Gonzales Aide to Invoke Fifth Amendment

[spurster]

I find this a relief because it shows at least one person in the Justice Department believes that we have rights.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Fired-Prosecutors.html

Gonzales Aide to Invoke Fifth Amendment
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: March 26, 2007

Filed at 4:50 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Monica Goodling, a senior Justice Department official involved in the firings of federal prosecutors, will refuse to answer questions at upcoming Senate hearings, citing Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination, her lawyer said Monday.

...

[ggoose25]

wow... you dont invoke that unless you're worried about your own ass

[PixelPusher]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/ca/Fif.jpg/180px-Fif.jpg
"1, 2, 3, 4, Fiiiiifffff!"

[ggoose25]

^^^:lol thats what i thought about too

[ChumpDumper]

''The potential for legal jeopardy for Ms. Goodling from even her most truthful and accurate testimony under these circumstances is very real,'' said the lawyer, John Dowd.Wow, a preemptive admission of guilt. What a great legal strategy.

[ggoose25]

Wow, a preemptive admission of guilt. What a great legal strategy.

seriously. had they just come out and said. look douchebags... we do what we want. none of this would have ever happened. but they lied. and lied. and lied. and guess what they lied some more. and so now there's a reason to get to the bottom of this, whereas they couldve avoided the investigation by coming clean in the first place about firing them due to a preogative instead of the false claims that they were merit based.

[ChumpDumper]

Have they called it Gonzogate yet?

[PixelPusher]

seriously. had they just come out and said. look douchebags... we do what we want. none of this would have ever happened. but they lied. and lied. and lied. and guess what they lied some more. and so now there's a reason to get to the bottom of this, whereas they couldve avoided the investigation by coming clean in the first place about firing them due to a preogative instead of the false claims that they were merit based.
When confronted, a compulsive liar's first instinct is to lie, whether it was necessary or not.

[gtownspur]

seriously. had they just come out and said. look douchebags... we do what we want. none of this would have ever happened. but they lied. and lied. and lied. and guess what they lied some more. and so now there's a reason to get to the bottom of this, whereas they couldve avoided the investigation by coming clean in the first place about firing them due to a preogative instead of the false claims that they were merit based.


Glad to admit you love witch hunts.

[PixelPusher]

Glad to admit you love witch hunts.
Glad you admitted you are a hypocrite..."Clinton", "stained blue dress", "Impeachment"...any of those things ring a bell?

[ggoose25]

Have they called it Gonzogate yet?
:lol Keith Olbermann did tonight

[exstatic]

Glad to admit you love witch hunts.
Newsflash: if they're wearing black pointed hats and casting spells, it's not a "witch hunt". You've found the witch. In fact, she's turned herself in.

[ggoose25]

Glad to admit you love witch hunts.

generally its not a witch hunt when someone feels the need to plead the fif. that means there must be some fire behind all this smoke.

[ggoose25]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17801927/

watch the video. Gonzo has no FUCKING idea how to respond other than bullshit coming out of his mouth

[Guru of Nothing]

C H I C K E N S H I T!

Typically, agreeing with you Buck is something I eschew, but the video does not lie - Gonzales is an absolute political coward. What, besides cash, could permit him to comport himself thusly?

[Cant_Be_Faded]

this country will burn in hades

[gtownspur]

generally its not a witch hunt when someone feels the need to plead the fif. that means there must be some fire behind all this smoke.

No dumbass.

It means that no one wants to take a risk in committing a small perjury charge.

Bad recollection can get you perjury.

[gtownspur]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17801927/

watch the video. Gonzo has no FUCKING idea how to respond other than bullshit coming out of his mouth


If that makes him a witch. That must make you one as well.

[gtownspur]

Glad you admitted you are a hypocrite..."Clinton", "stained blue dress", "Impeachment"...any of those things ring a bell?


No. I didn't care about those.


Glad to admit you're horrible at generalizing aren't ya?

[gtownspur]

generally its not a witch hunt when someone feels the need to plead the fif. that means there must be some fire behind all this smoke.



I agree. There is fire in fired 8 US attorneys.

[gtownspur]

Newsflash: if they're wearing black pointed hats and casting spells, it's not a "witch hunt". You've found the witch. In fact, she's turned herself in.


Newsflash: I'm Exstatic. Written Law that permits the executive branch to fire attorneys at will, is foreign to me. I'll remain ignorant and coy. It's easier to be this way.

[ChumpDumper]

No dumbass.

It means that no one wants to take a risk in committing a small perjury charge.

Bad recollection can get you perjury.So can lying.

[101A]

None of this matters.

Does she weigh less than a duck?

[FromWayDowntown]

http://www.intriguing.com/mp/_pictures/grail/large/HolyGrail028.jpg

[xrayzebra]

Glad you admitted you are a hypocrite..."Clinton", "stained blue dress", "Impeachment"...any of those things ring a bell?

Ever heard of Libby? No crime just BS.

Dimm-o-craps are famous for it. Screw them. Or you
could just pull a Billary.......I cant recall!

[FromWayDowntown]

Ever heard of Libby? No crime just BS.

Dimm-o-craps are famous for it. Screw them. Or you
could just pull a Billary.......I cant recall!

You know, if there was no crime in Libby's case, he'll win on appeal.

If he doesn't win on appeal, then he committed a crime.

Pretty simple stuff.

[xrayzebra]

You know, if there was no crime in Libby's case, he'll win on appeal.

If he doesn't win on appeal, then he committed a crime.

Pretty simple stuff.

Really! How come the guy who charged him didn't stop
when he "solved" the crime, that was no crime.

Got to love the dimm's. They love to post that sign:
"Gone Fishin"

[PixelPusher]

Ever heard of Libby? No crime just BS.

Dimm-o-craps are famous for it. Screw them. Or you
could just pull a Billary.......I cant recall!
Either lying under oath is a crime (the worst crime imaginable according to the Clinton haters) or it isn't. Get back to me when you've made up your mind.

[xrayzebra]

PP you hung up on Clinton. The person known to have
committed the "so called" crime was already know when Libby
was called before a Grand Jury. Therefore, was not the
person in question. Clinton was the focus of the "no sex" blow
job.

[FromWayDowntown]

Really! How come the guy who charged him didn't stop
when he "solved" the crime, that was no crime.

Got to love the dimm's. They love to post that sign:
"Gone Fishin"

Perhaps because he doesn't buy into the Right's spin, actually looked at the law and the facts that he believed he could prove, and decided that he could get a conviction for a real life, honest-to-goodness crime.

Curiously, the judge in the District Court (with, I'm sure many very able law clerks to assist) reached the same conclusion. Somehow, xray, when it comes to knowledge of the law, I'm willing to put more faith in the Judge than I am in Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, or others with political axes to grind. Had the argument you're making been right, the Judge would have been required to throw the case out. He didn't do that.

Whether Mr. Fitzpatrick and the Judge were right or not will be determined, at least in part, by what an appellate court has to say about the whole affair.

[xrayzebra]

Perhaps because he doesn't buy into the Right's spin, actually looked at the law and the facts that he believed he could prove, and decided that he could get a conviction for a real life, honest-to-goodness crime.

Curiously, the judge in the District Court (with, I'm sure many very able law clerks to assist) reached the same conclusion. Somehow, xray, when it comes to knowledge of the law, I'm willing to put more faith in the Judge than I am in Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, or others with political axes to grind. Had the argument you're making been right, the Judge would have been required to throw the case out. He didn't do that.

Whether Mr. Fitzpatrick and the Judge were right or not will be determined, at least in part, by what an appellate court has to say about the whole affair.


So, you have you faith and I have mine.

But back to the original argument. The fifth saves a lot
of wear and tear on the old pocket book. Let the
dimm-o-craps stew in the own juice and prove you did
something wrong. Thinking ant provin.......

[FromWayDowntown]

So, you have you faith and I have mine.

But back to the original argument. The fifth saves a lot
of wear and tear on the old pocket book. Let the
dimm-o-craps stew in the own juice and prove you did
something wrong. Thinking ant provin.......

Good to know that you're unconcerned about throwing around inapt comparisons.

[xrayzebra]

^^Yeah, that is way I am "unconcerned". Inapt comparisons,
have no idea what you are talking about.

[FromWayDowntown]

^^Yeah, that is way I am "unconcerned". Inapt comparisons,
have no idea what you are talking about.

:tu

[ggoose25]

No dumbass.

It means that no one wants to take a risk in committing a small perjury charge.

Bad recollection can get you perjury.

i understand that. the question still remains why worry over committing perjury in the future unless you plan to lie. if you tell the truth, you should be fine. but she's planning to lie? about what in particular, and why would she feel the need to lie? what is she trying to cover up?

gtown = :blah

[mookie2001]

gonzales doesnt believe in the constitution

[clambake]

Her plead should not be allowed by law. There are no indictments. She jumped the gun. May have been a suggestion from legal counsultent, but too early to plead the 5th.

[exstatic]

Newsflash: I'm Exstatic. Written Law that permits the executive branch to fire attorneys at will, is foreign to me. I'll remain ignorant and coy. It's easier to be this way.
Y'Know, if they'd have come out with that? I'm fine. What I'm not fine with is saying that they are fired for poor performance, when three of them had outstanding reviews, and none of them had poor reviews. I'm also not fine with Pistol Pete Domenici directly calling a prosecutor about an investigation that IS in progress, and pressuring him to issue indictments. That IS illegal. Not surprisingly, that prosecutor wound up on the "fired" list.

[Nbadan]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thenewswire/archive/ap/gonzalesruns.jpg
Gonzo (flips the press off) and flees Chicago
after 3-minute Q&A that was supposed to last 15-minutes

[PixelPusher]

gonzales doesnt believe in the constitutionHe believes in a special version of the Constitution that, unlike that "goddamn piece of paper" the rest of us know, renders Habeus Corpus a mere indulgence that exists at the pleasure of the president, and can be taken away at a whim (something even the British monarchy couldn't do).

[gtownspur]

Y'Know, if they'd have come out with that? I'm fine. What I'm not fine with is saying that they are fired for poor performance, when three of them had outstanding reviews, and none of them had poor reviews. I'm also not fine with Pistol Pete Domenici directly calling a prosecutor about an investigation that IS in progress, and pressuring him to issue indictments. That IS illegal. Not surprisingly, that prosecutor wound up on the "fired" list.


It doesn't matter if they had rave reviews. They're not serving at the pleasure of some random rating service, but for the president.


And the president can fire them at will.

Those attorneys are appointed politically in the first place and can be fired politically.

Much ado about Nothing.

[gtownspur]

i understand that. the question still remains why worry over committing perjury in the future unless you plan to lie. if you tell the truth, you should be fine. but she's planning to lie? about what in particular, and why would she feel the need to lie? what is she trying to cover up?

gtown = :blah


Because you're in danger of someone contradicting your story, and can be charged for perjury due to a faulty memory.

It's not so simple. You could go to jail on a technicality.

[gtownspur]

So can lying.


yeah we know you're hoping.

[gtownspur]

gonzales doesnt believe in the constitution


Implied powers are unconstitutional?

[Kermit]

It doesn't matter if they had rave reviews. They're not serving at the pleasure of some random rating service, but for the president.


And the president can fire them at will.

Those attorneys are appointed politically in the first place and can be fired politically.

Much ado about Nothing.
it's a big deal when tampering with federal cases is alleged and the firings are accused of being retaliatory for said prosecutors going after republican congressmen instead of democrats (carol lam and duke cunningham).

[gtownspur]

it's a big deal when tampering with federal cases is alleged and the firings are accused of being retaliatory for said prosecutors going after republican congressmen instead of democrats (carol lam and duke cunningham).


It is a big deal... to democrats. Nobody else who is informed cares.

[gtownspur]

Abraham Lincoln believed in a special version of the Constitution that, unlike that "goddamn piece of paper" the rest of us know, renders Habeus Corpus a mere indulgence that exists at the pleasure of the president, and can be taken away at a whim (something even the British monarchy couldn't do).

[PixelPusher]

Abraham Lincoln believed in a special version of the Constitution that, unlike that "goddamn piece of paper" the rest of us know, renders Habeus Corpus a mere indulgence that exists at the pleasure of the president, and can be taken away at a whim (something even the British monarchy couldn't do).



The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.
We are not in the midst of a civil war, and no foreign army is marching on U.S. soil. This is what happens when you rely on authority-worshiping rightwing blogs for constitutional interpretation.

[Kermit]

It is a big deal... to democrats. Nobody else who is informed cares.
it's a pretty big deal among republicans as well. and plenty of informed people care. i advise you to check the latest polls concerning this issue.

[ChumpDumper]

Because you're in danger of someone contradicting your story, and can be charged for perjury due to a faulty memory.

It's not so simple.It's so simple even you might be able to understand it.

Don't lie.

Don't change your story three of four times.

Don't blame everything on Tim Russert.

Why are you so afraid of the truth?

[gtownspur]

it's a pretty big deal among republicans as well. and plenty of informed people care. i advise you to check the latest polls concerning this issue.


John Sunnunu is alot of republicans. gotcha.

[gtownspur]

The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

This is where it gets grey.

An invasion in this case, terrorist networks that are here on our soil with out our will and threaten the immediate public's safety.

[gtownspur]

It's so simple even you might be able to understand it.

Don't lie.

Don't change your story three of four times.

Don't blame everything on Tim Russert.

Why are you so afraid of the truth?


It's much simpler to just let the evidence incriminate you and not speak.

And you might trip up on other facts or not remember that are inconsequential with this case.

You know this is a witch hunt. And they are trying to set up a perjury trap.

If their stories corroborate with the firing of the Attorneys, the democrats might try to catch them with other questions not pertaining to the actual act of firing attorneys.

[gtownspur]

it's a pretty big deal among republicans as well. and plenty of informed people care. i advise you to check the latest polls concerning this issue.

THe only big deal concerning republicans is AG's inablity to articulate a good defense.

The law permits the administration to fire appointed attorneys at will, no rating service required, they serve the president. No law broken there.

If the law was expressed with pictures maybe Dumpachest would get it.

[ChumpDumper]

It's much simpler to just let the evidence incriminate you and not speak.:lol incriminate for what? Now you are admittting a crime was committed? You're as mixed up as Gonzales.

[gtownspur]

:lol incriminate for what? Now you are admittting a crime was committed? You're as mixed up as Gonzales.


:wakeup , that's a far fetch there, but i'll let you win your imaginery battle bog match on this issue.

Here's a dancing elephant :elephant .

now Go play with your crayons son.

[ChumpDumper]

THe only big deal concerning republicans is AG's inablity to articulate a good defense.Why is that? If he did nothing worng he didn't need to make up three different stories about it.
The law permits the administration to fire appointed attorneys at will, no rating service required, they serve the president. No law broken there.If an attorney is fired because to foil an investigation, for example, a law has been broken. It would be nice if the Bush administration could actually say why these guys were fired. Why is it so difficult for them to say why?

[ChumpDumper]

:wakeup , that's a far fetch there, but i'll let you win your imaginery battle bog match on this issue.

Here's a dancing elephant :elephant .

now Go play with your crayons son.:lol you shouldn't drink so much on weeknights, trick.

[gtownspur]

:lol you shouldn't drink so much on weeknights, trick.


It's just an emoticon drinking coffee.

a nine year old wouldn't take it literal.

But i see you like to read into things to much, much like a girl would.


You said trick. :nope

Don't take your mother's name in vain.

[gtownspur]

If an attorney is fired because to foil an investigation, for example, a law has been broken.


link?

[Kermit]

John Sunnunu is alot of republicans. gotcha.
yeah, because a plethora of them are coming to his defense outside the whitehouse.

[Kermit]

This is where it gets grey.

An invasion in this case, terrorist networks that are here on our soil with out our will and threaten the immediate public's safety.
so, what about muslims detained without ties to terrorist organizations who are denied habeas corpus?

[ChumpDumper]

link?You want a link to an obstruction of justice statute.

Keep drinking.

I'm not judging your drunkeness by you emoticons. If you'd rather just chalk it up to your stupidity, that's fine.

[gtownspur]

yeah, because a plethora of them are coming to his defense outside the whitehouse.

What you want a free Gonzalez concert and a show of solidarity?

[gtownspur]

You want a link to an obstruction of justice statute.

Keep drinking.

I'm not judging your drunkeness by you emoticons. If you'd rather just chalk it up to your stupidity, that's fine.


Why, does it refer specifically to the executive privelege of firing attorneys.

There's already a law that expresses the right of the president to fire attorneys at will.
Do you want me to make turn it into a pop up book for your comprehension?

Sorry my stupidity at this late of night is pwning your ass.
now where's my 20 percent biatch.

[Kermit]

What you want a free Gonzalez concert and a show of solidarity?
sure, if the dixie chicks can play.

[ChumpDumper]

Why, does it refer specifically to the executive privelege of firing attorneys.:lmao Now your argument is the president is allowed to obstruct justice at will!

You just owned yourself, dumbass.

[gtownspur]

so, what about muslims detained without ties to terrorist organizations who are denied habeas corpus?


You mean they're detained for being muslim?

Why just stop with a couple of muslims, why not just detain all of them if we're just doing it for kicks.

I'll wait for your elaborate awnser, i'll have chump hold his breath for me. He does it better with a dick in his mouth.

[gtownspur]

:lmao Now your argument is the president is allowed to obstruct justice at will!

You just owned yourself, dumbass.


Nah, to fire attorneys at will. I don't see how you confused attorney with the obstruction of justice.

Maybe if you'd wipe the jizz of your right eye lid you'd get it right the first time.

[gtownspur]

sure, if the dixie chicks can play.


:lol , that's funny.

No the dixie chicks can't play. Period!

[ChumpDumper]

You really need a man, gtown. You can't stop talking about gay sex. It gets in the way of your understanding a simple hypothetical.

[Kermit]

You mean they're detained for being muslim?

Why just stop with a couple of muslims, why not just detain all of them if we're just doing it for kicks.

I'll wait for your elaborate awnser, i'll have chump hold his breath for me. He does it better with a dick in his mouth.
why not? gonzales has made it clear that habeas corpus doesn't apply to residents or citizens. what's to stop us from detaining them all?

hopefully you're not fantasizing about dicks in dude's mouths, unless that's your thing...

[ChumpDumper]

hopefully you're not fantasizing about dicks in dude's mouths, unless that's your thing...It's his obsession. He can't stop talking about it.

[gtownspur]

It's his obsession. He can't stop talking about it.


Just like you can't stop stalking me post after post.

Your man love for me is scary.

[gtownspur]

why not? gonzales has made it clear that habeas corpus doesn't apply to residents or citizens. what's to stop us from detaining them all?


there's your awnser. Gonzales.

[gtownspur]

You really need a man, gtown. You can't stop talking about gay sex. It gets in the way of your understanding a simple hypothetical.


A simple hypothetical is one that is relevant and testable, not some imaginary obstruction of justice charge pulled out of nowhere.

So how bout explaining Bill Clintons firing of 96 US attorneys to get to 2 attorneys who were investigating him for fraud?

I'd like to see you google that.

[ChumpDumper]

Just like you can't stop stalking me post after post.When I see posts as stupid as yours, I have to comment. You are very consistent in that respect -- almost as consistent as you are with obsessing over gay sex.

[ChumpDumper]

A simple hypothetical is one that is relevant and testable, not some imaginary obstruction of justice charge pulled out of nowhere.

So how bout explaining Bill Clintons firing of 96 US attorneys to get to 2 attorneys who were investigating him for fraud?

I'd like to see you google that.So you have proof of that?

Was there congressional testimony to that effect from members of the Clinton administration? Do you have a link to that?

If it is indeed true -- you are on the record of being ok with that of that kind of firing, so you obviously have no problem at all with Clinton's firing of any attorney for any reason.

[ChumpDumper]

Also, did Clinton fire any of his appointees for investigating him?

Or are you just trying to use a right wing talking point innuendo to try and change the subject from what may have been done in this case with DAs Bush appointed himself?

[gtownspur]

When I see posts as stupid as yours, I have to comment. You are very consistent in that respect -- almost as consistent as you are with obsessing over gay sex.

You gagging on daggers is not sex, Your favorite president of all time said so what's so hard for you to understand?



Besides it's not as if you have anything substantive to bring besides trivial made up hypotheticals you already have your own awnser to. If no one was as stupid to actually argue them on substance, you'd awnser them yourself. Kind of like a dog chasing his tail.





So be thankful i don't take you seriously, and just jab you with homosexual jokes that give you an unwanted chubby.
And if you feel uncomfortable with gay jokes, i'm sorry for your insecurity. I can say them all i want it doesn't make me question my heterosexuality.




If you feel your manhood threatened i'll stop. Otherwise if you keep on with the name calling, then it's fair game, and that only reinforces my suspicion that you love being called a dirty queenie whore. It's very sadistic of you.


Cmon', type another pointless attack. You love the bad treatment.

[ChumpDumper]

It's not an attack. I simply recognize your obsession with gay sex. You went for one whole post without brining it up, so I applaud that. I know you are incapable of serious discussion because you simply aren't that smart, so you just start talking about whatever is on your mind at the time -- which is invariably gay sex.

It doesn't make me uncomfortable. It's just that you should be in a gay sex forum and not here. You'd probably be a happier person.

[gtownspur]

Also, did Clinton fire any of his appointees for investigating him?

Or are you just trying to use a right wing talking point innuendo to try and change the subject from what may have been done in this case with DAs Bush appointed himself?


This is national review, a right leaning publication.

Only, this is 1998. And the Gonzales firings didn't happen yet.


Justice denied: as President Clinton has time after time made a mockery of his oath of office, his attorney general has followed suit - Janet Reno
National Review, Sept 1, 1998 by Robert H. Bork


In the history of the Republic, the names of Bill Clinton and Janet Reno will be forever linked, a prospect that ought to appall Miss Reno. That is entirely due to her efforts to preserve the President from his own follies, to use a polite word. Bill Clinton heads what is probably the most corrupt Administration ever, while Miss Reno has been called the worst of all Clinton's Cabinet appointments. From his point of view, of course, she may be the best, which comes to much the same thing.

Miss Reno's only visible qualifications for the post of attorney general were two: she is a woman and she had been a prosecutor. The first characteristic was indisputable, although, in any non-feminized era, it would have been irrelevant. The second seemed heartening, but it did not prepare her for Washington. Coming from obscurity, she must have been caught off guard by the rampant corruption into which she was thrust. So varied and unceasing have been this Administration's infractions of law that Miss Reno resembles a desperate tennis player, running from side to side of the court and from net to baseline in a frantic effort to hold down the score. Unfortunately for her White House coach, she is becoming winded and wobbly-legged.

She was not in charge from the beginning. Upon taking office, in an unexplained departure from the practice of recent Administrations, Miss Reno suddenly fired all 93 U.S. attorneys. She said the decision had been made in conjunction with the White House. Translation: The President ordered it. Just as the best place to hide a body is on a battlefield, the best way to be rid of one potentially troublesome attorney is to fire all of them. The U.S. attorney in Little Rock was replaced by a Clinton protege. The long-running Waco emergency that culminated in the deaths of eighty Branch Davidian men, women, and children again proved that Janet Reno was not in charge in the Justice Department. Webster Hubbell, Hillary's former law partner in Little Rock and Bill's man at Justice, coordinated tactics with the White House. The President did not even talk to his attorney general throughout the crisis.

Advertisement

Scandal followed scandal. Clinton had hardly been sworn in when he fired the entire staff of the White House travel office. The object, it seems clear, was to divert business to friends of the Clintons. The firings were so obviously unsupportable that the FBI was told to issue a press release suggesting criminality in the travel office. The head of the office was indicted and tried, but acquitted almost instantly. An inquiry suggested that Hillary Clinton ordered the coup. Then it was discovered that the White House had asked for and received nine hundred raw FBI files on Republicans. Nobody knew who had issued the request or hired the unqualified security officer who carried it out. The evidence pointed to Hillary, but she denied responsibility. If her denials were false, she probably committed indictable offenses. Janet Reno sat on her hands until she got all these matters out of her bailiwick by handing them off to the independent counsel.

On the night of Vincent Foster's suicide, his notes and files disappeared. White House Counsel Bernard Nussbaum removed the documents, reneging on his previous agreement to let Justice Department lawyers examine them. This prompted the deputy attorney general, Philip Heymann, who resigned shortly thereafter, to ask, "Bernie, are you hiding something?"

Janet Reno began to see the charms of having an independent counsel, to whom she could transfer politically embarrassing investigations. But she clearly seeks a counsel only when the President permits it. That led to his and her worst mistake: they got Ken Starr. Starr is a fair and judicious man; he assembled a staff of experienced prosecutors and went to work. Though the White House routinely complains that Starr has taken four years and spent $40 million, as if that time and money had been devoted to bringing down the President, Starr has compiled an impressive record: 14 convictions on pleas and verdicts. Now, judging from the White House's hysteria, Starr appears to be closing in on the President. There has indeed been an inordinate delay in Starr's proceedings. By now, his final indictments should have been handed up by the grand jury and his report on possible impeachable offenses should have been delivered to the House of Representatives. This delay is the responsibility of only one man: the President of the United States.

From the outset, the White House has repeatedly withheld subpoenaed documents until threatened with contempt. Administration personnel, when questioned, have displayed premature and highly selective Alzheimer's. The President's lawyers have asserted frivolous claims of privilege and litigated them to the end. The executive-privilege argument was doomed from the beginning. The relevant precedent, fittingly enough, was the Supreme Court's unanimous rejection of Richard Nixon's claim. The idea that Secret Service agents, sworn law-enforcement officers, need not testify because of a hastily cobbled-up "protective-function privilege" was merely laughable. The argument that the President would be in mortal danger if the officers were not at his side suggests it was their duty to be in attendance in the room off the Oval Office when Bill and Monica were there. The conduct of the President throughout these investigations -- from the delays to the litigation of utterly specious privileges -- is the moral equivalent of taking the Fifth. It is Janet Reno's shame that she not only failed to defend Starr against the White House smears but repeatedly assisted the cover-up by actually opposing in court Starr's efforts to get at the truth.


http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n16_v50/ai_21123146

[gtownspur]

It's not an attack. I simply recognize your obsession with gay sex. You went for one whole post without brining it up, so I applaud that. I know you are incapable of serious discussion because you simply aren't that smart, so you just start talking about whatever is on your mind at the time -- which is invariably gay sex.It doesn't make me uncomfortable. It's just that you should be in a gay sex forum and not here. You'd probably be a happier person.


That's alot of gay sex in that paragraph there Chumpy, are you sure you're in the gay forums, this is the political forum.

[ChumpDumper]

Thanks for confirming the right wing talking point innuendo angle.

[ChumpDumper]

That's alot of gay sex in that paragraph there Chumpy, are you sure you're in the gay forums, this is the political forum.One cannot describe your posting without using those terms, unfortunately. You don't seem to mind that fact at all -- not to mention you didn't dispute anything else in the post.

[FromWayDowntown]

Employers across the country are permitted to fire at-will employees at any time and for any reason. That doesn't mean, however, that the employer cannot be civilly liable for wrongful termination. These things have limits, after all. In the private sector, an employer can be held liable for wrongful termination if it fires an employee for a discriminatory reason (race, religion, age, gender, pregnancy) or if it fires an employee for having done something like report the employer's misconduct to a public official or agency.

The same principle necessarily applies, I think, to the President's prerogative to fire U.S. Attorneys. He has the power to fire at will, in a general sense; but if, in the exercise of that power, he fires on a basis that violates some other legal principle, then the firings are unlawful. Suppose, for instance, that the President had just fired all African-American U.S. Attorneys. Certainly, there would seem to be a basis in that action to suspect that the act had been a discriminatory one and, therefore, that the firings had been illegal. It would stand to reason that Congress might be a bit concerned with that possiblity and might want to investigate the potential illegality.

The same holds true with the possiblity (not yet proven, but suspected) that certain US Attorneys might have been fired in an attempt to obstruct justice. Nobody knows for sure if the WH (through Gonzalez) was actually trying to obstruct justice -- but there is a basis for suspicion. And with that basis comes, in the minds of some, a need to investigate. I'd think that the press to investigate is only amplified by the AG's inability to articulate a coherent reason for the firings (to use the discrimination analogy, a hallmark of a wrongful termination suit) and the sudden concern for the possibility of self-incrimination by revealing why the attorneys were actually fired.

[gtownspur]

Thanks for confirming the right wing talking point innuendo angle.


What? I'm sorry if abc news and cbs didn't want to cover the fact that there were 93 firings of US attorneys.

THat's not my problem.

[Kermit]

This is national review, a right leaning publication.

Only, this is 1998. And the Gonzales firings didn't happen yet.


Justice denied: as President Clinton has time after time made a mockery of his oath of office, his attorney general has followed suit - Janet Reno
National Review, Sept 1, 1998 by Robert H. Bork


In the history of the Republic, the names of Bill Clinton and Janet Reno will be forever linked, a prospect that ought to appall Miss Reno. That is entirely due to her efforts to preserve the President from his own follies, to use a polite word. Bill Clinton heads what is probably the most corrupt Administration ever, while Miss Reno has been called the worst of all Clinton's Cabinet appointments. From his point of view, of course, she may be the best, which comes to much the same thing.

Miss Reno's only visible qualifications for the post of attorney general were two: she is a woman and she had been a prosecutor. The first characteristic was indisputable, although, in any non-feminized era, it would have been irrelevant. The second seemed heartening, but it did not prepare her for Washington. Coming from obscurity, she must have been caught off guard by the rampant corruption into which she was thrust. So varied and unceasing have been this Administration's infractions of law that Miss Reno resembles a desperate tennis player, running from side to side of the court and from net to baseline in a frantic effort to hold down the score. Unfortunately for her White House coach, she is becoming winded and wobbly-legged.

She was not in charge from the beginning. Upon taking office, in an unexplained departure from the practice of recent Administrations, Miss Reno suddenly fired all 93 U.S. attorneys. She said the decision had been made in conjunction with the White House. Translation: The President ordered it. Just as the best place to hide a body is on a battlefield, the best way to be rid of one potentially troublesome attorney is to fire all of them. The U.S. attorney in Little Rock was replaced by a Clinton protege. The long-running Waco emergency that culminated in the deaths of eighty Branch Davidian men, women, and children again proved that Janet Reno was not in charge in the Justice Department. Webster Hubbell, Hillary's former law partner in Little Rock and Bill's man at Justice, coordinated tactics with the White House. The President did not even talk to his attorney general throughout the crisis.

Advertisement

Scandal followed scandal. Clinton had hardly been sworn in when he fired the entire staff of the White House travel office. The object, it seems clear, was to divert business to friends of the Clintons. The firings were so obviously unsupportable that the FBI was told to issue a press release suggesting criminality in the travel office. The head of the office was indicted and tried, but acquitted almost instantly. An inquiry suggested that Hillary Clinton ordered the coup. Then it was discovered that the White House had asked for and received nine hundred raw FBI files on Republicans. Nobody knew who had issued the request or hired the unqualified security officer who carried it out. The evidence pointed to Hillary, but she denied responsibility. If her denials were false, she probably committed indictable offenses. Janet Reno sat on her hands until she got all these matters out of her bailiwick by handing them off to the independent counsel.

On the night of Vincent Foster's suicide, his notes and files disappeared. White House Counsel Bernard Nussbaum removed the documents, reneging on his previous agreement to let Justice Department lawyers examine them. This prompted the deputy attorney general, Philip Heymann, who resigned shortly thereafter, to ask, "Bernie, are you hiding something?"

Janet Reno began to see the charms of having an independent counsel, to whom she could transfer politically embarrassing investigations. But she clearly seeks a counsel only when the President permits it. That led to his and her worst mistake: they got Ken Starr. Starr is a fair and judicious man; he assembled a staff of experienced prosecutors and went to work. Though the White House routinely complains that Starr has taken four years and spent $40 million, as if that time and money had been devoted to bringing down the President, Starr has compiled an impressive record: 14 convictions on pleas and verdicts. Now, judging from the White House's hysteria, Starr appears to be closing in on the President. There has indeed been an inordinate delay in Starr's proceedings. By now, his final indictments should have been handed up by the grand jury and his report on possible impeachable offenses should have been delivered to the House of Representatives. This delay is the responsibility of only one man: the President of the United States.

From the outset, the White House has repeatedly withheld subpoenaed documents until threatened with contempt. Administration personnel, when questioned, have displayed premature and highly selective Alzheimer's. The President's lawyers have asserted frivolous claims of privilege and litigated them to the end. The executive-privilege argument was doomed from the beginning. The relevant precedent, fittingly enough, was the Supreme Court's unanimous rejection of Richard Nixon's claim. The idea that Secret Service agents, sworn law-enforcement officers, need not testify because of a hastily cobbled-up "protective-function privilege" was merely laughable. The argument that the President would be in mortal danger if the officers were not at his side suggests it was their duty to be in attendance in the room off the Oval Office when Bill and Monica were there. The conduct of the President throughout these investigations -- from the delays to the litigation of utterly specious privileges -- is the moral equivalent of taking the Fifth. It is Janet Reno's shame that she not only failed to defend Starr against the White House smears but repeatedly assisted the cover-up by actually opposing in court Starr's efforts to get at the truth.


http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n16_v50/ai_21123146

bork isn't exactly who i would turn to for impartial analysis. he's slightly to the right of rush limbaugh.

[gtownspur]

One cannot describe your posting without using those terms, unfortunately. You don't seem to mind that fact at all -- not to mention you didn't dispute anything else in the post.

You seem to keep up bringing gay sex, i've dropped it already since it's ran it's course. You also didn't seem to dispute the fact that you love to be called a flamin homo, your actions proved so.

Like clockwork.

[gtownspur]

bork isn't exactly who i would turn to for impartial analysis. he's slightly to the right of rush limbaugh.


Yeah, i'd already admitted that.

But does that mean he is lying on the fact that clinton fired 2 of the 93 attorneys on investigation.

[FromWayDowntown]

Yeah, i'd already admitted that.

But does that mean he is lying on the fact that clinton fired 2 of the 93 attorneys on investigation.

Clinton perhaps avoided the appearance of impropriety by firing all of the attorneys and not just those who might have been seen as his enemies. Even if Clinton had improper purposes for firing some of those attorneys, that would not justify firings raise suspicions about impeding investigations or obstructing justice.

And given that I was told in 2000 that it was time to clean up the White House, isn't it a bit odd that the current Administration and its most ardent supporters are so willing to compare their acts to those of the Clinton White House as a means for justifying recent decisions? Who would have ever thought that the Bush Administration would be looking to things done during the Clinton years as a basis to uphold otherwise-questionable conduct?

[FromWayDowntown]

I must not have alluded to gay sex enough to get a response.

[gtownspur]

Clinton perhaps avoided the appearance of impropriety by firing all of the attorneys and not just those who might have been seen as his enemies. Even if Clinton had improper purposes for firing some of those attorneys, that would not justify firings raise suspicions about impeding investigations or obstructing justice.

And given that I was told in 2000 that it was time to clean up the White House, isn't it a bit odd that the current Administration and its most ardent supporters are so willing to compare their acts to those of the Clinton White House as a means for justifying recent decisions? Who would have ever thought that the Bush Administration would be looking to things done during the Clinton years as a basis to uphold otherwise-questionable conduct?


I had things to do jackass. I thought you'd been less of an ass.

At "will" is the clause that's important here. It's just like the "At will" employment clause in Texas, an employer can fire you for any reason outside of racial and gender discrimination.

So these attorneys are subject to be fired at the "will" of the President.

[FromWayDowntown]

At "will" is the clause that's important here. It's just like the "At will" employment clause in Texas, an employer can fire you for any reason outside of racial and gender discrimination.

That's not true. If, for example, your employer asks you to do something illegal and you blow the whistle on your employer who then fires you for having reported the illegal act, the at-will doctrine won't save the employer from liability.

You're marginally right that the standards for civil liability are very different than the standards in play in a quasi-criminal investigation. But the standards, in that case, don't favor the White House's position. If there's evidence that these firings were aimed at quelling investigations that the White House didn't want conducted, then that's arguably obstruction of justice. Even the at will doctrine won't protect those firings.


So these attorneys are subject to be fired at the "will" of the President.

So long as the President doesn't violate the law in doing so. I don't understand why an investigation into whether the President violated the law is somehow antithetical to the operation of good government. I, for one, would like to know whether this President (or any other President, for that matter) is ignoring the law in undertaking the tasks of his office.

And, again, I find it remarkable that the Republicans' defense to any of this is, essentially, "well, Clinton did it, too." Flip-flop much?

[xrayzebra]

I know this isn't really related directly to the firings of the lawyers, but
firing people seems to be the thing in some cases. Anyone read
the story about Circuit City firing 3400 employees because they
are paying them too much and going to hiring others to replace them
at lower wages. Guess Congress will have to hold another
hearing about fairness.

[spurster]

I know this isn't really related directly to the firings of the lawyers, but
firing people seems to be the thing in some cases. Anyone read
the story about Circuit City firing 3400 employees because they
are paying them too much and going to hiring others to replace them
at lower wages. Guess Congress will have to hold another
hearing about fairness.
I'm sure that will inspire morale and loyalty in their remaining workers.

[xrayzebra]

I'm sure that will inspire morale and loyalty in their remaining workers.

I totally agree. I don't think anyone would wont to work
for a employer who more less just told you, well we wont
pay you too much, because if we do we will have to fire you.

I wonder what management classes their head people went
to? I have taken many management courses and I cant
recall a one that said fire people that have been loyal, stayed
the course and finally worked themselves into a secure,
good paying job. Also wonder where they will find their
next generation of managers.

[boutons_]

"morale and loyalty"

Those have been dead a LONG TIME.
Employees know nobody has any job security, except the CEO and board members. Any employee who believes they have job security is a sucker.

That's part of the entire business ethic, that you work scared, that you live to work, rather than working to live.

[xrayzebra]

boutons, wonder where that philosophy came from. Not from
my generation. Must be from the 60's generation, you know the
liberals. The ones who believe all the world is equal. Except they
prove more than anyone, it isn't!

[RighteousBoy]

I don't understand why an investigation into whether the President violated the law is somehow antithetical to the operation of good government. I, for one, would like to know whether this President (or any other President, for that matter) is ignoring the law in undertaking the tasks of his office.


The idea of having investigations into "whether the President violated the law", brings up the question, is this nothing more than a fishing expedition? This statement implies that there may be evidence to law breaking, but we're not sure, so we need to investigate to see if there has been law breaking. What kind of precedent does this set?

Imagine this: A federal agent goes to the airport and sees a young, middle eastern man just arriving from Saudi, he's alone, looks nervous, and is wearing an "I love Osama" t-shirt. He's done nothing wrong, broken no laws, but is taken into custody, because, "we need to find out whether he has, or soon will violate the law". There is no known evidence to support this, just the fact that he is of the same faith, and heritage of known terrorists. So under the reasoning of, "looking for evidence we not yet know exists", wouldn't it make sense to take him into custody and do a thorough investigation?

IMO, these trials can be summed up simply, the dems hate Bush - with a passion, they have since 2000, and now they have some power and they are going to make the remainder of his time in office as difficult as possible. The american people put them back in power, they can use it as they see fit.

[101A]

I totally agree. I don't think anyone would wont to work
for a employer who more less just told you, well we wont
pay you too much, because if we do we will have to fire you.

I wonder what management classes their head people went
to? I have taken many management courses and I cant
recall a one that said fire people that have been loyal, stayed
the course and finally worked themselves into a secure,
good paying job. Also wonder where they will find their
next generation of managers.

I GUARANTEE you that it was not managers, but accountants that made this call. My CFO once told me I should be replaced (I'm CEO), because we could find someone who would do MY job for less (my OWN fucking company). He's always wanting to replace some of the best people we have because their job description, he sees, as having a maximum salary attached to it. NEVER give accountants too much power. They're like that master robot in that Will Smith movie in their logic.

[FromWayDowntown]

The idea of having investigations into "whether the President violated the law", brings up the question, is this nothing more than a fishing expedition? This statement implies that there may be evidence to law breaking, but we're not sure, so we need to investigate to see if there has been law breaking. What kind of precedent does this set?

If there's sufficient evidence to develop probable cause of an illegal act, I don't think the President should be immune. It doesn't make any sense (to me) to wait until you have conclusive proof of an illegal act, because then there's no need for an investigation. And if you don't undertake the investigation, you're unlikely to ever come up with conclusive proof of an illegal act. I'm not sure why the White House should be above suspicion in matters for which there is some considerable smoke of illegality.


Imagine this: A federal agent goes to the airport and sees a young, middle eastern man just arriving from Saudi, he's alone, looks nervous, and is wearing an "I love Osama" t-shirt. He's done nothing wrong, broken no laws, but is taken into custody, because, "we need to find out whether he has, or soon will violate the law". There is no known evidence to support this, just the fact that he is of the same faith, and heritage of known terrorists. So under the reasoning of, "looking for evidence we not yet know exists", wouldn't it make sense to take him into custody and do a thorough investigation?

Nice try, but, as with my foregoing point, your hypothetical detainee can't be taken into custody (not legally, anyway) without articulable probable cause that a specific crime has been or is abotu to be committed. Reasonable suspicion, however, is enough for a federal agent to briefly detain the character in your scenario and ask some questions about what he's up to. So, I don't see how my suggestion that a reasonable belief of illegal action by the White House (under any Administration) which has become probable cause of such illegality would be insufficient to allow for an investigation.


IMO, these trials can be summed up simply, the dems hate Bush - with a passion, they have since 2000, and now they have some power and they are going to make the remainder of his time in office as difficult as possible. The american people put them back in power, they can use it as they see fit.

That's all true. But I'd think that if there was some illegal action by the White House -- if attorneys were fired in an effort to obstruct justice -- that there's a perfectly reasonable basis for an investigation. That would be true whether it was the Democrats investigating Bush or the Republicans investigating Clinton (which, by the way, happened with some regularity between 1994 and 1998).

[RighteousBoy]

[QUOTE=FromWayDowntown]If there's sufficient evidence to develop probable cause of an illegal act, I don't think the President should be immune.

Niether do I, but what comes into question, is who determines the "sufficient evidence", is it a political rival that is seeing an oppurtunity to take out more pieces of the administration, ie, Libby (pawn), who was not guilty of outing V. Plame, but instead guilty of having a bad memory.


It doesn't make any sense (to me) to wait until you have conclusive proof of an illegal act, because then there's no need for an investigation. And if you don't undertake the investigation, you're unlikely to ever come up with conclusive proof of an illegal act.

I agree, but in this situation, when political motives are involved, I question whether this is less a search for the truth, and more a political witch-hunt.


I'm not sure why the White House should be above suspicion in matters for which there is some considerable smoke of illegality.

It shouldn't be. But again, what may be a blinding smokescreen of illegality to one person - in this case the D's, may be nothing more than a haze to someone else - the R's. I don't know the facts of the trials, and I'm not going to look into it, I can only stand so much of it, my opinions are based on what I've observed over the years.


Nice try, but, as with my foregoing point, your hypothetical detainee can't be taken into custody (not legally, anyway) without articulable probable cause that a specific crime has been or is abotu to be committed. Reasonable suspicion, however, is enough for a federal agent to briefly detain the character in your scenario and ask some questions about what he's up to.

So the "I love Osama" t-shirt, wouldn't be considerable smoke?


So, I don't see how my suggestion that a reasonable belief of illegal action by the White House (under any Administration) which has become probable cause of such illegality would be insufficient to allow for an investigation.

Who is determining the reasonable belief, and is there a motive for it? If I'm a politician, and I have a thorn in my side, say a Tom Delay (knight), and I see an oppurtunity to get him out of the way, it would definitely be to my advantage to take every oppurtunity to do so - just like the D's. So if the WH has given me an opening for taking out Gonzalez (bishop), and possibly a few others, say, Cheney (queen), and Rove (rook), then I make the most of the situation. Doesn't matter if they were directly involved, if I get them under oath and catch them under any kind process crime, no matter how small, I'm gonna throw the book at them, because they are my enemy and it doen't matter what I have to do to get them out of the way.


But I'd think that if there was some illegal action by the White House -- if attorneys were fired in an effort to obstruct justice -- that there's a perfectly reasonable basis for an investigation.

True, we'll see how it plays out.

[clambake]

I think it's certain that Libby had more than a bad memory. He took the bullet for accomplices.(sp) I suspect he'll be pardoned and rewarded.

[boutons_]

"Libby had more than a bad memory"

I read one apologist say that Libby was dealing with 100s of issues/day, and the Plame outing/Wilson/yellowcake business was "just one of 100s" of issues, easy to forget.

Bullshit. When your boss dickhead goes on a major, high-priority campaign to slime and discredit Wilson in order to defend dickhead's lies about Iraq and Saddam, you don't lose the details in the daily windstorm.

[clambake]

The jury agreed.

[ChumpDumper]

What? I'm sorry if abc news and cbs didn't want to cover the fact that there were 93 firings of US attorneys.

THat's not my problem.Your problem is you never answered my question.

Did Clinton fire any of his appointees for investigating him?

For investigating other Democrats?

For refusing to investigate or prosecute Republicans?

I'm waiting for those links.

[BIG IRISH]

http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20070329/a_prosecutors29.art.htm

Not that it matters
February letter shows Justice Dept. misled investigators
By Kevin Johnson and Kathy Kiely
USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — The Justice Department misled a congressional investigation into the firings of eight federal prosecutors by saying last month that it was "not aware" that White House political strategist Karl Rove played any role in the dismissals, newly released documents show.

On Feb. 23, the Justice Department said in a letter — signed by acting Associate Attorney General Richard Hertling — to four U.S. senators that it didn't know about any involvement by Rove.

That contradicts a Dec. 19 internal Justice e-mail in which Kyle Sampson, then chief of staff to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, says that Rove wanted to put former aide Tim Griffin into the Arkansas U.S. attorney's job.

..................................

[Nbadan]

Fitz was on the list....


WASHINGTON - D. Kyle Sampson, the former top aide to Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, said in testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee Thursday that he suggested removing prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, who oversaw the CIA leak case involving White House staff, from his post.

Sampson said he made the recommendation during a White House meeting with Harriet Miers, former counsel to President Bush.

...

Sampson testified, "I said Patrick Fitzgerald could be added to this list." He said that he discussed removing Fitzgerald at a meeting last year with Miers and her deputy, William Kelley. "I remember on one occasion in 2006 in discussing the removal of U.S. attorneys ... and I raised Pat Fitzgerald." Sampson said that as soon as he raised Fitzgerald at the meeting he regretted it: "I knew that it was the wrong thing to do. I knew that it was inappropriate."

...

"Why did you say it? Why did you recommend or at least suggest that he be removed as U.S. attorney?" Durbin asked.

Sampson said he wasn't sure, but he thought "it was maybe to get a reaction from them." He added that he "never seriously considered" putting Fitzgerald on a list and that Fitzgerald never appeared on any list.

MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17861616)

[Nbadan]

Now they tell us...


March 29, 2007 · The Bush administration has taken full advantage of a Patriot Act provision that permits interim appointments of United States attorneys without Senate confirmation. Of federal prosecutors now on the job, 21 of 93 did not face Senate confirmation....

...

...Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee, where the White House would normally send nominations for filling empty U.S. attorney slots. But Leahy has received no nominations for the 18 U.S. attorney posts currently open, including the eight cleared by last year's firings.

Sen. Leahy thinks that's mainly because Attorney General Gonzales was using the provision stuck into the Patriot Act to avoid Senate scrutiny of his appointees. "It's obvious they wanted to use this Republican-written backdoor way in the Patriot Act to bypass the Senate," Sen. Leahy said.

Arizona Republican Sen. Jon Kyl says he had no idea so many U.S. attorneys are officially temporary and serving without senate confirmation. "It's not good to have vacancies," Sen. Kyl said. "You need to have confirmations. And I don't know why the number is the way it is." The White House, for its part, did not respond to repeated requests for comment.

NPR (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9204310)

Piss poor job of any type of Senate over-sight by the Do-Nothing Rupublican Congress