Quote from: Dominus NoxLet's see now, the republicans are claiming that it's OK for ttheir prez to fire major players in the justice system of the united states "because he felt like it" and that the democrats are making politics over it.

Actually, you claimed the sky was falling because a 8 US attorneys were fired and that the firing somehow proved abuse involving the PATRIOT Act. When some posters here pointed out the errors of your chicken little announcement, you turn to, um, blowjobs?

Quote from: Dominus NoxNow, when a democrat president got a blowjob in the oval office it ended up being inestigated and finally lead to an impeachment.

Which affects america more? A blowjob or stacking the justice system with ideologs who will slant the system towards the neocon right? Which is more worthy of attention and, if need be, correction?

Again, your facts are, at best, misleading. President Clinton was not impeached because he had inappropriate sexual contact with an intern. President Clinton was impeached for lying to a federal jury (I can not remember if it was a grand or petite jury). Whether like me you think the investigation was a waste of time, effort and money, or not, that's what the impeachment was about.

Now, lying to a jury is a criminal offense. I was on a federal Grand Jury for 15 months.  I personally asked for charges to be filed against a witness for lying. Firing US attorneys, on the other hand, is not a criminal offense - in fact it's a power the Office of the President has. So the comparison is meangless in this context.

Looks like you'll have to go back to your magnadoodle and try again, Nox.

Quote from: Dominus NoxLet's see now, the republicans are claiming that it's OK for ttheir prez to fire major players in the justice system of the united states "because he felt like it" and that the democrats are making politics over it.

Now, when a democrat president got a blowjob in the oval office it ended up being inestigated and finally lead to an impeachment.

Which affects america more? A blowjob or stacking the justice system with ideologs who will slant the system towards the neocon right? Which is more worthy of attention and, if need be, correction?

As some as stated, it wasn't the act that got Clinton into trouble, it was the purjury.  If you ask me, he should have been removed from office, and charged criminally.

So, what affect America more --

A President who is firing US Department lawyers who already serve at the pleasure of the President (ie he doesn't have to have a reason to fire them), something that is perfectly legal even before the Patriot Act came into being?

Or a President who ignores the basic rule of law, and commits a felony while in office?

Yeah ... the latter is worse.   The President WANTS lawyers that has the same viewpoints as he does, that will want to go after the same things as he does.   I do not understand why this is even an issue.

Quote from: James J SkachActually, you claimed the sky was falling because a 8 US attorneys were fired and that the firing somehow proved abuse involving the PATRIOT Act. When some posters here pointed out the errors of your chicken little announcement, you turn to, um, blowjobs?


Again, your facts are, at best, misleading. President Clinton was not impeached because he had inappropriate sexual contact with an intern. President Clinton was impeached for lying to a federal jury (I can not remember if it was a grand or petite jury). Whether like me you think the investigation was a waste of time, effort and money, or not, that's what the impeachment was about.

Now, lying to a jury is a criminal offense. I was on a federal Grand Jury for 15 months.  I personally asked for charges to be filed against a witness for lying. Firing US attorneys, on the other hand, is not a criminal offense - in fact it's a power the Office of the President has. So the comparison is meangless in this context.

Looks like you'll have to go back to your magnadoodle and try again, Nox.

No, I'm not going to try again. The clinton impeachment was a political hatchet job over something that had no effect on the country.

What W is doing affects the country by stacking the justice system against everyone who isn't a neocon.

BTW, I would like to se congress move to nullify (overturn) the clinton impeachment as it was nothing but a hatchet job

Quote from: Dominus NoxNo, I'm not going to try again. The clinton impeachment was a political hatchet job over something that had no effect on the country.

What W is doing affects the country by stacking the justice system against everyone who isn't a neocon.

BTW, I would like to se congress move to nullify (overturn) the clinton impeachment as it was nothing but a hatchet job

Only if they overturn Libby's too. After all, he was convicted of the same crime. If it wasn't for Bill, it isn't for Scooter.

Quote from: James J SkachUmm, your characterization is a bit misleading. The title is actually "US Attorneys Who Have Served Less than Full Four-year Terms, 1981-2006"

..........

So this report has nothing to do with US Attorneys leaving involuntarily.  It completely leaves out, for example, the bloodletting of Clinton's 93 firings when Janet Reno was brought in.

*Sigh*  I figured that I'd have to explain it to you -- you're so busy parrotting Rove's talking points you missed the crucial bit:

Indeed, Presidents Clinton, George H.W. Bush and Reagan replaced all 93 U.S. attorneys at the beginning of their administrations as part of the normal turnover involved in the alternation of power.

The report that I linked to talks about the only circumstances where U.S. attorneys failed to finish their four-year terms -- in other words, those that were fired or otherwise dismissed during their terms -- i.e. NOT as part of the normal turnover process.

None were fired for political reasons.

In brief, Bush's firings were unprecedented.

Quote from: GMSkarka*Sigh*  I figured that I'd have to explain it to you -- you're so busy parrotting Rove's talking points you missed the crucial bit:

Indeed, Presidents Clinton, George H.W. Bush and Reagan replaced all 93 U.S. attorneys at the beginning of their administrations as part of the normal turnover involved in the alternation of power.

The report that I linked to talks about the only circumstances where U.S. attorneys failed to finish their four-year terms -- in other words, those that were fired or otherwise dismissed during their terms -- i.e. NOT as part of the normal turnover process.

None were fired for political reasons.

In brief, Bush's firings were unprecedented.

Yes, the reason we didn't connect is because while I was parroting Roves you were parroting Code Pink's.

You see, I was simply pointing out that your characterization of the report to which you linked was wrong. You are equating leaving involuntarily with not serving a four-year term.  This is, of course, incorrect. Unless, of course, you are suggesting that Clinton got all 93 to resign? No, he fired them - thus they left involuntarily - which was his prerogative. And all 93 that Clinton, or Reagan, or Bush the Elder fired were all fired for political reasons.

I read an interesting piece this morning wherein a claim is being made that the Hummer is actually more eco-friendly than a Prius.  Why?  The Nickel in the batteries.  Apparently it's a nightmarish situation in the place in Canada that's the main source where the Nickel extraction has decimate everything for miles around due to acid rain that results from the process. Add it to all of the stuff that is required to get the Nickel to it's final form and it essentially travles around the world. Taken all together, the normally easy 'green' calculation of Prius > Hummer is not so clear.

Anyway, the point of the piece was not so much whether the answer is yet to be proven true, it was to show that its relatively common to be able to focus in or out on a situation to find the right resolution that supports your point of view.

In this case we disagree on whether or not firing all US attorneys due to the political reason of a change of office is significantly different than firing 8 of them for political reasons in the middle of the term.  In both examples I compare, Clinton and GWB, there are questions about the real reason people were fired.  In the case of the former, there was barely a blip in media coverage or outrage.  In the case of the latter, it's a firestorm.

Now maybe that's due to the difference of this being the middle of a term versus the relative beginning of a term. But I hardly think the current firings warrant cries of "Investigation!" and "Abuse of the PATRIOT ACT!" any more than I believed Clinton's firing of attorneys that were investigating Rostenkowski warratned cries of "Investigation!"  or "Abuse of Presidential Power!" It's the prerogative of the President to fire these folks - whenever in their terms it happens to be - for political reasons.

The term unprecendented means there's no previous example.  The report, which only covers 1981 - 2006, clearly indicates that Presidents have fired US attorneys before.  So what you're really saying is that it's only worthy of discussion because 8 were fired?  I mean, if he had done 2 at a time over 8 months (given a month in between), it's not unprecendented? I mean, I guess I'm really confused as to what is the exact issue that is worth this much consternation.

Unless, of course, you are implying that these 8 attorneys were investigating the President in serious matters, say, in the realm of the bloodletting by Nixon.  You're not suggesting that, are you?

And I'm at a loss as to how one leaps from the firing to the abuse of the PATRIOT Act...

Quote from: James J SkachAnd I'm at a loss as to how one leaps from the firing to the abuse of the PATRIOT Act...

Beats me.  That's Nox's bag, not mine.

I think that what we're looking here was a purge of Attorneys who were investigating Republican corruption cases which might lead back to the White House (the Cunningham-Wade-MZM boat deal seems to point back to the WH, for example, and Lam was in the middle of investigating that when fired), or who had refused to investigate trumped-up charges against Democrats when pressured by Republican congressmen.

With subpoenas now on the table, I don't think it will be long before somebody says something to confirm something like that....at which point it becomes more than just politcally-motivated firings, and becomes Obstruction of Justice, which is a chargeable offense.

More bad news for Qoltar's favorite president: Now it turns out that his attourney general has been accused of ordering federal prosecutors in the recent big tobacco case to, basically, sabotage the government's case against big tobacco.

Quote from: GMSkarkaBeats me.  That's Nox's bag, not mine.

Oh, well, ya know, I only point this out as it was the point of the original post, at which all of my calm, rational thought was directed.

Quote from: GMSkarkaI think that what we're looking here was a purge of Attorneys who were investigating Republican corruption cases which might lead back to the White House (the Cunningham-Wade-MZM boat deal seems to point back to the WH, for example, and Lam was in the middle of investigating that when fired), or who had refused to investigate trumped-up charges against Democrats when pressured by Republican congressmen.

Ahhh. So you are of the opinion that this was a masacre like Nixon. It may turn out to be such. I've heard not a peep that this was the case. Perhaps I'm naive in thinking that if such were the case, we'd have heard about it at this point. I mean, most people arent' aware that these firings happened some time ago.  I would assume if one of these attorneys had that kind of investigation going, the press would be having a party informing us. Maybe they are all just playing cat an mouse with us? Ya know, building up the narrative for maximum effect?

I'm more of the opinion that this was a purge of attorneys who were not playing nice with the politicians who held the power of the attorneys' appointments in said politicians hands. Political? Most definitely. Sleazy? They are politicians - what else would be expected? Criminal?  I've yet to see indications other than innuendo and speculation.

Quote from: GMSkarkaWith subpoenas now on the table, I don't think it will be long before somebody says something to confirm something like that....at which point it becomes more than just politcally-motivated firings, and becomes Obstruction of Justice, which is a chargeable offense.

It'll be great!  It'll be like the 70's all over again.  Our next President can tell us to wear sweaters and turn down the thermostat and we'll have a malaise index.  Can't wait!

If true - if there is proof that Bush directed Gonzales to fire US attorneys who were investigating the President - he deserves everything he gets.  I'm afraid for those of you who are waiting with baited breath, you'll find that these guys will fall on the sword for this guy (why remains a mystery to me). So Gonzales will take the final hit, if necessary, and the WH story will be that the President had no knowledge that this was being done on his behalf.

These attroneys were not investigating Republican Corruption and therefore fired. Duke Cunningham is currently in Federal prison, so if they were trying to derail that case, it worked REAL well, didn't it? But then again, that seems to be the whole story of the Administration. Evhul RepubliCristoFacistPetroCrats launch all these grand schemes that invariably end up dashed on the rocks. Either they really are evil shcemes bent on world domination, and the system is working as intended to prevent it, or Liberals have gotten themselves into that very special place where every single thing that happens, from the sun rising to Cheney not dying, is a huge evil plot. It wouldn't be so bad if it was just a few nuts on the internet - but its infected the so-called leadership of the Congress and Democrat party as well.

This will, once again, be a ton of sound and fury and will result in nothing. But hey, that's what we're in for for the next 2 years - one long game of accuse and investigate after another. I predict that nothing will come of any of it except to continue to wear down the public. Democrats had BETTER come up with a big skin, or they're doomed in '08.

To flip this whole topic on its head - one independent study said that the "Patriot Act" may not have been used often enough.
  Several Law Enforcement groups could have used it to bust  up groups that had links to terrorist groups but were "gun-shy" to do so because they were nervous about invoking the Patriot Act's new rules - when they probably should have.

 Just because a new law gives enforcers "permission" to do something - doesn't mean they always remember they have that permission or that they know how to use it effectively. They might all be a bunch of NPCs that flubbed their dice rolls.


- E.W.C.