SubpoenOWNED

[red states rule]

cut and paste....

it's easier than actually thinking.

Keep ignoring the facts MM, it is easier then debating

 

[maineman]

Keep ignoring the facts MM, it is easier then debating

red states rule...if YOU really want to debate with me... I am all for it.

The moment you start by typing a paragraph or two of your own creation that expresses a rebuttal to something that I have written, then we can actually start debating.

When can I expect that?

soon, I hope.

 

[red states rule]

As I have posted in the past, there was no outrage from Reoublicans or the liberal media when Clinton fired 92 US Attorneys

However, when Pres Bush fires eight of them all hell breaks loose

I have posted how ABC usues Uncle George (who worked for Clinton) expressing his outrage over the issue, but ABC ignores the fact Uncle George said it was normal for Clinton to fire US Attorneys

Libs look for "scandals" like they look for racism. if they cannot find any - they will manufacture one

The liberal media will lap it up like a dog at a water bowl

 

[maineman]

As I have posted in the past, there was no outrage from Reoublicans or the liberal media when Clinton fired 92 US Attorneys

However, when Pres Bush fires eight of them all hell breaks loose

I have posted how ABC usues Uncle George (who worked for Clinton) expressing his outrage over the issue, but ABC ignores the fact Uncle George said it was normal for Clinton to fire US Attorneys

Libs look for "scandals" like they look for racism. if they cannot find any - they will manufacture one

The liberal media will lap it up like a dog at a water bowl

and there is a qualitative difference between bringing in your own team at the beginning of your administration, and firing selected members of your own team for political purposes only half way through your administration and then LYING about the fact that it was for political purposes and claiming that it was for performance reasons when the record shows that the nine that were fired were far from the worst in terms of the very measures of performance that you suggest....

now...I asked you two questions above....will you ever answer them?

 

[red states rule]

Pres Bush held them over (as he has done in other parts of the government) in a feeble attempt to work with the Dems

Nets Ignored Clinton Firing 93 U.S. Attorneys, Fret Over Bush's 8
The broadcast network evening newscasts, which didn't care in 1993 about the Clinton administration's decision to ask for the resignation of all 93 U.S. attorneys, went apoplectic Tuesday night in leading with the "controversy," fed by the media, over the Bush administration for replacing eight U.S. attorneys in late 2006 -- nearly two years after rejecting the idea of following the Clinton policy of replacing all the attorneys. Anchor Charles Gibson promised that ABC would "look at all the angles tonight," but he skipped the Clinton comparison. Gibson teased: "New controversy at the White House after a string of U.S. attorneys is fired under questionable circumstances. There are calls for the Attorney General to resign." CBS's Katie Couric declared that "the uproar is growing tonight over the firing of eight federal prosecutors by the Justice Department" and fill-in NBC anchor Campbell Brown teased: "The Attorney General and the firestorm tonight over the controversial dismissal of several federal prosecutors. Was it political punishment?" Brown soon asserted that "it's a story that has been brewing for weeks and it exploded today" -- an explosion fueled by the news media.
http://www.mediaresearch.org/cyberalerts/2007/cyb20070314.asp#1

 

[maineman]

Pres Bush held them over (as he has done in other parts of the government) in a feeble attempt to work with the Dems

Nets Ignored Clinton Firing 93 U.S. Attorneys, Fret Over Bush's 8
The broadcast network evening newscasts, which didn't care in 1993 about the Clinton administration's decision to ask for the resignation of all 93 U.S. attorneys, went apoplectic Tuesday night in leading with the "controversy," fed by the media, over the Bush administration for replacing eight U.S. attorneys in late 2006 -- nearly two years after rejecting the idea of following the Clinton policy of replacing all the attorneys. Anchor Charles Gibson promised that ABC would "look at all the angles tonight," but he skipped the Clinton comparison. Gibson teased: "New controversy at the White House after a string of U.S. attorneys is fired under questionable circumstances. There are calls for the Attorney General to resign." CBS's Katie Couric declared that "the uproar is growing tonight over the firing of eight federal prosecutors by the Justice Department" and fill-in NBC anchor Campbell Brown teased: "The Attorney General and the firestorm tonight over the controversial dismissal of several federal prosecutors. Was it political punishment?" Brown soon asserted that "it's a story that has been brewing for weeks and it exploded today" -- an explosion fueled by the news media.
http://www.mediaresearch.org/cyberalerts/2007/cyb20070314.asp#1

the fact that he held them over for whatever reason does not change the fact that there is a qualititative difference between the two scenarios.

 

[Rosotar]

As I have posted in the past, there was no outrage from Reoublicans or the liberal media when Clinton fired 92 US Attorneys

Are you dyslexic or something?

You have been told several times that the issue here is not that Bush replaced attorneys but that he may have done it to interfere with investigations of his own party and to influence the 2004 elections.

Is there something in the wording here that you just can't grasp?

However, when Pres Bush fires eight of them all hell breaks loose

Ah...pobrocito Bush. Can't get a break cuz everyone is always picking on him!

I have posted how ABC usues Uncle George (who worked for Clinton) expressing his outrage over the issue, but ABC ignores the fact Uncle George said it was normal for Clinton to fire US Attorneys

Boo! HOO!

Libs look for "scandals" like they look for racism. if they cannot find any - they will manufacture one

You mean like Cons did with Ken Starr's "independent" counsel and the DNA testing of the infamous "stained blue dress" that drug on like a naseating soap opera on our televisions for months?

The liberal media will lap it up like a dog at a water bowl

Maybe if we had state controlled "news" outlets you'd be happier?

That way everything you heard about George Bush would be positive. You know there are other countries in the world where you can get the lies you're looking for every evening in the "news."

Perhaps you'd be happier in one of those countries?

 

[jasendorf]

Why so many words?

If the Administration has nothing to hide, its staff will willingly run to Congress and provide testimony. That's all there is to this.

If there's something to hide, they'll plead the Fifth and try to obstruct Congress from doing its job.

 

[pegwinn]

Why so many words?

If the Administration has nothing to hide, its staff will willingly run to Congress and provide testimony. That's all there is to this.

If there's something to hide, they'll plead the Fifth and try to obstruct Congress from doing its job.

It isn't a matter of something to hide. It is a matter of a power struggle between two supposedly co-equal branches of the .gov. That assuredly isn't the role of the Congress. But you knew that.

New idea I just heard on the radio today. Let the President fire another eight US Attorneys. And in the press conference, say "...and as a reminder that I am the sole authority on the hiring and firing of US Attorneys......"

Personally, I think that he went easy on investigating corruption in congress. They should be sending him thank you notes.

 

[jasendorf]

It isn't a matter of something to hide. It is a matter of a power struggle between two supposedly co-equal branches of the .gov. That assuredly isn't the role of the Congress. But you knew that.

New idea I just heard on the radio today. Let the President fire another eight US Attorneys. And in the press conference, say "...and as a reminder that I am the sole authority on the hiring and firing of US Attorneys......"

Personally, I think that he went easy on investigating corruption in congress. They should be sending him thank you notes.

Problem is, he's not the "sole authority on the hiring and firing of US Attorneys"...

Article II, Section 2
He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.

And Congress just took away the Attoney General's right to hire and fire that was given away by Congress in the Patriot Act.

 

[pegwinn]

Problem is, he's not the "sole authority on the hiring and firing of US Attorneys"..

Still not a problem. The statement was too broad in scope. They still serve at the pleasure of the president. He can still fire them at will. And so my scenario is still viable. Appreciate the info on the PAct. Hadn't heard about that.

 

[jasendorf]

Still not a problem. The statement was too broad in scope. They still serve at the pleasure of the president. He can still fire them at will. And so my scenario is still viable. Appreciate the info on the PAct. Hadn't heard about that.

But, he can't lie to the American people about why when he does it with impunity. First, his Administration said they were fired because they weren't doing their jobs. Now they're saying that it's at the President's pleasure. Then the Administration lied as to who knew what and when...

While the attorneys may serve at the President's pleasure, he serves at our pleasure. And, to know what kind of job he's doing, he and his Administration must be truthful with us and our representative. I don't want my President firing good U.S. Attorneys who are going a good job fired because they don't goosestep to his Party's tune. I just saw a graphic the other day in some newspaper and it showed that Americans overwhelmingly believe that what kind of job someone does is the most important quality in obtaining raises (like 65%... followed by seniority for 20%). I would guess they feel the same way about hiring and firing U.S. Attorneys.

President Bush tried to have it both ways. He tried to fire U.S. Attorneys for matters that he (or Karl Rove more likely) knew the American people wouldn't like and now wants to cover those reasons up and act as if his reasons weren't his reasons.

If the Bush Administration would just stop lying to us, we could get past this.

 

[pegwinn]

But, he can't lie to the American people about why when he does it with impunity. First, his Administration said they were fired because they weren't doing their jobs. Now they're saying that it's at the President's pleasure. Then the Administration lied as to who knew what and when... Agreed. He should have simply said "Because I can" and moved on to the next question.

While the attorneys may serve at the President's pleasure, he serves at our pleasure. And, to know what kind of job he's doing, he and his Administration must be truthful with us and our representative. I don't want my President firing good U.S. Attorneys who are going a good job fired because they don't goosestep to his Party's tune. I just saw a graphic the other day in some newspaper and it showed that Americans overwhelmingly believe that what kind of job someone does is the most important quality in obtaining raises (like 65%... followed by seniority for 20%). I would guess they feel the same way about hiring and firing U.S. Attorneys. Nice philosophy, but not well grounded in reality. First, the President doesn't serve at "our" pleasure at all. We the people cannot fire him. Please read this as it explains it in detail.

President Bush tried to have it both ways. He tried to fire U.S. Attorneys for matters that he (or Karl Rove more likely) knew the American people wouldn't like and now wants to cover those reasons up and act as if his reasons weren't his reasons.

If the Bush Administration would just stop lying to us, we could get past this.

This is just another manufactured scandal to keep the ABB going until 2008.

 

[jasendorf]

This is just another manufactured scandal to keep the ABB going until 2008.

1) I have no idea what the ABB is.

2) He does works for us. It might take an all-out revolution similar to how we tossed out the British, but, really... he works for us. I have a feeling he'd leave if he felt enough shame before it came to that... but, with enough collective will, we could fire the President. What might it take? Enough people to convince their representatives to amend the Constitution... but it can be done. If the Constitution was not a living document, the founders wouldn't have made provisions for amendments.

 

[pegwinn]

1) I have no idea what the ABB is.

2) He does works for us. It might take an all-out revolution similar to how we tossed out the British, but, really... he works for us. I have a feeling he'd leave if he felt enough shame before it came to that... but, with enough collective will, we could fire the President. What might it take? Enough people to convince their representatives to amend the Constitution... but it can be done. If the Constitution was not a living document, the founders wouldn't have made provisions for amendments.

ABB is Anybody But Bush or Always Bashing Bush. ABB'ers are often normal people who begin to foam at the mouth when they hear the word newQler.

AS to para two, note to the MIB's: Please don't take away JD as he is only funnin.

Again IRT para two. Collective will? Please. There is no constitutional process by which the "collective will" of the people in any matter save election day can be enforced. Exactly what amendment are you referring to? IF it has anything to do with actually creating a mechanism whereby the voters could recall a federally elected official, then don't hold your breath. Hell, they couldn't even get term limits for individual states federal officials. They couldn't get a line item veto. My blog (shameless plug here) is called the realist for a reason. Philosophy is nice, but if you cannot face reality you will be tilting at windmills for life.

Your last sentence makes no sense to me. Please elaborate.

 

[Bullypulpit]

This is just another manufactured scandal to keep the ABB going until 2008.

If only you were right...But you're not. This was about purging the DoJ of those were more interested in doing their jobs than kissing the Bush administration's and the GOP's collective ass. The replacements for these sacked attorneys were appointed under that now rescinded provision of the USA PATRIOT Act which allowed the DoJ to appoint US Attorneys indefinitely without being subject to Senate confirmation.

This was the beginning of a deliberate attempt to subvert the DoJ, and the rule of law, by replacing competent attorneys with political hacks. Were the Republicans still in charge of the House and Senate, it would have succeeded too.

 

[pegwinn]

If only you were right...But you're not. This was about purging the DoJ of those were more interested in doing their jobs than kissing the Bush administration's and the GOP's collective ass. The replacements for these sacked attorneys were appointed under that now rescinded provision of the USA PATRIOT Act which allowed the DoJ to appoint US Attorneys indefinitely without being subject to Senate confirmation.

This was the beginning of a deliberate attempt to subvert the DoJ, and the rule of law, by replacing competent attorneys with political hacks. Were the Republicans still in charge of the House and Senate, it would have succeeded too.

Of course I am right.

The President may fire whomever he wants to. He may do so for any reason or no reason. Do you dispute this fact?

The Patriot Act was enacted by a legitimate Congress and signed into law. Do you dispute this fact?

Therefore, based on the above facts, the rational mind will conclude:

The attorneys were released in accordance with the law and the replacements were appointed in accordance with the law. Said law has since been changed.

Any other conclusion is idle grist for speculation. If you wish to conduct a serious discussion, feel free to offer proof of your assertions vis a vis alleged "conspiracies".

 

[jasendorf]

ABB is Anybody But Bush or Always Bashing Bush. ABB'ers are often normal people who begin to foam at the mouth when they hear the word newQler.

AS to para two, note to the MIB's: Please don't take away JD as he is only funnin.

Again IRT para two. Collective will? Please. There is no constitutional process by which the "collective will" of the people in any matter save election day can be enforced. Exactly what amendment are you referring to? IF it has anything to do with actually creating a mechanism whereby the voters could recall a federally elected official, then don't hold your breath. Hell, they couldn't even get term limits for individual states federal officials. They couldn't get a line item veto. My blog (shameless plug here) is called the realist for a reason. Philosophy is nice, but if you cannot face reality you will be tilting at windmills for life.

Your last sentence makes no sense to me. Please elaborate.

Dear MIBs... I wasn't funnin'. But, I was only talking of Constitutional possibilities to fixing our government... not armed revolution (I'm not stupid... I know that our true Fourth Amendment rights were taken away long ago and that we have no chance for an armed revolt to actually win).

You're right, the possibility of enough political will to amend the Constitution to provide for firing federal officials is pretty slim. But, I suppose the British thought the same thing in 1776 and the French in 1789 and the United States in 1860 and the Spanish in 1898 and the Russians in 1917 and the Vietnamese in 1956 and the Afghanis in 1996...

...but as long as we're having fun at the mall, I would agree with you, it's unlikely anyone's gonna give enough of a rat's ass for that to happen.

 

[jasendorf]

Of course I am right.

The President may fire whomever he wants to. He may do so for any reason or no reason. Do you dispute this fact?

The Patriot Act was enacted by a legitimate Congress and signed into law. Do you dispute this fact?

Therefore, based on the above facts, the rational mind will conclude:

The attorneys were released in accordance with the law and the replacements were appointed in accordance with the law. Said law has since been changed.

Any other conclusion is idle grist for speculation. If you wish to conduct a serious discussion, feel free to offer proof of your assertions vis a vis alleged "conspiracies".

Doesn't matter what his "powers" are to do stuff... what matters is whether that power is being abused in a manner that the people of the United States disagree with. Do you think if he suspended habeas corpus for all American Democrats he could just go up to a podium and say "uh, it's my right so back off. I don't owe you an explanation. They're insurrectionists."? Technically, he can. Would we stand for it... doubtfully.

You can go on and on about what his powers are... powers he's IMHO abused for political reasons. Anyone promoting "loyal Bushies" is obviously not most concerned with our country.

 

[pegwinn]

Dear MIBs... I wasn't funnin'.

Yes he was. Do not take him away as I don't wanna have to train a new discussion opponent.

But, I was only talking of Constitutional possibilities to fixing our government... not armed revolution (I'm not stupid... I know that our true Fourth Amendment rights were taken away long ago and that we have no chance for an armed revolt to actually win).

Whew, for a second there I thought we were going to have to do an in depth study of the last group that tried that whole civil war thing.

You're right, the possibility of enough political will to amend the Constitution to provide for firing federal officials is pretty slim.

Slim hell, dude it is freaking nonexistent. The first focus of effort for a pol is to be reelected. They are not, emphatically not, going to go along with any legislation that inhibits thier power. An ongoing example of that is HR25 AKA the Fairtax.

But, I suppose the British thought the same thing in 1776 and the French in 1789 and the United States in 1860 and the Spanish in 1898 and the Russians in 1917 and the Vietnamese in 1956 and the Afghanis in 1996...

Not even remotely the same. Come on, I expect better from you.

...but as long as we're having fun at the mall, I would agree with you, it's unlikely anyone's gonna give enough of a rat's ass for that to happen.

Doesn't matter what his "powers" are to do stuff... what matters is whether that power is being abused in a manner that the people of the United States disagree with.

I did a blog article on them not working for us. The people can disagree until hells water is frost brewed beer. The definition of "abuse of power" is up for grabs as well. IMO so long as what he does is legal per the letter of the law, it is good to go. IF you, I, the people, or the neighborhood watch don't like it then we can work to change the law. Hint: That's why I ardently support HR 25.

Do you think if he suspended habeas corpus for all American Democrats he could just go up to a podium and say "uh, it's my right so back off. I don't owe you an explanation. They're insurrectionists."? Technically, he can. Would we stand for it... doubtfully.

That calls for me to issue a judgement on the balls of the American people at large. I must say that a large group of folks would take it as long as the social safety net was there. Those who would not take it are a very small minority. There are a group of people that will put up with a lot and then snap with that final straw. And there is a very large group that will panic early. Finally, there is the group that have the balls but not the prodding. They will sit and boil to death as long as the water is heated very slowly. I have to carefully read the news IOT make sure my water isn't hot.

You can go on and on about what his powers are... powers he's IMHO abused for political reasons. Anyone promoting "loyal Bushies" is obviously not most concerned with our country.

Now we are getting somewhere. I am more interested in how you come to the opinion he's abusing anything. I can read or listen to the talking heads all week. So, in your humble opinion, why is this an abuse of power and how would you personally fix it?