Reply With Quote
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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 sexual 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 su ion that you love being called a dirty queenie . It's very sadistic of you.
Cmon', type another pointless attack. You love the bad treatment.
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.
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 do ents, 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 do ents 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/articl...50/ai_21123146
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.
Thanks for confirming the right wing talking point innuendo angle.
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.
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 su ion. 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.
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.
bork isn't exactly who i would turn to for impartial analysis. he's slightly to the right of rush limbaugh.
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 , your actions proved so.
Like clockwork.
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 su ions 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 must not have alluded to gay sex enough to get a response.
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.
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 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 an hetical 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?
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.
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.
"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.
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!
I don't understand why an investigation into whether the President violated the law is somehow an hetical 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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions