DEVELOPING STORY: The Coming Constitutional Showdown on Capitol Hill

[AndyMarquisLIVE]

I should've been more clear RP, that's some red I got this morning. I just thought it was funny

 

[Pete]

Clint Eastwood - Heartbreak Ridge

 

[Severa]

Vrai, Pete, ylexot, Lenny, Larry...

Am I a Bush lover? Am I a right winger like Kerad and Idiot claim? Have I consistently favored Mr. Bush's policies?

I didn't get named in this but I'll throw my 2 cents in...

NO you are not a right winger. You're a liberal that doesn't go into a flying f**king PMS on steroids/my autistic son in full meltdown mode rage whenever Bush says something. You, Andy, actually look at what Bush has to say before you opine on the matter. That's something I wish more on the left would do, but I'm not holding my breath waiting for that to happen.

 

[RadioPatrol]

I should've been more clear RP, that's some red I got this morning. I just thought it was funny

No Sweat ...... I was not reading properly hehehehe

and yeah is was funny ..........

 

[Kerad]

...of them was absolutely 100% political, just like Bubba's first day on the job when he fired them all without even the pretext of poor job performance. They are political appointees.

Next question.

That's what makes this case different....these weren't the usual "new administration" firings. These were firings of Bush appointees...much later and under different circumstances. Were they all political firings? Probably not...it's reasonable to think one or two probably deserved to be fired. But others...probably not so much.

Of course, I think the real reason the heat on is is because of this statement made by the President's lawyer..., err...I mean, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

"I would never, ever make a change in a United States attorney for political reasons or if it would in any way jeopardize an ongoing serious investigation. I just would not do it."

A statement that appears to go against some of the the evidence provided by emails and performance reports.

However, since there's nothing to hide, the President's people refuse to speak of the matter while under oath. Why? Because...once under oath, one of two things would happen: Either the person tells the truth, or the person tells a lie.

The White House wants neither of these two things to happen.

 

[AndyMarquisLIVE]

That's what makes this case different....these weren't the usual "new administration" firings. These were firings of Bush appointees...much later and under different circumstances. Were they all political firings? Probably not...it's reasonable to think one or two probably deserved to be fired. But others...probably not so much.

Of course, I think the real reason the heat on is is because of this statement made by the President's lawyer..., err...I mean, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.


A statement that appears to go against some of the the evidence provided by emails and performance reports.

However, since there's nothing to hide, the President's people refuse to speak of the matter while under oath. Why? Because...once under oath, one of two things would happen: Either the person tells the truth, or the person tells a lie.

The White House wants neither of these two things to happen.

You speak of the prosecution of Duke Cunningham, who is out anyway, right?

 

[dia look]

He's gay?

Oh wait - I know - he's got more important things to do.

You know, kind of like if I asked YOU to testify under oath on national televsion about nothing of consequence, for hours on end.


There's something else?

funny you should say that, didn't he say that was the reason he didn't go to Vietnam?

 

[Kerad]

You speak of the prosecution of Duke Cunningham, who is out anyway, right?

I believe one of the attorneys fired did handle the Duke Cunningham case.
Democrats and Republicans both are concerned that there was a bit of "Stop investigating Republicans and start prosecuting Democrats!" going on here. The attorneys who ignored that "advice" were then sent packing.

 

[dia look]

I don't think there woudl have been any issue what so ever if they hadn't said they were fired for performance reasons, and then had to back-pedal when it turned out otherwise.

 

[SamSpade]

funny you should say that, didn't he say that was the reason he didn't go to Vietnam?

???

 

[dia look]

Karl Rove

 

[Idiot]

Fired U.S. attorneys ranked above peers in prosecutions

Fired U.S. attorneys ranked above peers in prosecutions

By LARA JAKES JORDAN
Associated Press

WASHINGTON — Six of the eight U.S. attorneys fired by the Justice Department ranked in the top third among their peers for the number of prosecutions filed last year, according to an analysis of federal records.

In addition, five of the eight were among the government's top performers in winning convictions.

The problem is the convictions are all against republicans.

 

[Idiot]

I believe one of the attorneys fired did handle the Duke Cunningham case.
Democrats and Republicans both are concerned that there was a bit of "Stop investigating Republicans and start prosecuting Democrats!" going on here. The attorneys who ignored that "advice" were then sent packing.

link

Lam firing linked to CIA probe

SAN DIEGO – New allegations have surfaced that former San Diego U.S. Attorney Carol Lam was fired in an attempt to shut down investigations stemming from the Randy “Duke” Cunningham scandal, it was reported Monday.

...

As a result, Lam also investigated two of Cunningham's associates: Brent Wilkes, a Poway-based defense contractor, and Kyle “Dusty” Foggo, a top CIA official who resigned May 8.

Wilkes was accused of bribing Cunningham and Foggo to get contracts for his companies. Wilkes and Foggo were indicted last month on several charges, including conspiracy and fraud.

Appearing on CBS' “Face The Nation,” Sunday, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said that on May 10, Lam “sent a notice to the Justice Department saying that there would be two search warrants sent in the case of Dusty Foggo and a defense contractor. The next day, an e-mail went from the Justice Department to the White House,” the Los Angeles Times reported.

The e-mail, from D. Kyle Sampson, former chief of staff to Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, said: “The real problem we have right now with Carol Lam ... leads me to conclude that we should have someone ready to be nominated on 11/18, the day her four-year term expires,” The Times reported.

How much more obvious could they be?

Sorry, but this bunch no longer deserves the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Larry Gude]

Right, so...

under different circumstances. Were they all political firings? Probably not...it's reasonable to think one or two probably deserved to be fired. But others...probably not so much.
.

...if Clinton fires everybody, obviously for political reasons, even if not one of them 'deserved' to be fired, that's cool because he did it in one fell swoop. If W fires a freaking handful, deserved or otherwise and tries to sugar coat it, that's bad. Yes?

 

[AndyMarquisLIVE]

link




How much more obvious could they be?

Sorry, but this bunch no longer deserves the benefit of the doubt.

Hey, numbnuts, he can fire whoever he wants. I don't see the big deal.

 

[ylexot]

The e-mail, from D. Kyle Sampson, former chief of staff to Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, said: “The real problem we have right now with Carol Lam ... leads me to conclude that we should have someone ready to be nominated on 11/18, the day her four-year term expires,”

I'd like to know what was said inside the "..."

 

[Idiot]

Hey, numbnuts, he can fire whoever he wants. I don't see the big deal.

The Mr. numbnuts to you.

Maybe you're right and he can legally fire whoever he wants, that doesn't make it ethical. Many politicians have paid a heavy price for doing things which are unethical but not necessarily illegal. Many politicians have lied to cover-up things that are unethical but not necessarily illegal. We have a right to know if our elected officials are doing things that are unethical.

There is certainly enough circumstantial evidence in several of the cases to warrant some questions being asked and answered under oath. If this was the first bit of funny business from this bunch instead of the thousandth I could see letting it go. But I don't trust these guys as far as I can throw my pick-up truck.

 

[SamSpade]

Ok, clarification here -

If I did something that was not illegal, but was unethical - why would it be necessary to form an investigation?

I mean, I'm assuming unethical means stuff like, I'm caught banging the secretary in the conference room (unethical) as opposed to stealing office supplies (illegal).

 

[Kerad]

...if Clinton fires everybody, obviously for political reasons, even if not one of them 'deserved' to be fired, that's cool because he did it in one fell swoop. If W fires a freaking handful, deserved or otherwise and tries to sugar coat it, that's bad. Yes?

Swapping them all out at the beginning of a new administration (particularly one where a change of parties has taken place) is S.O.P., as I understand it.

This is not...in the least.

 

[AndyMarquisLIVE]

Ok, clarification here -

If I did something that was not illegal, but was unethical - why would it be necessary to form an investigation?

I mean, I'm assuming unethical means stuff like, I'm caught banging the secretary in the conference room (unethical, illegal if your Mr. Clinton) as opposed to stealing office supplies (illegal).

The Republicans went on a witchhunt on Mr. Clinton and the Democrats are on a witchhunt against Mr. Bush. I'm opposed both ways.