United States Attorney's

[Don Roley]

As one Senior Democratic Senator said, (I'm paraphrasing), They have had the power of oversight for about six weeks, and every tree they barked up has had a cat up it.

Lord forbid someone would admit that they were on a fishing expeidition by saying there were no cats.

That is one of the problems that the left faces over things like this. They have been screaming about scandels and secret take overs for so long that it is getting obvious that they are just crying wolf. The very thin reasoning for the moves now make good speculation, but lack realsubstance. They join the conspiracy theories that Bird flu was a way to divert attention away from the war, that the elections were going to be stolen, etc.

I have always had problems with congress pulling some guys up in front of them to show the public that they were going after the big bad softwear makers or whoever was in the publics eye. For you or me, we would need to get a impartial judge to issue summons and such. If the criteria we laid out was not enough for him, no one could be forced to testify. But there is no such oversite in this case. One political party is the ones seeking and serving as judge for issuing them. Once this blatently partisan plan goes through, they may keep using it against others.

 

[Gray Phoenix]

This should have been less of a deal than it is. "The AGs work at the pleasure of the President". They could have been fired for anything. The brain stems that run the white house should have come right out and said we fired'em cuz the president doesnt like them. Yes it would bring up the question of a biased enforcement of the law, but who actually believes anyone is really unbiased. Now they have been caught in a cover up.

What was a another dumb Monicagate, now gets blown up because somebody lied to congress. If it gets tied back to President Brain Stem, we ahve another impeached prez

... You know what that means... bad TV for another 6 months. :rofl:

 

[michaeledward]

Lord forbid someone would admit that they were on a fishing expeidition by saying there were no cats.

That is one of the problems that the left faces over things like this. They have been screaming about scandels and secret take overs for so long that it is getting obvious that they are just crying wolf. The very thin reasoning for the moves now make good speculation, but lack realsubstance. They join the conspiracy theories that Bird flu was a way to divert attention away from the war, that the elections were going to be stolen, etc.

I have always had problems with congress pulling some guys up in front of them to show the public that they were going after the big bad softwear makers or whoever was in the publics eye. For you or me, we would need to get a impartial judge to issue summons and such. If the criteria we laid out was not enough for him, no one could be forced to testify. But there is no such oversite in this case. One political party is the ones seeking and serving as judge for issuing them. Once this blatently partisan plan goes through, they may keep using it against others.

To say there is no oversight within Congress demonstrates a lack of understanding of the structure of the Body. A place to start might be Article I Section 5.

 

[Shuto]

It is strangely convenient for the Vice President that Ms. Lam no longer has a job. - and a 'loyal Bushie' has been, or will be called upon, to fill that vacancy.

Yes, it's convenient,. But I also find it curious that Feinstein and Issa were both concerned about the job Lam was doing in regards to enforcing immigration laws according to the WP link I included earlier. Maybe there really was a problem with her performance. Maybe she neglected doing an important part of her job. I truly don't know if that was the case but the fact that two Democrats had issues with her makes me hesitate in attributing this firing to nefariously motivated actions on the part of the administration. There appears to be other viable explanations, at least in this case.

Firing that prosecutor in New Mexico still seems suspicious to me.

 

[michaeledward]

Shuto,

Records are a available that show the fired US Attorneys were among the top performers. An article I saw yesterday, put 6 of the 8 fired United States Attorneys in the top third of that group as far as successful prosecutions and other internal standards.

While the concerns of the State Senators do deserve a look or two, equally important is looking toward the documents provided by Kyle Sampson and the rest of the Department of Justice Staff - and the White House Staff.

A couple of basic questions - Where are the communications between November 17 and December 4th? Why does Mr. Rove use a Republican National Committee email address? What other email addresses are being used for communication inside the White House and among White House Staff?

Mike

 

[Shuto]

link

Today's WP link talks about the replacement of the Little Rock Prosecutor.

"This was a very loyal soldier to the Republicans and the Bush administration, and they wanted to reward him," said Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.). "They had every right to do this, but it's the way they handled it, and the way they tried to cover their tracks and mislead Congress, that has turned this into a fiasco for them."

I find that an interesting quote. I don't like this idea about misleading Congress.

 

[Ray]

Are you going to tell me I am lecturing you again?

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showpost.php?p=750271&postcount=544

I don't know why you are making this about me?

I thought I addressed that posting by apologizing in the "is anyone still a republican" thread from whence you linked:

I hope you will forgive me for what you thought was a personal attack. I was just trying to make a funny. Please accept my apology.

To me it is almost comical that congress keeps doing things that are outside of its scope and constitutional authority; while at the same time it does almost absolutely nothing in the area for which the body explicitly exists. Maybe they can draft some more non-binding resolutions.

Clearly partisan politics, designed to stir up the American voters to vote the Republicans out of the white house next election...however, I believe that American voters will vote a dem into the white house anyway. It's how the pendulum swings, it's a pattern and it'll keep repeating.

If you feel hurt and my apology wasn't enough, maybe we can get congress to suboena me.

 

[Don Roley]

To me it is almost comical that congress keeps doing things that are outside of its scope and constitutional authority; while at the same time it does almost absolutely nothing in the area for which the body explicitly exists. Maybe they can draft some more non-binding resolutions.

Clearly partisan politics, designed to stir up the American voters to vote the Republicans out of the white house next election...however, I believe that American voters will vote a dem into the white house anyway. It's how the pendulum swings, it's a pattern and it'll keep repeating.

Yes, so truely sad in so many ways. Those who try to put getting into power second to doing the best for America are left in the dust by those who work solely for the purpose of getting political power. Ever read The Prince? But as we can all see, it is effective.

 

[mrhnau]

To me it is almost comical that congress keeps doing things that are outside of its scope and constitutional authority; while at the same time it does almost absolutely nothing in the area for which the body explicitly exists. Maybe they can draft some more non-binding resolutions.

Clearly partisan politics, designed to stir up the American voters to vote the Republicans out of the white house next election...however, I believe that American voters will vote a dem into the white house anyway. It's how the pendulum swings, it's a pattern and it'll keep repeating.

If you feel hurt and my apology wasn't enough, maybe we can get congress to suboena me.

Love the subpoena comment! LOL

You are right though... its just politics and breaching of congressional powers. From my understanding, they have no oversight into these matters. Then again, since we have government that can mandate hiring practices and regulate firing (ie minority rights, gotta love those quotas!), I can see why they want their fingers into this mess.

This kind of crap is one reason I've been keeping out of the study, at least political discussions. There is never anything constructive discussed, just people whining on both sides. People never have a clear picture of the situation, because more often than not, we don't have all the details, just conjecture. But, for those desperate for another Watergate or those still upset over the Clinton impeachment, its all fun and exciting. The same people crying about the perjury crime by Clinton are the same ones screaming about possible contradictions in statements to congress. Apparently, the Democrats congress thinks its fine for Clinton to lie to the judicial branch, but you better not lie to congress! BTW, not that it matters to the left AT ALL, but were the supposed liars even under oath?

Legally speaking, what weight does a subpoena have? Are they forced to go? Consequences if they don't comply? I assume they can always plead the 5th, especially since congress has no jurisdiction in this situation. Since they have no jurisdiction in this case, this could make for an interesting legal battle in the courts.

 

[Shuto]

Legally speaking, what weight does a subpoena have? Are they forced to go? Consequences if they don't comply? I assume they can always plead the 5th, especially since congress has no jurisdiction in this situation. Since they have no jurisdiction in this case, this could make for an interesting legal battle in the courts.

I believe that they are in contempt of Congress if they don't comply. Who would enforce such a violation? The Dept of Just? Hmm...

 

[michaeledward]

I thought I addressed that posting by apologizing in the "is anyone still a republican" thread from whence you linked:


To me it is almost comical that congress keeps doing things that are outside of its scope and constitutional authority; while at the same time it does almost absolutely nothing in the area for which the body explicitly exists. Maybe they can draft some more non-binding resolutions.

Clearly partisan politics, designed to stir up the American voters to vote the Republicans out of the white house next election...however, I believe that American voters will vote a dem into the white house anyway. It's how the pendulum swings, it's a pattern and it'll keep repeating.

If you feel hurt and my apology wasn't enough, maybe we can get congress to suboena me.

When pronouns like 'things' are used to substitute for actual thoughts, substantive discussion becomes difficult, if not impossible.

The adverb 'clearly' is often used when the subject being discussed is anything but clear. It is used to announce a bias when one has insubstantial or no evidence. Perhaps its closest synonym in discussions such as this in 'trust me'.

 

[michaeledward]

Yes, so truely sad in so many ways. Those who try to put getting into power second to doing the best for America are left in the dust by those who work solely for the purpose of getting political power. Ever read The Prince? But as we can all see, it is effective.

I think your analysis is a bit wrong.

Putting getting into power above all other considerations worked (for a while at least) for Mr. Rove and Mr. Delay. Delay & Co. named their fundraising arm "Texans for a Permanent Republican Majority", for pete's sake.

Is there nothing nefarious the Political Right actually does, that they will not accuse the Political Left of doing?

 

[michaeledward]

Love the subpoena comment! LOL

You are right though... its just politics and breaching of congressional powers. From my understanding, they have no oversight into these matters. Then again, since we have government that can mandate hiring practices and regulate firing (ie minority rights, gotta love those quotas!), I can see why they want their fingers into this mess.

This kind of crap is one reason I've been keeping out of the study, at least political discussions. There is never anything constructive discussed, just people whining on both sides. People never have a clear picture of the situation, because more often than not, we don't have all the details, just conjecture. But, for those desperate for another Watergate or those still upset over the Clinton impeachment, its all fun and exciting. The same people crying about the perjury crime by Clinton are the same ones screaming about possible contradictions in statements to congress. Apparently, the Democrats congress thinks its fine for Clinton to lie to the judicial branch, but you better not lie to congress! BTW, not that it matters to the left AT ALL, but were the supposed liars even under oath?

Legally speaking, what weight does a subpoena have? Are they forced to go? Consequences if they don't comply? I assume they can always plead the 5th, especially since congress has no jurisdiction in this situation. Since they have no jurisdiction in this case, this could make for an interesting legal battle in the courts.

I will take a moment to remind you that President Clinton was indicted by the House of Representatives, tried before the Supreme Court of the United States, with a Jury of 100 United States Senators.

The results of that trial are on the record.

So, whether the people you describe scream about anything, it is almost irrelevant, as the process was followed with Clinton. And the argument here is to abort the process for Mr. Gonzales, Mr. Rove, Ms. Miers, and Mr. Bush.

 

[Ray]

When pronouns like 'things' are used to substitute for actual thoughts, substantive discussion becomes difficult, if not impossible.

"...that congress keeps doing things that are outside its scope..."

"that congress keeps taking actions that are outside its scope"

"that congress keeps making fantasy issues out of actions under the legal and proper auspicous of other branches of the gov't"

The adverb 'clearly' is often used when the subject being discussed is anything but clear. It is used to announce a bias when one has insubstantial or no evidence. Perhaps its closest synonym in discussions such as this in 'trust me'.

The amount of clarity can be due to different reasons.

I think that you are honest and sincere in your beliefs. I think that your political beliefs are as valid as mine or anyone elses. I believe you have a right to have them and voice them.

I see the current democratic strategy to be a real world example of a lesson I teach some of my students:
1) The answer is 1089.
2) Pick any 3 different digits (e.g 123)
3) Reverse them (eg 321)
4) Subtract the smaller from the lager: (eg 321-123 = 198)
5) Reverse the answer (eg. 891)
6) Add the two (eg. 198 + 891 = 1089).
The lesson: I can ask carefully constructed questions (or give carefully constructed demonstrations) to make you arrive at the solution I desire.
The cure: Analyze the what and the why of the what we're doing in light of our goal. Don't be afraid to get other opinions; create your own tests and examples.

How does this apply to what congress is doing? Pretty soon every non-thinking American will believe that there is a crisis and that the White House needs to be quickly razed. And many thinking Americans will be fooled, as well.

 

[mrhnau]

I will take a moment to remind you that President Clinton was indicted by the House of Representatives, tried before the Supreme Court of the United States, with a Jury of 100 United States Senators.

The results of that trial are on the record.

So, whether the people you describe scream about anything, it is almost irrelevant, as the process was followed with Clinton. And the argument here is to abort the process for Mr. Gonzales, Mr. Rove, Ms. Miers, and Mr. Bush.

Perjury is a crime. Firing these attorneys is not a crime. It is within his constitutional rights to do so, regardless if he did it himself or delegated power to do so. This is outside of the jurisdiction of congress to prosecute. Impeachment is within the jurisdiction of congress. Congress is just trying to grab power, and dreaming of concocting another Watergate type situation. Congress is full of Democrats that simply can't stand Bush and are trying to get out the proverbial microscope to analyze his every fart and stray hair. It's just silly... however, as stated earlier, at least they are not causing damage by actually writing laws This is moderately entertaining and non-binding resolutions are just a fun way for congress to feel self-important and look like they are doing something... I doubt thats what their constituents voted for them to do.

When pronouns like 'things' are used to substitute for actual thoughts, substantive discussion becomes difficult, if not impossible.

The adverb 'clearly' is often used when the subject being discussed is anything but clear. It is used to announce a bias when one has insubstantial or no evidence. Perhaps its closest synonym in discussions such as this in 'trust me'.

you are complaining about his choice of words? Give me a break! If you don't like what he is saying, address the substance, not his verbage. BTW, I'm sure you have never used subjective terms in your posts...

Putting getting into power above all other considerations worked (for a while at least) for Mr. Rove and Mr. Delay. Delay & Co. named their fundraising arm "Texans for a Permanent Republican Majority", for pete's sake.

More worrying about choices of words Would you prefer something like the Democrat leaning people tend to do? How about "Texans for a Better America", or perhaps "Texans for a Better Way". They would of course still believe this is produced by permanent Republican majorities. That way, we can hide our intentions behind judiciously worded organizations! Isn't that clever! *snorts* At least these guys are straight forward and don't hide behind the names of their organizations.


If they think something naughty was done, why don't they appoint an independent counsel? Why is congress wasting time dealing with this? Isn't their job to write laws? Isn't there a judicial branch to do this kind of stuff? Not every attorney/judge is a Bush lackey or appointed by this administration. Hiring an independant counsel is the logical next step. Perhaps the FBI? This was done in the firing of the travel office in the Clinton administration. However, I have a fairly good idea this too would be a waste of time, since no law was broken.

 

[michaeledward]

mrhnau - just a couple of thoughts

If the firing of the US Attorneys was done because too many Republican Operatives were being thrown into jail - after being convicted by a jury of their peers (see - Cunningham, Ney, Abramoff, and others) - then these firings could very well be illegal. Without the facts, we don't know. Congress is trying to find the facts. The Department of Justice has offered statements that have been shown to be false and misleading.

The point about the pronoun 'things', is that I am unable to determine the 'substance' of his argument. Use of a noun, rather than a pronoun would aid in the discussion ... because then we would all have an idea of what he was talking about.

Maybe, like Presidential Spokesperson Tony Snow, you, and Ray believe that Congress has no oversight authority in regards to the White House. If that is the case, I refer you to the Constitution of our nation.


Lastly, if someone is going to accuse the Democratic Party of Machiavellian behavior ... I refer them to the Bible; something about not talking about a speck in your neighbor's eye whilst ignoring the plank in your own.

 

[mrhnau]

If the firing of the US Attorneys was done because too many Republican Operatives were being thrown into jail - after being convicted by a jury of their peers (see - Cunningham, Ney, Abramoff, and others) - then these firings could very well be illegal. Without the facts, we don't know. Congress is trying to find the facts. The Department of Justice has offered statements that have been shown to be false and misleading.

Then, as I suggested, appoint an independent counsel to investigate.

You are correct though, we don't have enough facts, just conjecture. The news shows love that though, so they can speculate and try to make news rather than report news.

Maybe, like Presidential Spokesperson Tony Snow, you, and Ray believe that Congress has no oversight authority in regards to the White House. If that is the case, I refer you to the Constitution of our nation.

Boy, that is just about as ambiguous as "things". From my understanding, the office of the president has the authority to fire these attorneys at will. Of course the Congress has some degree of oversight. The hiring and firing of attorneys, from my understanding, is not one aspect over which they have oversight. I guess there is precedent with Travelgate in Clinton's presidency, so I'm guessing there will be an analogous investigation.

Lastly, if someone is going to accuse the Democratic Party of Machiavellian behavior ... I refer them to the Bible; something about not talking about a speck in your neighbor's eye whilst ignoring the plank in your own.

No offence, but your biblical references are not that meaningful here, considering your stated religious beliefs. As to the insinuation, both parties and their affiliates do it, but I find it odd that you criticize someone for being blunt in naming their organization. I MUCH prefer that to the ambiguous naming of parties and groups by BOTH parties. I find it dispicable by both sides. Name them honestly. That's all I'm saying. This groups placed their intentions in their name. If every organization was so honest and forthcoming!

 

[Ray]

The point about the pronoun 'things', is that I am unable to determine the 'substance' of his argument. Use of a noun, rather than a pronoun would aid in the discussion ... because then we would all have an idea of what he was talking about.

Mr. Edward -
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showpost.php?p=754656&postcount=54

 

[michaeledward]

Then, as I suggested, appoint an independent counsel to investigate.

You are correct though, we don't have enough facts, just conjecture. The news shows love that though, so they can speculate and try to make news rather than report news.

Boy, that is just about as ambiguous as "things". From my understanding, the office of the president has the authority to fire these attorneys at will. Of course the Congress has some degree of oversight. The hiring and firing of attorneys, from my understanding, is not one aspect over which they have oversight. I guess there is precedent with Travelgate in Clinton's presidency, so I'm guessing there will be an analogous investigation.


No offence, but your biblical references are not that meaningful here, considering your stated religious beliefs. As to the insinuation, both parties and their affiliates do it, but I find it odd that you criticize someone for being blunt in naming their organization. I MUCH prefer that to the ambiguous naming of parties and groups by BOTH parties. I find it dispicable by both sides. Name them honestly. That's all I'm saying. This groups placed their intentions in their name. If every organization was so honest and forthcoming!

The independent council law has expired. No independent councils can be appointed as the law stands today.

 

[mrhnau]

The independent council law has expired. No independent councils can be appointed as the law stands today.

Are you serious? When did it expire? I had no idea it was a temporary fixture...