What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Can't get enough Dragon Age: Origins? Play the flash game. view!
DragonAgeJourneys.com - Play the free companion flash game to Dragon Age: Origins.
177 Comments
- DeadElephantORG, on 10/12/2007, -16/+120
So the Republican "talking-point" attempting to stem the tide of public outrage about the political firings of the Attorneys General is that they "serve at the pleasure of the President". Not only is that incorrect, it is treasonous.
The Attorneys General, like all constitutional officers, are sworn to defend the constitution - not to defend the President, or Karl Rove, or Alberto Gonzales, or Randall Duke Cunningham, or Tom Delay, or "Kenny boy" Lay, or Mark Foley, or Jack Abramoff, or the Republican Party. In other words, they serve us - the people - not the President. This is precisely what is meant by "a government of laws, not of men". And no man is above the law.
On no other issue - not even the policies of torture, and rampant spying - have the neoconservatives made their contempt for the rule of law, and for the citizens of this democracy, more overt than this. Unless you are among the very few who are glad to see the entire apparatus of American Justice subverted and used as a weapon against "enemies" of the Ruling Party, the time to resist is NOW.
Impeach! - toefinder, on 10/12/2007, -8/+67The anti sex forces called for the impeachment of Clinton not because he was caught with his pants down but that He lied to the American people. This bunch of liars in the white house now are being tolerated...why? ... because they can't get a hard on? Please explain it to me.
- johnhummel, on 10/12/2007, -3/+28I wonder how many times I'm going to cut and paste this comment:
I've been seeing a lot of "But - but Clinton did it!"
So let's set some things straight: At the start of every change of administration where there is a change of party (Republican -> Democrat, Democrat -> Republican), there is a change of guard across the board. People are fired, new people that reflect the administrations views are brought in.
Now, here's the thing to remember: those they bring in have to be approved by the Senate. So that means that whomever they bring in will be interviewed, reviewed, and either approved or disapproved by the Senate, so you just can't bring in any Joe Somebody or Political Hack and expect them to get the job. Traditionally, they've been just moderate enough to get in under the radar, while still holding to whatever administrations views.
The problem here is that the law changed: Section 502 of HR 109-333 brought in this:
Section 546 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by striking subsections (c) and (d) and inserting the following new subsection:
(c) A person appointed as United States attorney under this section may serve until the qualification of a United States Attorney for such district appointed by the President under section 541 of this title.
Now, the Senate doesn't have to get involved, so the Attorney General can pick whomever they want, and the Senate doesn't have to review them. The plan this time was to fire 93 and bring in completely partisan people who would do whatever they wanted. The Bush Administration probably felt that would be too obvious, so they went after the 8 that bothered them the most - such as the one that brought up charges on Randy "Duke" Cunningham and was part of the ongoing FBI investigation into Cunningham's contacts. Others were those who appear to have decided not to prosecute Democrats right before the November elections (such as New Mexico).
The issue isn't that the Bush Administration wanted to fire 93, 8, or even 1 federal attorney. The problem was this:
They wanted to circumvent the normal process for purely political reasons and revenge, then when they were caught they lied about it. If you may recall, going before congress and lying under oath is a crime called "perjury", and that is a crime. So that means Gonzales may be involved in a crime. And if it turns out that any of these firings were to impede investigations (like ferreting out Randy Cunningham's fellow lawbreakers), then you could have Obstruction of Justice.
*That* is the difference between what Clinton, Bush Sr, Reagen, Carter, and every other administration has done all the way back to Washington. And that is why it is a big deal. And why the "But - but Clinton..." defense is bogus. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+28Is it Clinton's fault yet?
I just got here - CraigB12, on 10/12/2007, -9/+32@toefinder
The reason there hasn't been an impeachment yet is becuase no one has the balls to stand up and demand it, and even if someone did, the democrats are far too disorganized to be able to carry something like that out. Its really sad that we've gotten to this point, and I often wonder whether the next president will be able to return our government to the system of checks and balances that it once was. - chase001, on 10/12/2007, -4/+27Time to start asking the same question from Watergate, " What did the president know and when did he know it?".
- Maarek, on 10/12/2007, -1/+23"What law, exactly, has been broken?"
Well we don't know, the Administration has fired the people who would help to determine this.
"Didn't Clinton fire all the US attorneys when he came into office? (Hint: Yes, he did.) "
Actually he accepted their resignations as it is the defacto standard that political appointees tender a letter of resignation upon a change of administration. What the Bush Administration has done here is fire these appointees in the middle of several investigations which might affect them negatively and he did it at an arbitrary time (not at the point of an administration change as is what has always been done) for purely political reasons. Even if he has the ability to fire them it can be considered obstruction of justice if it turns out to be to stymie an investigation. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -7/+28Man, can these creeps be any more Anti-American?!!
Thanks allot Bush voters! - KazamaSmokers, on 10/12/2007, -2/+23Gonzalez has already admitted he intentionally misled Congress.
Wake up. - bradtacs, on 10/12/2007, -2/+23FOR CHRISTS SAKE READ THE FREAKING WELL REASONED POST UPTHREAD DEBUNKING THIS CLINTON DID IT TOO NONSENSE.
It is really a tired defence and completly missing the point, and just makes it clear you are not taking one single second to read the actual article. - EricCiccone, on 10/12/2007, -4/+24The only reason why Republicans keep bringing up the Clinton firings is because he fired an attorney that was investigating the Clinton's involvement in the Whitewater scandal. Well that was true, but what they seem to forget is that Starr picked up the investigation and found that the Clintons had no involvement in the situation at all.
The Bush Administration fired attorneys that were investigating Republican scandals and were fired because they weren't on the same political page as the President. Thats the difference and why this is a scandal. - KazamaSmokers, on 10/12/2007, -1/+20Clinton (GHW Bush, Reagan, Carter etc): Traditional administrative housecleaning.
GW Bush: Political targetting.
How many times does this have to be repeated? - rstevens, on 10/12/2007, -5/+24Has this administration done anything to convince us they are "honest"?
- KazamaSmokers, on 10/12/2007, -3/+21Were the earlier firings a reprisal for those attorneys refusing to rig an election?
(Hint: they weren't) - fooboarder, on 10/12/2007, -5/+22Time for the American public to think about cleaning house.
- KazamaSmokers, on 10/12/2007, -5/+19B-b-b-b-but Clinton!!
- nomadxx7, on 10/12/2007, -8/+22I have some rope (it was on sale at the local hardware store) and we could make some nooses and hang these treasonous bastards. Forget the damn terrorists WE ARE CREATING with all this *****. These people are ***** on the Constitution while all the time smiling to the American people. They don't give to damns about you or me but about political favors and secrecy. Open government is the key to democracy. Not hiding your records from the public indefinately and having ROVE (who already was in trouble) help fire AGs that are trying to sniff out corruption. Down with the all.
NOTE TO CONGRESS: Grow some balls and impeach this bastard. I don't care if you have a R or a D in front of your name. The American people are telling you what you should already know. These UPHOLDERS of the Constitution are wolves in sheeps clothing. Oh and for the people taht voted these bastards in, I'm not mad at you. You were lied to and thought you were voting for an honest man. Hindsight is 20/20. Realize now that you made a mistake and that to correct this you should be calling for their heads on a platter. - the6thReplicant, on 10/12/2007, -6/+20@InfamousAtheist
you are 100% right, but the thing is how much money and time that went in going after Clinton for the simple reason that he was a Democrat and the American public shouldn't be allowed to see him as a good person.
I mean do you really think that the time and energy that went into the Clinton Whitewater investigation was used wisely (and let's face it Clinton wasn't too wise either). I don't want to sound partisan but America is up ***** creek now with the potential of the this and the next President(s) having far too many powers and using them to keep a bunch of people that shouldn't be anywhere near the responsibility for running the country right near the big red button.
People seem to forget that Nixon left office with his head down. The most powerful man in the world left by the rule of law and persuasion. There aren't too many countries you can still do that in. Let's hope America will remain on that list in the coming years.
PS. I read somewhere that Clinton should have just said was "***** off and mind your own business". Now that would have made him a great President. - Dumbledorito, on 10/12/2007, -4/+17Hell, I'm still waiting for "the grown ups to be in charge."
- KazamaSmokers, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15Clinton's dismissals were a traditional wholesale turnover that is done at the change of every administration. The firings were not based on political allegiance to a man. They were let go because they were GHW Bush appointees. It is house-cleaning.
Wikipedia: "At the beginning of each presidential term, it is traditional for anyone occupying a "political office" to turn in a signed letter of resignation. A political office is generally thought of as one where a person "serves at the pleasure of the President."
If there is a new President from a different party, it is expected that all of the resignations would be accepted. The attorneys are then replaced by political appointees from the new President's party.[48] For example, President Clinton dismissed all 93 US attorneys when he came to office in 1993, and shortly after President George W. Bush took office in 2001, he received the resignations from 91 of 93 sitting U.S. attorneys.[49]"
Bush fired his attorneys mid-term. This has only happened to two other individuals in modern times. They were fired after numerous email exchanges between Gonzalez and Harriet Miers. - KazamaSmokers, on 10/12/2007, -3/+16Why are you comparing traditional administrative turnover with mid-term firings? A2O.
- nomadxx7, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14@ To the people saying it's the President's right to remove AGs
I understand that this is the law. Now usually they are removed for offenses or to get other people in the office. The President doesn't usually pick and choose certain people to fire but usually will clean house and start over. This is fine. Now when the President is listening to his cronies and they say this AG and that AG you wonder why. If you look deep enough into these firings it is over the fact they are investigating corruption with people inside and close to Bush. So now you must ask yourself was "Did Bush fire these people to silence the investigations into corruption during his administration or did he fire them because they were incompetent and needed to be replaced?" Given Bush's track record for secrecy I'd say that the reason they were fired was because they were looking into all the dirty laundry of this administration and it's easier to use the law to benefit from them being fired than with replacing them because they were incompetent. This is where this is wrong. Firing honest AGs who are trying to do their jobs and yet just stumbled onto things the administration is doing is suppression. If you get rid of the people trying to keep a level of honesty in government it makes fabricating truth and making lies a hell of a lot easier than worrying what people are going to dig up when they investigate you. - diggboi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12in the interests of the facts:
"Earlier this week, Mary Jo White, who was U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York from 1993-2002, also stated that the Bush administration’s prosecutor purge is unprecedented in “modern history”:
You serve at the president’s pleasure, no question about that. … However, throughout modern history, my understanding is, you did not change the U.S. attorney during an administration, unless there was some evidence of misconduct or other really quite significant cause to do so. And the expectation was, so long as that was absent, that you would serve out your full four years or eight years as U.S. attorney."
--and--
"Clinton’s former chief of staff John Podesta told ThinkProgress that Rove’s claim [that this is normal and ordinary] is “pure fiction.” The Clinton administration never fired federal prosecutors as political retribution:
Mr. Rove’s claims today that the Bush administration’s purge of qualified and capable U.S. attorneys is “normal and ordinary” is pure fiction. Replacing most U.S. attorneys when a new administration comes in — as we did in 1993 and the Bush administration did in 2001 — is not unusual. But the Clinton administration never fired federal prosecutors as pure political retribution. These U.S. attorneys received positive performance reviews from the Justice Department and were then given no reason for their firings.
We’re used to this White House distorting the facts to blame the Clinton administration for its failures. Apparently, it’s also willing to distort the facts and invoke the Clinton administration to try to justify its bad behavior. "
--from thinkprogress.org
Still think "this is normal and ordinary." Rovey-baby? - geronimo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/14/politics/main2566419.shtml
Realiation for Cunningham:
Fired U.S. Attorney Led Cunningham Probe
Attorney General Gonzales Says Prosecutor Focused Office's Efforts Too Much On Public Corruption
How can you focus "too much" on corruption? Isn't that your job as an attorney - fighting corruption? - sergeantmudd, on 10/12/2007, -6/+17I am pretty liberal, but I have no issue with the administration dismissing all the prosecutors. A second term needs a fresh start, and firing political appointees is really common. The law enforcement priorities of the administration change in four years.
What I find absolutely unacceptable is firing eight prosecutors because they refused to be the politcal pawns of the executive branch. - InfamousAtheist, on 10/12/2007, -11/+22But this is really so different from Clinton.
You see, the Bush admin people have never taken an oath to tell the truth. Clinton lied after placing his hand on a bible and swearing to tell the truth.
So that makes Bush, Rove, Gonzalez, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Powell, and any other Bush cronies lying OK.
Right? - CypherXero, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12What the hell are you talking about? First off, the US Code wasn't official until 1926. There goes your "EVERY president" remark. And the rest can be summed up from wikipedia:
"At issue in the controversy is the political nature of United States Attorneys' appointments and the entailing right of presidents to remove them at their discretion, and the actual reasons for the dismissals. Critics contend that the attorneys were fired for a failure to prosecute enough Democrats or for prosecuting Republicans. The Bush administration and its supporters maintain that all eight of the attorneys were dismissed for "job-performance reasons" and that because United States Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president, that any action relating to their employment is non-reviewable.
The dismissals are notable because all of the attorneys in question were appointed by President George W. Bush and were not holdovers from the Clinton Administration. During the previous 25 years, only two United States Attorneys had been fired in the middle of their term and not between administrations. One dismissal also raised questions about a clause in the USA PATRIOT Act which gives the president the power to fill vacancies in the United States Attorney's office without the approval of the Senate." - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13it's not about the firings its about the cover-up for why they were fired. the administration said they were fired for cause... for poor performance... but they all had great records and great performance reviews. if the administration said they were fired for political reasons this would never have been a story.
- sergeantmudd, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11They serve at the pleasure of the president, they don't serve the pleasures of the president. This case is a big deal because the Bush white house can't see the difference between the two.
from the leaked email
"The vast majority of US Attorneys, 80-85 percent, I would guess, are doing a great job, are loyal Bushies, etc"
So the other 20% are not LOYAL enough to stay onboard the U.S.S. Bush - dukeeeey, on 10/12/2007, -5/+15USA has 'elected' a gang of criminals.
- extratwice, on 10/12/2007, -7/+16not just think, it's time to act... http://impeach07.org/
- GabrielS, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9I think it is pretty evident at this point that the White House is not stating that the dismissal of the 8 US Attorneys was "normal practice".
The leaked emails indicate that those sending them acknowledge that the process they are planning is abnormal. - Sambone67, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12Sorry, we're all a little groggy. We've been getting screwed by an elephant for years now.
- guichetroo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: When people in the future look back at this point in time, this will be remembered as the worst, most destructive, and democracy-undermining presidency ever.
- davesbrain, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Here are some links pointing out that this is NOT a normal practice, as Bush would like us to believe.
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/03/08/podesta-rove/
http://www.mahablog.com/2007/03/14/whos-worse/
This is from the link below.
"First, it ignores (and helps everyone continue to forget) that the Bush White House got a clause slipped into a massive bill, on the sly during conference, that gave Bush the right to appoint replacements and not have them be confirmed by the Senate. "
http://uspolitics.about.com/b/a/208045.htm
Now this makes more sense why he would get rid of his own appointed attorneys. - leobaby, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10And don't forget the "dark cloud over the whitehouse" bush spoke of during the 2000 election.
- diggboi, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11@belayman:
Answer: No, he didn't.
Your hint is a little misleading, there, buddy, but I got the answer right nonetheless.
The REAL fact of the matter is that the number of presidents who have fired US Attorneys General is few to NONE.
Maybe one or two cases in the past 30 years. For Bush to publically declare in his recent Mexico press conference that this is a common presidential practice is a STRAIGHTFORWARD LIE. Probably the saddest evidence that no-one is inclined to call this president on his outright lies to the American people anymore. We just expect it--it's too hard to even care anymore.
We have gotten to a point in this country where the fact that our leader lies to our faces on a daily basis is old news....nothing to get riled about. Wow. I guess he really has succeeded in "redefining expectations." - GeneralFault, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10What is the difference between these 8 and the other 85? The attorney the prosecuted the traitor Duke Cunningham (and yes, taking bribes is traitorous, and yes he was republican) was fired. The New Mexico attorney that refused to file charges against a democrat before the election was fired. 7 of the 8 had positive reviews. They were all original Bush appointees.
Of course all of that is interesting, but I think the real concrete shoes are the e-mails that prove that the WH lied about when they knew and how much they were involved. Specifically Rove and Meyers are in BIG trouble here. Jail type trouble. Not just because they did this, but because they lied about doing it.
Clinton lied about a blow job.
Bush lied about WMDs.
Bush lied about NSA wiretaps.
Bush lied about secret prisons.
Bush lied about knowing who outed Vallerie Plame,
Bush lied about spying on Dems.
Bush lied about increasing funding for Energy/New Orleans/Education/etc...
Now, he lies about this.
If I hear "Clinton did" from you, just know that anything else you say WILL be ignored. - Pfhreak, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8jonnio,
"One way or another though this was a totally legal act."
Wrong, firing attorneys because they are investigating one's allies or refuse to take up weak or trumped-up cases against one's enemies to influence voters is obstruction of justice, which is illegal. Go research the Saturday Night Massacre, it's one of the things that landed Nixon in hot water.
gabriels,
"That's the Democrat frame of picture. There IS NO EVIDENCE to support that claim, but don't let me get in the way of you making a mistake. You go on to base the rest of your argument on a false pretense. Therefore, the rest of your comments are erroneous. Feel free to correct them so they more closely resemble the facts as we know them."
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/usa-timeline.php
There's a timeline with links to supporting EVIDENCE. In a nutshell:
Six of the eight attorneys fired are known to have received positive job evaluations several months prior to being fired, and two were told they were being let go so another Republican could build his resume, so the administration's claims that they were fired for job performance reasons are false.
Documents have been released which show that the US Attorneys had been ranked based on their loyalty to the administration, and that loyalty was used as a criteria in determining who to fire, instead of overall performance.
Carol Lam was in the middle of investigating CIA Executive Director Dusty Foggo and Representative Jerry Lewis as part of her ongoing investigation into the Duke Cunningham "Hookergate" scandal.
John McKay was investigating voter fraud accusations following the 2004 elections, and refused to talk about the ongoing investigation with the chief of staff for Representative Doc Hastings.
Despite repeated complaints from New Mexico Republican Party Chairman Allan Weh, Senator Pete Domenici, and others, David Iglesias was continuously recommended for retention in internal DoJ US Attorney lists, until he refused to speed up indictments of local Democrats so they would occur just before the 2006 elections.
A few of the fired attorneys have testified that they have been offered deals: stay silent or negative information would be released about them. - KazamaSmokers, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Analyze - you're getting owned.
- jaycliche, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8When the gang runs the vote tally then you can't say elect.
- KDX200rider, on 10/12/2007, -8/+14The double standard here is incredible. Wake up you lemmings!
- ThisBlows, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10Wellllll, if the WHITE HOUSE said it.................Case ***** CLOSED!
- KazamaSmokers, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10Ah. A 23%er.
- sergeantmudd, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7I didn't really understand what you were arguing until your last post. I am reading that you believe that Bush did nothing wrong. I completely disagree.
My original post clearly stated that the Bush White House has every right to fire prosecutors for the purpose of redefining law enforcement priorities. What the White House has absolutely no right to do is replace prosecutors because they are not towing the party line. The party line =! being a competant conservative prosecutor. There is no evidence that the fired 8 were not competant or conservative, and there is plenty of evidence that they were not taking marching orders from Republicans.
I believe they were fired because they weren't being good Republicans. They weren't "loyal Bushies" What does being a loyal Bushie mean? We've seen plenty of evidence. Look at who Bush promoted in his second term. People that serve him, not his office. People that will put the President ahead of their offices. Look at Gonzales. His career is entirely based in loyalty to Bush, not loyalty to the office and the people he serves. People who serve the office and not the President are forced out. The President does have every right to hire and fire. But I honestly believe the President sees no difference between his staff and his politcal appointees. His staff is there to serve him. His appointees are appointed by him to serve the people. These are tremendously different things - MrFlesh, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Clinton also needed congressional approval to get each of them replaced ensuring politicing was kept to a minimium. Bush snuck a line into the patriot act removing congessional approval so he could simply replace them with who ever he wished. Not only this but it is shown that the attorneys were investigating republicans and refused to play ball bushes way.
- sergeantmudd, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9"US Attorneys are inherently political pawns"
No they are not. They are appointed for politcal reasons. I would not have a problem is Bush fired all of them to appoint more politically conservative ones. It would suck, but there is no scandal there.
You can not possibly argue that the job of a US Attorney is to focus investigations on the opposite political parties while ignoring the crimes of his own. Once a prosecutor is appointed, he is independant after that. Bush gets to appoint the prosecutor. He does not get the right to control who the prosecutor prosecutes.
I can not understand how conservatives can defend this. It's a direct assault on an independant judiciary. - lithuin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7On first reading your comment, I was inclined to agree with you.
However, at some point an example has to be made in order to show that an elected government serves at the pleasure of the people. We seem to have forgotten that in the last 10-15 years. While not reason enough to kick someone out of office, any reasonable suspicion of unethical behavior should be enough to end any politicians career. America has no lack of of decent, hardworking people of intelligence that are willing to do a difficult job, and fully able to enter the political arena. We pay these people far more than the average American household makes; they should be held to the highest standards. Instead, we elect, and continue to elect, individuals whose motives, while unclear, are not the betterment of America and its people. - michaeldillon, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8From USA Today:
•Was the administration trying to stop investigations of powerful Republicans? There's no hard evidence, but there's one curious detail in the e-mail traffic about fired prosecutor Carol Lam, of San Diego.
Lam started the probe that sent GOP congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham to prison last year and resulted in the recent indictments of a top
CIA official and a well-connected contractor. On May 11, the Los Angeles Times reported that the investigation resulting in Cunningham's conviction was expanding to include another powerful Republican, Rep. Jerry Lewis (news, bio, voting record), of California. That same day, Sampson e-mailed a White House aide asking him to call to discuss "the real problem we have right now with Carol Lam."
Congressional investigators might want to ask what that "real problem" was. On Thursday, the Senate Judiciary Committee cleared the way to issue subpoenas for five Justice officials to testify about their roles in the firings. It put off for a week a vote on subpoenas for Rove, Miers and another White House aide. - an0nymous, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9@analeyes
You: LALALLLAALLALAICAN'THEARYOU
Gonzales lied to congress. That is a crime. -
Show 51 - 100 of 177 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is