So it seems that Rove is in the middle of the Prosecutor firing headlines.  The story, as I read it, is that the fired prosecutors were told to be more aggressive with Democrats than with Republicans.  The spin from the Whitheouse is that they are political appointees at the pleasure of the President and he has just decided to make some changes.  I feel there is probably truth to both, but, the Whitheouse(Rove) said something about the prosecutors not being competent in their jobs, even though their past performance appraisals have been good.  Like everything Rove it smells stinky.  To press prosecutors to lean heavily upon cases because of political affiliation is very Rove, very bush(1 & 2).

When Jimmy Carter took office, one of his first actions was to fire all of the Federal Prosecutors.

When Bill Clinton took office, he did the exact same thing.

The Prosecutors serve at the will of the President, no matter who he is.  And can be fired at any time, for any reason.  They are not Political Appointments.  They are not approved by Congress, or by anybody else.  They can be hired or fired whenever the President wants, for any or no reason at all.

If people want to bitch about this, then why not bitch about the fact that President's Carter and Clinton fired all of theirs?  Either complain when any president does such a thing, or leave it alone.

Or worse yet, let's just make them all "Appointments", where they are immune to being fired without prior Congressional approval.

When Jimmy Carter took office, one of his first actions was to fire all of the Federal Prosecutors.

When Bill Clinton took office, he did the exact same thing.

The Prosecutors serve at the will of the President, no matter who he is.  And can be fired at any time, for any reason.  They are not Political Appointments.  They are not approved by Congress, or by anybody else.  They can be hired or fired whenever the President wants, for any or no reason at all.

If people want to bitch about this, then why not bitch about the fact that President's Carter and Clinton fired all of theirs?  Either complain when any president does such a thing, or leave it alone.

Or worse yet, let's just make them all "Appointments", where they are immune to being fired without prior Congressional approval.



The question here is not whether he can fire them but WHEN. Like you said, most presidents fire prosecutors at the beginning of their terms. But these prosecutors were fired right after the Dems gained "subpoena power". And most of these prosecutors were looking into the dirty dealings of Repubs. It was just getting a bit too close for comfort for the Bush Administration.



Cat

The question here is not whether he can fire them but WHEN. Like you said, most presidents fire prosecutors at the beginning of their terms. But these prosecutors were fired right after the Dems gained "subpoena power". And most of these prosecutors were looking into the dirty dealings of Repubs. It was just getting a bit too close for comfort for the Bush Administration.


Uhhh, actually the firings were the other way around.

The prosecutors that were fired were not investigating the Republicans.  They were investigating cases of voter fraud, and were looking at the DNC and other groups.  The reason they were fired is that they have been accused of "Dragging Their Feet" on the investigation.

And every one of them was a Bill Clinton apointee.  So if nothing else, they should be gratefull for having their job for another 6 years, when they could have been fired in 2001.

Uhhh, actually the firings were the other way around.

The prosecutors that were fired were not investigating the Republicans.  They were investigating cases of voter fraud, and were looking at the DNC and other groups.  The reason they were fired is that they have been accused of "Dragging Their Feet" on the investigation.

And every one of them was a Bill Clinton apointee.  So if nothing else, they should be gratefull for having their job for another 6 years, when they could have been fired in 2001.

Yes indeedee!

Paul Krugman reported last week the following:

Donald Shields and John Cragan, two professors of communication, have compiled a database of investigations and/or indictments of candidates and elected officials by U.S. attorneys since the Bush administration came to power. Of the 375 cases they identified, 10 involved independents, 67 involved Republicans, and 298 involved Democrats. The main source of this partisan tilt was a huge disparity in investigations of local politicians, in which Democrats were seven times as likely as Republicans to face Justice Department scrutiny.

How can this have been happening without a national uproar? The authors explain: "We believe that this tremendous disparity is politically motivated and it occurs because the local (non-statewide and non-Congressional) investigations occur under the radar of a diligent national press. Each instance is treated by a local beat reporter as an isolated case that is only of local interest."

And let's not forget that Karl Rove's candidates have a history of benefiting from conveniently timed federal investigations. Last year Molly Ivins reminded her readers of a curious pattern during Mr. Rove's time in Texas: 'In election years, there always seemed to be an F.B.I. investigation of some sitting Democrat either announced or leaked to the press. After the election was over, the allegations often vanished.'

Yes, of course the Bush White House is partisan politically motivated and of course they are firing prosecutors who do not go in for the kill on Democrat prey fast enough.
THERE IS NO POLICY APPARATUS IN THE BUSH WHITE HOUSE.  IT IS ALL POLITICS.
It is yet another sign of Republican desperation post-November that the main talking point is: "Well, Clinton and Carter did XYZ so yadda yadda yadda!"

Pathetic.

Gonzales has got to GO!

We heard tthe same bitching about a Texas procecutor a few months ago, ie he was persecuting a good old republican Congressman - do the name Tom DeLay ring a bell?  One of those fired waas names Lam from San Diego.  She got Duke Cunningham.  Bad girl.  Can't wait for Rove to be subpoenad.

We heard tthe same bitching about a Texas procecutor a few months ago, ie he was persecuting a good old republican Congressman - do the name Tom DeLay ring a bell?  One of those fired waas names Lam from San Diego.  She got Duke Cunningham.  Bad girl.  Can't wait for Rove to be subpoenad.

I'm not so optimistic.  Twenty years ago there was a whole raft of crooked politicos subpoenaed for Iran-Contra.  They all got up there and lied.  Instead of rotting in federal prison, those wicked men keep popping up in powerful government posts and spewing their garbage on FOX News.

I'm not so optimistic.  Twenty years ago there was a whole raft of crooked politicos subpoenaed for Iran-Contra.  They all got up there and lied.  Instead of rotting in federal prison, those wicked men keep popping up in powerful government posts and spewing their garbage on FOX News.

It burns me that people think Ollie some kinda hero, gets up and admits dealing in drugs and he is a great American hero.

It burns me that people think Ollie some kinda hero, gets up and admits dealing in drugs and he is a great American hero.

A good-looking smooth-talker can get away with all kinds of things...even treason!
::)

It burns me that people think Ollie some kinda hero, gets up and admits dealing in drugs and he is a great American hero.



Well, he was going to take the hit for the "Gipper" so of course they concider a "hero". It seems like many people are using the Ollie method of defense now, "I don't recall."



Cat

Well, he was going to take the hit for the "Gipper" so of course they concider a "hero". It seems like many people are using the Ollie method of defense now, "I don't recall."



Cat

HA!  I think only a few months in the federal pen would be great anti-amnesia medicine!
;D

So it seems that Rove is in the middle of the Prosecutor firing headlines.  The story, as I read it, is that the fired prosecutors were told to be more aggressive with Democrats than with Republicans.  The spin from the Whitheouse is that they are political appointees at the pleasure of the President and he has just decided to make some changes.  I feel there is probably truth to both, but, the Whitheouse(Rove) said something about the prosecutors not being competent in their jobs, even though their past performance appraisals have been good.  Like everything Rove it smells stinky.  To press prosecutors to lean heavily upon cases because of political affiliation is very Rove, very bush(1 & 2).


The democrats need to investigate EVERYTHING done, all the time, every issue & Americans will get sick to death of their grandstanding - not working but working against all the time...

Eight were fired.... Under Clinton 93 were fired, but again, Democrats get a pass & count on Americans not knowing or remembering the 93. Oh yeah, the press really didn't tell us about that Clinton move -- and the repbulicans didn't make a poltical parade about it... More proof that the democrats are more interested in the 2008 elections than they are their own country, running it and the country's welfare.

Actually dear, I've heard a lot of people talking about what Clinton did in 1996, but he did that at the beginning of his term, not toward the end.....like Bush did.    A lot of people who have been following this story know about the Clinton firings 11 years ago, but this is about Bush and the reasons he chose to do this now, instead of the beginning of his term like most other presidents have done.


And I think Americans are more sick of this corrupt Republican administration than Democratic grandstanding.

The democrats need to investigate EVERYTHING done, all the time, every issue & Americans will get sick to death of their grandstanding - not working but working against all the time...

Eight were fired.... Under Clinton 93 were fired, but again, Democrats get a pass & count on Americans not knowing or remembering the 93. Oh yeah, the press really didn't tell us about that Clinton move -- and the repbulicans didn't make a poltical parade about it... More proof that the democrats are more interested in the 2008 elections than they are their own country, running it and the country's welfare.




  Look, American politics is generally corrupt.  Human politics is generally corrupt.  That nobody has been charged for the actual leak in the Plame case is very unsettling.  That Scooter Libby is the fall guy certainly is a tragedy.  But he chose the road that led him to the moment, and I don't just mean the decision to lie.  He chose to associate himself with corrupt folks.  And perhaps he is otherwise a magnanimous individual, but the patina of corruption stained him.  Good people make bad decisions in difficult times...

  Seeking conspiracies in order to empower yourself as a victim will do nothing to alleviate your frustrations, fears, or pressures.  Blaming political parties for human reality only helps a person feel better...

  Democrats on the warpath investigate illegal political espionage (Watergate), illegal arms trade with rogue states (Iran-Contra), illegal political retaliation ("Plame blow").  They would like to investigate things like lying in order to motivate a war...

  The GOP?  They prefer to investigate why Congress is exempt from legal investigation (Jefferson). Or if the president got a blowjob (Clinton)...

  If your frustration is that conservatives are losing, it's probably not a liberal conspiracy.  It's probably just that conservatives generally choose losing issues groove ;) on...

  Look, American politics is generally corrupt.  Human politics is generally corrupt.  That nobody has been charged for the actual leak in the Plame case is very unsettling.  That Scooter Libby is the fall guy certainly is a tragedy.  But he chose the road that led him to the moment, and I don't just mean the decision to lie.  He chose to associate himself with corrupt folks.  And perhaps he is otherwise a magnanimous individual, but the patina of corruption stained him.  Good people make bad decisions in difficult times...

  Seeking conspiracies in order to empower yourself as a victim will do nothing to alleviate your frustrations, fears, or pressures.  Blaming political parties for human reality only helps a person feel better...

  Democrats on the warpath investigate illegal political espionage (Watergate), illegal arms trade with rogue states (Iran-Contra), illegal political retaliation ("Plame blow").  They would like to investigate things like lying in order to motivate a war...

  The GOP?  They prefer to investigate why Congress is exempt from legal investigation (Jefferson). Or if the president got a blowjob (Clinton)...

  If your frustration is that conservatives are losing, it's probably not a liberal conspiracy.  It's probably just that conservatives generally choose losing issues groove ;) on...



Damn it.  I've karma'd you once already.

Actually dear, I've heard a lot of people talking about what Clinton did in 1996, but he did that at the beginning of his term, not toward the end.....like Bush did.    A lot of people who have been following this story know about the Clinton firings 11 years ago, but this is about Bush and the reasons he chose to do this now, instead of the beginning of his term like most other presidents have done.


And I think Americans are more sick of this corrupt Republican administration than Democratic grandstanding.



It doesn't make a difference at all! Clinton who fired 93 at the begining of his term to suit his own adgenda or at the end, all 8 or 9 fired under Bush at the end.  (That wasn't the point either).

And Americans get any corruption news that the liberal media feeds them. Do they know, for example, that Amscroft's money and favors also went to 40 or the 43 democrat senators too? Do they know that the biggest money numbers were to a couple of the senators who happened to be democrats? Do they know Hillary took them or Kerry? NOPE! They think cuz he's a repubican he is in it with the republicans & that is nonsense... you are led, fed and told to think what you are told by propaganda and half truths, which are in fact lies if you get right down to it.

Did they go on and on for months at a time over Jefferson's 90k of bribe money found in his freezer? How about the fed documents stolen by  Sandy Berger to help protect Clinton? That is HUGE, yet, not a witch hunt and not widely know, go figure! Do you know anything about Barbara Boxer's Indian deals that involve her son? How about Reid or Murtha's corruptions?

American's are sick of the Republican's corruption because that is all they hear and hear and hear! People do not have the time, generally, to seek out the full truth or the dealings that are not spread all over CNN and the New York Times. Those who do not know are just now suckers for the propaganda that fills them with the ideas that the media wants them to be filled with.

To think that the democrats are not corrupt as hell is to think wrong! To think this matters more than Clinton's 93 firerings is just you playing partisan

I don't think ANYONE feels the Democrats are as pure as the driven snow. 


And oh yes, the "liberal media".  How cute.

   If your frustration is that conservatives are losing, it's probably not a liberal conspiracy.  It's probably just that conservatives generally choose losing issues groove ;) on...


Well, maybe that's true.

I am really pissed at the republicans for not going after all the corruption on the left & leaving themselves open for months of crap on issues true and fabricated. They are a bit wussie in that regard, I wouldn't be. The democrats have been throwing punches for six years & doing nothing to help the country but rather just dog everything that is going on. If the democrats continue this, I think the republicans should just fire back and then some. After the firing, do some more & then blame the work that is not being done in the country on the democrats who are in control of the house and senate  now. that would give them a taste of their own medicine. But republicans actually have been working, even with the crap the democrats pull week after week... they have actually MORE care for the people and the country than the democrats currently have. They are just too busy playing poltics for 08 & can't be bothered with the work they are there to do.

The Republicans in power right now care about the American people?  I agree the Dems should do less bitching and more proactive work to get these corrupt Repubs out of power and fast......but you think the Repubs in power CARE about the American people?


Go ask a Katrina victim about the breadth of care the Republican administration has shown for them.  Go ask a returning vet from Iraq who keeps serving multiple tours because we can't get a workable exit strategy going how much care the Republican administration has shown for them.

And oh yes, the "liberal media".  How cute.



Sarcasm really doesn't work well for you – you know?

Well, maybe that's true.

I am really pissed at the republicans for not going after all the corruption on the left & leaving themselves open for months of crap on issues true and fabricated. They are a bit wussie in that regard, I wouldn't be. The democrats have been throwing punches for six years & doing nothing to help the country but rather just dog everything that is going on. If the democrats continue this, I think the republicans should just fire back and then some. After the firing, do some more & then blame the work that is not being done in the country on the democrats who are in control of the house and senate  now. that would give them a taste of their own medicine. But republicans actually have been working, even with the crap the democrats pull week after week... they have actually MORE care for the people and the country than the democrats currently have. They are just too busy playing poltics for 08 & can't be bothered with the work they are there to do.



  Both partys are more or less trying to solve the same problems and fufill the same functions within the same parameters they are given: the constitution, traditions and precedent, and the culture.  Groups that are more idealistic and forceful tend to find resistance in the culture, not least because of the American quality of independence.  Groups that trend towards compromise seem overly political in a manipulating way...

  They both tax the public, and tend to react to problems rather than anticipate them, so they are imperfect.  Some citizens resent the government's taxation and regulation (raises hand...).  Others object more to lack of services and subsidies.  Would we be better off with anarchy..?

  Hell with 'em...Let's vote off-ticket next time 'round groove ;) on...

this is about Bush


That is really it in a nutshell.  Nothing else really matters.

Of course, I wonder what might have happened if President Clinton had not fired all of his prosecutors when entering office.  I wonder how many of them might have started investigations against him and his administration.

Of course, President Bush did not fire any of them.  Maybe that was his mistake.  Maybe the first thing any Republican Administration does should be to "clean house".

And of course, nobody cares about what may or may not have happened.  Because that really does not matter.  All that matters is it "looks funny", so there must be something there.

     They both tax the public, and tend to react to problems rather than anticipate them, so they are imperfect.  Some citizens resent the government's taxation and regulation (raises hand...).  
 

Me too..... (the hand thing)

  They both tax the public, and tend to react to problems rather than anticipate them, so they are imperfect.  Some citizens resent the government's taxation and regulation (raises hand...).  Others object more to lack of services and subsidies.  Would we be better off with anarchy..?


Actually, I do not object to taxes.  However, I do onject to hidden taxes, excessive taxes, and unfair taxes.  This is not the 18th Century, and the original concept that "import terrifs" could pay for the expenses of this (or any government) are simply not realistic in the 21st Century.

I also have no problem with regulation, as long as it is done with "common sense", and regulated and deregulated as nessicary.  I do believe that the government should step in if things are out of control.  But once things are "balanced" again, they should step back out.  Permanent regulation tends to become a "jobs program" for beaurocrats, and something for Politicians to complain about.

Anarchy is something I do not believe in though.  History shows that it is not a viable form of Government, look at the Weimar Republic and the February Revolution to see what "Anarchy" can do to a nation.  That may seem attractive to "Punks" and English Football Hooligans, but I am sure that most of us wnat nothing to do with that form of Government.

That is the biggest problem with "Libertarian" politics.  They seem to think that pulling our Government back to 1790 standards will fix everything that is wrong.  All it would do is reduce the US to that of a poor 3rd World Nation.  Can anybody say "Post Soviet Invasion Afganistan"?

That is the biggest problem with "Libertarian" politics.  They seem to think that pulling our Government back to 1790 standards will fix everything that is wrong.  All it would do is reduce the US to that of a poor 3rd World Nation.  Can anybody say "Post Soviet Invasion Afganistan"?


  Actually, government in Central Asia is the primary reason development has flagged.  Notice that it was the post-Soviet Despots, who didn’t have any experience in liberal governance, stubbornly clung to power at the expense of their people...

  For example, government heavy-handedness has kept Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Uzbekistan desperately impoverished.  Years of civil war ruined Tajikistan.  And in Kazakhstan, society only began improving when foreign companies were allowed in invest in its oil assets - an indication that more, rather than less, private investment would be good for the countries there...

  My argument is that government does play a role, certainly.  But it must play an appropriate role, as enforcer of contracts and basic minimums, not as a barrier and limiter of private transactions groove ;) on...

so...

the distinction between what clinton did and what bush did is that to fire the prosecutors in the beginning or end of your term is just an aspect of staffing your government as you see fit... much like selecting a cabinet. but doing it in the MIDDLE of your term and doing it based on political motivations (for instance, firing an attorney who's putting together a case to prosecute a fellow republican for corruption, or because someone isn't being vociferous enough in prosecuting democrats) starts to get close to obstruction of justice.

That is really it in a nutshell.  Nothing else really matters.

Of course, I wonder what might have happened if President Clinton had not fired all of his prosecutors when entering office.  I wonder how many of them might have started investigations against him and his administration.

Of course, President Bush did not fire any of them.  Maybe that was his mistake.  Maybe the first thing any Republican Administration does should be to "clean house".

And of course, nobody cares about what may or may not have happened.  Because that really does not matter.  All that matters is it "looks funny", so there must be something there.
well, given that bush is absolutely the worst president this country has ever seen, yes, the fact that it's bush doing this does matter. particularly since his administration has such a history of grasping avariciously for all the power they can possibly aggregate to themselves, and you know, constitution be damned. if this prosecutor thing was the first bizarre thing about this administration that'd be one thing but after all, we're talking about the guys who made torture okay again. and now they're interfering with the justice system? it's creepy.

plus, doesn't it strike you as odd that they originally cited "performance issues" when they fired these guys? when it turns out all these guys except, i think one, got good or excellent performance reviews? if it was just an upfront political issue like you and lterhune are saying, and they weren't doing anything clinton didn't do... why lie?

Several new developments this morning.  Both the House and Senate Judiciary Committees voted to issue subpeonas to Karl Rove and Harriet Miers, saying that the private, off the record, no oath offer by the White House was not acceptable. Bush has vowed to resist based on Executive priviledge, so this will probably go to court.  Even Bob Barr (Remember him? one of the lead prosecutors in the Clinton impeachment) believes this is a mistake on Bush's part, both politically and legally.  When they do appear, you can bet I will be rivited to C-Span.

Also, the Senate voted overwhelmingly (96 - 2 I think) to recind the power of non-confirmation appointments to Justice granted in the Patriot Act (so callled).  Interum appointments can last for 120 days when vacancies occure, as was the case before the Patriot act.  This has to now pass the house with a veto proof majority, of course, although Justice did not object.

And just a thought for those who complain that this is a witch hunt, for 6 years Congress gave Bush a blank check.  Seems to me it is time for a bit of accountability.  I'm also looking forward to investigations into admin complicity in war profiteering, CIA "renditions", secret prisons, and touture.  Go Pat Go!!!!!!!!!!!

Is it only me who finds the whole concept of party-political partisan prosecutors more than a little worrying (not to mention alliterative)?

The judiciary and the executive need to be separate and independent, otherwise justice cannot be seen to be done: justice itself becomes suspect as political motives may be seen to be trumping judicial ones.

Is it only me who finds the whole concept of party-political partisan prosecutors more than a little worrying (not to mention alliterative)?

The judiciary and the executive need to be separate and independent, otherwise justice cannot be seen to be done: justice itself becomes suspect as political motives may be seen to be trumping judicial ones.


This is exactlly what the Democrats are saying, and why the issue is important.

subpoena wars! this is gonna be fun.

subpoena wars! this is gonna be fun.



I'll grab the popcorn, you grab the huge bag of M&M's.

I'll grab the popcorn, you grab the huge bag of M&M's.
who's gonna bring the bong hits 4 jesus?????

who's gonna bring the bong hits 4 jesus?????



We can ask that kid if he wants to drop by.

"Partisan witch hunts," eh George?  What's good for the goose is good for the gander!  The problem is, this isn't partisan and it isn't a witch hunt.  Newt Gingrich in the '90s and Karl Rove in the '00s are the ones who made ever last thing "partisan," and this administration has broken the law so many times it's ridiculous. 

If I was in Karl Rove's shoes, I would advise everybody to get up in front of congress, take the oath, and tell the truth.  It'll be over in a flash, and then they'll get 18 months to do damage control before the '08 elections.  Rove & Co. have managed to spin their way out of all kinds of extra-legal affairs.  What's different now?

To paraphrase Bush:

OK, we'll talk, just not under oath, not in front of congress, in private, with no transcript allowed.  And I'm not going to tolerate aggression against these fine public servants!

Could this guy possibly make himself and his cronies look more crooked?

They brazenly stole two presidential elections and lied their way into the worst military conflict since Vietnam.  If they're trying to hide something now, it must really be bad!
:o

That is really it in a nutshell.  Nothing else really matters.

Of course, I wonder what might have happened if President Clinton had not fired all of his prosecutors when entering office.  I wonder how many of them might have started investigations against him and his administration.

Of course, President Bush did not fire any of them.  Maybe that was his mistake.  Maybe the first thing any Republican Administration does should be to "clean house".

And of course, nobody cares about what may or may not have happened.  Because that really does not matter.  All that matters is it "looks funny", so there must be something there.


As several people have already pointed out, Clinton, Bush 1, Bush 2, Regan, Carter all did this AT THE START of their term. While these prosecutors were in place from Clinton's era, it's not like GW fired no one on the start of his term.

There's a huge world of difference.  Only GWB had the capacity to fire them in the middle of their term and replace them without Senate confirmation, thanks to the Patriot Act.  After these firings came to light, the Senate voted 94-2 to reverse this little provision of the Patriot Act. 

If a 94-2 isn't bipartisan right now, I'm not sure what it would be.

There's also two weeks worth of email missing from what's been submitted so far.  How about we see those before deciding whether a subpoena is necessary?  Bush keeps saying there's a rush to subpoena, so hey, I know, let's see what's in those emails first?

Bush: "We're not doing anything wrong.  Everything is on the up and up.  You can't videotape or have any sort of transcript of the interview.  But we're not doing anything wrong.  They also will not go under oath.  But we're not doing anything wrong." 

Give me a break.  If they're not doing anything wrong, they should have absolutely no problem swearing under oath.  It's that simple. 

Bush: "We're not doing anything wrong.  Everything is on the up and up.  You can't videotape or have any sort of transcript of the interview.  But we're not doing anything wrong.  They also will not go under oath.  But we're not doing anything wrong." 

Give me a break.  If they're not doing anything wrong, they should have absolutely no problem swearing under oath.  It's that simple. 


But then they would have to tell the truth or worry about perjury, which can land you in jail.

But then they would have to tell the truth or worry about perjury, which can land you in jail.


Damned if they do, damned if they don't.  ;)

Damned if they do, damned if they don't.   ;)


BUT...stalling and weaseling could be their salvation!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/04/faga7.gif

BUT...stalling and weaseling could be their salvation!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/04/faga7.gif


You think they can stall this for two years?

You think they can stall this for two years?

I have yet to underestimate the ability of this administration to get away with stuff.  There's a first time for everything, though!
::)

You think they can stall this for two years?



They are sure gonna try.



Cat

hell, i bet those subpoenas get issued in like a week or two. they're gonna have a tough time.

This is exactlly what the Democrats are saying, and why the issue is important.

ISTM that the Democrats are saying that Bush's motives are wrong, rather than the whole system which has partisan prosecutors.  Prosecuting people for crimes should be about the law: you should not need to know which party a prosecutor favours, and never be able to detect it from their actions.

ISTM that the Democrats are saying that Bush's motives are wrong, rather than the whole system which has partisan prosecutors.  Prosecuting people for crimes should be about the law: you should not need to know which party a prosecutor favours, and never be able to detect it from their actions.
well, the problem is that if they were selectively firing prosecutors for investigating corruption cases involving administration officials, or if the prosecutors they fired for not being zealous enough in prosecuting "voter fraud" cases were really trying to find ways to impair black voters from going to the polls, then it starts to feel an awful lot like obstruction of justice. which IS a crime.

never mind the other business with the hinky patriot act loophole and doing it in the middle of your term rather than at the beginning or end, which makes it seem like you're using the courts as an instrument of policy.

By claiming executive privilage and forcing the issue into the courts, it just might take 2 years to get resolved. 

If I heard the newscast right, Harriet Miers has just pleaded the 5th before being called. 

If I heard the newscast right, Harriet Miers has just pleaded the 5th before being called. 
there was somebody else who also pleaded the fifth, some woman named goodling.

I'm a big defender of the 5th Amendment. 

It's funny how the same guys who consider it an admission of guilt if Democrats use it suddenly favor the principle when Republicans have something to hide. 

Oh yeah, these guys have oodles to hide, you can make book on that!  However, it is their honorable Constitutional right to plead the 5th, like it or lump it.
8)

I'm a big defender of the 5th Amendment. 

It's funny how the same guys who consider it an admission of guilt if Democrats use it suddenly favor the principle when Republicans have something to hide. 

Oh yeah, these guys have oodles to hide you can make book on that!  However, it is their honorable Constitutional right to plead the 5th, like it or lump it.
8)


I like the fifth, too. But I find it telling that someone announces that if they are called they will then plead. She is getting way ahead of the curve.

I like the fifth, too. But I find it telling that someone announces that if they are called they will then plead. She is getting way ahead of the curve.


Dubya took the fifth until Jesus told him to cut it out!

Dubya took the fifth until Jesus told him to cut it out!

http://hem.passagen.se/danmarc/images/vodka.jpg


Nah, Laura always took credit for that one.

Nah, Laura always took credit for that one.


"When you think of Laura, laugh don't cry, you know she'd want it that way..."
--Christopher Cross
:P

yanno, i think this committee should start playing hardball -- really focus in on this goodling character. bring in any witnesses who might know her, find people to speculate publicly about things she MIGHT have done, get friendly people in the press to perpetuate rumors. really make a stink out of it. swift-boat her ass. she obviously knows something, and if you make it so she feels like she might HAVE to come in and testify or else face jail time she might come in and sing. i'm all for the fifth too, but that doesn't mean you can get away with a crime and it DOES look incriminating when one invokes it, there's just no way around it.

i say pull out the stops. dems need to start hardballin' it, like the repubs have been doing for the last decade. after all, these characteres were willing to ruin these prosecutors' careers because they weren't "bushies," that much seems clear. that seems good enough to justify not worrying about what happens to this goodling character. and if they were really trying to obstruct active investigations into the republican party, they need to get the horns.

"When you think of Laura, laugh don't cry, you know she'd want it that way..."
--Christopher Cross
:P


Max, give Mrs. Shrubbie some credit, she's gotta deal with the leader of the free world.  (God help us all!!)

Max, give Mrs. Shrubbie some credit, she's gotta deal with the leader of the free world.  (God help us all!!)


Forget it.  After all bred with the man allowing his DNA to continue unabated.

Are we now dumping on Laura Bush for having children with her husband? 

Are we now dumping on Laura Bush for having children with her husband? 




Actually, yes.

So if George pleads the 5th can Laura plead insanity? ;D

Forget it.  After all bred with the man allowing his DNA to continue unabated.

I was gonna say "Who says they're his kids?," but that joke won't work with Jenna and Barb, they look just like him, including the deer-in-the-headlights eyes!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/08/rudolf.gif

He also cracked this really pathetic joke last night, something like:
"They say I won't get along with Hillary because she's pushy and bossy and won't take no for answer.  I get along with my mother don't I?"
He also let fly several duds about Cheney shooting that old man in the face.

Would I respect Dubya any more if he didn't make such stupid jokes?
No!
:-\\

well, the problem is that if they were selectively firing prosecutors for investigating corruption cases involving administration officials, or if the prosecutors they fired for not being zealous enough in prosecuting "voter fraud" cases were really trying to find ways to impair black voters from going to the polls, then it starts to feel an awful lot like obstruction of justice. which IS a crime.

I agree - it just seems strange that, in effect, the politicians always have that power, but don't use it by some kind of "gentleman's agreement", rather than simply setting up the judiciary as independent of party politics.


never mind the other business with the hinky patriot act loophole and doing it in the middle of your term rather than at the beginning or end, which makes it seem like you're using the courts as an instrument of policy.

Exactly.. which is *seriously* dodgy, IMO

I read the "new rules" for the political forums and all the replies too... It seemed that everyone was all for the reform in that thread = All those refined boy and girl scouts pitching in was impressive indeed!

  Then I came in here & noticed many of those same upstanding citizens from that thread seemed to forget their own words....  Don't you hate it when that happens?

Apparently not.

GAD.

I read the "new rules" for the political forums and all the replies too... It seemed that everyone was all for the reform in that thread = All those refined boy and girl scouts pitching in was impressive indeed!

  Then I came in here & noticed many of those same upstanding citizens from that thread seemed to forget their own words....  Don't you hate it when that happens?

Apparently not.

GAD.


mmmm  Can you clarify?

I read the "new rules" for the political forums and all the replies too... It seemed that everyone was all for the reform in that thread = All those refined boy and girl scouts pitching in was impressive indeed!

  Then I came in here & noticed many of those same upstanding citizens from that thread seemed to forget their own words....  Don't you hate it when that happens?

Apparently not.

GAD.
i knew there was a reason i felt like my head was upside down!

i knew there was a reason i felt like my head was upside down!


Dear, you know we can't have a political board without "someone underneath the bridge". ;)

Dear, you know we can't have a political board without "someone underneath the bridge". ;)

Oh you mean a troll?
:D

Oh you mean a troll?
:D


Figures YOU would say the "T" word.

Oh you mean a troll?
:D



I am so curious...... what is your definition of troll?

http://www.christithomas.com/images/troll.jpg

http://www.christithomas.com/images/troll.jpg


Yep, only with 75.8% more political conviction. :)

guess that was a difficult question... I apologize

i accept your apology. :D

guess that was a difficult question... I apologize




A troll is some one who goes on a lot of websites and message boards and post about only one thing.  Yes, we were debating if you were or not.  Since you have PM me I can tell the others you defiantly do not reside under a bridge. 

In Internet terminology, a troll is someone who intentionally posts derogatory or otherwise inflammatory messages about sensitive topics in an established online community such as an online discussion forum to bait users into responding.

As a noun, a troll is a fearsome anthropomorphic creature from Scandinavian mythology.  The troll in re: bridge refers to a fairytale you might remember from childhood, Bill Goats Gruff:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_goats_gruff

8)

In Internet terminology, a troll is someone who intentionally posts derogatory or otherwise inflammatory messages about sensitive topics in an established online community such as an online discussion forum to bait users into responding.

As a noun, a troll is a fearsome anthropomorphic creature from Scandinavian mythology.  The troll in re: bridge refers to a fairytale you might remember from childhood, Bill Goats Gruff:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_goats_gruff

8)


I never really like The Three Billy Goats Gruff. :P

A troll is some one who goes on a lot of websites and message boards and post about only one thing.  Yes, we were debating if you were or not.  Since you have PM me I can tell the others you defiantly do not reside under a bridge. 


Thank you for answering. You are right, I am not, I don't have the time needed to accomplish that - maybe in another life...

In Internet terminology, a troll is someone who intentionally posts derogatory or otherwise inflammatory messages about sensitive topics in an established online community such as an online discussion forum to bait users into responding.




Goodness! With that def, I see trolls all over the place!  But if by "established" you mean, "set in their way politically" (or otherwise), then a troll is anyone who doesn't agree with the majority in a message board, right? Maybe they do intentionally post, but not to the liking of the current majority. If this board, for example, were filled up with right wing folk, then wouldn't you be a troll?

Goodness! With that def, I see trolls all over the place!  But if by "established" you mean, "set in their way politically" (or otherwise), then a troll is anyone who doesn't agree with the majority in a message board, right? Maybe they do intentionally post, but not to the liking of the current majority. If this board, for example, were filled up with right wing folk, then wouldn't you be a troll?




They just like to mentally beat the crap out of people right wing, left wing, centralist. :P

They just like to mentally beat the crap out of people right wing, left wing, centralist. :P


ohhhhhh!

ohhhhhh!


They probably don't even register to vote. >:(

They probably don't even register to vote. >:(


You're alright!

You're alright!





Pet peeve, people with big mouths who don't bother to vote. :P

Pet peeve, people with big mouths who don't bother to vote. :P
some people think that voting constitutes an implicit endorsement of a system that's a democracy in name only. i don't agree with them, necessarily, but i always thought it was intersting, making a cause out of not voting.

i didn't vote until 2000, totally out of cynicism and apathy. then the 2000 election was so FREAKY that i felt motivated to vote after that. i don't think i've missed an election once since then.

some people think that voting constitutes an implicit endorsement of a system that's a democracy in name only. i don't agree with them, necessarily, but i always thought it was intersting, making a cause out of not voting.

i didn't vote until 2000, totally out of cynicism and apathy. then the 2000 election was so FREAKY that i felt motivated to vote after that. i don't think i've missed an election once since then.


I think people like us have sort of a political awakening.  I didn't vote till I was 29.  Now I'm so politically involved it's almost sickening.

some people think that voting constitutes an implicit endorsement of a system that's a democracy in name only. i don't agree with them, necessarily, but i always thought it was intersting, making a cause out of not voting.

i didn't vote until 2000, totally out of cynicism and apathy. then the 2000 election was so FREAKY that i felt motivated to vote after that. i don't think i've missed an election once since then.


I think people like us have sort of a political awakening.  I didn't vote till I was 29.  Now I'm so politically involved it's almost sickening.


I have no respect whatsoever for people who don't vote,i understand that yes politicians only care about themselves,yeah it's all about money and power,it's hard to relate to what those morons talk about, but when you don't vote,when you refuse to be part of that process,you are saying that you don't want to be a part of society therefore you can't really complain or hope that things you find wrong will change.
So you don't vote and you still have to obey the same laws and rules of your nation,that's so stupid.

I see voting as a right and as a duty,in Brazil if you are between 18 and 65 you are obliged to vote,and i agree with that,even if you don't have a candidate,even if you don't agree with any of the alternatives,you still should go there and make your voice heard by voting null or none of the above, that's the way you protest,not voting only shows that you couldn't care less.

I've been away from my own nation for almost 10 years now and i always vote for the presidential election,even if that caused me a lot of grief,even if i had to make a 3 hour trip just so i could do it. I do it cause i believe i can make difference,cause i believe my voice matters,'cause i know there was a time where people and specially women could not vote...

Even today,there are countries where people still don't have that right,can you imagine that?

I have no respect whatsoever for people who don't vote,i understand that yes politicians only care about themselves,yeah it's all about money and power,it's hard to relate to what those morons talk about, but when you don't vote,when you refuse to be part of that process,you are saying that you don't want to be a part of society therefore you can't really complain or hope that things you find wrong will change.
So you don't vote and you still have to obey the same laws and rules of your nation,that's so stupid.

I see voting as a right and as a duty,in Brazil if you are between 18 and 65 you are obliged to vote,and i agree with that,even if you don't have a candidate,even if you don't agree with any of the alternatives,you still should go there and make your voice heard by voting null or none of the above, that's the way you protest,not voting only shows that you couldn't care less.

I've been away from my own nation for almost 10 years now and i always vote for the presidential election,even if that caused me a lot of grief,even if i had to make a 3 hour trip just so i could do it. I do it cause i believe i can make difference,cause i believe my voice matters,'cause i know there was a time where people and specially women could not vote...

Even today,there are countries where people still don't have that right,can you imagine that?



  Beautiful...


Pet peeve, people with big mouths who don't bother to vote. :P


  I thank the willful non-voters of my country, for their indispensable contribution to the Bush Imperium.  More than Al Gore, who lost his home state (Tennessee), and more than Ralph Nader, who helped split the left, I blame the willful non-voters of this country for the Bush presidency.  The man who got the most popular votes is not the president, and we could have avoided this circumstance if they had chosen to vote.  Think about it: If those whining souls who would not vote would simply have gotten off their asses and voted, perhaps we could have avoided the necessity of a recount that was cut short by a Supreme Court presided over by justices including one who was determined to prevent Al Gore from winning the election.  Americans are dying in a combat zone.  This might have been preventable with a smarter president...

  Its easy enough to be secure in one's sarcasm when one can rely on sending others to do the killing and dying...

  thereshegoes is right, people in other countries die for the right to vote.  They die on the way to the ballot box.  They die, watching their ballots burned in the street.  People in Florida don't know how to vote, but that doesn't stop them from turning out groove ;) on...

i wish we had a null/none of the above option in this country. i think a few of the people in my country who don't vote on purpose are basically protesting the absence of a none of the above option on the american ballot. i mean, the way that the elections here, you're trapped between picking between one of two parties that basically are funded by the same rich private interests, and that agree on a lot of policies even though they make a big play of arguing all the time... i mean, the system here is messed up and if you had an election where more people voted for "none of the above" than voted for either of the actual candidates, that would send a real message. and the deliberate non-voters, their point often is, in the absence of that option i refuse to legitimize this system by participating in it.

i'm sorta playing devil's advocate here. i bend over backwards to vote in every election (well, actually, i don't have to, it's pretty convenient for me... :-X) and i really admire both davester and isabel's testimonials, they're really quite moving. but try as i might not to, i can still sorta see the point of the non-voters here.

and the deliberate non-voters, their point often is, in the absence of that option i refuse to legitimize this system by participating in it.


I always thought Ralph Nader was your 'none of the above' option :-\\

I always thought Ralph Nader was your 'none of the above' option :-\\
i voted for him one year.

i voted for him one year.


I was trying to be funny,i guess it didn't work  ???  ;D

   Beautiful...

   I thank the willful non-voters of my country, for their indispensable contribution to the Bush Imperium.  More than Al Gore, who lost his home state (Tennessee), and more than Ralph Nader, who helped split the left, I blame the willful non-voters of this country for the Bush presidency. 

You are assuming all the non-voters would vote for Gore.



   Its easy enough to be secure in one's sarcasm when one can rely on sending others to do the killing and dying...

???  Huh?



   thereshegoes is right, people in other countries die for the right to vote.  They die on the way to the ballot box.  They die, watching their ballots burned in the street. 

Kinda like all those who voted in Iraq, except they didn't die - they just thought they would.



People in Florida don't know how to vote, but that doesn't stop them from turning out groove ;) on...



I thought that the count was close, not that they didn't know how to vote! I remember Gore would not allow the service member's votes in the re-count too & Bush still took it.... i.e., that's not very nice!

Bush cheated his way into both of his terms.  That's the kind of guy he is.  Those are the kind of people he consorts with.  Crooks.  That's the way it is.  The truth is at your fingertips for you to see.  No sense arguing here with me.
:P

 
You are assuming all the non-voters would vote for Gore.



  Historically, the higher the voter turnout, the more liberal result; the lower the voter turnout, the more conservative the result.  Typically, disgruntled voters lament the loss of the Democratic Party.  Typically, the disgruntled voter sees the government ("left wing" included) swinging too far away from the common individual.  In that bloc of willful non-voters would have been enough votes for there to have been no question whatsoever about who won in Florida...


???  Huh?


  Uh-huh...


Kinda like all those who voted in Iraq, except they didn't die - they just thought they would.

I thought that the count was close, not that they didn't know how to vote! I remember Gore would not allow the service member's votes in the re-count too & Bush still took it.... i.e., that's not very nice!


  Sorry, Iterhune, but I find such disingenuous assertions of history an indicator that someone doesn't want to have a real discussion.  I think you've got lots of interesting things to say, but where you lose points with me is your half-truth mischaracterizations that we could spend days hammering out in order to neutralize your conservative deceptions...

  Consider: Florida's election laws were interpreted broadly with the result that thousands of voter registrations were inappropriately cancelled; federal election laws were interpreted strictly in with the result that people have been arguing about the recounts ever since.  The issue of "Trying to stop the military votes being included in 2000" overlooks that the ballots in question were irregular inasmuch as there were invalid under Florida law (Source: Wiki)

  I mean, it would appear that Republicans were arguing for circumvention of election laws groove ;) on...

 

   

Bush cheated his way into both of his terms.  That's the kind of guy he is.  Those are the kind of people he consorts with.  Crooks.  That's the way it is.  The truth is at your fingertips for you to see.  No sense arguing here with me.
:P


Yeah, right. Bush cheated because you WANT to beleive it, it's a lot easier to lose that way, (when it's something out of your control and the man you didn't vote for cheated)... that's silly. And how exactly do you know what "kind of guy he is" - (silly too) ( I am assuming that you do not know him personally here). Just because his winning the elections twice seemingly hurts your ego, doesn't mean you suddenly know the guy and can make silly statements (and have them be true).. I got the picture of "not arguing with you" already - I sort of figured it out a while back that the talented marketers and propaganda pushers had you. NO offense really - they are really good at what they do.

What I don't get is why so many like you remain in the bitterness that obviously is still there after all this time.. why the constant Bush bashing, (other than feeding egos, it's tough to understand & really gets old)... maybe you could give me some insight into that.



 

   
   Historically, the higher the voter turnout, the more liberal result; the lower the voter turnout, the more conservative the result.  Typically, disgruntled voters lament the loss of the Democratic Party.  Typically, the disgruntled voter sees the government ("left wing" included) swinging too far away from the common individual.  In that bloc of willful non-voters would have been enough votes for there to have been no question whatsoever about who won in Florida...




That really doesn't prove a lot, although the words were nifty fancy!



   Uh-huh...


That certainly helped, thanks!


   Sorry, Iterhune, but I find such disingenuous assertions of history an indicator that someone doesn't want to have a real discussion.  I think you've got lots of interesting things to say, but where you lose points with me is your half-truth mischaracterizations that we could spend days hammering out in order to neutralize your conservative deceptions...


It's L-terhune. I am not being disingenuous at all. But what if I said to you that your implying that I don’t want to have a real discussion, saying that I am disingenuous, that I am mischaracterizing etc., is a sign that in fact you do not really want a real discussion &  that you need your liberal deceptions neutralized? That was a show-off & mean thing you know? What if I told you that it truly seems that way to me, (when I read your stuff)?  Attacking me, sayng I am lying etc., really doesn't scare me off & neither do the words you use, (which do not always fit by the way). I've had discussions with people who used  attacks on my personally, callig me a liar w/out merit & using big words to try & make me feel stupid before - typcially, it's a lot of hot air & I am never impressed 


   

The issue of "Trying to stop the military votes being included in 2000" overlooks that the ballots in question were irregular inasmuch as there were invalid under Florida law (Source: Wiki)



Invalid? NO! They were sent in absentee and Gore did not want them considered... Military typically votes conservative, that's reality.




   I mean, it would appear that Republicans were arguing for circumvention of election laws groove ;) on...
   



I am sorry, I just do not understand that at all, "arguing for circumvention of election laws" ?  Sometimes the thesaurus makes things a little odd, you know?

I have no respect whatsoever for people who don't vote,i understand that yes politicians only care about themselves,yeah it's all about money and power,it's hard to relate to what those morons talk about, but when you don't vote,when you refuse to be part of that process,you are saying that you don't want to be a part of society therefore you can't really complain or hope that things you find wrong will change.
I tend to agree that if you don't vote, you have no right to complain about the result; however, speaking as someone who has voted in every election for more than 20 years, and never voted for the winning candidate (even though I've nearly always voted for the best candidate), I can understand why people don't vote.  IMO we need to look at a better way of choosing a government, but there's no way you'll get this bunch of political turkeys to vote for Christmas (or Thanksgiving, that side of the pond)

Yeah, right. Bush cheated because you WANT to believe it, it's a lot easier to lose that way, (when it's something out of your control and the man you didn't vote for cheated)... that's silly. And how exactly do you know what "kind of guy he is" - (silly too) ( I am assuming that you do not know him personally here).



 


In the very early seventies I spent a bit of time in Kennebunk.  It was there that I became acquainted(not personally, the bushes would not have any truck with my less than blue blood unless I was washing their floors) with the bush family persona.  "The boys" were, and seem to remain, spoiled frat boys with a sense of entitlement to the obeisance of the people(peasants?) not of their privileged social set.  Poppy and Babs are an ugly satire of the wealthy aristocrats who believe in the divine right of kings and their own place on the right side of the throne. I cannot think for a moment why anyone with any knowledge of the life story of any of them could think for a moment that they would be of any use,  except as an example of the evils of inherited power.

In the very early seventies I spent a bit of time in Kennebunk.  It was there that I became acquainted(not personally, the bushes would not have any truck with my less than blue blood unless I was washing their floors) with the bush family persona.  "The boys" were, and seem to remain, spoiled frat boys with a sense of entitlement to the obeisance of the people(peasants?) not of their privileged social set.  Poppy and Babs are an ugly satire of the wealthy aristocrats who believe in the divine right of kings and their own place on the right side of the throne. I cannot think for a moment why anyone with any knowledge of the life story of any of them could think for a moment that they would be of any use,  except as an example of the evils of inherited power.

Numerous sources proved time and again that Bush and his cronies stole the elections of '00 and '04.  The reason I did not run down a lengthy list of citations is because the people who still believe Bush won fair and square do so because that's what they want to believe.  No source of proof will ever be credible to these people.  They will impeach any and all sources as "partisan hacks" or "liberal loons."  Can we expect after six years of defending treason from the lowly Katherine Harris to the mighty Supreme Court that staunch right-wingers will concede?  Of course not!

It's like I was saying about the global warming deniers.  When you've been pounding the podium against it for decades, you're not going to publically eat so much crow!  The scientists who deny that burning fossil fuels contributes to global warming tend to be affiliated with engery industry interests.  A large number of scientists do dispute the consensus on global warming, but it's not a question of "if" it's a question of "how much and how fast."  Hey, people don't want to give up their SUVs and their McMansions.  I can dig it.  Now, if there was evidence that global warming exists because people smoke marijuana, look at pornography, and listen to Barbara Streisand, you can bet dollars to doughnuts Sen. Inhofe would no longer call it a "hoax"!
:P

In the very early seventies I spent a bit of time in Kennebunk.  It was there that I became acquainted(not personally, the bushes would not have any truck with my less than blue blood unless I was washing their floors) with the bush family persona.  "The boys" were, and seem to remain, spoiled frat boys with a sense of entitlement to the obeisance of the people(peasants?) not of their privileged social set.  Poppy and Babs are an ugly satire of the wealthy aristocrats who believe in the divine right of kings and their own place on the right side of the throne. I cannot think for a moment why anyone with any knowledge of the life story of any of them could think for a moment that they would be of any use,  except as an example of the evils of inherited power.


OMG!

Numerous sources proved time and again that Bush and his cronies stole the elections of '00 and '04.  The reason I did not run down a lengthy list of citations is because the people who still believe Bush won fair and square do so because that's what they want to believe.  No source of proof will ever be credible to these people.  They will impeach any and all sources as "partisan hacks" or "liberal loons."  Can we expect after six years of defending treason from the lowly Katherine Harris to the mighty Supreme Court that staunch right-wingers will concede?  Of course not!


Since the official records do show he won, I'd love to see your credible "evidence", even if it's just a few from your "lengthy list".  If you didn't come across so angry and personally offended by the right (it makes what you say seem like you are sour grapes), then what you say may be more believable, credible to a point or thought provoking. *just a tip

You said, " No source of proof will ever be credible to these people.  They will impeach any and all sources as "partisan hacks" or "liberal loons."  - I could EASILY say the very same thing to you. No official proof would ever be credible to you people. You will impeach any and all sources as "partisan hacks" or "conservitive crocks"