• 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

jamesrage said:
Do they have him on video or tape telling them to go commit a crime or is this just politically motivated accusations?
Click to expand...

I don't know. Is the investigation over?
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
Nice dodge.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but was I obligated to answer the question? Obligated to answer a question where the correct answer is self-evident?

And you're whining about a poster dodging a question with a self-evident answer that is quite necessarily meaningless?

:roll:
 
jamesrage said:
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?
Click to expand...

I won't care if he fires them. It's his call. That's part of being President. I didn't care when Clinton did.. I take that back, I got in a huff till my father explained it to me and I went "oh.. got it".

Some others might throw a fit, but it would be a misguided fit.
 
danarhea said:
It's about time. Politics has absolutely no place in the Justice Department.
Click to expand...

Nonsense.

Politics has EVERYTHING to do with the hirings and firings. And every president has done it and will do it.

And why did Gonzales have to claim that the firings were done with no coordination with the White House? That’s absurd. Why shouldn’t there be White House involvement? That is nothing to be defensive about. Does anyone imagine that Janet Reno fired all 93 U.S. attorneys in March 1993, giving them all of 10 days to clear out, without White House involvement?

The Bush administration fired eight. Democrats are charging this was done for reasons of politics, and that politics have no place in the legal system. This is laughable. U.S. attorneys are appointed by the president — and, by tradition, are recommended by home state politicians of the same party, not by a group of judges or a committee of the American Bar Association. Which makes their appointment entirely political.

Gonzales Must Go by Charles Krauthammer on National Review Online
Click to expand...

What these hearings are about is ALL POLITICS.

They want to nail Gonzo et al for LYING about the nature of the firings. It's like a tit for tat with Clinton's lying about his affair with Monica. The deed isn't what the prosecution is about. It's the lie afterwards to cover up the
deed.

What Gonzo should have said was "that U.S. attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president and the president wanted them replaced?"[IBID]

PERIOD.
 
aps said:
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.
Click to expand...

Link?

.....
 
MrVicchio said:
I won't care if he fires them. It's his call. That's part of being President. I didn't care when Clinton did.. I take that back, I got in a huff till my father explained it to me and I went "oh.. got it".

Some others might throw a fit, but it would be a misguided fit.
Click to expand...

And you learned a valuable lesson about being an adult, right?

These Democrats are acting like children. Adults would exercise some restraint, but even older Americans like Brokaw, Matthews, and others are pissing themselves about prosecuting Bush on criminal charges.

It takes being an adult to exercise some personal restraint. These Obamabots have no such persoanl restraint, they're more like the teeny-weenies passing out whenever the Jonas Brothers show up on a magazine cover.
 
JMak said:
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.
Click to expand...

Under our system of government, the primary check against prosecutorial abuse is a political one. The prosecutors who exercise this awesome discretion are selected, and can be removed, by a President whom the people have trusted enough to elect. Moreover, when crimes are not investigated and prosecuted fairly, nonselectively, with a reasonable [p729] sense of proportion, the President pays the cost in political damage to his administration. If federal prosecutors "pick people that [they] thin[k] [they] should get, rather than cases that need to be prosecuted," if they amass many more resources against a particular prominent individual, or against a particular class of political protesters, or against members of a particular political party, than the gravity of the alleged offenses or the record of successful prosecutions seems to warrant, the unfairness will come home to roost in the Oval Office. I leave it to the reader to recall the examples of this in recent years. That result, of course, was precisely what the Founders had in mind when they provided that all executive powers would be exercised by a single Chief Executive. As Hamilton put it, "[t]he ingredients which constitute safety in the republican sense are a due dependence on the people, and a due responsibility." Federalist No. 70, p. 424. The President is directly dependent on the people, and, since there is only one President, he is responsible. The people know whom to blame, whereas "one of the weightiest objections to a plurality in the executive . . . is that it tends to conceal faults and destroy responsibility." Id. at 427.
Click to expand...

Says it all.
 
Middleground said:
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?
Click to expand...

Completely.

The way that things like this are supposed to be dealt with is at the polls. If people are furious about this, they should push for Obama to be impeached. If Congress won't do it, they should vote Congress out.

That's how these things are supposed to be handled.
 
RightinNYC said:
Completely.

The way that things like this are supposed to be dealt with is at the polls. If people are furious about this, they should push for Obama to be impeached. If Congress won't do it, they should vote Congress out.

That's how these things are supposed to be handled.
Click to expand...

Now don't tell that to the liberals. Polls are such quaint things when you have judges that can easily and simply resolve all of our political questions, right? :rofl

Until this month it was much easier for liberals to enact their preferred policies via the courts than it was at the ballot box. Now they've convinced themselves that "I won" in November means that your campaign blasting Bush for expanding the national debt was really a campaign to ramp up deficit spending for years to come, that your campaign to close Gitmo, end rendition, and withdraw from Iraq immediately was really a campaign to keep Gitmo open, continue rendition, and stay in Iraq.

Seriously, I'm not a psychiatrist, but there must be some sort of clinical description for the mental disorder that permits individuals to think like that.
 
JMak said:
And you learned a valuable lesson about being an adult, right?

These Democrats are acting like children. Adults would exercise some restraint, but even older Americans like Brokaw, Matthews, and others are pissing themselves about prosecuting Bush on criminal charges.

It takes being an adult to exercise some personal restraint. These Obamabots have no such persoanl restraint, they're more like the teeny-weenies passing out whenever the Jonas Brothers show up on a magazine cover.
Click to expand...

I was like... 16 at the time, but yes.
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
I don't know. Is the investigation over?
Click to expand...

I think that if they actually had anything they would have revealed it now. I think everyone is jumping of the He's guilty bandwagon because of their dislike/hatred for the man. People make politically motivate accusations all the time.Obama is a muslim,Bush lied to get us into Iraq, Obama is not a natural born American citizen, Bush stole the elections, Obama's wife said some racist ****, Bush went AWOL and a bunch of other politically motivated accusations.
 
MrVicchio said:
I was like... 16 at the time, but yes.
Click to expand...

I learned the same lesson from my own father. And it's simply, lets the adults handle the problem.

Our youthful exuberance is just that and mostly ignorant. It's no surprise that far more people tend to become conservative as they grow older then they do become liberal. Liberalism at its heart is simply irrational exuberance.
 
jamesrage said:
I think that if they actually had anything they would have revealed it now. I think everyone is jumping of the He's guilty bandwagon because of their dislike/hatred for the man. People make politically motivate accusations all the time.Obama is a muslim,Bush lied to get us into Iraq, Obama is not a natural born American citizen, Bush stole the elections, Obama's wife said some racist ****, Bush went AWOL and a bunch of other politically motivated accusations.
Click to expand...

You forgot Clinton didn't have sex with that woman. Wasn't that a politically motivated accusation. I mean, it couldn't have been true, right? :roll:

SOP is to declare a political witch hunt.
 
JMak said:
I learned the same lesson from my own father. And it's simply, lets the adults handle the problem.

Our youthful exuberance is just that and mostly ignorant. It's no surprise that far more people tend to become conservative as they grow older then they do become liberal. Liberalism at its heart is simply irrational exuberance.
Click to expand...

You don't know enough about "liberalism" to express an opinion. After all, isn't the the first requirement for conservatives to disconnect your brain and tune in to the Hive?
 
Do any of you cons know what a investigation is or the meaning of the word, investigation? :shock:
 
Middleground said:
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?
Click to expand...

What an amusing example; yet it is a vacuum of any facts in this case.
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
You forgot Clinton didn't have sex with that woman. Wasn't that a politically motivated accusation. I mean, it couldn't have been true, right? :roll:

SOP is to declare a political witch hunt.
Click to expand...

How trite and simplistic, yet keeping in character for you; Clinton's problems didn't come from having sex with someone, they came about when he LIED under OATH about his immoral and wrongful behavior.

Carry on. :roll:
 
Truth Detector said:
How trite and simplistic, yet keeping in character for you; Clinton's problems didn't come from having sex with someone, they came about when he LIED under OATH about his immoral and wrongful behavior.

Carry on. :roll:
Click to expand...

It's not illegal when the President does it apparently.

His mistake was testifying. That seems to be what you guys are afraid of. You are worried they might LIE under OATH about their immoral and wrongful behavior.
 
aps said:
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.
[/url]
Click to expand...


Improper is a very subjective word here. And after reading the report its pretty obvious that they are going for subjective reasoning. At no point do they point to any statute or policy stating anything to back up their statements. In fact there are alot of "shoulds" and "coulds" in their report. I'm looking a section 1.D last paragraph and doing a face palm. You don't submit your suggestions to procedures in a policy with which you are investigating. Gaah!

More importantly, the investigation is showing that Gonzales had less and less input into the actual terminations. Its looking like the report is blaming lack of supervison for the entire event. So much for conspiracy. Looks like Kyle Sampson and other subordinates are going to burn for this.

Section IV.A paragraph 1- We believe that Attorney General Gonzales bears primary responsibility for the flawed U.S. Attorney removal process and the resulting turmoil that it created. This was not a simple personnel matter that should be delegated to subordinate officials – it was an unprecedented removal of a group of high-level Department officials that was certain to raise concerns if not handled properly. Such an undertaking warranted close supervision by the Attorney General, as well as the Deputy Attorney General. Gonzales did not provide such supervision, nor did he ensure that the Deputy Attorney General provided the necessary oversight.
Click to expand...


IV.A paragraph 4 -Even after the removals, Gonzales said he still did not know why certain of the U.S. Attorneys had been removed. For example, Gonzales told us that he had no recollection of being consulted about Graves’s removal. Gonzales also told us he did not recall having any discussions with Sampson about Griffin replacing Cummins, who was the second U.S. Attorney told to resign.
Click to expand...


Sorry but it doesn't look like they will get very far with this. There is some speculation but nothing of substance. The overall report looks like its treating the issue as a procedural screwup.
 
From: Bush administration U.S. attorney firings controversy/Firings and activities of fired U.S. attorneys - Congresspedia

Mid-term firings of U.S. attorneys were highly unusual, according to CRS and McClatchy

According to a CRS report published in February 2007 in order to "to ascertain how often, prior to 2007, U.S. attorneys left office before completing their four-year terms without a change in presidential administration," U.S. attorneys appointed and confirmed by a presidential administration generally stay on for the entire length of the administration. Most of those that have voluntarily resigned before their term ended, however, cited personal reasons such as seeking other positions or did so amidst allegations of "questionable conduct." [5]

Many U.S. attorneys continue to serve after the administration leaves office. However, U.S. attorneys serve "at the pleasure of the president," meaning that the president has the right to terminate their appointments at any time. According to a McClatchy news article dated March 13, 2007, "mass firings of U.S. attorneys are fairly common when a new president takes office, but not in a second-term administration," as was the case with the George W. Bush firings. [6]

According to the CRS report, in the past 25 years, with the exception of the most recent eight, only two U.S. Attorneys have been "apparently dismissed by the President." Both cases were under the Reagan Administration.
Click to expand...

So much for this "happening all the time", ehh? :roll:

Sen. Dianne Feinstein has stated that, "If any U.S. attorney were removed because of a public corruption investigation or prosecution, this could well comprise obstruction of justice."
Click to expand...

"obstruction of justice"... Hmmm... isn't that against the law? I'd bet that if a person were suspected of committing "obstruction of justice" an investigation might ensue and a prosecution would not be unusual, ehh?

Possible rules/legal violations by members of Congress

At the hearings, several of the fired attorneys said that they had been contacted by members of Congress and/or their staffs regarding ongoing investigations. These actions appeared to violate both House and Senate ethics rules. [26]

Rep. Heather Wilson (R-N.M.)

As of late 2006, David Iglesias was the U.S. attorney for New Mexico. Around this time, he received phone calls from both Sen. Pete Domenici (R-N.M.) and Rep. Heather Wilson (R-N.M.) regarding information about an ongoing political corruption investigation of a local Democrat, who he ultimately decided not to prosecute. Iglesias testified that he felt “leaned on” and “sickened” by the contacts. [27]

Wilson’s actions appeared to violate House rules. Chapter 7 of the House ethics manual prohibits members from contacting executive or agency officials regarding the merits of matters under their formal consideration. House rules (see House rules) also state that if a member wants to affect the outcome of a matter in litigation, the member can file a brief with the court, make a floor statement, or insert a statement into the congressional record. Directly contacting officials to influence an ongoing investigation is not permitted. [28]

In addition, House rules declare that a member may not even contact a prosecutor with the intent of simply requesting “background information” or a “status report” because the House believes that such requests “may in effect be an indirect or subtle effort to influence the substantive outcome of the proceedings.” [29]

Lastly, Wilson’s conduct may have violated the requirement that members conduct themselves in a manner that “reflects creditably on the House.” In the past, then-House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) was admonished for asking an executive branch employee to engage in an activity having an “impermissible political purpose.” [30]

On the basis of these potential violations, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) called for an Ethics Committee investigation into Wilson. [31]

Sen. Pete Domenici (R-N.M.)

Following Iglesias’ allegation that Domenici pressured him about the pace of the investigation of a New Mexico Democrat, Domenici initially denied speaking to him. He stated “I have no idea what he’s talking about.” Later, however, he admitted calling Iglesias, stating “I asked Mr. Iglesias if he could tell me what was going on in that investigation and give me an idea of what time frame we were looking at.” [32]

Domenici’s actions appear to have violated Senate rules. In a discussion of Senate Rule 43, the Senate Ethics Manual states that “[t]he general advice of the Ethics Committee concerning pending court actions is that Senate offices should refrain from intervening in such legal actions . . . until the matter has reached a resolution in the courts.” The manual also indicates that senators should not consult with an agency regarding any enforcement or investigative matter. [33]

In a request for a Senate Ethics Committee investigation, CREW alleges that Domenici violated Rule 43 by pressuring Iglesias to “act quickly on a pending corruption investigation.” In addition, because Domenici made the call shortly before the November 2006 congressional elections, he may have violated the clause restricting members from contacting agencies on the basis of political considerations. [34]

On March 7, 2007, Domenici hired Lee Blalack, formerly an attorney for former Rep. Duke Cunningham (R-Calif.), as his legal counsel. [35]

The Senate Ethics Committee confirmed suspicions that Domenici was the subject of a "preliminary inquiry" in the language of a resolution passed on April 17, 2007. The "inquiry" is investigating alleged communication between Domenici and fired U.S. Attorney David Iglesias. [36]

Rep. Doc Hastings (R-Wash.)

During the March 6 testimony, fired Washington attorney John McKay said that Rep. Doc Hastings’ (R-Wash) senior staffer, Ed Cassidy, called him to inquire about whether or not any investigations were underway regarding voter fraud in the hotly-contested Washington gubernatorial race in 2004 (won by Democrat Christine Gregoire). [37]

During the call, McKay reminded Cassidy that calling to recommend a federal investigation would be improper. According to McKay, Cassidy "agreed it would be improper" and ended the call. McKay immediately told his staff about the call and agreed with them that "I had stopped Mr. Cassidy from doing anything improper." He continued, however, that he "was concerned and dismayed by the call." [38]

Also during his testimony, McKay said that when he made a bid to be a federal judge in 2006, he was asked by former White House counsel Harriet Miers and deputy counsel William Kelley to explain "criticism that (he) mishandled the 2004 governor's election."
Click to expand...

From: Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy

The dismissal of U.S. Attorneys controversy is a United States political scandal initiated by the unprecedented[1] midterm dismissal of seven United States Attorneys on December 7, 2006 by the George W. Bush administration's Department of Justice. Congressional investigations focused on whether the Department of Justice and the White House were using the U.S. Attorney positions for political advantage. Allegations were that some of the attorneys were targeted for dismissal to impede investigations of Republican politicians or that some were targeted for their failure to initiate investigations that would damage Democratic politicians or hamper Democratic-leaning voters.
Click to expand...

The U.S. Attorneys controversy touches upon a wide range of issues. The U.S. Attorneys, in their pursuit of justice, wield enormous power. Their political impartiality in deciding which cases to prosecute and in arguing those cases before judges and juries with diverse views is essential.
Click to expand...

Is that really such a difficult idea for neo-cons to comprehend?

Changed interim appointment law in 2006

As the controversy emerged, U.S. Senators were concerned about a little-noticed provision in the re-authorization of the USA PATRIOT Act in 2006 which eliminated the 120-day term limit on interim appointments of U.S. Attorneys made by the United States Attorney General to fill vacancies. The change gave the Attorney General greater appointment powers than the President and undermined the confirmation authority of the Senate. Presidential appointees must be confirmed by the Senate, but the Attorney's General did not require Senate confirmation.[28] The U.S. Senate was concerned that, in dismissing the U.S. Attorneys, the administration planned to fill the vacancies with its own choices, thus bypassing not only the Senate confirmation, but also the traditional consultation with Senators in the selection process. Congress rescinded the provision by very large majorities in March 2007.
Click to expand...

Again, the Dems have to clean up after the crooked Repukes and restore the intent of the U.S. Constitution back into the law.

The Bush administration issued changing and contradictory statements about the timeline of the planning of the firings, persons who ordered the firings, and reasons for the firings.
Click to expand...

So, did the entire Bush administration have bad memories or were they... just a bunch of liars from the beginning? :roll:

So, we have established that it is NOT the "firings" that might be illegal, per say but, the unethical and illegal actions expected of these otherwise honest and ethical attorneys, by the office of the President of the United States, that is the problem. Ohhhhhhhh....... :2wave:

There is so much more on these sites and more.
 
JMak said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom