Originally Posted by thatguyoverthere What does this mean? How does this comment reflect the rightness or wrongness of Bush's actions? If his actions are not wrong it will set a legal precedent that might bite Hillary or someone else of the other party in the ass. I did not mean ...
07-29-2007, 05:52 PM
| #21 | ||||
| Political Genius  Republican Yorba Linda Ca. 
| Originally Posted by thatguyoverthere 
If his actions are not wrong it will set a legal precedent that might bite Hillary or someone else of the other party in the ass. I did not mean to imply a threat or protections beyond the law.
__________________ Sock It To Me!  "Bureaucracy is a Parasite that Preys on Free Thought and Suffocates Free Spirit!" - Douglas Adams | ||||
     |
|
07-29-2007, 09:39 PM
| #22 | ||||
| Junkie  Republican
| Originally Posted by Donkey® You don't get to go digging for a case. If you have evidence to suggest a crime has taken place, THEN you go and look for proof. You do NOT get to just say "hey, a president that we hate fired some guys! Let's go see if we can prosecute him for it!"
If you don't know whether a crime even took place, then you don't have the power to go on a witch hunt. | ||||
| |
|
07-29-2007, 09:53 PM
| #23 | ||||
| helluo librorum The Lab Moderator  Humanist Chicago Suburbs
| Originally Posted by Joe_Cool And there is no evidence because of executive privilege.
Notice how it comes full circle?  I'm really surprised you guys don't have a problem with politicizing the justice department like this. I have the feeling that if the current president had a (D) next to his name you would be screaming bloody murder. | ||||
| |
|
07-29-2007, 10:26 PM
| #24 | ||||
| Friend to all.  Socialist Maryland
| Originally Posted by Joe_Cool
They are investigating allegations made by the attorneys themselves...that the firings were politically motivated...they were fired because they wouldn't prosecute Democrats during election time. Not sure what you're not understanding about the investigatory process? | ||||
| |
|
07-29-2007, 10:33 PM
| #25 | ||||
| Junkie Republican
| Originally Posted by Donkey® Well that's the best argument in Bush's favor yet! Obviously the attorneys were themselves obstructing justice, and were fired for it. Where's the problem again?
Besides that, if you had bothered to read the supreme court case I cited and linked, you'd know that Congress can't limit the President's Constitutional power to fire his appointees. Myers complained (accurately) that his being fired without the Senate's consent violated a law passed by Congress and signed into law. Unfortunately, that law violated the President's Constitutional power to fire executive appointees. And, as is supposed to happen, when the law conflicts with the Constitution, the Constitution wins. So it doesn't matter if the President's firings violate the law. His authority under the Constitution to fire them takes precedence. | ||||
| |
|
07-29-2007, 10:36 PM
| #26 | ||||
| Junkie Republican
| Originally Posted by Scrum Were you screaming bloody murder when Clinton politicized the DOJ by firing all republican-appointed attorneys? Or did you defend him?
I didn't complain a bit, because it's the President's prerogative, whether you like him or not. | ||||
| |
|
07-29-2007, 10:41 PM
| #27 | ||||
| America Fuck Yea Election Moderator  Republican In Name Only
| Originally Posted by Scrum that is exactly what happens when another President comes into power. They name their own US Attorneys, who follow what the President wants them to follow
| ||||
| |
|
07-29-2007, 10:52 PM
| #28 | ||||
| Friend to all. Socialist Maryland
| Originally Posted by Joe_Cool
So you don't want "witch hunts" yet when those attorneys stepped up and said "there is no evidence or cause to prosecute those Democrats" and refused to do so, in turn, possibly leading to their termination...you have no issue with that? Sounds a tad hypocritical to me. Also, you have NO issue with the White House using the Judicial Branch as their own personal political institution to help win elections? I am sure there's something unconstitutional about that?...since you want to wave your scriptures over your head constantly. Originally Posted by Joe_Cool There's nothing in the Constitution saying the President can direct prosecutions of people based on their political party either. I am sure there's actually something in the Constitution against discriminitory practices...
| ||||
| |
|
07-29-2007, 11:28 PM
| #29 | ||||
| helluo librorum The Lab Moderator Humanist Chicago Suburbs
| Originally Posted by Joe_Cool No. He put in his people at the start of his terms. That's how all Presidents do it, except for Bush. His people fired these Attorneys because their loyalties lied with the law and not the administrations political agenda (even though they were good enough to be appointed in the first place).
| ||||
| |
|
07-29-2007, 11:29 PM
| #30 | ||||
| helluo librorum The Lab Moderator Humanist Chicago Suburbs
| Originally Posted by kinggovernor Read the post above. That's not what happened in this situation, so that excuse is off the board.
Originally Posted by kinggovernor You have no problem with the DOJ being the enforcement arm of the political party in power?
| ||||
| |
|
07-30-2007, 08:16 AM
| #31 | ||||
| Dirty Liberal  Democrat South Jersey
| Originally Posted by kinggovernor That's not what happened. They were fired mid way into BUsh's 2nd term and they were fired because they refused to bow to pressure and prosecute specific democratic candidates.
| ||||
| |
|
07-31-2007, 08:03 PM
| #32 | ||||
| Junkie Republican
| Originally Posted by WickedLou9 I can't say anything about other cases, but David Iglesias (the fired US Attorney here in NM) was dragging his ass on genuine public corruption cases. It seems like he was intentionally trying to delay the indictments until after the election.
| ||||
| |
|
07-31-2007, 08:18 PM
| #33 | ||||
| Dirty Liberal Democrat South Jersey
| Originally Posted by Joe_Cool Or maybe he was focused on more serious issues and didn't want to stop what he was doing to investigate who the Bush Admin wanted him to investigate?
| ||||
| |
|
07-31-2007, 08:22 PM
| #34 | ||||
| Junkie Republican
| Originally Posted by WickedLou9 Or maybe it was an ongoing investigation that he was delaying.
| ||||
| |
|
07-31-2007, 09:22 PM
| #35 | ||||
| Dirty Liberal Democrat South Jersey
| Originally Posted by Joe_Cool I havn't heard anything like that. In fact all of the fired attorneys had excellent performance reviews.
| ||||
| |
|
07-31-2007, 09:33 PM
| #36 | ||||
| Junkie Republican
| Originally Posted by WickedLou9 You read a lot of news in New Mexico? I do. Do you have a subscription to the Albuquerque Journal? I do.
And I have heard something like that. The fact that you haven't heard it doesn't make it untrue. | ||||
| |
|
07-31-2007, 09:37 PM
| #37 | ||||
| Friend to all. Socialist Maryland
| Originally Posted by Joe_Cool
I'd like to see YOUR version (and I mean YOUR as in "you're the only one floating it I have seen in the whole country") in a link or online story of some sort... | ||||
| |
|
07-31-2007, 09:45 PM
| #38 | ||||
| Dirty Liberal Democrat South Jersey
| Originally Posted by Joe_Cool
Fired U.S. Attorneys - washingtonpost.com His job review says: "Respected by the judiciary, agencies, and staff... Complied with department priorities". | ||||
| |
|
07-31-2007, 09:47 PM
| #39 | ||||
| helluo librorum The Lab Moderator Humanist Chicago Suburbs
| Originally Posted by WickedLou9 He also was chosen to teach new prosecutors about election fraud prosecution and spoke at a symposium on the subject.
He was obviously dragging his feet.  | ||||
| |
