|
|
|
|
|
| Federal Prosecuters fired
Posted: 3/27/2007 9:25:49 PM | I really hope you two (Bookworm and Mungo) understand that
simple point.
Gee, that must be why her attorney has specifically stated that testifying to the truth will leave her open to legal jeopardy.
Try as you might, none of your arguments can deny the fact that the issue occurred as a result of the Republican "Bushies" trying to subvert the position and power of the US Attorneys for partisan political gain and the refusal of the individuals to "toe the party line".
I know you would like to deflect the argument from that point but it ain't working.
Unlike Mungo, you at least seem to understand case law but you refuse to cite SPECIFIC cases and SPECIFIC passages.
Gee, you must be right. That would explain why I've never lost in any judicial proceeding, tribunal or arbitration hearing that I have argued before.
You've cited the title of many cases but virtually every time you have been asked to cite the specific passages in the rulings that support your argument to the exclusion of the competing argument you have simply failed to respond other than arguing that they don't understand case law.
Could that be due to the fact that many of the titles that you have cited are ambiguous, debatable or simply inapplicable to the specific issue in question (which you frequently attempt to redirect to an issue you feel you can argue against)? | |
|
| Federal Prosecuters fired
Posted: 3/27/2007 9:58:41 PM | Tort .. ( I promised myself I wasn't going to comment anymore on this subject .. Grrrrrrr! ) Anyways .. lol ..
Tort .. you are so busy defending the legal definition of what constitutes "fire" in this case that you forgot all that smoke just sucked the oxygen out of the room!
OF COURSE, YOU'RE RIGHT about this case .. nothings wrong .. what a pimple .. Whoever thought that misleading Congress in direct tesimony would ever amount to anything so serious as being called a liar? Apparently not the AG .. too bad for him though .. because as of today .. Gonzalez has lost credibility with many in his own Party .. many of his assistants are invoking the 5th as they scramble to get out of the limelight .. and everyday .. something new and damaging seems to surface in this case ..
Too bad he signed off on the firings .. and was present in hour long meetings that specifically targeted these prosecuters firings .. I guess he just "forgot to remember" such insignifcant detail when reporting to Congress .. as of today .. support for Gonzalez is slipping by the minute .. not withstanding the "support" of President Bush ...
Unfortunately ..
This story is just the tip of the iceberg of a larger intent .. looking deeper .. it reveals subversion of the political proccess using the tenets of the Patriot Acts to end run Congressional oversight on Federal prosecuter appointees! This has Congress in an uproar .. seems an aide to the President somehow squeezed language into the Patriot Act that made it "legal" for the AG to appoint prosecuters without Congressional approval .. That's NOT the intent that Congress authorized .. when this was found out .. bam! No large debate ..Congress just overwhelmingly voted to strip the AG the power to appoint prosecuters without the confirmation of the Congress .. (the intent of the abuse of this power .. has even Arlen Specter (Rep) up in arms) ..
Seems the President prefers stacking the Courts with prosecuters appointed by his AG WITHOUT Congressional approval. .. then these non vetted prosecuters were projected to fill judgeships where their performance could NOT be reviewed! This was an enormous and unbelievable abuse of power .. that almost went unchecked until this scandal came to light ... luckily .. Congress had the good sense to stop this practice in it's tracks ..
This case has become so much more than that of eight unjustly fired prosecuters .. now it's become about the subversion of the politcal proccess .. misleading Congress .. an attempt to stack the courts .. defamation of character .. and what else? Who knows?!!!
Jeeze! How silly of any of us to be concerned eh .. Tort?
I'm looking forward to the testimony AG Gonzalez and Karl Rove and others .. its going to be interesting seeing those types squirm ... | |
|
| Federal Prosecuters fired
Posted: 3/28/2007 12:15:04 PM |
First of all, unlike you and Mungojoe, I back up all my assertions with cases and statute.
Hardly. As was shown in the "impeachmet" thread, just about everything you claimed turned out to egregiously misrepresent the truth. Anybody who reads through the last few pages can see it clearly, where I had to frequently, repeatedly, point out that you were making claims which were not even close to being factually correct. And that is the problem you have now, Tort: anybody who reads that thread knows that you are willing to misrepresent facts in order to suit your own agenda. Most people earn the reputation they have, and it has never been more true than in your case. Nobody made you try and deceive people. And it's relevant in this thread because it means that nothing you say, not even the smallest thing, can be taken at face value.
I frankly became bored going over the same issue time and time again (the inherent powers of the Executive branch in times of aggression AND war [notice ONCE again how the principles come into play absent a declaration of war-Mungo just couldn't grasp this concept]).
Try and spin it any way you like. All it takes is for somebody to actually read the other thread to see that once again you are attempting to misrepresent what actually happened.
But we aren't talking about that part of our mutual history, are we? No. We are discussing the prerogatives of the Executive to hire and fire key personal at his pleasure. As I have pointed out repeatedly ( you guys just don't seem to understand the simple things), there is NOTHING wrong with firing a Federal Prosecutor, nor is there anything untoward or illegal with forgetting the events that led up to the firing.
Correct, we are discussing the firing of eight federal prosecutors. And I actually agree with you: the President has the right to dismiss any of them, at any time. But there are a few aspects which make this situation different.
First, the administration not only defamed their character when it lied about why they were fired, but it also misled Congress by giving conflicting accounts as to why they were dismissed. If the administration had just said,"we are no longer in need of your services", this would be a non-issue. But they didn't do that. And please, don't waste any more of our time by committing character assassination against Iglesias and then trying to paint the other seven with the same brush. Whether or not he was incompetent for wanting to form a task force regarding allegations of voter fraud is debatable. What is NOT debatable is that his job evaluations showed no signs of substandard performance. And despite your attempt to dismiss the FACT that his job performance evaluations were fine (as you attempted in msg #61), it IS relevant. Anybody who has any actual experience in the working world knows that if you want to get rid of an employee and avoid a lawsuit, you document each and every instance of substandard performance. Yes, it is true that the adminstration doesn't need to document any substandard performance if they just want to replace them.... but they do need to document it if they want to claim that they are firing the prosecutors for substandard performance. See how that works? Again, if they hadn't claimed they were fired for poor performance, this would be a non-issue. And this is not a partisan issue either, because Arlen Specter, Lindsey Graham, and Chuck Hagel are all expressing doubts about Gonzales' "credibility", which is another way of saying that they think he lied. It'll be interesting watching Bush-apologists try and spin that as more "attempts by the democrats to defame President Bush and his administration".
Second, there are credible allegations that at least some of them were fired in retaliation for not being more partisan in their job performance. It is very reasonable that these claims be investigated by Congress; they wouldn't be doing their jobs if they didn't maintain oversight of the Executive branch; the last six years has shown us what happens when there is no Congressional oversight of the Executive branch. I am quite sure you would be howling in outrage if similar allegations were made about a Democratic administration trying to use U.S. attorneys to go on a political witch-hunt, and proceeded to punish whichever attorneys didn't "get with the program".
Third, and possibly most troubling, there is a serious question concerning the changes made to the Patriot Act, which effectively ends judicial and congressional oversight regarding the appointment of U.S. attorneys:
The background: When Congress reauthorized the Patriot Act last year, it included little-noticed language that changed the way U.S. attorneys would be appointed if their predecessors were removed in the middle of their term. Under the old regime, interim U.S. attorneys needed to be confirmed by the Senate after 120 days. If they weren't, federal district judges could select their replacement. The new language removed both judicial and congressional oversight of the interim U.S. attorneys, letting DOJ anoint them indefinitely. This served three important goals: consolidating presidential power, diminishing oversight, and ensuring that "interim" prosecutors had permanent jobs.
And:
Specter added that he only looked into how the provision was altered after Feinstein told him about it. As he explained, "I then contacted my very able chief counsel, Michael O'Neill, to find out exactly what had happened. And Mr. O'Neill advised me that the requested change had come from the Department of Justice, that it had been handled by Brett Tolman, who is now the U.S. attorney for Utah, and that the change had been requested by the Department of Justice because there had been difficulty with the replacement of a U.S. attorney in South Dakota."
-http://www.slate.com/id/2161260
So, either Specter is lying, or else some serious backroom dealing went on in order to sneak in a change to the Patriot Act which resulted in a severe shift in the checks-and-balances in our government. What interests me is why this aspect of the case, to my mind the most serious, hasn't received anywhere near the amount of public attention that it should.
| |
|
| Federal Prosecuters fired
Posted: 3/29/2007 2:30:22 AM | This post has been very interesting ,
I ask about Bret Tollman in 64? This is a man that changed the Constitution.......
Why is the A/G telling his people to take the 5th????????
Has there been a crime?????????? | |
|
| Federal Prosecuters fired
Posted: 3/29/2007 5:37:43 PM | Now, even Gonzales' own faithful servant, Kyle Sampson, has testified under oath that his (Gonzales') previous testimony was "not accurate". Amazing what comes out when people are forced testify under oath, with the real threat of jail time for perjury. And Bush-apologists wonder why people want administration officials to testify under oath....
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/29/fired.attorneys/index.html | |
|
| Federal Prosecuters fired
Posted: 3/31/2007 2:43:57 AM | Now, even Gonzales' own faithful servant, Kyle Sampson, has testified under oath that his (Gonzales') previous testimony was "not accurate".
_________________________
Kyle Choked when it came to the BIG MAN. Karl Rove..........
The AG is to go under the bus. | |
|
| Federal Prosecuters fired
Posted: 3/31/2007 3:37:04 AM | I would like to hear from the Neo/GOP's regarding the 5th, no criminal charges exist.......
Oversight of congress? Slip a little tid-bit in.....
Not much has been said about that. Why?
I am so sick of the crap, Clinton fired them all........
Gee I wonder why, how many appionted by a Dem?
Three Neo/GOP admin's.
---------------------------
Fitzgerald Ranked During Leak Case
Justice Dept. Fired 2 With Same Rating
By Dan Eggen and John Solomon
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, March 20, 2007; A01
U.S. Attorney Patrick J. Fitzgerald was ranked among prosecutors who had "not distinguished themselves" on a Justice Department chart sent to the White House in March 2005, when he was in the midst of leading the CIA leak investigation that resulted in the perjury conviction of a vice presidential aide, administration officials said yesterday.
The ranking placed Fitzgerald below "strong U.S. Attorneys . . . who exhibited loyalty" to the administration but above "weak U.S. Attorneys who . . . chafed against Administration initiatives, etc.," according to Justice documents.
The chart was the first step in an effort to identify U.S. attorneys who should be removed. Two prosecutors who received the same ranking as Fitzgerald were later fired, documents show.
Fitzgerald's ranking adds another dimension to the prosecutor firings, which began as a White House proposal to remove all 93 U.S. attorneys after the 2004 elections and evolved into the coordinated dismissal of eight last year, a move that has infuriated lawmakers and led to calls for Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales to resign.
The Justice Department last night gave the House and Senate Judiciary committees 3,000 pages of new documents related to the firings, including one e-mail that says Gonzales was "extremely upset" by Senate testimony Feb. 6 from his deputy, Paul J. McNulty. Gonzales felt that "some of the . . . statements were inaccurate," the e-mail says.
Justice officials said Gonzales specifically disagreed with McNulty's statement that a Little Rock prosecutor was fired to make way for a GOP operative. They also said the new documents show that political motivations were not a factor in the firings.
The latest revelations came amid reports that the White House has already launched a search for Gonzales's replacement and that support for the attorney general among Republicans in Congress is fading fast. One GOP strategist with close ties to the White House said last night that it is likely Gonzales will leave and that White House counsel Fred F. Fielding already has potential replacements in mind.
White House press secretary Tony Snow offered tepid support for Gonzales, saying President Bush still has full confidence in his longtime friend and ally. "We hope he stays," Snow said.
The March 2005 chart ranking Fitzgerald and other prosecutors was drawn up by Gonzales aide D. Kyle Sampson and sent to then-White House counsel Harriet Miers. The reference to Fitzgerald is in a portion of the memo that Justice has refused to turn over to Congress, officials told The Washington Post, speaking on the condition of anonymity because Fitzgerald's ranking has not been made public.
At the time, Fitzgerald was leading the independent probe into the leak of the identity of a CIA operative, which led this month to the perjury conviction of former vice presidential aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby. Fitzgerald, the U.S. attorney in Chicago, had also recently brought a corruption indictment in Illinois against former Republican governor George H. Ryan.
A Justice Department official yesterday sought to play down the importance of Fitzgerald's ranking, saying the chart was "put together by Sampson and is not an official department position on these U.S. attorneys."
Sampson resigned as Gonzales's chief of staff last week, and his attorney declined to comment yesterday.
Mary Jo White, who supervised Fitzgerald when she served as the U.S. attorney in Manhattan and who has criticized the firings, said ranking him as a middling prosecutor "lacks total credibility across the board."
"He is probably the best prosecutor in the nation -- certainly one of them," said White, who worked in the Clinton and Bush administrations. "It casts total doubt on the whole process. It's kind of the icing on the cake."
Fitzgerald has been widely recognized for his pursuit of criminal cases against al-Qaeda's terrorist network before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, and he drew up the official U.S. indictment against Osama bin Laden. He was named as special counsel in the CIA leak case in December 2003 after then-Attorney General John D. Ashcroft recused himself.
Fitzgerald also won the Attorney General's Award for Distinguished Service in 2002 under Ashcroft.
Justice spokeswoman Tasia Scolinos said yesterday that "Pat Fitzgerald has a distinguished record as one of the most experienced and well-respected prosecutors at the Justice Department. His track record speaks for itself."
But Fitzgerald also came under sharp criticism from many Republicans and press advocates for his aggressive pursuit of the Libby case.
The March 2, 2005, memo from Sampson came in response to a proposal floated by Miers to remove all U.S. attorneys during Bush's second term. Fitzgerald was placed in a middle category among his peers: "No recommendation; have not distinguished themselves either positively or negatively."
Although the ranking meant Sampson was not recommending those prosecutors for removal at the time, two U.S. attorneys who received the same ranking were fired last Dec. 7: Daniel G. Bogden of Nevada and Paul K. Charlton of Arizona.
Two prosecutors who were listed in the top category on Sampson's chart were also fired: David C. Iglesias in New Mexico and Kevin V. Ryan in San Francisco.
Two administration officials said Fitzgerald was never included on later lists of U.S. attorneys targeted for removal by Sampson. Administration officials and documents have portrayed Sampson as being in charge of the firings effort.
Sampson's memo was among more than 140 pages of documents sent to congressional investigators last week, but the names of most of the prosecutors and their rankings had been deleted. Senate Judiciary Committee investigators have been demanding an unredacted version of the memo, but the administration has refused to provide it, according to a Justice official and a Democratic Senate aide.
Administration officials said they do not know why Sampson put Fitzgerald in the "not distinguished" category. Bush said last year that Fitzgerald had done "a very professional job" in the CIA leak investigation.
The thousands of pages of documents released last night highlight the tension among the highest officials at the Justice Department as they struggle to cope with the firings and the resulting public outcry.
In the wake of McNulty's Feb. 6 appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Gonzales was furious with how the deputy attorney general characterized the departure of Little Rock U.S. Attorney Bud Cummins It was explained as a move to insert Tim Griffin, a former White House political aide, into the slot.
In an e-mail, Justice's deputy communications director, Brian Roehrkasse, wrote to Sampson and another aide: "The attorney general is extremely upset with the stories on US attys this morning. He also thought some of the DAG's statements were inaccurate. . . . I think from a straight news perspective we just want the stories to die."
Roehrkasse said in a statement last night: "The Attorney General was upset because he believed Bud Cummins' removal involved performance considerations and it was that aspect of [McNulty's] testimony the Attorney General was questioning."
Another e-mail exchange shows that Sampson and McNulty aide Michael Elston did not want the fired federal prosecutors to testify before the Senate committee, a position that seems to support an allegation by Cummins that Elston threatened to retaliate against the former U.S. attorneys if they continued speaking out. Justice officials said last night that McNulty later verbally told Elston he should not take a position on testimony.
On Dec. 5, two days before seven U.S. attorneys were fired, McNulty admitted in an e-mail to Sampson that he was having second thoughts about firing Bogden, the U.S. attorney for Nevada, whose record provided no obvious performance issues or policy differences. McNulty also said he had not reviewed Bogden's performance before including him in the dismissal group.
"I'm a little skittish about Bogden," McNulty wrote. "He has been with DOJ since 1990 and, at age 50, has never had a job outside of government. My guess is he was hoping to ride this out well into '09 or beyond. I'll admit [I] have not looked at his district's performance."
The e-mails detail some of the personal and financial hardships the fired prosecutors have been going through -- particularly Margaret Chiara of Grand Rapids, Mich., who begged for help finding another job.
Staff writer Michael Abramowitz and washingtonpost.com staff writer Paul Kane contributed to this report | |
|
| Federal Prosecuters fired
Posted: 3/31/2007 7:45:42 AM |
Two prosecutors who were listed in the top category on Sampson's chart were also fired: David C. Iglesias in New Mexico and Kevin V. Ryan in San Francisco.
Wasn't somebody saying something about how Iglesias was incompetent, an underperformer, etc etc?  | |
|
tort2
|
Joined: 11/21/2005
Msg: 84 | |
| Federal Prosecuters fired
Posted: 3/31/2007 7:54:50 AM | Let me repeat the facts, once again. Mr. Iglesias had the admission of individuals that these individuals had falsified voter registration records in order to receive commissions. Falsifying voter registration records is both a federal and state criminal offense. He had knowledge that such a violation occurred yet declined to submit the evidence to a grand jury. Instead he opted for a task force to seek further information.
That, my socialist leaning friend, is called legal incompetence; end of story. | |
|
| Federal Prosecuters fired
Posted: 3/31/2007 7:59:21 AM |
That, my socialist leaning friend, is called legal incompetence; end of story.
Or, if this is true, he may have wanted enough information so that he could go after the people behind it all, and not just the individuals. End of story. | |
|
| Federal Prosecuters fired
Posted: 3/31/2007 8:31:03 AM | That, my socialist leaning friend,
Nice ad hominem attack to bolster your argument. 
is called legal incompetence;
And that, is just one person's opinion. Not a fact.
end of story.
Only by those who want to ignore the facts which don't support their agenda. Again, according to DOJ's own measure, Iglesias was a top performer. Try spinning that. | |
|
tort2
|
Joined: 11/21/2005
Msg: 87 | |
| Federal Prosecuters fired
Posted: 3/31/2007 9:08:20 AM | The (Mr. Iglesias' job performance) assessment was a typical, boiler plate assessment all lawyers receive on their yearly review. I have mine from the last four years, and with the exception of the partner offering the review and the year, they are essentially the same, word for word.
You obviously did NOT look at the date of the reviews and compare it to Mr. Iglesias' refusal to present the evidence of the crime to the grand jury.
But then again, I'm used to this from certain parties in POF (steadfast refusal to discuss the issues on a substantive manner).
Once again, I am forced to repeat what should be obvious.
A federal prosecutor who does not present ADMISSIONS (seriously, what is it about an alleged criminal admitting to a crime that is so difficult for some of you to get???) of a crime to a grand jury is, by definition, INCOMPETENT. | |
|
| Federal Prosecuters fired
Posted: 3/31/2007 9:18:05 AM |
The (Mr. Iglesias' job performance) assessment was a typical, boiler plate assessment all lawyers receive on their yearly review. I have mine from the last four years, and with the exception of the partner offering the review and the year, they are essentially the same, word for word.
BS.
But then again, I'm used to this from certain parties in POF (steadfast refusal to discuss the issues on a substantive manner).
How ironic that you are accusing others of this.
A federal prosecutor who does not present ADMISSIONS (seriously, what is it about an alleged criminal admitting to a crime that is so difficult for some of you to get???) of a crime to a grand jury is, by definition, INCOMPETENT.
You consider prosecutors that would prefer to go after the people behind the crime rather than the small-time players to be incompetent? It is a good thing you are not really a lawyer, then. | |
|
| Federal Prosecuters fired
Posted: 3/31/2007 9:38:31 AM |
You consider prosecutors that would prefer to go after the people behind the crime rather than the small-time players to be incompetent? It is a good thing you are not really a lawyer, then.
Indeed. I am reminded of a woman I met once, who worked in the intelligence division of a state patrol agency. She told the story of entering into a local police investigation late in the game, just before the local cops were getting ready to raid a house. When she looked at their investigation, she realized that they had missed a lot; they had focused on the tip of the iceberg, and were going to be content slapping themselves on the back, in complete ignorance that they had let a lot of other aspects of the investigation go unchecked. Fortunately, she pointed out the error of their ways: they postponed the raid, conducted a more in-depth investigation, and as a result they were able to substantially increase the return on their investigation. Tort would have us believe that the state patrol investigator is incompetent and should be fired. | |
|
| Federal Prosecuters fired
Posted: 3/31/2007 11:15:47 AM |
job performance) assessment was a typical, boiler plate assessment all lawyers receive on their yearly review. I have mine from the last four years, and with the exception of the partner offering the review and the year, they are essentially the same, word for word.
so the managers are lazy and don't do their jobs by giving accurate performance evaluations? maybe but who cares. If I am the employee and you have given me an acceptable evaluation, it stands - if you choose to give everyone the same 'word for word' that is your problem. You have assessed my performance as competant. | |
|
| Federal Prosecuters fired
Posted: 3/31/2007 11:47:01 AM | if you choose to give everyone the same 'word for word' that is your problem. You have assessed my performance as competant.
And we have to keep in mind it hasn't been proven that they were all given the same boilerplate evaluation. This is just something Tort made up in order to bolster his really weak argument. Assuming that what he said about his own annual eval's is true (not something that can be taken for granted, considering his track record), all it means is that his own supervisor is lazy; nothing more.
He's grasping at straws at this point. | |
|
tort2
|
Joined: 11/21/2005
Msg: 92 | |
| Federal Prosecuters fired
Posted: 3/31/2007 2:32:12 PM | Let me state the issue another way, so the intellectually challenged who dispute the facts I present may (hopefully) understand.
1) Not submitting evidence of an admission or confession to a crime to a grand jury is legal incompetence. There can be and there is no disputing that.
2) Not submitting the evidence so as to possibly catch bigger fish is a stupid and illogical statement in that nothing precludes a grand jury from handing down additional indictments. Therefore, Mr. Iglesias's argument (and those of his apologists such as Book) is not credible.
3) Once again, I must remind the forum that setting up a task force to study the issues at hand could violate the secrecy behind grand juries and are illegal. For Mr. Iglesias' to have stated that as his reason seems to be an attempt at his Mea Culpa. | |
|
| Federal Prosecuters fired
Posted: 3/31/2007 2:49:45 PM |
1) Not submitting evidence of an admission or confession to a crime to a grand jury is legal incompetence. There can be and there is no disputing that.
Then why is it done so often?
2) Not submitting the evidence so as to possibly catch bigger fish is a stupid and illogical statement in that nothing precludes a grand jury from handing down additional indictments. Therefore, Mr. Iglesias's argument (and those of his apologists such as Book) is not credible.
Being as the possible culprits behind vote tampering would know of what the grand jury is doing, it is stupid and illogical to do something that would tip them off.
3) Once again, I must remind the forum that setting up a task force to study the issues at hand could violate the secrecy behind grand juries and are illegal. For Mr. Iglesias' to have stated that as his reason seems to be an attempt at his Mea Culpa.
Trying to find out the true guilty party for a crime is illegal? Interesting interpretation of the law you have, there. | |
|
| Federal Prosecuters fired
Posted: 3/31/2007 3:43:41 PM | 3) Once again, I must remind the forum that setting up a task force to study the issues at hand could violate the secrecy behind grand juries and are illegal.
Ah but, the secrecy associated with grand juries only applies to the the grand jury proceeding itself.
If the matter has not yet been presented before a grand jury, the secrecy requirement does not apply. A grand jury is not prevented from recieving evidence which is already in the public domain therefore, if the evidence is public knowledge (as seems to be the case of the admissions) prior to the commencement of proceedings then there has been no violation of grand jury secrecy. | |
|
| Federal Prosecuters fired
Posted: 3/31/2007 6:01:11 PM |
1) Not submitting evidence of an admission or confession to a crime to a grand jury is legal incompetence. There can be and there is no disputing that.
Question for you, Tort: Was this "obvious" incompetence on the part of Iglesias documented in any of his evaluations? Do you think that just because any incompetence on your part isn't reflected in your evaluation that the same must be true for him? | |
|
| Federal Prosecuters fired
Posted: 4/1/2007 2:22:34 PM | As far as this issue with these prosecutors , It is a non issue , they serve at the presidents leisure and if any one who knows that thinks that means you serve with a separate agenda or political leaning idea you are just stupid to the point of no return.
YA can not argue with hateful democrats even if facts show a clear set of issues. How retarded is it to even ask why you are fired when the appointment is based on the leisure of a commander in chief ? To do so shows a lack of spine and moral fortitude !
I cant wait until 08 , because these "Smart" Democrats have placed there eggs in 1 basket, And that is to pull troops out and bring down the president..Not only will that not work , but as you stay focused on this agenda watch what happens when you are shown to have been wrong,, Just ask Joe Lieberman how he not only supported the war , but this last troop increase and was re-elected in spite of his parties efforts to oust him LMAO .. | |
|
| Federal Prosecuters fired
Posted: 4/1/2007 4:35:20 PM | This issue has gone far past the mere "firings" ..
now it's a huge concern over AG himself mileading Congress ... ( lies .. along with an ongoing cover-up) .. subversion of the judical system by attaching unwanted .. unethical .. language to the tennets of the Patriot Act .. thus making it a tool of the Administration to end run the Congress when it comes to reviewing and appointing competent prosecuters without being properly vetted .. and character defamation ..
the original complaint of the 8 fired prosecuters was the defamation of their character and work habits .. the records don't support the malfeasance that the Administration claimed .. if fact .. the records show the opposite ... the language used against them as reasons behind the firings has been found to be untrue and now can be found ACTIONABLE in a court of Law (if the charges can prove malice) ...
I fully expect that each fired prosecuter will file a Civil suit to recover damages ... and from what I can see .. they will all win a substantial judgement .. the only question is .. against whom? The list of the guilty seems to get wider and more luminary with each coming day ... the AG? his subordinates? Karl Rove? the President? it's a merry-go-round .. of comic book figures ...
Supporters of the Administration claim that the fired prosecuters woked at the "Presidents pleasure" and do not have any claim .. but that's intrue in this case .. it's untrue because of the language used as the reasons behind the firings .. you cannot claim incompetence and then not be able to prove it .. that is actionable in any court of law in the land ..
the "other" charges against the AG for misleading Congress and tampering with the Patriot Act .. those charges are far more egregious .. and will be dealt with after all this has long come and gone .. it will most likely cost the AG his job .. and cause a huge fight in Congress to get the guilty parties to testify .. under oath ..
Stay tuned Bunky .. Mr Rodgers says to put take off your sweater .. it's gonna get HOT this week .. | |
|
| Federal Prosecuters fired
Posted: 4/1/2007 5:15:53 PM | | I worked for an elected official for years. I learned that when you have to fire someone who serves 'at the pleasure' and they or anyone else asks "Why was I (he/she) fired", the correct response is: "No reason". I feels stupid to say it but there is wisdom in that answer. Had the Bush administration followed that guidance, the issue would have blown away. Just as if Nixon had simply said "boys will be boys" instead of lying about Watergate........... | |
|
| Federal Prosecuters fired
Posted: 4/2/2007 1:58:17 PM | | If your information was correct, and I believe it to be false.... nope, doesn't bother me at all. What does bother me is the current administration did not fire every single prosecutor just like William Jefferson Clinton. | |
|
| Federal Prosecuters fired
Posted: 4/2/2007 2:03:34 PM | Read the whole thread. The issue is not with the firings themselves....it is that they took place mid-term and the administration did so in an attempt to bypass Senatorial approval of the new nominees....as a by-product written into the Patriot Act so the neo0cons could get who they really wanted(uber-conservatives) in those positions and not what they thought the could get the Senate to approve.
Yes Clinton fired prosecutors....every President has....but he did it by the book. Bush and his boys don't think the law applies to them....and if it does they just change it. | |
|
|
| Page 4 of 6
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 |
|
Home
login 
