Important, but not unexpected decision from the D.C. courts...

[Willie99]

Paul Charlton, who was asked to step down as U.S. attorney in Arizona, had differed with the administration’s position on when to seek the death penalty. But Charlton was also reportedly in the midst of investigating a land deal by Rep. Rick Renzi (R.-Ariz.) when he was asked to step down, and Democrats have even suggested that his downfall was related to questions surrounding Rep. Jim Kolbe’s (R.-Ariz.) role in the page scandal of former Rep. Mark Foley (R.-Fla.).
U.S. attorneys in Washington (John McKay) and New Mexico (David Iglesias) were allegedly shown the door when they failed to pursue voter fraud and corruption cases against Democrats. This is more of a gray area, particularly since the cases in question were strong -- a grand jury last week indicted two prominent Democratic politicians in the New Mexico case for stealing funds intended for construction of a courthouse. Even so, there remain questions as to whether Iglesias was fired for failing to release the information about Democratic corruption before the 2006 election, since it could have affected the outcome of a closely contested congressional race there.

 

[Willie99]

Even Jimmy Carter while in the White House fired an attorney that was making things too warm for one of the members of his party, making the action purely political in nature. And he lied about it to the people. Human Events has a story detailing Carter's political firing of a U.S. Attorney in 1978: "Marston: Carter 'Lied Then, Lies Now' on U.S. Attorneys Firing".

Former President Jimmy Carter “lied then” about firing a U.S. attorney in 1978 investigating Democratic officials in Philadelphia and “lies now” in condemning the Bush Administration’s firing of eight U.S. attorneys and calling for Atty. Gen. Alberto Gonzales to go.
​

John Gizzi of Human Events reveals how unconcerned over this political firing a Democrat controlled Congress was in 1978.

What does Dave Marston think? “He’s trying to rewrite history,” was the response of the 64-year-old former prosecutor to the President who fired him. “Under the standard he has imposed on Gonzales, the President should have fired Atty. Gen. Griffin Bell in 1978.” Although it is so far unclear how much Gonzales knew about what the U.S. prosecutors were working on when they were forced out and what reasons were behind their exits, Marston pointed out that then-Rep. Joshua Eilberg (D.-Pa.) had actually called Carter on November 4, 1977 to demand Marston’s ouster and that the Prsident, in turn, called Bell and told him to “hurry up” in finding a new U.S. attorney in Philadelphia. Eilberg himself was the subject of a corruption probe by Marston’s office and, as Marston recalled to me, “the Justice Department was aware of this because I told Russell Baker [Bell’s top aide] that Eilberg was under investigation. And Russell Baker, who was a stand-up guy, confirmed this.”
A significant difference between his situation and those of the fired U.S. attorneys that Marston pointed out to me was that “Democrat controlled Congress in 1978 and did not investigate a Democratic President. Today, they control Congress and they will investigate the Republican Administration.”
​

And how president Carter lied about it... causing no furor.

In reviewing the transcript of Carter’s “Today” interview, Marston pointed out that the opening segment featured a clip of Carter from a news conference on January 12, 1978 in which he is asked about the Marston sacking and says: “I’ve not interfered at all.”
“That was on January 12th,” the former prosecutor pointed out, “and yet the evidence shows that he had called his attorney general about replacing me two months earlier.
​

 

[Willie99]

damn, five minutes of research and all the bullshit becomes crystal clear.

There looks like there were very good reasons for firing the US Attorneys

and It has happened in the recent past

what a fucking surprise, eh?

:lol:

 

[Mistermj]

Please show exactly where I used my opinion and tried to pass it off as fact. In addition, please show exactly where others inserted unchallengable facts. Otherwise, you are doing what you ACCUSE me of.

Here's an opinion for you (and it's mine). I think it's truly amazing how retarded some others in this thread are. Here's another opinion, I think it would be very difficult for you to be more full of shit.

As you like to say shorty...I just know its true...I won't bother posting it. :missingte

As for retardation...explain to us one more time why you think ACORN isn't responsibile for vote fraud by its hired members...and why you are against voter ID. :howdy:

I happen to love your 19 paragraph explanations that don't say a damn thing. :toast:

 

[cutacrossshorty]

damn, five minutes of research and all the bullshit becomes crystal clear.

There looks like there were very good reasons for firing the US Attorneys

and It has happened in the recent past

what a fucking surprise, eh?

For someone that claims they have a higher standard of evidence, I find it curious that you can grab a handful of writings without indicating where they came from (writings that contain words like "allegedly") and then conclude that everything in them is fact and everything else is bullshit.

You come across to me as just a partisan hack with no real interest in the truth.

 

[Willie99]

Congressional Democrats are in full cry over the news this week that the Administration's decision to fire eight U.S. Attorneys originated from--gasp--the White House. Senator Hillary Clinton joined the fun yesterday, blaming President Bush for "the politicization of our prosecutorial system." Oh, my.
As it happens, Mrs. Clinton is just the Senator to walk point on this issue of dismissing U.S. attorneys because she has direct personal experience. In any Congressional probe of the matter, we'd suggest she call herself as the first witness--and bring along Webster Hubbell as her chief counsel.
As everyone once knew but has tried to forget, Mr. Hubbell was a former partner of Mrs. Clinton at the Rose Law Firm in Little Rock who later went to jail for mail fraud and tax evasion. He was also Bill and Hillary Clinton's choice as Associate Attorney General in the Justice Department when Janet Reno, his nominal superior, simultaneously fired all 93 U.S. Attorneys in March 1993. Ms. Reno--or Mr. Hubbell--gave them 10 days to move out of their offices.
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.



-----------------------------------------------------------------------



maybe the GOP should have investigated this bullshit, eh?

 

[Willie99]

For someone that claims they have a higher standard of evidence, I find it curious that you can grab a handful of writings without indicating where they came from (writings that contain words like "allegedly") and then conclude that everything in them is fact and everything else is bullshit.

You come across to me as just a partisan hack with no real interest in the truth.

To leap to the conclusions you do, to choose to ignore anything that mitigates your argument, requires just a tad bit of bias my friend. Welcome to the club.

 

[cutacrossshorty]

As for retardation...explain to us one more time why you think ACORN isn't responsibile for vote fraud by its hired members

You are the one always making the unsubstantiated claim (or lie) that ACORN is stealing elections and committing vote fraud. You do this without any evidence. The only evidence you've ever been able to present is that invalid registrations have been filed on behalf of ACORN. You always fail to mention that these invalid registrations could not be used for voting. In addition, you always fail to mention that the invalid registrations were filled out by temp workers who were being paid based on the number of registrations they collected/submitted. There has never been any evidence that anyone associated with ACORN has used a false registration to cast a vote.

But you insist that ACORN is stealing elections and commiting voter fraud. You need this lie to con others into thinking we need voter ID laws. Why would you need to lie? I know why?

Then you accuse me of making accusations without any facts.

If anyone on this forum ever takes your word for anything, they are a fool.

 

[cutacrossshorty]

Willie,

With the exception of the lead post that included the article, I've used my own writing in every post in this thread. In the last half hour or so, you've put up a bombardment of writings of others, yet you don't acknowledge them or indicate their source. It's my guess, but it seems that you want anyone reading to believe that everything they write is the truth and is factual.

How do reconcile this with your statement that you have higher standards for evidence?

 

[Mistermj]

You are the one always making the unsubstantiated claim (or lie) that ACORN is stealing elections and committing vote fraud. You do this without any evidence. The only evidence you've ever been able to present is that invalid registrations have been filed on behalf of ACORN. You always fail to mention that these invalid registrations could not be used for voting. In addition, you always fail to mention that the invalid registrations were filled out by temp workers who were being paid based on the number of registrations they collected/submitted. There has never been any evidence that anyone associated with ACORN has used a false registration to cast a vote.

But you insist that ACORN is stealing elections and commiting voter fraud. You need this lie to con others into thinking we need voter ID laws. Why would you need to lie? I know why?

Then you accuse me of making accusations without any facts.

If anyone on this forum ever takes your word for anything, they are a fool.

Yup...ACORN is just an innocent little outfit selling Girl Scout cookies.

Quit being so damn gullible shorty...its plain embarassing.

===================

Fraud seems to be the byword at ACORN. The New York Times recently reported on how the brother of ACORN's founder embezzled nearly a million dollars from the organization. While any organization can mistakenly hire a bad seed who looks at the organization as a source of illegal funds, what is disturbing about ACORN is the way they handled it. They knew about the corruption, but covered it up.

Acorn chose to treat the embezzlement of nearly $1 million eight years ago as an internal matter and did not even notify its board. After Points of Light noticed financial irregularities in early June, it took less than a month for management to alert federal prosecutors, although group officials say they have no clear idea yet what the financial impact may be. A whistle-blower forced Acorn to disclose the embezzlement, which involved the brother of the organization's founder, Wade Rathke.
The brother, Dale Rathke, embezzled nearly $1 million from Acorn and affiliated charitable organizations in 1999 and 2000, Acorn officials said, but a small group of executives decided to keep the information from almost all of the group's board members and not to alert law enforcement.
Dale Rathke remained on Acorn's payroll until a month ago, when disclosure of his theft by foundations and other donors forced the organization to dismiss him.
​

 

[Willie99]

Willie,

With the exception of the lead post that included the article, I've used my own writing in every post in this thread. In the last half hour or so, you've put up a bombardment of writings of others, yet you don't acknowledge them or indicate their source. It's my guess, but it seems that you want anyone reading to believe that everything they write is the truth and is factual.

How do reconcile this with your statement that you have higher standards for evidence?

Actually Shorty, the only thing I'm trying to prove is that there are two sides to every story.

Other than that, I'm gonna let time do its thing.

 

[cutacrossshorty]

Yup...ACORN is just an innocent little outfit selling Girl Scout cookies.

Quit being so damn gullible shorty...its plain embarassing.

Again, you continue to try to convince others that ACORN is stealing elections without presenting a shred of evidence. Now you cite a case of embezzlement and expect that to fortify your opinion. One would have to be extremely gullible to believe anything you say about election fraud.

In the recent past, I've cited a pair of instances where a significant number of votes have been supressed (in 2000 with the Florida felon purge list and in 2004 with voter caging). In both instances, hard evidence of these exist. With regards to the 2000 Florida felon purge, it's been admitted by everyone involved. In the 2004 voter caging, the RNC has admitted that the emails and the lists contained within them are theirs (However, they claim that they've done nothing illegal).

When I cited these 2 instances of voter suppression, you chose not to believe they ever happened. Instead, you accused me of making accusations without facts. There's a serious disconnect here. To say you are a hypocritie would be an understatement. It's more accurate to say that you are a complete laughable joke.

 

[cutacrossshorty]

Actually Shorty, the only thing I'm trying to prove is that there are two sides to every story.

Other than that, I'm gonna let time do its thing.

It's generally an unwritten rule here that when you post the writings of others, you acknowledge your source. Not to do so could give the impression that you don't want it known who wrote it, perhaps because credibility could be an issue. If you posted something that was written by MR_MJ and didn't say so, how would anyone know it was completely full of shit?

 

[Willie99]

Shorty, all the names of all the key players were provided, including specific cases they were involved in. Not to hard to debunk if you could and / or if wanted to.

 

[Willie99]

Quote:
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td class="alt2" style="border: 1px inset ;"> Originally Posted by Willie99
So you acknowledge that President's fire US Attorneys at their pleasure, and it's a common practice (at least for the last two Presidents).
</td> </tr> </tbody></table>
Shorty retorts: "I do not acknowledge your characterization whatsoever. I acknowledge that it's a common practice to replace appointed positions (that require confirmation) with new appointees when a new administration takes office."

Willie responds: WTF? So a new President appoints his own Attorneys and it's not "politically motivated"?

 

[cutacrossshorty]

Shorty, all the names of all the key players were provided, including specific cases they were involved in. Not to hard to debunk if you could and / or if wanted to.

I could challenge a number of things mentioned in those segments you posted(particularly the reasons given for firing some of the U.S. Attorney's). It would require some level of effort on my part. It also seems apparent to me that you tend to twist my words around to suit our agenda. You also have this "us" versus "them" mentality, which I find distasteful. That being said, I have to decide whether or not it's worth the effort. I suspect that if I put up contrary information that's fact based, it'll be met with resistence and it becomes a vicious circle. It's possible that I'd be willing to continue with this, but I won't do so without you revealing your sources for the information you posted. If I did the same thing, you'd be accusing me of making accusations without presenting facts. You even do that when I do present facts.

This whole thread was supposed to be about a court decision regarding "contempt of congress" charges. Somehow you managed to get things off topic. I think some of it may be due to a misunderstanding (it might help would if you would read some of what I wrote in post #16, perhaps you missed it).

 

[cutacrossshorty]

Quote:
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td class="alt2" style="border: 1px inset ;"> Originally Posted by Willie99
So you acknowledge that President's fire US Attorneys at their pleasure, and it's a common practice (at least for the last two Presidents).
</td> </tr> </tbody></table>
Shorty retorts: "I do not acknowledge your characterization whatsoever. I acknowledge that it's a common practice to replace appointed positions (that require confirmation) with new appointees when a new administration takes office."

Willie responds: WTF? So a new President appoints his own Attorneys and it's not "politically motivated"?

What I responded to here and what you subsequently assert, are 2 different points. There's a disconnect and you are treating it like there's a connection.

I never said there's no level of political motivation in appointing ones own U.S. Attorney's, I just didn't agree with your characterization. One thing that needs to be said is that no matter who is in the position of U.S. Attorney, prosecutions should not be politically motivated. They are told this upon being sworn in. They take an oath to the constitution, not to the administration or to the President.

Particularly in the DOJ, politics is to be kept out of legal decisions or decisions to prosecute. The fired U.S. Attorney's have claimed that they were fired for reasons related to what was and what wasn't prosecuted, regarless of what was in the evidence. Those claims is what led to an investigation and subsequent hearings. Politicization of the DOJ is not a partisan matter. It concerns fairness in the legal system. Investigations and hearings have also revealed that there's been a cover-up related to the firings. As we saw with Watergate, the cover-up is often worse than the crime.

Hearings subseuently revealed much deeper problems in the DOJ and the Inspector General fo the DOJ just released his report this week. There were some disturbing findings, specifically with regards to hiring practices for non appointed positions.