- Joined
- May 21, 2005
- Messages
- 9,196
- Reaction score
- 9,348
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
You're right, it's not illegal to fire them for political reasons. I was mistaken about that, thanks for correcting me.Like, no.
Absolutely! If I believed there was nothing here to investigate, I'd be right on board with you. I would agree that this is a witch hunt, political grandstanding, and a waste of taxpayer money. But, and I posted this already, here are the reasons why I think there is something here to investigate:Don't you think there should be something to investigate before the investigation is started? It would suck if the cops started investigating you for child rape, wouldn't it?
Then why was Rove subpoena'd?
I think the correct answer is that Rove was using the president's prerogative to choose US attorneys to build a nationwide network designed to further the Bush political agenda by controlling the legal system in all 50 states through attorneys hand picked by Rove. Whatever your political viewpoint, this was a blatant attempt to subvert American democracy, and Rove needs to answer for it.
You are correct that the president can dismiss attorneys. The issue is that Karl Rove was the one choosing who to dismiss and who to hire to replace them, with Bush rubber stamping his choices. The possibly "sinister" part is this: why would Karl Rove be deciding on the choices for US attorneys?
A Democrat governor sat in jail for over seven months for being "convicted" of something that politicians do every day, yet nobody blinks. According to witnesses, he was framed. From what I understand, Rove's fingerprints are all over this one. He seriously needs to answer to this.
1st term, yes. 2nd term, no.
It's happened a few times in other administrations, but none for reasons that are potentially of a political nature (i.e. not willing to witch hunt Democrats, being lenient on Republicans).
Because Conyers is a partisan douchebag?
With skulls of solid bone, it'll never go through. Give up.It'll NEVER happen. Get it through your ****ing skulls. Seriously.
Are you saying the Conyers is getting uppity?Because Conyers is a partisan douchebag?
You do realize that even in your world where all of this is true, none of it is in any way illegal, right?
The president can hire or fire any attorney he wants.
Do you really want to go through this all again? We argued about this for 200 posts before and you had less than no evidence. He was convicted by a jury of his peers for committing a crime. The fact that you claim that other people haven't been convicted doesn't change anything.
Again, I pointed out to you in another thread that this was incorrect. Carter did the same thing as Bush did, except in that case it was to fire a US attorney who was trying to investigate a Dem Congressman who was actually corrupt. Even then, there was absolutely no investigation of the DoJ because apparently back then people understood the concept of "The Pleasure of the President."
1st term, yes. 2nd term, no.
It's happened a few times in other administrations, but none for reasons that are potentially of a political nature (i.e. not willing to witch hunt Democrats, being lenient on Republicans).
1st term, yes. 2nd term, no.
It's happened a few times in other administrations, but none for reasons that are potentially of a political nature (i.e. not willing to witch hunt Democrats, being lenient on Republicans).
There are no restrictions as to when a political appointee can be shown the door.
You're right, it's not illegal to fire them for political reasons. I was mistaken about that, thanks for correcting me.
Absolutely! If I believed there was nothing here to investigate, I'd be right on board with you. I would agree that this is a witch hunt, political grandstanding, and a waste of taxpayer money. But, and I posted this already, here are the reasons why I think there is something here to investigate:
1. Some of the attorneys strongly believe that they were fired only because they refused to dig up criminal dirt on Democrats where none existed.
2. Some of the attorneys strongly believe that they were fired only because they refused to call off criminal investigations on Republicans.
3. The administration gave conflicting reasons why they were fired.
Number 2 in particular could be obstruction of justice.
Sure they might be disgruntled. They might also be working on book deals. Or, heaven forbid, they might actually be 100% correct. But the simple fact they got fired in no way invalidates any of their claims. If we threw out every case of wrongful termination simply because the person might just be disgruntled, well, that would be pretty stupid wouldn't it?
Serving at the pleasure of the president is not a blank check to obstruct justice and use the Justice Department as a political weapon. Again, they should be innocent until proven guilty, but surely you can see that there is reasonable grounds for an investigation?
Wow, so some people that got fired are bitching about it. Big surprise.
Baseless accusations by disgruntled former political appointees should never be enough to initiate an investigation. It's a waste of our time and money.
There is no due process for political appointees. The serve at the pleasure of the President, period. It's not a matter of guilt or innocence, it's a matter of political expediency and the wishes of the Executive branch.
It is fascinating to watch you try to spin this. Please tell me why the Department of Justice's IG's office rcommended further investigation and why the former Attorney General Mukasey then appointed a special prosecutor? Because it's a witch hunt? Yeah, right.
I'm not spinning anything. I've been absolutely consistent since this thread started. It's you and your friends that are spinning all over the place trying to pretend that there's an issue here.
I have no idea why the IG and Mukasey wanted an investigation. Maybe he was auditioning for a spot in the next administration. Who knows. If I had the chance, I would tell him the same thing as I've said here.
I'm not saying you're being inconsistent. How my stating that you're spinning the facts is equivalent to your being inconsistent is beyond me. My point is that you are ignoring facts in this case and, additionally, there is no way that you know/have facts that both the IG's office and Mukasey know/have. I could be wrong, but I doubt it, although your statement that you have no idea why the IG and Mukasey recommended an investigation proves my point.
What it proves is that I don't care why they want an investigation, because I think it's irrelevant. The only facts that matter are that the attorneys were political appointees, and the President decided that their service was no longer needed. That's not spin, it's just the way things are. The only spin is coming from those who advocate a witch hunt.
Who cares if he did or not? As far as I know, that's not a requirement to advise the President. If I'm wrong, then I eagerly await your links proving that I am.
The President is not allowed to obstruct justice. I wish you would address that instead of just repeating "at the pleasure of the president" 1000 more times.The president can hire or fire any attorney he wants.
I wish you would read before replying. I addressed that already, in the very quote you're responding to. Please make an effort to fully understand what you're replying to, ok?Baseless accusations by disgruntled former political appointees should never be enough to initiate an investigation. It's a waste of our time and money.
Due process, pleasure of the President, all bull**** red herrings. The President is not allowed to obstruct justice. Period.There is no due process for political appointees. The serve at the pleasure of the President, period. It's not a matter of guilt or innocence, it's a matter of political expediency and the wishes of the Executive branch.
The President is not allowed to obstruct justice. I wish you would address that instead of just repeating "at the pleasure of the president" 1000 more times.
I wish you would read before replying. I addressed that already, in the very quote you're responding to. Please make an effort to fully understand what you're replying to, ok?
Due process, pleasure of the President, all bull**** red herrings. The President is not allowed to obstruct justice. Period.
There are no restrictions as to when a political appointee can be shown the door.
Do you really want to go through this all again? We argued about this for 200 posts before and you had less than no evidence. He was convicted by a jury of his peers for committing a crime. The fact that you claim that other people haven't been convicted doesn't change anything.
Again, I pointed out to you in another thread that this was incorrect. Carter did the same thing as Bush did, except in that case it was to fire a US attorney who was trying to investigate a Dem Congressman who was actually corrupt. Even then, there was absolutely no investigation of the DoJ because apparently back then people understood the concept of "The Pleasure of the President."
Because Conyers is a partisan douchebag?
You do realize that even in your world where all of this is true, none of it is in any way illegal, right?
The letter goes into detail about the Wisconsin case in which a state employee was prosecuted by a Bush-appointed U.S. Attorney on a timeline that coincided with a tight gubernatorial race between incumbent Jim Doyle, a Democrat, and Congressman Mark Green, a Republican with close ties to the Bush White House. The employee, who was charged with steering a contract to a Doyle campaign donor was convicted and jailed. Republicans made the case a prime feature of their fall campaign against Doyle.
This month, a federal appeals court panel, on which the majority of judges were Republican appointees, threw the conviction out and ordered the jailed woman freed from federal prison. One of the federal judges referred to the evidence against the state employee as "beyond thin" and the panel repeatedly questioned how and why the U.S. Attorney, Steven Biskupic, brought the case.
No one was particularly surprised that the RNC's initial response to various congressional requests was to suggest that at least some of the emails in question had gone missing. But, just as Senate Judiciary Committee chair Patrick Leahy isn't buying the claim by White House aides that they have lost emails the Senate committee has sought, House committee chairs are not backing off.
For more than a year, the Bush administration blocked congressional demands for testimony from Mr. Rove and other Bush aides. The White House's assertion of executive privilege prompted the aides to refuse even to show up for a hearing. A judge last year, in a limited ruling, said the privilege didn't protect the aides from having to appear, even if they refused to answer questions.
Robert Luskin, Mr. Rove's attorney, said Mr. Rove recently received a renewed privilege assertion from President Bush, before the president left office. Mr. Luskin said he would consult with Mr. Obama's White House counsel to determine the Obama administration's stance.
There is some dispute in legal circles over whether a president's executive privilege claim continues to be in force after he leaves office if his successor doesn't enforce it.
Now that the dust has settled on the U.S. attorney firings report, released Monday morning by the Department of Justice's Office of the Inspector General, we thought it was worth taking some time to lay out what it tells us.
Almost since the scandal broke early last year, there have been clear signs that the plan to fire U.S. attorneys as a means of advancing the Bush administration's political goals was being driven by the White House. That impression has been strengthened as top current and former White House officials, including Karl Rove and Harriet Miers, have consistently stonewalled efforts to look into the matter.
The OIG investigation was no exception. As the report notes, Miers, Rove and several other Whte House officials refused to talk to investigators, and the White House wouldn't provide internal emails or documents relating to the firings. Perhaps the most crucial of the documents denied to OIG was a memo, written in March 2007, which contained the results of an internal White House investigation into the firings, conducted by associate White House counsel Michael Scudder. Scudder had interviewed top DOJ and White House officials, including Rove, and had compiled a timeline that "appeared to contain information we had not obtained elsewhere in our investigation," according to the OIG report.
Still, a close examination of the report makes clear that, although on a day-to-day basis the plan was put into effect by mid-level DOJ political appointees -- enabled by a shocking lack of oversight from top department officials, principally former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales -- the impetus for the move came straight from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Many of the individual pieces of information have been previously reported, as DOJ provided emails and internal documents to Congress for its 2007 investigation. But the OIG report provides a far clearer sense of the longer-term trajectory of the plan, and the consistent interest in it from Miers and Rove, than we've yet been offered.
Democrats on a witch hunt, what's new? The Huffington Report, is this what we call highly reputable? Nothing has changed. The double standard still exists, can you say Timothy F. Geithner.
The President is not allowed to obstruct justice. I wish you would address that instead of just repeating "at the pleasure of the president" 1000 more times.
Due process, pleasure of the President, all bull**** red herrings. The President is not allowed to obstruct justice. Period.
So you're cool with political appointee being fired for not being crooked.
Sad.
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?