House sues ex-White House staffers

Discussion in 'Politics' started by CrimsonWhite, Mar 11, 2008.

  1. CrimsonWhite
    Offline

    CrimsonWhite *****istrator Emeritus Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2006
    Messages:
    7,978
    Thanks Received:
    1,755
    Trophy Points:
    123
    Location:
    Guntucky
    Ratings:
    +1,757
    Sounds like horseshit to me.
     
  2. jillian
    Offline

    jillian Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    69,555
    Thanks Received:
    13,012
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    The Other Side of Paradise
    Ratings:
    +22,432
    Of course... there wasn't anything wrong with the firing the US attorneys who didn't misuse their office for the benefit of the GOP...

    nah... nothing to see there... move it along. :eusa_doh:
     
  3. RetiredGySgt
    Offline

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,559
    Thanks Received:
    5,900
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +8,973
    They had exceeded the original term of office, as a matter of fact, and were replaced. All with in the power of the President. Even if they had NOT exceeded the original term of office the President can remove a Federal Prosecutor for ANY reason he wants. They are political appointments and serve at the PLEASURE of the President.
     
  4. rayboyusmc
    Offline

    rayboyusmc Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2008
    Messages:
    4,015
    Thanks Received:
    338
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Florida
    Ratings:
    +338
    That's not the point. The house supoened them to appear and they refused. That's why contempt citation were issued.

    When the pleasure of the president includes firing an AG because Carl Rove wanted his friend in that position and then lied about their qualifications, I would think that even you might consider that a little off.
     
  5. Brian Crooks
    Offline

    Brian Crooks Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2008
    Messages:
    6
    Thanks Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Ratings:
    +0
    The issue at hand here is not whether or not there was wrongdoing with regard to the firing of these attorneys. Of course they serve at the pleasure of the president, and he can fire them for any reason or no reason at all. The issue is that Miers and Bolten were required to show up before congress and they didn't show up, or even send a letter saying they wouldn't show up.

    Citing executive privilege only works when you may incriminate yourself, put national security at risk, or have committed a crime. Therefore, you cannot issue a blanket statement that says "I won't show up because whatever you ask me fits the definition of executive privilege." It's about having some respect for Congress and not robbing the House of its Constitutional powers.
     
  6. Larkinn
    Offline

    Larkinn Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2007
    Messages:
    5,598
    Thanks Received:
    174
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +175
    No, actually he can't fire them because they aren't serving GOP political interests such as not indicting Democrats on fraudulent charges.
     
  7. CrimsonWhite
    Offline

    CrimsonWhite *****istrator Emeritus Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2006
    Messages:
    7,978
    Thanks Received:
    1,755
    Trophy Points:
    123
    Location:
    Guntucky
    Ratings:
    +1,757
    They are political appointees. They serve at the pleasure of the President. Congress has no oversight over this. That is why they refused to appear. I don't agree much anymore, but the President is right on this one.
     
  8. Larkinn
    Offline

    Larkinn Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2007
    Messages:
    5,598
    Thanks Received:
    174
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +175
    Umm, not quite. They must be confirmed by the Senate. Congress DOES have oversight over them.

    I'm amazed by the non-reaction this gets. What, the president fired Attorneys because they wouldn't prosecute Democrats or Democratic-linked individuals on ridiculous grounds? Eh, its all good. I mean why have a non-political prosecutorial system when we can prosecute people based on their political affiliation!
     
  9. Angel Heart
    Offline

    Angel Heart Conservative Hippie

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2007
    Messages:
    2,057
    Thanks Received:
    341
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Portland, Oregon
    Ratings:
    +341
    They should of done what Clinton did... Just fired them all.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  10. midcan5
    Offline

    midcan5 liberal / progressive

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2007
    Messages:
    10,787
    Thanks Received:
    2,366
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Location:
    Philly, PA
    Ratings:
    +3,299
    Funny how law changes in the minds of conservatives when it has to do with them.
     

Share This Page