www.ditl.org

I Am Spartacus wrote:All he does is go in front of congress and basically give them the finger all day long. It absolutely boggles the mind that he hasn't been fired yet.

Thoughts?

The finger is more than the congressional panel deserves.

The firing of the US attorneys is a non-issue which the foes of the President are trying to turn into a scandal.

The attorneys in question serve at the pleasure of the President. It is what, in US terms, is considered "at-will" employment . . . no contract, promise of a job tomorrow, or (vice versa) promise that one will show up to work tomorrow.

The "scandal" is the suggestion that Bush had 8 of the attorneys fired because their politics did not align with his own.

When Democrat Bill Clinton was elected, his solution to dealing with attorneys hired after the prior 12 years of Republican presidential rule was to fire them *all*. There were suggestions made at the time that this was to take a particular knowledgeable prosecutor off of an investigation of a Clinton ally and fellow Democrat, with the bludgeon being used instead of a scalpel to cover the trail.

As reported at the time, ""All those people are routinely replaced and I have not done anything differently," Clinton told reporters during a photo opportunity in the Oval Office. He called the decision more politically appropriate "than picking people out one by one.""

But whether the goal was one prosecutor or simply getting rid of all the icky Republican-hired ones, the underlying issue is the same.

Bush's act, even if it was for political reasons and not the publicly declared reason that they were not performing on their cases, is a non-issue.

Ironically, it is only politics that is making the potential politics in Bush's decision an issue. That is to say, his political opponents are trying to make Bush's presidency "scandal-plagued", so they're inventing scandals wherever they can find them. The liberal media in the US is only too happy to oblige.

DSG2k wrote: The finger is more than the congressional panel deserves.

The firing of the US attorneys is a non-issue which the foes of the President are trying to turn into a scandal.

They why does almost everyone in the adminstration refuse to testify under oath, often outright lying about it? When someone refuses to testify under oath, it's usually a good indication that they want to lie because the truth would make them look bad.

When Democrat Bill Clinton was elected, his solution to dealing with attorneys hired after the prior 12 years of Republican presidential rule was to fire them *all*. There were suggestions made at the time that this was to take a particular knowledgeable prosecutor off of an investigation of a Clinton ally and fellow Democrat, with the bludgeon being used instead of a scalpel to cover the trail.

As reported at the time, ""All those people are routinely replaced and I have not done anything differently," Clinton told reporters during a photo opportunity in the Oval Office. He called the decision more politically appropriate "than picking people out one by one.""

But whether the goal was one prosecutor or simply getting rid of all the icky Republican-hired ones, the underlying issue is the same.

Because someone else does something bad does not give someone else permission to do the same thing. If you're speeding down the highway at 20 km/h past the limit, you can't say to the police officer "you're right, I was speeding, but there was someone else going down this same route at 40 km/h above the limit and he didn't get caught, so I don't think you should give me a ticket."

Should I go out and commit murder, and at my trial defend myself by saying that the Zodiac killer got away with it, so I should as well?

Bush's act, even if it was for political reasons and not the publicly declared reason that they were not performing on their cases, is a non-issue.

Come again? You just said that they weren't fired for political issues. Even if there was wrongdoing, you don't care? That's not how a democracy works, my friend.

Ironically, it is only politics that is making the potential politics in Bush's decision an issue. That is to say, his political opponents are trying to make Bush's presidency "scandal-plagued", so they're inventing scandals wherever they can find them. The liberal media in the US is only too happy to oblige.

Liberal media? Ho boy...

And I hate to break it to you, but Bush's presidency has been scandal filled. What with the Iraq War, NSA illegal wiretapping, Valeri Plame, Florida election, Karl Rove, missing weapons, et al.

I suppose those are all just Liberal Media myths eh?

I Am Spartacus wrote:When someone refuses to testify under oath, it's usually a good indication that they want to lie because the truth would make them look bad.

Depends on who's asking the questions.

When you're forced to appear before the Senate for weeks upon weeks of hearings, or grilled for hour after relentless hour, eventually you will say something that appears to be not 100% in keeping with something said before. This is called a perjury trap. See the Libby case for an example.

Because someone else does something bad does not give someone else permission to do the same thing.

Except it was never "bad" before. Presidents have always had the right to replace attorneys for whatever reason they saw fit, up to and including mere politics. But all of the sudden with Bush in the center seat it's considered wrong and scandalous. Isn't that odd?

Bush's act, even if it was for political reasons and not the publicly declared reason that they were not performing on their cases, is a non-issue.

Come again? You just said that they weren't fired for political issues. Even if there was wrongdoing, you don't care?

I still don't see how it's wrong even if it was political. Legally speaking, he had every right to fire them for not liking their preference in hairstyle. It wouldn't be proper, but it isn't wrongdoing.

Iraq War, NSA illegal wiretapping, Valeri Plame, Florida election, Karl Rove, missing weapons, et al.

I suppose those are all just Liberal Media myths eh?

Many are similar situations, but those are topics for other threads.

DSG2k wrote:Depends on who's asking the questions.

When you're forced to appear before the Senate for weeks upon weeks of hearings, or grilled for hour after relentless hour, eventually you will say something that appears to be not 100% in keeping with something said before. This is called a perjury trap. See the Libby case for an example.

Tough. When Congress issues a subpeona the subject is required to show up or be held in contempt. The fact that the Bush administration doesn't want said subjects to testify is completely irrelevent.

The rest of issue has to a degree become irrelevent due to the issue shifting towards one of the Bush administrations attempt to dictate what Congress can and can't do.

Captain Seafort wrote:When Congress issues a subpeona the subject is required to show up or be held in contempt.

Only when they forget the concept of executive privilege, as they've (surprise, surprise) done. Hence all the mock outrage by Schumer.

The fact that the Bush administration doesn't want said subjects to testify is completely irrelevent.

Perhaps, perhaps not . . . but under the circumstances it can hardly be used as evidence of nefarious intent. If anything the misuse of Congressional authority is the crime.

DSG2k wrote:
Only when they forget the concept of executive privilege, as they've (surprise, surprise) done. Hence all the mock outrage by Schumer.

There's no such thing. "Executive privilege" is a bogus term made up by the current maladministration as an excuse to get out of a Congresstional supeona. Even if there was such a thing certain members of the excutive branch are subject to Cogresstional oversight.

Perhaps, perhaps not . . . but under the circumstances it can hardly be used as evidence of nefarious intent. If anything the misuse of Congressional authority is the crime.

Misuse of Congresstional authority? Congress in it's current incarnation is only begenning to regain some semblemce of a brain after numerous years of Republican asshatery. In case you've forgotten the previous Republican Congress and Senate presided over the dismantiling of civil liberties and human rights in the United States and the US international reputation abroad.

I still don't see how it's wrong even if it was political. Legally speaking, he had every right to fire them for not liking their preference in hairstyle. It wouldn't be proper, but it isn't wrongdoing.

Exactly - this is the presidential administration we're talking about. It should be held up to the standard of what' right and wrong, not just what may be technically legal under the strict letter of the law.