The DOJ Scandal Becomes Clearer

[Rosotar]

The fired lawyers were not doing their job

If you were not doing your job would your boss keep you on the payroll?

I think that's part of the issue. All of the fired attorneys had satisfactory job evaluations as far as I know.

 

[Truthmatters]

Most of the fired lawyers were in the Top ranking.

They were doing their jobs Very well.

The list contains people who rebuffed the admins attempts to direct cases for political reasons.

It is obvious by looking at the individual cases and the responses of the people under investigation.

You dont resign and take the fifth and lawyer up if there is no there there.

 

[Truthmatters]

In San Diego, U.S. attorney Carol Lam was under fire for failing to prosecute illegal alien criminals. On June 15, 2006, Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein complained about Ms. Lam to Alberto Gonzales saying: "It is my understanding that Ms. Lam may have some of the most restrictive prosecutorial guidelines nationwide for immigration cases, such that many Border Patrol agents end up not referring their cases."


{funny how you fail to mention she was on of the top rated DA s in the country and that she was in the process of targeting other people in the cunningham mess. The Immigration bullshit is just that, in sand deiego you would have no resources left to prosicute anything else if you tried to ao all the immigartion cases}

 

[Truthmatters]

http://www.jasongooljar.com/?p=1110


ooopppsssiiieee

It appears some of Carl Roves minnions sent email to the wrong email address.

They sent it to a GWB site which was a mock site.

The owner of this mock site now has the Emails.

Lets remember now you cant fake Where and Email comes from.

It seems there are some very revealing tidbits in them which point to Just how corrupt the whole process was.

 

[red states rule]

Most of the fired lawyers were in the Top ranking.

They were doing their jobs Very well.

The list contains people who rebuffed the admins attempts to direct cases for political reasons.

It is obvious by looking at the individual cases and the responses of the people under investigation.

You dont resign and take the fifth and lawyer up if there is no there there.

So not going after illegals and drug dealers is now considered doing your job well?

 

[Gunny]

Apparently the fired lawyers were doing their job, it seems that there were other reasons - that will come out in the wash.

The issue of my boss and me is complex. Very complex. Extremely complex. Best we stick with the topic at hand

As keeps having to be pointed out to the extremely deaf, whether or not they were "doing their jobs" is not only subjective, but irrelevant.

The fact remains ... they serve at the President's pleasure. It can't possibly be more clear than that. All the partisan spin and what-iffery is irrelevant to THAT.

Ever seen the movie "A Bridge to Far?" Some people just can't admit they and/or their party went after "A Witchhunt Too Far."

This is a non-issue the left has turned into a monster.

 

[red states rule]

As keeps having to be pointed out to the extremely deaf, whether or not they were "doing their jobs" is not only subjective, but irrelevant.

The fact remains ... they serve at the President's pleasure. It can't possibly be more clear than that. All the partisan spin and what-iffery is irrelevant to THAT.

Ever seen the movie "A Bridge to Far?" Some people just can't admit they and/or their party went after "A Witchhunt Too Far."

This is a non-issue the left has turned into a monster.

I am still waiting for the Dems to tell me whyt law was broken and why they are wasting so much time with their investagations

 

[Rosotar]

I am still waiting for the Dems to tell me whyt law was broken and why they are wasting so much time with their investagations

You just answered your own question rsr.

They're doing their investigations to determine if any laws were broken.

 

[red states rule]

You just answered your own question rsr.

They're doing their investigations to determine if any laws were broken.

There is a much easier answer - there were NO laws broken and Dems know it

They can fired at any time by the President

 

[Care4all]

As keeps having to be pointed out to the extremely deaf, whether or not they were "doing their jobs" is not only subjective, but irrelevant.

The fact remains ... they serve at the President's pleasure. It can't possibly be more clear than that. All the partisan spin and what-iffery is irrelevant to THAT.

Ever seen the movie "A Bridge to Far?" Some people just can't admit they and/or their party went after "A Witchhunt Too Far."

This is a non-issue the left has turned into a monster.

for example:
If the president told a prosecutor to drop a case that they were already working on and the prosecutor refused, and continued to prosecute the case under the Law, and was then fired by the president for prosecuting this case that also would hurt the president politically somehow... is that included in your serving at the pleasure of the president and the president could fire this prosecutor at his pleasure and get away with it?

In our law, if the president were to fire this prosecutor or interfered in any way with this prosecutor's case, that would be obstruction of justice and grounds for impeachment of the president if someone wanted to push the issue.

There is MORE TO THIS imo....4 people would not have abandoned ship or been forced to resign already... any warm blooded American would see that it is important that this issue be investigated and aired out in the open....if the president, and alberto gonzalez have nothing to hide, then go through the hearings, have those involved testify under oath, and make us all feel that we have a secure and just justice system without worry of political maneuverings.

those fighting the investigation and presuming it is absolutely nothing and a waste of time should just sit tight and allow the investigation to go forward....especially since they believe no one has done anything wrong.

Let there be light....

What is done in darkness is of darkness...

we need some sunshine and it could clear everything up right quick!

 

[red states rule]

The U.S. Attorney Scandal, Explained!


Gwen Ifill: One more question for you, Doyle, on this point, which is there has been much back and forth about whether this is something which is unprecedented--this firing. Whether it is okay for the president to do it, because after all, as Tony Snow said repeatedly today, these people serve at the pleasure of the president. Is there a precedent for it?

Doyle McManus: Well, there is and there isn't. This one of those awful things where you go back into the history and everybody is still arguing about what the history means. Look, it's always been a bit of a tradition that when the White House changes in party, when Richard Nixon was succeeded by--who was that? No, that was Gerald Ford. When Gerald Ford was succeeded by Jimmy Carter, when Bill Clinton was succeeded by--when Clinton took over, and when President Bush took over from Clinton, at that point it's pretty much customary for the U.S. attorneys in place to submit their resignations. Now, Republicans are arguing that Janet Reno under Bill Clinton went farther and demanded the resignations, but even then Bill Clinton didn't fire everybody.

This is different. It's in the middle of a term. It's within the president's right to do it. That's technically true. But what even some conservative Republican legal specialists are worried about is this: are we sliding toward a politicization of that job of U.S. attorney? There's always been politics involved. Senators get involved. But are we sliding towards--and that was what was, of course, ugly in those e-mails.

Alexis Simendinger: Yes. And I think we should add, too, that we're talking about eight individuals who were appointed--politically appointed by the president of the United States. They were chosen by this president, so we're not talking about him being concerned about Democratic holdovers or some other president's choices. We're talking about his own choices.

To sum up:

1. It was OK for Bill Clinton to fire 93 U.S. attorneys, because he "didn't fire everybody." But it was not OK for Bush to fire eight of them.

2. Firing U.S. attorneys of the opposite party is fine, but firing U.S. attorneys of your own party is evidence of "politicization."

Makes sense, doesn't it?

 

[Care4all]

So not going after illegals and drug dealers is now considered doing your job well?

Duke Cunningham (R) was the biggest criminal corruption case ever held against a sitting congressman!

much more important than a mexican crossing the border to pick grapes in california.

 

[red states rule]

Duke Cunningham (R) was the biggest criminal corruption case ever held against a sitting congressman!

much more important than a mexican crossing the border to pick grapes in california.

and he is in jail where he belongs

the illegals should be in jail or in Mexico - that is why they are called ILLEGALS

 

[Care4all]

and he is in jail where he belongs

the illegals should be in jail or in Mexico - that is why they are called ILLEGALS

The people that HIRE them are the ones that should be in jail....that would solve your problem "real quick" but no republican or dem would ever do that...stop the flow of cheap labor by stopping those that hire them illegally, without going through the visa process...

 

[red states rule]

The people that HIRE them are the ones that should be in jail....that would solve your problem "real quick" but no republican or dem would ever do that...stop the flow of cheap labor by stopping those that hire them illegally, without going through the visa process...

No, if we build the fence, secure the border, and stop giving them benefits that should go to ONLY US citizens - that will solve the problem faster

Libs see them as a new voting block

 

[Annie]

Combine both, we got a deal.

 

[red states rule]

Combine both, we got a deal.

I can go along with that deal

 

[Care4all]

No, if we build the fence, secure the border, and stop giving them benefits that should go to ONLY US citizens - that will solve the problem faster

Libs see them as a new voting block

and republicans see them as cheap labor for their business buddies....

it is a no end street....

btw, illegals' can't vote... at least not yet

 

[red states rule]

and republicans see them as cheap labor for their business buddies....

it is a no end street....

btw, illegals' can't vote... at least not yet

and libs want to give them SS benefits, drivers licenses, in state tuiton, and other social program handouts - all at the expense of US taxpayers

 

[Care4all]

and libs want to give them SS benefits, drivers licenses, in state tuiton, and other social program handouts - all at the expense of US taxpayers

isn't that President Bush's Plan?