Gonzales Aide to Invoke Fifth Amendment

[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 ing 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 su ion 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 su ion, 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]

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 su ion 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 su ion, 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.

Bull . When your boss head goes on a major, high-priority campaign to slime and discredit Wilson in order to defend head'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...tors29.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 do ents 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

[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

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