House sues ex-White House staffers

[CrimsonWhite]

WASHINGTON - The House Judiciary Committee filed suit Monday to force former White House Counsel Harriet Miers and White House chief of staff Joshua Bolten to provide information about the firing of U.S. attorneys.

The lawsuit filed in federal court says Miers is not immune from the obligation to testify and that she and Bolten must identify all documents that are being withheld from Congress.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23560962/

Sounds like horseshit to me.

 

[jillian]

Sounds like horseshit to me.

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.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

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.

 

[rayboyusmc]

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.

 

[Brian Crooks]

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.

 

[Larkinn]

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.

No, actually he can't fire them because they aren't serving GOP political interests such as not indicting Democrats on fraudulent charges.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

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.

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.

 

[Larkinn]

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.

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!

 

[Angel Heart]

They should of done what Clinton did... Just fired them all.

 

[midcan5]

Sounds like horseshit to me.

Funny how law changes in the minds of conservatives when it has to do with them.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

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!

They have oversight for appointment. They have no oversight for removal. The President may, under the law, remove US Attorneys for any reason. Here I have fact to back up my assertion. I give you Title 28-Part 2-Chapter 35-section 541 of the US Code:

(a) The President shall appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, a United States attorney for each judicial district.
(b) Each United States attorney shall be appointed for a term of four years. On the expiration of his term, a United States attorney shall continue to perform the duties of his office until his successor is appointed and qualifies.
(c) Each United States attorney is subject to removal by the President.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode28/usc_sec_28_00000541----000-.html

Note (c). Until this changes, then Congress has no oversight. They are confirmed by the Senate, but they serve at the pleasure of the President. His reasoning for firing them does not matter. He can do it under the law.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

Funny how law changes in the minds of conservatives when it has to do with them.

I refer you to this post: http://www.usmessageboard.com/showpost.php?p=656359&postcount=10

And I am not a conservative.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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!

Congress does not have oversight on their FIRING. They serve at the pleasure of the President.

 

[Dr Grump]

God your system is broke....sooooo broke...

 

[rayboyusmc]

So if our Pretzeldent and our economy

I guess if he has the right to remove them, it doesn't matter if it is for legitimate reasons or not.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

So if our Pretzeldent and our economy

I guess if he has the right to remove them, it doesn't matter if it is for legitimate reasons or not.

He can remove them because the frog in the pond told him too and that has been the law since the beginning.

I don't recall any crys for Clinton's head when one of the ones he fired was 30 days away from making a decision on charging a bunch of Democrats for crimes.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

So if our Pretzeldent and our economy

I guess if he has the right to remove them, it doesn't matter if it is for legitimate reasons or not.

That is what the law says. Ask Clinton his reasonings for firing "ALL" of his US Attorneys.

 

[AllieBaba]

It's a presidential perogotive, and it's never been a problem until now.

Know why? Because the dems decided they should have the privilege, but if anybody else made use of it, they'd stop them.

More elitism, the idea that they are above the law, that they make the laws, and the law must bow to them. Also more evidence of their unreasoning hatred and willingness to break the system and waste taxpayer money to get what they want.

 

[rayboyusmc]

Know why? Because the dems decided they should have the privilege, but if anybody else made use of it, they'd stop them.

MOre Golem bullshit.

The right screamed at the left when they were in control about filibustering. Now go look and see how many times they have filibustered since they lost control.

Please don't make your side the one of the gods. The right would do the same shit if it were reversed.

 

[AllieBaba]

Actually, no, they wouldn't.

And they didn't. Not when Clinton fired 97 attorneys, not ever when the dems were doing something annoying, but ultimately, legal.