets more and more bizarre... :mad:

Alice

hmmm...was only a few weeks ago that Sarah Palin was catching pure hell for "taking her family with her".
 

TSR

Well-known member
TexasBred said:
alice said:
Mahoney-Pursley Ranch said:
You really think taxpayers should pay for whoever the first family choses to have live with them ? What a joke.

I'm sure the children's grandmother will run up a sizable food bill, while she helps make certain the children are taken care of. :roll:

Guess they could HIRE a nanny. Oh wait! Maybe the first family shouldn't be allowed to take their kids with them, either. :roll:
Good grief...this line of thinking just gets more and more bizarre... :mad:

Alice

hmmm...was only a few weeks ago that Sarah Palin was catching pure hell for "taking her family with her".

I doubt much would have been said had she been elected VP. :?
 

Yanuck

Well-known member
TSR said:
TexasBred said:
alice said:
I'm sure the children's grandmother will run up a sizable food bill, while she helps make certain the children are taken care of. :roll:

Guess they could HIRE a nanny. Oh wait! Maybe the first family shouldn't be allowed to take their kids with them, either. :roll:
Good grief...this line of thinking just gets more and more bizarre... :mad:

Alice

hmmm...was only a few weeks ago that Sarah Palin was catching pure hell for "taking her family with her".

I doubt much would have been said had she been elected VP. :?

You don't seriously believe that do you? I think of it like this, the POTUS job is hard enough, but to have your MIL live with you too!? :lol: :lol:
 

Mrs.Greg

Well-known member
I'm assuming that if the MIL didn't live with them they'd have to hire a nanny,as would Palin had to have is she got in.Not my country or issue but I most certainly wouldn't worrying about the next best person to help with the children's raising.I know if my children need help with the kids I'm the first to step in,that's the way it should be.

Palin should never have been takin to task over taking her children with her and neither should the Obama's for having there children's best interests at heart.
 

CattleArmy

Well-known member
TexasBred said:
alice said:
Mahoney-Pursley Ranch said:
You really think taxpayers should pay for whoever the first family choses to have live with them ? What a joke.

I'm sure the children's grandmother will run up a sizable food bill, while she helps make certain the children are taken care of. :roll:

Guess they could HIRE a nanny. Oh wait! Maybe the first family shouldn't be allowed to take their kids with them, either. :roll:
Good grief...this line of thinking just gets more and more bizarre... :mad:

Alice

hmmm...was only a few weeks ago that Sarah Palin was catching pure hell for "taking her family with her".

Sarah Palin wasn't the first family and she was the one you know wildly shopping for her family?

Why would a person drag their children all over on the political trail anyway?
 

TexasBred

Well-known member
Wildly shopping?? I think the final result on that was that other's did the shopping and brought the clothing to her. Most was returned anyway so it's a non issue. But I guess it's her decision to take her family with her. It didn't cost us anything unless you donated to the McCain/Palin campaign.

But...I wonder who paid all of Clinton's expenses during all the investigations of him and the impeachment trial?? The simple fact that there was impeachment proceedings had to have cost us millions.
 
Top