TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Justice Department Scandals
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Justice Department Scandals

post #1 of 24
Thread Starter 
Anyone following the latest scandal about this?

With the recent firing of all the US Attorney's for not bending to congressional pressure, you have to wonder, how many US Attorney's did bend to strong arm tactics to keep their job.

I bet when congress digs deeper into this issue, we will eventually find out that it's worse than we know now.

I'm appalled at the shenanagains this WH has pulled. There's a reason the justice department is a different branch of government! It's supposed to be our checks and balances!

post #2 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sprocket View Post
Anyone following the latest scandal about this?

With the recent firing of all the US Attorney's for not bending to congressional pressure, you have to wonder, how many US Attorney's did bend to strong arm tactics to keep their job.

I bet when congress digs deeper into this issue, we will eventually find out that it's worse than we know now.

I'm appalled at the shenanagains this WH has pulled. There's a reason the justice department is a different branch of government! It's supposed to be our checks and balances!

I think it just goes to show,They are still on the government payroll.
Either they do what they're told or they're out.It goes on in all places of employment
there is always somebody pulling the strings
post #3 of 24
I thought I read they were just THINKING about firing them. Maybe I am wrong. And I read that the Clinton administration DID fire all theirs so what is the difference?
post #4 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
I thought I read they were just THINKING about firing them. Maybe I am wrong. And I read that the Clinton administration DID fire all theirs so what is the difference?
all attorney's general resign when a new administration arrives. Clinton fired one. Carter fired one. Bush's administration fired eight. and threatened those fired, when they would not investigate dems before an election. That is the unprecendented thing.
post #5 of 24
Well, I guess the Wall Street Journal is wrong then, since they are saying all of them were fired by the Clinton Administration.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editor...l?id=110009784
post #6 of 24
reno cleared the decks AFTER an election of AG's appointed by people other than clinton right after a presidential election- this is not strange at all. gonzales fired their own people midtern presidential term.
post #7 of 24
Oh, for crying out loud, talk about splitting hairs. It is totally hypocritical IMO
post #8 of 24
According to the NY Times, Harriet Miers, former White House counsel, wanted to fire all 93 U.S. attorneys. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/14/wa...agewanted=1&hp
post #9 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by furryferals View Post
I think it just goes to show,They are still on the government payroll.
Either they do what they're told or they're out.It goes on in all places of employment
there is always somebody pulling the strings
that is true,

as a side note, clinton did fire 92. along with the ones that where looking into white water. so its not unhead of
post #10 of 24
The AG's are appointed and serve at the pleasure of the President. As such, they may be fired as well. Nothing illegal has been done here. The Democrats are well aware of that. Even the mainstream media, who normally would rather stick needles in their eyes than give the appearance of defending the Administration, has admitted this today.

Just another case of the left trying to trash the Administration, and the Administration as usual, lying down and letting them do it.
post #11 of 24
"Wanted" too. I am missing something as I do not see the reason for the big hoop-la over this.
post #12 of 24
What are the democrats going to do when Bush isn't in office? They are so focused on pointing fingers at him and finding flaws in everything he and his administration do that they don't have much else of an agenda.

Kinda sad, really...
post #13 of 24
Bush does not need help, for people to point fingers at him.
i am still kinda upset that he created the homeland security dept, the way he did.
i just wish people would get past all the party junk and start doing whats best for the country.
post #14 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by valanhb View Post
What are the democrats going to do when Bush isn't in office? They are so focused on pointing fingers at him and finding flaws in everything he and his administration do that they don't have much else of an agenda.

Kinda sad, really...
The thing is, it's not just Democrats in Congress who are criticizing the firings, but also some leading Republicans (look at the NY Times article). There's some other issue behind this, I think. Perhaps the Patriot Act? And is the criticism really aimed at Bush, who isn't exactly known for micromanagement, or Gonzales?
post #15 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcat View Post
The thing is, it's not just Democrats in Congress who are criticizing the firings, but also some leading Republicans (look at the NY Times article). There's some other issue behind this, I think. Perhaps the Patriot Act? And is the criticism really aimed at Bush, who isn't exactly known for micromanagement, or Gonzales?
OK, a serious post this time.

Thing is, they only fired 8. If they had fired all 92, regardless of timing in relation to elections (which is just a silly excuse, IMO), this would probably be a non-issue.

Did you know that on Hillary Clinton's website she has a petition calling for Gonzalez' resignation? Boy - what a way to farm for email addresses! The question is, though, is this "scandal" just being used by her and her camp to drum up support, or is this being created by the democrats (there's nothing illegal about the AG firing prosecutors) in order to get more support on their side for the '08 elections?
post #16 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by valanhb View Post
OK, a serious post this time.

Thing is, they only fired 8. If they had fired all 92, regardless of timing in relation to elections (which is just a silly excuse, IMO), this would probably be a non-issue.

Did you know that on Hillary Clinton's website she has a petition calling for Gonzalez' resignation? Boy - what a way to farm for email addresses! The question is, though, is this "scandal" just being used by her and her camp to drum up support, or is this being created by the democrats (there's nothing illegal about the AG firing prosecutors) in order to get more support on their side for the '08 elections?
I didn't know about Hillary's petition, and it appears to be a bipartisan issue, rather than Democrats fishing for votes/support, from the articles I've read. Eight people out of 93 seems pretty moderate to me (and you know my opinion of the present Administration).
post #17 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by valanhb View Post
What are the democrats going to do when Bush isn't in office? They are so focused on pointing fingers at him and finding flaws in everything he and his administration do that they don't have much else of an agenda.

Kinda sad, really...
I remember something similar happening not to long ago... Oh wait it's coming to me...

Seems to be just the nature of politics these days.
post #18 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by valanhb View Post
OK, a serious post this time.

Thing is, they only fired 8. If they had fired all 92, regardless of timing in relation to elections (which is just a silly excuse, IMO), this would probably be a non-issue.

Did you know that on Hillary Clinton's website she has a petition calling for Gonzalez' resignation? Boy - what a way to farm for email addresses! The question is, though, is this "scandal" just being used by her and her camp to drum up support, or is this being created by the democrats (there's nothing illegal about the AG firing prosecutors) in order to get more support on their side for the '08 elections?

Or are the Dems trying to divert some attention from their rather embarrassing attempts to explain their latest troop withdrawal scheme? When the press was asking questions about specific time table dates, it was
obvious that even *they* were confused.

The AG firings were months ago - why the big flap about it now? hmmm...
post #19 of 24
Thread Starter 
The problem is, the separation of different branches of the government. These US Attorneys may be appointed by different administrations, but once they are appointed, their partisanship ends. They now serve the Justice Department. This is why we have different branches of government. Checks and balances. It is totally outside the legal authority of the White House OR members of the Senate or Congress, to put pressure on the Justice Department, to investigate other members of congress, or lose your job. Is everyone missing how big a scandal this is?

The eight were fired because they would not bow down to pressure from other legaslative branches, to investigate, or speed up investigations on indictments on democrats right before the election. You have to wonder, how many other US Attorneys did bend to the pressure to keep their jobs?

That's why this is so serious.
post #20 of 24
I am one who IS missing how big of a scandal this is.
To me, it is no different than what other administrations have done and I refuse to bash Bush for what other's in his position have done.

And another thing I think is disgusting was when Clinton pardoned all those criminals as his last presidential act. If Bush does that he will be just as bad.
post #21 of 24
A scandal??? Doggone it, are we scandaling again

Who's in charge here anyway




post #22 of 24
No "scandal". Nothing illegal here. Executive privilege allows the President discretion to fire AGs. Congress apparently wasn't "informed" as to all details so the Dems are in a snit about that and will proceed to make a mountain out of a molehill as usual.

The best thing about this is that maybe it will distract the Dems, at least for a little while, from doing what they do best - undermining the troops.
post #23 of 24
Thread Starter 
So, that email that Karl Rove wrote didn't mean a thing? Why do you think there are three branches of government? Checks and balances. That's so one branch of government doesn't run amok. If this is really no big deal, (and no scandal as you say), then I will be totaly mystified when the senate starts handing out subpoenas to appear before a committee to investigate the matter. It's only a matter of time.
post #24 of 24
I'm just starting to pay more attention to the story so am not ready to judge it yet. I was watching a news program tonight that had a panel of 3 very right wing republicans that were bashing the entire administration over the matter. The term "lieing" came up in every other sentence.

So why did Gonzales's second resign? I read a reference somewhere that he didn't want to be the fall guy like Libby was for Cheney. I smell a strong scandal in here somewhere. Put Rove in the picture and you know something is up.

Personally, I don't think this is being pushed by the dems. I think that there are a lot of republicans who know that Bush is killing their party and want this administration out of there so that they can rebuild their party. This is just one more scandal that is ripping their party apart.

It'll be interesting to watch this one play out.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Justice Department Scandals