Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 77

Thread: E-Mails Show Larger White House Role in Prosecutor Firings

  1. #21
    Tavern Bartender
    Pussy Grabbin' Beaver
    Middleground's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Canada's Capital
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:02 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    22,453
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: E-Mails Show Larger White House Role in Prosecutor Firings

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    Willy didn't just fire a large number of ADA's. He fired 98; all but 5, I think.

    This just shows how little you know about the subject.

    Note to apdst: All new Presidents eventually fire all ADA within the first few months of their tenure. All of them. Carter. Reagan. H W Bush. Clinton. Dubya. Obama.

    What they didn't do was fire ADA in the second term (if they had one). There have been a few exceptions, but it just doesn't happen.

    See where I'm going? They fired "their own men." And according to what the evidence says, they were fired for political reasons. They didn't go after enough Democrats, and that's why it's been alleged they were fired.
    “No men are anywhere, and I’m allowed to go in, because I’m the owner of the pageant and therefore I’m inspecting it,” Trump said... “‘Is everyone OK’? You know, they’re 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. #22
    Guru
    Binary_Digit's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Last Seen
    12-02-17 @ 04:34 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    3,539

    Re: E-Mails Show Larger White House Role in Prosecutor Firings

    Quote Originally Posted by Oftencold View Post
    For about the 500th time, the prosecutors served at the President's pleasure, which meant that he could have fired them based on the advice of a talking shoehorn.
    And for about the 501st time, serving at the "pleasure of the President" is not a blank check to obstruct justice or violate the Hatch Act.

    http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-s...emo_072407.pdf

    "Firing a U.S. Attorney in order to impede or obstruct a pending criminal case, or a pending criminal investigation, could constitute an obstruction of justice. (snip) If Mr. Iglesias or another prosecutor was fired in retaliation for failing to bring vote fraud cases that lacked a reasonable legal or factual basis, the firing could also violate the criminal Hatch Act prohibition on retaliation contained in 18 USC 606. (snip) To the extent a prosecutor was fired in order to bring in a more compliant individual to pursue politically advantageous cases, such misconduct could possibly violate the prohibitions on obstructing government proceedings contained in 18 USC 1505 and 18 USC 1512(c)(2)."

    "Concerns about the apparently political nature of these firings are only heightened by the emerging allegations that some U.S. Attorneys who were retained by the Department - the so-called "loyal Bushies" - may have selectively prosecuted Democrats. Bringing the force of the federal criminal justice apparatus to bear on an individual based in any way on that person's political affiliation is a clear abuse of the prosecutorial function, and may well violate the person's civil rights.

    "Evidence that such wrongdoing may have occurred includes a recent academic study finding that federal prosecutors during the Bush Administration have indicted Democratic officeholders far more frequently than their Republican counterparts. The study's authors found that of the 375 cases they identified, 10 involved independents, 67 involved Republicans, and 298 involved Democrats, and noted that local Democrats were seven times as likely as Republicans to be subject to criminal charges from the Department of Justice."

    Quote Originally Posted by Oftencold View Post
    Please review the Clinton era firings of far larger numbers or Federal prosecutors for political reasons.
    And for about the 501st time:

    "Although Bush and President Bill Clinton each dismissed nearly all U.S. attorneys upon taking office, legal experts and former prosecutors say the firing of a large number of prosecutors in the middle of a term appears to be unprecedented and threatens the independence of prosecutors."

    Former acting attorney general Stuart Gerson, meanwhile, wrote that it "is customary for a President to replace U.S. Attorneys at the beginning of a term. Ronald Reagan replaced every sitting U.S. Attorney when he appointed his first Attorney General. President Clinton, acting through me as Acting AG, did the same thing, even with few permanent candidates in mind."

    "Although Bill Clinton ordered the wholesale removal of U.S. attorneys when he took office to remove Republican holdovers, his replacement appointees stayed for his second term."

    So Is This U.S. Attorney Purge Unprecedented Or Not? - Public Eye - CBS News

  3. #23
    Passionate
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    03-07-11 @ 04:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    15,675

    Re: E-Mails Show Larger White House Role in Prosecutor Firings

    Yes, this is a totally non issue. That's why Bush's Attorney General (Mukasey) appointed a special prosecutor to address whether there is any criminal wrongdoing. Nope, nothing here, so let's waste the taxpayer's money and conduct an investigation on nothing.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/30/wa...0attorney.html


  4. #24
    Guru
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Northeast
    Last Seen
    11-03-11 @ 08:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    2,834

    Re: E-Mails Show Larger White House Role in Prosecutor Firings

    Quote Originally Posted by Scorpion89 View Post
    First Off hazel we did find WMDS this I know for a fact since I was one of the folks who were looking for them prior to the invasion and second guess what the White House can firer and hire fed. Prosc. this has been the norm for a very long time but if you want to have this Witch Hunt great lets bring in Mr. Clinton and discuss all the firings he did of Fed Prosc.

    Way to be a HyproPartisian Hack

    Jumping in late. Clinton's firing of all the federal prosecutors when he entered office is a false equivalency. It's normal for a president to fire his predecessor's federal attorney's when he comes in office. Reagan did it, Bush Sr did it, George W did it to Clinton. That's the norm. What's not the norm is firing your own appointees then making up an excuse why. Then lying under oath about it.

    You have two separate problems. The conduct that Bradley Schlozeman and Monica Goodling showed was appalling. They violated ethics by making hirings political. If this wasn't such a big scandal why did 9 senior staff members at DOJ resign including the AG, DAG, AAG, Chief of Staff, Deputy Chief of Staff. Obviously this was a big problem

  5. #25
    Guru
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Northeast
    Last Seen
    11-03-11 @ 08:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    2,834

    Re: E-Mails Show Larger White House Role in Prosecutor Firings

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord View Post
    What federal statute precludes this? Title what? Chapter what? section what?
    Well it can be said that this could be obstruction of justice. Carol Lam had been working on some high profile investigations including bringing down Duke Cunningham, and 3rd in Charge at the CIA Dusty Foggo

  6. #26
    Guru
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Northeast
    Last Seen
    11-03-11 @ 08:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    2,834

    Re: E-Mails Show Larger White House Role in Prosecutor Firings

    Quote Originally Posted by aps View Post
    Yes, this is a totally non issue. That's why Bush's Attorney General (Mukasey) appointed a special prosecutor to address whether there is any criminal wrongdoing. Nope, nothing here, so let's waste the taxpayer's money and conduct an investigation on nothing.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/30/wa...0attorney.html

    Nothing here? That's not what the times article said:

    An internal Justice Department investigation concluded Monday that political pressure drove the firings of several federal prosecutors in a 2006 purge, but said that the refusal of major players at the White House and the department to cooperate in the year-long inquiry produced significant “gaps” in its understanding of the events.
    The white house had refused to cooperate in the investigation

    More troubling, the investigation concluded that, despite the denials of the administration at the time of the controversy, political considerations played a part in the firings of at least four of the nine prosecutors
    So Gonzales and company lied when they made up alternative excuses.

  7. #27
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Last Seen
    12-26-10 @ 06:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,083

    Re: E-Mails Show Larger White House Role in Prosecutor Firings

    Quote Originally Posted by Scorpion89 View Post
    First Off hazel we did find WMDS this I know for a fact since I was one of the folks who were looking for them prior to the invasion and second guess what the White House can firer and hire fed. Prosc. this has been the norm for a very long time but if you want to have this Witch Hunt great lets bring in Mr. Clinton and discuss all the firings he did of Fed Prosc.

    Way to be a HyproPartisian Hack
    Please cite a credible source for this claim.

    And "WMD" is defined as nuclear warheads which have the capacity to reach America's allies or even American soil, in Bush's own words.

    I will wait with baited breath for your reply.

  8. #28
    Sage
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    08-27-09 @ 08:41 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,344

    Re: E-Mails Show Larger White House Role in Prosecutor Firings

    Quote Originally Posted by PogueMoran View Post
    Well it can be said that this could be obstruction of justice. Carol Lam had been working on some high profile investigations including bringing down Duke Cunningham, and 3rd in Charge at the CIA Dusty Foggo
    What federal statute? Title what? Chapter what? section what?

    If folks are going to argue the attorney firings as a criminal matter, there needs to be a specific statute alleged to have been violated. Crimes are specific things, and they violate specific laws.

    What specific laws do you claim the attorney firings violated?

  9. #29
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:04 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,543

    Re: E-Mails Show Larger White House Role in Prosecutor Firings

    Quote Originally Posted by Orius View Post
    And "WMD" is defined as nuclear warheads which have the capacity to reach America's allies or even American soil, in Bush's own words.
    That's asinine.
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  10. #30
    Guru
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Northeast
    Last Seen
    11-03-11 @ 08:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    2,834

    Re: E-Mails Show Larger White House Role in Prosecutor Firings

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord View Post
    What federal statute? Title what? Chapter what? section what?

    If folks are going to argue the attorney firings as a criminal matter, there needs to be a specific statute alleged to have been violated. Crimes are specific things, and they violate specific laws.

    What specific laws do you claim the attorney firings violated?
    Sure lets play. Lets take David Iglesias who got political pressure from a senator and congressman both republicans. Pressure was put on him to make decisions on pending investigations. The question is if David Iglesias was fired to affect the outcome of pending legal matters. If he was fired for that cause which is likely that would constitute obstruction of justice. 18 USC 1503(a), 1505, 1515(c)(2).

    Also if this was retaliation for him not bringing more false voter fraud cases that would violate the Hatch Act 18 usc 606

    Also if this was about not going after enough democrats especially with the timeline of this being before the election this would be an attempt to influence the elections in violation of 5 USC 7323 (a)(1)

    Then there's also if the firing of any of the attorneys was to bring in people who were more compliant with the preceding agenda this would constitute obstructing government proceeding in violation of 18 usc 1505 and 18 usc 1512(c)(2)

    Then there's the testimony during the hearings where you had many of the personnel giving conflicting answers which may amount to perjury, making false statements, or obstruction of congressional proceedings.

    There's plenty more to pick from

Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345 ... 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
  •