PogueMoran
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2009
- Messages
- 2,834
- Reaction score
- 331
- Location
- Northeast
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
Yes, this is a totally non issue. That's why Bush's Attorney General (Mukasey) appointed a special prosecutor to address whether there is any criminal wrongdoing. Nope, nothing here, so let's waste the taxpayer's money and conduct an investigation on nothing.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/30/washington/30attorney.html
:2brickwal
An internal Justice Department investigation concluded Monday that political pressure drove the firings of several federal prosecutors in a 2006 purge, but said that the refusal of major players at the White House and the department to cooperate in the year-long inquiry produced significant “gaps” in its understanding of the events.
More troubling, the investigation concluded that, despite the denials of the administration at the time of the controversy, political considerations played a part in the firings of at least four of the nine prosecutors
First Off hazel we did find WMDS this I know for a fact since I was one of the folks who were looking for them prior to the invasion and second guess what the White House can firer and hire fed. Prosc. this has been the norm for a very long time but if you want to have this Witch Hunt great lets bring in Mr. Clinton and discuss all the firings he did of Fed Prosc.
Way to be a HyproPartisian Hack:roll:
What federal statute? Title what? Chapter what? section what?Well it can be said that this could be obstruction of justice. Carol Lam had been working on some high profile investigations including bringing down Duke Cunningham, and 3rd in Charge at the CIA Dusty Foggo
And "WMD" is defined as nuclear warheads which have the capacity to reach America's allies or even American soil, in Bush's own words.
What federal statute? Title what? Chapter what? section what?
If folks are going to argue the attorney firings as a criminal matter, there needs to be a specific statute alleged to have been violated. Crimes are specific things, and they violate specific laws.
What specific laws do you claim the attorney firings violated?
About damn time. Now, care to make a case for any of those violations?Sure lets play. Lets take David Iglesias who got political pressure from a senator and congressman both republicans. Pressure was put on him to make decisions on pending investigations. The question is if David Iglesias was fired to affect the outcome of pending legal matters. If he was fired for that cause which is likely that would constitute obstruction of justice. 18 USC 1503(a), 1505, 1515(c)(2).
Also if this was retaliation for him not bringing more false voter fraud cases that would violate the Hatch Act 18 usc 606
Also if this was about not going after enough democrats especially with the timeline of this being before the election this would be an attempt to influence the elections in violation of 5 USC 7323 (a)(1)
Then there's also if the firing of any of the attorneys was to bring in people who were more compliant with the preceding agenda this would constitute obstructing government proceeding in violation of 18 usc 1505 and 18 usc 1512(c)(2)
Then there's the testimony during the hearings where you had many of the personnel giving conflicting answers which may amount to perjury, making false statements, or obstruction of congressional proceedings.
There's plenty more to pick from
About damn time. Now, care to make a case for any of those violations?
You're getting the hang of this, though, so that's definitely progress.
So you have no case to make?About damn time? I've always posted my sources and made a case you just asked for specifics on this just now. I already started to make a case on the Iglesias firing. Once again though as the previous article states there has been little cooperation from Bush administration personnel. So making a case without their testimony or one of them getting rolled all we have to look at is the actions. There is a probability that they committed ethics violations at the least.
So you have no case to make?
Sure lets play. Lets take David Iglesias who got political pressure from a senator and congressman both republicans. Pressure was put on him to make decisions on pending investigations. The question is if David Iglesias was fired to affect the outcome of pending legal matters. If he was fired for that cause which is likely that would constitute obstruction of justice. 18 USC 1503(a), 1505, 1515(c)(2).
Also if this was retaliation for him not bringing more false voter fraud cases that would violate the Hatch Act 18 usc 606
Also if this was about not going after enough democrats especially with the timeline of this being before the election this would be an attempt to influence the elections in violation of 5 USC 7323 (a)(1)
Then there's also if the firing of any of the attorneys was to bring in people who were more compliant with the preceding agenda this would constitute obstructing government proceeding in violation of 18 usc 1505 and 18 usc 1512(c)(2)
Then there's the testimony during the hearings where you had many of the personnel giving conflicting answers which may amount to perjury, making false statements, or obstruction of congressional proceedings.
There's plenty more to pick from
The probability is there is insufficient evidence to assert criminal misconduct.Maybe later when I have more time. There is a probability though that there was a crime committed and Goodling and Schlozeman already got nailed on the hatch act. So this isn't a clearcut case of pleasuring the president as some people make it
The probability is there is insufficient evidence to assert criminal misconduct.
Was it bad judgment and a bad business all around....probably. Was it criminal, not likely. The case hasn't been made. The evidence just is not compelling.
The question is how much of the evidence have you actually read on it. Did you listen to the hearings? All the contradictions between the various senior staff. The way the administration kept changing the rational for the firings points more towards criminal conduct otherwise why lie about the reasons?
How does it prove criminal conduct? You are not making a case here.The question is how much of the evidence have you actually read on it. Did you listen to the hearings? All the contradictions between the various senior staff. The way the administration kept changing the rational for the firings points more towards criminal conduct otherwise why lie about the reasons?
Make your case. Don't let others carry your water. Make your case.It's all here. Educate yourself instead of asking others to do so.
Make your case. Don't let others carry your water. Make your case.
LOL I love how people who did NOT sit in on Scooter Libby's trial determined he was not guilty.
Hey, they read a story here and there about the trial and they know enough to declare a wrongful finding. I just don't get that mentality.
Indeed what I love more is all the people complaining about Clinton who was found not guilty and still claim he's a felon while Scooter Libby who was actually guilty and they say he isn't.
The DOJ did violate the hatch act in their hiring practices. The inspector general found that in his investigation. The key being here that the justice department was politicized. That's the problem.
Also you have the report congress did with what they could from the investigation:
http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/contempt_memo_072407.pdf
Please source.And "WMD" is defined as nuclear warheads which have the capacity to reach America's allies or even American soil, in Bush's own words.
Wait a sec, I thought we didn't find any WMDs in Iraq.
Is there documentation about this? I'd love to read it. Not saying you're wrong, only that I haven't heard about any WMDs being found.
Do you have me on ignore or something? See six posts above yours.What federal statute? Title what? Chapter what? section what?
If folks are going to argue the attorney firings as a criminal matter, there needs to be a specific statute alleged to have been violated. Crimes are specific things, and they violate specific laws.
What specific laws do you claim the attorney firings violated?
C'mon people. Read *then* reply.Why is this a story?
Federal prosecutors are appointed by the administration and serve at the presidents leisure. They can be fired by the president at any time, for any reason.
Weapons in Moldy Disrepair?We did find WMD in Iraq
Personally, for me, I find DOJ's report more credible. One, it's far more detailed. Two, it was created by George Bush's DOJ. With Congress, one cannot help but see a more partisan perspective.
What Goodling and Sampson did was just despicable. Have they lost their law licenses?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?