Congressional oversight is a bitch: White House exposed as behind prosecutor purge - Page 7 - Mercedes-Benz Forum

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #61 of 82 (permalink) Old 03-14-2007, 07:04 PM Thread Starter
BenzWorld Elite
 
FeelTheLove's Avatar
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 83 Astral Silver 280 SL
Location: Planet Houston
Posts: 28,829
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcbear
Here is a link to the Financial Times of London, one of the absolutely LEAST politically motivated or slanted publications on the planet.

One paragraph that summarizes their overview of the firings and the link for the entire article.

US attorneys act as local federal prosecutors across the country and are routinely replaced when an administration changes. But this mid-term house-clearing – which started as a plan by Harriet Miers, former White House counsel, to replace all 93 top prosecutors – is unprecedented in modern times.

FT.com / Home UK / UK - Gonzales in trouble as tide turns against Team Texas
The old Texas crowd, Bush's cleaning lady teams up with his landscaper.
FeelTheLove is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #62 of 82 (permalink) Old 03-14-2007, 08:22 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
mcbear's Avatar
 
Date registered: Apr 2004
Vehicle: E500Es
Location: The BlueGrass State
Posts: 29,579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Botnst
With all do respect, DA is a political appointment.

What part of the phrase, "political appointment" eludes you folks?

B
So you are suggesting that it is OK to fire a political appointment who fails to selectively prosecute your political opponent [using the New Mexico example]?

Even the "political appointment" of a US Attorney is a sworn position and is compelled to abide by the law. Appears he was fired because he did just that.

McBear,
Kentucky

Being smart is knowing the difference, in a sticky situation between a well delivered anecdote and a well delivered antidote - bear.
mcbear is offline  
post #63 of 82 (permalink) Old 03-14-2007, 08:31 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
mcbear's Avatar
 
Date registered: Apr 2004
Vehicle: E500Es
Location: The BlueGrass State
Posts: 29,579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Botnst
The bottom line is this: Is it legal? If it is illegal I have no doubt that zealous members of the completely objective and non-partisan Senate Judiciary will hold very sober hearings and withhold judgment until all of the evidence is in. Believe that and I have some oil additives I'd like to sell you that will never have to change and will improve your gas mileage.

If it is legal and folks think it should be illegal I can hardly wait to see how that bit of political waltzing plays-out.

B
IF the cases involve election manipulation [by rushing indictments on opposition] then the firings are illegal because they go to corruption of the election process.

Noting your cynicism of any potential Senate hearings, remember that Harriett Myers stepped down just after that Senate changed from Rubber Stamp to Oversight & Checks and Balances.

McBear,
Kentucky

Being smart is knowing the difference, in a sticky situation between a well delivered anecdote and a well delivered antidote - bear.
mcbear is offline  
post #64 of 82 (permalink) Old 03-15-2007, 07:19 AM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 95 E300
Location: Inside my head
Posts: 36,850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 392 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcbear
IF the cases involve election manipulation [by rushing indictments on opposition] then the firings are illegal because they go to corruption of the election process.

Noting your cynicism of any potential Senate hearings, remember that Harriett Myers stepped down just after that Senate changed from Rubber Stamp to Oversight & Checks and Balances.
Funny thing, that. the DA's are supposed to report political interference and did not, until they decided to fire them. Then they suddenly got religion.

You wouldn't suppose that interference is yet to be proven, would you? I mean, innocent until proven guilty and all that. Like the presumption that some bobbleheads want to afford the Gitmo pork-o-phobes. I assume we would wish to confer that same presumption on our own citizens, too.

I'm all for an objective, non-partisan investigation. Wouldn't want to leave the electorate with the feeling that Charlie Schumer is partisan. And Schumer is an honorable man. They are all honorable men.

B
Botnst is offline  
post #65 of 82 (permalink) Old 03-15-2007, 08:36 AM
Surely A Large Human
 
Qubes's Avatar
 
Date registered: Jun 2006
Vehicle: '08 C219
Location: Between Earth and Mars
Posts: 34,250
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Quoted: 493 Post(s)
Lifetime Premium Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Botnst
I understand why you feel that way but I guess I'm just a lot more cynical than you (and probably 99% of the people on planet Earth).

I cannot imagine any politician with discretionary power to hire & fire NOT making political decisions that would be legal and hurt his opponents. Usually they're not as graceless as this apparent attempt (I say "apparent" because I think there's a whole centipede's worth of shoes yet to drop).

Just for the sake of context, Ever since the formation of this country Presidents have hired and fired people that occupy important positions of trust -- ambassadors, cabinet members down to career civil servants (ask Andy Jackson and Abe Lincoln about that one).

To get all panty-wadded about this political skullduggery is to reveal an ignorance of law and history.

The bottom line is this: Is it legal? If it is illegal I have no doubt that zealous members of the completely objective and non-partisan Senate Judiciary will hold very sober hearings and withhold judgment until all of the evidence is in. Believe that and I have some oil additives I'd like to sell you that will never have to change and will improve your gas mileage.

If it is legal and folks think it should be illegal I can hardly wait to see how that bit of political waltzing plays-out.

B

PS Do I care whether it is THIS president? No. I don't give a damn. If Congress wants to enact laws to change it, don't let the gavel slow on its way down.
Just to be clear (not nitpicking your response), it is perfectly legal to dispose of U.S. Attorneys at will; that's really not at issue. What is at issue is 1) Whether or not these guys were let go for reasons other than personal or professional conduct & performance, and 2) Whether or not they're willing to say so under oath in front of Congress.

Legal or otherwise, I don't think America would take kindly to the notion that the administration (with or without Bush's knowledge) endeavored to alter the outcome of the 2006 elections by suddenly "finding religion" with regard to who they should whack, and for what reasons, just before election day.

Finally, I don't think anyone would take issue with the President hiring & firing whomever he wished in the cabinet, or at ambassadorial posts, or even U.S. Attorneys. What people should take issue with (at least until all the facts are known) is the as-yet undisputed allegation that this particular bit of hiring & firing was an orchestrated effort to keep from losing the Congressional majority.

We (conservatives in general, and Republicans specifically) are supposed to be above all of this. If we fear that we're going to lose badly in an election, the remedy is to refine the message and the platform - not call into the Whitehouse for an air strike to sabotage the campaigns of our opponents. Legal or not, that amounts to opportunism at best and cheating at worst.

Bush is probably more upset that this was handled clumsily than that the Attorneys in question were let go. They'd have done better to clean all of them out and start over if that was what they felt needed to happen. The last thing Bush needs is people leaving the reservation and acting foolishly.
Qubes is offline  
post #66 of 82 (permalink) Old 03-15-2007, 08:59 AM
BenzWorld Elite
 
old300D's Avatar
 
Date registered: Jul 2003
Vehicle: '83 240D
Location: Denver
Posts: 3,774
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
It's refreshing for some on the right to see the issue here. Thanks QBN. I would have expected Bot to have been on board with this already, but it seems he is channelling McCain and toeing the Bush line (not the conservative or Republican line.)

OBK #35

old300D is offline  
post #67 of 82 (permalink) Old 03-15-2007, 09:15 AM Thread Starter
BenzWorld Elite
 
FeelTheLove's Avatar
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 83 Astral Silver 280 SL
Location: Planet Houston
Posts: 28,829
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Botnst
Funny thing, that. the DA's are supposed to report political interference and did not, until they decided to fire them. Then they suddenly got religion.

You wouldn't suppose that interference is yet to be proven, would you? I mean, innocent until proven guilty and all that. Like the presumption that some bobbleheads want to afford the Gitmo pork-o-phobes. I assume we would wish to confer that same presumption on our own citizens, too.

I'm all for an objective, non-partisan investigation. Wouldn't want to leave the electorate with the feeling that Charlie Schumer is partisan. And Schumer is an honorable man. They are all honorable men.

B
I'm sure the US Attorney is a habitual liar who would ruin his career by making up stories, never mind going to prison for perjury to meet the people he put in there. You need to change your moniker to AnyExcuse.
FeelTheLove is offline  
post #68 of 82 (permalink) Old 03-15-2007, 09:18 AM Thread Starter
BenzWorld Elite
 
FeelTheLove's Avatar
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 83 Astral Silver 280 SL
Location: Planet Houston
Posts: 28,829
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
Quote:
Originally Posted by QBNCGAR
Just to be clear (not nitpicking your response), it is perfectly legal to dispose of U.S. Attorneys at will; that's really not at issue. What is at issue is 1) Whether or not these guys were let go for reasons other than personal or professional conduct & performance, and 2) Whether or not they're willing to say so under oath in front of Congress.

Legal or otherwise, I don't think America would take kindly to the notion that the administration (with or without Bush's knowledge) endeavored to alter the outcome of the 2006 elections by suddenly "finding religion" with regard to who they should whack, and for what reasons, just before election day.

Finally, I don't think anyone would take issue with the President hiring & firing whomever he wished in the cabinet, or at ambassadorial posts, or even U.S. Attorneys. What people should take issue with (at least until all the facts are known) is the as-yet undisputed allegation that this particular bit of hiring & firing was an orchestrated effort to keep from losing the Congressional majority.

We (conservatives in general, and Republicans specifically) are supposed to be above all of this. If we fear that we're going to lose badly in an election, the remedy is to refine the message and the platform - not call into the Whitehouse for an air strike to sabotage the campaigns of our opponents. Legal or not, that amounts to opportunism at best and cheating at worst.

Bush is probably more upset that this was handled clumsily than that the Attorneys in question were let go. They'd have done better to clean all of them out and start over if that was what they felt needed to happen. The last thing Bush needs is people leaving the reservation and acting foolishly.
Firing US Attorneys to stop an investigation is obstruction of justice. Just ask Richard Nixon.
FeelTheLove is offline  
post #69 of 82 (permalink) Old 03-15-2007, 10:51 AM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 95 E300
Location: Inside my head
Posts: 36,850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 392 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by FeelTheLove
I'm sure the US Attorney is a habitual liar who would ruin his career by making up stories, never mind going to prison for perjury to meet the people he put in there. You need to change your moniker to AnyExcuse.
Oh I get it, A DA, like all political appointees, never stoop to underhanded political maneuvers. That about sum-up your argument favoring testimony of skullduggery that was unreported by the non-political appointee?

If there's illegality, by all means charge somebody.

But do let us practice that art of presumption of innocence. You know, look some dickless members of the Surrender Party wish to endow the Gitmo guests. If it's good enough for brudduh Al Qaeda maybe we can sprinkle some of that magic dust on our own citizens?

B
Botnst is offline  
post #70 of 82 (permalink) Old 03-15-2007, 05:47 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 2014 E250 Bluetec 4-Matic, 1983 240D 4-Speed
Location: USA
Posts: 9,257
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Quoted: 256 Post(s)
Looks like this was a Rove and Gonzales (before his confirmation as AG) plan, which makes all the explanations given to date, especially foisting it off as a Harriet Miers plan, lies. I hope they get the chance to poke and probe the Big White Corpuscle! From the Libby stories he appaently has a good singing voice. This is going to become more interesting.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2954988&page=1

Jim
JimSmith is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

  Mercedes-Benz Forum > General Mercedes-Benz Forums > Off-Topic

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Mercedes-Benz Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in











  • Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
     
    Thread Tools
    Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
    Email this Page Email this Page
    Display Modes
    Linear Mode Linear Mode



    Similar Threads
    Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
    White House ties to Abramoff old300D Off-Topic 1 10-12-2006 06:49 PM
    White House Staffer Pay DP Off-Topic 6 07-13-2006 03:31 PM
    Do you know anyone inside the White House (WH) U.S.A.? BENZ REB Off-Topic 8 12-08-2005 05:11 PM
    Old White House on Rove: He had nothing to do with it. New White House on Rove: No Comment FeelTheLove Off-Topic 36 07-18-2005 12:43 PM
    White House: "Do as I say not as I do" Samurai1833 Off-Topic 1 05-20-2005 07:27 AM

    Posting Rules  
    You may post new threads
    You may post replies
    You may not post attachments
    You may not edit your posts

    BB code is On
    Smilies are On
    [IMG] code is On
    HTML code is Off
    Trackbacks are On
    Pingbacks are On
    Refbacks are On

     

    Title goes here

    close
    video goes here
    description goes here. Read Full Story
    For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome