• 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!

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/washington/30attorney.html

:2brickwal

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.
 
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:roll:

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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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
 
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
About damn time. Now, care to make a case for any of those violations?

You're getting the hang of this, though, so that's definitely progress.
 
About damn time. Now, care to make a case for any of those violations?

You're getting the hang of this, though, so that's definitely progress.

About damn time? I've always posted my sources and made a case you just asked for specifics on this just now. I already started to make a case on the Iglesias firing. Once again though as the previous article states there has been little cooperation from Bush administration personnel. So making a case without their testimony or one of them getting rolled all we have to look at is the actions. There is a probability that they committed ethics violations at the least.
 
About damn time? I've always posted my sources and made a case you just asked for specifics on this just now. I already started to make a case on the Iglesias firing. Once again though as the previous article states there has been little cooperation from Bush administration personnel. So making a case without their testimony or one of them getting rolled all we have to look at is the actions. There is a probability that they committed ethics violations at the least.
So you have no case to make?
 
So you have no case to make?

Maybe later when I have more time. There is a probability though that there was a crime committed and Goodling and Schlozeman already got nailed on the hatch act. So this isn't a clearcut case of pleasuring the president as some people make it
 
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

There's also Title 28 of the United States Code section 541. US CODE: Title 28,541. United States attorneys

The president can remove the US Attorney if he regards it for the "public good." FindLaw | Cases and Codes

Removal for poltical purposes wouldn't be "public good."

Celticlord, why don't you read the report yourself? http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/special/s0809a/final.pdf

It's all here. Educate yourself instead of asking others to do so.
 
Last edited:
Maybe later when I have more time. There is a probability though that there was a crime committed and Goodling and Schlozeman already got nailed on the hatch act. So this isn't a clearcut case of pleasuring the president as some people make it
The probability is there is insufficient evidence to assert criminal misconduct.

Was it bad judgment and a bad business all around....probably. Was it criminal, not likely. The case hasn't been made. The evidence just is not compelling.
 
The probability is there is insufficient evidence to assert criminal misconduct.

Was it bad judgment and a bad business all around....probably. Was it criminal, not likely. The case hasn't been made. The evidence just is not compelling.

The question is how much of the evidence have you actually read on it. Did you listen to the hearings? All the contradictions between the various senior staff. The way the administration kept changing the rational for the firings points more towards criminal conduct otherwise why lie about the reasons?
 
The question is how much of the evidence have you actually read on it. Did you listen to the hearings? All the contradictions between the various senior staff. The way the administration kept changing the rational for the firings points more towards criminal conduct otherwise why lie about the reasons?

LOL I love how people who did NOT sit in on Scooter Libby's trial determined he was not guilty.

Hey, they read a story here and there about the trial and they know enough to declare a wrongful finding. I just don't get that mentality.
 
The question is how much of the evidence have you actually read on it. Did you listen to the hearings? All the contradictions between the various senior staff. The way the administration kept changing the rational for the firings points more towards criminal conduct otherwise why lie about the reasons?
How does it prove criminal conduct? You are not making a case here.
 
It's all here. Educate yourself instead of asking others to do so.
Make your case. Don't let others carry your water. Make your case.
 
Make your case. Don't let others carry your water. Make your case.


Frankly, I don't care to make a case. I'll let the special prosecutor make a decision as to whether there was any criminal wrongdoing. This woman has a very good reputation. I'm just happy the Justice Department chose to investigate this. I'll accept whatever Dannehy concludes.
 
LOL I love how people who did NOT sit in on Scooter Libby's trial determined he was not guilty.

Hey, they read a story here and there about the trial and they know enough to declare a wrongful finding. I just don't get that mentality.

Indeed what I love more is all the people complaining about Clinton who was found not guilty and still claim he's a felon while Scooter Libby who was actually guilty and they say he isn't.

The DOJ did violate the hatch act in their hiring practices. The inspector general found that in his investigation. The key being here that the justice department was politicized. That's the problem.

Also you have the report congress did with what they could from the investigation:
http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/contempt_memo_072407.pdf
 
Remember the Bush administration never did anything wrong and was gods send for the American people..! :roll:
 
Indeed what I love more is all the people complaining about Clinton who was found not guilty and still claim he's a felon while Scooter Libby who was actually guilty and they say he isn't.

The DOJ did violate the hatch act in their hiring practices. The inspector general found that in his investigation. The key being here that the justice department was politicized. That's the problem.

Also you have the report congress did with what they could from the investigation:
http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/contempt_memo_072407.pdf

Personally, for me, I find DOJ's report more credible. One, it's far more detailed. Two, it was created by George Bush's DOJ. With Congress, one cannot help but see a more partisan perspective.

What Goodling and Sampson did was just despicable. Have they lost their law licenses?
 
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.
Please source.
 
Why is this a story?

Federal prosecutors are appointed by the administration and serve at the presidents leisure. They can be fired by the president at any time, for any reason.

You Bush bashers on the left, just won't let things go... and it's pathetic.

.
 
Wait a sec, I thought we didn't find any WMDs in Iraq.

Is there documentation about this? I'd love to read it. Not saying you're wrong, only that I haven't heard about any WMDs being found.

We did find WMD in Iraq, but we did not "stock piles" of WMD like the intelligence reports indicated that they had.

.
 
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?
Do you have me on ignore or something? See six posts above yours.

Why is this a story?

Federal prosecutors are appointed by the administration and serve at the presidents leisure. They can be fired by the president at any time, for any reason.
C'mon people. Read *then* reply.
 
Personally, for me, I find DOJ's report more credible. One, it's far more detailed. Two, it was created by George Bush's DOJ. With Congress, one cannot help but see a more partisan perspective.

What Goodling and Sampson did was just despicable. Have they lost their law licenses?

Wait. You say the report by Bush's DOJ investigating itself would not be partisan? This is like letting Colonel Sanders watch over your chicken coup while you're away. The DOJ was obliterated under Gonzales' reign. The civil rights division was watered down and understaffed and was left in complete disarray. I'd be more likely to posit that the DOJ investigation of the DOJ is more likely to be biased and partisan than the congressional report.
 
Back
Top Bottom