If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CBS News)   So Bush is all like, "nuh uh" and the House was like, "subpoenowed" and now the Senate is all like "what they said, biatch"   (cbsnews.com) divider line 1657
    More: News  
•       •       •

32711 clicks; posted to Main » on 22 Mar 2007 at 12:16 PM (7 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



1657 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last
 
2007-03-22 01:18:58 PM
baby_hewey: no crime was commited

Do you actually see the huge gaping holes in your reality? Or does your brain stitch them together like it does for the blind spot where the optical nerve connects to the human retina?
 
2007-03-22 01:18:59 PM
Faethe: If that is enough to get a grand jury, get a special prosecutor.... I am good with that. Until then, its vapor and smoke.
LiberalZombie: Clever... I like the effort
 
2007-03-22 01:19:00 PM
Weaver95: What, exactly, is the suspected crime that needs investigating?

Obstruction of Justice.


We're at that point of a thread where the same questions are being asked by people not bothering to read the well-researched and carefully prepared answers. It's pretty obvious they're just repeating what they've been told to say. "Clinton," "pleasure of the president," "not illegal," "executive privilege," yadda yadda yadda. They're not actually asking to get an answer in return. They're asking simply to cloud the waters and muddy the debate.

Look how many times the phrase "obstruction of justice" has appeared in this thread before yours.
 
2007-03-22 01:19:03 PM
2007-03-22 01:16:19 PM IXI Jim IXI (user on your favorites list)

Ok, now I want to order chinese food for dinner, just to try that out :P
 
2007-03-22 01:19:12 PM
Office Ninja

What, exactly, is the suspected crime that needs investigating?

Obstruction of Justice, if a prosecutor was fired for investigaing GOP

Attempt to improperly influence election, based on the phone call from the senator
 
2007-03-22 01:19:16 PM
OOOHHHHH! Yeah... umm, My bad!!
Say! How bout I just let the Pros and Trolls take care
of the Posting?

Ya know, this is Clintons fault, er, Bushs fault. I was not edubacated on the ways of the Fark!

/I'm going to night skool to learnz the interweb.
 
2007-03-22 01:19:22 PM
Hang on Voltair
Manfred Richthofen [TotalFark]
This thing gets repeated ad nauseum
1) Just because prosecutors are at-will employees doesn't mean the president can fire them for any reason. At will employers may not fire employees for illegal reasons, which may have happened (hence the investigation)

Yes you most certainly can. A political appointee serves at the pleasure of the president. Look at the turn over in the cabinet when a president gets reelected. It MAY have happened...."may" have happened. You have no evidence that it did, but it may have happened. Well I think Barbara Boxer is dealing drugs out of her office. Lets investigate

2) Pressuring federal prosecutors to charge political opponents with crimes to gain an edge in elections and firing them is unprecedented. Moreover, it's a frighteningly wrong thing to do.

If it happened.

3) Firing federal prosecutors because she successfully prosecuted your party member and was extending the corruption investigation to other influential party members is unprecedented. Moreover, it is a frighteningly wrong thing to do, and possible obstruction of justice.

IF IT HAPPENED. Similarly there is nothing wrong with canning a prosecutor for not going after politicians who have committed crimes.


Let me see if I can explain this in simple terms. The thing about at-will employment, which includes political appointments, is that you can fire them for good cause, you can fire them for no cause, but you CAN'T fire them for bad cause. The moment you specify a cause, you better damn well be sure its a good cause.
The second thing is this...there is evidence of a crime being committed. It's there. It needs to be investigated further but it's not just in the imagination of hate-filled liberals. It's there on paper. The farking evidence exists. And, if what the evidence points to is actually what happened, then yes, a crime was committed. A fairly serious one. That is why we farking investigate it.
 
2007-03-22 01:19:36 PM
mmm... pancake: I'm just asking what crime he is suspected of committing. I haven't given my opinion one way or the other on this matter. I'm just looking for facts.

Again: Obstruction of Justice.
 
2007-03-22 01:19:56 PM
Dawnrazor


An actual quote I heard from a 'Bushie' in a call in show:

"Well, no reason to subpoena those people, they're Republicans, and Republicans are beyond reproach"

Wow, just wow, these 30 per-cent-er's are a scary demented bunch.
 
2007-03-22 01:20:03 PM
I'm with Slybri for the most part. I think there are bigger fish to fry, but I also think there could have been a problem here, and it still should be checked out. Whether or not they have been doing anything illegal, they have had too little oversight. Even if everybody is cleared of everything, and nothing wrong was done, I would still be happy to see that certain things were investigated. One of my biggest worries about this administration is the precedent they are setting for increased Presidential power.
 
2007-03-22 01:20:26 PM
Manfred Richthofen: Dawnrazor

/how was that?

No, no . . . the new talking point is that Congress has no authority to investigate the executive branch, despite the fact they have the authority to conduct wholesale impeachment of it.

It's like saying your boss has the power to fire you but cannot conduct a review over your job performance.


Ah, I see. The old standard of "Bush Good/Liberals Baaad" just doesn't have the same impact it once had. I should have thrown in some "Bush Good/Congress Baaaad" stuff, and some blatantly wrong interpretations of the Constitution to really get the blood boiling.

This trolling thing is harder than it looks.
 
2007-03-22 01:20:31 PM
what started me on the path of conservatism is that liberals all seem like whining little children.

sorry, but reading this thread just reminded me of that...
 
2007-03-22 01:20:40 PM
Weaver95: absolutely none of this makes a damn bit of sense. I don't get it. I really don't.

I'm thinking that they're so used to getting their way that they just don't understand the realities of the situation. It's like he's been pounding square pegs through square holes for six years and then all of the sudden round holes start showing up. His job is to pound those pegs, but they're not fitting anymore, so he just pounds harder.

I sincerely hope that Congress goes all the way with this, to the Supreme Court if they have to. George isn't going to win this, even if the SCOTUS judges on his side. He'll still look like the guy who stopped the truth from seeing the light of day.
 
2007-03-22 01:20:41 PM
Why is this argument going on again? The issue is so simple. A federal prosecutor was fired for failing to abuse his authority. He failed to railroad an indictment against a candidate for political reasons specifically to impact an election. You have potential for obstruction of justice. Witness intimidation is a crime, so I find it hard to imagine that intimidating a prosecuting attorney is lawful. Stop playing teams. Which are you first? A citizen of the United States, or a Republican/Democrat? This isn't a blowjob or questionable profiteering, this is manipulating the legal system to prosecute political opponents. This is way beyond tax evasion, this is a Coup d'loi.
 
2007-03-22 01:21:04 PM
mmm... pancake: Thanks for the link but is it illegal to fire attorneys for political reasons?

It would be illegal if the firings were intended to obstruct justice.

It would be unethical in any situation.

Or do you want partisan justice?
 
2007-03-22 01:21:20 PM
Office Ninja: What, exactly, is the suspected crime that needs investigating?

This is where people tell you to *read*.

start here
 
2007-03-22 01:21:42 PM
drg8r: If that is enough to get a grand jury, get a special prosecutor.... I am good with that. Until then, its vapor and smoke.

Special prosecutors are authorized by the executive branch. Clinton said it was the biggest mistake he ever made. Besides, the special prosecutor law has lapsed.
 
2007-03-22 01:21:46 PM
Look how many times the phrase "obstruction of justice" has appeared in this thread before yours.

Yeah, I know. I just can't believe that anyone would ignore what's so obviously a situation that NEEDS investigation (preferably non-partisan mediation too, but I know that'll never happen).
 
2007-03-22 01:21:52 PM
Hey Weaver, how bout we have your local police bring you in for questioning from your job today just to see if you may have committed some crime? Then I can have them do it again tomorrow and the next, and thenext...you know, just in case you may be committing SOME crime.

I'm sure when Weaver's job description involves the well-being of an entire nation and the political management of a well-motivated and moral oversight operation, he'll be more than willing to do that.

But until then, you fail at analogies.

What would be more true is if you call the local police because Weaver's been seen parked in an old Dodge cargo van with "FREE CANDY" labeled on the side of it near playgrounds and bus stops, and the police department asks if Weaver could take a few minutes to come in and explain what he's doing. But he doesn't have to do it today. Or this week. Or even this month. Just whenever he has some free time. And until then, the cops will just look the other way when they see his FREE CANDY van parked out at the Elementary school.
 
2007-03-22 01:22:08 PM
mmm... pancake

Pressuring federal prosecutor to press criminal charges in order to influence the election violates the election laws. Firing him because he refused to comply would make the WH an accomplice to the crime.

Firing a prosecutor because she was investigating your party's corruption ties is arguably an obstruction of justice.

Either case, it's more than just "political reasons." It's a farking bad idea if it really happened and bad for the country. Prosecutors are not, and shouldn't be, political attack dogs.
 
2007-03-22 01:22:33 PM
I wonder if all the people on FARK claiming there is no crime because there is no evidence are the same people that say evolution has no evidence.
 
2007-03-22 01:23:05 PM
Manfred Richtofen, thanks. All I freaking hear about is the farking firings. So who were the attorneys investigating? An how, exactly was an election being improperly influenced?
 
2007-03-22 01:23:06 PM
United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974). President's generalized interest in confidentiality, unsupported by claim of need to protect military, diplomatic, or sensitive national security secrets, could not prevail against demonstrated, specific need for evidence.


In re: Lindsey, 148 F.3d 1100 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied sub nom Office of the President v. Office of the Independent Counsel, 525 U.S. 996 (1998). "The public interest in honest government and in exposing wrongdoing by government officials, as well as the tradition and practice, acknowledged by the Office of the President and by former White House Counsel, of government lawyers reporting evidence of federal criminal offenses whenever such evidence comes to them, lead to the conclusion that a government attorney may not invoke the attorney-client privilege in response to grand jury questions seeking information relating to the possible commission of a federal crime."
 
2007-03-22 01:23:08 PM
why does swearing to tell the truth hate America?
 
2007-03-22 01:23:23 PM
www.americanrhetoric.com
Judge Haller: SunofSam, that is a lucid, intelligent, well thought-out objection.
SunofSam: Thank you.
Judge Haller: Overruled.

I couldn't help it... sorry
 
2007-03-22 01:23:26 PM
As much as I totally hate this farking political sh*te
the truth is that while their going after each other
they are too busy to raise taxes, pass more laws that
cut into our private lives...and most importantly it
gives us a break from Anna Nichole and Brittany Bombing
by the clueless, newsless, media!!!!
 
2007-03-22 01:23:31 PM
Sir Charles: what started me on the path of conservatism is that liberals all seem like whining little children.

sorry, but reading this thread just reminded me of that...


Wait, you think that the people in here whining about investigating the White House are liberals?

Interesting theory...
 
2007-03-22 01:23:46 PM
Weaver95

Yeah, I know. I just can't believe that anyone would ignore what's so obviously a situation that NEEDS investigation (preferably non-partisan mediation too, but I know that'll never happen).

IMHO this situation is a perfect litmus test to determine the hopelessly partisan and the willfully ignorant from the citizens who actually deserve freedom.
 
2007-03-22 01:23:51 PM
baby_hewey: hobnail

Are you still carrying on about Plame?

I don't know, are you still claiming that she was covert and that makes it ok for the Dems to attack Bush on the AG's for this new witch hunt?


I never made such a claim, nor do I think that this situation is a tit-for-tat. Why do you keep trotting out the Plame affair when it obviously has little bearing on this situation?

What makes it okay for the Senate and House Judiciary Committees to investigate this matter is that the whole thing reeks of cronyism, abuse of power, and general stupidity.
 
2007-03-22 01:23:54 PM
suebhoney: Ok, now I want to order chinese food for dinner, just to try that out :P

"The waiter spit in your food" - in bed

Hmm...guess it doesn't work out with ALL fortunes. ;)

Although, that did get me to lock my doors...


Wow...I'm just stunned that I'm on someone's favorites list. Of course, Fark doesn't offer a "friggin wackjob" list... ;)
 
2007-03-22 01:24:16 PM
Skleenar: It would be illegal if the firings were intended to obstruct justice.

If it was an obstruction of justice then shouldn't the Justice department be investigating and not Congress?

Or do you want partisan justice?

I'm just looking for facts in this virtual sea of frothing, raging, knee-jerk posters.
 
2007-03-22 01:24:24 PM

I would also like to point out that all this shiat was brought before a full meeting of the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary (pops):


March 22, 2007 at 10:00 a.m. in the Senate Dirksen Building Room 226.

By order of the Chairman


UPDATED AGENDA
Senate Judiciary Committee
Senate Dirksen Office Building Room 226
Thursday, March 22, 2007 at 10:00 a.m.

I. Committee Authorization
Authorization of Subpoenas in Connection with Investigation into Replacement of U.S. Attorneys


If you guys ever want to follow along, all this stuff is webcasted simultaneously.
 
2007-03-22 01:24:29 PM
This is just a witch hunt...


img118.imageshack.us

Found one!
 
2007-03-22 01:24:43 PM
Manfred Richthofen
Obstruction of Justice, if a prosecutor was fired for investigaing GOP

If that isn't clear enough, the Attorney General shutting down an existing investigation in which he himself was implicated.

Hello? Bad?
 
2007-03-22 01:24:55 PM
Thanks for the link but is it illegal to fire attorneys for political reasons?

If it's to impede a federal investigation, yes.

It's also illegal to repeatedly lie to Congress about why you fired them.

And if that 18-day gap in the emails and memos is because they intentionally deleted them, well, there's another one.

The funny thing is that one of the attorneys actually *did* deserve to be fired(incompetent, driving away good staff) but the White House dragged its feet on adding him to the list because he was so "loyal".
 
2007-03-22 01:25:00 PM
For the second President in a row, we have a scandal where the phrase "at the pleasure of the president" is being thrown about...
 
2007-03-22 01:25:46 PM
EverCompromised: Special prosecutors are authorized by the executive branch. Clinton said it was the biggest mistake he ever made. Besides, the special prosecutor law has lapsed.

IIRC, you are confusing the "Independent Council" with Special prosecutor.

Fitz was a Special Prosecutor.
 
2007-03-22 01:25:49 PM
The mere fact that someone in the adminstration ranked Federal prosecutors by loyalty to a political party is scary enough.
 
2007-03-22 01:25:56 PM
IXI Jim IXI: Of course, Fark doesn't offer a "friggin wackjob" list... ;)

Ahhh, but a nice red stripe across the screen raises a nice alert. ;-)
 
2007-03-22 01:26:20 PM
Dawnrazor
Ah, I see. The old standard of "Bush Good/Liberals Baaad" just doesn't have the same impact it once had. I should have thrown in some "Bush Good/Congress Baaaad" stuff, and some blatantly wrong interpretations of the Constitution to really get the blood boiling.

This trolling thing is harder than it looks.


You can be sutle or blatant. Blatant trolling needs flare, subtle trolling just that shade of ignorance that gives others that ray of hope you can become enlightened with enough efforts.
 
2007-03-22 01:26:23 PM
This is so beyond awesome. I think the GOP forgot how seasoned some of the Democratic politicians are.
 
2007-03-22 01:26:39 PM
If it was an obstruction of justice then shouldn't the Justice department be investigating and not Congress?

Because the accused is often the best person to investigate whether they did another wrong.
 
2007-03-22 01:26:45 PM
IXI Jim IXI

Well, the past three or four anyway. I don't think Washington ever had this kind of thing happen to him.

Although if you believe the signs, he sure did sleep around a lot...:D


lol, I thought someone would look at it that way, it's hard to explain it when typing it. But you know what I meant :D

He left his wooden teeth on a few womens night stands!
 
2007-03-22 01:26:47 PM
skleenar

It's been a helluva lot more than that. That was just one instance.


mmmm...pancake

"Political interference is happening at Justice across the department. When decisions are made now in the Bush attorney general's office, politics is the primary consideration. . . . The rule of law goes out the window."

Do you understand why that is not a good thing?
 
2007-03-22 01:26:50 PM
Cry havoc, and let slip the dogs of war...

With this and Barbara Boxer's reaming out of Inhofe yesterday, I've had a constant smile on my face.
 
2007-03-22 01:26:51 PM
www.campaignsitebuilder.com -Witch!) www.suburbantumbleweed.com (Witch!-politicalsignsamerica.com
 
2007-03-22 01:27:01 PM
congress can however exercise some muscle that they haven't used in eighty some-odd years and arrest them, then force them to testify.

I suddenly had this vision of Lenny Briscoe walking in on a meeting and slapping the cuffs on Rove while tossing out jaded one-liners. Why can't life be more like TV?
 
2007-03-22 01:27:06 PM
Does anyone have specific evidence as to what the fired attorneys were investigating at the time of their firings?

/Honestly trying to piece this shiat together beyond the simpleton partisan bickering.
 
2007-03-22 01:27:08 PM
mmm... pancake: If it was an obstruction of justice then shouldn't the Justice department be investigating and not Congress?

Heh. That's funny.

Kinda misses the ENTIRE FRICKING POINT of this particular scandal.
 
2007-03-22 01:27:20 PM
Time to break out my DVDs of "That's My Bush!"
Matt & Trey should have kept making that show. It would have gotten more popular with each passing year of W's presidency.

Of course, it would be difficult to separate the more outlandish plots from reality.
 
Displayed 50 of 1657 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report