Free Dating Site    

Acknowledging as we must, that the attorney generals serve at the pleasure of the President, I fail to see the rational behind the hysterics over the firings.

How has the Administration abused the Fifth Amendment??

With respect to your point concerning warrant less wiretaps, you are of course referring to the Fourth Amendment and its prohibition against unreasonable search by the government. That issue has been discussed ad-nauseum in another thread, and I have pointed out clearly with abundant cases, as well as references to the Constitution, how the Patriot Act codifies a power that the Executive branch has historically enjoyed when defending the country against foreign aggression or in time of war.

think that should be enough. Next time you rush and provide bare links without a comment on your part, don't assume the reader (me) won't access those links and read them. If you want the reader to take your comments more seriously, provide links to serious websites (such as the NY Times, Washington Post and Times, CNN), and not personal websites of fringe, delusional lunatics.

Unless there is some obvious conflict with a superior, or gaffe, just about anybody in any line of work will get an "ok to good" review in their annual job performance review.

Mungojoe, you really, really need to READ CAREFULLY before you post on a particular matter. In the matter of Mr. Iglesias, he had the admission of several individuals who admitted falsifying voter registrations in order to earn commissions. That is a crime. Instead of doing what any COMPETENT prosecutor would do (present the evidence to a grand jury) he declined and instead, opted to consider the task force (referenced in prior posts).

I have told you and the other wonderful members of POF (Canadians and Americans) that these lawyers serve at the President's prerogative. He can fire them for a good reason; bad reason or no reason.

Do you understand now?

Additionally, you wrote:

"And Iglesias has stated that he did not have sufficient evidence of intent (to influence the outcome of the elections, a requirement to obtain a conviction, but only of personal monetary gain), hence , further investigation of the matter to attempt to uncover the source of the commissions (those were the people who may have had intent to influence the elections)."

What???

Iglesias said the fraud allegations are baseless. He formed a bipartisan task force to examine possible vote fraud in September 2004 -- two months before that fall's elections -- after hearing reports of "lots of low-level fraud going on. . . . I figured where there was smoke, there was fire. I wanted to sound a message: We need to have integrity in our election process."

A toll-free telephone number set up by the task force and operated by the FBI generated about 100 calls, three or four of which involved possible violations, Iglesias said. He said he considered prosecuting one case involving a woman signing up voters who put false information on registrations. But, Iglesias said, the case had "evidence problems" that made it difficult to prove the woman was trying to skew the election's outcome.

He said he conferred with the chief of the election-crimes branch of the Justice Department's public integrity section, who was "very lukewarm. So we kind of, in collaboration . . . decided to shut it down."

Prosecutors can’t just prosecute on rumor and innuendo. I set up only one of two election fraud task forces in the country.

I wanted to prosecute those cases. I thought I had one case that I could have prosecuted. At the end of the day, I didn’t have the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, so I did not prosecute.

For the sake of all that is holy, Mungo, grab a hold of yourself and embrace logic, truth, AND the American Way!!!

In message 413 of the thread "Impeachment is Imperative...", I corrected five (5) errors you made in earlier posts. The most egregious one concerned a complete misunderstanding of Case law.

It does hearten me to see that you and Sombient have not lost your senses of patriotism and rationality.

As far as the others, (AGs), my answer is "who cares?"

Justice official to plead the Fifth in attorney probe

"The potential for legal jeopardy for Ms. Goodling from even her most truthful and accurate testimony under these circumstances is very real. One need look no further than the recent circumstances and proceedings involving Lewis Libby," Dowd's letter said.