Alberto for the chop?

Hobbes

Been watching the scandal raising from last week. Strange that it would push the Plame trial to the back. Even funnier that they get him on this action. Seems almost Capone'ish in how they are getting to him.

I'd say he will go before they can get him and Rove to testify under oath.

claidheamh

Hobbes wrote:

I'd say he will go before they can get him and Rove to testify under oath.

Bush gave up Alberto to testify yestarday, but refused to do the same with his aides for concerns over tarnishing, "executive priviledge."

As of today, it seems the House Judiciary subcommittee vote was to authorize subpoenas. Will it come to issuing subpoenas? I think so. Will it go to the SCOTUS? Yes, if necessary.

Would this damage "executive priviledge?" Hardly. Deliberate abuse of the Patriot Act, has a larger governmental effect, than say...a lie about poor personal choices, and Tony Snow demanded subpoenas for Clinton, in 1998. http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/07/26/clinton.subpoena.02/

The proverbial hammer has dropped for Karl Rove, Harriet Miers, and their two deputies.

I can respect Conyers push for something more professional than what would account for little more than a, "chat in a pub," with these folks.

I dont see Rove being any more truthful under oath, but the associated transcripts combined with his knack for "spin," may prove troublesome.

Miers is little more than a Bush psycophant. There is no telling what she will do or say. Should be a gas to watch.

lostexpectation

claidheamh wrote:

Bush gave up Alberto to testify yestarday, but refused to do the same with his aides for concerns over tarnishing, "executive priviledge."

The proverbial hammer has dropped for Karl Rove, Harriet Miers, and their two deputies. telling what she will do or say. Should be a gas to watch.

this bring up the whole miers for the supreme court again? this was while they had said even if only an off hand way that the should sack the lot of them she was in line for the supreme court.

Manic Moran

It's been sortof simmering on the backburner for a lot longer than the last week. I'm not entirely sure why it only leaped to the front pages now.

The Administration's in an interesting quandry. Ordinarily, one should pick one's battles, and let the other guy win without too much of a fight from time to time, at least in cases where you're pretty sure you can't win. On the other hand, the Admin needs to delay taking damage until after the latest defense spending bill (Well.. defense spending, lettuce subsidy, and whatever else got added to it that has nothing whatsoever to do with defense) gets passed.

NTM

Hobbes

Manic Moran wrote:

It's been sortof simmering on the backburner for a lot longer than the last week. I'm not entirely sure why it only leaped to the front pages now.

I think it is due to emails recently released that kind of point to the them being fired while having good performance reviews and due to investigating corruption within the party.

Getting fired is common in their position mainly when an incoming president is there.

The other issue that is coming to light is that a provision in the patriot act apparently allows the Attorney General to put temp people into the places indefinetly without any oversight/approval. Already one of them I believe is on par with "Hella Job Brownie".

Akrasia

Gonzalas was acting on orders handed down directly from the white house. The man should definitely be fired if only for his cronyism and complete lack of intellectual and moral integrity, but he should not be allowed to be used as a scapegoat. This is a scandal, amongst many many other scandals that goes directly to the top

lostexpectation

Hobbes wrote:

I think it is due to emails recently released that kind of point to the them being fired while having good performance reviews and due to investigating corruption within the party.

Getting fired is common in their position mainly when an incoming president is there.

The other issue that is coming to light is that a provision in the patriot act apparently allows the Attorney General to put temp people into the places indefinetly without any oversight/approval. Already one of them I believe is on par with "Hella Job Brownie".

actually not only does it link up the harriet miers fiasco it also links back to the 2004 presidential election battles, its everything in one, go the repubs whether to investigate the dems wins to pretend there were the ones being defrauded, spiiiiiiiiiinnnnnnnnn

claidheamh

Hobbes wrote:

I think it is due to emails recently released that kind of point to the them being fired while having good performance reviews and due to investigating corruption within the party.

You are correct, sir. The email trail given to Congress is damning. It makes one wonder what is in the weeks of missing correspondence leading up to the event. At the very least, it lends credence to the notion that Miers' SCOTUS nomination was an attempted reward for her part in these firings...And little if anything to do with, "performance worthy of recommendation."

Add to that, the entire planet knows the President and his whole administration should be the last folks giving a critique on performance related job duties. It is absolutely laughable.

Hobbes wrote:

Getting fired is common in their position mainly when an incoming president is there.

True, there have been firings in these positions historically; However, in most cases the prosecutors relieved of duty were close to their term limit, as well as being met by a new, incoming president.

Clinton did fire 93 attorneys at the beginning of his 1st term. Most all, were nearing the end of their term.

Of Clinton's nominations, 80% of his recommendations did NOT get confirmed by the Senate. That is an 80% vacancy for two terms.

When Bush came into office. He filled those seats, as the Senate was under Republican control.

One thing different of this case than others historically: Bush nominated the 8 attorneys in this current row. Again, these 8 attorneys were not appointed by Clinton.

Since January 20, 2001, 125 new U.S. Attorneys have been nominated by President Bush and confirmed by the Senate.-http://judiciary.senate.gov/testimony.cfm?id=2516&wit_id=2742

Hobbes wrote:

The other issue that is coming to light is that a provision in the patriot act apparently allows the Attorney General to put temp people into the places indefinetly without any oversight/approval. Already one of them I believe is on par with "Hella Job Brownie".

Here, is where it gets stinky. With the Senate losing a Republican majority, it may be more difficult to get harder line Republicans in these 8 positions, unless there was a way around Senate confirmation. Remember, these 8 were appointed by Bush in his 1st term.

Luckily for Bush, his party was able to add the nifty little provision in the Patriot Act...The one where nominations do not need Senate confirmation. IMHO: It is spooky that someone dreamt-up, and then had this provision added.

These 8 were listed as "striking-out" when it came to how they fit when doing there jobs in a way favourable with the President.
How exactly does one prosecute crime in a politically-biased manner?
Politics MUST follow the rule of law. Politics MUST NOT hold sway to either law, or its stewards.

Manic Moran

claidheamh wrote:

How exactly does one prosecute crime in a politically-biased manner?

Easy. Devote more attention to the crimes that you think will play better in your area.

For example, automatically plea-bargain-away any crime which consists of the possession of a personal amount of marijuana, but refuse to plea-bargain-away and instead prosecute in trial any crime such as 'possession of an assault weapon.' (Well, in California anyway)

Both are acted upon, to one extent or another, but the political realities indicate which ones get more effort: Around here, MJ is considered somewhat harmless by the population, and firearms disliked. Go over to a Red state, and you'll see the reverse, and the crimes and efforts will be prioritised accordingly.

NTM

Hobbes

I had to laugh on Jon Stewarts take on it.

One of the mails pointed out that the reviewer who fired some of them never actually read the performance reviews and another from Rove suggested they fire all non-loyal bushies.

Then Jons one was "I think we should fire anyone that is investigating corruption, now if you will excuse me I am off to have sex with an underaged boy behind my wifes back. Ps please don't delete this email".