Page 7 of 11 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 106

Thread: Key Witnesses to Be Interviewed in Prosecutor Firings

  1. #61
    Tavern Bartender
    Pussy Grabbin' Beaver
    Middleground's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Canada's Capital
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    22,457
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Key Witnesses to Be Interviewed in Prosecutor Firings

    Quote Originally Posted by Phoenix View Post
    I didn't to post all that info but I did want to address this part;


    Some validity does exist here. The legislative GAVE UP their power to the executive branch. The law eliminated one of the checks and balances between the two branches. That what we get from hurried and urgent legislation that get shoved through Congress. I'm glad they learned a lesson and that will not happen again.

    Oh wait.
    It seems that you're okay with the legal system being corrupt. Okay.
    No men are anywhere, and Im allowed to go in, because Im the owner of the pageant and therefore Im inspecting it, Trump said... Is everyone OK? You know, theyre standing there with no clothes. Is everybody OK? And you see these incredible looking women, and so I sort of get away with things like that.

  2. #62
    Bus Driver to Hell
    Thorgasm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:57 PM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    68,198

    Re: Key Witnesses to Be Interviewed in Prosecutor Firings

    Quote Originally Posted by Middleground View Post
    It seems that you're okay with the legal system being corrupt. Okay.
    Yet it's Obama that is the Commie.

    Didn't Castro jail his political opponents?
    Quote Originally Posted by faithful_servant View Post
    Being a psychiatric patient does not mean that you are mentally ill.



  3. #63
    Tavern Bartender
    Pussy Grabbin' Beaver
    Middleground's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Canada's Capital
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    22,457
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Key Witnesses to Be Interviewed in Prosecutor Firings

    Quote Originally Posted by independent_thinker2002 View Post
    Yet it's Obama that is the Commie.

    Didn't Castro jail his political opponents?

    Seems like TD, Phoenix and JMak would be perfectly okay with this.

    I bet they'd be ok with witch hunting the Repubs that didn't vote for the stimulus bill. That a show em.
    No men are anywhere, and Im allowed to go in, because Im the owner of the pageant and therefore Im inspecting it, Trump said... Is everyone OK? You know, theyre standing there with no clothes. Is everybody OK? And you see these incredible looking women, and so I sort of get away with things like that.

  4. #64
    Professor

    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Last Seen
    02-13-09 @ 05:15 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,942

    Re: Key Witnesses to Be Interviewed in Prosecutor Firings

    Quote Originally Posted by danarhea View Post
    I am going to save your post for the next time you accuse the Obama administration of conducting an unfair witch hunt against the Bush administration.
    Please do and...good luck with that!

  5. #65
    Professor

    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Last Seen
    02-13-09 @ 05:15 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,942

    Re: Key Witnesses to Be Interviewed in Prosecutor Firings

    Quote Originally Posted by Middleground View Post
    It seems that you're okay with the legal system being corrupt. Okay.
    Huh? How can you possibly conclude this from his comments? The poster merely and properly recognized that in enacting the Patriot Act the Congress, specifically, the Senate, agreed to waive the confirmation process in this one respect.

    In other words, properly enacted legislation resulted in the AG being granted an appointment power.

    How is this representative of a corrupt political process?

    Oh, I see...liberal hysteria has struck, again.

    Seems like TD, Phoenix and JMak would be perfectly okay with this.
    Okay with what, clown? It seems that only conservatives are ever concerned about ordinary Cubans being jailed while liberals continue lavishing praise on Castro and often visting him (at least when he was in good health).

    WTF are you even talking about?

    Oooops, it seems that liberal hysteria has struck, again.

  6. #66
    Professor
    Phoenix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    04-27-17 @ 10:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,782

    Re: Key Witnesses to Be Interviewed in Prosecutor Firings

    Quote Originally Posted by Middleground View Post
    It seems that you're okay with the legal system being corrupt. Okay.
    No, What I am saying is that it's a waste of time and resources to investigate an action that was legally performed. The best that investigators can hope for is to vaguely relate the action to some ethic violation that doesn't actually and specifically apply to this case. I the end they may say, "It was possibly improper but not illegal." which amounts to nothing.
    From the ashes.

  7. #67
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Key Witnesses to Be Interviewed in Prosecutor Firings

    Quote Originally Posted by aps View Post
    I got that wording from the DOJ report itself. Here's a good article by a law professor. It sounds legally correct.
    That article makes some interesting claims, but everything I've ever read indicates that he's wrong. Even groups like Media Matters acknowledge that the president's power to fire is not subject to those limitations.

    Here's an article that lays out a very good historical explanation for the executive privilege:

    Not only does the Attorney General historically have authority with respect to local U.S. Attorney's Offices, but he (or she) has also enjoyed the benefit of the doubt on removals of executive officers such as U.S. Attorneys, including those subject to Senate confirmation.

    Why? Quite simply because it is the executive who is in the best position to evaluate U.S. Attorneys' performance, and who is responsible for it. In 1923, Chief Justice Taft, the only member of the Supreme Court to have also served as president of the United States, affirmed that removal authority vis--vis executive officers, even those subject to Senate confirmation, was an incident of the president's power to nominate, not the Senate's power to confirm. Taft put it this way in the landmark case of Myers v. United States: "The power to prevent the removal of an officer who has served under the President is different from the authority to consent to or reject his appointment. When a nomination is made, it may be presumed that the Senate is, or may become, as well advised as to the fitness of the nominee as the President, but in the nature of things the defects in ability or intelligence or loyalty in the administration of the laws of one who has served as an officer under the President are facts as to which the President, or his trusted subordinates, must be better informed than the Senate, and the power to remove him may therefor be regarded as confined for very sound and practical reasons, to the governmental authority which has administrative control. The power of removal is incident to the power of appointment, not to the power of advising and consenting to appointment, . . ." (Emphasis added.)
    The eight dismissed U.S. Attorneys may all be fine men and women; that is not inconsistent with their having been dismissed. The Constitutional system, as it has taken form over our history, puts the choice of dismissal solely in the President's hands (as he is chooses to be informed by his Attorney General). Accordingly, the President is within his rights to dismiss a U.S. Attorney even for the simple reason that he preferred someone else for the job.

    Some have suggested at least some of the U.S. Attorneys were dismissed in order to shield criminal wrongdoing - that is, dismissed so that criminal prosecutions that they had overseen would fade away or be resolved with lenient plea agreements. Before making such serious accusations, however, the Congress ought to come forward with hard proof, not the whine of innuendo.

    Moreover, and significantly, none of the dismissed prosecutors has come anywhere close to making that accusation. Surely, it should not be inferred.

    In making its inquiry, then, Congress should be careful not to subvert what history has so well provided: the executive's ability to dismiss its officers is the structural mechanism by which the President "takes care" that the law is faithfully executed.
    FindLaw's Writ - Kmiec: An Historical Perspective on the Controversy over U.S. Attorney Firings


    Again, I ask anyone who cares to answer: What do you think about this?

    Before 1981, President Carter replaced U.S. Attorney David Marston at the request of Democratic Representative Joshua Eilberg. Marston had been investigating corruption charges against Eilberg and Daniel Flood, another Democratic Representative.[172] The probe continued after the attorney was replaced, however, and Eilberg lost his 1978 reelection bid. Eilberg was eventually sentenced to five years probation and a $10,000 fine,[173][172] and Flood was censured for bribery by 96th United States Congress.
    This was far worse than even any of the wildest allegations in this case. A Congressman being investigated for bribery asked Carter to fire the US Atty who was doing the investigation, and Carter did it.

    There were no hearings. There was no 4 year long investigation. There were no subpoenas, no contempt charges, no allegations of corruption on Carter's part, and most of all, not even a peep from anyone in Congress suggesting that this might not be within the president's authority.

    So, I ask, if it was within the president's authority then, why is it suddenly not within his authority now?
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  8. #68
    Bus Driver to Hell
    Thorgasm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:57 PM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    68,198

    Re: Key Witnesses to Be Interviewed in Prosecutor Firings

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    That article makes some interesting claims, but everything I've ever read indicates that he's wrong. Even groups like Media Matters acknowledge that the president's power to fire is not subject to those limitations.

    Here's an article that lays out a very good historical explanation for the executive privilege:





    FindLaw's Writ - Kmiec: An Historical Perspective on the Controversy over U.S. Attorney Firings


    Again, I ask anyone who cares to answer: What do you think about this?



    This was far worse than even any of the wildest allegations in this case. A Congressman being investigated for bribery asked Carter to fire the US Atty who was doing the investigation, and Carter did it.

    There were no hearings. There was no 4 year long investigation. There were no subpoenas, no contempt charges, no allegations of corruption on Carter's part, and most of all, not even a peep from anyone in Congress suggesting that this might not be within the president's authority.

    So, I ask, if it was within the president's authority then, why is it suddenly not within his authority now?
    I got away with smoking pot when I was younger. Let's never investigate pot use again.
    Quote Originally Posted by faithful_servant View Post
    Being a psychiatric patient does not mean that you are mentally ill.



  9. #69
    Passionate
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    03-07-11 @ 04:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    15,675

    Re: Key Witnesses to Be Interviewed in Prosecutor Firings

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    That article makes some interesting claims, but everything I've ever read indicates that he's wrong. Even groups like Media Matters acknowledge that the president's power to fire is not subject to those limitations.

    Here's an article that lays out a very good historical explanation for the executive privilege:





    FindLaw's Writ - Kmiec: An Historical Perspective on the Controversy over U.S. Attorney Firings
    I don't know what to make of this article. The report and the article I posted are in agreement with each other and they make sense to me. I know I have read or heard somewhere that the only absolute power the president has (a power that cannot be questioned) is the power to pardon. Executive privilege has its limits. Why wouldn't this power (the power to fire) have its limits?


    Again, I ask anyone who cares to answer: What do you think about this?



    This was far worse than even any of the wildest allegations in this case. A Congressman being investigated for bribery asked Carter to fire the US Atty who was doing the investigation, and Carter did it.

    There were no hearings. There was no 4 year long investigation. There were no subpoenas, no contempt charges, no allegations of corruption on Carter's part, and most of all, not even a peep from anyone in Congress suggesting that this might not be within the president's authority.

    So, I ask, if it was within the president's authority then, why is it suddenly not within his authority now?
    You raise a good point. I have no idea what to make of this.

  10. #70
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Key Witnesses to Be Interviewed in Prosecutor Firings

    Quote Originally Posted by independent_thinker2002 View Post
    I got away with smoking pot when I was younger. Let's never investigate pot use again.
    The point of that anecdote wasn't to say "Oh, well Carter got away with it, so Bush should too." It was to highlight the fact that nobody questioned Carter because it was (and remains) well settled law that the president's power to fire US Attorneys is absolute.

    What happened with Carter was completely legal, despite how much it might seem improper or wrong. The same goes for the current situation.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

Page 7 of 11 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •