Fired Us Attorneys Led Nation In Convictions. Bush, What?, Me Worry?

[Psychoblues]

The idiot continues to dig after complaining that he was in a deeper hole than he could get out of.


"Every day, the explanations for the firings of the eight U.S. attorneys are becoming less about competence and more about corruption. Some new statistics show that the prosecutors were in fact leading the nation in output:

* Six ranked in the top third of all U.S. attorneys for prosecutions, filing a combined 106,188 last year alone

* Five ranked in the top third for convictions, achieving 98,939

* Three were among the top five in the number of immigration prosecutions (including Carol Lam, whose firing was attributed to immigration by Karl Rove)

Now these were some busy folks. It is almost a wonder that the fired U.S. attorneys had the time to take the phone calls notifying them of their dismissals.

If these U.S. attorneys were deemed expendable after leading the nation in prosecutorial output, what have the underperformers been doing to keep their jobs? If prosecutions and convictions don't matter, what does?"


More: http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/analysis/193

When you find yourself in a deep hole, STOP DIGGING!!!!!!!

[stephanie]

How can you feel good about yourself.......
For being a liar......
And misleading the young people of our country with your lies....

Tsk tsk.....



[QUOTE=Psycho blues;29801]The idiot continues to dig after complaining that he was in a deeper hole than he could get out of.


"Every day, the explanations for the firings of the eight U.S. attorneys are becoming less about competence and more about corruption. Some new statistics show that the prosecutors were in fact leading the nation in output:

* Six ranked in the top third of all U.S. attorneys for prosecutions, filing a combined 106,188 last year alone

* Five ranked in the top third for convictions, achieving 98,939

* Three were among the top five in the number of immigration prosecutions (including Carol Lam, whose firing was attributed to immigration by Karl Rove)

Now these were some busy folks. It is almost a wonder that the fired U.S. attorneys had the time to take the phone calls notifying them of their dismissals.

If these U.S. attorneys were deemed expendable after leading the nation in prosecutorial output, what have the underperformers been doing to keep their jobs? If prosecutions and convictions don't matter, what does?"

More: http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/analysis/193

[Psychoblues]

You calling me a liar? You of all?



How can you feel good about yourself.......
For being a liar......
And misleading the young people of our country with your lies....

Tsk tsk.....

[QUOTE]


More: http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/analysis/193

Don't misrepresent me, staphy, and I promise I will continue my policy of not misrepresenting you.

[Baron Von Esslingen]

How can you feel good about yourself.......
For being a liar......
And misleading the young people of our country with your lies....

Tsk tsk.....



Is there some sort of proof that goes along with that accusation of being a liar or are you just namecalling because you can? An article was posted with information and you failed to refute it with anything of your own but a lot of bluster. For that you get an F.

Try again.

[stephanie]

:smoke:

[Baron Von Esslingen]

Sad. Just sad.

[CSM]

Is there some sort of proof that goes along with that accusation of being a liar or are you just namecalling because you can? An article was posted with information and you failed to refute it with anything of your own but a lot of bluster. For that you get an F.

Try again.

New guy comes to the board and has NO idea of the history of some of these posters; proceeds to make judgement calls based on partisanship rather than trying to find out the facts....prompts old guy to give neg rep and place new guy on ignore....

[Birdzeye]

Six ranked in the top third of all U.S. attorneys for prosecutions, filing a combined 106,188 last year alone

* Five ranked in the top third for convictions, achieving 98,939

* Three were among the top five in the number of immigration prosecutions (including Carol Lam, whose firing was attributed to immigration by Karl Rove)



These sound impressive.


How can you feel good about yourself.......
For being a liar......
And misleading the young people of our country with your lies....

Tsk tsk.....



Care to prove the "lie?"

[gabosaurus]

Two faults!

1 -- They didn't bow at the Bush throne.
2 -- They didn't swallow the Bush mantra

[Baron Von Esslingen]

New guy comes to the board and has NO idea of the history of some of these posters; proceeds to make judgement calls based on partisanship rather than trying to find out the facts....prompts old guy to give neg rep and place new guy on ignore....

Thanks. One less person to respond to. :dance:

[manu1959]

New guy comes to the board and has NO idea of the history of some of these posters; proceeds to make judgement calls based on partisanship rather than trying to find out the facts....prompts old guy to give neg rep and place new guy on ignore....

LOL...... promts other old guy to rep old guy and ding new guy

[Baron Von Esslingen]

LOL...... promts other old guy to rep old guy and ding new guy

More attacking the poster and ignoring the post. Nice board you got here. No one can stay on topic especially when they can't respond to the original post. Ding away, brother. It's all you got.

[Gunny]

Thanks. One less person to respond to. :dance:

I KNOW you are capable of doing better. If you knock off the jackass routine you tried on me in the past and present your argument in an intelligent manner, as we both know you are capable of doing, you might get some responses in kind.

If you want to be a smartass troll, you'll just get burned to a cinder around here.

[Baron Von Esslingen]

I KNOW you are capable of doing better. If you knock off the jackass routine you tried on me in the past and present your argument in an intelligent manner, as we both know you are capable of doing, you might get some responses in kind.

If you want to be a smartass troll, you'll just get burned to a cinder around here.

Gee, Gunny, why can't anyone respond to the original post?

And I remember the namecalling board you used to run with Paul and General Patton, et al. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

[Birdzeye]

Care to prove the "lie?"

I guess the answer is "no."

[Gunny]

Gee, Gunny, why can't anyone respond to the original post?

And I remember the namecalling board you used to run with Paul and General Patton, et al. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

Trying to hold me accountable for what other posters do, especially if they are within the rules, is bullshit and an attempted deflection. The only name-calling I recall getting into with you, YOU started.

IIRC though, you'd come blazing in being nasty as Hell, then get all butt-hurt and make baseless accusations such as this one when anyone dared fire back at you.

I actually thought you were one of the more intelligent posters, even if I don't agree with your political ideology. You could be an asset to this board.

[loosecannon]

I guess the answer is "no."

nuthin but crickets Birdz.

[Gunny]

Gee, Gunny, why can't anyone respond to the original post?

As far as the original post goes, US attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President. This hardly anything new and precedent-setting. It's just something else the Democrats are trying to turn from a molehill into a mountain in their unlrelenting attack on President Bush.

If y'all could focus on defeating our enemies around the globe the way you have President Bush, we'd rule the world right now.

[Gunny]

nuthin but crickets Birdz.

The premise of the accusation is bullshit. What kind of response do think that deserves?

[Birdzeye]

Uh, huh. And if it turns out that the firings were because they worked too hard to prosecute Republicans and/or not hard enough to prosecute Democrats, that would raise some very big concerns about the integrity of our judicial system.

If A Democrat pulled the same stunt under similar circumstances (no, firing all US Attorneys at the beginning of one's first term is NOT the same thing), we'd be hearing no end of caterwauling from the Republicans and right wingers.

[Gunny]

Uh, huh. And if it turns out that the firings were because they worked too hard to prosecute Republicans and/or not hard enough to prosecute Democrats, that would raise some very big concerns about the integrity of our judicial system.

The factual evidence that supports your allegation is ......?
If A Democrat pulled the same stunt under similar circumstances (no, firing all US Attorneys at the beginning of one's first term is NOT the same thing), we'd be hearing no end of caterwauling from the Republicans and right wingers.

Presumptive conjecture. I'll try to do a little better and speak only for myself .... I don't care if it's the right, left, top, bottom, Republicans, Democrats, Whigs, Federalists, or the auto workers union.

They're wasting my tax dollars on a partisan witch hunt instead of addressing the issue which face this nation.

[Birdzeye]

They're wasting my tax dollars on a partisan witch hunt instead of addressing the issue which face this nation.

Then you must be horrified at the Bush administration's firing some very effective and high-performing attorneys.

[CSM]

Uh, huh. And if it turns out that the firings were because they worked too hard to prosecute Republicans and/or not hard enough to prosecute Democrats, that would raise some very big concerns about the integrity of our judicial system.

If A Democrat pulled the same stunt under similar circumstances (no, firing all US Attorneys at the beginning of one's first term is NOT the same thing), we'd be hearing no end of caterwauling from the Republicans and right wingers.

History says you are wrong...but it is convenient for you to ignore that.

[Gunny]

Then you must be horrified at the Bush administration's firing some very effective and high-performing attorneys.

Not anymore horrified than when Clinton and/or Carter did it. You're missing the point. I don't care.

Enforce the Southern border

Get some asses cracking on a viable alternative fuel source and get us off fossil fuels. We've been held hostage in one form or another by a bunch of 7th century camel jockeys since the late 70s. What more clue do we need?

Start paying congress on a commission basis -- based on what they actually accomplish for this Nation and the poepl of this Nation. The lot of them would starve in two weeks.

[Baron Von Esslingen]

Trying to hold me accountable for what other posters do, especially if they are within the rules, is bullshit and an attempted deflection. The only name-calling I recall getting into with you, YOU started.

IIRC though, you'd come blazing in being nasty as Hell, then get all butt-hurt and make baseless accusations such as this one when anyone dared fire back at you.

I actually thought you were one of the more intelligent posters, even if I don't agree with your political ideology. You could be an asset to this board.

IIRC the rules changed virtually everyday to cover your boy Patton's dumb ass. IIRC I blasted public figures while the rest of you attacked the poster. IIRC I never called anyone a name FIRST but then I wouldn't expect you to remember your own transgressions.

I wouldn't mind being an asset to this or any other board but don't get in a huff when I point out that some folks are spending a lot of time attacking the poster and not the post. Is that such a hard concept to grasp? I hope not because the future of your board depends on it. I've seen more than one board go down in "flames" because the namecallers took over...

[Gunny]

IIRC the rules changed virtually everyday to cover your boy Patton's dumb ass. IIRC I blasted public figures while the rest of you attacked the poster. IIRC I never called anyone a name FIRST but then I wouldn't expect you to remember your own transgressions.

You're waving a very broad brush and you might want to consider your audience. I've posted with most of the members here for several years and they know I don't just go around attacking posters and not their posts without reason. That's called stepping in it right off the bat.

I also think it is quite obvious by your nasty disposition the fact that I have a zero tolerance level for taking shit off anyone, how you might get me to insult you.

And just for your info, I am the one that fired Patton from the staff, and I am the one that banned him for being the ass he was, so no,he didn't get away with shit. What he DID get away with was because Paul protected him. Not a whole lot I could do about the board owner, was there?

I wouldn't mind being an asset to this or any other board but don't get in a huff when I point out that some folks are spending a lot of time attacking the poster and not the post. Is that such a hard concept to grasp? I hope not because the future of your board depends on it. I've seen more than one board go down in "flames" because the namecallers took over...

I'm not in a huff. I was trying to give you some friendly advice. Don't want it? Fine with me. Suit yourself.

[Baron Von Esslingen]

You're waving a very broad brush and you might want to consider your audience. I've posted with most of the members here for several years and they know I don't just go around attacking posters and not their posts without reason. That's called stepping in it right off the bat.

I also think it is quite obvious by your nasty disposition the fact that I have a zero tolerance level for taking shit off anyone, how you might get me to insult you.

I'm not terribly interested in an audience that engages in the very kind of personal attack shit that drove me off that board to begin with. I see it all around this board, quite frankly, but I am going to take your word for it that you don't engage in it anymore. I learned the hard way not to take shit off anyone either.


And just for your info, I am the one that fired Patton from the staff, and I am the one that banned him for being the ass he was, so no,he didn't get away with shit. What he DID get away with was because Paul protected him. Not a whole lot I could do about the board owner, was there?

I'm not in a huff. I was trying to give you some friendly advice. Don't want it? Fine with me. Suit yourself.

I'll take your "friendly advice" this time around, Gunny. Even though I wasn't around to see your actions with Patton, I also have no reason to doubt you either. Liar has never been a term that I associate with you. I'll leave it at that.

[Baron Von Esslingen]

As far as the original post goes, US attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President. This hardly anything new and precedent-setting. It's just something else the Democrats are trying to turn from a molehill into a mountain in their unlrelenting attack on President Bush.

I've addressed the fault with the dismissal of the USA's elsewhere so we won't hash that out again. You see a molehill. I see a mountain.


If y'all could focus on defeating our enemies around the globe the way you have President Bush, we'd rule the world right now.

That's the problem: we are not the world's policeman. We don't want to rule the world. George Bush doesn't KNOW how to defeat our enemies around the globe. He's proven that for the last four+ years.

[Sitarro]

The idiot continues to dig after complaining that he was in a deeper hole than he could get out of.


"Every day, the explanations for the firings of the eight U.S. attorneys are becoming less about competence and more about corruption. Some new statistics show that the prosecutors were in fact leading the nation in output:

* Six ranked in the top third of all U.S. attorneys for prosecutions, filing a combined 106,188 last year alone

* Five ranked in the top third for convictions, achieving 98,939

* Three were among the top five in the number of immigration prosecutions (including Carol Lam, whose firing was attributed to immigration by Karl Rove)

Now these were some busy folks. It is almost a wonder that the fired U.S. attorneys had the time to take the phone calls notifying them of their dismissals.

If these U.S. attorneys were deemed expendable after leading the nation in prosecutorial output, what have the underperformers been doing to keep their jobs? If prosecutions and convictions don't matter, what does?"


More: http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/analysis/193

When you find yourself in a deep hole, STOP DIGGING!!!!!!!

buzzflash.com....:laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2:

[Baron Von Esslingen]

Buzzflash hit a homerun with this one. You lose 1-0.

[Abbey Marie]

Uh, huh. And if it turns out that the firings were because they worked too hard to prosecute Republicans and/or not hard enough to prosecute Democrats, that would raise some very big concerns about the integrity of our judicial system.

If A Democrat pulled the same stunt under similar circumstances (no, firing all US Attorneys at the beginning of one's first term is NOT the same thing), we'd be hearing no end of caterwauling from the Republicans and right wingers.

Hah! Firing all US Attorneys at the beginning of one's term is to ensure total loyalty to you and your political agenda. New hirees will know exactly how they are supposed to act from day one. Trying to characterize that as somehow ethically superior to what Gonzalez did, takes some real chutzpah.

[Birdzeye]

Hah! Firing all US Attorneys at the beginning of one's term is to ensure total loyalty to you and your political agenda. New hirees will know exactly how they are supposed to act from day one. Trying to characterize that as somehow ethcially superior to what Gonazalez did, takes some real chutzpah.

I'd appreciate it if you'd refrain from putting words into my mouth. What I said was that if a Democrat pulled the same stunt that the Bush administration just did, i.e., fire seven US attorneys on the same day, well into the president's term, and under circumstances that raise questions, the GOP would be screaming bloody murder.

Some have pointed to Clinton's firing of all US attorneys when he came into office. That is NOT unprecedented and other presidents, including Reagan (and Bush II as well) have gotten rid of their predecessors' US attorneys. It's intellectually dishonest to compare Bush's firing of these seven attorneys with Clinton's actions upon taking office.

[Gunny]

I'm not terribly interested in an audience that engages in the very kind of personal attack shit that drove me off that board to begin with. I see it all around this board, quite frankly, but I am going to take your word for it that you don't engage in it anymore. I learned the hard way not to take shit off anyone either.

I never did, unless you EARN it. Again, I did not make the rules for that board. The owner did. I enforced them, and I enforced them fairly. As a matter of fact, I can think of only one liberal that got banned on a permanent basis while I can think of a half-dozen conservatives that got the axe.



I'll take your "friendly advice" this time around, Gunny. Even though I wasn't around to see your actions with Patton, I also have no reason to doubt you either. Liar has never been a term that I associate with you. I'll leave it at that.

Fair enough.

[Abbey Marie]

I'd appreciate it if you'd refrain from putting words into my mouth. What I said was that if a Democrat pulled the same stunt that the Bush administration just did, i.e., fire seven US attorneys on the same day, well into the president's term, and under circumstances that raise questions, the GOP would be screaming bloody murder.

Some have pointed to Clinton's firing of all US attorneys when he came into office. That is NOT unprecedented and other presidents, including Reagan (and Bush II as well) have gotten rid of their predecessors' US attorneys. It's intellectually dishonest to compare Bush's firing of these seven attorneys with Clinton's actions upon taking office.

I didn't put any words into your mouth, I quoted you.

Here is your quote again:


If A Democrat pulled the same stunt under similar circumstances (no, firing all US Attorneys at the beginning of one's first term is NOT the same thing

You made the distinction between firing everyone, and just firing a select few. I pointed out that it is much worse to fire everyone, especially up-front, because it ensures allegiance to your political views across the board. I don't think that is all that confusing.

I do agree with your last sentence above. It is intellectually dishonest, but it is because it is much worse to fire everyone.

[CockySOB]

Would any of the librull talking heads here like to discuss settled law on the matter of the fired US Attorneys? My suggestion, Myers v. United States (272 US 52 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=272&invol=52) dated 1926). SCOTUS (Taft court) ruled (6-3) that POTUS has the exclusive power to remove officials of the Executive Branch.

It makes for an enlightening read. Be sure to do an in-document search for "district attorney" for the specific citations regarding the US Attorney brouhaha.

[Birdzeye]

Would any of the librull talking heads here like to discuss settled law on the matter of the fired US Attorneys? My suggestion, Myers v. United States (272 US 52 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=272&invol=52) dated 1926). SCOTUS (Taft court) ruled (6-3) that POTUS has the exclusive power to remove officials of the Executive Branch.

It makes for an enlightening read. Be sure to do an in-document search for "district attorney" for the specific citations regarding the US Attorney brouhaha.

I don't remember anybody disputing the president's power in that regard. However, that power does not preclude others from asking questions and even criticizing the way he goes about exercising that power.

It seems that the conservatives are trying to infer from the president's powers some kind of ban against questioning or criticizing him in this matter. That dog won't hunt.

[manu1959]

I don't remember anybody disputing the president's power in that regard. However, that power does not preclude others from asking questions and even criticizing the way he goes about exercising that power.

It seems that the conservatives are trying to infer from the president's powers some kind of ban against questioning or criticizing him in this matter. That dog won't hunt.

it seems that liberals are trying to infer from the presidents reminding them that he has the power to fire whomever he wants that there is some kind of ban against the president exercising his rigght to choose.....don't tell me you all are no longer prochice....just thing of these firings at late term abortions of trial lawyers...you will get over it...

[manu1959]

I'd appreciate it if you'd refrain from putting words into my mouth. What I said was that if a Democrat pulled the same stunt that the Bush administration just did, i.e., fire seven US attorneys on the same day, well into the president's term, and under circumstances that raise questions, the GOP would be screaming bloody murder.

Some have pointed to Clinton's firing of all US attorneys when he came into office. That is NOT unprecedented and other presidents, including Reagan (and Bush II as well) have gotten rid of their predecessors' US attorneys. It's intellectually dishonest to compare Bush's firing of these seven attorneys with Clinton's actions upon taking office.

ah the tit for tat argument....even though you all have never behaved this childish we know you would ... so it justifies our behaviour...

[Birdzeye]

Well, Manu, I'm sure anybody reading your last two posts must be scratching their heads trying to figure out what you're really saying. You see, most of us don't possess those tinfoil hats that magically decipher cryptic messages.

[Psychoblues]

Exactly, Birdseye. All of the neocons are looking for external excuses, as manu1959 intimates, to "justifies our behaviour".


Well, Manu, I'm sure anybody reading your last two posts must be scratching their heads trying to figure out what you're really saying. You see, most of us don't possess those tinfoil hats that magically decipher cryptic messages.

Criminals depend on each other far more than they depend on the law to "justifies our behaviour". Can you dig it?

[Baron Von Esslingen]

Would any of the librull talking heads here like to discuss settled law on the matter of the fired US Attorneys? My suggestion, Myers v. United States (272 US 52 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=272&invol=52) dated 1926). SCOTUS (Taft court) ruled (6-3) that POTUS has the exclusive power to remove officials of the Executive Branch.

It makes for an enlightening read. Be sure to do an in-document search for "district attorney" for the specific citations regarding the US Attorney brouhaha.

Case law is all fine and dandy but you have conveniently forgotten about 18 U.S.C., sections 1501-1520, which prohibit firing of USAs when they have ongoing investigations underway, impeding ongoing investigations, or attempts to influence an ongoing investigation by contacting a USA. A first year law student would have hammered you into the ground if you would have tried citing precedent as opposed to relevant U.S.C. in your oral arguments. Consider it done.

[CockySOB]

Case law is all fine and dandy but you have conveniently forgotten about 18 U.S.C., sections 1501-1520, which prohibit firing of USAs when they have ongoing investigations underway, impeding ongoing investigations, or attempts to influence an ongoing investigation by contacting a USA. A first year law student would have hammered you into the ground if you would have tried citing precedent as opposed to relevant U.S.C. in your oral arguments. Consider it done.

Please cite which section deals with US Attorneys. Each of those sections deals specifically with a particular law enforcement agent and their jurisdiction, as well as the types of criminal activities covered. To wit:

18 USC 1501: Assault on a process server
18 USC 1502: Resisting and extradition agent
18 USC 1503: Influencing or injuring officer or juror generally
18 USC 1504: Influencing juror by writing
18 USC 1505: Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees
18 USC 1506: Theft or alteration of record or process; false bail
18 USC 1507: Picketing Or Parading
18 USC 1508: Recording, Listening To, Or Observing Proceedings Of Grand Or Petit Juries While Deliberating Or Voting
18 USC 1509: Obstruction Of Court Orders
18 USC 1510: Obstruction Of Criminal Investigations
18 USC 1511: Obstruction of State or local law enforcement
18 USC 1512: Tampering With A Witness, Victim, Or An Informant
18 USC 1513: Retaliating Against A Witness, Victim, Or An Informant
18 USC 1514: Civil Action To Restrain Harassment Of A Victim Or Witness
18 USC 1514A: Civil Action To Protect Against Retaliation In Fraud Cases
18 USC 1515: Definitions For Certain Provisions; General Provision
18 USC 1516: Obstruction Of Federal Audit
18 USC 1517: Obstructing Examination Of Financial Institution
18 USC 1518: Obstruction Of Criminal Investigations Of Health Care Offenses
18 USC 1519: Destruction, Alteration, Or Falsification Of Records In Federal Investigations And Bankruptcy
18 USC 1520: Destruction Of Corporate Audit Records

18 USC 1503 is the only possibly relevant citation here, yet you chose to cite ALL of these sections. Perhaps you should focus on your own education first, Baron, as it seems lacking. Do you simply parrot the talking points of the loony left? Or are you simply lazy, and having found the words "Obstruction of Justice" in this Chapter and Title of the US Codes, figured you had done enough research to justify some lame comment? Please, step up your game and be specific when you make an attempt to school anyone, moreso when you want to try to educate me in particular.

Now, let's discuss 18 USC 1503 as relates to these firings. The Domenici communication with Iglesias should be investigated, no question. I doubt the communication amounted to an obstruction charge, but it certainly was improper and Domenici should receive a censure for it.

As to the dismissals of the US Attorneys themselves, unless you have some evidence to support your assertion that they were dismissed in order to influence the outcome of a particular on-going trial, you're shooting blanks. Had the administration wanted to influence the outcome of ongoing investigations and trials, they would have done so before now, don't you think? Why not dismiss the US Attorney investigating Duke Cunningham, rather than allow the case to go through. Well, that would be an obvious infraction on 18 USC 1503, wouldn't it. You think 18 USC 1503 is applicable, please cite your evidence - until then, you're blowing smoke.

[CockySOB]

Case law is all fine and dandy but you have conveniently forgotten about 18 U.S.C., sections 1501-1520, which prohibit firing of USAs when they have ongoing investigations underway, impeding ongoing investigations, or attempts to influence an ongoing investigation by contacting a USA. A first year law student would have hammered you into the ground if you would have tried citing precedent as opposed to relevant U.S.C. in your oral arguments. Consider it done.

Oh, and the little "first year law student" crap is just that, crap. Had you bothered to read the case law cited, you'd see that the US Codes are referenced within the case itself, and therefore the application of the US Codes in a case similar to the dismissal of the US Attorneys makes the case law a clarification of the US Codes.

Y'know, while you do provide a bit more intelligence than many of our liberal loons here, you need to step your game up quite a bit if you want to romp with me.

[theHawk]

Case law is all fine and dandy but you have conveniently forgotten about 18 U.S.C., sections 1501-1520, which prohibit firing of USAs when they have ongoing investigations underway, impeding ongoing investigations, or attempts to influence an ongoing investigation by contacting a USA. A first year law student would have hammered you into the ground if you would have tried citing precedent as opposed to relevant U.S.C. in your oral arguments. Consider it done.

That didn't stop Clinton from firing all of them did it?


The Post noted mildly that the canned D.C. prosecutor was Jay Stephens, who was right in the middle of investigating corrupt Rep. Dan Rostenkowski, the man who was sure to play a major role in passing Hillary’s socialist health-care plan. Was the mass firing a way to get rid of him? Stephens protested. The Washington Post editorialized and answered: Get lost. “Jay Stephens Strikes Out” was their headline

http://www.mediaresearch.org/BozellColumns/newscolumn/2007/col20070314.asp

[avatar4321]

Case law is all fine and dandy but you have conveniently forgotten about 18 U.S.C., sections 1501-1520, which prohibit firing of USAs when they have ongoing investigations underway, impeding ongoing investigations, or attempts to influence an ongoing investigation by contacting a USA. A first year law student would have hammered you into the ground if you would have tried citing precedent as opposed to relevant U.S.C. in your oral arguments. Consider it done.

What investigations have been impeded?

The fact is the prosecutors work at the Presidents leisure. He can hire and fire at will. That is part of his constitutional power. Last time I checked Constitution trumps statutes, even badly intepreted statutes.

BTW are you this passionate about removing Democrat Congressmen who have actually been trying to influence ongoing investigations? Or are you such a hypocrite that you only care about attacking the President who is following the structure set out in the Constitution?

[Psychoblues]

The actions of dismissing US Attorney appointees in mid term and without cause is unprecedented in modern American political history. I regret so many of you miss the point altogether. As a matter of historical truth I think the circlejerk neocons will come out of this smelling like what they are: Shit.

It's a hold over from the "Shit" that was started the day Presiedent Bill Clinton was elected to office in 1992. Even though I voted for George H.W. Bush I will never forget the stench of the shit thrown by those that I then called "compatriots". I will not forget that on any light note.

[Baron Von Esslingen]

None of them wants to admit that Bush is politicizing the US Atty's office nationwide in hopes of using those offices to intimidate voters in the 2008 elections. The loyal Bushbot USAs are doing that now and the fired ones would not. It's all pretty clear to everyone except the 32% who still think Bush is doing a good job.

[stephanie]

None of them wants to admit that Bush is politicizing the US Atty's office nationwide in hopes of using those offices to intimidate voters in the 2008 elections. The loyal Bushbot Users are doing that now and the fired ones would not. It's all pretty clear to everyone except the 32% who still think Bush is doing a good job.

Nothing to admit..
Facts have been shown and proven.
You all are just ticked because people caught on so early, so you can't milk it longer than you all wish...

Move along to next made up scandal....Were ready and waiting...

:cheers2:

[Baron Von Esslingen]

That didn't stop Clinton from firing all of them did it?


The Post noted mildly that the canned D.C. prosecutor was Jay Stephens, who was right in the middle of investigating corrupt Rep. Dan Rostenkowski, the man who was sure to play a major role in passing Hillary’s socialist health-care plan. Was the mass firing a way to get rid of him? Stephens protested. The Washington Post editorialized and answered: Get lost. “Jay Stephens Strikes Out” was their headline

http://www.mediaresearch.org/BozellColumns/newscolumn/2007/col20070314.asp


By firing Stephens, Clinton supposedly meant to hobble the Rostenkowski probe. Peevish about his firing, Stephens himself held a press conference to voice the same suspicions.

There is one pretty obvious flaw in that theory.

On May 31, 1994, Eric Holder, the Democratic successor to Stephens, brought a 17-count indictment against Rostenkowksi -- who eventually pleaded guilty to mail fraud and went to prison. This outcome, with an indictment of one of the most powerful Democrats in Congress arriving in the middle of the midterm election campaign, scarcely helped Clinton or the Democratic Party. Many observers believed, on the contrary, that the Rostenkowksi indictment helped the Republicans win the sweeping November victory that gave them control of the House of Representatives for the first time in more than four decades.

Following the Rostenkowski indictment at least two more Democrats in Congress -- Rep. Mel Reynolds, D-Ill., and Rep. Walter Tucker, D-Calif. -- were indicted later that summer, as the fateful Election Day approached. Neither President Clinton nor Attorney General Janet Reno made any attempt to interfere with those decisions.link (http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2007/03/16/clinton_attorneys/)

You have to remember that this is just like Paul Harvey: you have to remember the REST of the story.

[Baron Von Esslingen]

Nothing to admit..
Facts have been shown and proven.
You all are just ticked because people caught on so early, so you can't milk it longer than you all wish...

Move along to next made up scandal....Were ready and waiting...

:cheers2:

Keep believing those Fox Noise talking points when all hell breaks loose about a "made up scandal." We want you to.

[stephanie]

Keep believing those Fox Noise talking points when all hell breaks loose about a "made up scandal." We want you to.

Oh don't worry..."We know you all will try anything...
But first it has to be legal...

:slap:

[Baron Von Esslingen]

Oh don't worry..."We know you will try anything...
But first it has to be legal...

:slap:

This administration and it's followers wouldn't know "legal" if it bit them in the ass. :clap: :clap: :clap:

[stephanie]

This administration and it's followers wouldn't know "legal" if it bit them in the ass. :clap: :clap: :clap:

PROVE IT....

Get all your congresscritters in Congress.....That supposedly has ALL THIS INFO OF ILLEGAL STUFF...

They have a DUTY to prosecute....

What's that................................??????? Uh we ain't got any...:laugh2: :slap:

[CockySOB]

None of them wants to admit that Bush is politicizing the US Atty's office nationwide in hopes of using those offices to intimidate voters in the 2008 elections. The loyal Bushbot USAs are doing that now and the fired ones would not. It's all pretty clear to everyone except the 32% who still think Bush is doing a good job.

No comment about taking people to school this time, eh?

BTW, I want to know how you intend to draw the line connecting the US Attorneys offices and the firings to an effort to intimidate voters in 2008.

[CockySOB]

This administration and it's followers wouldn't know "legal" if it bit them in the ass. :clap: :clap: :clap:

Forgot that little schooling on "obstruction of justice" and the US Codes already have you? As it stands, you're the one who doesn't know "legal" when it jumps up and bitch-slaps you all day long. Perhaps you aren't anything more than an "anti-Bush"-bot. I guess I'll have to consider revising my opinion of your intellect and debating qualities downward.

[Baron Von Esslingen]

Forgot that little schooling on "obstruction of justice" and the US Codes already have you? As it stands, you're the one who doesn't know "legal" when it jumps up and bitch-slaps you all day long. Perhaps you aren't anything more than an "anti-Bush"-bot. I guess I'll have to consider revising my opinion of your intellect and debating qualities downward.

I haven't forgot about your little attempt at demonstrating knowledge of the law, Cocky. I just wanted to do something that most of your fellow Bushbots on this site don't take the time to do: have my facts straight before I posted them. You do what you want to do about your opinion of me because I frankly don't give a rat's ass about that.

We can start out with the possible violations of 18 U.S.C. section 1505. According to that section it is illegal to lie to Congress. I believe both McNulty and Gonzales may be eligible for prosecution based on what they have already testified to versus what the emails that have been released show about what they knew and when they knew it. Mr Sampson's testimony backs up that determination. He may skate on any charges by coming clean the way he did but it doesn't look so good for Al.

Impeding Congress from getting knowledge by lying is also covered by that section and that may be the rope that hangs Big Al once and for all.

Section 1512 ( c ) and the Sarbanes-Oxley reforms refer to "anyone who corruptly obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding or attempts to do so." It is quite clear that both Heather Wilson and Senator Domenici will be investigated for this in attempting to coerce David Iglasias to bring some sort of voting violation or corruption cases up before last year's elections which would have made Democrats look bad. He made it clear that they were still investigating yet they pushed him, urged him to file anyway. This case looks the most promising in my view because it pits the USA against the politicians. Win-win situation.

Finally, there is the little heard incident of McNulty's chief of staff, Mike Elston, threatening the fired attorney who was to be a witness before Congress which clearly violates 1512 (b ) which makes it illegal to intimidate witnesses especially Congressional witnesses. H. E Cummings sent an email alert to other prosecutors that Elston just warned him about retaliation if he kept speaking out about what was going on. In any other criminal case, there would already be a criminal investigation started but Congress has so many fish to fry with this AG that it may be a while before they get to all of them.

Of course until we have full hearings, all of this is speculation on your side as well as mine but this is how I see it coming down. Then again I saw Nixon skating on Watergate until Alexander Butterfield testified, too.

On an interesting side note, it appears that three assistants in the Minnesota USA office demoted themselves rather than work for the Bushie appointee Paulose who is known for quoting Bible verses and having a dictatorial style.

The dominoes continue to tumble as the WH continues to fumble and the public begins to rumble.

[Baron Von Esslingen]

No comment about taking people to school this time, eh?

BTW, I want to know how you intend to draw the line connecting the US Attorneys offices and the firings to an effort to intimidate voters in 2008.

I hope you are one of the few here who would recognize an "opinion" versus a "statement of fact" because that's what this clearly is.

Given the time that a number of USAs have spent on pursuing what I call the Job Bush Strategy to Win Elections (going after minority voters who vote primarily Democratic) with new requirements for voting eligibility when voting fraud is a crime with no violators but lots of rewards (think 2000 election in Florida where thousands of people were illegally tossed off the voting rolls because they had a name similar to a convicted felon's) and you can see where I'm going here. It seems like when Republicans can't win legitimately at the ballot box, they plan on reducing the size of the number of voters so they will have a chance.

It reminds me of a women's basketball game I once saw where the home town referees kept calling all sorts of ticky-tack fouls against the visiting team until numerous players had fouled out. The game was played 5 on 3 the last five minutes but the home team still couldn't win because the visiting team's best shooter kept hitting threes on offense. She even got clobbered by two home teamers suffering a bloody nose during a shot that was not called and responded by bleeding all over the court and opposing players until they had to call an official's time out to wipe up the court. She refused to be cleaned up (pre-blood rule days) and told the coach that this was our fourth player and it would help us win. She was right. They won and the home team had to destroy their new unis because they couldn't get the blood out of the jerseys. The similarities are amazing and just as compelling.

[Birdzeye]

If one assumes, for the sake of argument, that "performance" in this case means prosecuting any and every Democrat for any (or no) reason and turning a blind eye to Republican misdeeds," then perhaps the original claim that the attorneys were fired for performance reasons was technically a true statement.

The firings DO raise some reasonable questions about the motives that led to the firings, i.e., were they fired to be replaced with people who would more aggressively go after Democrats while ignoring Republican misconduct? Bush apologists apparently can't abide the questions being asked.

[Dilloduck]

If one assumes, for the sake of argument, that "performance" in this case means prosecuting any and every Democrat for any (or no) reason and turning a blind eye to Republican misdeeds," then perhaps the original claim that the attorneys were fired for performance reasons was technically a true statement.

The firings DO raise some reasonable questions about the motives that led to the firings, i.e., were they fired to be replaced with people who would more aggressively go after Democrats while ignoring Republican misconduct? Bush apologists apparently can't abide the questions being asked.

Get over it----politicians CONSTANTLY do things for political motives. Many are far mre dangerous than firing someone.

[Baron Von Esslingen]

If one assumes, for the sake of argument, that "performance" in this case means prosecuting any and every Democrat for any (or no) reason and turning a blind eye to Republican misdeeds," then perhaps the original claim that the attorneys were fired for performance reasons was technically a true statement.

The firings DO raise some reasonable questions about the motives that led to the firings, i.e., were they fired to be replaced with people who would more aggressively go after Democrats while ignoring Republican misconduct? Bush apologists apparently can't abide the questions being asked.

And when they are asked, they stoop back down into that bag of the Politics of Personal Destruction for their answers. Nothing surprises me anymore about this crowd. Thankfully, their numbers are dwindling. 32 % at last count.

[Baron Von Esslingen]

Get over it----politicians CONSTANTLY do things for political motives. Many are far mre dangerous than firing someone.

and politicians are accountable to the public every two or four years. Appointed attorneys are accountable to their appointer only until they are in office and then they are accountable to the law. The Bushies want to change those rules and make the USAs an arm of the GOP. We'll see what Congress has to say about that.

[Dilloduck]

and politicians are accountable to the public every two or four years. Appointed attorneys are accountable to their appointer only until they are in office and then they are accountable to the law. The Bushies want to change those rules and make the USAs an arm of the GOP. We'll see what Congress has to say about that.

THIS congress ??? Oh gee--I wonder what they will say?

If a democrat wins the presidency she/he will appoint political allies to become federal attorneys.

[Baron Von Esslingen]

THIS congress ??? Oh gee--I wonder what they will say?

If a democrat wins the presidency she/he will appoint political allies to become federal attorneys.

And if they break the law when terminating their employment and violate THE U.S.C., I'll be right back here complaining about the fact that it makes us look like those ignorant-as-fuck neocon Bushies and we need to stop it.

My only hope is that they do the same thing that your boy Bush has the current crop of USAs doing: going after the opposition seven times more often than their own party just to listen to the neocons squeal like pigs when they get dozens of their own convicted and sent to jail as felons. Screw upholding the law. Let's just conduct political reprisals and see how the shoe fits on the other foot. Works for me.

[Birdzeye]

I sure as hell hope that a future Democratic president doesn't pull the same stunt that the Bush administration has just pulled, but I have every faith that they'll be just as underhanded as Bush's cronies are.

[Dilloduck]

I sure as hell hope that a future Democratic president doesn't pull the same stunt that the Bush administration has just pulled, but I have every faith that they'll be just as underhanded as Bush's cronies are.

I think it would be nice if both parties would get thier asses kicked by a third party candidate. They are worthless if they continue to have pissing contests instead of doing thier jobs and anyone who votes for these assholes to get revenge for past behavior is an accomplice.

[CockySOB]

and politicians are accountable to the public every two or four years. Appointed attorneys are accountable to their appointer only until they are in office and then they are accountable to the law. The Bushies want to change those rules and make the USAs an arm of the GOP. We'll see what Congress has to say about that.

Dude, do you ever get tired of being so wrong?

The Civil Service Act does protect lower-level functionaries from the "at will" firings, but not so with higher-level functionaries. In fact, had you read either of the court cases I cited, you'd know that the opinion of SCOTUS was (and via stare decisis, IS) that US Attorneys and other high-ranking Federal executive branch officials are NOT covered by the Civil Service Act and are subject to dismissal at the will of POTUS.

You can ramble on all you want about "obstruction of justice" but you're neglecting the fact that POTUS has the authority under the US Constitution and the US Codes, and with the authority of two of the three branches of government supporting that authority (executive and judicial) to dismiss the US Attorneys at will. If there was an obstruction charge to be made, it may be made as a separate action, but cannot infringe on POTUS Constitutional authority.

[Birdzeye]

I think it would be nice if both parties would get thier asses kicked by a third party candidate. They are worthless if they continue to have pissing contests instead of doing thier jobs and anyone who votes for these assholes to get revenge for past behavior is an accomplice.

At last we agree on something!

[Dilloduck]

At last we agree on something!

What ever happened to politicians who promoted what they wanted to accomplish, explained how they intended to do it and were honest about the consequences ? Greed, power and fame has replaced having the best interest of America as motivation. If people are willing to spend so much time, money and effort to be elected, the job has too many benefits that the common American is unaware of.

[avatar4321]

What ever happened to politicians who promoted what they wanted to accomplish, explained how they intended to do it and were honest about the consequences ? Greed, power and fame has replaced having the best interest of America as motivation. If people are willing to spend so much time, money and effort to be elected, the job has too many benefits that the common American is unaware of.

Socialism was created and has corrupted the system

[Birdzeye]

Socialism was created and has corrupted the system

I think the corruption Dildoduck was referring to is seen in both socialist and capitalist systems.

[Dilloduck]

I think the corruption Dildoduck was referring to is seen in both socialist and capitalist systems.

That would be correct.

[avatar4321]

I think the corruption Dildoduck was referring to is seen in both socialist and capitalist systems.

That's exactly my point. socialism has corrupted everything.

[Birdzeye]

That's exactly my point. socialism has corrupted everything.

You missed the point. Dildoduck (I believe) and I are saying that you'll find corruption in both socialist and capitalist systems; you seem to be trying to imply that it's only socialist systems that are corrupt.

I'm cynical enough to believe that corruption knows no ideology.

[Abbey Marie]

You missed the point. Dildoduck (I believe) and I are saying that you'll find corruption in both socialist and capitalist systems; you seem to be trying to imply that it's only socialist systems that are corrupt.

I'm cynical enough to believe that corruption knows no ideology.

If I read Avatar correctly, he is saying that elements of Socialism have crept into our capitalist system, and corrupted it.

[Baron Von Esslingen]

Dude, do you ever get tired of being so wrong?

The Civil Service Act does protect lower-level functionaries from the "at will" firings, but not so with higher-level functionaries. In fact, had you read either of the court cases I cited, you'd know that the opinion of SCOTUS was (and via stare decisis, IS) that US Attorneys and other high-ranking Federal executive branch officials are NOT covered by the Civil Service Act and are subject to dismissal at the will of POTUS.

You can ramble on all you want about "obstruction of justice" but you're neglecting the fact that POTUS has the authority under the US Constitution and the US Codes, and with the authority of two of the three branches of government supporting that authority (executive and judicial) to dismiss the US Attorneys at will. If there was an obstruction charge to be made, it may be made as a separate action, but cannot infringe on POTUS Constitutional authority.

Not even the president is above the law. Nixon thought he was and was proven wrong. The same thing will happen here. He has to operate under the same law that everyone else follows. No exceptions. Those same US Codes that I quoted govern his behavior. They give him power but they also restrict it. Just like when he bypassed the FISA courts with his NSA spy program and backed down before the impeachment drum began to bang, this controversy will also show that he has laws he has to follow. Even though he considers the Constitution "just a goddamned piece of paper" it's the paper that governs the land and he is not exempt from what it has to say.

Don't YOU ever get tired of being wrong?

[stephanie]

Not even the president is above the law. Nixon thought he was and was proven wrong. The same thing will happen here. He has to operate under the same law that everyone else follows. No exceptions. Those same US Codes that I quoted govern his behavior. They give him power but they also restrict it. Just like when he bypassed the FISA courts with his NSA spy program and backed down before the impeachment drum began to bang, this controversy will also show that he has laws he has to follow. Even though he considers the Constitution "just a goddamn piece of paper" it's the paper that governs the land and he is not exempt from what it has to say.

Don't YOU ever get tired of being wrong?

Your right about that...No President is above the law..
Nixon thought so....So did Bill Clinton..

The jury is still out to see if ya all can dig up anything on President Bush..
If there is......Then we'll see him prosecuted for it...
But you all making UP SHIT and wishing........
Let's see the IMPEACHMENT hearings, NOW..
It is your DemocratICS congresscritters......DUTY..:slap: :poke:

[CockySOB]

Not even the president is above the law. Nixon thought he was and was proven wrong. The same thing will happen here. He has to operate under the same law that everyone else follows. No exceptions. Those same US Codes that I quoted govern his behavior. They give him power but they also restrict it. Just like when he bypassed the FISA courts with his NSA spy program and backed down before the impeachment drum began to bang, this controversy will also show that he has laws he has to follow. Even though he considers the Constitution "just a goddamned piece of paper" it's the paper that governs the land and he is not exempt from what it has to say.

Don't YOU ever get tired of being wrong?

Wow! You managed to condense your little parrot-points into a single paragraph - I'm impressed. However you still fail to show ANY relevant information that POTUS cannot fire his US Attorneys at a whim. Point of fact, he can. You have not shown any solid evidence that those firings were illegal. Instead, you choose to blather about "obstruction of justice" jet fail to cite any evidence which might hold up in court. And of course you top your little bit of balderdash with a hearsay statement which cannot be corroborated and only seems to make its rounds on the far-left messageboards and blogs.

How delusional are you? How much koolaide have you drunk?

[CockySOB]

Your right about that...No President is above the law..
Nixon thought so....So did Bill Clinton..

The jury is still out to see if ya all can dig up anything on President Bush..
If there is......Then we'll see him prosecuted for it...
But you all making UP SHIT and wishing........
Let's see the IMPEACHMENT hearings, NOW..
It is your DemocratICS congresscritters......DUTY..:slap: :poke:

That's the thing. The loony-left isn't concerned with fact or rule of law, they are only interested in "payback" for WJC being indicted for perjury and obstruction of justice when he lied under oath. And the little lemmings of the loony left keep on marching to the sea squealing, "impeach him!" all the while.

[Baron Von Esslingen]

Wow! You managed to condense your little parrot-points into a single paragraph - I'm impressed. However you still fail to show ANY relevant information that POTUS cannot fire his US Attorneys at a whim. Point of fact, he can. You have not shown any solid evidence that those firings were illegal. Instead, you choose to blather about "obstruction of justice" jet fail to cite any evidence which might hold up in court. And of course you top your little bit of balderdash with a hearsay statement which cannot be corroborated and only seems to make its rounds on the far-left messageboards and blogs.

How delusional are you? How much koolaide have you drunk?

First you want USC cited and I did that. Then you want some information on what Chimpy may have done to warrant this scrutiny and possible impeachment and I showed you that as well. You just didn't like that you got shown up after you put all that work into all those posts you made. Since you are not an attorney or a judge, you are clueless as to what will hold up in court. I heard a lot of that talk from your kind before Libby got convicted, too.

Grow up. :slap:

[CockySOB]

First you want USC cited and I did that. Then you want some information on what Chimpy may have done to warrant this scrutiny and possible impeachment and I showed you that as well. You just didn't like that you got shown up after you put all that work into all those posts you made. Since you are not an attorney or a judge, you are clueless as to what will hold up in court. I heard a lot of that talk from your kind before Libby got convicted, too.

Grow up. :slap:

Baron, the law is not some overly complex "thing" that only lawyers understand. In fact, anyone with decent reading comprehension and good researching skills can study the law. Perhaps you are that exception, but then I knew you were "special" anyway.

And while you may have heard some talk from others about Libby before the indictment and conviction, you didn't hear it from me. Seems you're more intent on stereotyping and howling inanities rather than actually reasoning and debating. I shouldn't be overly surprised as that seemed to be your modus operandi back at Patriot Debate as well. So at least you're consistently prejudicial, eh?

And for all your bluster and bullshit, you STILL haven't read the SOTUS cases I cited, have you? If you had, you would have seen that they addressed the Constitutional authority of POTUS with specific regards to his right to dismiss members of his Executive Branch (not protected by the Civil Service Act) at will. And you also neglect the fact that stare decisis makes those rulings the de facto law of the land until they can be challenged on either factual or Consitutional grounds. Unless you can show how GWB personally obstructed justice, calls for his impeachment are nonsense. And so far all you've done is present a lazy misrepresentation of a group of US Codes which deal in general with "obstruction of justice" and no specifics.

You haven't shown me or anyone else up, Baron. You're incapable of it from what I've seen. Well, you might be able to bluster some of the others here, but not me. And although you have obviously forgotten or chosen to misrepresent yet more facts, have I defended Domenici or Wilson for their questionable actions in contacting Iglesias? Nope. I even agreed that their communication to Iglesias should be investigated further, and Wilson and Domenici punished appropriately (probably a censure, but obstruction charges are still possible). Did I think Sampson resigning was a good thing? Yup. And I think he should probably be facing obstruction charges for his own contradictory statements while under oath in front of Congress. I also have said that I understand why Monica Goodling resigned, and I think Alberto Gonzales should also resign. But hey, those are facts you can't squeeze into your little cookie-cutter world, so I guess you don't have to think about it, eh?

Oh and about Libby... I have ALWAYS said that if he lied under oath, he should be prosecuted. Unlike your own partisan self, I don't play favorites when I consider the question of legal/illegal. Probably because I view ALL professional politicians as corrupt, oxygen-wasting drains on society. But hey, maybe you will give them a run for their money.

[Gunny]

First you want USC cited and I did that. Then you want some information on what Chimpy may have done to warrant this scrutiny and possible impeachment and I showed you that as well. You just didn't like that you got shown up after you put all that work into all those posts you made. Since you are not an attorney or a judge, you are clueless as to what will hold up in court. I heard a lot of that talk from your kind before Libby got convicted, too.

Grow up. :slap:

Weak. The President cannot fire the attorney's at whim WHY?

If there is actual solid evidence that warrants impeachment, it is Congress's DUTY to draw up the articles. THAT is NOT at their leisure. Step up to the plate or get your ass back on the bench.

Of course Libby was going to get convicted. Nobody survives a witchhunt from "your kind." No matter how long it takes and mo matter how much you have to stretch and fabricate to make it so.

Cocky's pretty-much handed you your ass. Perhaps YOU should WAKE up.:laugh2:

[CockySOB]

Of course Libby was going to get convicted. Nobody survives a witchhunt from "your kind." No matter how long it takes and mo matter how much you have to stretch and fabricate to make it so.

What's strange is that Kyle Sampson has seemingly lied (or at least contradicted himself) while under oath in front of Congress. Why hasn't he been brought up on charges by Congress? Are they trying to work a plea deal wherein he throws some other people to the wolves? I don't know, but if Libby was indicted and convicted for his statements under oath, I would figure that Sampson should be charged as well. Or perhaps Sampson isn't a big enough fish for the Democrats so they "threw him back."

[Birdzeye]

That didn't stop Clinton from firing all of them did it?



http://www.mediaresearch.org/BozellColumns/newscolumn/2007/col20070314.asp


Uh, Clinton replaced most of the US Attorneys at the beginning of his term, just as Reagan and Bush II did; yet I don't hear you getting all bent out of shape shen a Republican president did it,. Now why's that, I wonder?

[Gunny]

What's strange is that Kyle Sampson has seemingly lied (or at least contradicted himself) while under oath in front of Congress. Why hasn't he been brought up on charges by Congress? Are they trying to work a plea deal wherein he throws some other people to the wolves? I don't know, but if Libby was indicted and convicted for his statements under oath, I would figure that Sampson should be charged as well. Or perhaps Sampson isn't a big enough fish for the Democrats so they "threw him back."

C'mon, Cocky .... this is exactly what it appears to be .... making something of nothing as part of the overall partisan witchhunt strategy. How hard is it in a case like this to find a disgruntled employee?

I'm just watching for the precedents being set. What's going to happen when the next Dem President does the same damned thing? Nothing. If the Republicans bitch, a few media outlets may cover it on page three for a day or two.

[CockySOB]

Uh, Clinton replaced most of the US Attorneys at the beginning of his term, just as Reagan and Bush II did; yet I don't hear you getting all bent out of shape shen a Republican president did it,. Now why's that, I wonder?

I could be wrong, but I think hawk was making a point of showing the hypocrisy of the left who say that POTUS cannot fire his US Attorneys for political reasons when in fact the tradition has been that POTUS of both parties have fired the sitting US Attorneys upon taking office. Democrat and Republican both have done this consistently going back at least 30 years that I know of.

[Gunny]

Uh, Clinton replaced most of the US Attorneys at the beginning of his term, just as Reagan and Bush II did; yet I don't hear you getting all bent out of shape shen a Republican president did it,. Now why's that, I wonder?

:lol: What is this? Role reversal? How obvious can one be?

[Psychoblues]

CSOB, BVE challenged you to give up some information. You challenged him to give up the same and he/she did it.




Baron, the law is not some overly complex "thing" that only lawyers understand. In fact, anyone with decent reading comprehension and good researching skills can study the law. Perhaps you are that exception, but then I knew you were "special" anyway.

And while you may have heard some talk from others about Libby before the indictment and conviction, you didn't hear it from me. Seems you're more intent on stereotyping and howling inanities rather than actually reasoning and debating. I shouldn't be overly surprised as that seemed to be your modus operandi back at Patriot Debate as well. So at least you're consistently prejudicial, eh?

And for all your bluster and bullshit, you STILL haven't read the SOTUS cases I cited, have you? If you had, you would have seen that they addressed the Constitutional authority of POTUS with specific regards to his right to dismiss members of his Executive Branch (not protected by the Civil Service Act) at will. And you also neglect the fact that stare decisis makes those rulings the de facto law of the land until they can be challenged on either factual or Consitutional grounds. Unless you can show how GWB personally obstructed justice, calls for his impeachment are nonsense. And so far all you've done is present a lazy misrepresentation of a group of US Codes which deal in general with "obstruction of justice" and no specifics.

You haven't shown me or anyone else up, Baron. You're incapable of it from what I've seen. Well, you might be able to bluster some of the others here, but not me. And although you have obviously forgotten or chosen to misrepresent yet more facts, have I defended Domenici or Wilson for their questionable actions in contacting Iglesias? Nope. I even agreed that their communication to Iglesias should be investigated further, and Wilson and Domenici punished appropriately (probably a censure, but obstruction charges are still possible). Did I think Sampson resigning was a good thing? Yup. And I think he should probably be facing obstruction charges for his own contradictory statements while under oath in front of Congress. I also have said that I understand why Monica Goodling resigned, and I think Alberto Gonzales should also resign. But hey, those are facts you can't squeeze into your little cookie-cutter world, so I guess you don't have to think about it, eh?

Oh and about Libby... I have ALWAYS said that if he lied under oath, he should be prosecuted. Unlike your own partisan self, I don't play favorites when I consider the question of legal/illegal. Probably because I view ALL professional politicians as corrupt, oxygen-wasting drains on society. But hey, maybe you will give them a run for their money.

Why are you so adamant now that you have been shown an idiot but still cannot provide evidence or even encouraging innuendo to your arguments?