The Bush Administration Witch Hunt

[Labrocca]

So now we have this new "firestorm" because Gonzales and Bush fired 8 US attorneys. They are calling for Gonzales to resign. They are asking for "accountability" from the Bush administration. This is ludicrous.

The US Attorneys serve at the whim of the PRESIDENT alone. He appoints them as he sees fit...and can remove them with the same whims. When Clinton took office he fired ALL but 1. When Bush took office he did NOT...so now that Gonzales steps in they have decided to fire 8...only 8 out 93. The reason doesn't matter...there is NOTHING unlawful going on here.

This is a 100% political witchhunt inspired by Pelosi. This is the "agenda" from the left and the democrats in order to undermine this presidency. The left wants congressional hearings...no...what they want is to make the administration, Rove, and particularly Bush to look bad. The left has decided to attack, attack, attack and then attack some more. This is not imho what our elected officials should be doing. Hearings are pointless as there is nothing illegal here. The democratic agenda is clear...embarrass Bush at every possible chance and to paint a picture of a corrupt Republican administration. It could work..or it could backfire.

This story has yet to reach full fruitation and I am fearful that it will continue to be a headline for many days to come. A witch hunt is the only way I can describe this. If Bush floats...he ain't a witch...he is just dead.

[TheStripey1]

If there's a hunt for a witch, who do you think they will catch?

[Buck Laser]

Bush just announced a national address at 5:45 EDT today. I'm just guessing it will have something to do with Little Al.[/b]

[potter]

Bush just announced a national address at 5:45 EDT today. I'm just guessing it will have something to do with Little Al.[/b]



Little Al? You mean that Gonzalez guy?

Maybe he's bombing Iran?

[Buck Laser]

Bush just announced a national address at 5:45 EDT today. I'm just guessing it will have something to do with Little Al.[/b]



Little Al? You mean that Gonzalez guy?

Maybe he's bombing Iran?

As in being dropped on Iran? :cool:

[potter]

Bush just announced a national address at 5:45 EDT today. I'm just guessing it will have something to do with Little Al.[/b]



Little Al? You mean that Gonzalez guy?

Maybe he's bombing Iran?

As in being dropped on Iran? :cool:


Or bombing on Iran with really bad jokes..... :D

[TheStripey1]

Bush just announced a national address at 5:45 EDT today. I'm just guessing it will have something to do with Little Al.


Hmmm... maybe they caught the witch...

I bet bush is going to announce that his long time pal, Al, will be receiving the Medal of Freedom, the same one he gives all those that leave his administration...

[lily]

Hearings are pointless as there is nothing illegal here.

......how do you know this without a hearing? As I've said, I know it's hard when the norm used to be no oversight, but this does demand an investigation.


Buck Laser Wrote:
Bush just announced a national address at 5:45 EDT today. I'm just guessing it will have something to do with Little Al.

Yes, Little Al is staying. Rove and Meirs will testify, behind closed doors and with no transcripts. Now I can understant Rove doing this as he is Bush's advisor, and I'm honest enough to admit that I doubt the Democrats would keep the questioning to just this one item, but Meirs?

I suppose I should be thankful that he is letting Gonzales testify, under oath and with a transcript. I'll beleive it when it happens, though.

I will also admit that I think this is taking up too much time. Bush should be thankful it's keeping the heat off the Plame affair and bad intel, otherwise we'd need Anna Nichole to die again.

More investigations are coming, so I imagine there will be more outrage also coming. It's time to find out facts, folks.

Well, at least it brought out in the open that little item in the Patriot Act and got that taken care of..which brings another question to my mind......why are all these senators on BOTH side not aware that this was in there? One would think they didn't read the Patriot Act, before signing it into law.

[Drocket]

Well, at least it brought out in the open that little item in the Patriot Act and got that taken care of..which brings another question to my mind......why are all these senators on BOTH side not aware that this was in there? One would think they didn't read the Patriot Act, before signing it into law.

Because it was supposed to be an emergency power - if there was a terrorist attack (or what have you), the president would be able to appoint US attorneys to replace any who had been killed in the attack. They just manage to surround it with so many loopholes that Bush was able to use it now (hey, we're in the middle of a never-ending war against terror, and that's an emergency, right?) It's something that I ALMOST consider a forgivable error (if it hadn't been for the past 6 years of Bush being an imperialistic jackass who abuses any shred of power that he's given, I'd say it was completely forgivable.)

Even had the Democrats brought it up, though, what would they say? We object to this completely reasonable sounding emergency power that's supposed to only be invoked in case of a terrorist attack or other similar disaster? Just the fact that the bill is called the 'Patriot Act' is a clear demonstration of how good Republicans are at making gross abuses of power sound reasonable.

[Alonzo]

One would think they didn't read the Patriot Act, before signing it into law.

The vast majority of bills are not read. Typically the most they'll read is a summary prepared for them. That's why so many things get missed.

Though, if I remember correctly, with the patriot act even less attention was paid to the details given what had happened recently.

[Drocket]

When Clinton took office he fired ALL but 1. When Bush took office he did NOT...
No, you're quite right. Bush didn't fire all but one - he fired all but 9. Completely different, huh?

It's not really accurate to say that they were 'fired', though - US Attorneys are appointed positions, and when a new president comes into power, the president gets to fill those positions. Reagan did it, Carter did it, Clinton did it, Bush Jr. didn't - pretty much every president of the past 50 years did it, except for Bush Sr - he just kept Reagan's.

That's not the issue, though - the issue is mid-term firings, which very, very uncommon.

so now that Gonzales steps in they have decided to fire 8...only 8 out 93. The reason doesn't matter...there is NOTHING unlawful going on here.
Except that the 8 (every last one of them Bush appointees, it's worth mentioning) appear to have been fired specifically to derail investigations into Republican misconduct. That's what commonly referred to as 'obstruction of justice'.

[Drocket]

A witch hunt is the only way I can describe this.

Oh, and I just feel the need to bring up something you said a while back: you said that the main reason you hated Clinton was because he lied on national TV. Guess what? Gonzales went on national TV and lied about Rove being involved in the firings, and why those firings happened. Absolutely outright lie. It's not illegal because he was simply speaking to the press, but it was a clear and blatant lie to the American public. I presume you have no outrage over this?

Similarly, Bush went on national TV and swore that there would a complete investigation into who leaked Plame's identity, and swore that that person would be fired. No investigation took place, and nobody was fired. A blatant lie. No outrage there, I suspect? Does outrage about lying to the public only apply when it's a Democrat?

I bring this up because you use the word 'witchhunt'. The Republicans spent 6 years and over $40 MILLION dollars trying to get Clinton on something, anything, and all they managed was a BJ. Ooh, horrors!

[underdawg]

As I remember the Republicans held their own witch hunt against Clinton. As far as I know adultery and a BJ are not illegal either.

[Churchel]

Let me state for the record,

Its fine to be a republican and not support the administration.

This "witch hunt" is more like scooby doo or the bloodhound gang. This administration says one thing than does another. Or says something that is a lie. I do not trust them.

I am hoping all of this bleeds out to the public and press. I am hoping to find out what happened behind closed doors during the energy meetings of 2001.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

[ECW]

A witch hunt is the only way I can describe this.

Oh, and I just feel the need to bring up something you said a while back: you said that the main reason you hated Clinton was because he lied on national TV. Guess what? Gonzales went on national TV and lied about Rove being involved in the firings, and why those firings happened. Absolutely outright lie. It's not illegal because he was simply speaking to the press, but it was a clear and blatant lie to the American public. I presume you have no outrage over this?

Obviously not. It's different when the liar is someone they like. See, Drocket, it's part of the neocon constitution that a lie isn't really a lie if it's told to Liberals, the press or anyone other than other neocons. That's just SOP.

Similarly, Bush went on national TV and swore that there would a complete investigation into who leaked Plame's identity, and swore that that person would be fired. No investigation took place, and nobody was fired. A blatant lie. No outrage there, I suspect? Does outrage about lying to the public only apply when it's a Democrat?

Yes. (http://www.democracyforums.com/showthread.php?tid=4024)

I bring this up because you use the word 'witchhunt'. The Republicans spent 6 years and over $40 MILLION dollars trying to get Clinton on something, anything, and all they managed was a BJ. Ooh, horrors!


Sorry, Drocket, but you are way off on this one. It wasn't $40 million. It was $64 million. They took the extra $24 million out of petty cash or the Head Start program, I can't remember which.

[BoogyMan]

Rove passing on a criticism to the AG equates to being involved in the firings?

[BoogyMan]

As I remember the Republicans held their own witch hunt against Clinton. As far as I know adultery and a BJ are not illegal either.


Lying under oath is a crime.

[Stoner]

Lying under oath is a crime.


But it's ok, Boogy, if you're a lib. Libs play by different rules than the rest of us.

[potter]

Lying under oath is a crime.


But it's ok, Boogy, if you're a lib. Libs play by different rules than the rest of us.


From what I see the libs play by the rule of law while the conservatives claim "executive priveledge" to ignore and flaunt the law.

Yup...different rules.

[Drocket]

Rove passing on a criticism to the AG equates to being involved in the firings?

That, and his several dozen emails from Rove helping to rank the attorney's according to how 'loyal' they were to 'Bushie policies' (Rove's words.) Sorry, but the White House's massive document dump from the other day proves quite conclusively that Rove was heavily involved in the firings - and that the White House lied about it.

[Drocket]

Lying under oath is a crime.

Unless you're Scooter Libby, right?

[BoogyMan]

Lying under oath is a crime.

Unless you're Scooter Libby, right?


I seem to remember that Scooter Libby was found guilty of just that kind of activity. Don't let the facts get in the way of your conspiracy theory D.

[potter]

Any lying not under oath isn't a crime, which is why Bush won't testify under oath...so he can lie with impunity.

[Labrocca]

I love the new political agenda...back someone into a corner as much as possible and the second they slip....ATTACK. Bush has committed no crime nor injustice with the matter of firing these lawyers. Gonzales...yeah...whatever..fire him. He wasn't here long...imho hasn't done much...and I am sure he will resign shortly anyways. But will that be the end of it?

Bush isn't a lame duck president...he is a dead duck...the pot shots at his rear end as he is exiting his Presidency are amazing. The goal I believe is for the liberals to ruin him and any chance he has of ever becoming viewed as a good president. They have learned the lesson Reagan taught them. Bush does have a chance at being viewed as an honorable President one day.

Again. I stand by my original statement that this is a witch hunt. ECW...you seem upset about the Clinton hunt and the millions spent...you seem totally ok with this though. That's hypocritical.

[Drocket]

Any lying not under oath isn't a crime, which is why Bush won't testify under oath...so he can lie with impunity.

Actually, taking an oath before testifying before Congress is a technicality - mostly just a reminder to the people testifying, really. Lying to Congress is a crime, whether you've been sworn in or not. Which is why they want to Rove and Miers to testify behind closed doors, with no video cameras and no transcripts. No evidence that way - any accusations of lying will simply be the recollections of Congressmen, virtually impossible to prosecute.

[BoogyMan]

Any lying not under oath isn't a crime, which is why Bush won't testify under oath...so he can lie with impunity.

Actually, taking an oath before testifying before Congress is a technicality - mostly just a reminder to the people testifying, really. Lying to Congress is a crime, whether you've been sworn in or not. Which is why they want to Rove and Miers to testify behind closed doors, with no video cameras and no transcripts. No evidence that way - any accusations of lying will simply be the recollections of Congressmen, virtually impossible to prosecute.


Wow Drocket, that crystal ball of yours gives a really clear picture of the fallacy you wish it to present.

[Labrocca]

The want it behind closed doors simply to prevent another headline and news week of Rove and the administration in a hearing. It makes the administration look bad....no matter if they did something wrong or not. This is the intention of this witch hunt.

[TheStripey1]

The want it behind closed doors simply to prevent another headline and news week of Rove and the administration in a hearing. It makes the administration look bad....no matter if they did something wrong or not. This is the intention of this witch hunt.


If they've nothing to hide, why hide behind closed doors?
Why not proclaim their side of the story in open hearings? Are they afraid that their stories won't match?

[BoogyMan]

The want it behind closed doors simply to prevent another headline and news week of Rove and the administration in a hearing. It makes the administration look bad....no matter if they did something wrong or not. This is the intention of this witch hunt.


If they've nothing to hide, why hide behind closed doors?
Why not proclaim their side of the story in open hearings? Are they afraid that their stories won't match?


Or are they intensely aware of the dishonest nature of the witch hunt and not going to go for the gotcha tactics?

[potter]

Any lying not under oath isn't a crime, which is why Bush won't testify under oath...so he can lie with impunity.

Actually, taking an oath before testifying before Congress is a technicality - mostly just a reminder to the people testifying, really. Lying to Congress is a crime, whether you've been sworn in or not. Which is why they want to Rove and Miers to testify behind closed doors, with no video cameras and no transcripts. No evidence that way - any accusations of lying will simply be the recollections of Congressmen, virtually impossible to prosecute.


Thank you for that clarification

[TheStripey1]

The want it behind closed doors simply to prevent another headline and news week of Rove and the administration in a hearing. It makes the administration look bad....no matter if they did something wrong or not. This is the intention of this witch hunt.


If they've nothing to hide, why hide behind closed doors?
Why not proclaim their side of the story in open hearings? Are they afraid that their stories won't match?


Or are they intensely aware of the dishonest nature of the witch hunt and not going to go for the gotcha tactics?


Well, if they are going to engage in nefarious activities, they should be more careful about making sure their stories about them match... so far they haven't done that very well... cuz boogy, their stories change daily...

[TheStripey1]

and besides... what witch hunt are you talking about... no democrats were fired, the USAs were ALL republicans... the republicans are the ones upset and the dems are the ones taking the lead... You know as well as I that if this had come to light last year while the republican rubber stamp congress was in session, nothing would have been done about it...

absolutely nothing...

[BoogyMan]

Well, if they are going to engage in nefarious activities, they should be more careful about making sure their stories about them match... so far they haven't done that very well... cuz boogy, their stories change daily...

What nefarious activities would those be Stripey1? Lets have it in your own words and be specific WITH substantiation, not just hearsay.

[BoogyMan]

and besides... what witch hunt are you talking about... no democrats were fired, the USAs were ALL republicans... the republicans are the ones upset and the dems are the ones taking the lead... You know as well as I that if this had come to light last year while the republican rubber stamp congress was in session, nothing would have been done about it...

absolutely nothing...


Another completely unprovable hypothetical. Thank you for playing.

[Drocket]

What nefarious activities would those be Stripey1, lets have it in your own words and be specific WITH substantiation, not just hearsay.

The one to derail and prevent investigations into Republican corruption by firing prosecutors who dare to investigate them. Unless, of course, you think that its sheer coinicidence that all but one of the fired attorneys were ones working on Republican corruption cases (the other one refused to indict a Democrat right before the election simply because there wasn't any evidence that he committed a crime. What a pussy.)

[BoogyMan]

What nefarious activities would those be Stripey1, lets have it in your own words and be specific WITH substantiation, not just hearsay.

The one to derail and prevent investigations into Republican corruption by firing prosecutors who dare to investigate them. Unless, of course, you think that its sheer coinicidence that all but one of the fired attorneys were ones working on Republican corruption cases (the other one refused to indict a Democrat right before the election simply because there wasn't any evidence that he committed a crime. What a pussy.)


So you have nothing more than what you read on the left-wing blogs that is hearsay and wishful guessing?

Thought so.

[Labrocca]

Well, if they are going to engage in nefarious activities, they should be more careful about making sure their stories about them match... so far they haven't done that very well... cuz boogy, their stories change daily...

What nefarious activities would those be Stripey1? Lets have it in your own words and be specific WITH substantiation, not just hearsay.


I would like to know the same thing. If you think firing some lawyers that serve at the pleasure of the President nefarious...then so be it. The decision to fire these lawyers doesn't matter. This is just another attempt to expose a coverup that doesn't exist. Pelosi imho is behind this whole mess. She is the puppet master behind the curtain I am sure of it.

Can I ask what your hypothesis is of the coverup? Let me guess...they decided to fire lawyers that were unfriendly to the Bush administration..they weren't "Bushie" enough. Now can you express to me what's wrong with that? He is their boss. He can surely fire them. Let's say he is doing favors for some old friends and getting them jobs..ok sure...is that illegal? Clinton while exiting pardoned cronies. It was immorral but NOT illegal. It was a cover story and people moved on.

Can you tell me exactly what illegal activity you think the President, the administration, or Gonzales committed by firing these lawyers? Let's hear it out.

[underdawg]

Personally I think they should be going after the president for other crimes, but this administration has been lying to the public for so long I would be happy if they could get them to testify under oath for any reason. If they have been telling the truth they will have nothing to fear.

[Drocket]

Can you tell me exactly what illegal activity you think the President, the administration, or Gonzales committed by firing these lawyers? Let's hear it out.

Already told you: obstruction of justice. If the president wanted to pardon the multiple corrupt Republicans who were part of the Delay/Abramoff cabal, then he could do so - but then he (and the Republican party) would have to deal with the blowback from doing so. Instead, they've chosen to go the route of firing the government attorneys who dared to prosecute Republicans so they can replace them with more compliant henchmen who will be willing to look the other way.

[Labrocca]

"obstruction of justice" requires an investigation of a CRIME...no such investigation has taken place.

[BoogyMan]

Can you tell me exactly what illegal activity you think the President, the administration, or Gonzales committed by firing these lawyers? Let's hear it out.

Already told you: obstruction of justice. If the president wanted to pardon the multiple corrupt Republicans who were part of the Delay/Abramoff cabal, then he could do so - but then he (and the Republican party) would have to deal with the blowback from doing so. Instead, they've chosen to go the route of firing the government attorneys who dared to prosecute Republicans so they can replace them with more compliant henchmen who will be willing to look the other way.


Anyone can hypothesize about what they THINK might have happened D. In this case it is hypothesizing about what they want the public to think might have happened, regardless of the facts. You have nothing to substantiate such a claim and there has been absolutely no proof provided by any of the reckless lefties who have been howling the loudest that crimes have been committed such as Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton.

[lily]

"obstruction of justice" requires an investigation of a CRIME...no such investigation has taken place.


Um.......that is what they are trying to do. Investigate.

[Drocket]

Um.......that is what they are trying to do. Investigate.

Yes, and it must be stopped, because it's wrong to investigate something until an investigation takes place proving that the thing the investigation you want to start has already been proven.

[ECW]

Um.......that is what they are trying to do. Investigate.

Yes, and it must be stopped, because it's wrong to investigate something until an investigation takes place proving that the thing the investigation you want to start has already been proven.


MWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Damn, Drocket! You crack me up.

[Churchel]

This was not an issue until the lawyers fired were upset about the press release calling this "performance related issues". If my employer let me go, than told the world it was because I was incompetent, when the exact opposite was true than I would be more than a little upset.

These 8 people have to find work somewhere, and a false black mark of inadequacy is something that would be sued over in the private sector.

[lily]

While all that is true, Chruchell in this case, with all the press I don't think they have anything to worry about.

If I'm not mistaken Gonzales is scheduled to go in front of congress next week. He's already lied to them once. He's gone for sure. Another patsy falls on his sword for Rove.

We should be used to the lies by this administration by now. As lies go, this is little compared to what got us into this war.....that's what I want. I want to know what got us into this war, what went so wrong and where the billions of $$$ went.

I also realize that if the Democrats give up on getting Rove or Meirs to testify here, then they are not going to get them to testify when we need them, so I do understand this battle. While listening to Bush's speech, his my way or the high way, what came to mind is this is the way he talks to Iran and he's talking to congress this way?

While I'm on a midnght ramble......it was brought up on one of the talk shows, that Bush said he didn't know anything about this. Well, if that's the case, how can he say that Rove can't testify, because it would breech his trust?

[BoogyMan]

This was not an issue until the lawyers fired were upset about the press release calling this "performance related issues". If my employer let me go, than told the world it was because I was incompetent, when the exact opposite was true than I would be more than a little upset.

These 8 people have to find work somewhere, and a false black mark of inadequacy is something that would be sued over in the private sector.


False black mark? So the investigation is no investigation after all eh Drocket? The left doesn't want to investigate anything, they want to put forth the legal equivalent of "do you still beat your wife" type questions and then condemn ANY answer given publicly as you have done with your pretried and preconcluded "false black mark" commentary.

[potter]

Um.......that is what they are trying to do. Investigate.

Yes, and it must be stopped, because it's wrong to investigate something until an investigation takes place proving that the thing the investigation you want to start has already been proven.



:D:D:D:D

[Labrocca]

Um.......that is what they are trying to do. Investigate.

Yes, and it must be stopped, because it's wrong to investigate something until an investigation takes place proving that the thing the investigation you want to start has already been proven.


So what if they wanted to "investigate" how many times the president took a crap in a day. Would it be "obstruction of justice" if he didn't cooperate? My point is simple. You have to be investigating a CRIME for you to be obstructing justice. If a cop asks you questions unrelated to a crime and you don't answer you are not obstructing justice. What if a cop pulled you over and asked if you had any chocolate in the car and you replied "that's none of your business" do you think you committed "obstruction of justice"? Now if the cop asked you have you been drinking under the influence and you refuse to cooperate then YES...you are obstructing justice. Do you not see the difference dammit???

WTF...partisan blindness at it's worst once again.

There "hearings" are not an investigation of a crime...they are hearings so the Dems can make this president and the GOP look bad. They are not...I repeat NOT accused of committing any crimes and the administration is NOT obligated to cooperate in these hearings. It's bullcrap.

[Drocket]

If the attorneys were fired in order to derail investigation into Republican crimes (and the selection of who was fired provides a VERY reasonable assumption that that's the case), then that's obstruction of justice. The Bush administration's refusal to cooperate with an investigation into whether obstruction of justice took place is ANOTHER count of obstruction of justice. Combine that with the fact that the supposedly-complete record of emails just HAPPENS to be missing 16 days - the most important 16 days, right before the resignations were asked for - and you have a pretty good case for either withholding or willfull destruction of evidence.

Sorry, but there's more than legitimate grounds for an investigation.

[ECW]

This was not an issue until the lawyers fired were upset about the press release calling this "performance related issues". If my employer let me go, than told the world it was because I was incompetent, when the exact opposite was true than I would be more than a little upset.

These 8 people have to find work somewhere, and a false black mark of inadequacy is something that would be sued over in the private sector.


False black mark? So the investigation is no investigation after all eh Drocket? The left doesn't want to investigate anything, they want to put forth the legal equivalent of "do you still beat your wife" type questions and then condemn ANY answer given publicly as you have done with your pretried and preconcluded "false black mark" commentary.


As I stated in another thread (which you conveniently ignored) the termination of USAs while they have active investications is illegal. The president's power does not extend to that end. The law prohibits it but that's never stopped him or any other neocon before and that's why there is a whirlwind of crap coming down on them right now. There is but the first of the "crimes" you say did not occur.

Gonzales was less than truthful about why the eight were let go (saying it was performance related) and once Democrats found out he was lying, they becan to wonder what else he was lying about. If he repeats that lie before Congress, he will get nailed for that as well.

A self-generated scandal? Only because the neocons involved could not be bothered to tell the truth because they knew the truth would get them into hot water with the law.

18 U.S.C. SEC 1501-1520 are the relevant laws regarding obstruction of justice. If you don't have access to a law library in your little podunk village, subscribe to Lexus Nexus and look it up for yourself. Gonzales, McNulty his deputy, Sampson, his ex-chief of staff, as well as Rove and Miers could be on the hook for this. That's why Chimpy didn't want Rove testifying under oath to Congress: lying to Congress is a crime.

I can hardly wait until Senator Leahy gets to the heart of his investigation on this. And you thought the neocons are squealing like stuck pigs now...

[Drocket]

So what if they wanted to "investigate" how many times the president took a crap in a day. Would it be "obstruction of justice" if he didn't cooperate? My point is simple. You have to be investigating a CRIME for you to be obstructing justice. If a cop asks you questions unrelated to a crime and you don't answer you are not obstructing justice.

Oh, and I hate to bring up Clinton again, but you DO know that he was impeached on charges of obstructing justice because he refused to admit to an entirely consentual BJ, right? Because of an investigation that started out with investigating financial transactions way back with Whitewater.

[BoogyMan]

So what if they wanted to "investigate" how many times the president took a crap in a day. Would it be "obstruction of justice" if he didn't cooperate? My point is simple. You have to be investigating a CRIME for you to be obstructing justice. If a cop asks you questions unrelated to a crime and you don't answer you are not obstructing justice.

Oh, and I hate to bring up Clinton again, but you DO know that he was impeached on charges of obstructing justice because he refused to admit to an entirely consentual BJ, right? Because of an investigation that started out with investigating financial transactions way back with Whitewater.


He was brought up on charges of lying under oath.

[Drocket]

He was brought up on charges of lying under oath.

Clinton was impeached for three counts, one of perjury and two of obstruction of justice. Here's (http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/articles.htm) a link to the articles of impeachment, just in case you're interested. Article one deals with perjury, articles 2 and 3 with obstruction of justice.

The perjury charge was actually the less important one, and was rather quickly voted down (even a few Republicans realized that it was a ridiculous charge and voted against it.) The obstruction of justice charge was the one that took a while to debate.

[Churchel]

What would the house and senate look like if they did not investigate? We have complaints from the dismissed prosecutors, rove on email rating their "bushyness" and a bunch of fired people that seems to me to be for no good reason.

They were pissed off, like any employer I have. I had something that was more personal that was taken to a professional level happen during my government service, where I should have gotten a 3.8 evaluation but due to my supervisors having a vendetta towards my using the system to get married they dropped my evaluation to a 3.4. That was considered separable in the military. I did not fight it, because my flight out of the country was the next morning. Sometimes I wish that I had, I might be in a different position now.

In the current state, we have people fighting the state, and it seems that they are all good people. No matter how wacky ashcroft was, he has qualities that any employer should strive for; he would not let politics get in the way of justice.

I think this is all a cover for Carol Lam. I suggest watching for her name, Duke Cunningham, and Dick cheney. Something about 140 grand and office equipment.

Thieves and liars are getting caught. No matter how much the right leaning posters here think they are "in on it" these people will shit on your head other than inconveniencing themselves into moving to another stall.

[Labrocca]

If the attorneys were fired in order to derail investigation into Republican crimes (and the selection of who was fired provides a VERY reasonable assumption that that's the case), then that's obstruction of justice.



That IF in that statement is pure conspiracy theory junk. Have you ANY evidence of such things from a reputable news source? I have not heard one iota of complaints about this. I have not heard from the fired lawyers about this. I have not seen any news report on this on TV. Where do come up with that IF statement?

btw...I will agree that your IF statement is an obstruction of justice but no one is saying this is what happened. NO ONE.

This is a witch hunt...will Bush float..if not he is the devil himself.

The goal of this entire fiasco is to make Bush look bad it's obvious.

Also yesterdays Gore hearing was the exact opposite...what was the point of having him in front of congress other than a Democratic photo op? It was pointless.

[lily]

That IF in that statement is pure conspiracy theory junk. Have you ANY evidence of such things from a reputable news source? I have not heard one iota of complaints about this. I have not heard from the fired lawyers about this. I have not seen any news report on this on TV. Where do come up with that IF statement?

Let's just take the most vocal. Also keep in mind that Domenici felt it was time he got himself lawyered up. (http://www.abqtrib.com/news/2007/Mar/06/iglesias-speaks-senate-committee/)

[Labrocca]

That IF in that statement is pure conspiracy theory junk. Have you ANY evidence of such things from a reputable news source? I have not heard one iota of complaints about this. I have not heard from the fired lawyers about this. I have not seen any news report on this on TV. Where do come up with that IF statement?

Let's just take the most vocal. Also keep in mind that Domenici felt it was time he got himself lawyered up. (http://www.abqtrib.com/news/2007/Mar/06/iglesias-speaks-senate-committee/)



It doesn't mention Bush or Rove at all...nor any wrongdoing except actually on the part of the fired US attorney for not following protocols.

Also it appears his corruption cases weren't against Republicans but instead of Democrats. Since he couldn't perform his duties in a timely manner he was on the list to get fired. He was already warned.

Domenici called Iglesias at his home about two weeks later and also asked about the investigation into kickbacks in a courthouse construction contract purportedly involving high-profile Democrats.

The story doesn't add up...seems he was fired for not being diligent in investigation Democratic corruption. Seems legit to me.

[Pookie]

This is going to be interesting to watch. My jury's kinda out on this right now, but if Arlen Specter (Spector? sp) has his way, this could get real fun, and he's a Republican. I want to see what Miers has to offer. That whole thing with her being nominated to the Supreme Court without a whole lot of experience was a little alarming, I thought.
Hugs,
Pookie

[BoogyMan]

He was brought up on charges of lying under oath.

Clinton was impeached for three counts, one of perjury and two of obstruction of justice. Here's (http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/articles.htm) a link to the articles of impeachment, just in case you're interested. Article one deals with perjury, articles 2 and 3 with obstruction of justice.

The perjury charge was actually the less important one, and was rather quickly voted down (even a few Republicans realized that it was a ridiculous charge and voted against it.) The obstruction of justice charge was the one that took a while to debate.


I don't know that the charge was ridiculous, it just wasn't popular. I will grant you that there were other charges. I guess the lying under oath charge is the one that stuck in my head.

Thanks for the link.

[lily]

It doesn't mention Bush or Rove at all...nor any wrongdoing except actually on the part of the fired US attorney for not following protocols.

I know we all look alike, but I haven't been arguing the Bush/Rove angle at all. I was simply answering one of your questions.

Also it appears his corruption cases weren't against Republicans but instead of Democrats. Since he couldn't perform his duties in a timely manner he was on the list to get fired. He was already warned.

The story doesn't add up...seems he was fired for not being diligent in investigation Democratic corruption. Seems legit to me.

It doesn't matter if it was against Democrats or Republicans. They should be able to do their job without any political pressure at all. Justice is suppose to be blind. That is what this whole hub-bub is about.

[Labrocca]

Ummm..but their job is justice. There is no evidence of political pressure. Some phone call inquiries are not the same. His protocol was to report anything he considered pressure and he didn't. He waits till he is canned to bring it up...bullcrap.

Justice is blind but it's lead by the President in this case. If he tells these lawyers to get tough on child molestors...they gotta do it otherwise they aren't doing their JOB! In this case he was suppose to be going after political corruption...he didn't. He got canned...we aren't even sure if that's the part of the reason. It's just speculation.

[gpruitt54]

Witch Hunt, -- well lets see about that.

Remember where the term “Which Hunt” comes from. It has its origins in the period where insolent people were accused of being witches. The watchword (or rather term) here is “insolent people accused”.

Now let’s see how this holds up against the folks in the administration. The AG has been telling one story after another; The President wants people to comment without transcripts and without being under oath. People who work under the AG are threatening to plead the Fifth Amendment. Hummm!

So, if a witch hunt describes insolent people, and the administration is doing everything it can do to hide the truth. It would seem that your term, witch hunt is inaccurate. The administration is NOT behaving in a truthful manor. Maybe a more accurate term would be:

“Republican Chickens Coming Home to Roost.”