Baldimo wrote:
That is where you are wrong. They serve at the pleasure of the President. When the President hires these people he gives them their priorities and tells them what he wants them to focus on. If they don't focus on what has been instructed then they can be fired.
So you think, Title 28, Section 547 of the United States Code isn't worth the paper it's written on?
Walter Hinteler wrote:Baldimo wrote:
That is where you are wrong. They serve at the pleasure of the President. When the President hires these people he gives them their priorities and tells them what he wants them to focus on. If they don't focus on what has been instructed then they can be fired.
So you think, Title 28, Section 547 of the United States Code isn't worth the paper it's written on?
Quote:Except as otherwise provided by law, each United States attorney,
within his district, shall -
(1) prosecute for all offenses against the United States;
(2) prosecute or defend, for the Government, all civil actions,
suits or proceedings in which the United States is concerned;
(3) appear in behalf of the defendants in all civil actions,
suits or proceedings pending in his district against collectors,
or other officers of the revenue or customs for any act done by
them or for the recovery of any money exacted by or paid to these
officers, and by them paid into the Treasury;
(4) institute and prosecute proceedings for the collection of
fines, penalties, and forfeitures incurred for violation of any
revenue law, unless satisfied on investigation that justice does
not require the proceedings; and
(5) make such reports as the Attorney General may direct.
I am sure that your Waltism (tm) had a point, but I fail to see it.
Well, neither your copied text nor the originally printed say ...
"the President gives them their priorities and tells them what he wants them to focus on"
... or did I miss again due my known English language diabilities something?
And as far as I've looked through it, the United States Attorneys' Manual doesn't mention such as well.
If its not against the law for the president to fire attorneys because investigations weren't going the way he wanted, then it should be. Fortunately we don't have a republican controlled congress and we no longer just have to take this kind of stuff from these guys.
Nice piece on NPR yesterday about the past ethical tensions on the Attorney General's office.
Nixon, for example, ordered his Attorney General to fire the prosecutor investigating Watergate. When the Attorney General refused and resigned, he then made the same order to the deputy Attorney General, who also refused and resigned....
Sure about those prosecutors just getting their marching orders from the White House? Howzabout when a Democrat gets elected? You want 'em focusing only on Republican scandals?
Per Revels post on the previous page... There's a gap in the e-mails provided that covers a critical time when this issue was being discussed (mid Nov. - Dec 2006)
Yep. That's why I posted earlier that they have been using "Unofficial" e-mail addresses. Perhaps if they checked the RNC e-mail addresses they would find what they are looking for, unless they have already been purged.
And, per Walters post above...
I just love when them dern ferners know more about our government and law than most of our citizens. :wink:
Well, I suppose, the president really can give various orders - but those quoted aren't neither in Code nor in the manual.
House Committee authorizes subpoenas of White House officials Michael Roston
Published: Wednesday March 21, 2007
Print This Email This
The House Committee investigating the firing of US Attorneys by the Justice Department authorized the issuing of subpoenas of top aides to President George W. Bush today in a voice vote. They stopped short of issuing the subpoenas themselves.
"The motion passed to authorize the chairman to issue subpoenas," said a spokesperson for House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers in an e-mail to RAW STORY.
A statement on the authorization will soon be forthcoming.
The authorization provided for subpoenas to "secure testimony at a hearing, and to obtain documents from these individuals, as well as unredacted documents from the Department of Justice and the White House, pursuant to the Committee's investigation concerning the recent termination of United States Attorneys and related subjects" according to a notice at the House Judiciary Committee website.
Subpoenas for the following individuals would be covered by the authorization: D. Kyle Sampson, Karl Rove, Harriet Miers, William Kelley, and Scott Jennings.
Earlier in the day, a staff member of Rep. Linda Sanchez, who chairs the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law that voted on the authorization, clarified that the committee was stopping short of issuing the subpoenas for the moment.
""We will not necessarily issue the subpoenas immediately," said the aide in an e-mail to RAW STORY. "We are trying what we can to avoid doing that, but this vote will allow for the possibility that the White House will definitively choose to stonewall and slow-walk the investigation."
DEVELOPING ...
Walter Hinteler wrote:Well, I suppose, the president really can give various orders - but those quoted aren't neither in Code nor in the manual.
Well no their not. When Clinton was in office, he wanted the AG's to focus on enforcing the Gun laws. Clinton was a big anti gun guy so that is what he wanted. Its not the only thing they work on but they do receive instructions from the President on what he wants done in the country. If its gun laws then they will focus a majority of their time on said crimes.
Baldimo wrote:Walter Hinteler wrote:Well, I suppose, the president really can give various orders - but those quoted aren't neither in Code nor in the manual.
Well no their not. When Clinton was in office, he wanted the AG's to focus on enforcing the Gun laws. Clinton was a big anti gun guy so that is what he wanted. Its not the only thing they work on but they do receive instructions from the President on what he wants done in the country. If its gun laws then they will focus a majority of their time on said crimes.
Do you have anything at all to back that up? Even if it is true, (which I doubt) two wrongs don't make a right as you all should know by now as much as you try to use that tired old excuse.
revel wrote:Baldimo wrote:Walter Hinteler wrote:Well, I suppose, the president really can give various orders - but those quoted aren't neither in Code nor in the manual.
Well no their not. When Clinton was in office, he wanted the AG's to focus on enforcing the Gun laws. Clinton was a big anti gun guy so that is what he wanted. Its not the only thing they work on but they do receive instructions from the President on what he wants done in the country. If its gun laws then they will focus a majority of their time on said crimes.
Do you have anything at all to back that up? Even if it is true, (which I doubt) two wrongs don't make a right as you all should know by now as much as you try to use that tired old excuse.
Every President has something they want the AG to work on. They have different priorties for the country. Some might see drugs as the worst problem and have the AG's work to increase drug convictions. It is what the President thinks is important to the country.
Baldimo wrote:revel wrote:Baldimo wrote:Walter Hinteler wrote:Well, I suppose, the president really can give various orders - but those quoted aren't neither in Code nor in the manual.
Well no their not. When Clinton was in office, he wanted the AG's to focus on enforcing the Gun laws. Clinton was a big anti gun guy so that is what he wanted. Its not the only thing they work on but they do receive instructions from the President on what he wants done in the country. If its gun laws then they will focus a majority of their time on said crimes.
Do you have anything at all to back that up? Even if it is true, (which I doubt) two wrongs don't make a right as you all should know by now as much as you try to use that tired old excuse.
Every President has something they want the AG to work on. They have different priorties for the country. Some might see drugs as the worst problem and have the AG's work to increase drug convictions. It is what the President thinks is important to the country.
So? This does not compel the US attn. to do anything at all.
What more, there doesn't exist any evidence that the attorneys who were fired weren't supporting the president's initiatives. So this is kind of a bunk position.
Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn wrote:Baldimo wrote:revel wrote:Baldimo wrote:Walter Hinteler wrote:Well, I suppose, the president really can give various orders - but those quoted aren't neither in Code nor in the manual.
Well no their not. When Clinton was in office, he wanted the AG's to focus on enforcing the Gun laws. Clinton was a big anti gun guy so that is what he wanted. Its not the only thing they work on but they do receive instructions from the President on what he wants done in the country. If its gun laws then they will focus a majority of their time on said crimes.
Do you have anything at all to back that up? Even if it is true, (which I doubt) two wrongs don't make a right as you all should know by now as much as you try to use that tired old excuse.
Every President has something they want the AG to work on. They have different priorties for the country. Some might see drugs as the worst problem and have the AG's work to increase drug convictions. It is what the President thinks is important to the country.
So? This does not compel the US attn. to do anything at all.
What more, there doesn't exist any evidence that the attorneys who were fired weren't supporting the president's initiatives. So this is kind of a bunk position.
Cycloptichorn
Sure it does. If they were told to focus on say Gun laws and the enforcement of such and they don't do it they will be fired. While I don't know what the President wanted the AG's to focus on, he still has every right to fire who he chooses. You can claim politics all you want but the fact remains that the whole process is political. If it wasn't political then how come a president can fire every single AG and hire new ones? That doesn't smack of politics to you? As noted before Clinton got rid of every single AG when he came into office as I'm sure most presidents have done. That right there is proof that the whole process is political.
Baldimo - You must have missed this earlier post...
squinney wrote:Baldimo - You must have missed this earlier post...
How many of the AG's currently in the system were left overs from the Clinton years?
Baldimo wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:Baldimo wrote:revel wrote:Baldimo wrote:Walter Hinteler wrote:Well, I suppose, the president really can give various orders - but those quoted aren't neither in Code nor in the manual.
Well no their not. When Clinton was in office, he wanted the AG's to focus on enforcing the Gun laws. Clinton was a big anti gun guy so that is what he wanted. Its not the only thing they work on but they do receive instructions from the President on what he wants done in the country. If its gun laws then they will focus a majority of their time on said crimes.
Do you have anything at all to back that up? Even if it is true, (which I doubt) two wrongs don't make a right as you all should know by now as much as you try to use that tired old excuse.
Every President has something they want the AG to work on. They have different priorties for the country. Some might see drugs as the worst problem and have the AG's work to increase drug convictions. It is what the President thinks is important to the country.
So? This does not compel the US attn. to do anything at all.
What more, there doesn't exist any evidence that the attorneys who were fired weren't supporting the president's initiatives. So this is kind of a bunk position.
Cycloptichorn
Sure it does. If they were told to focus on say Gun laws and the enforcement of such and they don't do it they will be fired. While I don't know what the President wanted the AG's to focus on, he still has every right to fire who he chooses. You can claim politics all you want but the fact remains that the whole process is political. If it wasn't political then how come a president can fire every single AG and hire new ones? That doesn't smack of politics to you? As noted before Clinton got rid of every single AG when he came into office as I'm sure most presidents have done. That right there is proof that the whole process is political.
Don't tell me that, tell Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who on Jan. 18th testified under oath:
Quote:I would never, ever fire a US attny. for political reasons.
He was straight-up lying when he said that and deserves to be prosecuted for it and lose his job.
Let's say that there were 'performance issues.' Don't you think there would be a paper trail involved? Out of the 3000 pages which were dumped,
zero of them show a paper trail where the administration tried to get people to change their priorities. None. I find this excuse to be lame in the extreme.
Cycloptichorn
How much of this crap is being mounted up to another possible USSC nomination for President Bush? I think some of this comes down to the Dems hoping to force some sort of control over the selection process. They fear Alberto Gonzales being nominated as another possible USSC judge and don't want him to be a judge. There is more to this then just being upset about the people being fired. I really think most of you could careless and are picking this up as a purley political issue.
Quote:They fear Alberto Gonzales being nominated as another possible USSC judge
Noone fears that. Ridiculous to even state such a thing.
He wouldn't be confirmed in a million years. No Republican is seriously proposing Gonzales for the Supreme court.
Cycloptichorn
That's interesting.
Thanks for pulling it forward.
squinney wrote:Baldimo - You must have missed this earlier post...
