Fart_Machine
witch hunt

Lexicon of Apologist Buzzwords #1256

Would you prefer that I call it a Snipe Hunt? That is what this would be compaired to in South Lousianna.

I guess you would prefer it be called a proper investigation or a fact finding mission? It is still a search for dirt that may or may not exist.

Sir Charles: what started me on the path of conservatism is that liberals all seem like whining little children.

What started me on the path of hardcore neo-nazism is that members of liberal democracies all seem like whining little children.

What started me on the path of Satanism is that Christians all seem like whining little children.

What started me on the path of vigilantism is that police all seem like ineffective layabouts.

What started me on the path of liberalism is that conservatives all seem like kitten stranglers.

You can play this game forever. Basically, what I am saying is that if you let other people's poor behavior sway your judgment on a philosophy, you're no loss.

Bush has done more damage to this country than any terrorist ever could.

EnoMan: Ahhh, but a nice red stripe across the screen raises a nice alert. ;-)

I dunno...I really don't like beer all that much ;)

spartan_5326: As much as I totally hate this farking political sh*te

This is not just some minor political point. If the U.S. Attorneys office ever becomes a politcal arm of the party in power, we are done as a nation.

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

I'd be more comfortable with Congress investigating it. The Executive Branch historically doesn't police itself that well.

So the cop was all like "I need to search the premesis", and I was like "Dude, where's your warrant?" So then the cop goes "Oh? Something to hide? That's probable cause."

Same shiat is happening here, it seems. Just because someone doesn't want to be questioned, doesn't mean they did anything wrong -- it means they want their privacy, and to do their facking job.

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

If you had a basic understanding of the facts of the case you would not ask such a question.

Aexia: 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".

I seriously appreciate your calm, rational explanation of the situation at hand.

s u b p o e n o w n e d !!!

spelunking_defenestrator: What started me on the path of liberalism is that conservatives all seem like kitten stranglers.

Well, to be fair here, kittens are being killed on all sides ;)

mmmm...pancake

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


No. Not if the obstruction originates in the farking Attorney General's office! I know that you are just playing dumb, so that you won't have to deal with the cognitive dissonance, but seriously...come on.

baby_hewey

It is still a search for dirt that may or may not exist.

So your position is that since the dirt might not exist, it should not be investigated? Or that the DOJ should investigate its own scandal? Exactly what the hell are you saying?

recap of the thread:

Apologists: this is a non-story.
FARKers: possible political corruption IS a story.
Aplogists: Dems want to destroy America.
FARKers: following Constitutional guidelines is not destroying America.
Apologists: where's the evidence? This is a non-story.
FARKers: Congress wants the evidence the Bush administration is withholding.
Apologists: where's the crime? Bush can do what he wants. Witch hunt.
FARKers: Bush can do whatever he wants within the limits of the law
Apologists:where's the evidence? Executive Privelege. This is a non-story.
FARKers: Here are links to evidence of impropriety.
Apologists? How is this a crime? Where's the evidence? Clinton.
FARKers: read the links we've submitted.
Apologists: Witch hunt. Clinton. Revenge. Where's the evidence.
FARKers: *beats head on keyboard

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

Is said investigation actually "shut down"? Could it actually still be ongoing and the fired attorneys were not connected to it?

So, let's debate what would happen if "Obstruction of Justice" was proven.

/then what?

EverCompromised: If you had a basic understanding of the facts of the case you would not ask such a question.

I'm trying to understand the facts but no one seems to be very willing to explain them in a calm, rational manner. You'd think this was the Nifong Junior Detectives club, not Fark.

Mr.Churka

People get too wrapped up in seeing their team win. Americans need to distance themselves from their political parties. They cheer candidates on like contestants in American Idol instead of using scrutiny and intellect to make well-informed decisions. Both sides are capable of corruption, not just the side you don't like, and it is too important to just let it slide so your team doesn't look bad.

Click for free wisdom



Any questions?

Bewbies: So the cop was all like "Witnesses saw you kill a hooker and stuff her in your trunk, I need to search the premeses", and I was like "Dude, where's your warrant?" So then the cop goes "I don't need a warrant, I have probable cause."

I fixed it for you.

Office Ninja: Does anyone have specific evidence as to what the fired attorneys were investigating at the time of their firings?

Yes.

Go look it up.

mmm... pancake: Investigate what? What crime has been committed? I haven't been paying attention to the story. I'm just trying to establish a factual base.

The hell you are.

You're trying to derail this thing. You're trying to avoid the real issue of US attorney's possibly being fired because they refused to illegally divulge information about pending court cases.

Is it illegal for this administration to fire people for not doing something illegal? If it's not, it sure as hell should be. And if they fired them for this, then they need to be fired, legal or no, since we as Americans shouldn't have to put up with that kind of behavior.

mmm... pancake: Thanks for the link but is it illegal to fire attorneys for political reasons?

No, absolutley not. That's not what this is about. The problem is that the attorney's that were fired were investigating shady shiat going on in the whitehouse, specifically stuff Gonzales was up to. Gonzales (in one case) tried to pressure one of the attorneys into bringing a conviction against someone before the November election (I posted the House thing about that further up). The attorney responded that he could 'manufacture' evidence in order to have a convenient conviction. He got fired right after that. There's email verifying that, too.

Pretty much, Gonzales was using one guy to make shiat up so another guy could go to jail. The guy refused, he got fired. The other attorneys were looking into stuff that the Whitehouse was up to. Some of that is in the NPR link.

This caused a conflict. The President can fire whoever appointee he wants. He has that right. He does not have to justify himself. However, the executive branch can not advocate illegal shiat, or shiat that's politically expedient. Or try to save it's ass from firing the prosecutor that is investigating them.

Technically, the executive branch can do that, but it causes a conflict of interest. This is exactly what went down with Nixon, Reagan and Clinton. They all moved to block different investigations involving the justice department. Investigations that were directed at them

So that's where the conflict stems from.

I don't understand two things here:

1) Why was the Bush Administration put in a position to lie about the reasons for firing the U.S. Attorneys?

2) Why did the Bush Administration actually lie about the reasons for firing the U.S. Attorneys, if that turns out to be the case?

U.S. Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President. That's how it works. They are appointed for political reasons, and they can be fired for political reasons. There is nothing illegal about replacing them at will.

Why was the firing of these attorneys questioned to begin with, and why did the Bush Administration feel it necessary to lie about it? I suspect it has something to do with the media's willingness to run with the "appearance" of wrongdoing rather than actual wrongdoing by the Bush Administration, and the Bush Administration's consequent desire to avoid such a scenario.

FTFA:

"If anybody's worried about the communication the White House may have made with somebody, they're going to get it," Snow tersely responded. "If they're going to want to get an answer and want to get the facts from somebody, they're going to get it. What they're not going to get is the ability to create a show trial atmosphere."
=====================================================

Ohhhhhhhh. You're just worried about the 'show-trial atmosphere'. So, you're saying the ONLY impediment to Congress conducting a civil investigation is their desire to make officials within the administration testify under oath.

The position of the administration that pledged to restore dignity and honor to the White House is that being 'forced' to raise their hand to GOD and swear to tell tell the truth will be DAMAGING to the presidency.

How's that for a fark you.

mmm... pancake: I'm trying to understand the facts but no one seems to be very willing to explain them in a calm, rational manner. You'd think this was the Nifong Junior Detectives club, not Fark.

I do not believe your assertion that you are trying to understand the facts. Based on your behavior, you are willfully ignoring the facts.

This should hold me over until tomorrow night's hockey game...

mmm... pancake

I'm trying to understand the facts but no one seems to be very willing to explain them in a calm, rational manner.

So you're posting opinions about a subject you admittedly know little about? Well isn't that...? Well it isn't a good word.

Lord_Baull: recap of the thread:

*golf clap*

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

Yeah. forgot about that one in my list above.

This affects EVERYTHING. This is the absolutely most craven use of the Justice system imaginable.

This cannot go on.

Weaver95, it's always been that way.

U.S. Attorneys are APPOINTED. Until that changes, what can you expect?

Skleenar

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?

Can you name me a crime and cite any legal presidance showing where a crime was commited and then back that up with real evidence and not jsut opinions? Cause that is the problem that the Dems have right now, there is not crime on the books to accuse anyone of here, it is all pousturing and politics.

BTW pousturing is from the Dems Lexicon of terms.

For the first time since he was elected Bush is showing Gravitas and the Dems are having fits about it.

BTW Gravitas is another Dem word of the week, origionaly used to describe Gore in 2000 and try to paint him as an Alpha Male, which he is not.

The attorney responded that he could 'manufacture' evidence in order to have a convenient conviction. He got fired right after that. There's email verifying that, too.

I meant to type 'could NOT'! (lol)

Mr. Xhin: /Only thing missing is a cat-owl hybrid with a pancake on it's head.


I got yer back man.

DROxINxTHExWIND: The position of the administration that pledged to restore dignity and honor to the White House is that being 'forced' to raise their hand to GOD and swear to tell tell the truth will be DAMAGING to the presidency.

How's that for a fark you.

Oh wow...now THAT'S funny.

mmm... pancake,
Are you seriously putting forward the position that the Justice Department should be investigating Obstruction of Justice committed by the justice department?

Congress is investigating because the Justice Department is who is involved with the crime in the first place. Someone needs to police the police here (or in this case, possibly prosecute the prosecutors).

If congress finds evidence of a crime, which will only happen if they investigate, then a prosecutor can be appointed to follow through. Without an investigation no evidence can be found. And if left to the very people who possibly committed a crime (the DOJ) evidence definitely will not turn up. For example, the missing two weeks of emails.

So no, the DOJ should not be investigating themselves. Congress is doing right for the people.

SunOfSam: So you're posting opinions about a subject you admittedly know little about? Well isn't that...? Well it isn't a good word.

I haven't posted one opinion about this case, moron. That's why I'm asking questions.

GodsTumor: Yeah, but much hotter coming from Monica's lips than Turd Blossoms!

I can't argue that point one bit...

Penis

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

Is said investigation actually "shut down"? Could it actually still be ongoing and the fired attorneys were not connected to it?

Damn, you're optimistic.

Bewbies

So the cop was all like "I need to search the premesis", and I was like "Dude, where's your warrant?" So then the cop goes "Oh? Something to hide? That's probable cause."

Same shiat is happening here, it seems. Just because someone doesn't want to be questioned, doesn't mean they did anything wrong -- it means they want their privacy, and to do their facking job.

Yes, private citizens should not be treated like that. However the President and his staff are a little different. Plus, you could argue that probable cause has already been demonstrated. Anyways, maybe I misread your post.

uatuba: Why was the firing of these attorneys questioned to begin with, and why did the Bush Administration feel it necessary to lie about it? I suspect it has something to do with the media's willingness to run with the "appearance" of wrongdoing rather than actual wrongdoing by the Bush Administration, and the Bush Administration's consequent desire to avoid such a scenario.

No, there was some actual shiat going down there. It's all in the docs.

mmm...pancake: I'm trying to understand the facts but no one seems to be very willing to explain them in a calm, rational manner. You'd think this was the Nifong Junior Detectives club, not Fark.

I will link this again.

Are you brushing your teeth by yourself these days or does your mom still do it for you? Generally, I like to be informed on a matter before I comment. I know this is Fark, but please do try to take care of the bare minimum. Faethe has linked information to I believe.

uatuba: U.S. Attorneys are APPOINTED. Until that changes, what can you expect?

Yes, and approved.

Oops, wait, not anymore.

Huh. Maybe that has something to do with this.

uh, that's moran.

Weaver95 - what happened to you? We could always depend on you to be a complete bushbuttboy but now you aren't.

I don't know if anyone has made this point but three of the fired prosecutors were ranked in the top 10% of prosecutors with successful conviction rates according to NPR this morning.

And we know that one of them that was fired was after the cohorts of Duke Cunningham (after she had jailed him).

And the New Mexico situation speaks volumes.

The thing that is still unresolved is the constitutionality of the Homeland Security Act provision that allows the pres to fire AG's and have them replaced without Senate confirmation. That seem just unfarking believeable. And it would be, because the law says this can be done only in extreme national emergencies, but does not flesh out what a constituites a national emergency. Bush made a signing statement about this at the time, and some folks did pick up on that; but this is just as bad as it gets.