Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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
    More: News  
•       •       •

32722 clicks; posted to Main » on 22 Mar 2007 at 12:16 PM (9 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



1657 Comments     (+0 »)
 


Oldest | « | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | » | Newest

 
2007-03-23 12:21:26 PM  
Manfred Richthofen

Well, I think we can agree Clinton didn't fire Cheroff. The argument is whether he could have done so if he wanted. Unless there is a record that Cheroff resigned from USA position, I would assume so.

right, the only info I'm able to find says chertoff was in fact a USA and was asked to remain a USA by clinton at the request of bradley. not just wiki either, this thread is littered with links (not a one from hewey).

again, I know this little point really makes no difference to the situation in the WH today. I just want to get this straight in my own head. any help would be appreciated.
 
2007-03-23 12:30:11 PM  
unexplained bacon
baby_hewey


Because of the vacancy Clinton only fired 93 USA's instead of 94. Now, because there were now 94 USA's nominated for post the process was in the Judicial Committe and needed to be brought to a vote.

why did you leave this part out of your more recent post?

is it because I busted you on the 94 USAs part?

/oye

I left it out because I was wrong. I can change my opnion when I am wrong. Can you? There are only 93 USA's, does it make you feel better when I say it too?

Also, since I was there check out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Attorney
Specifically look at this part of the entry:
The U.S. Attorney is appointed by the President of the United States[1] for a term of four years,[2] with appointments subject to confirmation by the Senate. A U.S. Attorney shall continue in office, beyond the appointed term, until a successor is appointed and qualified.[3] By law, each United States attorney is subject to removal by the President.[4] The Attorney General may appoint interim U.S. Attorneys to fill a vacancy. The governing statute, title 28, section 546 of the United States Code.

Now this is where the confusion on Chertoff come into play. His term would have run till 1994 because he was a midterm appointment by Bush 41 in 1990, but he was appointed by the Senate Jud. Committie because it was felt he was the best qualified person to be the Special Counsel for the Senate and gather the infomation on Whitewater. Now that task expired in 1994 when the Whitewater investigation moved into the next phase and Attorney General Janet Reno appointed a special prosecutor Robert B. Fiske in 1994 to investigate the legality of the Whitewater transactions. At the time the special prosecutor was appointed there was no longer a need for the special counsel and Chertoff went into private practice at that time.

And no you can not have two appointments over lapping. Too much work. Anyway if Democratic Senator Bill Bradley would have no right or power to ask Chertoff to stay on and it would have been a meaning less request, but if he had requested a USA to stay on staff don't you think it would have been Charlie Banks the USA in Little Rock that had started the investigation in the first place. Please think this through, why would Chertoff as the USA over New Jersey be running an investigation of something that happened in Ark.? No jurisdiction.
 
2007-03-23 12:34:05 PM  
fuque

Thank you for breaking it down for me. I will try to ask this as efficiently as I can.

I see from your profile that you are a lawyer. So in your opinion do you think this issue really has teeth even if they don't catch someone lieing under oath? In a legal sense, not political


Ah, now we enter extremely murky waters. As a disclaimer, I haven't conducted any real legal research on the matter. I'm just basing this on my general knowledge. And this does not constitute a legal advice, and you cannot rely on it and if you do, I'm not liable, and you are not my client, blah blah blah.

I cannot say with legal certainty that the allegations, if true, would lead to convictions. We are now wading into the constitutional limits on presidential authority and such issues are very thorny and sketchy, in part because past presidents have had good sense to work out a deal politically before courts can annunciate the precise limit.

However, in my opinion, the allegations, if true, would support conviction.

One, there is obstruction of justice, defined as (to simplify) impeding investigatory activities of authorized persons. Firing a prosecutor because her investigations were hitting too close to home would arguably meet this definition.

Second, there is intimidation of prosecutors. Could be subpart of Obs. of Just. but common sense says it cannot be legal to threaten a prosecutor, and what a GOP senator has done could fall under that.

Third, there is attempt to improperly influence election. I haven't looked it up, but attempting to coerce a prosecutor to file criminal charges to influence election results is probably illegal under the election laws. If the WH fired the prosecutor because he didn't bend under the coercion, it would arguably make WH an accomplice to the crime, or guilty of that crime themselves. This one, I'm not sure how strong it is.
 
2007-03-23 12:37:09 PM  
baby_hewey

And no you can not have two appointments over lapping. Too much work. Anyway if Democratic Senator Bill Bradley would have no right or power to ask Chertoff to stay on and it would have been a meaning less request, but if he had requested a USA to stay on staff don't you think it would have been Charlie Banks the USA in Little Rock that had started the investigation in the first place. Please think this through, why would Chertoff as the USA over New Jersey be running an investigation of something that happened in Ark.? No jurisdiction.

Whether one can serve dual appointments depends on the specific nature of the appointments. You may be right, but I haven't read anything that says USA cannot serve as Special Counsel for Senate.

Of course, you didn't answer my like 20 posts directed at you, so I could be on your ignore list.
 
2007-03-23 12:38:40 PM  
Manfred Richthofen: Of course, you didn't answer my like 20 posts directed at you,

Now ask yourself - Why would a Wookiee, an eight-foot tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of two-foot tall Ewoks? That does not make sense! But more important, you have to ask yourself: What does this have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense!
 
2007-03-23 12:39:02 PM  
TheConvincingSavant
Insurgencies in Iraq, Afghanistan, North Korea, China, etc. use our political strife and divisiveness to bolster their own campaigns of oppression and terror. Just imagine how they can use the idea that Bush's own government is turning on him, whether true or not?

I say GOOD! Do you think they are stupid? They know who is ordering the bombs that are being drop on civilian houses that are creating more terrorists that hate our guts. If they see the American public doing what they can to stop this madness, I think they might actually see it for what it really is: STOPPING THIS MADMAN!!!!

Go ahaead and remind me again that they hate us for our freedom, I never get tired of that meme.
 
2007-03-23 12:42:04 PM  
Manfred Richthofen

baby_hewey


Is it a good idea to fire a federal prosecutor investigating government corruption? It's a simple question you haven't answered yet.

No it is not a good idea, I never said it was. I have been asking what was illegal about it.

Here is the Wiki entry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Attorney

The U.S. Attorney is appointed by the President of the United States[1] for a term of four years,[2] with appointments subject to confirmation by the Senate. A U.S. Attorney shall continue in office, beyond the appointed term, until a successor is appointed and qualified.[3] By law, each United States attorney is subject to removal by the President.[4] The Attorney General may appoint interim U.S. Attorneys to fill a vacancy. The governing statute, title 28, section 546 of the United States Code.[5] used to provide:

(c) A person appointed as United States attorney under this section may serve until the earlier of-

(1) the qualification of a United States attorney for such district appointed by the President under section 541 of this title; or
(2) the expiration of 120 days after appointment by the Attorney General under this section.
(d) If an appointment expires under subsection (c)(2), the district court for such district may appoint a United States attorney to serve until the vacancy is filled. The order of appointment by the court shall be filed with the clerk of the court.


So what was illegal about Bush firing these 8? Nothing.
 
2007-03-23 12:43:13 PM  
baby_hewey

you sound like you're guessing. you're trying to prove your point the hard way.

you know what would convince me?
a link to a reliable third party source that says chertoff was not a USA in '93.

did chertoff resign as USA when he was appointed special council?

/I can't find anything that helps your point.
 
2007-03-23 12:44:17 PM  
baby_hewey
You know the Secratary of Education, who was Washington's? Or Jefferson's? Or Lincon's? Or FDR's? Find me the first.

You seem to be arguing that, essentially, all the federal departments are just examples of executive fiat despite most having been created by act of Congress, not executive order, and now, strangely and conversely, that it can't be "federal" unless it has a cabinet position directly associated with it. It would seem you are desperate to find some narrow criteria to make your "point" that all the evils of federalism are somehow FDR's fault because of emergency war powers, but even that concept predates him at least to the Civil War.
 
2007-03-23 12:47:26 PM  
Manfred Richthofen

baby_hewey


What's this FDR's War Powers Act you keep referring about?

I know of two laws named War Powers Act. One passed in 1973 expanding executive war authority and another passed in 1917 designed to punish people trading with parties hostile to the U.S. that was merged with Trading with the Enemy Act later.

VP under Ike was Nixon. Why is that important?
What's this law you are talking about?

Wow I just did a google search,
http://www.access.gpo.gov/uscode/title50a/50a_11_.html
And it was the top link.
Here is the info so that you can find what is happening:
TITLE 50, APPENDIX--WAR AND NATIONAL DEFENSE
FIRST WAR POWERS ACT, 1941
ACT DEC. 18, 1941, CH. 593, 55 STAT. 838


Now the first is not the bad one, it is the second,
http://www.access.gpo.gov/uscode/title50a/50a_12_1_.html
TITLE 50, APPENDIX--WAR AND NATIONAL DEFENSE
SECOND WAR POWERS ACT, 1942
ACT MAR. 27, 1942, CH. 199, 56 STAT. 176

This is where FDR basicly got the power that presidents have abused ever since. Everything that I listed earlier, most importantly EP and the EO.
 
2007-03-23 12:52:56 PM  
unexplained bacon


Manfred Richthofen


Well, I think we can agree Clinton didn't fire Cheroff. The argument is whether he could have done so if he wanted. Unless there is a record that Cheroff resigned from USA position, I would assume so.

right, the only info I'm able to find says chertoff was in fact a USA and was asked to remain a USA by clinton at the request of bradley. not just wiki either, this thread is littered with links (not a one from hewey).

again, I know this little point really makes no difference to the situation in the WH today. I just want to get this straight in my own head. any help would be appreciated


And at this point I can tell that your only wish is to lie about my previous post. I posted links several times yesterday, not just this morning.

Please see my very Boobies of this thread:
2007-03-22 12:50:34 PM baby_hewey
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/03/was_valerie_covert.h​tml


I included the time so that you can find it quicker. Now are you a lier or can you just not read?
 
2007-03-23 12:55:31 PM  
baby_hewey

No it is not a good idea, I never said it was. I have been asking what was illegal about it.

I see. Now, if that's a bad idea, should such firings be encouraged or discouraged?

So what was illegal about Bush firing these 8? Nothing.

As explained to you, numerous times before in and out of this thread and repeatedly, they can be fired for any cause but not illegal cause.

Now, my question in return to you is, if Carol Lam were fired because the WH didn't like her investigation and wanted to stop it, would that constitute an obstruction of justice?

Oh, and your citation is off. 28 USC section 546 covers intrim appointees, not permanent ones. Not to dispute the basic point that prosecutors are at-will employees, but it's a wrong law to use as support.
 
2007-03-23 01:02:46 PM  
baby_hewey

Wow I just did a google search,
http://www.access.gpo.gov/uscode/title50a/50a_11_.html
And it was the top link.
Here is the info so that you can find what is happening:
TITLE 50, APPENDIX--WAR AND NATIONAL DEFENSE
FIRST WAR POWERS ACT, 1941
ACT DEC. 18, 1941, CH. 593, 55 STAT. 838


Well, I don't know much about the law, but your link seems to suggest that every provision in that law except Trading with the Enemy provision have been repealed since.


§ 601 to 605. Repealed. Pub. L. 89-554, § 8(a), Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 651

§ 611. Repealed. Pub. L. 89-554, § 8(a), Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 651

§ 616. Omitted

Codification

Section, act Dec. 18, 1941, ch. 593, title III, § 301, 55 Stat. 839, amended section 5 of the Trading with the Enemy Act, which is classified to section 5 of this Appendix and section 95a of Title 12, Banks and Banking.

§ 617. Repealed. Pub. L. 89-554, 8(a), Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 651

Section, act Dec. 18, 1941, ch. 593, title III, § 302, 55 Stat. 840, confirmed certain acts, etc., made under the Trading with the Enemy Act.

§ 618. Repealed. July 5, 1947, ch. 327, § 1, 61 Stat. 449

Section, act Dec. 18, 1941, ch. 593, title III, § 303, 55 Stat. 840, related to censorship of communications during World War II and penalties and forfeitures for violations thereof.

§ 619, 620. Transferred

Codification

Section 619, act Dec. 18, 1941, ch. 593, title III, § 304, as added Mar. 8, 1946, ch. 83, § 1, 60 Stat. 50, amended the Trading with the Enemy Act by adding a section 32, and was transferred to section 32 of this Appendix.

Section 620, act Dec. 18, 1941, ch. 593, title III, § 305, as added Aug. 8, 1946, ch. 878, § 1, 60 Stat. 925, amended the Trading with the Enemy Act by adding sections 33 to 37, and was transferred to sections 33 to 37 of this Appendix.

§ 621, 622. Repealed. Pub. L. 89-554, § 8(a), Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 651


EP comes from being the Constitution directly anyway, not from some piece of legislature, so I'm not sure what the act would have to do with EP.
 
2007-03-23 01:03:02 PM  
Manfred Richthofen
Ah, now we enter extremely murky waters. As a disclaimer, I haven't conducted any real legal research on the matter. I'm just basing this on my general knowledge. And this does not constitute a legal advice, and you cannot rely on it and if you do, I'm not liable, and you are not my client, blah blah blah.

I cannot say with legal certainty that the allegations, if true, would lead to convictions. We are now wading into the constitutional limits on presidential authority and such issues are very thorny and sketchy, in part because past presidents have had good sense to work out a deal politically before courts can annunciate the precise limit.

However, in my opinion, the allegations, if true, would support conviction.

One, there is obstruction of justice, defined as (to simplify) impeding investigatory activities of authorized persons. Firing a prosecutor because her investigations were hitting too close to home would arguably meet this definition.

Second, there is intimidation of prosecutors. Could be subpart of Obs. of Just. but common sense says it cannot be legal to threaten a prosecutor, and what a GOP senator has done could fall under that.

Third, there is attempt to improperly influence election. I haven't looked it up, but attempting to coerce a prosecutor to file criminal charges to influence election results is probably illegal under the election laws. If the WH fired the prosecutor because he didn't bend under the coercion, it would arguably make WH an accomplice to the crime, or guilty of that crime themselves. This one, I'm not sure how strong it is.


And this is where I have been arguing from the start. I agree with you 100%. The problem here is A.)There is not enough proof at this time to say anything beyond a bunch of ifs. B.)If a simalar amount of evidance was provided in a different case and the Prosicutors were to ask for an Indictment they would be denighed and I doubt that they could even get a Grand Jury on the basis of the quality of info that has been produced so far. That would make this a fishing expidition in any court case would it not Manfred Richthofen?
 
2007-03-23 01:07:21 PM  
baby_hewey

And at this point I can tell that your only wish is to lie about my previous post. I posted links several times yesterday, not just this morning.

ok, that is a link about valerie plame.

I'm saying you haven't posted any link about the whole 'was chertoff a USA when clinton took office' debate we're having.

I'll check back for that link from you in a while. I'm sure you wont disappoint me.

/don't call me a lier
//heh
 
2007-03-23 01:16:53 PM  
unexplained bacon

baby_hewey


you sound like you're guessing. you're trying to prove your point the hard way.

you know what would convince me?
a link to a reliable third party source that says chertoff was not a USA in '93.

did chertoff resign as USA when he was appointed special council?

/I can't find anything that helps your point

And you know what? You still haven't found any source other than Wikipedia that says I am wrong. All of the other sources that have been provided I posted clips showing where they failed to make the claims that you were making. Only Wikipedia agrees with you? Do you belive that Wikipedia is infalable?

How many news outlets have reported that Clinton fired all 93 USAs? I saw it on MSNBC.com and foxnews.com where they mentioned that the removal of all 93 by Clinton was not new, but was normal.

Please try to prove me wrong with a real source as I have asked several times. I have already proven you wrong several times in this thead.
 
2007-03-23 01:21:32 PM  
baby_hewey

And this is where I have been arguing from the start. I agree with you 100%.

Cool. OK, now the debate can get a bit more constructive, since we know where each is coming from.

The problem here is A.)There is not enough proof at this time to say anything beyond a bunch of ifs.

I would say more than a bunch of ifs. First, there is a matter of the unusualness of the firing. In the past 25 years, only 2 USAs were forcefully discharged. We have 8 dischages in the span of few months. This kind of unusualness raises a suspicion that there is an unusual motivation, or there is an attempt to bury improper discharge in a mountain of discharges.

Before you say the discharge themselves are legal, I would add that activities that are perfectly legal on its own can justifiably raise suspicions of criminal activity. For example, visiting or leaving a friend's house is perfectly legal and OK. It's OK to have a house in a shady neighborhood. But if 25 people are coming in an out of a house in a shady neighborhood within the span of an hour, you bet cops will be looking around to see anything's up.

B.)If a simalar amount of evidance was provided in a different case and the Prosicutors were to ask for an Indictment they would be denighed and I doubt that they could even get a Grand Jury on the basis of the quality of info that has been produced so far. That would make this a fishing expidition in any court case would it not Manfred Richthofen?

Well, remember, nobody's being charged yet. Just being investigated. And if the suspect was Joe Schmoe and not the WH, I doubt if he would be able to argue lack of investigatory authority. The law enforcement agency can investigate you for any reason--as long as it's not an illegal reason (race, etc.).

But assuming we are comparing this to getting charged, I would say not all prosecutors would charge this case, as is. But I don't think it would be ridiculed, either, and many would at least conduct some investigation at this point, in my experience. But then, a situation like this almost always turns political, so it's hard to separate what is conventionally done legally and done politically. But I find it hard to imagine something like this would go without at least a call for investigation.

We have the discharge of USA who successfully prosecuted an influential Congressman and who is now expanding her investigation to other Congressman and administrative officials of the president's party.

WH engages in intense discussions with DOJ over who to fire. In one of the emails, the guy in charge (allegedly) of firings tells WH lawyer to call him to discuss "the real problems associated with Carol Lam." Shortly after, she's fired.

If I were a prosecutor, I may not charge this, but I would definitely look further based just on this.

Also, the initial false assertions by the administration is damaging. You are under law allowed to judge a party's credibility on the past history of that person's honesty. As far as this issue is concerned, the administration's credibility was destroyed, making their assertions of innoncence pretty unsympathetic.

Oh, and don't stake your civil rights too much on Grand Jury. The saying is they would indict a ham sandwich if asked to. One more reason why prosecutorial independence is sooooooo important. As an attorney, it is my position USAs are, as a collective body, probably the most powerful and important federal institution, bar none, as far as its effect on everyday Joe Schmoe is considered.
 
2007-03-23 01:22:35 PM  
equusdc
You seem to be arguing that, essentially, all the federal departments are just examples of executive fiat despite most having been created by act of Congress, not executive order, and now, strangely and conversely, that it can't be "federal" unless it has a cabinet position directly associated with it. It would seem you are desperate to find some narrow criteria to make your "point" that all the evils of federalism are somehow FDR's fault because of emergency war powers, but even that concept predates him at least to the Civil War.

Nice try to try and wash away every point that I have made by jumping to assinine conclusions that I never even hinted at. I would go through and try to argue this but I know when someone is so blinded by partisin politics that it will do no good to say anything. I guess you are still chanting "You can't Professionalize, unless you Federalize!" I'm sorry my post isn't longer, but I have to follow my mothers advice on this one.
 
2007-03-23 01:31:57 PM  
baby_hewey

Please try to prove me wrong with a real source as I have asked several times. I have already proven you wrong several times in this thead.

well, there was skleenar's link for you (among others) how about that?

U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey, 1990-1994

http://www.fjc.gov/servlet/tGetInfo?jid=3003


you were asked about that link earlier too
"Did you see Skleenar's link? It clearly says Chertoff served as USA until 1994."

your answer was:

I did see that, and that caused me to do some more research. Here is the 411 if you really care to learn something about it. Chertoff was appointed in 1990 by Bush 41 to the post of USA, New Jersey. In December 1992(after the election) he was appointed as Special Counsle for the US Senate, a new job with a new office not in NJ. His previous job of USA for NJ was then vacant. Clinton could not fire Chertoff from his job as USA for NW because he had already vacated the post 3 months previous and it was vacant. Because of the vacancy Clinton only fired 93 USA's instead of 94. Now, because there were now 94 USA's nominated for post the process was in the Judicial Committe and needed to be brought to a vote.

there's a huge flaw in this answer because as we know there's only 93 USAs total. so not only are you not proving your point you've been caught making shiat up attempting to prove it.

I wont be fetching any more links for you because at this point I'm sure you're either farkin' with me or delusional.

provide a link that says chertoff was not a USA when clinton took office, and you'll be proven right. otherwise save it.
 
2007-03-23 01:36:50 PM  
Manfred Richthofen
I see. Now, if that's a bad idea, should such firings be encouraged or discouraged?

So what was illegal about Bush firing these 8? Nothing.

As explained to you, numerous times before in and out of this thread and repeatedly, they can be fired for any cause but not illegal cause.

Now, my question in return to you is, if Carol Lam were fired because the WH didn't like her investigation and wanted to stop it, would that constitute an obstruction of justice?


I like you, you really read the post and respond with real questions, Thank you.

To answer your questions I will offer my opinion again. If you go back to Nixon and Watergate which many people are compairing this to when Nixon fired two USA's involved in an investigation they provided evidance of Nixon's staff doing things that were illegal. This brought about the Watergate hearings and the eventual resignation of Nixon. Now it doesn't matter how much people hope for the same to happen to Bush, unless one of these 8 USA's has evidance that proves something then there is no case to issue anything above a censure, which they could do and I would be impressed if they could pass. I have never said that I thought Bush was innocent of everything, I have only said that there is no real evidance of anything here. Yet everyone that has argued with me wants to argue over minute details of which they can't provide any good source to prove me wrong. So I fail to see what arguing this has to do with the fact that the Senate, both Reps and Dems, are nothing more than a bunch of vaginas that don't have the guts to do anything meaningful about it.

Now was that clear enough for ya?
 
2007-03-23 01:41:48 PM  
Manfred Richthofen

EP comes from being the Constitution directly anyway, not from some piece of legislature, so I'm not sure what the act would have to do with EP.

On the first, not ever part has been repealed, most were. As for EP you are correct, I was thinking, and I think I even said EO(Ex. Order) was from that peice of legislation. If I have missed something I am always happy to admit it. And as a Human I am not infaliable. Of course neither is Bush 43, nor Clinton 42 or Clinton 44.
 
2007-03-23 01:42:23 PM  
baby_hewey

I like you, you really read the post and respond with real questions, Thank you.

Hey, common courtesy. NP.

I have never said that I thought Bush was innocent of everything, I have only said that there is no real evidance of anything here. Yet everyone that has argued with me wants to argue over minute details of which they can't provide any good source to prove me wrong. So I fail to see what arguing this has to do with the fact that the Senate, both Reps and Dems, are nothing more than a bunch of vaginas that don't have the guts to do anything meaningful about it.

Now was that clear enough for ya?


I think this issue has largely merged with my last long-ass post but:

Whether Obs. of Just. was committed here or not has to do with why Carol was fired--i.e. what was the intent behind the firing.

How can the Congress ever gain access to this information unless the people who played a relevant role in the firings are questioned, and relevant documents surrendered?
 
2007-03-23 01:51:31 PM  
baby_hewey

It has nothing to do with "partisin" (sic) politics. I'm not even disagreeing with the general thrust of your anti-federalsim rant. I'm saying you have not found a point-source cause in FDR's use of war powers and that you're putting far too much stock in the power of the executive departments in the first place.

Again, as with most of this thread, you've gotten it backwards. I'm not chanting "You can't professionalize unless you federalize," I'm saying quite the opposite. If all the federal departments vanished in your magical puff of smoke, every public service you associated with them would still remain public and the only change would be a small minority share of the numbers on the accounting books.
 
2007-03-23 01:51:44 PM  
unexplained bacon
I'm saying you haven't posted any link about the whole 'was chertoff a USA when clinton took office' debate we're having.

I'll check back for that link from you in a while. I'm sure you wont disappoint me.

/don't call me a lier
//heh


Well now you are changing what you are claiming. In you first claim you said I had not posted any links, I proved you wrong and now you wish to change the markers so that you are not. Ok, so here is another:
baby_hewey

unexplained bacon
?????? really?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/chertoff-bio.html
From 1994 to 1996, he served as Special Counsel for the U.S. Senate Whitewater Committee.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Chertoff
Chertoff was asked to stay in his position when the Clinton administration took office in 1993, at the request of Democratic Senator Bill Bradley; he was the only U.S. attorney not replaced. Chertoff stayed with the U.S. Attorney's office until 1994, when he entered private practice, returning to Latham & Watkins as a partner.

Umm, Special Counsel for the U.S. Senate Whitewater Committee is not a USA. Also, Chertoff was asked to stay in his position when the Clinton administration took office in 1993, at the request of Democratic Senator Bill Bradley Not only did Clinton not ask him to stay he was a special prosicutor.

My statement is still 100% correct. Would you like to try again, so far you and the other Bush haters are 0 for 3.

I not only reposted a link from earlier in the thread, but I then posted clips from it. Sorry I missed the date time, but it was at around 4:30pm

So, do I have your permission to call you a lier now, or do you wish to once again change the rules?
 
2007-03-23 01:52:01 PM  
baby_hewey

On the first, not ever part has been repealed, most were. As for EP you are correct, I was thinking, and I think I even said EO(Ex. Order) was from that peice of legislation. If I have missed something I am always happy to admit it. And as a Human I am not infaliable. Of course neither is Bush 43, nor Clinton 42 or Clinton 44.

Well, I don't know much about the Act specifically, but I do know that Executive Orders were issued from George Washington and onward, so you might want to supplement your research.

The scope of EO might have been expanded by the Act, but then again, I don't know the details.

http://www.thisnation.com/question/040.html
 
2007-03-23 01:58:45 PM  
baby_hewey

man
those links and the copy and paste from those links you just put up were mine in a post to you from yesterday.

I'm not even sure what you think you're proving.

nevermind, feel free to call me a lyre.
 
2007-03-23 02:01:37 PM  
Manfred Richthofen

Oh, and don't stake your civil rights too much on Grand Jury. The saying is they would indict a ham sandwich if asked to. One more reason why prosecutorial independence is sooooooo important. As an attorney, it is my position USAs are, as a collective body, probably the most powerful and important federal institution, bar none, as far as its effect on everyday Joe Schmoe is considered.


First I agree with you 100%. The only point that I standing by is that when Nixon got in trouble and was guilty of OoJ the fired USA's, Archibald and someone else(sorry I can't find their names again) had the proof that illegal activities were indeed being done and further more they provided evidance of what was happening. With Lamb all we have so far is some comments from her that really sound like sour grapes.

Now I saved that last part from your post because I think that is very significant and yet most people here have no clue. USAs are, as a collective body, probably the most powerful and important federal institution, bar none, as far as its effect on everyday Joe Schmoe is considered and yet they are political appointees at the beck and call of the sitting Pres. I don't know about you but that alone makes me shiver.

Again I think our conversation is the most productive of all in this thread, at least from what I have read.
 
2007-03-23 02:09:03 PM  
unexplained bacon
well, there was skleenar's link for you (among others) how about that?

U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey, 1990-1994

http://www.fjc.gov/servlet/tGetInfo?jid=3003

you were asked about that link earlier too
"Did you see Skleenar's link? It clearly says Chertoff served as USA until 1994."

your answer was:

I did see that, and that caused me to do some more research. Here is the 411 if you really care to learn something about it. Chertoff was appointed in 1990 by Bush 41 to the post of USA, New Jersey. In December 1992(after the election) he was appointed as Special Counsle for the US Senate, a new job with a new office not in NJ. His previous job of USA for NJ was then vacant. Clinton could not fire Chertoff from his job as USA for NW because he had already vacated the post 3 months previous and it was vacant. Because of the vacancy Clinton only fired 93 USA's instead of 94. Now, because there were now 94 USA's nominated for post the process was in the Judicial Committe and needed to be brought to a vote.

there's a huge flaw in this answer because as we know there's only 93 USAs total. so not only are you not proving your point you've been caught making shiat up attempting to prove it.

I wont be fetching any more links for you because at this point I'm sure you're either farkin' with me or delusional.

provide a link that says chertoff was not a USA when clinton took office, and you'll be proven right. otherwise save it.


And if the only problem you have with that post is that I added 1 to the number of USA's, which I admitted earlier I was wrong about, then you really need to move on to another thread where you can pick on someone else, because you still have not proven anything other than I am human and falable, which I thought had been previously discussed. As for the discussion at hand you would do well to look at Manfred Richthofen and his wonderful use of reading comp as well as reading comprehinsion. Just admit that you made assumptions, have no proof and you simply hate Bush because you have been told too and your life will be much better.

Also your still calling names and failing to make real points.
 
2007-03-23 02:11:57 PM  
baby_hewey

You're 100% right. My misspelling of your name completely invalidates my list, justifies your cavalier abuse of the english language, and makes me look like a moran. I humbly cede that point.

As to whether or not I addressed any of your points - Did I dispute any of your points? Did I say I disagreed with you in any way?

Did I suggest, even for an INSTANT that I thought your arguments were somehow both repetitive and willfully ignorant?

Did I even imply that your continued references to Clinton were somehow irrelevant?

Did I mock your continued use of the argument that no crime had been committed, even after literally hundreds of people pointed out that the point was the investigation, not a criminal trial?

Did I even imply that since Bush isn't even the one getting served with a subpoena all the arguments posted here about Bush and his actions all seem vaguely irrelevant to me?

I did not. And I do not.

All I had a problem with was your suggesting that public education was a "cornor stone" of a Marxist movement; a thing that I believe I poked in a rather delicate and subtle way.

But you are 100% correct, I misspelled your login. And for that, sir, I withdraw my contention. I cede the point. Even on that.

You are 100% right, sir. Your public education is the cornor stone of ... whatever you said it was the cornor stone of. Please accept my apologies for suggesting that it was otherwise.
 
2007-03-23 02:14:02 PM  
baby_hewey

With Lamb all we have so far is some comments from her that really sound like sour grapes.

Well, I would say the public is entitled to know why those were fired and so far we haven't been getting a convincing answer. I'm not sure what the official explanation is now.

Emails from the WH and DOJ haven't helped the cause . . . especially the one talking about "real problems" associated with Lam.

Lam's not the one who's been complaining, FYI, it was David Iglesias, another fired USA--a loyal, tough-as-nails republican, who in turn was able to enlist the support of some republican congressment to his cause.

yet they are political appointees at the beck and call of the sitting Pres. I don't know about you but that alone makes me shiver.

Yeah, hopefully scandals of this type will cause future administrations to act in a more prudent manner, and allow USAs more independence from political influence.

Again I think our conversation is the most productive of all in this thread, at least from what I have read.

That's cool. Vitriol doesn't help anybody, but it seems unavoidable in politics . . . and fark.
 
2007-03-23 02:18:46 PM  
Manfred Richthofen
I think this issue has largely merged with my last long-ass post but:

Whether Obs. of Just. was committed here or not has to do with why Carol was fired--i.e. what was the intent behind the firing.

How can the Congress ever gain access to this information unless the people who played a relevant role in the firings are questioned, and relevant documents surrendered?


And I think this is what most people want, even me. Where I am standing on this is that after the witch hunt of the Plame affair Bush does not want to put any more of his people in to a place where they could get abused like Libby was. Now, I will say that Libby was convicted in court, but what he was convicted of had nothing to do with the investigation of the release of Plame's name nor if she was even NOC at the time of the disclosure. Bush got burned by playing nice over the Plame affair because he knew it was a non-issue, yet he still lost Libby. I think if you look at the past on this then you can see my stance.

Now if Carol Lam comes forth with something more than what has hit sofar then I think that Obs. of Just. will be a given and Bush will be in deep Nixon-est ca-ca. But I will wait for that to happen before I convict him on this.
 
2007-03-23 02:22:55 PM  
equusdc
If all the federal departments vanished in your magical puff of smoke, every public service you associated with them would still remain public and the only change would be a small minority share of the numbers on the accounting books.

I never said that any thing would vanish, you are still expanding my oraginal statment to include much more than I ever did. I called you on it and your next post does the very same thing. If you are agreeing with me then why are you arguing?
 
2007-03-23 02:26:30 PM  
baby_hewey
Now if Carol Lam comes forth with something more than what has hit sofar then I think that Obs. of Just. will be a given and Bush will be in deep Nixon-est ca-ca. But I will wait for that to happen before I convict him on this.

What Carol says or doesn't say is irrelevant--it's what the WH thought that matters, and CL probably can shed no light there. I personally don't think Bush had a personal role in the firing, myself. He probably just relied on the recommendation of his staff.

I'm not informed on the Plame issue but I imagine that might affect the psyche of the WH. Too bad, because this is in my opinion causing a tremendous damage to the Executive Branch ass an institution--the exact opposite of what Bush said he would do to WH when he assumed office.
 
2007-03-23 02:27:29 PM  
unexplained bacon
man
those links and the copy and paste from those links you just put up were mine in a post to you from yesterday.

I'm not even sure what you think you're proving.

nevermind, feel free to call me a lyre.


I never said they weren't links that you or someone else posted. I even specified that I was reposting the link. Again you are changing what you ment, oddly it is the same kind of a moving target that Bush is using in the current crap now.

/Oh, now I didn't call you a lier, I compaired you to Bush.
//BTW a Lyer is a musical instrament.
///Here is a link fer ya:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyre
 
2007-03-23 02:37:08 PM  
baby_hewey
I never said that any thing would vanish,

2007-03-22 06:31:12 PM baby_hewey
 
2007-03-23 02:42:37 PM  
BTW a Lyer is a musical instrament.

i23.photobucket.com

When calling someone out on their spelling skills, when they're obviously mocking your lack thereof, it helps to use correct spelling.
 
2007-03-23 02:43:40 PM  
unlikely
You're 100% right. My misspelling of your name completely invalidates my list, justifies your cavalier abuse of the english language, and makes me look like a moran. I humbly cede that point.

Now don't get all upset about it, it's not like it matters that much.

As to whether or not I addressed any of your points - Did I dispute any of your points? Did I say I disagreed with you in any way?

Did I suggest, even for an INSTANT that I thought your arguments were somehow both repetitive and willfully ignorant?

Did I even imply that your continued references to Clinton were somehow irrelevant?


I'm sorry I kind of felt that was the reason behind the entire post, but he I've been wrong before and not mocked or belitteld those that caught and pointed it out to me.

Did I mock your continued use of the argument that no crime had been committed, even after literally hundreds of people pointed out that the point was the investigation, not a criminal trial?

Well, if you care to go back and read the thread the common consensus was that A Bush has done something illegal, and B these proceedings were justified because he is a bad man. Neither of which is a valid agument, which was my point.

Did I even imply that since Bush isn't even the one getting served with a subpoena all the arguments posted here about Bush and his actions all seem vaguely irrelevant to me?

Uh, ok sounds like what I have been saying to others that still don't listen.

I did not. And I do not.

So what was the point of your post with a list of words that I failed to spell if not in its essiance an attempt to mock me?

All I had a problem with was your suggesting that public education was a "cornor stone" of a Marxist movement; a thing that I believe I poked in a rather delicate and subtle way.

Ah, if that was your disagreement with me then I would recomend reading the Communist Manifesto where in Marx advocates government education to instill obeadiance in to the electorate in order to reach the utopian of a Communist counrty. Please see the 10 Planks of the Communist Manifesto
Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

Abolition of all right of inheritance.

Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.

Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.

Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.

Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c., &c..[1]

If a Free Public Education provided by the Government and ment to conform to the Government is not Communist then I don't know what is. If you really care you can read the book for yourself.

But you are 100% correct, I misspelled your login. And for that, sir, I withdraw my contention. I cede the point. Even on that.

Now don't be that way, it is a two way street in a free society.

You are 100% right, sir. Your public education is the cornor stone of ... whatever you said it was the cornor stone of. Please accept my apologies for suggesting that it was otherwise.

Here again I am courious as to why you have responded so harshly to my simple jab at the irony of you misspelling my name after cataloging a rather impressive list of words that I can't spell. Did you say that you were a government school teacher?
 
2007-03-23 02:47:04 PM  
baby_hewey

You may wish to read a bit on what Thomas Jefferson thought on the subject before going straight to the Marxist jugular.

Who is letting partisan politics blind them, eh?
 
2007-03-23 02:51:39 PM  
baby_hewey
the irony of you misspelling my name

...which is itself sort of ironic if you think about it.
 
2007-03-23 02:53:25 PM  
Manfred Richthofen
What Carol says or doesn't say is irrelevant--it's what the WH thought that matters, and CL probably can shed no light there. I personally don't think Bush had a personal role in the firing, myself. He probably just relied on the recommendation of his staff.

I'm not informed on the Plame issue but I imagine that might affect the psyche of the WH. Too bad, because this is in my opinion causing a tremendous damage to the Executive Branch ass an institution--the exact opposite of what Bush said he would do to WH when he assumed office.


Thanks, I think this has been the best discussion I have ever had on Fark with someone. I look forward to seeing you around in more threads.

And that people is it. I am going home to my prego wife who is expecting April 22 and I would much rather be around her than continue to watch equusdc and unlikely
continue to try to come up with anything for their side.

Thanks for the entertainment folks, and thank you Manfred Richthofen for a real discussion in which I think both of us were able to communicate well. I would ask where you practice, as I would Hire you if I ever need you, but I sure don't want to come up against you.
 
2007-03-23 02:57:51 PM  
equusdc
You may wish to read a bit on what Thomas Jefferson thought on the subject before going straight to the Marxist jugular.

Who is letting partisan politics blind them, eh?


Cute, so you are accusing me of hating Jefferson? Last time I checked he was a Democratic-Republican, and neither a Democrat nor a Republican. Also, while he advocated that education be available to all he also advocated that it be controled by the states. Please read the full text before you jump on me.

K,thx, bye
 
2007-03-23 03:01:19 PM  
So what was the point of your post with a list of words that I failed to spell if not in its essiance an attempt to mock me?

That was the intent, precisely. Which is why I apologized.

And you're right, Marx advocated using public schools as a means of controlling the minds of the young. But LONG before that the Athenians of the fifth century BC advocated public schools as a means of making sure your average Athenian was better educated than your average non-Athenian. The city of Rome instituted public schools (for the Citizen class only) for the same reason. France did it to try to establish a stronger France immediately after the anti-Monarchist revolution. Several states had extablished a Public School system by the 1830s, still well before Marx and the Manifesto.

The point of my list was to suggest a correlation between your interaction with public schools and your current opinion on them.

Here again I am courious as to why you have responded so harshly to my simple jab at the irony of you misspelling my name after cataloging a rather impressive list of words that I can't spell. Did you say that you were a government school teacher?

I taught in the public school system for a year and a half. The system is broken, and no one is willing to do what it will take to fix it. I left to work in the private sector, where I am paid 10x better to take 1/10th the responsibility for 1/2 the hours and I do it completely free from the immeasurable BS.

I did not mean my words to be harsh in any way. I was pointing out that I have expressed no issue with anything you have said on any subject, mostly to illustrate that my issue was solely with your assertions regarding the nature of public education.

I felt your response was less than 100% receptive, even after I made a sincere offer to help if I could. Rather, your response was somewhat defensive, and I thought perhaps you were feeling a little abused here in this thread. Therefore, I thought that apologizing and withdrawing the point would be the best way to just walk away.

Hope that clears it up.
 
2007-03-23 03:04:46 PM  
So far I think BABY HEWEY has made the best points, and countr points. This will not go away, and Justice will prevail for all... JUSTICE!
 
2007-03-23 03:05:56 PM  
baby_hewey

See you around, and best wishes to your wife and new child.
 
2007-03-23 03:06:53 PM  
Hate mail to start in 3... 2... 1...
 
2007-03-23 03:15:16 PM  
baby_hewey

I'm accusing you of pulling out the damned Communist Manifesto arguing against public education, since your line about "It's all FDR's fault" didn't pass much muster. I mean, how much more "partisin" (sic) can you get than basically running around the room screaming "COMMIE!"
 
2007-03-23 03:59:56 PM  
So far I think BABY HEWEY has made the best points, and countr points.

all by himself too.

he's either nuts or he's pullin' our collective leg, but I gotta admit...he's unstoppable

he's like flash on crack.
 
2007-03-23 04:30:19 PM  
baby_hewey

actually I almost never read profiles, but I admit I just read yours. I think I understand you better.

I'll say this, you're as good as any troll out there, but if I were you I'd take the part about blair having the best troll out of your profile. it made me realize you're into trolls, and it kinda blew your shtick for me (after the fact mind you)

you've got all the tools and you use 'em well. chears!
 
2007-03-23 04:33:46 PM  
http://img502.imageshack.us/img502/8610/mooninggrans1jy.swf
 
2007-03-23 04:38:38 PM  
Bush should "authorize" the newly appointed attorneys issue subpoenas to Pelosi, Murtha, Reid and the other girls to force them to reveal what THEY said behind closed doors.
 
Displayed 50 of 1657 comments


Oldest | « | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | » | Newest



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report