A federal prosecutor investigating the dismissal of nine U.S. attorneys during the Bush administration has issued a subpoena to former senator Pete V. Domenici (R-N.M.) and is preparing to interview key witnesses, lawyers following the case say. . . .
The Dannehy investigation appears to be intensifying with the disclosure that she will interview former White House political affairs deputy J. Scott Jennings as early as today, lawyers involved in the case said. Jennings worked alongside Karl Rove, a top aide to President George W. Bush.
Prosecutor to Interview Key Witnesses About U.S. Attorney Firings - washingtonpost.com
Will Domenici plead the 5th? I can't wait to see what happens with this investigation.
It's about time. Politics has absolutely no place in the Justice Department. Kudos to the prosecutors who stood up to the administration. If not for them, we might have had as many as 9 Don Siegelmans.
It's a complete waste of time IMO. The President had absolute authority to fire those attorneys, regardless of the reason.
Politics drives this investigation. President's can hire and fire em as they see fit. Bush's mistake was not firing ALL of them ala Clinton... which was done PURELY for political reasons, and we all know it.
Politics drives this investigation. President's can hire and fire em as they see fit. Bush's mistake was not firing ALL of them ala Clinton... which was done PURELY for political reasons, and we all know it.
I agree the president can hire and hire Prosecutors. If Obama does the same thing I wonder if the resident Bush bashers will give him a pass?
It's about time. Politics has absolutely no place in the Justice Department.
Sigh. You just don't get it, do you? Yes, they serve at the pleasure of the president and he can fire them for cause or no cause. HOWEVER, he cannot fire them for illegal or improper reasons.
You're as foolish as you are naive. Politics plays a very critical role in the DoJ and rightly so.
First, United States Attorneys are ~gasp~ political appointees.
Second, while the commission of crime is infinite, the resources available to investigate and prosecute those crimes are finite. Consequently, the allocation of such finite resources is a political decision. For example, Clinton made investigating and prosecuting health care fraud as one his priorities. Bush made child porn one such priority.
For you to argue that politics should have no role in the DoJ is absolutely foolish and reveals that you really have nothing meaningful to say at all.
"HOWEVER, he cannot fire them for illegal or improper reasons" .... as defined by Liberals for purely political purposes.
Just needed a little fix here to make it pertinent to the debate; the FACT here is that the people fired are making false and specious claims that NO investigation will change; they were LEGALLY fired for their actions or inactions. I don't care if the person firing them had said they didn't like the way their hair was done.
Oh brother. I would recommend your looking in the mirror when you write out the words, "You're as foolish as you are naive."
But that's not what they said. Keep talking, Truth Detector. I soooo believe that you have a better grasp of this issue than the Inspector General of the Department of Justice. :roll:
We concluded that the process the Department used to select the U.S. Attorneys for removal was fundamentally flawed, and the oversight and implementation of the removal process by the Department’s most senior leaders was seriously lacking. In particular, we found that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty failed to adequately supervise the U.S. Attorney selection and removal process, and they were remarkably unengaged in the process. Instead, Chief of Staff to the Attorney General Kyle Sampson, with very little input from other Department officials, designed, selected, and implemented the removal process, with little supervision or oversight. In addition, after the removals became public the statements provided by the Attorney General and other Department officials about the reasons for the removals were inconsistent, misleading, and inaccurate in many respects.
The most serious allegations that arose were that the U.S. Attorneys were removed based on improper political factors, including to affect the way they handled certain voter fraud or public corruption investigations and prosecutions. Our investigation found significant evidence that political partisan considerations were an important factor in the removal of several of the U.S. Attorneys.
Weak appeal to authority.
The OIG reported:
That's great and all...however, none of this can be read as a conclusion that the dismissals were were improper or illegal.
So what? Partisan political reasons are sufficient when administrations change. Why not during an administration?
All the OIG is saying is that the process of dismissing was flawed and that as a result of the dismissals several allegations were raised.
That's it.
Amazingly, however, you people appeal to this as evidence that the dismissals were improper or illegal. :roll:
But that's not what they said. Keep talking, Truth Detector. I soooo believe that you have a better grasp of this issue than the Inspector General of the Department of Justice. :roll:
Sigh. You just don't get it, do you? Yes, they serve at the pleasure of the president and he can fire them for cause or no cause. HOWEVER, he cannot fire them for illegal or improper reasons.
The Bush Administration claimed that the US Attorneys were fired due to underperformance. If that was the case, the inquiry would end there. But that appears NOT to be the case, and that improper/illegal reasons were used to fire them.
__
This is directed at anyone who says, "But the President can fire them for cause or no cause."
At this point, I am done trying to explain things. If you want to speak intelligently about this issue, I would suggest you read the report. Otherwise, stop talking out of your butt!
OIG Special Report: An Investigation into the Removal of Nine U.S. Attorneys in 2006
You know what, JMak? I am happy for you since you clearly believe the stuff you spew. Have a nice day. :2wave:
If you can show me where it's written in the law what constitutes a "Legal" or "Proper" termination, then maybe we can have an intelligent debate. The fact is, it's never specified, any attempt to determine what is legal or proper is speculation without written law.
I wonder if he presses investigations of republicans and tells them to back off democrats if you'll give him a pass.
If you can show me where it's written in the law what constitutes a "Legal" or "Proper" termination, then maybe we can have an intelligent debate. The fact is, it's never specified, any attempt to determine what is legal or proper is speculation without written law.
Yes,especially if those allegations are mostly politically motivate just like the ones against Bush are. Obama is free to hire who he wants as prosecutors and he is free to fire them anytime he wants.
I have a little hypothetical story I'd like to tell.
Obama fires all of the Bush appointees, and hires his own. Before the first day on the job, Obama/Biden directs them to a meeting. They then proceed to tell them all that their main focus will be to go after Republican as much as possible. Focus on them, and witch-hunt them down.
And if any Democrat is in trouble in regards to the law, to do aything possible to see that nothing comes of it.
Is that okay with you, because they serve at the pleasure of the President?
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?