|
|
|
|
|
| Federal Prosecuters fired
Posted: 4/2/2007 10:42:08 PM | ^^^^^^ Excellent summation! The firings will just be a footnote in a few weeks .. but the attempted end run of Senate approval of their handpicked political hacks is the real issue now .. The AG .. Karl Rove and others have plenty of explaning to do on this one ..
Look for a huge fight with the President eventially capitulating to pressure from within his own party to have these men testify under oath .. | |
|
| Federal Prosecuters fired
Posted: 4/3/2007 1:43:28 AM | Look for a huge fight with the President eventially capitulating to pressure from within his own party to have these men testify under oath ..
___________________
GWB offered to let his people come to congress and make statements. ONLY.. no oath, no record and closed doors.
What a jerk. His crew feel they can do what ever they want.
The Clinton red herring is just about used up. Anyone repeating that or the records is only a 25 %. They will never get it..
| |
|
| Federal Prosecuters fired
Posted: 4/6/2007 12:17:13 AM | I would like to review the facts and records of the FIRED. Too many lies spread as fact.
____________________________________
http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2007/04/fact_check_caro.html
April 04, 2007
Fact Check: Carol Lam
by hilzoy
In a comment, AndyK (is that you, saiyuk?) noted the following statement by Orrin Hatch on Meet the Press:
"Take Carol Lam, for instance. Carol Lam was raised on your program, Tim, by Schumer. Carol Lam, it’s amazing to me she wasn’t fired earlier because for three years members of the Congress had complained that there had been all kinds of border patrol capture of these people but hardly any prosecutions. She was a former law professor, no prosecutorial experience, and the former campaign manager in Southern California for Clinton, and they’re trying to say that this administration appoints people politically?"
As AndyK pointed out, this seems to be completely false. Here's a bio of Carol Lam from the Washington Post. It lists her employment experience as follows:
"CAREER: Assistant U.S. attorney in San Diego, 1986-2000; San Diego Superior Court judge, 2000-2002; U.S. attorney in San Diego, 2002-February 2007; legal counsel for San Diego-based Qualcomm Inc., February 2007-present."
Any mention of being a law professor there? No. Is it at all likely that she spent fourteen years as an Assistant US Attorney without acquiring any prosecutorial experience? No. Her alleged experience as the campaign manager for Southern California for Clinton does not appear, and while it's conceivable that this was an honorific job that she held while serving as an Assistant US Attorney, I can't find any evidence that she was in any way associated with the Clinton campaign, and it seems wildly unlikely that Bush would have appointed a former Clinton campaign manager to a US Attorney's job. Moreover, Avedon Carol reports this:
"Tuesday [Rachel Maddow] checked with Carol Lam's people, who said that not only had she had nothing to do with the Clinton campaign, Hatch was also, um, misspeaking, when he said she was a former law professor with no prosecutorial experience - she had 15 years worth of experience, though she'd never been a law professor. The Clinton campaign people didn't know her, either. So Rachel's been pestering Hatch's office all day to find out what his source was - and they just don't seem to want to return her calls."
That didn't stop Rush Limbaugh from picking up the story, though:
" Carol Lam was a campaign manager! These people would normally be made ambassadors, but Clinton put her in as a US attorney. This is the kind of people that Clintons and Democrats appoint as federal judges. What I was talking about earlier, is their attempt here to insulate Democrats and liberals from election results. Now, Bush could have gotten rid of this woman when he took office. He chose not to. The new tone, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah."
Note not just that what Limbaugh says is false, but that he's making a mistake that a simple Google search would have revealed. He is, for starters, claiming that Lam was a Clinton appointee whom Bush "could have gotten rid of ... when he took office", when in fact she was appointed in 2002. It would be a pretty nifty trick if Clinton had somehow managed to appoint US Attorneys two years after leaving office, but the truth is more prosaic: Carol Lam was appointed by Bush.
However: in the course of researching this, I think I have figured out what accounts for this bizarre set of obvious factual errors. Everything that Hatch says about Lam is in fact true of one of her predecessors, Alan Bersin. In an article on Carol Lam in the National Review, published a couple of days before Hatch went on MTP, Byron York writes this (while discussing how Lam was chosen for the US Attorney's job):
"It wasn’t an easy job; the position of U.S. attorney for the Southern District had been wracked by politics in the previous decade. In 1993, Bill Clinton replaced the Republican U.S. attorney, a career prosecutor and veteran of 20 years in the Justice Department, with Alan Bersin, a law professor who had no prosecutorial experience but who had been a classmate of Clinton’s at Yale and head of the Clinton campaign in San Diego. (Bersin pledged to vigorously pursue Clinton priorities like environmental law.) In March 1998, Bersin resigned to become head of the San Diego school system. "
This article is cited by Limbaugh as background material for his story on Hatch and Lam, and it's the only one of the four pieces so cited that mentions Lam's background in any way. (1, 2, 3, 4.) Byron York is quite clear that it is Bersin, not Lam, who was a law professor and Clinton campaign manager with no prosecutorial experience. Nonetheless, I suspect someone misread either this story or another one that describes Bersin's background in the course of discussing Lam, and that that accounts for what Hatch and Limbaugh said.
There are, I think, two take-home points from this. First, what Hatch and Limbaugh said about Lam is just plain false. Second, this was a mistake that someone should have caught. A moment's thought would have revealed how utterly implausible it is to think that George W. Bush, of all people, would have appointed a Clinton campaign manager to a US Attorney's job, and a simple Google search (or a rereading of York's article) would have revealed that, in fact, he didn't. Only people who are not particularly concerned about the accuracy of what they say would have said these things on the air when the slightest effort to check the facts would have made it clear that they were wrong.
***
UPDATE: I meant to say this in the original post, but: for the record, I don't think that appointing Bersin reflects particularly well on Clinton.
***
UPDATE 2: Speaking of limited prosecutorial experience, consider Tim Griffin, the oppo researcher who is now our new US Attorney for Eastern Arkansas:
"The 38-year-old Griffin claims on his official Web site that he prosecuted 40 criminal cases while at Ft. Campbell, where he was stationed from September 2005 to May 2006. But Army authorities say Ft. Campbell’s records show Griffin only serving as assistant trial counsel on three cases, none of which went to trial.
Griffin didn’t agree to be interviewed about his claim of 40 criminal prosecutions versus the Army’s confirmation of three cases, all of which were settled as plea bargains. But Cherith Beck, a Griffin spokeswoman, suggested that Griffin’s higher number might refer to all cases he worked on in any capacity.
“Just wanted to clarify, make sure you had an understanding that prosecuted means it’s a case he handled while he was there; it doesn’t mean that it went to trial necessarily,” Beck said. “Prosecuted means he handled those cases in one form or another.”
Griffin’s prosecutorial experience at Ft. Campbell is important in evaluating Griffin’s fitness to serve as the top federal prosecutor in the Eastern District of Arkansas since the bulk of Griffin’s legal career has been in political operations, such as opposition research on Democrats or work as a Republican staffer on Capitol Hill."
Posted by hilzoy at 11:12 AM in Politics | |
|
tort2
|
Joined: 11/21/2005
Msg: 104 | |
| Federal Prosecuters fired
Posted: 4/6/2007 11:10:59 AM | My last post on this seemingly endless back and forth on a simple matter.
The prosecutors that were fired serve at the President's pleasure. While it is true that they are appointed with the advice and consent of the Senate, they still serve at the President's pleasure.
That means that the only input the Senate has, constitutionally, is the appointment. Once they approve the appointment, what happens thereafter is subject to the discretion of the Executive.
Secondly, the President doesn't have to offer a good reason, bad reason or any reason to the prosecutor's for the firing. Remember, they SERVE AT HIS PLEASURE.
The one caveat to the above would be if the firings were attributable to an attempt to circumvent an investigation (which in itself is a laughable charge, since any investigation the firings were allegedly trying to stop, would continue. For example, look no further than when Judge Ken Starr took over the Whitewater investigation from Prosecutor Ken Fiske and the investigation went on); however, even then, the firing would only delay the development of any investigation, not stop it.
To recap, the continued posting of comments expressing outrage at what the posters believe to be 'evidence' of malfeasance on the part of the Executive (for example, when posters say "it wasn't done by the book", I want them to show me not only the book, but where in this alleged book does it say the President cannot fire them) is nothing more than the rantings of elements in our society who believe in the Tooth Fairy and UFO's and clearly has no basis in fact or reality.
And that's it folks
. | |
|
| Federal Prosecuters fired
Posted: 4/6/2007 11:30:57 AM |
Secondly, the President doesn't have to offer a good reason, bad reason or any reason to the prosecutor's for the firing. Remember, they SERVE AT HIS PLEASURE.
You are right that a reason does not have to be given but, if a reason IS given then it must be supportable or it becomes actionable.
This is why, in such situations, the best answer, if any, is "It is a decision I/we have made for which I/we do not have to provide a reason."
However, the moment you begin to throw out justifications such as "incompetence", "dereliction" or any other reason which can be construed as cause, it becomes actionable and you had better be able to support it. | |
|
| Federal Prosecuters fired
Posted: 4/6/2007 11:45:42 AM | "That means that the only input the Senate has, constitutionally, is the appointment."
And that is exactly why this is dirty pool....done mid-term to avoid having the new Democratic Senate approve the selections. They were not allowed their constitutional right to approve said appointments.
A 2006 revision of the USA PATRIOT Act amended the United States Code to permit the term of an interim U.S. Attorney to last until a presidentially nominated replacement is approved by the Senate, in effect giving the United States Attorney General (the Presidential Cabinet officer authorized to appoint interim U.S. Attorneys) the power to appoint U.S. Attorneys without Senate approval.
On March 20, 2007, the Senate voted to overturn this provision by a vote of 94-2. On March 26, the U.S. House overturned it as well, by a vote of 329-78.
"Title 28 § 546. Vacancies
(a) Except as provided in subsection (b), the Attorney General may appoint a United States attorney for the district in which the office of United States attorney is vacant.
(b) The Attorney General shall not appoint as United States attorney a person to whose appointment by the President to that office the Senate refused to give advice and consent.
(c) A person appointed as United States attorney under this section may serve until the earlier of—
(1) the qualification of a United States attorney for such district appointed by the President under section 541 of this title; or
(2) the expiration of 120 days after appointment by the Attorney General under this section.
(d) If an appointment expires under subsection (c)(2), the district court for such district may appoint a United States attorney to serve until the vacancy is filled. The order of appointment by the court shall be filed with the clerk of the court.[17]
28 U.S.C. § 546 (2000 ed., Supp IV).
Just because the Patriot Act allowed them to bypass Senate approval doesn;t make it right....as shown by how quickly and decisively BOTH house repealed that provision.'
It was yet another act by this administration to give more authority to the executive branch than was intended. And a underhanded way of doing it at that...slipping something so totally unrelated to the "war on terror" into the Patriot Act. | |
|
tort2
|
Joined: 11/21/2005
Msg: 107 | |
| Federal Prosecuters fired
Posted: 4/6/2007 12:14:46 PM | | If you don't like the way the U.S. Constitution works, I would invite you to write to your representative and suggest a Constitutional Amendment to change whatever it is causes your indigestion and sense of foreboding. | |
|
| Federal Prosecuters fired
Posted: 4/6/2007 12:48:34 PM | What?......no disputing my point?.......no criticism of my lack of legal knowledge?.......no stern rebuke for not understanding constitutional law?
Or could it be you know i'm right and so rather than admit it you deflect by telling me to write my representative.
This administration's subversion of the Constitution and the God-awful Patriot Act is what this is all about. I have no such "sense of foreboding" though.....know why?....because on or around Jan. 20, 2009 Bush and his boys will be gone for good. | |
|
| Federal Prosecuters fired
Posted: 4/6/2007 1:16:01 PM |
If you don't like the way the U.S. Constitution works, I would invite you to write to your representative and suggest a Constitutional Amendment to change whatever it is causes your indigestion and sense of foreboding.
A classic example of a strawman argument. He didn't say he had an issue with the Constitution; quite the opposite, actually. He said that he has an issue with the way Republicans snuck in a provision into the Patriot Act which reduces Congressional oversight concerning the appointment of US attorneys. Based on what's gone in our country the last few years, I'd say the current administration hates the Constitution more than anybody.
"It's [the Constitution] just a goddamned piece of paper!"- George W. Bush
Gonzales provided the legal arguments used to claim that the president has the power, under the Constitution, to order torture, despite the fact that torture violates the Geneva Conventions and other international agreements the United States has ratified and implemented.
Indeed, Gonzales deemed international law -- which becomes the law of the United States, under our Constitution, when properly ratified by the Senate -- to be "quaint" and outdated when applied to the war on terrorism. To say this, is to say, in effect that the Constitution itself is quaint and outdated.
-http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/11/19/leavitt.gonzales/index.html
So, ummm, who has a problem with the Constitution again?  | |
|
tort2
|
Joined: 11/21/2005
Msg: 110 | |
| Federal Prosecuters fired
Posted: 4/6/2007 4:23:23 PM | First of all, the administration did not sneak anything into the Patriot Act. If there is a clause that causes traitors, detractors of American hegemony, supporters of global warming and others of similar ilk pause, its there with the full knowledge and assent of all those who voted for it (and subsequently attack the administration for using tools Congress provided in an attempt at defeating Islamic terrorists). There are no clauses in any statute that was added AFTER a vote and signing. None.
With regards to the issue of torture, the policy of the United States is not to use torture or condone its use by others. | |
|
| Federal Prosecuters fired
Posted: 4/6/2007 6:00:49 PM |
First of all, the administration did not sneak anything into the Patriot Act. If there is a clause that causes traitors, detractors of American hegemony, supporters of global warming and others of similar ilk pause, its there with the full knowledge and assent of all those who voted for it (and subsequently attack the administration for using tools Congress provided in an attempt at defeating Islamic terrorists).
Once again, Tort, you demonstrate your willingness to sacrifice truth on the altar of partisan politics. As I posted in msg #78 of this thread:
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
I'm sure you know as well as I do that, unfortunately, politicians frequently don't read the entire text of the laws on which they vote. So either Specter is lying, or else a political operative inserted language into the Patriot Act without telling anybody. And wouldn't you know it? The very person who did this, Bret Tolman, is now a US attorney himself. Dontcha just love synchronicity like that? There's nothing like a handsome reward for loyal service. It just warms the cockles of my heart.
____________________________
With regards to the issue of torture, the policy of the United States is not to use torture or condone its use by others.
Once again, Tort, you sacrifice the truth as if it were a blindfolded virgin.
Memo Offered Justification for Use of Torture
Justice Dept. Gave Advice in 2002
By Dana Priest and R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, June 8, 2004; Page A01
In August 2002, the Justice Department advised the White House that torturing al Qaeda terrorists in captivity abroad "may be justified," and that international laws against torture "may be unconstitutional if applied to interrogations" conducted in President Bush's war on terrorism, according to a newly obtained memo.
If a government employee were to torture a suspect in captivity, "he would be doing so in order to prevent further attacks on the United States by the Al Qaeda terrorist network," said the memo, from the Justice Department's office of legal counsel, written in response to a CIA request for legal guidance. It added that arguments centering on "necessity and self-defense could provide justifications that would eliminate any criminal liability" later.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A23373-2004Jun7.html
____________________________
Meanwhile, it seems that Monica Goodling, former counselor to Gonzales who pled the Fifth, has abruptly resigned:
Counselor to Gonzales abruptly resigns
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/04/06/fired.attorneys/index.html
I wonder if she wants to get as far as possible from Alberto "the bullseye" Gonzales.
| |
|
tort2
|
Joined: 11/21/2005
Msg: 112 | |
| Federal Prosecuters fired
Posted: 4/6/2007 6:20:43 PM | Bookworm, in another thread, I cautioned you to pay attention to the Canons of Statutory Interpretation when analyzing (and in particular, when posting messages).
Your quote "...The background: When Congress reauthorized the Patriot Act last year, it included little-noticed language that changed ..." leaves me puzzled as to the point you are trying to prove. Since when is it evidence of a crime or confirmation of a conspiracy when legislators DO NOT read what they are voting for (assuming they in fact did NOT read the material in question)? The fact is the Patriot Act says what it says and nothing more (and nothing less).
I addition, you wrote..."...Once again, Tort, you sacrifice the truth as if it were a blindfolded virgin. '"
What is the truth? That you wish to equate a memo written by a person within the Department of Justice (and offering no evidence that the DOJ or Executive adopted such a memo) with a law passed by Congress and signed by the President (or an executive order or finding issued by a governmental regulatory body)? Is that what you are suggesting? You aren't serious, I hope.
As to Ms. Gooding's resignation, my legal response is:
So what?
Regards,
Tort, Esq. | |
|
| Federal Prosecuters fired
Posted: 4/6/2007 6:35:11 PM |
Since when is it evidence of a crime or confirmation of a conspiracy when legislators DO NOT read what they are voting for (assuming they in fact did NOT read the material in question)?
And I suppose you have a "reasonable" explanation for why Tolman would insert a modification into the Act without Specter's knowledge? After all, Tolman was working for Specter at the time, right? Do you think it's normal and proper for employee's to make changes to laws up for renewal without telling anybody?
What is the truth? That you wish to equate a memo written by a person within the Department of Justice (and offering no evidence that the DOJ or Executive adopted such a memo) with a law passed by Congress and signed by the President (or an executive order or finding issued by a governmental regluatory body)?
The article I quoted is very self-explanatory. If you don't understand it, I would suggest you read it again. | |
|
| Federal Prosecuters fired
Posted: 4/8/2007 12:22:09 AM | Why defend a Bret Tollman, or the spew of Crap in my last post?
I dont get it.
This was a power play for the Pres.
Busted and they blew it...... a cover up.
Lie and hide. | |
|
| Federal Prosecuters fired
Posted: 4/8/2007 7:03:49 AM | Tort NEVER backs up .. nor does he ever acknowledge that he might be in the minority when it comes to basic common sense deductions or questionable actions taken on behalf of this Administration .. nope .. he just quotes or re-quotes arguments or case law to butress his claims .. and ingnores the pimple on the tip of his nose ...
And ... to be honest .. he has a lot of legal precedant to back up some his points ..
The trouble with his assertions.. however .. is that they don't apply ..
Yes .. the US prosecuters work at the "Presidents Pleasure" .. and can be fired for "any reason" ... so they were legally terminated .. by the book ... Unfortunately for the Administration ... they didn't quite do the "for any reason" right ...
Instead .. they DEFAMED the reputations of these fired prosecuters by stating that they were being let go because of "poor work habits" .. low conviction rates .. etc .. on and on .. ad naseum ...
However ... these claims were later found out to be UNTRUE ... in most cases .. or at least Highly QUESTIONABLE ..
The "common sense" barrier that Tort seems to abbhor ..
starts to crumble when the AG himself LIES about his "non-involvement" in this case to Senate inquiries ... instead ... investigation of internal department emails show his personal long time involvement in this matter along with Karl Rove's questionable activity .. and a host of other activities ...
The walls really started coming down when top aides to the AG contradicted the AG's assertions .. their testimony has lent support that these these firings were indeed a political hit .. and were done to influence the political and prosecutorial landscape ...
Right now .. the AG Dept is in a shambles .. both figuratively and literally .. the AG himself is on the chopping block .. office wide there has been multiple resignations .. and firings .. and as a whole .. this matter is shaking the Dept's very core ..
employees are scattering like startled cochroaches reacting to the intensity of this scandals spotlight ..
BUT .. Tort .. couldn't be bothered .. nope .. he's A-OK .. with all of this .. his response? "Who cares?" lol ...
Typical lawyer speak .. a whole lot of nothing about something .. he can't honestly defend .. the catch word here .. "honestly" ...
As for the "altered language" inserted into the Patriot Act .. jeeze .. Arlen Spectre didn't know about it? and when questioned ...NOBODY would fess up? Ha! That's a red herring .. in ANYBODYS book ..
The mere fact .. that the Congress STRIPPED THE AG of that power in an up and down vote that took less than 30 seconds .. belies Tort's claims that this was just a big to do over nothing ...
Anyways .. I wouldn't hold your breath for Tort to acknowledge anything close to a common sense response .. Hell .. he buttered his toast this morning with something that looked like butter but "legally" wasn't ..
sorry Tort .. but you make things too easy .. lol | |
|
tort2
|
Joined: 11/21/2005
Msg: 116 | |
| Federal Prosecuters fired
Posted: 4/8/2007 11:31:48 AM | Bookworm,
The article you quoted (I am assuming its the last quote) is interesting .
Once again, my legal response is:
"Your point?"
Please provide an instance where the U.S (name the individual, or the location or in the alternative, the unit involved) when the U.S. condoned (and actively participated) in any torture. You can't can you?
Figures.
Book, you really need to differentiate between secondary sources (newspapers such as the Washington Post and the NY Times [who make up facts -go back to the recent articles in the Times about women serving in the military and how one of the women the Times claimed was posted to Iraq, attempted suicide after being posted to Iraq. Point in fact, the woman featured in the article NEVER went to Iraq-the Times response was a deafening silence and acknowledgement on page 32 of their Sunday edition]), and stop equating articles you read about as statements of policy coming out from the Administration.
Go read your article again and point out where the allegations insinuated are in fact policy decisions.
Go on, you can do it.
To others who continue to cling to the FANTASY that Senators (who are lawyers, by and large) with staff dedicated to reading minutiae and practice scanning for trivia inserted in legal briefs, can honestly say "I never saw that language" is to continue believing in the Tooth Fairy and in the Montreal Canadians winning the 2007 Stanley Cup. | |
|
arri
|
Joined: 10/5/2005
Msg: 117 | |
| Federal Prosecutors fired
Posted: 4/8/2007 11:55:32 AM | Once again, my legal response is:
Who cares. The issue is political. The legal position "may" serve to keep a bunch of obviously corrupt so called "leaders" out of the the jail. That's even debatable as more informed participants are arguing. Up here, we have collectively punished our political parties for less. Mind you, it seems that the Americans have come to accept corruption as norm. | |
|
| Federal Prosecutors fired
Posted: 4/8/2007 12:23:51 PM | I've thought hard on this one and am back to my original feeling - its a tempest in a tea pot. They fired Prosecutors that they had a right to fire. They were incompetant amateur managers when they gave reasons (lies) for the firings when they had no obligation to give any reason. as to the new language in the Patriot Act, I have to side with tort (gasp!!!) - not only are most Senators lawyers but perhaps most importantly, they have a large budget for personal Legislative aides ( also lawyers) to read proposed legislation - its no sin if they dont read it personally given the volume. To say that new Language was snuck into the renewal of the Patriot Act is silly - their staff failed to note it.
The action here is of no consequence and what it reveals about the administration is stuff we already knew. This will be forgotten soon | |
|
| Federal Prosecuters fired
Posted: 4/8/2007 12:37:25 PM |
To others who continue to cling to the FANTASY that Senators (who are lawyers, by and large) with staff dedicated to reading minutiae and practice scanning for trivia inserted in legal briefs, can honestly say "I never saw that language" is to continue believing in the Tooth Fairy and in the Montreal Canadians winning the 2007 Stanley Cup.
The only thing funnier than that is the fact that you MIGHT actually believe that the legislators (or even their staff) actually read all of the legislation they vote on.
Actually that would be wrong, even funnier is the idea that you MIGHT think you can convince others to believe that despite the admission of many that they read little more than the summaries for most legislation and rely instead on the debate to decide which way to vote. | |
|
tort2
|
Joined: 11/21/2005
Msg: 120 | |
| Federal Prosecuters fired
Posted: 4/8/2007 1:03:00 PM | Mungojoe, let me see if I understand your premise correctly. You are asserting that over 40 Senators (assuming that to be a reasonable number of Senators who seriously studied the proposal) and their staffs as well as OUTSIDE LAWFIRMS that voluntarily or as part of legal teams hired by lobbying groups (such as the ACLU-composed of lawyers and their volunteer staff) DID NOT read the applicable language that was inserted???
You can't be serious.
For the sake of your credibility, go back and reconsider your position.
Your position is that United States Senators, their staff, as well as volunteer lawyers and law students and interns, in addition to outside law firms and their lawyers and paralegals and staff all FAILED TO NOTICE THE LANGUAGE in the bill.
You sure you want to continue with your position???? Are you certain you want to continue to believe the Senators who claim the language was inserted without their knowledge.
You sure about that?
I await with baited breath your response. | |
|
| Federal Prosecuters fired
Posted: 4/8/2007 1:11:20 PM | Actually, none of the legislators who voted for the Patriot Act read the whole thing. It was viewed as a time of national emergency and everyone trusted the administration to do the right thing. It was a huge bill, quickly passed, and nobody outside the White House knew what was in it all. They snuck several provisions like this in there on the QT.
You have to go back to the 50's to find a Senator (actually 2) who read every piece of legislation they voted on. Richard Russell did it, and Lyndon Johnson did it so he could emulate Russell. | |
|
| Federal Prosecuters fired
Posted: 4/8/2007 1:16:14 PM | Once again the situation is being misrepresented. Tort, you claim that all of these Senators have staffs of lawyers who read the legislation for them, and therefore imply that it is inconceivable that changes to legislation could be snuck in. You are failing to consider the possibility that one of those staff members put in changes without the authorization of the Senator he worked for. I will say this again, and I'll type slowly: THAT IS WHAT SPECTER CLAIMED HAPPENED. So, either he is lying and he actually did authorize the change, or else somebody from his office, who others have gone on record as stating was Tolman, inserted the changes without permission to do so.
Clear enough? | |
|
| |
| |
tort2
|
Joined: 11/21/2005
Msg: 125 | |
| A clarification is in order
Posted: 4/8/2007 8:58:29 PM | It would sadden me to no end to come to the realization that those little fishys I hold dear would infer by my recent posts concerning this matter that I am a supporter of Mr. Gonzales. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The fact is I hold Mr. Gonzales in contempt as a sniveling, putrid little gun-grabbing overfed maggot.
Aside from the 'mustard incident' few things in my professional life have disgusted me as much as when Mr. Gonzales, in response to a question during his confirmation hearing, said he supported the thoroughly discredited (both statistically and hygienically) ban on semi-automatic weapons.
His choice by President Bush only further convinced me that President Bush is not a true conservative. Like his father before him, President Bush belongs to that most odious of political animals: Moderate Republicans.
Just typing the term makes me want to throw another Thumann's pork and beef hot dog on my brand new fryer.
The fact is Mr. Gonzales is no more an advocate of my political values and beliefs then the naked, glistening Thumanns Frank next to me (60% pork, 38% beef 2% Divine ingredients). What I defended was not Mr. Natural lamb casing, but the integrity of the Constitution and the right of all franks to burst their natural lamb casing free from unwanted socialist oversight and regulation.
 | |
|
|
| Page 5 of 6
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 |
|
Home
login 
