Patrick Fitzerald on list of Fed prosecutors to be fired - Page 4 - New England Patriots Forums

Holy Diver · 03-20-2007, 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PatsSB42

None. But come on, be honest. They were let go before because they were hired by the other guys and they didn't want someone that may not be loyal to them. They were fired over potential disloyalty.

I know the answer to this one, but............

How many did Clinton(not sure of Bush 1 or Regan) fire for potential disloyalty? 93 Not a legitamate reason in my book.

How many did Bush 2 fire for not prosecuting democrats? 8

PS. the investigation is on going. There may be some legit reasons some of them were fired.

I guess you don't seem to be undersatnding how Fed Pros are let go with each administration....

They always clean house from the get go, its like hiring a new cabinet for each Pres....they never keep the old secretary of defense etc.

The funny thing is that Bush already cleaned house, and hired his new 93 .....then fired 8.....the 8 he fired were chosen to serve by HIS ADMINISTRATION.

check the latest though...Rove to testify....

BEHIND CLOSED DOORS
NOT UNDER OATH

what does that tell you?

Holy Diver · 03-20-2007, 04:03 PM

But the Congressional Research Service isn't letting them get away with it. They looked at all U.S. Attorneys between 1981 and 2006 and found that "Of the 468 confirmations made by the Senate over the 25-year period, only 10 left office involuntarily for reasons other than a change in administration." In those 10 instances, serious lapses in personal or professional conduct can explain eight of them. In the other two, the CRS was unable to determine cause.

Thus, in the past quarter century, somewhere from zero to two U.S. Attorneys have been fired for political reasons. The Bush Administration fired seven in one day, and eight total. Just another example of how power has corrupted the Bush Administration, making it greedy and dismissive of custom, good practice, and the principles of good governance.

PatsWSB47 · 03-20-2007, 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Holy Diver

I guess you don't seem to be undersatnding how Fed Pros are let go with each administration....

They always clean house from the get go, its like hiring a new cabinet for each Pres....they never keep the old secretary of defense etc.

The funny thing is that Bush already cleaned house, and hired his new 93 .....then fired 8.....the 8 he fired were chosen to serve by HIS ADMINISTRATION.

check the latest though...Rove to testify....

BEHIND CLOSED DOORS
NOT UNDER OATH

what does that tell you?

It tells me a few things. It tells me that the administration may have been caught with it's pants down and Rove doesn't want this to turn into a circus where the "crime" that is really being sought is to catch someone lying under oath, not the firing of people for political reasons(wrong but not illegal from what I've read). I believe the administration probably knows there was politics involved with the firings and they're in full damage control mode now. I also believe the dems are being disingenous and want to trip someone up under oath or at least drag this through the mud for as long as they can. This whole thing again is 99% politcal and 1% justice.

***PressCoverage*** · 03-20-2007, 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PatsSB42

It tells me a few things. It tells me that the administration may have been caught with it's pants down and Rove doesn't want this to turn into a circus where the "crime" that is really being sought is to catch someone lying under oath, not the firing of people for political reasons(wrong but not illegal from what I've read). I believe the administration probably knows there was politics involved with the firings and they're in full damage control mode now. I also believe the dems are being disingenous and want to trip someone up under oath or at least drag this through the mud for as long as they can. This whole thing again is 99% politcal and 1% justice.

well, look... a new guy... it's another of the 25% base here to tell us all how dry the administration is while standing in the rain...

tell us all... what percentage of politics was this one?:

Justice Dept. Used Pregnancy As Excuse To Appoint Griffin, Possibly Violating Discrimination Act

In June 2006, the Justice Department fired Bud Cummins as U.S. attorney in Arkansas and replaced him with Karl Rove-protege Tim Griffin.

Traditionally, the Justice Department works with the state’s senators to come up with a replacement U.S. attorney. But in a Feb. 6, Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Sen. Mark Pryor (D-AR) confirmed that the Bush administration ignored his objections to Griffin.

In a Dec. 26, 2006 article in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse explained that they “temporarily” appointed Griffin, rather than Bud Cummins’ deputy Jane Duke, because Duke was pregnant:

He noted that often, the first assistant U.S. attorney in the affected district will serve as the acting U.S. attorney until the formal nomination process begins for a replacement. But in this case, “the first assistant is on maternity leave,” he said, referring to Jane Duke, who gave birth to twins earlier than expected the same week of the announcement.

On Jan. 11, Pryor wrote a letter to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and took issue with the Justice Department’s excuse:

I am astonished that the reason given by your office for the interim appointment is that the First Assistant U.S. Attorney is on maternity leave and therefore would not be able to perform the responsibilities of the appointment. … This concerns me on several levels, but most importantly it uses pregnancy and motherhood as conditions that deny an appointment. While this may not be actionable in a public employment setting, it clearly would be in a private employment setting. The U.S. Department of Justice would never discriminate against women in this manner.

The Pregnancy Discrimination Act states that employers, including the federal government, cannot discriminate on the “basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.”

Therefore, based on Roehrkasse’s explanation, the Justice Department is either 1) guilty of sexual discrimination or 2) guilty of using sexual discrimination as an excuse for appointing a “loyal Bushie” as a federal prosecutor.

***Harry Boy*** · 03-20-2007, 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PressCoverage

well, look... a new guy... it's another of the 25% base here to tell us all how dry the administration is while standing in the rain...

tell us all... what percentage of politics was this one?:

Justice Dept. Used Pregnancy As Excuse To Appoint Griffin, Possibly Violating Discrimination Act

In June 2006, the Justice Department fired Bud Cummins as U.S. attorney in Arkansas and replaced him with Karl Rove-protege Tim Griffin.

Traditionally, the Justice Department works with the state’s senators to come up with a replacement U.S. attorney. But in a Feb. 6, Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Sen. Mark Pryor (D-AR) confirmed that the Bush administration ignored his objections to Griffin.

In a Dec. 26, 2006 article in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse explained that they “temporarily” appointed Griffin, rather than Bud Cummins’ deputy Jane Duke, because Duke was pregnant:

He noted that often, the first assistant U.S. attorney in the affected district will serve as the acting U.S. attorney until the formal nomination process begins for a replacement. But in this case, “the first assistant is on maternity leave,” he said, referring to Jane Duke, who gave birth to twins earlier than expected the same week of the announcement.

On Jan. 11, Pryor wrote a letter to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and took issue with the Justice Department’s excuse:

I am astonished that the reason given by your office for the interim appointment is that the First Assistant U.S. Attorney is on maternity leave and therefore would not be able to perform the responsibilities of the appointment. … This concerns me on several levels, but most importantly it uses pregnancy and motherhood as conditions that deny an appointment. While this may not be actionable in a public employment setting, it clearly would be in a private employment setting. The U.S. Department of Justice would never discriminate against women in this manner.

The Pregnancy Discrimination Act states that employers, including the federal government, cannot discriminate on the “basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.”

Therefore, based on Roehrkasse’s explanation, the Justice Department is either 1) guilty of sexual discrimination or 2) guilty of using sexual discrimination as an excuse for appointing a “loyal Bushie” as a federal prosecutor.

Why do dogs get stuck together after copulating on a city street

PatsWSB47 · 03-20-2007, 06:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PressCoverage

well, look... a new guy... it's another of the 25% base here to tell us all how dry the administration is while standing in the rain...

tell us all... what percentage of politics was this one?:

Justice Dept. Used Pregnancy As Excuse To Appoint Griffin, Possibly Violating Discrimination Act

In June 2006, the Justice Department fired Bud Cummins as U.S. attorney in Arkansas and replaced him with Karl Rove-protege Tim Griffin.

Traditionally, the Justice Department works with the state’s senators to come up with a replacement U.S. attorney. But in a Feb. 6, Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Sen. Mark Pryor (D-AR) confirmed that the Bush administration ignored his objections to Griffin.

In a Dec. 26, 2006 article in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse explained that they “temporarily” appointed Griffin, rather than Bud Cummins’ deputy Jane Duke, because Duke was pregnant:

He noted that often, the first assistant U.S. attorney in the affected district will serve as the acting U.S. attorney until the formal nomination process begins for a replacement. But in this case, “the first assistant is on maternity leave,” he said, referring to Jane Duke, who gave birth to twins earlier than expected the same week of the announcement.

On Jan. 11, Pryor wrote a letter to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and took issue with the Justice Department’s excuse:

I am astonished that the reason given by your office for the interim appointment is that the First Assistant U.S. Attorney is on maternity leave and therefore would not be able to perform the responsibilities of the appointment. … This concerns me on several levels, but most importantly it uses pregnancy and motherhood as conditions that deny an appointment. While this may not be actionable in a public employment setting, it clearly would be in a private employment setting. The U.S. Department of Justice would never discriminate against women in this manner.

The Pregnancy Discrimination Act states that employers, including the federal government, cannot discriminate on the “basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.”

Therefore, based on Roehrkasse’s explanation, the Justice Department is either 1) guilty of sexual discrimination or 2) guilty of using sexual discrimination as an excuse for appointing a “loyal Bushie” as a federal prosecutor.

First off lose the *****y smug attitude. You know nothing aboutme. It really pisses me off. Did I not say the political firings are wrong? All I've heard all week on every network is that they didn't believe anything illegal was done. This rabid witch hunt by the dems I believe is driven mostly by politics. Just like the Monica Lewinski hearings were. They want people under oath so they can try and trip them up and then make that the crime. Roehkasse may or may not be correct in his assertion. I think we need to see more. You had everyone guilty as soon as the first accusation came out, I'm sure.

***PressCoverage*** · 03-20-2007, 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PatsSB42

First off lose the *****y smug attitude. You know nothing aboutme. It really pisses me off.

ah, you mean like the attitude you've so humbly avoided since you arrived? mmm, yeah... sorry, but you earned it ... further, i really don't give a crap what pisses you off ... in fact, with nasty hypocrites like you who talk down to people, my theme is "you're mad? i'm happy."

the point here is, burt, the white house continues to LIE to congress.... you see how that can cause problems, can you not?... oh, perhaps not...