• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Key Witnesses to Be Interviewed in Prosecutor Firings

aps

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
A federal prosecutor investigating the dismissal of nine U.S. attorneys during the Bush administration has issued a subpoena to former senator Pete V. Domenici (R-N.M.) and is preparing to interview key witnesses, lawyers following the case say. . . .

The Dannehy investigation appears to be intensifying with the disclosure that she will interview former White House political affairs deputy J. Scott Jennings as early as today, lawyers involved in the case said. Jennings worked alongside Karl Rove, a top aide to President George W. Bush.

Prosecutor to Interview Key Witnesses About U.S. Attorney Firings - washingtonpost.com

Will Domenici plead the 5th? I can't wait to see what happens with this investigation.
 
Will Domenici plead the 5th? I can't wait to see what happens with this investigation.

It's about time. Politics has absolutely no place in the Justice Department. Kudos to the prosecutors who stood up to the administration. If not for them, we might have had as many as 9 Don Siegelmans.
 
It's about time. Politics has absolutely no place in the Justice Department. Kudos to the prosecutors who stood up to the administration. If not for them, we might have had as many as 9 Don Siegelmans.

But...but...danarhea--this is a witch hunt! Don't you know that?

;)
 
It's a complete waste of time IMO. The President had absolute authority to fire those attorneys, regardless of the reason.
 
It's a complete waste of time IMO. The President had absolute authority to fire those attorneys, regardless of the reason.

Yes, that's why Mukasey ordered the investigation. :roll:

By the way, the only absolute authority the president has is the power to pardon.
 
Politics drives this investigation. President's can hire and fire em as they see fit. Bush's mistake was not firing ALL of them ala Clinton... which was done PURELY for political reasons, and we all know it.
 
Politics drives this investigation. President's can hire and fire em as they see fit. Bush's mistake was not firing ALL of them ala Clinton... which was done PURELY for political reasons, and we all know it.

I agree the president can hire and hire Prosecutors. If Obama does the same thing I wonder if the resident Bush bashers will give him a pass?
 
Politics drives this investigation. President's can hire and fire em as they see fit. Bush's mistake was not firing ALL of them ala Clinton... which was done PURELY for political reasons, and we all know it.

Sigh. You just don't get it, do you? Yes, they serve at the pleasure of the president and he can fire them for cause or no cause. HOWEVER, he cannot fire them for illegal or improper reasons.

The Bush Administration claimed that the US Attorneys were fired due to underperformance. If that was the case, the inquiry would end there. But that appears NOT to be the case, and that improper/illegal reasons were used to fire them.
__

This is directed at anyone who says, "But the President can fire them for cause or no cause."

At this point, I am done trying to explain things. If you want to speak intelligently about this issue, I would suggest you read the report. Otherwise, stop talking out of your butt!

OIG Special Report: An Investigation into the Removal of Nine U.S. Attorneys in 2006
 
I agree the president can hire and hire Prosecutors. If Obama does the same thing I wonder if the resident Bush bashers will give him a pass?

I wonder if he presses investigations of republicans and tells them to back off democrats if you'll give him a pass.
 
It's about time. Politics has absolutely no place in the Justice Department.

You're as foolish as you are naive. Politics plays a very critical role in the DoJ and rightly so.

First, United States Attorneys are ~gasp~ political appointees.

Second, while the commission of crime is infinite, the resources available to investigate and prosecute those crimes are finite. Consequently, the allocation of such finite resources is a political decision. For example, Clinton made investigating and prosecuting health care fraud as one his priorities. Bush made child porn one such priority.

For you to argue that politics should have no role in the DoJ is absolutely foolish and reveals that you really have nothing meaningful to say at all.
 
Sigh. You just don't get it, do you? Yes, they serve at the pleasure of the president and he can fire them for cause or no cause. HOWEVER, he cannot fire them for illegal or improper reasons.

"HOWEVER, he cannot fire them for illegal or improper reasons" .... as defined by Liberals for purely political purposes.

Just needed a little fix here to make it pertinent to the debate; the FACT here is that the people fired are making false and specious claims that NO investigation will change; they were LEGALLY fired for their actions or inactions. I don't care if the person firing them had said they didn't like the way their hair was done.
 
You're as foolish as you are naive. Politics plays a very critical role in the DoJ and rightly so.

First, United States Attorneys are ~gasp~ political appointees.

Second, while the commission of crime is infinite, the resources available to investigate and prosecute those crimes are finite. Consequently, the allocation of such finite resources is a political decision. For example, Clinton made investigating and prosecuting health care fraud as one his priorities. Bush made child porn one such priority.

For you to argue that politics should have no role in the DoJ is absolutely foolish and reveals that you really have nothing meaningful to say at all.

Oh brother. I would recommend your looking in the mirror when you write out the words, "You're as foolish as you are naive."
 
"HOWEVER, he cannot fire them for illegal or improper reasons" .... as defined by Liberals for purely political purposes.

Just needed a little fix here to make it pertinent to the debate; the FACT here is that the people fired are making false and specious claims that NO investigation will change; they were LEGALLY fired for their actions or inactions. I don't care if the person firing them had said they didn't like the way their hair was done.

But that's not what they said. Keep talking, Truth Detector. I soooo believe that you have a better grasp of this issue than the Inspector General of the Department of Justice. :roll:
 
Oh brother. I would recommend your looking in the mirror when you write out the words, "You're as foolish as you are naive."

Color me underwhelmed, aps. Look, whether you approve or not, politics is central to how the DoJ operates. Wishing it were otherwise doesn't make it so nor make it desireable.

It's clear now that I was right and that you didn't have anything meaningful to say by posting that politics should play no role in the DoJ. It's a throw-away line, much like Obama's lies that opponents of this spending bill are really advocates of doing nothing. Throw away lines that reveal you have nothing meaningful to say on the issue.
 
But that's not what they said. Keep talking, Truth Detector. I soooo believe that you have a better grasp of this issue than the Inspector General of the Department of Justice. :roll:

Weak appeal to authority.

The OIG reported:
We concluded that the process the Department used to select the U.S. Attorneys for removal was fundamentally flawed, and the oversight and implementation of the removal process by the Department’s most senior leaders was seriously lacking. In particular, we found that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty failed to adequately supervise the U.S. Attorney selection and removal process, and they were remarkably unengaged in the process. Instead, Chief of Staff to the Attorney General Kyle Sampson, with very little input from other Department officials, designed, selected, and implemented the removal process, with little supervision or oversight. In addition, after the removals became public the statements provided by the Attorney General and other Department officials about the reasons for the removals were inconsistent, misleading, and inaccurate in many respects.

That's great and all...however, none of this can be read as a conclusion that the dismissals were were improper or illegal.

The most serious allegations that arose were that the U.S. Attorneys were removed based on improper political factors, including to affect the way they handled certain voter fraud or public corruption investigations and prosecutions. Our investigation found significant evidence that political partisan considerations were an important factor in the removal of several of the U.S. Attorneys.

So what? Partisan political reasons are sufficient when administrations change. Why not during an administration?

All the OIG is saying is that the process of dismissing was flawed and that as a result of the dismissals several allegations were raised.

That's it.

Amazingly, however, you people appeal to this as evidence that the dismissals were improper or illegal. :roll:
 
Weak appeal to authority.

The OIG reported:


That's great and all...however, none of this can be read as a conclusion that the dismissals were were improper or illegal.



So what? Partisan political reasons are sufficient when administrations change. Why not during an administration?

All the OIG is saying is that the process of dismissing was flawed and that as a result of the dismissals several allegations were raised.

That's it.

Amazingly, however, you people appeal to this as evidence that the dismissals were improper or illegal. :roll:

You know what, JMak? I am happy for you since you clearly believe the stuff you spew. Have a nice day. :2wave:
 
But that's not what they said. Keep talking, Truth Detector. I soooo believe that you have a better grasp of this issue than the Inspector General of the Department of Justice. :roll:

I am perfectly willing to bet an asshat avatar for three months that no charges will ever be brought in this case. :cool:
 
Sigh. You just don't get it, do you? Yes, they serve at the pleasure of the president and he can fire them for cause or no cause. HOWEVER, he cannot fire them for illegal or improper reasons.

The Bush Administration claimed that the US Attorneys were fired due to underperformance. If that was the case, the inquiry would end there. But that appears NOT to be the case, and that improper/illegal reasons were used to fire them.
__

This is directed at anyone who says, "But the President can fire them for cause or no cause."

At this point, I am done trying to explain things. If you want to speak intelligently about this issue, I would suggest you read the report. Otherwise, stop talking out of your butt!

OIG Special Report: An Investigation into the Removal of Nine U.S. Attorneys in 2006

If you can show me where it's written in the law what constitutes a "Legal" or "Proper" termination, then maybe we can have an intelligent debate. The fact is, it's never specified, any attempt to determine what is legal or proper is speculation without written law.
 
You know what, JMak? I am happy for you since you clearly believe the stuff you spew. Have a nice day. :2wave:

Again, clearly underwhelmed by your response.

I mean, if you don't want to engage in debate about the comments you make, then why do you respond to substantive criticisms with crap like you did above?

Just let it go.
 
If you can show me where it's written in the law what constitutes a "Legal" or "Proper" termination, then maybe we can have an intelligent debate. The fact is, it's never specified, any attempt to determine what is legal or proper is speculation without written law.

You know, I'm on the same page as you...

I know of no legal standard that must be satisfied before dismissing a US Attorney. Politically-speaking, though, it may be unwise and even inappropriate to can a US Attorney for failing to prosecute crimes you want to see prosecuted or to stop a pending investigation. I guess in some political sense that would be characterized as "improper." But such a characterization is completely irrelevant. The only price to be paid would be a political one.
 
I have a little hypothetical story I'd like to tell.

Obama fires all of the Bush appointees, and hires his own. Before the first day on the job, Obama/Biden directs them to a meeting. They then proceed to tell them all that their main focus will be to go after Republican as much as possible. Focus on them, and witch-hunt them down.

And if any Democrat is in trouble in regards to the law, to do aything possible to see that nothing comes of it.

Is that okay with you, because they serve at the pleasure of the President?
 
I wonder if he presses investigations of republicans and tells them to back off democrats if you'll give him a pass.

Yes,especially if those allegations are mostly politically motivated just like the accusations against Bush are. Obama is free to hire who he wants as prosecutors and he is free to fire them anytime he wants.
 
Last edited:
If you can show me where it's written in the law what constitutes a "Legal" or "Proper" termination, then maybe we can have an intelligent debate. The fact is, it's never specified, any attempt to determine what is legal or proper is speculation without written law.

The Bush gang fired U.S. attorneys for being too zealous in prosecuting Repulicans or insufficiently zealous in prosecuting Democrats. They turned the entire U.S. justice system into a sledgehammer to crush its political opponents with. There is a legal term for that -- obstruction of justice. One of their victims was a Democratic governor who was convicted illegally. And anybody who doesn't get that it's just plain wrong to use the federal government to persecute its enemies has chunky peanut butter where their brains ought to be.

Glad I could help!
 
Yes,especially if those allegations are mostly politically motivate just like the ones against Bush are. Obama is free to hire who he wants as prosecutors and he is free to fire them anytime he wants.

Even if they refuse to commit a crime for him?
 
I have a little hypothetical story I'd like to tell.

Obama fires all of the Bush appointees, and hires his own. Before the first day on the job, Obama/Biden directs them to a meeting. They then proceed to tell them all that their main focus will be to go after Republican as much as possible. Focus on them, and witch-hunt them down.

And if any Democrat is in trouble in regards to the law, to do aything possible to see that nothing comes of it.

Is that okay with you, because they serve at the pleasure of the President?

Yep.

Politically, this is an inappropriate exercise of political power. But that's all it is. Criticize, scorn, cry, whatever, but it ain't improper and and it ain't illegal.
 
Back
Top Bottom