NRaleighLiberal
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Mar-13-07 08:55 AM
Original message |
Must read at Talkingpointsmemo - link below. The timeline. |
|
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002734.phpThis is a peek into the cesspool under Gonzalez. There is that odd duck Harriet Myers emerging again as an important name. Read it and weep. Impeach now!
|
northzax
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Mar-13-07 08:57 AM
Response to Original message |
1. remember, this is well within the legal powers of the President |
|
US Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President. They can be fired for any reason at all. The interesting things here are the involvement of Domenici and Wilson in New Mexico, and the potential lying about the reasons for them being fired.
|
kstewart33
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Mar-13-07 09:39 AM
Response to Reply #1 |
2. You're right, but the extent of lying is stunning. |
|
Even for this crew. Domenici should resign as should Gonzales. Remember the old prosecutorial saying - it's not the crime that gets them in trouble, it's the coverup.
|
northzax
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Mar-13-07 11:37 AM
Response to Reply #2 |
|
there wasn't even a crime. they should have simply come out and said 'we are firing them because they don't meet our priorities," and this would all have been over.
just to show what idiots they are.
|
tanyev
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Mar-13-07 10:04 AM
Response to Reply #1 |
3. How many other presidents have considered firing all 93 |
|
when they started their SECOND term? The 93 that they themselves hired when they first took office? I think even the 8 that they settled on is unprecedented.
|
northzax
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Mar-13-07 11:40 AM
Response to Reply #3 |
6. it may be unprecedented |
|
but it is perfectly legal. US Attorneys work, as I said "at the pleasure of the President" he can fire them if he doesn't like their shoes.
the legal problem is in lying to Congress about it.
|
BlooInBloo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Mar-13-07 11:39 AM
Response to Reply #1 |
5. Lying to Congress isn't. |
drbtg1
(932 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Mar-13-07 11:54 AM
Response to Reply #1 |
7. even if it impedes a legal investigation? |
|
That, I would think, would be Congress's justification for hearing (and maybe more).
|
northzax
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Mar-13-07 12:00 PM
Response to Reply #7 |
8. well, only if the intent is to impede a legal investigation |
|
otherwise you could never fire any Attorney, because there is always something being investigated.
|
drbtg1
(932 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-14-07 07:27 AM
Response to Reply #8 |
9. Well, considering the selection of attorneys that were fired... |
|
...it may be easy to make that case (other than the buddy of Rove, of course).
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Thu May 02nd 2024, 10:47 PM
Response to Original message |