Why not under oath?

[Rick Lee]

Well, the subpoenas have been approved, but Conyers is saying he'll hold off on issuing them a bit longer.

As bad a precedent as I think this is, I really hope Rove socks it to them. He is smarter than anyone on that committee and they will question him at their own peril.

[Joeaksa]

This will be very interesting. Agree and hope that Rove hands their heads back in a basket...

[Scooter]

I am a registered Republican, but also a fair minded American. I don't blindly agree with the Republican Party or President Bush. Also, if anybody, politician or not, does something wrong, then I think there should be repercussions. As far as this issue goes though, the whole thing really does seem like a witch hunt. It is perfectly legal to fire AGs for any reason. So, then what are the alleged shenanigens? It sounds like someone is just saying that they should investigate just to find out if anything was possibly done that will not look right to the constituents.

I analogize this to a police officer pulling you over for safely turning right on a red light, then wanting to search your vehicle and ask you questions. The turn was perfectly legal, and he just used it as an excuse to pull you over, then the officer wants to search around and ask you if you have ever done anything wrong. That is not how our system works. To search there must be probable cause, and I just haven't seen any in the current situation.

I am not saying this to protect the President or any other Republican. The whole thing just doesn’t seem right, that is all.

[Turbo_pro]

Originally posted by Rick Lee
Well, the subpoenas have been approved, but Conyers is saying he'll hold off on issuing them a bit longer.

As bad a precedent as I think this is, I really hope Rove socks it to them. He is smarter than anyone on that committee and they will question him at their own peril.

I would be surprised if the subpoenas are ever issued. They will play it for the cameras, then let it go.
That said, Rove will never respond to coercion. Although I believe Bush has lost a tremendous quantity of sack recently (if he ever had any) he will fight this one.

He (Bush) has the law on his side and let's remember that he will stands a pretty good chance of winning in any appeal in front of his hand picked court.

Even the dummies in congress understand this.

[Superman]

Bush's brilliance continues to elude me. I work with investigators, and I've noticed what happens when a party decides to be uncooperative. It doesn't make the investigators less curious.

For those of you who do not understand, or are pretending not to understand, what the potential problem is here:

Yes, there are political appointees that serve at the pleasure. But on the other hand, it's not okay to fire them because their investigations are targeting your political cronies, or because they are not spending enough time investigating your adversaries.

Also, according to an overwhelming body of evidence, it will be challenging at best for the "administration" to justify some of those terminations on the basis of performance. By all accounts that McKay guy was about as efficient and professional as the day is long. Too efficient........is the suspicion.

[the]

There's nothing wrong with the president firing USAs because the president does not agree with the agenda being pursued by the USA.

Normally that is done at the beginning. I.e., Clinton fired all of Bush's USAs right off the bat because of course they weren't going to be in agreement with Clinton's agenda. Nothing wrong with that, it's done all the time. Maybe an argument can be made that the law should be changed, but until it is, there's nothing wrong with it and new presidents will continue to fire all of the USAs they don't like and/or who were appointed by the previous president of the other party.

Bush disagreed with the agenda being pursued by these USAs and he is free to fire them. He does not have to "justify" their termination based on "performance," not one bit. He should have fired all of them right when he first took office, like Clinton was smart enough to do with the Bush Sr. USAs.

As far as Bush's "brilliance," umm, yeah. Real brilliant creating a scandal by simply doing something you are absolutely entitled to do. Reverse brilliance!

[on-ramp]

this is a democratic fishing expedition. they are looking to create a political scandal.

when Clinton took office in 92, he ordered his attorney general at the time to fire 93 attornies. where were the subpoenas back then?


the media is making this into a story, which it is not.

[Rick Lee]

The Dems controlled Congress when Clinton did it.

[widebody911]

Originally posted by on-ramp
when Clinton took office in 92, he ordered his attorney general at the time to fire 93 attornies. where were the subpoenas back then?

The real story is the sneaky little clause in the "Patriot" Act which give Bush (via Gonsalez) the power to appoint AG's without oversight. The fact that AG's were fired for things like coming down too hard on the likes of Randy Cunningham is just icing on the cake.

While we're at it, I haven't seen a peep in these hallowed halls about yesterday's repeal of the AG clause in "Patriot" Act.

[widebody911]

Originally posted by Rick Lee
The Dems controlled Congress when Clinton did it.

And here's Tony Snow on the subject of testifying under oath

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2007/03/tony-snow-says-president-must-let-his.html

[the]

Originally posted by widebody911
And here's Tony Snow on the subject of testifying under oath in the context of a criminal investigation

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2007/03/tony-snow-says-president-must-let-his.html

there, fixed it for you.

[Joeaksa]

Originally posted by Superman
But on the other hand, it's not okay to fire them because their investigations are targeting your political cronies, or because they are not spending enough time investigating your adversaries.

Sorry but you are forgetting something.

THEY CAN BE FIRED BECAUSE THEY WORE THE WRONG COLOR TIE THAT DAY! They can be fired for anything, period. They serve at the pleasure of the President, end of story.

[Rick Lee]

Originally posted by widebody911
The real story is the sneaky little clause in the "Patriot" Act which give Bush (via Gonsalez) the power to appoint AG's without oversight.

That's right Thom, but it's not getting a lot of coverage because Patrick Leahy was also chairman of of the Senate Judiciary Committee when the PATRIOT Act passed.

And I don't know why Cunningham is even a part of this since he was guilty as sin, copped a plea and is sitting in the joint right now for a while.

[Superman]

Originally posted by Joeaksa
Sorry but you are forgetting something.

THEY CAN BE FIRED BECAUSE THEY WORE THE WRONG COLOR TIE THAT DAY! They can be fired for anything, period. They serve at the pleasure of the President, end of story.

I don't normally think of you as "dense." Should I. In at-will employment states, workers can be fired for having moustaches. Wearing red. Driving a 911. But even in those states, you can't be fired because you are black. Or Jewish.

Same here. If Dubya had 'cleaned house' when he arrived in Washington, nobody would have said a thing. Instead, he waited five years and then fired some AG's whose performance was at the TOP of the heap. For what appears to be political reasons.

Now, if any of you conservative types really think that the "president" can fire competent, effective AG's who have had nothing but GLOWING reviews.......because they are investigating the wrong cronies or failing to investigate the right political adversaries......

.....then I have a real estate deal I want you to look at. A couple of them, in fact.

The Ostrich approach to politics is tempting, but it doesn't work. Not for you. Not for your "president."

And now, I guess Dubya is thinking he'll test the theory that Congress and the Amercan people are not entitled to the truth. Unless Duyba makes some changes in his past way of handling things, this will be a delightfully entertaining two years.

[the]

Originally posted by Superman


Now, if any of you conservative types really think that the "president" can fire competent, effective AG's who have had nothing but GLOWING reviews.......because they are investigating the wrong cronies or failing to investigate the right political adversaries......

What law would that violate?

[Joeaksa]

Originally posted by Superman
Now, if any of you conservative types really think that the "president" can fire competent, effective AG's who have had nothing but GLOWING reviews.......because they are investigating the wrong cronies or failing to investigate the right political adversaries......

.....then I have a real estate deal I want you to look at. A couple of them, in fact.

The Ostrich approach to politics is tempting, but it doesn't work. Not for you. Not for your "president."

And now, I guess Dubya is thinking he'll test the theory that Congress and the Amercan people are not entitled to the truth. Unless Duyba makes some changes in his past way of handling things, this will be a delightfully entertaining two years.

I repeat, they can be fired for ANY REASON. I could care less what kind of reviews they have had, they work at the pleasure of the President.

I am not dense, but for some reason this concept is not getting through to some people very easily.

Joe

PS He is "your" President as well. He is the President of the entire country, at least until 2008. Sooner everyone understands this the better. They may not agree with him but he is still the Commander in Chief and leader of this country.

[the]

Originally posted by Superman
I don't normally think of you as "dense." Should I. In at-will employment states, workers can be fired for having moustaches. Wearing red. Driving a 911. But even in those states, you can't be fired because you are black. Or Jewish.

. . . For what appears to be political reasons.

Someone serving in a post at the pleasure of the president is NOT like an at-will employee, at all.

USAs are released by Presidents for political reasons all the time. All of the USA's released by Clinton when he first took office, for example, were of course done so for political reasons. They were appointed by Bush and would not have the same agenda (i.e., investigate or not investigate the same people as Clinton would like to have investigated or not investigated) as Clinton.

That's the way the system is set up, there's nothing wrong with the Pres releasing a USA because the USA's agenda and the Pres's agenda don't match.