Page 9 of 11 FirstFirst ... 7891011 LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 106

Thread: Key Witnesses to Be Interviewed in Prosecutor Firings

  1. #81
    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 aps View Post
    The author of your article is the same author as NYU's article. He just so happen to work for Reagan and H. Bush. Sorry, but my article, written by a law professor, is in synch with the finding made in the Department of Justice investigation. Sorry, but I'm not buying it.
    Oh, come on...if you cannot present a reasonable counter-argument to it don't whine about who the author is. All you're doing is a) shooting the messenger; and b) relying on your own appeal to an authority you prefer to appeal to because it fits well with your preferred narrative here.

  2. #82
    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 aps View Post
    I am buying the US Code. Where does it say,

    (c) Each United States attorney is subject to removal by the President for any proper or improper reason.

    ???
    It doesn't, and that is exactly the point. It's a broadly written law that gives no caveats to reasoning for the removal from office. In light of that, everything goes.
    From the ashes.

  3. #83
    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 Phoenix View Post
    It doesn't, and that is exactly the point. It's a broadly written law that gives no caveats to reasoning for the removal from office. In light of that, everything goes.
    Of course, Phoenix! That's why the Inspector General of the Department of Justice determined that this should be further investigated and why Mukasey referred it for an investigation.

  4. #84
    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 JMak View Post
    Oh, come on...if you cannot present a reasonable counter-argument to it don't whine about who the author is. All you're doing is a) shooting the messenger; and b) relying on your own appeal to an authority you prefer to appeal to because it fits well with your preferred narrative here.
    I explained in another post why I was relying on the actual report from the Department of Justice AND the article I posted, since they both came to the same conclusion.

  5. #85
    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 aps View Post
    I explained in another post why I was relying on the actual report from the Department of Justice AND the article I posted, since they both came to the same conclusion.
    Miss the point much?

    You attacked the author rather than the argument because that author was associated with people you dislike. That's not a logical argument. That's what I was criticizing.

    I'm not sure how you missed something as obvious as that.

    Why did you think that I was attacking why you believe what you do about this issue when I was clearly criticizing your attempt to shoot the messenger?

    Well?

  6. #86
    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 JMak View Post
    Miss the point much?

    You attacked the author rather than the argument because that author was associated with people you dislike. That's not a logical argument. That's what I was criticizing.

    I'm not sure how you missed something as obvious as that.

    Why did you think that I was attacking why you believe what you do about this issue when I was clearly criticizing your attempt to shoot the messenger?

    Well?
    Excuse me? I can attack the content of the article when I believe it is tainted by the author's partisanship, and when I provided evidence that stated otherwise. It's called weighing the evidence. You don't have to like my reasoning, and if you don't, I don't care. *yawn*

  7. #87
    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 aps View Post
    Excuse me? I can attack the content of the article when I believe it is tainted by the author's partisanship, and when I provided evidence that stated otherwise. It's called weighing the evidence. You don't have to like my reasoning, and if you don't, I don't care. *yawn*
    It's not whether I like your reasoning or not. I merely pointed out, correctly, that you were engaged in presenting a logical fallacy, i.e., attacking the messenger rather than the messenger's argument.

    And, lets be clear, you didn't attack the article whatsoever whether it was to challenge its logical argument(s) or to reveal how it was tainted by some ideological bias.

    You didn't weigh anything. You simply attributed a political bias to the author and then dismissed the article.

    In other words, you simply said, my guy is a law prof so he's more right then your guy because your guy is associated with Bush.

    You're fooling no one and your dishonesty is now stinking up the thread.

  8. #88
    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

    Okay, so here a portion of Mukasey's statement when he appointed the special prosecutor (the entire statement is in the link):

    “The Offices of the Inspector General and Professional Responsibility dispelled many of the most disturbing allegations made in the wake of the removals. However, the Report makes plain that, at a minimum, the process by which nine U.S. Attorneys were removed in 2006 was haphazard, arbitrary and unprofessional, and that the way in which the Justice Department handled those removals and the resulting public controversy was profoundly lacking. It is true, as the report acknowledges, that an Administration is entitled to remove presidential appointees, including U.S. Attorneys, for virtually any reason or no reason at all. But the leaders of the Department owed it to those who served the country in those capacities to treat their careers and reputations with appropriate care and dignity. And the leaders of the Department owed it to the American people they served to conduct the public's business in a deliberate and professional manner. The Department failed on both scores.

    “The Report leaves some important questions unanswered and recommends that I appoint an attorney to assess the facts uncovered, to conduct further investigation as needed, and ultimately to determine whether any prosecutable offense was committed with regard to the removal of a U.S. Attorney or the testimony of any witness related to the U.S. Attorney removals. . . .

    #08-859: Statement by Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey on the Report of an Investigation into the Removal of Nine U.S. Attorneys in 2006 (2008-09-29)
    This clears up things for me. He definitely states that the president can fire for no cause or any cause. However, he notes that the process was done improperly.

    I believe if anything comes out of this investigation (a criminal offense), it will be based upon the testimony provided by the DOJ employees (as lying before Congress is a criminal offense). JMO

  9. #89
    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

    What Mukasey did is called trying to compromise. It was a blunder. Mukasey properly recognizes that there are no constraints on the President's authority to dismiss US Attorney's, yet, holds out an olive branch as a sign of respect.

    Result: Democrats and liberals drolling all over themselves in anticipation of criminal charges.

    The funny thing is that the only criminal charges that could be brought would be lying to Congress. Ironic when members of Congress lie on a daily basis, but nonetheless, lying to Congress is a crime.

    Consequence: Democrats and liberals pounding the table exclaiming, "See, those evil Bush people, they corrupted the DoJ."

    Republicans often act this foolishly when they attempt, in good faith, to strike compromise. Democrats and liberals...take advantage of that good faith.

    See, too, the administration's backpedaling on the British intelligence Niger SOTU fiasco. No reason to back-off, but they did to appease Democrats. Instead, Democrats took a pound when given an ounce. Par for the course.

  10. #90
    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 JMak View Post
    What Mukasey did is called trying to compromise. It was a blunder. Mukasey properly recognizes that there are no constraints on the President's authority to dismiss US Attorney's, yet, holds out an olive branch as a sign of respect.

    Result: Democrats and liberals drolling all over themselves in anticipation of criminal charges.

    The funny thing is that the only criminal charges that could be brought would be lying to Congress. Ironic when members of Congress lie on a daily basis, but nonetheless, lying to Congress is a crime.

    Consequence: Democrats and liberals pounding the table exclaiming, "See, those evil Bush people, they corrupted the DoJ."

    Republicans often act this foolishly when they attempt, in good faith, to strike compromise. Democrats and liberals...take advantage of that good faith.

    See, too, the administration's backpedaling on the British intelligence Niger SOTU fiasco. No reason to back-off, but they did to appease Democrats. Instead, Democrats took a pound when given an ounce. Par for the course.
    Sigh. Nothing the Republicans do ever amounts to anything illegal for you. You have ZERO credibility with me anymore, and I won't respond to your partisan hatredness anymore. Good luck to you.

Page 9 of 11 FirstFirst ... 7891011 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
  •