Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by mikey, Mar 21, 2007.
i find that it's important to force feed the deniers a few paragraphs... they never read links... so here's some important stuff from that story... the fact that the guy saw no merit in "Voter Fraud" charges in New Mexico, about which he was being bullied to press forth:
After reviewing more than 100 complaints of voter fraud, I felt there was one possible case that should be prosecuted federally. I worked with the F.B.I. and the Justice Departmentâs public integrity section. As much as I wanted to prosecute the case, I could not overcome evidentiary problems. The Justice Department and the F.B.I. did not disagree with my decision in the end not to prosecute.
Good has already come from this scandal. Yesterday, the Senate voted to overturn a 2006 provision in the Patriot Act that allows the attorney general to appoint indefinite interim United States attorneys. The attorney generalâs chief of staff has resigned and been replaced by a respected career federal prosecutor, Chuck Rosenberg. The president and attorney general have admitted that âmistakes were made,â and Mr. Domenici and Ms. Wilson have publicly acknowledged calling me.
Yeah but what about the minimum wage?
Where's Pete Seeger in all of this??? We need Pete's petulant plucking on his ol' bango.
And what about Bobby Dylan, Janis Ian, Woody and Arlo Guthrie, Joan Baez, and all the rest??
Attempting a new revolution without music is bor-r-r-r-r-r-r-ing.
I guess you haven't heard that Rage Against the Machine has reunited!
"Shackle your minds and you're left on the cross! When ignorance reigns, life is lost!"
The move to can the guy started a long time ago according to the same NYT.
G.O.P. Anger in Swing State Eased Attorneyâs Exit
By CHRISTOPHER DREW and ERIC LIPTON
Published: March 18, 2007
ALBUQUERQUE, March 17 â The first whiff of something suspicious came when a 15-year-old boy received a voter registration card in the mail. Soon a second one arrived. Then his 13-year-old neighbor got one, too.
Neither boy had applied for the cards, and it looked as if their signatures and birthdates had been forged. It was August 2004, and the local authorities quickly traced the problems to a canvasser for a liberal group that had signed up tens of thousands of voters for the presidential election in this swing state.
State Republican leaders demanded a criminal investigation. And with the television cameras rolling, the United States attorney, David C. Iglesias, a boyish-looking Republican, promised a thorough one. âIt appears that mischief is afoot,â Mr. Iglesias said, âand questions are lurking in the shadows.â
The inquiry he began, however, never resulted in charges, so frustrating Republican officials here that they began an extraordinary campaign to get rid of him that reached all the way to President Bush.
A little more:
Mr. Bush lost New Mexico to Al Gore by 366 votes in 2000. So in 2004, several Democratic-leaning groups had begun voter registration drives here. Republicans were concerned that this could lead to illegal immigrants and others being registered improperly.
Local election officials said the cards sent to the two teenage boys were among about 3,000 faulty registrations, with some most likely resulting from mistakes and others raising more questions
These people need to STFU and quit their whining. The President of the United States has the authority for fire them at his slightest discretion - as Bill Clinton demonstrated time and again when he was President. Only the media didn't make a federal case out of it when Clinton did it.
The more that is coming out about these people, the more it shows they deserved to get fired. Bush should have the sac to stand up and say so.
Just sit back and watch Pelosi's little gang sink the democrats again, with all the crap they are pulling now whoever the Republican candidate will be in 2008 he will win by a landslide, the idiots are self destructing, again.
Democrats in 2008----------->:bricks:
Time and time again? Yeah?
Remember, just like Bush can fire attorneys for anything he wants (he's the decider of their fate), Congress could remove him for anything they want (they're the deciders of his fate).
Bush will pay for this, and you'll just turn blue in the face screaming about a double standard.
The difference between Clinton and Bush is that Bush did it intimidate the prosecutors to go after the Democrats.
The sad reality is that George Bush has undermined the integrity of the Justice Department by making it into an extension of the Republican Party.
Oh, please. Whenever a president does it -- and Clinton did it, too -- it's up to their own discretion. So it's a cake-walk to say each is "making the DOJ into an extension of __________ (fill in the blank with the party of your choice)".
As the saying goes: "Where's the beef??"
There ain't none except what the partisans are trying to create.
[highlight]GET BUSH !!!!! [/highlight]
Can you prove your accusation Mikey? Please provide proof.
Now for someone who is intelligent, this was kinda dumb. HUH? Congress can remove him cuz they are the deciders of his fate? What are you talking about Pujo? I know you hate the man, but C'mon dude.
Translation: The difference between Clinton and Bush is that Clinton is a democrat and democrats can do no wrong in your eyes.
There's nothing unclear about what I said. Righties are falling back on "well, it's not illegal", even though nobody's talking legal consequences, they're talking political consequences. Congress could impeach Bush for it despite it not being illegal if the political climate got bad enough (read: if they thought it would get them votes). I don't see it happening, but an objective measure of legality isn't the point here, the point is political ramifications for a political move.
There has to be a crime committed in order to move to impeach. THERE WAS NO CRIME HERE.
Dude, be objective and realistic please. Even mentioning impeachment and these firings in the same sentence is ridiculous.
Anyways, What about when Jimmy Carter fired David Marston?
Monday, Jan. 23, 1978
Bending a campaign promise
"All federal judges and prosecutors should be appointed strictly on the basis of merit without any consideration of political aspects or influence."
Had Jimmy Carter not made that statement during his campaign, a quarter of the 20 questions at his press conference last week would probably not have been about the removal of a Republican U.S. Attorney in Philadelphia. But once again, the President was hoist on his own piety.
The Philadelphia Attorney, David W. Marston, 35, is a Tennessee-born Ford Administration appointee who during 18 months in Pennsylvania has both shown a talent for public relations and built himself a generally deserved reputation as a dogged attacker of misdeeds in high placesâwhich in the Keystone State are mostly occupied by Democrats. Earlier this month, word seeped out that Carter's Justice Department, having done nothing about replacing Republican Marston for a year, had formed a blue-ribbon panel of Philadelphia lawyers to recommend a replacement. The ensuing ruckus in Philadelphia raised questions at Carter's press conference.
Carter handled the Marston queries poorly. At first he said he had known nothing about Marston until he heard that Attorney General Griffin Bell was going to replace him. Then, under sharp probing from reporters, Carter conceded that he had telephoned Bell and asked him to "expedite" Marston's ouster after Pennsylvania Democratic Congressman Joshua Eilberg requested him to "look into" the Philadelphia situation. It was an uncomfortable admission to say the least: although Carter denied being aware of it, Eilberg has been implicated in a Marston investigation into financial irregularities in the construction of a Philadelphia hospital. While smilingly ignoring questions on why Marston was being dumped, Carter insisted that the choice of his replacement would be made "on merit and not politics."
The Marston flap inevitably raised questions of how nonpolitical Carter has been in dealing with all of the 94 U.S. Attorney jobs in the U.S. The Carter/Bell innovation of using panels of respected local lawyers to nominate new U.S. Attorneys is some improvement on the old system. But thus far, only one of the 65 federal prosecutors appointed by Carter has been a Republican. While the new officials have generally been of high caliber, it would appear that only those who are both well qualified and Democrats need apply.
Come on, that was purely coincidental, or different or something.
Of course it was different... Carter was a democrat and they are allowed to fire people for politically motivated reasons.
My point is, I wouldn't have liked it were I a voter in 1978, just as I don't like it now, but even mentioning impeachment in these incidents is ridiculous and irresponsible. This issue is being so overplayed and reported it's laughable and sad. Again, that's not to say it isn't upsetting and of concern, as it is. It's simply too much crying wolf.
Separate names with a comma.