Scooter Libby found guilty.

When they find a congressman who is a republican with $93,000 in cash stashed in his home freezer, give mne a call.

Randy "Duke" Cunningham. He's been described as the most corrupt congressman in the history of the united states. $93,000 in cash is a far far cry from the $2.4 million duke was convicted of receiving in bribes. (For you math shy people, that's less than 4%.

The list of congressman that have accepted bribes is far too long to list. The House Ethics Committee need to be resurrected and put to work.
 
Even the most liberal side of the press, The Washington Post, disagrees that there was anything illegal or underhanded in the firings of the eight U.S. attorneys.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/21/AR2007032101974.html

EDITORIAL

Political Spectacle
President Bush and Congress should step back from a confrontation that makes them both look bad.
Thursday, March 22, 2007; Page A20


THE WHITE HOUSE and congressional Democrats have drawn deep lines in the sand over who will testify, and how, as Congress investigates the dismissal of eight U.S. attorneys. The stubbornness and overheated rhetoric on both sides threaten an unnecessary constitutional crisis that would only bog down the inquiry in a distracting fight over process.

It's worth stepping back and putting the supposed scandal in perspective. President Bush is entitled to replace his U.S. attorneys; he'd be entitled to do so if he thought they weren't pursuing his prosecutorial priorities with sufficient vigor, or even if he just wanted to give other lawyers a shot at the jobs. The many e-mails that the administration has released for the most part suggest nothing nefarious in the dismissal process.

It would not be acceptable for Mr. Bush to fire the attorneys to short-circuit prosecutions of political corruption among Republicans. So far there's no evidence that he did, and in fact the most questionable conduct we know of originated in Congress, with New Mexico Republicans Sen. Pete Domenici and Rep. Heather Wilson. But in at least two of the eight cases, there are reasonable questions to be asked. And given the administration's incorrect and inadequate answers to the Senate thus far, Congress is right to pursue those questions.

But how? Defiant in tone and words, President Bush made what he ill-advisedly presented as a final offer of his view of that question Tuesday. Embattled Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales would set the record straight in new hearings on Capitol Hill. Senior presidential adviser Karl Rove, former White House counsel Harriet E. Miers and two other West Wing officials would be made available. But they would speak in private, not under oath, and no transcript would be made.

Democratic leaders deemed the conditions unacceptable. Yesterday, the House Judiciary Committee authorized the issuance of subpoenas to compel the White House aides to testify under oath and in public. The Senate Judiciary Committee is set to do the same today.

Lawmakers would do well to demonstrate more understanding of the legitimate institutional concerns at stake here -- is the president not entitled to confidential advice on personnel matters? -- and to remember that the tables could easily be turned, as they were not so many years ago, with a Republican Congress eager to rifle through the files of a Democratic administration. At the same time, history does not support unlimited presidential privilege. Among other incidents, President Bill Clinton's chief of staff, White House counsel and deputy counsel testified about his granting of a pardon to fugitive financier Marc Rich -- a pardon being a core and exclusive presidential power.

As we suggested last week, a two-step process could pull both sides back from the brink. First, Mr. Gonzales and other Justice Department officials should testify about their decisions to remove the ousted eight. If questions remain, Mr. Rove and Ms. Miers should be interviewed. They don't have to testify under oath, since lying to Congress is a crime. But their testimony must be as open as possible and should without question be transcribed. If Mr. Bush is serious about wanting the truth to come out, he will relent on this issue.
 
Even the most liberal side of the press, The Washington Post, disagrees that there was anything illegal or underhanded in the firings of the eight U.S. attorneys.

Too bad the WaPo doesn't speak for congress, huh?
 
We would have highlighted very different parts of this piece.
EDITORIAL

Political Spectacle
President Bush and Congress should step back from a confrontation that makes them both look bad.
Thursday, March 22, 2007; Page A20


THE WHITE HOUSE and congressional Democrats have drawn deep lines in the sand over who will testify, and how, as Congress investigates the dismissal of eight U.S. attorneys. The stubbornness and overheated rhetoric on both sides threaten an unnecessary constitutional crisis that would only bog down the inquiry in a distracting fight over process.

It's worth stepping back and putting the supposed scandal in perspective. President Bush is entitled to replace his U.S. attorneys; he'd be entitled to do so if he thought they weren't pursuing his prosecutorial priorities with sufficient vigor, or even if he just wanted to give other lawyers a shot at the jobs. The many e-mails that the administration has released for the most part suggest nothing nefarious in the dismissal process.

It would not be acceptable for Mr. Bush to fire the attorneys to short-circuit prosecutions of political corruption among Republicans. So far there's no evidence that he did, and in fact the most questionable conduct we know of originated in Congress, with New Mexico Republicans Sen. Pete Domenici and Rep. Heather Wilson. But in at least two of the eight cases, there are reasonable questions to be asked. And given the administration's incorrect and inadequate answers to the Senate thus far, Congress is right to pursue those questions.

But how? Defiant in tone and words, President Bush made what he ill-advisedly presented as a final offer of his view of that question Tuesday. Embattled Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales would set the record straight in new hearings on Capitol Hill. Senior presidential adviser Karl Rove, former White House counsel Harriet E. Miers and two other West Wing officials would be made available. But they would speak in private, not under oath, and no transcript would be made.

Democratic leaders deemed the conditions unacceptable. Yesterday, the House Judiciary Committee authorized the issuance of subpoenas to compel the White House aides to testify under oath and in public. The Senate Judiciary Committee is set to do the same today.

Lawmakers would do well to demonstrate more understanding of the legitimate institutional concerns at stake here -- is the president not entitled to confidential advice on personnel matters? -- and to remember that the tables could easily be turned, as they were not so many years ago, with a Republican Congress eager to rifle through the files of a Democratic administration. At the same time, history does not support unlimited presidential privilege. Among other incidents, President Bill Clinton's chief of staff, White House counsel and deputy counsel testified about his granting of a pardon to fugitive financier Marc Rich -- a pardon being a core and exclusive presidential power.

As we suggested last week, a two-step process could pull both sides back from the brink. First, Mr. Gonzales and other Justice Department officials should testify about their decisions to remove the ousted eight. If questions remain, Mr. Rove and Ms. Miers should be interviewed. They don't have to testify under oath, since lying to Congress is a crime. But their testimony must be as open as possible and should without question be transcribed. If Mr. Bush is serious about wanting the truth to come out, he will relent on this issue.
 
why would she have to defend it if it is perfectly normal and there is absolutely no reason for congress to provide oversight?
 
Whoops, wrong answer, we have a premature bingo.

I know it is confusing, what with zero oversight and all in any recent memory (hey, even the lewinsky scandal was from Starr, not congress), but it is clearly their job.

Think of it this way, the more oversight they are doing, the less lawmaking they are doing..
 
Okay, I'm a bit confused; but I am a male of the species so I have an excuse.

I thought you said it very well in your post #226. She should not have to defend what is the normal, customary, and constitutional purvue of the president.

This is a separation of powers issue that the democrats are trying to use as a wedge issue to damage this presidency in preparation for '08. Nothing more.

They are making a big deal out of it to garner still more hatred for GWB. I can just imagine the dems the night of the election, standing in a circle, their hands piled in the middle and Pelosi screaming "Let's get him! BREAK!"
 
In my post #214 I posted:
I will send off an e-mail to the Clinton Library and ask but I don't expect a reply.

Well, I did get a reply and here it is:

Dear Sirs,

I hear the name "William Jefferson Blythe Clinton" on occasion and had these
questions.

I understand the President was born "Blythe"; but according to biographies
he took the name "Clinton" in early teenage. Was that change ever legalized
through a court of law; or was the usage simply a change in name by
preference?

Is his name actually "William Jefferson Blythe Clinton"?

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,

Jim Peel
Longmont, CO

Dear Mr Peel,

Thank you for contacting the Clinton Presidential Library. Mr Clinton legally changed his name from William Jefferson Blythe III to William Jefferson Clinton after his mother's remarriage to his stepfather when he was about 15 or 16 years old. He had already been using this name for years.

If you have any other questions please let us know.

Sincerely,


Kim Coryat
Archives Technician
Clinton Presidential Library
1200 President Clinton Avenue
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
(501) 244-2877

Now we all know for certain. :D
 
She should not have to defend what is the normal, customary, and constitutional purvue of the president.

She should have to defend her actions. It was slightly abnormal in that they didn't wait for the 4 year appointment term to end individually. The current situation is definitely not normal or customary. When congress looked at the situation, there were discrepancies. I think we'll find out a lot more when kyle testifies in front of congress this week (thurs?).

Because you like editorials so much, here is an interesting one from last week talking about the legal aspects.

We can move this conversation over to this thread as we may have exhausted this one.


re: William Jefferson Clinton -- Now we all know for certain. :D

Cool that you got a reply.
 
From your editorial:

It is true, as the White House keeps saying, that United States attorneys serve “at the pleasure of the president,” which means he can dismiss them whenever he wants. But if the attorneys were fired to interfere with a valid prosecution, or to punish them for not misusing their offices, that may well have been illegal.

You do realize that at the time that Clinton fired all of the U.S. attorneys there was speculation that it was done to cover the fact that he wanted to get rid of one in particular. That particular one was Jay Stephens who was investigating Dan Rostenkowsky who was the president's go-to guy and #1 supporter. Stevens was within 30 days of a decision on the Rostenkowsky case when he was sacked and the investigation scrapped.

I won't mention Whitewater as the editorial does a good job of that for me.

That discussion continues to this day:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009784

The Hubbell Standard
Hillary Clinton knows all about sacking U.S. Attorneys.

Wednesday, March 14, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT

...

At the time, President Clinton presented the move as something perfectly ordinary: "All those people are routinely replaced," he told reporters, "and I have not done anything differently." In fact, the dismissals were unprecedented: Previous Presidents, including Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter, had both retained holdovers from the previous Administration and only replaced them gradually as their tenures expired. This allowed continuity of leadership within the U.S. Attorney offices during the transition.

Equally extraordinary were the politics at play in the firings. At the time, Jay Stephens, then U.S. Attorney in the District of Columbia, was investigating then Ways and Means Chairman Dan Rostenkowski, and was "within 30 days" of making a decision on an indictment. Mr. Rostenkowski, who was shepherding the Clinton's economic program through Congress, eventually went to jail on mail fraud charges and was later pardoned by Mr. Clinton.

Also at the time, allegations concerning some of the Clintons' Whitewater dealings were coming to a head. By dismissing all 93 U.S. Attorneys at once, the Clintons conveniently cleared the decks to appoint "Friend of Bill" Paula Casey as the U.S. Attorney for Little Rock. Ms. Casey never did bring any big Whitewater indictments, and she rejected information from another FOB, David Hale, on the business practices of the Arkansas elite including Mr. Clinton. When it comes to "politicizing" Justice, in short, the Bush White House is full of amateurs compared to the Clintons.

Im simply don't think that the current "scandal" rises to that level let alone what is being said; and neither does the Wall Street Journal.

And it may be this very amateurism that explains how the current Administration has managed to turn this routine issue of replacing Presidential appointees into a political fiasco. (I agree with this last statement wholeheartedly. The Republicans, it seems, will never have the political skills the Democrats demonstrate.) There was nothing wrong with replacing the eight Attorneys, all of whom serve at the President's pleasure. Prosecutors deserve supervision like any other executive branch appointees.

The supposed scandal this week is that Mr. Bush had been informed last fall that some U.S. Attorneys had been less than vigorous in pursuing voter-fraud cases and that the President had made the point to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Voter fraud strikes at the heart of democratic institutions, and it was entirely appropriate for Mr. Bush--or any President--to insist that his appointees act energetically against it.
 
I'm sure the cry of "The Wall Street Journal editorial page is a conservative page so thay are never going to say anything bad about Bush." will come from this.

But then there's THIS PAGE which will tell you the exact opposite. Did I mention that it is a liberal page?

Everyone has their own set of "truths" and we will all have to wait and see how this one shakes out.
 
Obstruction of justice is absolutely the reason for congressional oversight. Clinton doesn't get a pass on that, which is why I support the fact that Reno needed to defend that action.
 
JP quoted a WSJ editorial that said:
The supposed scandal this week is that Mr. Bush had been informed last fall that some U.S. Attorneys had been less than vigorous in pursuing voter-fraud cases and that the President had made the point to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Voter fraud strikes at the heart of democratic institutions, and it was entirely appropriate for Mr. Bush--or any President--to insist that his appointees act energetically against it.

Except, is not the story.The president says he had nothing to do with this. The AG said he had nothing to do with this. Kyle Sampson resigned over this (ummmm why? Can't wait for Thursday when we find out, methinks). The AG's personal counsel has plead the 5th and won't testify over this. I may be changing my position and think that there actually might BE something to this story.

Hey, if this were about voter fraud, there would have been SOMETHING done between 2004 and 2006 regarding Diebold machines (which have been shown time and time again to be easily hackable and the final tally can be manipulated). I just don't see that happening. Plus, I'm sure there would be an email saying "hey, we think you should look into voter fraud in your region".

Maybe its time to just sit back and watch and see how things shake out... Each new release of documents that doesn't jibe with previous statements seems to make things worse.
 
In post 220, I noted the following.

As to other presidents firing U.S. Attorneys, some most certainly have.
Problem seems to be that re the present administration, they lied about it.

I wonder as to why this administration seems bound and determined to step on itself, repeatedly. Are they really self destructive or that stupid?
 
I wonder as to why this administration seems bound and determined to step on itself, repeatedly. Are they really self destructive or that stupid?

Well, in previous situations, with a republican congress, the administration just needed to say "trust us" and the republicans would block any investigations. Maybe they just forgot to shift gears after the last election?
 
SecDef:

Think that they forgot that in the northern hemisphere, it's usually cold in December too, and that the sun rises in the east, while it sets in the west.

This administration seems to have forgotten more than it remembers, which might explain it's present problems, as well as at least some of the problems that face the country.
 
Back
Top