What is Digg?47 Comments
- JCSaint, on 10/10/2007, -6/+17If the DA's were fired because they did not pursue the investigation of Democrats strongly enough or investigated Republicans too strongly then a crime was committed. You cannot use law enforcement as an arm of a political apparatus. That's the central issue with the firings. Not simply that he let them go but that he did for partisan reasons.
- ReturnToFreedom, on 10/10/2007, -4/+12I can't believe that this is even up for debate. A real American would've investigated, impeached, and replaced this puppet long ago.
What we value as Americans is being challenged. This guy in charge of the department of "justice" even admitted to more secret domestic spying programs. How much does anyone want to bet they don't use a judge? I'll give you 10 to one odds, hell I'll give you 1000 to 1 odds. - fezzen, on 10/10/2007, -3/+10At this point, anything they can pin on the administration and make it stick is fine by me. They seem to have covered their tracks pretty well on the underhanded stuff they've been up to, but they keep ***** up the details on small ***** like this, and independent prosecution could end up bringing them down.
- Waiting2awake, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8 Why do you guys just not listen? If, as has been suggested, that they were fired because they were looking into republican corruption - then were fired that is obstruction of justice - that is a crime.
- PATSCRU, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7Would we just not try to do anything then?
- JohnReb, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2So what is the specific law cite you would put on the idictment? What specific law was broken?
- Crusader1145, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2The President has an absolute right to fire the attorneys for any reason, or no reason. If they aren't following his policies he can fire them. If he doesn't like the way they comb their hair, he can fire them. No one has asserted that these attorneys were fired to cover anything up or for any illegal purpose. There is no issue here.
Besides, lets not forget that one of the first things Clinton did was to fire ALL the state attorneys. I don't recall the left screaming about that one. - CannedMango, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3That's good!
Once they lose their executive privilege these guys are screwed. - ChristPissed, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3"They were fired because they were looking into republican corruption - then were fired that is obstruction of justice - that is a crime."
As we all know obstruction of justice is a serious crime. That is why this should be investigated "to wherever the evidence leads to" by the likes of Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald and a Grand Jury. - Crusader1145, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Arlen Spector is a fool and a gas bag that loves to hear himself talk. There's nothing here. He's a disgrace.
- thewhammy, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3I think the attorney firings stink to high heaven, but this announcement by Specter is just a political stunt. If Bush wants to fire the attorneys because they don't like nachos or part their hair on the wrong side, he can. U.S. Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president, so while you can take this to the "court of public opinion," there's nothing to PROSECUTE legally.
- Waiting2awake, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3 You really have your head buried don't you? I understand it is hard to see your counry slide into the *****, but try and act as if it is at least important to you...
Here is a free hint for you anyway - As long as Bush stops investigations, commutes sentences for people purgering themselves to protect someone in the Admin, refuses to testify under oath, and refuses to allow others to testify - there is every reason to suspect something - but answers aren't coming because of the above reasons...
or because we know you only listen to a certain view, I've got a quote for you from the past..... "The absence of evidence, isn't evidence of absence" - Cheney. - coolkatz321, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2The fact that he talked of a special prosecutor is very reminiscient of a previous president's administration... Nixon. Of course, the charges were being brought against Nixon, not his Attorney General, but that won't make a difference. The mere fact he asserted executive privileges is more than enough for Bush's humiliation-- if Supreme Court precedent has taught us anything, Bush's EP assertion will be overwhelmingly rejected.
- Crusader1145, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2What? What election was at stake in the firing of these attorneys? Bush isn't running. And if you don't think the Justice Department is just as politicized as the courts, the Congress or any other government agency I have a bridge I'd like to discuss with you.
- haydesigner, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3He can fire them if they are black.
He can fire them if they are jewish.
He can fire the ones that are gay.
He can fire them if they are not circumsized (both male and female).
He can fire the women with small boobs.
He can fire the other without Napolean's complex.
He can fire the ones smarter than he is.
See, nothing illegal here! - bubba9999, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3I figured this article was about Phil Spector. He doesn't put up with any *****, you know.
- obliviousfool, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1You are both being completely ignorant here. Look at the facts. The attorneys who were fired were the ones who had the ethics to refuse political barking orders. Look up David Iglesias' words on the subject. These attorneys have the power to bring bogus charges against political opponents, and the power to ignore valid cases against corrupt politicians. This power sways elections. Rove has talked about what he believes to be the swing states for '08, and the fired attorneys come mostly from those states. Bush isn't running? Well, duh. Are you that stupid? Do you think the Republicans want to lose the White House? Do you think the oil companies and big business want to lose the White House?
The justice department isn't supposed to be politicized! It's against the law you idiot!!!!!! Fine. Have it your way. Let's just have a dictator instead of a president. All hail presidente Next Rich Guy. - Crusader1145, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2No one has asserted these guys were fired to cover anything up. If you know of such a case please post it. This is a non-issue.
- Waiting2awake, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1 No one, not even the President has the right to obstruct justice. It isn't the firing - and if they were not investigating republican corruption charges - then you are correct that he can dismiss them. But by dismissing them, as is alleged, while they were investigating republican corruption - is obstruction of justice.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Using the power of the US Justice Dept for personal or political gain is absolutely a crime baby. Sorry
- jroyale, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1If the firings were an attempt to subvert justice - there damn will were crimes committed here.
- Waiting2awake, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2 so you two have a lot in common ?
Seriously, the guy could be wearing a clown suit, juggling, while on a unicycle and it still doesn't change the fact that the Attorney General in America is a criminal like the bunch he is protecting. - CannedMango, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1wow... I'm getting dugg down.
Does this mean more people would rather have an all-powerful president than a country where the best-interests of the citizens themselves are held as the highest priority? - JohnReb, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1No, waiting, it isn't.
The firings were within the right of the President. Congress can not force the President to keep anyone on his Cabinet or staff that he does not want. Last time they tried, they impeached Jackson to make him keep someone. The precedent set then means they can't so anything about it. (Just like the last impeachment established that Presidents can lie under oath.)
This is simple political harassment and a waste of my taxes. - Waiting2awake, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4 So true - and I mean it isn't like we charge murderers or anything right? The victim is dead already!!!
Sonofdy, I worry about you dude. - obliviousfool, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2The politicization of the justice department to steal elections is a dead end thing????
- cesig, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Bury it as a dupe and move on then. I didn't see the earlier story so this is new to me. If you don't like it, use the system in place already to fix it.
- Waiting2awake, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2 Why do you not listen or think? You are correct if you say there is no crime that we know of - that is why there are investigations. The investigation is what decides whether there is something actually wrong. The investigation is started when there is enough of a suspicion of something wrong.
Now, looking at the last 6 years can you honestly say there isn't enough suspicion to conduct an investigation? Honestly?
BTW - why is it if someone does nothing they are labeled as weak or do-nothings, but if they do something, they are labeled political stunt pullers? Nothing will ever change if you keep trying to slap down those few that are trying to save your country, because of politics's. This is a much larger issue. - Waiting2awake, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Because he did it at the beginning of the term - as does all Presidents as did Bush. These dismissals happened during the term - tell me how many did that?
The allegation, here, is that these people were fired because they were either investigating republican corruption or refused to go after Democrats. The second issue is less problematic than the first, but the first is by definition "obstruction of justice". - maz2331, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Uh... since the President has absolute firing authority at will for US Attorneys, and can pardon anyone he wants at will, who cares who, what, when, or why he fired anyone?
- jroyale, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2True, it will take longer than 18 months, but there are numerous reasons for Bush, Cheney, Rove and Abu to be imprisoned. The sooner the investigation starts, the better. There's no reason the that investigations need to stop once BushCo is out of office, just sayin'
- maz2331, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Isn't Phil Spector a member of the Whackaho tribe?
- digbird, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4there was already a post on this (a rawstory one --I'm so shocked). Digg is really getting swamped by dupes these days.
- jroyale, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1It's called obstruction of justice. If Bush's fired these attorneys in an attempt to influence ongoing investigation, he committed a crime.
- Mariachi94, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Bingo! jroyale FTW!
That is exactly right. - nongmo, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0I think this one:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00001503----000-.html
But maybe not. There's a whole US code section on "obstruction of justice" you can find for yourself. - maz2331, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0I just don't see Bush & Co. allowing another special prosecutor to be appointed. They got burned badly enough by the whole "Plame Affair" that they are just going to stonewall the hell out of anyone trying to dig into anything they do, especially since there is no way the Senate would remove them and let Nancy Pelosi become president.
- CannedMango, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Arlen Spector makes me proud because he puts partisan BS behind him to defend his *country* rather than defend his president.
American's don't realize how insane they sound when they say things like:
"You can't criticize him, he's our president."
"We have to show respect to our president."
"We should listen to him because he's the president."
Since when does being the president give you automatic respect? I think these people are confused and want a king rather than a president. The job as commander-in-chief is simply to run the country FOR the people in the best interest of the people, not to become some sort of demi-god.
People forget this every single day.... for reasons I can't quite grasp except for maybe that they don't really understand the world they live in and just do what they think other people want them to do. - JohnnyShouts, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1Ahhhh come on, Folks! Let's get serious and realize that the Congress does not supervise or have oversight over the Executive Branch. The whole concept of Specter (Overwhelmed my his false perception of himself) understanding the constitution is as laughable as the rest of the idiots up there. They think we are stupid and can't read or have enough knowledge to dispute their stupidity.
- JohnReb, on 10/10/2007, -9/+4They serve at the Presidents pleasure. If he decided to fire them because he didn't like how they take their morning coffee there is still no crime here.
He can fire them for whatever reason he sees fit. - sonofdy1, on 10/10/2007, -9/+3Cool, that should take about 18 months to finish. Oh wait, by then bush will be replaced anyway....
- sonofdy1, on 10/10/2007, -10/+4So you think investigations for partisan reasons are a bad thing? Come on there is no crime here.
- spyd3rweb, on 10/10/2007, -11/+2of all the things Bush & Co have done, this has to be the most worthless, dead end thing to go after
- JohnReb, on 10/10/2007, -16/+6Specter wants a special prosecutor to investigate the firing of people everyone already agrees serve at the pleasure of the President?
What crime is he expecting to discover or will he admit it is simply harassment?
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is