DEVELOPING STORY: The Coming Constitutional Showdown on Capitol Hill

[Kerad]

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).

So, in your opinion...where should the loyalties of the U.S. attorneys lie? Should they be loyal to upholding the law, or protecting the party?

 

[Kerad]

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

You seem oblivious to the fact that it's not just Democrats who are having a problem with this.

 

[Pete]

You seem oblivious to the fact that it's not just Democrats who are having a problem with this.

And you seem oblivious to the fact that it is not just republicans who think it is a waste of time witch hunt too.

 

[SamSpade]

So, in your opinion...where should the loyalties of the U.S. attorneys lie? Should they be loyal to upholding the law, or protecting the party?

To uphold the law, of course. I think the tough thing is, if I fired somebody because I thought they smelled bad, and it's my right, then too friggin' bad. What I can tell however, is there's only supposition, for some of them. Until you have documentation saying "I fired this bozo because she went after Cunningham", it's just idle speculation.

I'm still trying to sort out exactly what was the reason each of them was fired. I mean, since it's not unusual for a new party to throw out all of the old appointees, I suppose there's always some party reason why a sitting attorney might get canned. I think I read that one got canned because he didn't actively pursue election fraud in Wahington state, and Republicans were a little p!ssed.

So as far as I can tell, there's no chance there's going to be any criminal charges, but like the Ken Starr stuff, it can keep dragging on with any tangent relevant until you hit something.

For example - d'you think the Scooter Libby thing was fair? Ostensibly the whole point of the investigation was to find out who outed Valerie Plame - but all they got was some aide who lied about what he said to whom about something or other - and the guy who actually outed Valerie Plame walks around without a charge. It's why I've hated congressional hearings for years, and I think they get a fair amount of ridicule on TV and movies - they're overly serious things that don't go anywhere and they're opportunities for narcissistic politicians to lecture witnesses rather than grill them.

In the final analysis, the whole thing is gonna land on some schmuck who misled someone about something because he feared for his job - but who actually hadn't done anything wrong about the situation in question.

I generally object to these fact-finding investigations because they seem to be generic witch hunts whose sole purpose is to find wrong doing. They'd never make it in an actual criminal investigation or court, because you'd actually have to have evidence of a actual crime.

 

[Idiot]

I mean, I'm assuming unethical means stuff like, I'm caught banging the secretary in the conference room...

Or getting a bj from an intern maybe?

 

[AndyMarquisLIVE]

You seem oblivious to the fact that it's not just Democrats who are having a problem with this.

I can go out and have sex with a 16 y/o girl somewhere. You might have a problem with it, but I can still tap it.

What wwould you do, change the law to 18? Then, how can you prosecute me if I violated a law BEFORE it was written?

 

[Kerad]

To uphold the law, of course. I think the tough thing is, if I fired somebody because I thought they smelled bad, and it's my right, then too friggin' bad. What I can tell however, is there's only supposition, for some of them. Until you have documentation saying "I fired this bozo because she went after Cunningham", it's just idle speculation......

Without going into the whole history of the thing again, I think that's pretty much where "we're" at on this one.

There seems to be plenty of smoke...so now enough people are wondering if there's a fire. A number of Bush-appointed attorneys were let go...attorneys who had good performance reports, who didn't seem to have any glaring reasons why they were let go. A bit of information comes out, hinting that certain Republicans weren't too pleased with investigations/convictions of fellow Republicans.

Questions get asked. Gonzales says that he would never fire attorneys for political reasons. Afterwards, more information comes out that yes, indeed poilitical pressue may have played a role. Emails....performance reports. Karl Rove's name.

Ooops.

So...time for more questions. Time to talk to some of the Bushies involved. Certainly answering questions under oath shouldn't be a problem, as the White House has denied involvement all along. Ooops. Yeah...the evidence shows there may have been some White House involvement.

Crap.

If the White House allows some Bushies to testify under oath, they'd have to tell the truth. Or lie. Ask Scooter Libbey how the lying strategery worked out for him.

No big deal...just don't lie. Certainly the White House isn't opposed to people knowing the truth....right?

Oh....they do have a problem with that. Huh.

Why is this a big deal?

Why is it important that the U.S. Attorneys have the independence to do their jobs, without fear of retribution from the White House if they happen to investigate/convict Republicans during the course of their duties?

I shouldn't have to ask that question.

 

[Pete]

I can go out and have sex with a 16 y/o girl somewhere. You might have a problem with it, but I can still tap it.

What wwould you do, change the law to 18? Then, how can you prosecute me if I violated a law BEFORE it was written?

expos factos

 

[AndyMarquisLIVE]

Without going into the whole history of the thing again, I think that's pretty much where "we're" at on this one.

There seems to be plenty of smoke...so now enough people are wondering if there's a fire. A number of Bush-appointed attorneys were let go...attorneys who had good performance reports, who didn't seem to have any glaring reasons why they were let go. A bit of information comes out, hinting that certain Republicans weren't too pleased with investigations/convictions of fellow Republicans.

Questions get asked. Gonzales says that he would never fire attorneys for political reasons. Afterwards, more information comes out that yes, indeed poilitical pressue may have played a role. Emails....performance reports. Karl Rove's name.

Ooops.

So...time for more questions. Time to talk to some of the Bushies involved. Certainly answering questions under oath shouldn't be a problem, as the White House has denied involvement all along. Ooops. Yeah...the evidence shows there may have been some White House involvement.

Crap.

If the White House allows some Bushies to testify under oath, they'd have to tell the truth. Or lie. Ask Scooter Libbey how the lying strategery worked out for him.

No big deal...just don't lie. Certainly the White House isn't opposed to people knowing the truth....right?

Oh....they do have a problem with that. Huh.

Why is this a big deal?

Why is it important that the U.S. Attorneys have the independence to do their jobs, without fear of retribution from the White House if they happen to investigate/convict Republicans during the course of their duties?

I shouldn't have to ask that question.

Why are wew having this investigation if no laws were broke?

 

[Idiot]

All US Attorneys take an oath of office that specifically forbids political partisanship.

The president may appoint them and he may be allowed to replace them at will but he doesn't pay their salary. You and I do. They work for us.

I don't like being lied to and I don't care if you have a "D" or an "R" behind your name.

 

[AndyMarquisLIVE]

All US Attorneys take an oath of office that specifically forbids political partisanship.

The president may appoint them and he may be allowed to replace them at will but he doesn't pay their salary. You and I do. They work for us.

I don't like being lied to and I don't care if you have a "D" or an "R" behind your name.

Sure you do forestal/slappy.

 

[AndyMarquisLIVE]

expos factos

Eh... forgot about that

 

[Idiot]

link

Dobbs: 'Showdown' really a battle of partisan buffoons

By Lou Dobbs
CNN

Editor's note: Lou Dobbs' commentary appears weekly on CNN.com

NEW YORK (CNN) -- An incompetent attorney general, who says he wasn't fully aware that nearly 10 percent of the U.S. attorneys who work for him throughout the country were being fired and permitted the 110,000-person Justice Department that he leads to give inaccurate information at best, or simply lie about it at worst, to the Congress and the American people, has the full confidence of the president who's lost the confidence of most people.

And this is what passes for a big-time, dramatic, historic constitutional crisis in 21st century America? You've got to be kidding. This is the most partisan, politically driven administration in history, and we're all supposed to be surprised by its conduct and motivation in the firing of these U.S. attorneys? Please.

...

This is the same Democratic-controlled Congress that millions of voters thought would be so vastly different from the last gaggle of partisan buffoons in the Republican-led 109th Congress. With almost 30,000 young Americans killed or wounded in Iraq, with a half-trillion dollars spent on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, this Congress can do no better than publicly fulminate in futility and bray endlessly without effect on the course and conduct of the war in Iraq. Is there no sense of proportion and higher purpose anywhere in Washington?

While this president's so-called free trade policies continue to bleed the nation and the economy of millions of jobs and add to a $5 trillion mountain of trade debt, and while our public schools continue to fail a generation of young Americans, this Congress chooses to invest its energy and time in pure partisan blather and cheap political theatrics.

...

The White House is behaving with utter contempt for Congress and Congress is acting without respect or regard for this president. Could it be that, at long last, they're both right?

Amen Lou.

 

[AndyMarquisLIVE]

link




Amen Lou.

Thank you for proving my point and contradicting yourself.

 

[RadioPatrol]

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.

Gee like Klinton Getting Head in the Oval Office, Sexually Harassing White House Interns ........ and lying about ?

http://www.coffeeshoptimes.com/barr1.html
http://www.eagleton.rutgers.edu/e-gov/e-politicalarchive-Clintonimpeach.htm

Guys married and can't keep his dick in his pants, but somehow cheating on his wife is not Unethical, or God for bid someone mentions immoral, ........... and Lying Under Oath is Illegal its called Perjury !!!!

 

[Larry Gude]

Damnit!!!

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.

Clinton was the first to just fire 'em all day 1 like that. GOP'ers were like "WTF?" at the time and the media was like "Nothing to see here."

Notice how every time someone is on TV declaring the end of days due to this 'horrible miscarriage of justice" they take great pains to explain this has never happened mid term before.

So again, how likely is it that all 100 or US attorneys were not involved in any politically sensitive cases when Bubba came rolling in? How likely is it that none of the new ones were political favors???

 

[Kerad]

Clinton was the first to just fire 'em all day 1 like that. GOP'ers were like "WTF?" at the time and the media was like "Nothing to see here."

Ronald Reagan...didn't he swap out most (if not all) during his?

 

[Larry Gude]

Thank you...

Ronald Reagan.

There is a difference, but I do not find it to be an important or material one. 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 Attorney General, did the same thing, even with few permanent candidates in mind. What is unusual about the current situation is that it happened in the middle of a term. However, all of the incumbents had served more than the four years presumed in their original commission and, I suggest, replacing them is entirely the prerogative of the executive, as each deposed U.S. Attorney has agreed.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/03/13/DI2007031300985.html


Gotta feel better now that serious people of real conscience are in charge, huh?

Let the witch hunt continue.

 

[SamSpade]

Clinton was the first to just fire 'em all day 1 like that. GOP'ers were like "WTF?" at the time and the media was like "Nothing to see here."

Notice how every time someone is on TV declaring the end of days due to this 'horrible miscarriage of justice" they take great pains to explain this has never happened mid term before.

So again, how likely is it that all 100 or US attorneys were not involved in any politically sensitive cases when Bubba came rolling in? How likely is it that none of the new ones were political favors???

There's been some murmuring in blogs saying that two attorneys out of the 93 were looking into Dan Rostenkowski's doings at the post office, and something about Whitewater - but there's some doubt about the rationale for eliminating all the US Attorneys just to get two. When Bill came into office, he definitely brought a huge posse to replace everyone. "Friends of Bill" were everywhere. It certainly would not have been inconsistent of him to just dismiss everyone.

However, even Wikipedia says that Carter dumped two USA's who were investigating Democrats - one of them from my old stomping grounds in PA, good old Dan Flood.

Is there any reason to suspect that politics NEVER plays a role in these appointments? I'm noticing there seems to be a serious conflict of interest here, no matter whose side you're on.

 

[Larry Gude]

Ps...

...Reagan replaced them one by one, not all at once. Clinton did that.