Umm Is this Man crazy ?

[1EZduzit]

While they were at it, why didn't they fired US Attorney Johhny Sutton?

 

[cliftonite]

If they have nothing to hide why would they care if they were speaking under oath or not?

 

[johnnobts]

"I dont recall that", "I Dont Remember", Like Hillary did about the Rose Law Firm!
________________

yep, safer these days to say I don't remember, than to be convicted for perjury (scooter libby and the technicality conviction, he didn't out anybody)

 

[johnnobts]

they fired one attorney in California b/c she was refusing to prosecute "coyotes" who were smuggling illegals, as well as drug-traffickers. so says Duncan Hunter.

 

[dyna]

Originally posted by: cliftonite
If they have nothing to hide why would they care if they were speaking under oath or not?

Do you force everybody you have a conversation with to be under oath?

 

[PELarson]

Originally posted by: johnnobts
they fired one attorney in California b/c she was refusing to prosecute "coyotes" who were smuggling illegals, as well as drug-traffickers. so says Duncan Hunter.

Yet the DOJ seems to disagree.

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: dyna

Originally posted by: cliftonite
If they have nothing to hide why would they care if they were speaking under oath or not?

Do you force everybody you have a conversation with to be under oath?

There are emails and documents that need to be clarified under oath.. that is why

Answer honestly: do you expect any of these people (people in politics) to tell you the truth?

 

[dyna]

Originally posted by: dahunan

Originally posted by: dyna

Originally posted by: cliftonite
If they have nothing to hide why would they care if they were speaking under oath or not?

Do you force everybody you have a conversation with to be under oath?

There are emails and documents that need to be clarified under oath.. that is why

Answer honestly: do you expect any of these people (people in politics) to tell you the truth?

I expect them to answer the questions they are asked when not under oath. If they are not giving statisfying answers then I would expect them to put under oath. The problem is that if they give the same answers it makes the accusers look foolish and they don't want to take that risk.

 

[PELarson]

Originally posted by: dyna

Originally posted by: cliftonite
If they have nothing to hide why would they care if they were speaking under oath or not?

Do you force everybody you have a conversation with to be under oath?

Given the administrations NOT under oath track record. YES... YES.... YES!

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Aegeon

Originally posted by: Corbett
Its about time Bush stood up to these partisan hacks who make every non issue into a huge one. I thought it was his best speach in a long long time.

You realize multiple Republican House members along with a Republican Senator have also called for Alberto Gonzales' resignation over this matter?

Its really preposterous to claim only "partisan hacks" are making a big deal of this, unless you're including Republican "partisan hacks" which obviously leads to the question of why they would do such a thing unless this was a serious matter.

Ummm.. You may wanna re-think your assertion that having a few Repubs vote with Dems proves anything. Given the existence of Blue Dog Democrats, somebody may throw your remarks right back at you in the not-to distant future

Fern

 

[catnap1972]

Originally posted by: PELarson

Originally posted by: dyna

Originally posted by: cliftonite
If they have nothing to hide why would they care if they were speaking under oath or not?

Do you force everybody you have a conversation with to be under oath?

Given the administrations NOT under oath track record. YES... YES.... YES!

To hell with the oaths--I say put em all on polygraphs.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

The firing of 8? Federal DAs is now a human rights issue?

As was mentioned before, Bill Clinton got rid of EVERY Federal DA when he took over, the only mistake Bush seems to have made is in the timing of his decision.

Every President, more or less, has fired the USAs appointed by his predecessor, so your raising Clinton as an example is misleading. The issue here is that President Bush fired 8 USAs, for political reasons, during his term, and installed politically-selected interim appointments. This is not the norm.

Yes but its perfectly legal.

It might be "Legal", but what is the purpose of these Prosecutors in the Legal sense? Is it to simply be an arm of Power of the President or is it to uphold the Constitution of the US?

Seems to me their purpose would be to uphold the Constitution and not be Presidential Hitmen.

They are supposed to carry out the law of the land however the president sets the agenda. Clintons big agenda was gun control, get as many gun convictions as possible. Reagans was drug trafficking, go after drug dealers. Surprisingly Bush's appears to be illegal immigration.

On the face of it the agenda appears to be Political(convict the opposition). I kinda doubt that's the Legal intention for this Presidential power.

Of course it is political, anytime you have a politican appointing somebody to do a job, it is political. If it wasnt political these people would apply for a position and be hired and fired based on their merits alone. But that isnt how it is setup. The executive branch is designated the role of prosecuting the law.

btw unless the democrats are running drugs, guns, or illegal immigrants. Your insinuation the president has the power to convict his opposition is an exaggeration.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Aegeon

Originally posted by: dyna
Why I Was Fired

By DAVID C. IGLESIAS


What exactly was the politically motivated reason he got fired?

To repeat the circumstances which are creating grave concern about the firing:

Politics entered my life with two phone calls that I received last fall, just before the November election. One came from Representative Heather Wilson and the other from Senator Domenici, both Republicans from my state, New Mexico.

Ms. Wilson asked me about sealed indictments pertaining to a politically charged corruption case widely reported in the news media involving local Democrats. Her question instantly put me on guard. Prosecutors may not legally talk about indictments, so I was evasive. Shortly after speaking to Ms. Wilson, I received a call from Senator Domenici at my home. The senator wanted to know whether I was going to file corruption charges ? the cases Ms. Wilson had been asking about ? before November. When I told him that I didn?t think so, he said, ?I am very sorry to hear that,? and the line went dead.

In other words because he didn't indict local Democrats at a politically convenient time for Republicans, he may have gotten fired directly as a result of this decision.

"Politically convenient"? That's an "interesting" choice of words.

The info you quote couldn't be more vague. The NYT reports that the case in question concerns confirmed voter fraud.

I would hope prosecuting that before elction time would be understood as common sense, not "political convenience".

I hope every voting citizen is outraged by voter fraud. Although I haven't heard any on this board.

Fern

 

[dyna]

Originally posted by: catnap1972

Originally posted by: PELarson

Originally posted by: dyna

Originally posted by: cliftonite
If they have nothing to hide why would they care if they were speaking under oath or not?

Do you force everybody you have a conversation with to be under oath?

Given the administrations NOT under oath track record. YES... YES.... YES!

To hell with the oaths--I say put em all on polygraphs.

How about we throw them into maximum security prison first and then put them on trial under oath? That would really stick it to them good.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: PELarson

Originally posted by: dyna

Originally posted by: cliftonite
If they have nothing to hide why would they care if they were speaking under oath or not?

Do you force everybody you have a conversation with to be under oath?

Given the administrations NOT under oath track record. YES... YES.... YES!

It's not like they don't have a proven record of lies and half truths, now is it. They planted those seeds, now they have to deal with us "non-believers".... especially since they no longer a cut and dried majority in Congress.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: dyna

Originally posted by: cliftonite
If they have nothing to hide why would they care if they were speaking under oath or not?

Do you force everybody you have a conversation with to be under oath?

No, I save that special treatment just for the known liars. If they like parsing their words so cleverly, let them show us their stuff under oath.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: MaxisOne
Um ... WTH ??:disgust:

President Warns congress over subpoenas

Seriously .. has the cheese slipped off the cracker ?

WTH are they hiding ?

My first post in Pol & News BTW

I might ask, politely, if this if the first Admin vs Congress type battle you've witnessed first-hand (as opposed to reading or studying about it)?

You do realize that many of (particularly long-standing/serving) Congress people play a "game" of long-term tactics and strategy?

Do you think that there's any chance when the Dems looked at this issue, they thought about how it might play out in their favor, and what are the risks/rewards (e.g., could it back-fire? or be readily dis-missed by the public etc?)

Does their attck on the Admin (Repub) satisfy some of the "party faithful", and take the spotlight (i.e., "heat") off of them vis-s-vis diverting attention to this issue, and off the Iraq war issue (where they been unable to so far accomplish anything). Ever seen the game "pea in a cup"?

Have you ever been subpoena'd? I have. Are you aware of how time consuming that is? etc etc

Bottom line, in this politically calculated "chess match" the Dems in Congress knew long before this issue was launched (i.e., they calculated) that one of two things were going to happen:

1) Force subpoeana's and sworn testimony. That will effectively choke down the WH. All other work will basical cesase as they are pre-occupied with this. Congress will also likely get extended "face time" on TV (gawd, do polititions love that) where they can lambast the GWB WH thus pleasing their party loyalists. And don't be mistaken, they know that inspires them just when they're needed - heading into Presidential campaign season.

Or

2) Will force GWB to assert Exec Privilegde. No matter this has been asserted by many President's (including Washington & Jefferson etc) they will howl about it's use being used to cover "sonmething". As is done in almost all Congress vs Exec battles. Once agin, ammo to fire up the loyalists. Oh, I think there will still be hearings. They won't bypass the opportunity for political gain & TV "face time" I mentioned above.

Politica as usual, "fiddle while Rome burns"

Fern

 

[BMW540I6speed]

Gonzales went before congress - under oath - and denyed allegations that they had fired them for political reasons. What blew this thing up is when he said (under oath) that they had been fired for "performance issues" which was a bald faced lie. That is what justified further investigation.

By saying that, he forced his fellow Republican former-US-Attorneys to have to defend their records and political reputations, instead of gracefully retiring and finding new chapters in their careers.

Big mistake, Mr. Gonzales...He opened this door and invited the scrutiny. Then he changed his story so many times that no one can believe anything that any of them say on the subject. So to expect anyone to testify without being under oath and on record no longer seems justifiable. Sorry.

If this gets that far...Some crimes that a special prosecutor might one day look at:

1. Misrepresentations to Congress. The relevant provision, 18 U.S.C. § 1505, is very broad. It is illegal to lie to Congress, and also to "impede" it in getting information. Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty indicated to Congress that the White House's involvement in firing the United States attorneys was minimal, something that Justice Department e-mail messages suggest to be untrue.

2. Calling the Prosecutors. As part of the Sarbanes-Oxley reforms, Congress passed an extremely broad obstruction of justice provision, 18 U.S.C. § 1512 (c), which applies to anyone who corruptly "obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so," including U.S. attorney investigations.

3. Witness Tampering. 18 U.S.C. § 1512 (b) makes it illegal to intimidate Congressional witnesses. Michael Elston, Mr. McNulty's chief of staff, contacted one of the fired attorneys, H. E. Cummins, and suggested, according to Mr. Cummins, that if he kept speaking out, there would be retaliation.

4. Firing the Attorneys. United States attorneys can be fired whenever a president wants, but not, as § 1512 (c) puts it, to corruptly obstruct, influence, or impede an official proceeding.

 

[dahunan]

Why is Bush working so hard to protect these people.. that makes it look even worse.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: dahunan
Why is Bush working so hard to protect these people.. that makes it look even worse.

Because he's trying to slow down the "bandwagon"??

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
There is no caveat in the Constitution that refers to 'Executive Privilege' - back under Nixon the Supreme Court already established that no man, including the President is above the law.

But 'FalsifierJohn' doesn't care for facts, just keep on 'shilling on'.

Your remarks are mis-leading

Presidents since George Washington and Thomas Jefferson have argued that the separation of powers embodied in the United States Constitution implies that each branch may operate with some degree of freedom from the control or supervision of the others. The Supreme Court largely upheld this view in the case United States v. Nixon.

That's from Wiki. So SCOTUS has ruled that Exec Priv exists exists, but it's not absolute.

Many here, who advocate Congressional oversight of the WH, should read that so they can properly dis-abuse themselves of such a notion.

Fern

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: dahunan
Why is Bush working so hard to protect these people.. that makes it look even worse.

Because he doesnt want congress to get the idea they have much say in executive branch matters. Somebody else pointed out the seperation of powers situation. What if congress wanted the judicial branch to explain decisions? Congress imo is overstepping their bounds by demanding an explanation to how the executive branch conducts its business.

Unfortunately all the left see's is blood in the water and as usual thrashes with no regard for what possible outcome such an overstepping may bring in the future.

 

[Bird222]

Originally posted by: catnap1972

Originally posted by: PELarson

Originally posted by: dyna

Originally posted by: cliftonite
If they have nothing to hide why would they care if they were speaking under oath or not?

Do you force everybody you have a conversation with to be under oath?

Given the administrations NOT under oath track record. YES... YES.... YES!

To hell with the oaths--I say put em all on polygraphs.

QTF

 

[1EZduzit]

Except congress had to approve these appointments, so if someone gets fired for political reasons, it's there business too.

Righties have had it all their way for sooo long. Wecome to your holy grail, "majority rule". It's a two-edged sword

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Ummm There is this thing called the separation of powers? our entire government is based on it. According to this principle the job of enforcing laws is left to the President. Which means he chooses who works for him as prosecutors and who does not.

When congress gets involved in a situation like this and tries to tell the President who he can and can?t have working for him they are over stepping their grounds. Which is why their could be a court fight over this, but that is highly unlikely. The Democrats will most likely realize that they will not win a fight like this and take what he offers. But you never know?

Think of it this way? how would congress react if Bush started calling them to the White House to explain how they voted on certain bills. Or congress called members of the Supreme Court to testify on how they decided certain cases?

Congress does have the power to approve, or disapprove of many Presidential appointments, but once they are approved they have no say in how they do their job.

Sorry man, but you are (again) wrong. Bush has no chance of winning this legal battle. None. Not only does Congress have a constitutionally recognized power to oversee the executive branch. How do you expect them to oversee things when they aren't allowed to have information they want? (And no... getting what information Bush wants them to have in the manner he wants them to have it isn't good enough and you know it).

Congress has a legitimate interest in knowing if
A.) A crime was committed, and
B.) If legislation should be drafted in order to prevent this from happening again.

Executive priviledge doesn't apply here, as the courts have decided (both with Nixon and with Clinton) that EP is for national security or sensitive policy documents, things like that. Firing some attorneys doesn't even come close.

Sorry man, it's possible that I've missed something here... but I'm pretty sure your boy is cooked on the legal front.

I don't think it's as clear as many assert; viz:

Presidents since George Washington and Thomas Jefferson have argued that the separation of powers embodied in the United States Constitution implies that each branch may operate with some degree of freedom from the control or supervision of the others. The Supreme Court largely upheld this view in the case United States v. Nixon.

That's from Wiki.

AND

No constitutional language authorizes the president to withhold documents from Congress, nor does any provision empower Congress to demand and receive information from the executive branch. The Supreme Court has recognized the constitutional power of Congress to investigate, (1) and the president's power to withhold information, (2) but those powers would exist with or without judicial rulings. Over the past two centuries, Congress and the President have insisted that the powers are necessarily implied in the effective functioning of government. No doubt they are. The difficult and unpredictable issue is how to resolve two implied powers when they collide. Some judicial opinions provide guidance, but most of the disputes are resolved through political accommodations......

What informs the process of congressional access to executive branch information is the constitutional structure of separation of powers and the system of checks and balances. Neither political branch has incontestable authority to withhold information or force its disgorgement. When these executive-legislative clashes occur, they are seldom resolved judicially. Accommodations are usually discovered without the need for litigation. On those rare occasions where these disputes enter the courts, judges typically reject sweeping claims of privilege by elected officials while encouraging the two branches to find a satisfactory compromise. (6) Courts look to legal precedent, "and legal precedent is much too inflexible to apply in individual cases of executive-legislative disputes." (7) The outcome is more likely decided by the persistence of Congress and its willingness to adopt political penalties for executive noncompliance. Congress can win most of the time--if it has the will--because its political tools are formidable.

Seems mostly unsettled. The above is from Duke Law prof Louis Fisher. LINK

My (admittedly brief) analysis of SCOTUS rulings indicates that the Pres will have a difficult time, if not impossible, asserting (and prevailing) EP in a criminal case (see SCOTUS in Nixon case). Seems that case rather clearling states EP will not hold up in criminal cases.

Hence, my question: Is the firing of an AG for political purposes a criminal offence? If so, what are requirements rendering it criminal (malicious intent etc)?

If anyone wishes to assert that it is, please link the relevant federal statutes or scholarly/legal article confirming it so.

If it's not criminal, there's no case law I've seen which supports my friend Eskimospy's assertion that "Bush has no chance of winning this legal battle. None".

Anyhoo, I still contend (I've done elsewhere in P&N) it's mostly, if not all, political theatre. A calculated political move to tie up the Admin with subpeaona's and testimony, or force GWB to assert EP and scream bloody murder. To placate & satisfy their party loyal who are pissed at their non-performance regarding the Iraq war, and divert attention away from their inactivity regarding such. To motivate & gain politcal momentum in the upcoming Pres election, giving those runing more fodder on the campaign stump etc etc.

Who knows? Maybe they'll actually get something out of it - pure bonus/cream on top of the other above mentioned "benies".

I've seen this same cycle repeat itself in virtually (if not literally) every lame duck term. It works too. Their fellow Dems/Repubs won't fight for them as they are dead ducks/can't run again. And their fellow Dems/Repubs ARE running and don't wanna tarred with this brush, hurts their chances (or the chance of their party members to take the elcltion) etc.

Fern