Trouble Pending on the Homefront?

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Care4all, May 10, 2007.

  1. Care4all
    Offline

    Care4all Warrior Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2007
    Messages:
    32,767
    Thanks Received:
    6,622
    Trophy Points:
    1,170
    Location:
    Maine
    Ratings:
    +11,093
    I realize that this may be just an opinion, but here goes.... for discussion purposes!

     
  2. RetiredGySgt
    Offline

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,551
    Thanks Received:
    5,900
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +8,971
    The only way "criminal" charges can occur is if one ignores the reality of the law and Constitution.

    Unless President Bush states he disapproved of the firings and didn't want them done every Prosecutor serves at the pleasure of the President. He can fire them can he was told to by his dog.

    There is NO legal course of action as long as the Positions are political. Congress has no say in the matter of firings. The Senate has to approve who is hired but has no authority at all in how long they serve or for what reason they are fired.

    The only thing Congress can do is keep questioning people and hope that like the Libby case they can manufacture a perjury charge.
     
  3. Dirt McGirt
    Offline

    Dirt McGirt Bad Mother****er

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2006
    Messages:
    1,773
    Thanks Received:
    503
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +503
    Maybe that depends on what Alberto Gonzales's definition of "performance-related reasons" is. [​IMG]
     
  4. JeffWartman
    Offline

    JeffWartman Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2006
    Messages:
    1,309
    Thanks Received:
    101
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Suburban Chicago
    Ratings:
    +101
    So what about all the U.S. attorneys who got fired by Clinton's DOJ when he came into office?
     
  5. Superlative
    Offline

    Superlative Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2007
    Messages:
    1,382
    Thanks Received:
    109
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +109
    Maybe they deserved it?

    Maybe it was cause the only people that would complain are Democrats, and since it was Democrats doing the firing, no one was available to complain?
     
  6. Care4all
    Offline

    Care4all Warrior Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2007
    Messages:
    32,767
    Thanks Received:
    6,622
    Trophy Points:
    1,170
    Location:
    Maine
    Ratings:
    +11,093
    that's not quite true, prosecutors are independent of the president when it involves their cases.

    also, if they replaced any prosecutor because they did not want him/her to continue an investigation or case that he was working on, or if the justice dept tries to interphere for any political reason, or even if Congress tried to interphere with a case they are working on or influence them to work on one for political reasons, it is OBSTRUCTION of justice.

    oh, and YOU THINK libby DID NOT commit purgery? you've got to be kidding....he lied under oath, clear as day! he lead the prosecutor on a wild goose chase and thrrew sand in his eyes and obstructed justice according to fitzy and the jury.... that is NOT a ''manufactuyred crime.... you impeached clinton for it! gees....

    care
     
  7. Care4all
    Offline

    Care4all Warrior Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2007
    Messages:
    32,767
    Thanks Received:
    6,622
    Trophy Points:
    1,170
    Location:
    Maine
    Ratings:
    +11,093
    Do you really want to know? I would venture not....

    All 93 prosecutors that served their term under Bush 1's pleasure were replaced by Clinton appointments when he came on as President.

    Is that too hard to understand?

    Then guess what?

    All of the Clinton 93, were REPLACED IN FULL BY PRESIDENT BUSH when he came on board.

    That's how it works....

    The 8 that were recently fired, were fired mid term and for possible political reasons that obstructed justice.... this is what is in question. Our Justice system should never be jerked around for political gain....it looks bad and is bad for all of us....when we can't trust the justice system to be fair and just.

    And if 5 million emails along with emails involving the decisions to make the changes have been lost or have been made on a system of the RnC....where congress is unable to access them which is against the law....

    It smells worse than a fishery the way the administration and Gonzalez have handled this.... it makes a mockery out of our justice system and the position of attorney general in my humble opinion....

    I wasn't brought up to be played a fool and SOMETHING is wrong here or so many people would not have resigned or pleaded the fifth etc....

    What is done in the dark is done of darkness, what is done in the light is of the light...

    truth and honesty is all I ask...and that is like pulling a tooth that just ain't ready with this group of people regarding this issue imo...

    Care
     
  8. RetiredGySgt
    Offline

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,551
    Thanks Received:
    5,900
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +8,971
    Actually Bush did NOT fire all Clinton's appointees AND those he fired he had replacements for. Clinton fired all 93 the day he took office. One was 30 days from filing a case that the dems didn't want filed, yet no one howled about politics and obstruction of Justice.

    More importantly not one of the 8 fired Prosecutors can claim they were fired for cases they brought or were working on, in fact the claim is they WOULDN'T file cases. So much for obstruction of Justices charges.

    As for Libby, I suggest you reread the facts and the law. It is ILLEGAL to try to and trap someone into perjury. What does that mean? it means you cant specifically run an investigation for the sole purpose of charging someone with perjury, it is illegal.

    Yet the Prosecutor knew that Libby was NBOT the one that leaked Plumes name, Armatige had already confessed he did it ( for which no action was taken against him). Yet the prosecutor spent 2 years questioning Libby over and over for a NON crime ( Plume did not fit the charge, she was NOT a covert agent, the law was clear on that) that the prosecutor already knew Libby hadn't done to begin with.

    Further Libby claimed he simply over a 2 year period forgot some things, when others questioned were caught the same way, their claims of " Ohh I forgot" were good enough, but not Libby.... I wonder why?
     
  9. Gunny
    Offline

    Gunny Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2004
    Messages:
    44,689
    Thanks Received:
    6,753
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Location:
    The Republic of Texas
    Ratings:
    +6,770
    It's called witch hunting, plain and simple.
     
  10. Care4all
    Offline

    Care4all Warrior Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2007
    Messages:
    32,767
    Thanks Received:
    6,622
    Trophy Points:
    1,170
    Location:
    Maine
    Ratings:
    +11,093
    Actually Bush did NOT fire all Clinton's appointees AND those he fired he had replacements for. Clinton fired all 93 the day he took office. One was 30 days from filing a case that the dems didn't want filed, yet no one howled about politics and obstruction of Justice

    clinton made a mistake by not having replacements when he let them all go! this was criticisized greatly and deservedly at the time....

    and honestly, if no one howled about it,

    how do YOU know about it? ;)



    More importantly not one of the 8 fired Prosecutors can claim they were fired for cases they brought or were working on, in fact the claim is they WOULDN'T file cases. So much for obstruction of Justices charges.

    that's not true from what i have read... the Lam lady brought charges and prosecuted duke cunningham which was a huge bribery and corruption case that hurt republicans and 1 week before they decided to put her on the ''fire'' list she began working on search warrants and corruption charges against Dusty Foggo, another republican working as 2nd in charge of the cia i believe?

    and in the other cases the justice dept and the senator from new mexico, i believe, tried to get one of the prosecutors to bring up a case of a democrat before the election....so to influence the result of an election.... that's not good! the senator is now all ''lawyered up'' so congress can not get anything out of dominici...

    etc.etc.etc.

    As for Libby, I suggest you reread the facts and the law. It is ILLEGAL to try to and trap someone into perjury. What does that mean? it means you cant specifically run an investigation for the sole purpose of charging someone with perjury, it is illegal.

    and THEY DIDN'T try to trap him in to perjury.... it was a special prosecutor, a republican, appointed by ashcroft cuz he had to recuse himself... fitzgerald investigated the case that was given to him by the white house's attorney general, and THIS IS WHERE LIBBY FABRICATED a song and a dance that sent fitzy boy on the wild goose chase... and threw sand in his eyes, while investigating...

    WHY DID LIBBY intentionally lie on 3 separate occaisions on this? why? why make up a story?


    Yet the Prosecutor knew that Libby was NBOT the one that leaked Plumes name, Armatige had already confessed he did it ( for which no action was taken against him). Yet the prosecutor spent 2 years questioning Libby over and over for a NON crime ( Plume did not fit the charge, she was NOT a covert agent, the law was clear on that) that the prosecutor already knew Libby hadn't done to begin with.

    again! your information is wrong. i read the case, i read fitzgerald's statements, i watched the hearing in congress... valerie plame was an undercover agent when she was outed by novak in the newspaper... this was said before oath and the new general running the show at the cia....can't remember his name...also SAID she was covert.

    as far as armitage...fitzy says his leak was by accident, not intentional... (i don't agree) unlike what libby and rove's intentional leaks over and over and over again, at the direction of the vp.


    Further Libby claimed he simply over a 2 year period forgot some things, when others questioned were caught the same way, their claims of " Ohh I forgot" were good enough, but not Libby.... I wonder why?

    libby was questioned and went before his first grand jury 3 months after he leaked this to judith miller, this is where his lies began, not 2 years later...

    that excuse of his was utterly ridiculous and another lie in and of itself....and a stupid defense to use....clearly! libby is a brilliant lawyer/man....he did not forget anything... he was loyal to the vp, followed the vp's instructions on how to ''handle wilson/ plame.... and got screwed imo, for lying about it.


    care
     

Share This Page