http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNR7EDgWnL4

The DOJ scandal will be around for a very long time. If the republicans manage to run out the clock and nothing happens during this administration, then it will happen after the dems take the white house in Jan '09 and all concerned are just ordinary citizens like the rest of us. You simply can't go through life ruining peoples careers and reputations without payback and a major bitch-slap.

And presidential pardons won't matter.

Did I just hear him say this has "only" been done five times in the past twenty five years?
I could swear AllForums said this was unprecedented.

One thing I didn't hear him say - that this was illegal.

Did I just hear him say this has "only" been done five times in the past twenty five years?
I could swear AllForums said this was unprecedented.

One thing I didn't hear him say - that this was illegal.

Well which is it? You're going to sweat to it or you're gonna put some proof on the table that all forums said it?

Well, Allforums isn't really a person so I guess I shouldn't have made that claim.

But in a prior thread on this topic no one was able to show that it was illegal, so the entire argument came down to something to the effect of well-it's-just-not-done.

Clinton doing it at the beginning of a term was ok but doing it several years in was not ok.
I asked when it became a bad thing. Two months in, six months in, twenty months in? But no one knew.

Well which is it? You're going to sweat to it ...?
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v281/queun/232577501.jpg

Rove subponea on the way ... ROTF

Is there a criminal offense involved here?

Is there a criminal offense involved here?That's irrelevant.

Leahy's on a roll.

Lol!

Is there a criminal offense involved here?

IMHO -- yes Leahy will turn this into a criminal investigation. That way the supreme court nor executive priviledge can get in the way. It would be obstructing justice.

IMHO -- yes Leahy will turn this into a criminal investigation. That way the supreme court nor executive priviledge can get in the way. It would be obstructing justice.

Really? what's the criminal offence?

has the democrat congress done anyhting but question people for doing things that are not even against the law?

Is there a criminal offense involved here?If nothing is illegal, the White House should just open the books and give Americans the transparent accoounting we deserve.

That is like saying tapping phones is OK if you have nothing to hide. If the cops came to your house and wanted to look around for no good reason would you let them simply because you had nothing to hide? wouldnt that open the door for it to become a regualr occurance?

That is like saying tapping phones is OK if you have nothing to hide.Bull, it's like saying that an employee should be responsible to the people who pay his salary.

Bull, it's like saying that an employee shopuld be responsible to the people who pay his salary.

sounds more like the legislative branch over reaching their authority

Really? what's the criminal offence?

Well there are so many to choose from but my guess would be ...

a) obstruction of justice
b) perjury
3) violations of the Hatch act
4) all the above

pick one.

Well there's so many to choose from but my guess would be

a) obstruction of justice
b) perjury
3) violations of the Hatch act
4) all the above

pick one.

all of which happened after the fact, what was the original charge that was illegal? you ever heard of a fishing expedition?

sounds more like the legislative branch over reaching their authorityOversight is part of the constitutional responsibility of the Congress. You did notice that the Senate had to originally confirm the appointments for these Federal prosecutors, no? This may well appear to be the White House trying to sidestep that authority.

is it illegal for a president to fire attornys?

Oversight is part of the constitutional responsibility of the Congress. You did notice that the Senate had to originally confirm the appointments for these Federal prosecutors, no? This may well appear to be the White House trying to sidestep that authority.

Well said Shilo-p. You correctly point out that oversight is a constitutional responsibility of congress.

You're probably already figuring out that many people on the right are not very constitutional savy. They only know as much as Rush tells them.

Fine, we will watch you change your tune real quick once Queen Hillary assumes command

is it illegal for a president to fire attornys?

No, but bush is still bad for doing it LMAO

don't hate the playa, hate the game

all of which happened after the fact, what was the original charge that was illegal? you ever heard of a fishing expedition?

They're not after the fact ... they are the fact.

The latest atty gen is going down in flames.

The latest atty gen is going down in flames.

It sure does seem that way.

The latest atty gen is going down in flames.

It's merely a completely absurd exercise to try and make bones
over what a President has absolute Complete control over,
Bush let his Attorney general FIRE 9 Federal Judges.
They were serving entirely at the pleasure of the president.
They were political appointments.
Bush has every right to have them let go,if they aren't
fullfilling his agendas.
Clinton Fired every damn Republican,more than 90 in like
one full swoop.Not a peep was uttered over that.
Gonzales is being made out to be an incompetent liar,for entirely
political reasons.
Democrats like Waxman,Conyers and Leahy are doing exactly what
was expected if they got a majority.
That being fling'n Subpoenas ,every which way but loose.
Dimocrats are just worthless A$$Klown pansies.
They're gonna get Americans killed,like in 9/11.

It's merely a completely absurd exercise to try and make bones
over what a President has absolute Complete control over,
Bush let his Attorney general FIRE 9 Federal Judges.
They were serving entirely at the pleasure of the president.
They were political appointments.
Bush has every right to have them let go,if they aren't
fullfilling his agendas.
Clinton Fired every damn Republican,more than 90 in like
one full swoop.Not a peep was uttered over that.
Gonzales is being made out to be an incompetent liar,for entirely
political reasons.
Democrats like Waxman,Conyers and Leahy are doing exactly what
was expected if they got a majority.
That being fling'n Subpoenas ,every which way but loose.
Dimocrats are just worthless A$$Klown pansies.
They're gonna get Americans killed,like in 9/11.

You gotta lay off the gin, fool.

is it illegal for a president to fire attornys?Not if it's done for just cause, which is the Congress is asking to be able to determine, since it don't smell right.

You gotta lay off the gin, fool.

Just cuz yer a Dupe,over what The Dims are pullin.
You do realize their entire Mission is Political.?
Try and make Gonzales out to be an incompetent Liar,
as Bush Fires him,and they have bragging rights over a failed Bush
staffer.
The same kinda Punk boy shit they pulled with Tom Delay.
And with Trent Lott.
I woodn't sling a Wet Dimocrat as far as I could a tennis ball
a ferret spent a week urinating ON.
But maybe I would.

Basically the only people you trust and support are Russian news agencies and yourself, right?

This has moved way beyond the attorney firings.

Gonzales has perjured himself in regards to testimony about signing off on the illegal wire taps and, in doing so, he has now implied there is another secret intel gathering program being used against ordinary americans with no approval from DOJ or congress.

He should have kept his mouth shut or just stuck with "I don't recall"

Wait until they call Ashcroft's wife in to testify. That's when it's gonna get good.

...and you think this is "new" news because?

If you think that the Republicans are any worse than the Democrats on this issue... think again.

Of course I cannot be a moderate on this... we don't exist.

Well there are so many to choose from but my guess would be ...

a) obstruction of justice
b) perjury
3) violations of the Hatch act
4) all the above

pick one.

You must've got rolled by a wave, again. Firing employees is not a criminal offence. None of the above apply to firing employees.

Not if it's done for just cause, which is the Congress is asking to be able to determine, since it don't smell right.

One doesn't need just cause to fire someone who is a political appointee.

You must've got rolled by a wave, again. Firing employees is not a criminal offence. None of the above apply to firing employees.

Way to advertise your ignorance.

This isn't about just firing attorneys.

Ultimately this is about the supression of thousands of minority voters. (a.k.a. Election Fraud)
It is also about the politization and thus corruption of every department of the government.

The attorneys were purged for not being "Loyal Bushies" so all we are left with are political hacks who think they swore an oath to the President, not the Constitution.

This is what happens when people who don't believe in government are put in charge of government, they abuse and neglect it.

Way to advertise your ignorance.

This isn't about just firing attorneys.

Ultimately this is about the supression of thousands of minority voters. (a.k.a. Election Fraud)
It is also about the politization and thus corruption of every department of the government.

The attorneys were purged for not being "Loyal Bushies" so all we are left with are political hacks who think they swore an oath to the President, not the Constitution.

This is what happens when people who don't believe in government are put in charge of government, they abuse and neglect it.

Really? Are there charges pending? an investigation underway on said charges? This is merely more of your fevered imaginings.

One thing I didn't hear him say - that this was illegal.

Election Fraud is not illegal?

Lying under oath is not illegal?

Obstruction of Justice is not illegal?

Violating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is not illegal?

Whatever Brooks, you go right ahead insisting that the emperor has new clothes.
:rolleyes:

an investigation underway on said charges?

Yes, there are and there have been charges pressed, people found guilty and alredy had their sentences commuted.
I suggest you start paying some attention to what is going on around you Waldo.

You have been spending too much time in hiding. :thumbs:

Fine, we will watch you change your tune real quick once Queen Hillary assumes command

Nobody will change their tune faster then you if that happens.

:thumbs:

Yes, there are and there have been charges pressed, people found guilty and alredy had their sentences commuted.
I suggest you start paying some attention to what is going on around you Waldo.

You have been spending too much time in hiding. :thumbs:

Could you highlight these cases for us adn how the firings affected the cases.

Could you highlight these cases for us adn how the firings affected the cases.

I have posted plenty of information already.
See some of my previous threads.
I won't waste my time repeating myself to someone who refuses to listen.

:thumbs:

Just cuz yer a Dupe,over what The Dims are pullin.
You do realize their entire Mission is Political.?
Try and make Gonzales out to be an incompetent Liar,
as Bush Fires him,and they have bragging rights over a failed Bush
staffer.
The same kinda Punk boy shit they pulled with Tom Delay.
And with Trent Lott.
I woodn't sling a Wet Dimocrat as far as I could a tennis ball
a ferret spent a week urinating ON.
But maybe I would.

Your political hackery is certainly more pronounced than mine, and your information is inaccurate.

Your political hackery is certainly more pronounced than mine, and your information is inaccurate.

Back that UP or go back to stuffin olives,Bub !

One doesn't need just cause to fire someone who is a political appointee.

Correct. The attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President and can be fired at any time.

Yet the firing of eight attorneys in the middle of their terms is a highly unusual event. Unprecedented even. So unusual it raised some questions as to why these attorneys were chosen for dismissal. The problem now is not the firings of the attorneys, but the long list of possible lies, half-truths, and "I can't recall" statements by the AG when he testified before Congress several times.

You may be right when you say this is all a political hatchet job, but your own political bias is evident in your willingness to overlook what appears to be perjurious testimony by the AG.

Honestly waldo, it's difficult to take anyone seriously on this topic who's not at least a little bit disgusted with the AG's testimonial record.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/7/28/72254/3793

A secret surveillance program used against ordinary americans -- and Gonzo as much as admitted the program exists during his testimony this week.

America is gonna be pissed when this one is exposed.

[QUOTE=Vilepagan]Correct. The attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President and can be fired at any time.

Yet the firing of eight attorneys in the middle of their terms is a highly unusual event. Unprecedented even. So unusual it raised some questions as to why these attorneys were chosen for dismissal. The problem now is not the firings of the attorneys, but the long list of possible lies, half-truths, and "I can't recall" statements by the AG when he testified before Congress several times.
************************************************** 8
So Sayeth WHO ?
Chuckie Schumer,Patrick Leahey and Diane Feinstein.
ALL Political hacks.
What about Clinton's FIRING of 93 Attorney in his first August at the helm.?
They were ALL Republican,I believe.
Explain them potatoes and the fact NO Dem made a Peep.
Yer Bias isn't showing,it's damn near a Shining UFO.

So Sayeth WHO ?

These people for example.

http://www.opencrs.com/document/RL33889/

And then there's anyone who has even a passing knowledge of the history of such firings.


Chuckie Schumer,Patrick Leahey and Diane Feinstein.
ALL Political hacks.

That's nice...even if true is it relevant?

What about Clinton's FIRING of 93 Attorney in his first August at the helm.?

All presidents remove all or most of the US attorneys at the beginning of their term as President. It's highly unusual to fire one during your term as President, and it's unprecedented to fire 7 of them at once.


They were ALL Republican,I believe.
Explain them potatoes and the fact NO Dem made a Peep.
Yer Bias isn't showing,it's damn near a Shining UFO.

Try doing a little research before you make yourself look like more of a fool.

http://www.allforums.net/showthread.php?t=25357

Try doing a little research before you make yourself look like more of a fool.

http://www.allforums.net/showthread.php?t=25357Ha ha ha!! That was a great thread.

A stunning display of deliberate ignorance if ever I saw one. :eek:

Ha ha ha!! That was a great thread.

A stunning display of deliberate ignorance if ever I saw one. :eek:

He dint prove Squat,besides the usual Liberal drool.
Use SOP talking pts.that are riddled with half-truths and
make appear as if The shinning Light of Day has just shown.
He did say .... " All Presidents remove ALL U.S. attorneys
at the beginning of their term as president " blah blah Whoopie two shoes ad infinitum !
Was Bush one of the ALL who removed ALL at the beginning of his term.?
That was the crux of his entire argument,anywho.
You've just dropped a few I.Q. pts. by assuming the
position of - Ignorance prognosticator - w/o a license.

One doesn't need just cause to fire someone who is a political appointee.Then why all the controversy? Just open the books.

Was Bush one of the ALL who removed ALL at the beginning of his term.?Yes.

http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2001/March/107ag.htm
That was the crux of his entire argument,anywho.Quite so. You lose. You've just dropped a few I.Q. pts. by assuming the
position of - Ignorance prognosticator - w/o a license.You should have listened to Vile instead of living up to your screen name. :)

Then why all the controversy? Just open the books.


Great question Shiloh -- it really is quite simple isn't it?

Unfortunately, the Gonzo enablers won't be able to reply to your post until Rush hands out the talking points.

Yes.

http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2001/March/107ag.htm
Quite so. You lose.You should have listened to Vile instead of living up to your screen name. :)

***************************************
Resignation is far from Firing.

Against Apion

" Fools must be rejected not by arguments,but by facts. "
-- Flavius Josephus

Great question Shiloh -- it really is quite simple isn't it?

Unfortunately, the Gonzo enablers won't be able to reply to your post until Rush hands out the talking points.

For someone who mentions Rush's name,far more than I would,
you seemingly are somewhat attached at the Polemic with He.
Anywho,how did you becomes such an expert on supposed
Limbaugh talking pts."
Please do tell.

For someone who mentions Rush's name,far more than I would,
you seemingly are somewhat attached at the Polemic with He.
Anywho,how did you becomes such an expert on supposed
Limbaugh talking pts."
Please do tell.

Hell yes I listen to Rush and hate-radio. It gives me a huge advantage when I have to confront right-wing whack-jobs. I know what they're gonna say before they say it. That's why they lose the argument ... like you're doing right now.

I learned this skill from the best of the best at guerrilla warfare ... Che.

I listen to Rush and hate-radio... I know what they're gonna say before they say it. That's why they lose the argument ... like you're doing right now.

Demolishing Foolsworth in a debate is as about as difficult (and as satisfying) as shooting hobbled cows from close range with a high powered rifle.

IOW, not at all.

Resignation is far from Firing.You're kidding, right?

When the Clinton administration asked all the US attorneys to submit their letters of resignation they were 'fired'. But when the Bush administration asked all the US attorneys to submit their letters of resignation they weren't 'fired', they just resigned. :rolleyes:

“'Doublethink' means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.”

~ George Orwell

You're kidding, right?

When the Clinton administration asked all the US attorneys to submit their letters of resignation they were 'fired'. But when the Bush administration asked all the US attorneys to submit their letters of resignation they weren't 'fired', they just resigned. :rolleyes:

“'Doublethink' means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.”

~ George Orwell

You did mention the word - " asked "...Righto.?
Isn't it peculiar the slight inclusion or Ommission of certain words.
Like Clinton's - " what the meaning of IS,is " ?
What is the liklihood that ALL 93 attorney's wood politely Resign,
if merely " asked ".?
This is the trouble with you Dimocrats.
You live in a world,where parsing and poll numbers,trump
common sense and hard reality.
I'd just as soon trust what a Dimocrat say's as sling a wet
porcupine in the Clinton Library Hot Tub.

Hell yes I listen to Rush and hate-radio. It gives me a huge advantage when I have to confront right-wing whack-jobs. I know what they're gonna say before they say it. That's why they lose the argument ... like you're doing right now.

I learned this skill from the best of the best at guerrilla warfare ... Che.

Che was appointed commander of the La Cabaña Fortress prison, and during his five-month tenure in that post (January 2 through June 12, 1959), he oversaw the trial and execution of many people, among whom were former Batista regime officials and members of the "Bureau for the Repression of Communist Activities" (a unit of the secret police known by its Spanish acronym BRAC). José Vilasuso, an attorney who worked under Guevara at La Cabaña preparing indictments, said that these were lawless proceedings where "the facts were judged without any consideration to general juridical principles" and the findings were pre-determined by Guevara. It is estimated that between 156 and 550 people were executed on Guevara's extra-judicial orders during this time.

Yeah... he was a fine example to mimic. Eichmann might be another good one.

:rolleyes:

You did mention the word - " asked "...Righto.?
Isn't it peculiar the slight inclusion or Ommission of certain words.
Like Clinton's - " what the meaning of IS,is " ?Hey there, Bub. You're the one who's saying that being asked to resign means something different if a Republican administration does it than if a Democratic one does. You're the one doing a 'Clinton' here (it all depends on what the meaning of 'asked to resign' is). What is the liklihood that ALL 93 attorney's wood politely Resign,
if merely " asked ".?At the beginning of a new president's term? About 100%. Every US attorney expects to be replaced, especially if there's a new party controlling the White House. They are political appointees and serve at the pleasure of the president, remember? Occasionally a US attorney will be dismissed without being asked to resign. From the Wikipedia:

The few examples of forced dismissals available are based on misconduct. The Congressional Research Service investigated the precedent of dismissing U.S. Attorneys over the 25 years 1981-2006 and identified 54 attorneys who did not serve their full 4-year term. Of these, only two were documented involuntary dismissals: William Kennedy in 1982 and J. William Petro in 1984. Both were Reagan appointees. Kennedy was dismissed for "for asserting that the CIA had pressured DOJ to pressure him not to pursue a case," and Petro was dismissed for "disclosing information about an indictment."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S._attorneys_controversy#Dismissal_ of_U.S._Attorneys_under_previous_administrations

So to answer your question simply, barring unusual circumstances US attorneys will politely resign when requested -- whether by Clinton or Bush or Reagan or any other president. This is the trouble with you Dimocrats.
You live in a world,where parsing and poll numbers,trump
common sense and hard reality.
I'd just as soon trust what a Dimocrat say's as sling a wet
porcupine in the Clinton Library Hot Tub.This is what you do when you can't make a coherent argument: you resort to foolish insults.

I was hoping for better from you. :mad:

Coherent, Foolsworth? :confused:

Clinton FIRED ALL 93 Attorneys in
his first day of August.August isn't the month a newly
sworn Pres takes office.It's more than 6 months later.
And by coincidence,the same month,ALL Politicians take off
for recess.That's why Slick Willy picked AUGUST to FIRE the
REPUBLICAN Attorneys.
If you Dimbaggers wanna be credible,just admit the plain & obvious.
Quit Constantly trying to Hoodwink America.
It's gone beyond Surreal

If nothing is illegal, the White House should just open the books and give Americans the transparent accoounting we deserve.
Open what books exactly?
All of the "books"?

Clinton FIRED ALL 93 Attorneys in
his first day of August.August isn't the month a newly
sworn Pres takes office.It's more than 6 months later.
And by coincidence,the same month,ALL Politicians take off
for recess.That's why Slick Willy picked AUGUST to FIRE the
REPUBLICAN Attorneys.Janet Reno was confirmed as Attorney General on 11 March 1993 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janet_Reno) and requested the resignations on 24 March 1993 (http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=F00612F73C540C778EDDAA0894DB494D81).

Not August.

I think the problem here is that you don't even understand the most basic facts of this issue.
If you Dimbaggers wanna be credible,just admit the plain & obvious.
Quit Constantly trying to Hoodwink America.
It's gone beyond Surreal
You want to be credible? Don't invent facts.

Posting made up crap isn't the best way to go about calling others 'surreal'.

I was hoping for better from you. :mad:

Hoping for better from Foolsworth?!? What're you smokin'? :D

Hoping for better from Foolsworth?!? What're you smokin'? :DI like Foolsworth. He's interesting and doesn't bother to closet his bigotry. I've developed a mental image of him that is strikingly similar to that of Ignatius J. Reilly, the protagonist of John Kennedy Toole's A Confederacy of Dunces:

A green hunting cap squeezed the top of the fleshy balloon of a head. The green earflaps, full of large ears and uncut hair and the fine bristles that grew in the ears themselves, stuck out on either side like turn signals indicating two directions at once. Full, pursed lips protruded beneath the bushy black moustache and, at their corners, sank into little folds filled with disapproval and potato chip crumbs. In the shadow under the green visor of the cap Ignatius J. Reilly's supercilious blue and yellow eyes looked down upon the other people waiting under the clock at the D.H. Holmes department store, studying the crowd of people for signs of bad taste in dress. Several of the outfits, Ignatius noticed, were new enough and expensive enough to be properly considered offenses against taste and decency. Possession of anything new or expensive only reflected a person's lack of theology and geometry; it could even cast doubts upon one's soul.

Correct. The attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President and can be fired at any time.

Yet the firing of eight attorneys in the middle of their terms is a highly unusual event. Unprecedented even. So unusual it raised some questions as to why these attorneys were chosen for dismissal.

Actually this is not unprecedented.

Andrew Johnson was impeached by Congress (http://www.impeach-andrewjohnson.com/)over his removal of Edwin Stanton as Secretary of War.

It is not true that the President can fire them for any reason at any time. That is not what the framers intended.

If the Framers intended the President to have an "Executive Privilege" that trumped the law and neutered Congress' authority, you would think they would have put it into the Constitution somewhere... but they didn't.

As James Madison said, (http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/03/27/113/) 'if a President were to order or allow the “wanton removal of meritorious officers” such as US attorneys, such an action “would subject the President to impeachment and removal from his own high trust.”'

All the other issues... all the lying, the obstruction of justice, the dithering over trivialities... it is all a smoke-screen to cover the theft of power and authority by the Executive Branch.

As lifelong conservative Bruce Fein pointed out, the Bush administration has taken more power onto themselves than did King George III, whom we revolted against.

They have purposely crippled the checks and balances for power written into the Constitution by the Framers. They have rendered Congress seemingly powerless to do anything about their excesses because they have crippled the Judicial Branch with Partisan Loyalists.

The Partisan Purge of the Justice Department is at the heart of the matter.

:rant:

Open what books exactly?
All of the "books"?

Why all these claims of executive privilege if they are not hiding anything?

They are even claiming executive privilege over why everyone was lied to about Pat Tillman's death. (http://rawstory.com/news/2007/White_House_Pentagon_hold_up_documents_0713.html)

Ha ha ha!! That was a great thread.
A stunning display of deliberate ignorance if ever I saw one. :eek:
That was a good thread. There is nothing new on this one.

That thread, like this one, used phrases like "highly unusual", "unprecedented" and (my favorite) "undesireable".

But still, no one says illegal or unconstitutional.

Someone even said that the important difference is that Clinton "dismissed" the justices and Bush "fired" them. Good one, no?

One thing that appears on the other thread is this embarassingly inaccurate prediction:
"Rumors have it that Gonzales is now Gone-zales. Bush is shopping for a replacement. He probably should look for 2."
which was made by our most embarrasingly inaccurate predictor.

[QUOTE=sedan]Janet Reno was confirmed as Attorney General on 11 March 1993 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janet_Reno) and requested the resignations on 24 March 1993 (http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=F00612F73C540C778EDDAA0894DB494D81).

" Requested" or *DEMANDED,thar Bub.? That's a far cry from "asking".
Remeber what I said about Lyin,cheatin Liberals and their inability
to just come clean and admit the unvarnished truth.
It's why they Love to Parse.
Sure beats the heck oughta Talkin Turkey.

Dimocrats LIE
Republicans Talk Turkey !

BTW,is March ...August ?




* Atorney General Seeks Resignations from Prosecutors
by David Johnson {March 24,1993}

[QUOTE=sedan]I like Foolsworth. He's interesting and doesn't bother to closet his bigotry. I've developed a mental image of him that is strikingly similar to that of Ignatius J. Reilly, the protagonist of John Kennedy Toole's A Confederacy of Dunces:

You'd make a wonderbar Bigot.
If you could only find a definition that was Liberal enough...eh ?

Academical Questions
" He who will not reason,is a bigot;he who cannot is a
fool;and he who dares not is a slave. "
-- William Drummond of Hawthorden

You've managed to somehow make yerself a
Foolish Bigot,who is enslaved.

I rest Me Case !

BTW,is March ...August ?No. March is the third month in a calendar year. August is the eighth.

At least, on earth it is.

I have posted plenty of information already.
See some of my previous threads.
I won't waste my time repeating myself to someone who refuses to listen.

:thumbs:

Just give me the thread.

That wasThat thread, like this one, used phrases like "highly unusual", "unprecedented" and (my favorite) "undesireable".

But still, no one says illegal or unconstitutional.

There's a lot you've never said either, Brooks.

A few questions.

1. Do you think firing US attorneys in the middle of their term for political reasons would improve the quality of our criminal justice system, or harm it? (I'm not asking you if you think that's what happened in this case)

2. If the AG did commit perjury, do you think he should be punished?(again, I'm not asking if you think he did perjure himself in this case)

3. Do you think there is enough evidence currently that suggests he perjured himself to warrant further investigation into this matter?

4. Do you think our government should be allowed to do anything it wants as long as it's not illegal, but only undesirable?

Correct. The attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President and can be fired at any time.

Yet the firing of eight attorneys in the middle of their terms is a highly unusual event. Unprecedented even. So unusual it raised some questions as to why these attorneys were chosen for dismissal. The problem now is not the firings of the attorneys, but the long list of possible lies, half-truths, and "I can't recall" statements by the AG when he testified before Congress several times.

You may be right when you say this is all a political hatchet job, but your own political bias is evident in your willingness to overlook what appears to be perjurious testimony by the AG.

Honestly waldo, it's difficult to take anyone seriously on this topic who's not at least a little bit disgusted with the AG's testimonial record.

It is indeed unusual. And the impact has been invesigated and like the plame case come up with......... pfffffft. Not a single case has been brought forward as evidence that there was anything untoward. It's merely more politicking.

Let's not confuse the doj firings with gonzo's testimony. Two different issues. AS to gonzo i haven't opinied on his situation. Difficult to describe my position as partisan since i haven't commented on it at all. Gonzo's testimony is certainly 'curious' to say the least. Not being entirely familiar with all aspects of the case i have refrained from commenting on it.

Let's not confuse the doj firings with gonzo's testimony. Two different issues.

How do you figure? The two are intricately bound.

1. Do you think firing US attorneys in the middle of their term for political reasons would improve the quality of our criminal justice system, or harm it? (I'm not asking you if you think that's what happened in this case)
2. If the AG did commit perjury, do you think he should be punished?(again, I'm not asking if you think he did perjure himself in this case)
3. Do you think there is enough evidence currently that suggests he perjured himself to warrant further investigation into this matter?
4. Do you think our government should be allowed to do anything it wants as long as it's not illegal, but only undesirable?1. It is no more harmful in the middle of the term than it is at the beginning. In either case it is political and ongoing investigations are ended.
Also, I think we were talking about the middle of the President's term, not their term.

2. Yes.

3. I don't know, but knowing Leahy, he was planning on "further investigation" before Gonzalez even entered the hearing room.
But, in any case, the perjury-trap is here to stay. It allowed Patrick Fitzgerald to be a middling mediocrity instead of a total incompetent.

4. It depends on whose ox is getting gored I suppose.
When Ruth Bader Ginsberg used "international law" rather than the Constitution to help her decide the Georgia Sodomy Case, that was certainly undesirable. But there were definitely people who agreed with the decision and were willing to accept "undesirable" in that case.
Am I happy with the undesireable situation in which a president fires judges to replace them with ones with whom I would more fully agree? Well duuuhh.

1. It is no more harmful in the middle of the term than it is at the beginning. In either case it is political and ongoing investigations are ended.

I disagree. The mid-term firings were unexpected by the fired attorneys. Being replaced at the beginning of a President's first term is expected and customary.


Also, I think we were talking about the middle of the President's term, not their term.

Typically, US attorneys serve a four-year term. If they're not removed that is.


3. I don't know, but knowing Leahy, he was planning on "further investigation" before Gonzalez even entered the hearing room.

Of course.


But, in any case, the perjury-trap is here to stay. It allowed Patrick Fitzgerald to be a middling mediocrity instead of a total incompetent.

Meaning what?


4. It depends on whose ox is getting gored I suppose.
When Ruth Bader Ginsberg used "international law" rather than the Constitution to help her decide the Georgia Sodomy Case, that was certainly undesirable. But there were definitely people who agreed with the decision and were willing to accept "undesirable" in that case.

There were also people, like myself, that don't share your opinion that her decision was undesirable. In the context of the law in question, I see no reason not to take International Law into account.

1. I disagree. The mid-term firings were unexpected by the fired attorneys. Being replaced at the beginning of a President's first term is expected and customary.
2. Typically, US attorneys serve a four-year term. If they're not removed that is.
3. Meaning what?
4. There were also people, like myself, that don't share your opinion that her decision was undesirable.
5. In the context of the law in question, I see no reason not to take International Law into account.
1. You asked about the effects on the quality of the criminal justice system. Whether or not justices are surprised does not affect that.
The one negative aspect to any firings is that ongoing investigations are interrupted or terminated. That can happen at the beginning of a President's term or in the middle.

2. "Typically" has almost no relevance under the law.

3. It means that if someone is interviewed long enough and often enough he will eventually be inconsistent and may even become misleading. Of course perjury is wrong, but it should not become the let's-get-him-on-something desire of a prosecutor.
Seriously, what would Fitzgerald have had if not for the perjury charges on Libby?

4. I gave no opinion on the Georgia sodomy case (read again).
I found it undesirable to have a justice go outside of the Constitution to make out laws.
I'd think all the people 'round here who go on incessantly about GWB destroying the Constitution would be equally offended. But I tend to overestimate.

5. "In the context of the law in question" is another way of saying justices should apply law inconsistently. That is the worst thing they could ever do.

Think about what you're saying here. If the answer she sought is not in the Constitution, doesn't that make it unconstitutional?
She wanted the decision to go a certain way and shopped around outside the Constitution until she found a law she could use.
You're content with that because you like the particular ruling but that's no way to run things.

Would it matter if it could be shown that these firing were done because the atty refused to use his/her authority for a bully-stick for the Right, rather than in the pursuit of justice?

1. You asked about the effects on the quality of the criminal justice system. Whether or not justices are surprised does not affect that.

We're talking about fired US Attorneys. Federal prosecutors. Not Judges, or justices.


The one negative aspect to any firings is that ongoing investigations are interrupted or terminated. That can happen at the beginning of a President's term or in the middle.

Perhaps I was unclear. I suspect that when an attorney is fired suddenly in the middle of his/her term there is more of a likelihood that a case may suffer than if an attorney knows that in 6 months he/she will be asked to resign at the end of their current term of office. I would think that as they approach the end of their terms of office they routinely wrap up their cases in whatever way attorneys normally do.


2. "Typically" has almost no relevance under the law.

Perhaps not Brooks, but it is perfectly useful in discussing just about anything. I used it as a synonym for "usually".


3. It means that if someone is interviewed long enough and often enough he will eventually be inconsistent and may even become misleading.

Do you think that's what happened in this case?


Of course perjury is wrong, but it should not become the let's-get-him-on-something desire of a prosecutor.
Seriously, what would Fitzgerald have had if not for the perjury charges on Libby?

What did the government have on Al Capone besides tax evasion?


4. I gave no opinion on the Georgia sodomy case (read again).
I found it undesirable to have a justice go outside of the Constitution to make out laws.

Fair enough.


I'd think all the people 'round here who go on incessantly about GWB destroying the Constitution would be equally offended. But I tend to overestimate.

Perhaps you should cease your overestimations. :)


5. "In the context of the law in question" is another way of saying justices should apply law inconsistently.

Perhaps, it could be interpreted that way, but that's not what I said.


That is the worst thing they could ever do.

Not necessarily. Judges and juries typically don't sentence a man who shoots a convenience store clerk to death to the same term as they would a man who shoots his terminally ill spouse.


Think about what you're saying here. If the answer she sought is not in the Constitution, doesn't that make it unconstitutional?

Only if the answer she sought conflicts with a provision of the Constitution. I believe the correct term would be "extra-Constitutional". ;)


She wanted the decision to go a certain way and shopped around outside the Constitution until she found a law she could use.
You're content with that because you like the particular ruling but that's no way to run things.

We disagree. The Constitution isn't the end-all and be-all of our criminal code. It has changed over time, and there is much that is simply not covered in it. There is also much to be said for keeping our laws at least somewhat current with International Law, lest we find ourselves increasingly out-of-touch with modern legal thought.

[QUOTE=Vilepagan]We're talking about fired US Attorneys. Federal prosecutors. Not Judges, or justices.



Perhaps I was unclear. I suspect that when an attorney is fired suddenly in the middle of his/her term there is more of a likelihood that a case may suffer than if an attorney knows that in 6 months he/she will be asked to resign at the end of their current term of office. I would think that as they approach the end of their terms of office they routinely wrap up their cases in whatever way attorneys normally do.
***************************************
Yeah...yeah...yeah...we got yer point Mr.Newly red-lettered Bub.
If the Fired Attroneys aren't makin a stink,why should,leahey,Schumer
and Feinstein.Because it's their way of strinking a blow at the
White House.
I doubt even a flunky Attorney dint know that after serving at the
PLEASURE of the Presidency,the wrong color tie,mite just mitigate a
dismissal.
I have noticed some awfully gorgeous ties being worn of late by
Matthews and Hannity,Um...Olberman !
I used to be a Tie Man,meself.

I apologize for taking so long to respond to this post -- had to take a flight from Phoenix to Los Angeles and it tied me up for most of the day. Anyway, I'm safely back on the beach ... :D

Che was appointed commander of the La Cabaña Fortress prison, and during his five-month tenure in that post (January 2 through June 12, 1959), he oversaw the trial and execution of many people, among whom were former Batista regime officials and members of the "Bureau for the Repression of Communist Activities" (a unit of the secret police known by its Spanish acronym BRAC).

There is not a single major media source or journalist that will unequivically go on record to back the claims in that paragraph and lay the proof on the table. The sources so far for propaganda are ... Humberto Fontova, The New Republic, Babalu Blog -- none of which are considered anything other than 2nd rate jounalism and have the CIA smell all over them. There's always Wikipedia, a right-wing extension of SNOPES ... so toss their creds too. And note I highlighted the word many for you. Doncha think these so-called experts in the field of CHE atrocities would know the exact number or at least a ball parker? Nope. Many is their disclaimer just in case it's a dozen instead of their reported hundreds.

José Vilasuso, an attorney who worked under Guevara at La Cabaña preparing indictments, said that these were lawless proceedings where "the facts were judged without any consideration to general juridical principles" and the findings were pre-determined by Guevara. It is estimated that between 156 and 550 people were executed on Guevara's extra-judicial orders during this time.

Between 156 and 550 ??? WTF ?? for people that have supposedly witnessed this atrocity, you would think they could narrow it down to ... uh ... like ... maybe ... the friggin' exact number. These are educated people that are making the claims and they exhibit the math skills of a 2nd grader?

Make that a 1st grader.

While we're on the subject of witnesses, why didn't you mention the likes of Vargas Llosa and Javier Arzuaga? I'll tell you why-- they might have disputed your claims. Your guy, José Vilasuso, is the only one that is willing to throw out such reckless numbers. Few others, if any agree with his estimates, if for no other reason, based on the idoicy of that claim the and nonsensical presumptions that one can witness deaths and the reported body count has a tolerance higher than the actual count (156 +/- 200). wtf? Think of the type of mind it would take to absorb that kind of garbage and digest it without regurgitating.

Further, what was the logic and rational for making Che a monster? Simple. When the boatlifts begin, which they did, and Miami welcomed them with open arms, they could plea to the courts for asylum from persecution, prosecution and the death-grip of the Che's of Cuba. The worse they made Cuba look (read Che) the more they could justify letting the Cubans into our country with no questions asked -- today known as the wet-foot / dry-foot justificaiton for the republican party to build their miami-cuban voting base.

Personally I don't think you have a clue about Che other than what you see on the History channel or read on Wikipedia. Certainly, your post was a cut-n-paste from someplace. That's more than obvious.

You don't know any of the events, either personal or peripheral, that shaped his life, his philosphies and his mental accumen or lack therof for the sake of argument.

You've probably never heard of the Moncada Army Barracks where Fidel's then entire army was wiped out by Batista's soldiers, shot down in cold blood with no mercy, leaving only a few survivors, one of them being Fidel himself. Although at that point in time, Fidel and Che had not even met, it was a boiling point that allowed Fidel to rationalize-away any atrocities that would take place many years later in 1961 Cuba, at the hands of Che or not at the hands of Che (your choice -- apply subjectivity).

If I was to mention the 26th of July would you know what I mean? I doubt it.

Jose Marti? Ring a bell? Hint -- look at my avatar.

How about a beat-up cabin cruiser named 'Granma'? Nope? didn't think so. Are you sure you even know who Che was? Anyway, it was during that voyage in the swampy area near Niquero in South-East Cuba, that Batista's forces slaughtered 68 of the 80 expeditionary forces of Fidel. Che was a survivor and at that time layed down his medical supplies and picked up a rifle -- a revoltionary legend was born.

Or the Sierra Maestra mountains where Che, Fidel, Raul, Celia and others holed-up like rats in a garbage can fighting off the waning power of Batista. Che saw more hardship in one day than you will see in a lifetime. None of that means anything to you. All you know is Che reportedly killed all those people in cold blood, because ??? Oh yeah, because someone said so.

I've studied Che from his birth to his motorcycle diaries (all of them -- in Spanish) to his opposition to the Argentine leader Juan Peron to when he joined with the forces of Guatemala's Jacabo Arbenz Guzman against a CIA coup to his life during the Cuban revoltion to his adventures in the Congo and sadly to his death in La Higuera, Boliva, where he was executed by being shot several times at point blank range, while he was helplessley restrained in handuffs and ankle chains. The CIA ordered the murder.

In his defense, even if he is guilty of executing Batista surporters (as you claim) -- how does that differ from what we have recently done in Abu-Ghraib? Torture, rape and murder, including women and children. I'll stand back-to-back with Che any day of the week. At least I know he isn't going to rape a 14-year-old girl, murder her and her family and then burn down the house to cover up the crime.

Closing note ... I really don't think you know Jack and you surely don't know Che.

Yeah... he was a fine example to mimic. Eichmann might be another good one.

I'm not in the mood to get into the JEW stuff tonight. Sorry -- no takers here.

[QUOTE=Vilepagan]We're talking about fired US Attorneys. Federal prosecutors. Not Judges, or justices.



Perhaps I
Perhaps Not
Do you think
What did
Fair enough
Perhaps you
Perhaps it
Not necessarily
Only if
We disagree

-------------- Oh ---------

How do you figure? The two are intricately bound.

The DOJ firings are a distinct issue from the communication surveillance issue. They are not bound at all.

The DOJ firings are a distinct issue from the communication surveillance issue. They are not bound at all.

How would you know? It is all secret.

For all you know they could have been wiretapping the U.S. Attorneys in order to see who was a sufficiently "loyal Bushie".

:thumbs:

How would you know? It is all secret.

For all you know they could have been wiretapping the U.S. Attorneys in order to see who was a sufficiently "loyal Bushie".

:thumbs:

Thats probably where they learned Tillman wasnt a Bushie and had one of the christian NASCAR fan soldiers put three bullets in his head and then stage a firefight and place his body out there.

:thumbs:

Thats probably where they learned Tillman wasnt a Bushie and had one of the christian NASCAR fan soldiers put three bullets in his head and then stage a firefight and place his body out there.

:thumbs:


I'll finish it for you ... and burn all his belongings including his diary, sequester all the troops from talking and refuse to let the coroner open a criminal investigation.

Nah ... nothing stinks about this one.

So why dont you tell us what really happened dop. DOnt beat around the Bush

So why dont you tell us what really happened dop. DOnt beat around the Bush


yeah Righto Ringo
----- " get Out duh Bush " ------
-- Jesse Jackson's Term of Endearment after Florida recount Fiasco

is it me, or does it seem like you never know if foolsworth is agreeing or disagreeing with you?

How would you know? It is all secret.

For all you know they could have been wiretapping the U.S. Attorneys in order to see who was a sufficiently "loyal Bushie".

:thumbs:

If that is indeed the case it makes the entire thread, the post that started it and the youtube vid a complete waste of time.

So you're telling us that you're here to waste our time.

Tell us something we don't know.

is it me, or does it seem like you never know if foolsworth is agreeing or disagreeing with you?Yes, I'm often stunned to the point that I call my kids down to read his posts. Damn, it's like fun-time in Jollyville! I can just see him screeching at his moniter as he's slamming out his responses with clenched fists! God love 'em!

If that is indeed the case it makes the entire thread, the post that started it and the youtube vid a complete waste of time.


No this thread is about the DOJ scandal, you are talking about the wiretapping scandal.

You are confusing your Republican scandals.

Totally understandable.

:thumbs:

No this thread is about the DOJ scandal, you are talking about the wiretapping scandal.

You are confusing your Republican scandals.

Totally understandable.

:thumbs:

Frannie's the one confused. I was merely explaining it to him.

is it me, or does it seem like you never know if foolsworth is agreeing or disagreeing with you?

I don't even know what language he is speaking, with that gibberish that he posts.

Reading his stuff is like a watching a program where some goofy psychic is trying to study people's shit and read their fortune. It's just a waste of time.

Frannie's the one confused. I was merely explaining it to him.

?!?!?!

"him" .........?

Frannie's the one confused. I was merely explaining it to him.

Actually you are the one who is confused, as I pointed out.

:)