Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: ribonucleic on March 20, 2007, 11:38:04 AM
-
The righties keep saying how Bush had unlimited discretion in firing those attorneys. Not so...
--------------
Some crimes that a special prosecutor might one day look at:
1. Misrepresentations to Congress. The relevant provision, 18 U.S.C. § 1505, is very broad. It is illegal to lie to Congress, and also to “impede” it in getting information. Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty indicated to Congress that the White House’s involvement in firing the United States attorneys was minimal, something that Justice Department e-mail messages suggest to be untrue.
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales made his own dubious assertion to Congress: “I would never, ever make a change in a United States attorney position for political reasons.”
The administration appears to be trying to place all of the blame on Mr. Gonzales’s chief of staff, Kyle Sampson, who resigned after reportedly failing to inform top Justice Department officials about the White House’s role in the firings. If Mr. Sampson withheld the information from Mr. McNulty, who then misled Congress, Mr. Sampson may have violated § 1505.
But Mr. Sampson’s lawyer now says other top Justice Department officials knew of the White House’s role. Senator Charles Schumer, Democrat of New York, said last week that “Kyle Sampson will not be the next Scooter Libby, the next fall guy.” Congress will be looking for evidence that Mr. Gonzales and Mr. McNulty knew that what they told Congress was false or misleading.
Convictions of this kind are not common, but they happen. Just ask former White House aide David Safavian, who was convicted last year of making false statements to a Senate committee.
2. Calling the Prosecutors. As part of the Sarbanes-Oxley reforms, Congress passed an extremely broad obstruction of justice provision, 18 U.S.C. § 1512 (c), which applies to anyone who corruptly “obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so,” including U.S. attorney investigations.
David Iglesias, the New Mexico United States attorney, says Senator Pete Domenici, Republican of New Mexico, called him and asked whether he intended to bring indictments in a corruption case against Democrats before last November’s election. Mr. Iglesias said he “felt pressured” by the call. If members of Congress try to get a United States attorney to indict people he wasn’t certain he wanted to indict, or try to affect the timing of an indictment, they may be violating the law.
3. Witness Tampering. 18 U.S.C. § 1512 (b) makes it illegal to intimidate Congressional witnesses. Michael Elston, Mr. McNulty’s chief of staff, contacted one of the fired attorneys, H. E. Cummins, and suggested, according to Mr. Cummins, that if he kept speaking out, there would be retaliation. Mr. Cummins took the call as a threat, and sent an e-mail message to other fired prosecutors warning them of it. Several of them told Congress that if Mr. Elston had placed a similar call to one of their witnesses in a criminal case, they would have opened an investigation of it.
4. Firing the Attorneys. United States attorneys can be fired whenever a president wants, but not, as § 1512 (c) puts it, to corruptly obstruct, influence, or impede an official proceeding.
Let’s take the case of Carol Lam, United States attorney in San Diego. The day the news broke that Ms. Lam, who had already put one Republican congressman in jail, was investigating a second one, Mr. Sampson wrote an e-mail message referring to the “real problem we have right now with Carol Lam.” He said it made him think that it was time to start looking for a replacement. Congress has also started investigating the removal of Fred Black, the United States attorney in Guam, who was replaced when he began investigating the Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Anyone involved in firing a United States attorney to obstruct or influence an official proceeding could have broken the law.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/19/opinion/19mon4.html?ex=1331956800&en=ffab854496251b4b&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
-
clinton got a blowjob, who cares
-
The righties keep saying how Bush had unlimited discretion in firing those attorneys. Not so...
--------------
Some crimes that a special prosecutor might one day look at:
1. Misrepresentations to Congress. The relevant provision, 18 U.S.C. § 1505, is very broad. It is illegal to lie to Congress, and also to “impede” it in getting information. Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty indicated to Congress that the White House’s involvement in firing the United States attorneys was minimal, something that Justice Department e-mail messages suggest to be untrue.
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales made his own dubious assertion to Congress: “I would never, ever make a change in a United States attorney position for political reasons.”
The administration appears to be trying to place all of the blame on Mr. Gonzales’s chief of staff, Kyle Sampson, who resigned after reportedly failing to inform top Justice Department officials about the White House’s role in the firings. If Mr. Sampson withheld the information from Mr. McNulty, who then misled Congress, Mr. Sampson may have violated § 1505.
But Mr. Sampson’s lawyer now says other top Justice Department officials knew of the White House’s role. Senator Charles Schumer, Democrat of New York, said last week that “Kyle Sampson will not be the next Scooter Libby, the next fall guy.” Congress will be looking for evidence that Mr. Gonzales and Mr. McNulty knew that what they told Congress was false or misleading.
Convictions of this kind are not common, but they happen. Just ask former White House aide David Safavian, who was convicted last year of making false statements to a Senate committee.
2. Calling the Prosecutors. As part of the Sarbanes-Oxley reforms, Congress passed an extremely broad obstruction of justice provision, 18 U.S.C. § 1512 (c), which applies to anyone who corruptly “obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so,” including U.S. attorney investigations.
David Iglesias, the New Mexico United States attorney, says Senator Pete Domenici, Republican of New Mexico, called him and asked whether he intended to bring indictments in a corruption case against Democrats before last November’s election. Mr. Iglesias said he “felt pressured” by the call. If members of Congress try to get a United States attorney to indict people he wasn’t certain he wanted to indict, or try to affect the timing of an indictment, they may be violating the law.
3. Witness Tampering. 18 U.S.C. § 1512 (b) makes it illegal to intimidate Congressional witnesses. Michael Elston, Mr. McNulty’s chief of staff, contacted one of the fired attorneys, H. E. Cummins, and suggested, according to Mr. Cummins, that if he kept speaking out, there would be retaliation. Mr. Cummins took the call as a threat, and sent an e-mail message to other fired prosecutors warning them of it. Several of them told Congress that if Mr. Elston had placed a similar call to one of their witnesses in a criminal case, they would have opened an investigation of it.
4. Firing the Attorneys. United States attorneys can be fired whenever a president wants, but not, as § 1512 (c) puts it, to corruptly obstruct, influence, or impede an official proceeding.
Let’s take the case of Carol Lam, United States attorney in San Diego. The day the news broke that Ms. Lam, who had already put one Republican congressman in jail, was investigating a second one, Mr. Sampson wrote an e-mail message referring to the “real problem we have right now with Carol Lam.” He said it made him think that it was time to start looking for a replacement. Congress has also started investigating the removal of Fred Black, the United States attorney in Guam, who was replaced when he began investigating the Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Anyone involved in firing a United States attorney to obstruct or influence an official proceeding could have broken the law.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/19/opinion/19mon4.html?ex=1331956800&en=ffab854496251b4b&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
Legitimate issues. Not proved. Let the facts come in.
-
Let the facts come in.
By all means. :)
So you'll join us in criticizing Bush if he tries to keep Rove from testifying under oath by asserting "executive privilege"?
-
By all means. :)
So you'll join us in criticizing Bush if he tries to keep Rove from testifying under oath by asserting "executive privilege"?
That will depend on why he asserts "executive privilege" and whether I think it's appropriate or not.
-
That will depend on why he asserts "executive privilege" and whether I think it's appropriate or not.
And what non-covering-up-criminal-activity reason could Bush possibly have for asserting that "privilege"? :)
Wait, let me guess! "National security"!
LOL
-
And what non-covering-up-criminal-activity reason could Bush possibly have for asserting that "privilege"? :)
Wait, let me guess! "National security"!
LOL
You're assuming there was "criminal activity." I typically like to have the facts first before forming my opinion. It helps a lot. :)
-
You're assuming there was "criminal activity."
When it comes to the neofascists, I've found it to be a real time-saver. ;D
-
Gee, what a surprise. ::)
-------------------------
The White House offered Tuesday to make political strategist Karl Rove and former counsel Harriet Miers available for interviews - but not testimony under oath - before congressional committees investigating the firing of eight federal prosecutors... "Such interviews would be private and conducted without the need for an oath, transcript, subsequent testimony, or the subsequent issuance of subpoenas".
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20070320/fired-prosecutors
-
Historically speaking, hasn't this been the process whenever a new administration moves in? Kinda like when a sports team gets a new coach, the coach usually brings in his own staff because they know his playbook and he trusts that they'll carry out his plan?
I don't know all of the facts, but I thought for sure that President Clinton removed almost all (if not all) of the prosecutors when he came to office back in his day? Was there any fuss then? I'm not being sarcastic, I'm just thinking that this was the case. I don't remember if there was any fuss back then.
-
Historically speaking, hasn't this been the process whenever a new administration moves in? Kinda like when a sports team gets a new coach, the coach usually brings in his own staff because they know his playbook and he trusts that they'll carry out his plan?
I don't know all of the facts, but I thought for sure that President Clinton removed almost all (if not all) of the prosecutors when he came to office back in his day? Was there any fuss then? I'm not being sarcastic, I'm just thinking that this was the case. I don't remember if there was any fuss back then.
Clinton did that, but i think it's how they were removed in this case
-
Historically speaking, hasn't this been the process whenever a new administration moves in? Kinda like when a sports team gets a new coach, the coach usually brings in his own staff because they know his playbook and he trusts that they'll carry out his plan?
I don't know all of the facts, but I thought for sure that President Clinton removed almost all (if not all) of the prosecutors when he came to office back in his day? Was there any fuss then? I'm not being sarcastic, I'm just thinking that this was the case. I don't remember if there was any fuss back then.
You are correct. U.S. Attorneys are political appointees and serve at the pleasure of the president. They are always fired for "political reasons." As a matter of course, every U.S. Attorney either offers his/her resignation or is asked to resign when a new administration takes over. The only legitimate issues here are whether some of them were removed to obstruct a legitimate criminal investigation and/or whether anyone lied to Congress about it.
-
Historically speaking, hasn't this been the process whenever a new administration moves in? Kinda like when a sports team gets a new coach, the coach usually brings in his own staff because they know his playbook and he trusts that they'll carry out his plan?
I don't know all of the facts, but I thought for sure that President Clinton removed almost all (if not all) of the prosecutors when he came to office back in his day? Was there any fuss then? I'm not being sarcastic, I'm just thinking that this was the case. I don't remember if there was any fuss back then.
The Clinton situation isn't really analogous for a number of reasons. This isn't the start of a new administration. There is speculation that the fired attorney's were looking into Republican wrong doings. The country wasn't dealing with The Patriot Act or a War during Clinton's firings. And I don't believe Congress was lied to regarding those firings.
-
they were removed by reagan, bush 1, clinton, and bush 2 at the START of their admins.
These were done mid-term to affect litigation in sensitive elections. These were done to influence the legal process, slectively, to benefit republicans. That's a no-no.
And they lied about it ;)
-
Leahy tells White House counsel to go fuck himself. ;D
-------------------------------------------------------
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy said Tuesday he does not accept the White House's offer to allow top political adviser Karl Rove and former White House counsel Harriet Miers to be interviewed by congressional committees with the caveat that the interviews not be under oath....
"It is not constructive and it is not helpful to be telling the Senate how to do our investigation, or to prejudge its outcome," said Leahy. "Instead of freely and fully providing relevant documents to the investigating committees, they have only selectively sent documents, after erasing large portions that they do not want to see the light of day."
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/20/us.attorneys.firings/index.html
-
Why won't they testify under oath?
If they have nothing to hide, it shouldn't matter.
If they do have something to hide, let's get it out there. I don't think anyone, from either party, wants liars working in their government. This should bring us all together. If there was wrongdoing, let's get to the bottom of it. Right, guys?
-
Leahy tells White House counsel to go fuck himself. ;D
-------------------------------------------------------
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy said Tuesday he does not accept the White House's offer to allow top political adviser Karl Rove and former White House counsel Harriet Miers to be interviewed by congressional committees with the caveat that the interviews not be under oath....
"It is not constructive and it is not helpful to be telling the Senate how to do our investigation, or to prejudge its outcome," said Leahy. "Instead of freely and fully providing relevant documents to the investigating committees, they have only selectively sent documents, after erasing large portions that they do not want to see the light of day."
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/20/us.attorneys.firings/index.html
Reading the neotaint's defense of this ought to be amusing. On second thought, they might just ignore it all together.
-
Reading the neotaint's defense of this ought to be amusing.
It's not like testifying under oath will pose any problems for them. They can just be like the Gipper and say "I don't remember" over and over again until it's time for everyone to go home.
Sure, it will stink to high heaven... but no more than everything else about their administration.
-
it is certainly no more of a crime than lying about a nonleak
-
it is certainly no more of a crime than lying about a nonleak
I don't care if he's lying about putting mayo on his ham sandwich.
He lied to congress under oath.
If that is "okay", then let's stop even making them take the oath, because it means nothing.
-
it is certainly no more of a crime than lying about a nonleak
Tell me about it. I hope this doesn't become another Scooter Libby situation.
-
really sad that you guys don't respect the oath, nor the bible they swear upon before lying.
I guess a little corruption is okay with you.
-
I guess a little corruption is okay with you.
A little corruption, a little fag-bashing, and a little torture.
All carry the BB Seal of Approval! ;D
-
A little corruption, a little fag-bashing, and a little torture.
All carry the BB Seal of Approval! ;D
::)
-
Why won't they testify under oath?
If they have nothing to hide, it shouldn't matter.
If they do have something to hide, let's get it out there. I don't think anyone, from either party, wants liars working in their government. This should bring us all together. If there was wrongdoing, let's get to the bottom of it. Right, guys?
Because the WH doesn't want a part of this media circus witch hunt.
What goes around comes around.
-
Because the WH doesn't want a part of this media circus witch hunt.
What goes around comes around.
Hi Honey! :)
I say skip the witch hunt, ...and just burn those fvckers at the stake!
...anyone got any marshmallows? :P
-
Because the WH doesn't want a part of this media circus witch hunt.
What goes around comes around.
If the dems lie, I want them outed and fired too.
We should ALL require honesty and accountability from our leaders, from both parties.
-
Hi Honey! :)
I say skip the witch hunt, ...and just burn those fvckers at the stake!
...anyone got any marshmallows? :P
Hi, babycakes.
I'm all for burning Dems at the stake. ;)
Hmmm... smells like chicken.
-
If the dems lie, I want them outed and fired too.
We should ALL require honesty and accountability from our leaders, from both parties.
I agree with you, Rob. The government works for us and we should demand accountability.
However, I'm not convinced that the Democrats intentions are honorable and, IMO, the WH has the right to fire them if they think they were not doing their jobs.
Where was the outrage when the previous administration did the same thing?
-
I agree with you, Rob. The government works for us and we should demand accountability.
However, I'm not convinced that the Democrats intentions are honorable and, IMO, the WH has the right to fire them if they think they were not doing their jobs.
Where was the outrage when the previous administration did the same thing?
I agree. And welcome back. :)
-
they were removed by reagan, bush 1, clinton, and bush 2 at the START of their admins.
These were done mid-term to affect litigation in sensitive elections. These were done to influence the legal process, slectively, to benefit republicans. That's a no-no.
And they lied about it ;)
DING DING DING!!!... Grand Prize goes to 240 8)
-
I agree with you, Rob. The government works for us and we should demand accountability.
However, I'm not convinced that the Democrats intentions are honorable and, IMO, the WH has the right to fire them if they think they were not doing their jobs.
Where was the outrage when the previous administration did the same thing?
HOLY SHIT, LONG TIME NO POST! WELCOME BACK SCUMBAG ;D
-
However, I'm not convinced that the Democrats intentions are honorable and, IMO, the WH has the right to fire them if they think they were not doing their jobs.
They had EXCELLENT performance evaluations.
The reason they were given was poor performance.
This was mid-term and their removal aided the republicans by firing the people prosecuting them.
No american should support this from either party - it essentially says the party in charge can stop any prosecution on any of its members at any time. I don't want EITHER party with this invincible power.
-
The previous admin - and the two before it - (clinton, bush1, bush2, and reagan) ALL fired everyone - WHEN THEY STARTED - across the board.
Gonzalez fired a handful after some were asked to change cases and alter timelines to influence elections.
Then, he lied about it.
-
The previous admin - and the two before it - (clinton, bush1, bush2, and reagan) ALL fired everyone - WHEN THEY STARTED - across the board.
Gonzalez fired a handful after some were asked to change cases and alter timelines to influence elections.
Then, he lied about it.
This is gonna be interesting....
-
They had EXCELLENT performance evaluations.
The reason they were given was poor performance.
This was mid-term and their removal aided the republicans by firing the people prosecuting them.
No american should support this from either party - it essentially says the party in charge can stop any prosecution on any of its members at any time. I don't want EITHER party with this invincible power.
Still, they are political appointees and serve at the pleasure of the President.
Both parties are guilty.
Question is, what are we, the people, going to do about it?
I'm afraid not a damn thing. We'll get distracted by some other shiney bauble and lose our focus.
-
HOLY SHIT, LONG TIME NO POST! WELCOME BACK SCUMBAG ;D
Just thought I'd pop in and see how the inmates were running the Nut House. ;D
-
Still, they are political appointees and serve at the pleasure of the President.
Both parties are guilty.
Question is, what are we, the people, going to do about it?
I'm afraid not a damn thing. We'll get distracted by some other shiney bauble and lose our focus.
But you do admit that every OTHER president fired across the board, right?
Bush2 chose to fire a small number of people to influence the outcome of sensitive court cases right before an election. This is a terrible thing. If we allow it, then he could fire 1,000 judges/prosecutors tomorrow to change 1000 cases. We might as well just shut down the justice system
-
But you do admit that every OTHER president fired across the board, right?
Bush2 chose to fire a small number of people to influence the outcome of sensitive court cases right before an election. This is a terrible thing. If we allow it, then he could fire 1,000 judges/prosecutors tomorrow to change 1000 cases. We might as well just shut down the justice system
And there is the flaw in the system fully exposed. Because they are appointed by the Chief Executive he has the Constitutional authority to fire them if he thinks they are not performing their duties to his liking.
Clinton and Bush did it as did every President before them.
If these "agents of justice" are ever going to be able to do their jobs then something has to change.
In respect to this media circus I think that because it's a Constitutional issue that Congress is fighting a losing battle. Additionally, if the roles were reversed they'd do the exact same thing.
Government: 1
The People: 0
-
Clinton and Bush did it as did every President before them.
They all did it at the beginning - firing everyone for the same reason.
This group LIED. THey blamed incompetence when there was none. When caught, they lied again, this time to congress.
It's beyond me why they're not tossed out on their ear the first time they're caught lying. instead people actually defend the lies.
-
They all did it at the beginning - firing everyone for the same reason.
This group LIED. THey blamed incompetence when there was none. When caught, they lied again, this time to congress.
It's beyond me why they're not tossed out on their ear the first time they're caught lying. instead people actually defend the lies.
I think we'll just agree to disagree on this one.
This is just another example of our broken system and neither party is without guilt on this one.
We have much more pressing issues to deal with than watching Repbulicans and Democrats get into another pissing war.
-
w8lifter,
I believe that anyone who lies under oath needs to leave office.
Because if they don't respect the oath they take in court, they obviously cannot by definition respect the oath they took when they took their own office.
Gonzalez clearly lied, as did Mcnulty. THey need to resign.
-
w8lifter,
I believe that anyone who lies under oath needs to leave office.
Because if they don't respect the oath they take in court, they obviously cannot by definition respect the oath they took when they took their own office.
Gonzalez clearly lied, as did Mcnulty. THey need to resign.
Again, I agree with you on holding politicians accountable but it won't change a thing.
This is a witch hunt and more tax payer dollars will be wasted. This country does not need is another media circus but it looks like we're going to get one anyways.
-
Again, I agree with you on holding politicians accountable but it won't change a thing.
This is a witch hunt and more tax payer dollars will be wasted. This country does not need is another media circus but it looks like we're going to get one anyways.
Agreed it's a witch hunt.
But, a witch hunt is the only way to hold AG accountable for being a liar.
He can't be fired for lying under oath (although he SHOULD be). So they fire him on a trumped up charge. COrrect outcome.
-
Agreed it's a witch hunt.
But, a witch hunt is the only way to hold AG accountable for being a liar.
He can't be fired for lying under oath (although he SHOULD be). So they fire him on a trumped up charge. COrrect outcome.
Did Gonzalez even testify before Congress about these firings?