[JoesBro]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

That's not the same thing and you know it. All political appointees are fired at the beginning of each new administration. Except that in this case, Bush actually kept a lot of Clinton's appointees.

It is the perogative of the President to fire them at his whim. You are correct in that he cannot fire them based on ciminl reasons. The idea of obstruction of justice has been raised, but I have yet to see any evidence anywhere to substantiate it.

[leflyCode]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Of course the White House is in contempt of Congress. Not necessarily. Executive privilege has been upheld as a mainstay in the seperation of powers. It may be that SCOTUS will determine that the possibility of criminal activity is great enough to overide executive privilege. However, given the lack of any evidence in this case, it is, IMHO, unlikely.

Therefore, ifthe WH is not subject to Congress jurisdiction in this matter, then they cannot be in contempt.

[Roferurse]

I make no claims of being unbaised, as I've long since come to hate this administration*. I agree with Imran - if anything, I want *more* pressure and "fishing expeditions" into what these *******s were up to.

Normally I might disagree, but in this case I think anything that distracts this Congress and keeps them from passing any legislation is a good thing. Bring on the investigations!

[orillaVar]

BEDEMIR: How do you know she is a witch?
VILLAGER #2: She looks like one.
BEDEMIR: Bring her forward.
WITCH: I'm not a witch. I'm not a witch.
BEDEMIR: But you are dressed as one.
WITCH: They dressed me up like this.
CROWD: No, we didn't... no.
WITCH: And this isn't my nose, it's a false one.
BEDEMIR: Well?
VILLAGER #1: Well, we did do the nose.
BEDEMIR: The nose?
VILLAGER #1: And the hat -- but she is a witch!
CROWD: Burn her! Witch! Witch! Burn her!
BEDEMIR: Did you dress her up like this?
CROWD: No, no... no ... yes. Yes, yes, a bit, a bit.
VILLAGER #1: She has got a wart.
BEDEMIR: What makes you think she is a witch?
VILLAGER #3: Well, she turned me into a newt.
BEDEMIR: A newt?
VILLAGER #3: I got better.
VILLAGER #2: Burn her anyway!
CROWD: Burn! Burn her!

[mtvlover571]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


All you really need is enough evidence to suggest there may be a criminal violation. And this exists? They should certainly let the rest of us know of this evidence.

[itepearce]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
You have listened to the testimony, right? You know, about firing prosecutors for political reasons? For refusing to go after Dems for trumped up, non existent charges to make their campaigns harder? Obstruction of justice much?

Subpoenas have be filled for far less evidence.

Or are you being deliberately obtuse? I guess I was being obtuse...although I didn't men to be. (Obtuse? 30 Days in the hole for you!! ).

I guess I was unaware of credible testimony relating to "refusing to go after Dems for trumped up, non existent charges to make their campaigns harder?"

However, "firing prosecutors for political reasons" is totally legal unless the political reasons have "Obstruction of justice much" involved.

[QQQQQ-Trek]

Originally posted by GePap
Congress has the power to investigate anything it pleases, a power given to it in the constitution. They decided to investigate why those prosecutors were fired. Whether those firings were illegal or not is utterly irrelevant to the point that Congress could.


True...Congress can investigate whatever it chooses. The WH, on the other hand, can exercise executive privilege whenever it chooses without evidence of a crime existing.

Originally posted by GePap

So we have people saying that the reason the President fired these prosecutors is irrelevant, because they president can do so at his whim, and therefore demanding that Congress give a reason why it needs to investigate, something it can do at its whim. Sorry, but if there is no need to know why the president fired these guys because he can without breaking the law, then you should also not care why congress decided to investigate because they can do so at will without breaking the law as well.


Not disagreeing with Congress's right to investigate. I am meerly saying that without evidence that a crime may have been committed, then Congress cannot enforce its subpoena due to seperation of powers.

Originally posted by GePap

The more pressing question is why, when asked to explian themselves the WH felt the need to make up all sorts of rationales for firing these prosecutors, thus leading many to ask if they had lied to Congress.

Yes...an interesting question indeed. Is it just the paranoia inspired by a Congress determined to "get" the administration at nearly anycost...or is there really something deeper here?

I am all for Congress continuing its investigation. If they find something that shows evidence a crime was committed or strong credible evidence that a crime may have been committed, then reissue the subpoenba and go to SCOTUS to back it up if need be. This maintains both the seperation of powers and the oversite of the branches of each other.

[in4wikiu]

The skank had dried *** on her dress, for pete's sake.
How was he going to lie about that triviality?

[soineeLom]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Yet, during the investigations there were contradictory statements, so even if the firings themselves weren't a crime (actually weren't obstruction), In the case of the firing of the prosecutor investigating Duke Cunningham, I'd say that obstruction is a legit claim.

[bestworkother]

Executive privilege isn't a constitutional power. It's an assumed power that SCOTUS, in its "wisdom" has decided the POTUS has.

You just contradicted yourself in the span of two sentences.

[dfuzioniag]

I stand by my post.