Feinstein: U.S. Attorneys Are Not ‘Political’ Appointees
Feinstein: U.S. Attorneys Are Not ‘Political’ Appointees
E-mails show that the Bush administration rated the “performance” of U.S. attorneys on whether or not they were “loyal Bushies.” The White House is now justifying its prosecutor purge by arguing that since these attorneys are “political” appointees, they “serve at the pleasure of the President” and need to follow the administration’s political whims.
President Bush, 3/14/07:
U.S. attorneys and others serve at the pleasure of the President. Past administrations have removed U.S. attorneys. It is their right to do so.
White House Advisor Karl Rove, 3/8/07:
Look, by law and by Constitution, these attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president and traditionally are given a four year term.
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, 3/7/07:
Like me, U.S. attorneys are political appointees, and we all serve at the pleasure of the president. If U.S. attorneys are not executing their responsibilities in a manner that furthers the management and policy goals of departmental leadership, it is appropriate that they be replaced.
Similarly, yesterday on Fox News Sunday, host Chris Wallace claimed that it’s “the very nature of the game that these are going to be political appointees.”
But as Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) pointed out yesterday on CBS Face the Nation, political means only that they are appointed by the President. “[O]nce that prosecutor takes the oath of office, that prosecutor must become independent,” she said. “That prosecutor must be objective and what I worry about most of all in this is the chilling effect this has on objectivity of the American U.S. attorney who is the main prosecutor for the federal government of big cases under federal law.” Watch it:
Ousted prosecutor David Iglesias has also stated that one of the “most important tenets of a U.S. attorney’s office” is to never “mix politics with prosecutions.” “I think Americans need to have full confidence that their federal prosecutors are above politics,” said Iglesias.
Transcript:
FEINSTEIN: Now, what we’ve heard a lot of is, well, this is a political appointment. Of course it’s a political appointment in the sense that the appointment is made by the President of the United States. But once that prosecutor takes the oath of office, that prosecutor must become independent. That prosecutor must be objective and what I worry about most of all in this is the chilling effect this has on objectivity of the American U.S. attorney who is the main prosecutor for the federal government of big cases under federal law.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Nicely put, Senator. It’s a critical distinction. The attorneys are not there to be subject to the political agenda of one party or the other.
March 19th, 2007 at 12:59 pmI was watching Meet the Press — did anyone ask Feinstein if she had the same standard when Carter and Clinton dismissed U.S. Attorneys for political reasons?
March 19th, 2007 at 12:59 pmCan anyone post the text of the US Atty oath of office, or where to find it?
March 19th, 2007 at 1:02 pmThe President serves at the pleasure of the citizens of the United States. The citizens are not pleased, so will Bush resign before he’s fired?
March 19th, 2007 at 1:03 pmSomeone send this fool a copy of the Constitution, quick!
March 19th, 2007 at 1:04 pmjakers,
March 19th, 2007 at 1:04 pmDoesn’t it just make your heart proud to see the photo of Don Rumsfeld shaking hands with Sadaam as he handed over Weapons of Mass Destruction to be used against Iran?
“#2
I was watching Meet the Press — did anyone ask Feinstein if she had the same standard when Carter and Clinton dismissed U.S. Attorneys for political reasons?
Comment by Jake — March 19, 2007 @ 12:59 pm”
Enough already Jake!!!!!
You have already been shown AT LEAST A MILLION TIMES that what you are talking about is rediculous. people have already shown you and others that it is NOT the same in any way shape or form.
God damn, are you dense!!!!!
March 19th, 2007 at 1:06 pmOK Patsy, just give me your email address and a copy of the Constitution will be electronicall forwarded to you, fool.
March 19th, 2007 at 1:06 pmSenator Feinstein is abolutely right on and sticking to her guns well. As a New Mexican, I find that I have come to respect Iglesias for doing the same, standing up to Bush and the WH.
#2- You’re tiresome. Broken record-
March 19th, 2007 at 1:07 pmThe righties do not understand the concept of “We the People”. Bunch of narcasistic goose-steppers.
March 19th, 2007 at 1:07 pmJake: No, there really is a difference between your ass and a hole in the ground.
March 19th, 2007 at 1:08 pmBob:
The proper procedure for that is Impeachment — good luck with that.
RUCerious:
George Washington shook hands with Benedict Arnold before the traitor bit the hand that fed (shook) him — your point?
March 19th, 2007 at 1:09 pmComment by Jake — March 19, 2007 @ 12:59 pm
You have been corrected and debunked so many times, I am actually beginning to believe you are stupid and unable to learn.
March 19th, 2007 at 1:10 pmJake is lying.
Always.
March 19th, 2007 at 1:11 pmRemoveBush:
Is it a crime to ask Feinstein if she had the same standard when Carter and Clinton dismissed U.S. Attorneys? Or, are you saying Carter did NOT fire Marstan for political reasons?
March 19th, 2007 at 1:11 pmP.S. helenahandbasket — thanks for the opinion.
March 19th, 2007 at 1:11 pmJake: What you are now a master of mixed metaphors, besides being a bloviating rightie?
March 19th, 2007 at 1:11 pmEnough with the talking heads. The past is the past. Now we need to look toward the future. Let’s elect someone who does more than talk. Please, for the sake of our country, check out: http://www.BillRichardsonforPresident.com Governor of New Mexico. He actually knows what he’s doing.
March 19th, 2007 at 1:13 pmOne of the US Attorneys who was fired was in the middle of a case against a Republican related to the Duke Cunningham scandal.
This isn’t a just firing attorneys for political reasons, this is OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE and against the law.
One of the fired attorneys was replaced with a Chimpy Crony who doesn’t even have his license to practice law because he didn’t pay the dues!!
This is not just politics, this is an attempt to destroy our legal system.
March 19th, 2007 at 1:14 pm#17- Jake thinks that when God said “nose” he thought he said “rose” and said, “I want a big, red one”!
March 19th, 2007 at 1:15 pmJake: Don’t confuse the left with facts.
March 19th, 2007 at 1:15 pmJakers, my point is that we can all dredge up history to show that somebody else may have done something wrong too. What’s the point in doing that? 2 rongs dont make a wright.
March 19th, 2007 at 1:15 pmGeorge Washington shook hands with Benedict Arnold before the traitor bit the hand that fed (shook) him — your point?
Comment by Jake
I try to ignore trolls, but this is just so frickin’ stupid that I can’t resist.
Jake, Saddam Hussein was the very same oppressive dictator at the time Cheney shook his hand as he was the day the US invasion ran him out of power. At the time, the Republican administration found him useful, so he was A-OK in their books. Your blind allegiance to the Republicans, in spite of your claims to be “independent”, are part of what clearly marks you as a Troll.
March 19th, 2007 at 1:16 pmJake: You’re quite welcome.
March 19th, 2007 at 1:16 pmI should think that several packs of StrawMan matches would be required to day.
March 19th, 2007 at 1:18 pmHere is a primer -from the LA Times- for all the trolls and assorted brain-dead people who are still comparing this mid-term dismissal of attorneys with their removal at the beginning of a new president’s term:
Are U.S. attorneys regularly removed from office at the direction of the White House?
No. Officials of past Republican and Democratic administrations say they were unaware of an instance when a large group of U.S. attorneys was dismissed at once.
March 19th, 2007 at 1:20 pmA primer on U.S. attorneys
Jake is too freakin stupid to realize that appointing new attorneys at the beginning of the term is okay, but firing attorneys who were investigating crimes you don’t want investigated is NOT okay.
Jake is a typical inbred redneck Repuke. He memorizes and pukes up Repuke talking points without actually thinking critically about them.
Jake and the rest of the trolls in here are a waste of time to talk to. But I sure enjoy bashing them, its cathartic.
March 19th, 2007 at 1:20 pmJake is a liar and jake is a fool and jake is a propagandist
and jake is a tool jake is so scared he’s made a bad choice
and picked the wrong side of the argument to voice.
Everytime you see these dumb ass trolls post you always have to remember.
This is the best they have.
HAHAHAHAHAHHAHA.
March 19th, 2007 at 1:21 pmDon’t forget, the first US Attorney canned was investigating Jackoff Abramhoff.
Carol Lam had her sights on Jerry Lewis. (R-CA)
Dominichi, (R-NM), should be charged with obstruction of justice for trying to get that US Attorney fired for not being ’speedy enough’.
Another factoid for ‘Jake the Snake’…we currently have over 20 vacant US Attorney positions. BUSH has not even submitted to Congress candidates for those positions!
Investigate. Impeach. Incarcerate.
March 19th, 2007 at 1:22 pmWorst. President. Ever.
O.K., so you people are all saying that President Carter did NOT fire Marstan for political reasons? I just want to make sure, before I prove that was indeed the case, and then you move the goalposts again.
March 19th, 2007 at 1:24 pmOr, are you saying Carter did NOT fire Marstan for political reasons?
Comment by Jake — March 19, 2007 @ 1:11 pm
Can you provide a link for this reference? I honestly don’t remember this incident, and google doesn’t give me a link.
Thank you.
March 19th, 2007 at 1:25 pmI encourage everyone to ignore Jake if he continues to regurgitate the same old crap.
It does nothing but was time and it does nothing to those that come here that don’t know about the trolls. I have tried and still they are brain dead……. I say just don’t respond to them unless they present some data or facts that have not already been debunked…..
March 19th, 2007 at 1:26 pmComments by Patrick1
I hope Olbermann picks you as “Worst Person in the World” today.
(_!_)
March 19th, 2007 at 1:26 pmAttorneygate is going to become a criminal investigation.
Chimpy and Gonzo obstructed justice. By firing these attorneys they shut down ongoing investigations.
This is not the first time either. Chimpy fired the US Attorney for Guam several years ago, on the request of Jack Abramoff.
The attorney was investigating Marianasgate…the “heart of darkness” of the GOP. Sweatshops, sex slavery and forced abortions covered up for over a decade by Abramoff, Tom Delay and the Repukes.
As soon as Chimpy appointed a crony to Guam, the investigation was dropped.
Repukes support sex slavery and forced abortions.
March 19th, 2007 at 1:28 pmSure, Pete. As soon as those claiming “NO PRESIDENT HAS EVER DONE THIS! IMPEACH NOW!” answer my question.
March 19th, 2007 at 1:28 pmDid someone say “IMPEACH”? I agree! The list of impeachable offences is too extensive to list here. Using the Patriot Act for purely political reasons is just another reason. Impeachment of Bush/Cheney would at least put an end to this incompetent administration. Getting them out of office will make the US a safer place and consequently the world will be safer.
March 19th, 2007 at 1:28 pm“#30
O.K., so you people are all saying that President Carter did NOT fire Marstan for political reasons? I just want to make sure, before I prove that was indeed the case, and then you move the goalposts again.
Comment by Jake — March 19, 2007 @ 1:24 pm”
Hey NIMROD!!!!!
It was ONE attorney not EIGHT!!!!! It still does not make it right though. Isnt it time to change your diapers?????
Your soooo acting like a 3 year old…..
I’m done with your asinine remarks, unless you present something of substance and facts.
March 19th, 2007 at 1:29 pmI had to just once more……
March 19th, 2007 at 1:29 pm*
the pile of jake thinks that making jokes about RAPE is acceptable…
i think it has wasted WAY too much of anyone’s time here…
March 19th, 2007 at 1:30 pm.
So, RemoveBush, if you admit that past Presidents have done it at least before and NOT been impeached, do I just have to find 7 more examples for you to change your screen name?
March 19th, 2007 at 1:33 pmShort Jake:
Two wrongs make a right.
March 19th, 2007 at 1:34 pmNobody wants to play with you anmore jake.
Your all covered with doody-poop.
March 19th, 2007 at 1:34 pmSure, Pete. As soon as those claiming “NO PRESIDENT HAS EVER DONE THIS! IMPEACH NOW!†answer my question.
Comment by Jake — March 19, 2007 @ 1:28 pm
Bite my a55. I am asking you, not them.
You say, “Carter did it, too.” Prove it.
If you can’t reference an objective source supporting your point, I assume you’re lying.
March 19th, 2007 at 1:35 pmYa know…
March 19th, 2007 at 1:35 pmJuck Fake. Done trying to deal with it. Flushing now…
Jake the inbred moron:
Make your case or shut up! and while you’re at it, make sure that whatever you fabricate about President Carter, (a real Christian) is at least as egregious as what bush did regarding Hollister.
March 19th, 2007 at 1:36 pmhttp://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/PN/public/BtCheck.cfm?txtType=HTM&sessYr=1977&sessInd=0&billBody=H&billTyp=R&billNbr=0183&pn=2525
Here Jake,
I believe this is what you are looking for. Also note that the resolution CONDEMNS the actions of President Carter regarding the firing this single attorney. What then, should the punishment be for removing 8 attornies under similar conditions?
March 19th, 2007 at 1:37 pmWhere does it say anywhere that any president can fire any appointee for any reason? I don’t care if Carter did it. I don’t care if any President ever did. What is important is if it is legal or not. Wouldn’t you agree Jake. If it has happened in the past and it is ok then that’s that but if it isn’t OK then you are free to piss and moan about Carter all you want. Just piss and moan about Bush just as much.
Can anyone show me where it states that it is OK for the President to fire anyone he pleases at any time.
If you can then we’ll debate that. If not then your only as smart as p1 (peon)
March 19th, 2007 at 1:37 pmLeave jake alone, he suffers from fetal alcohol syndrome.
March 19th, 2007 at 1:37 pmGregor Samsa:
I have never stated “Two wrongs make a right.†My argument is that Clinton had the absolute right to fire any U.S. Attorneys at any time and for any reason, and Bush has that same right.
Pete:
Well, since you ask so kindly, I’ll just let you search for “Marstan” and “Time magazine” in the Gonzales threads below.
March 19th, 2007 at 1:38 pmSadly, how long will it be before anyone trusts that a criminal case brought against any politcian, regardless of the charges? \Tthat’s what the ‘loyalBushies’ have done to the justice system.
March 19th, 2007 at 1:38 pmJake blows goats.
Ignore the lying freeper.
March 19th, 2007 at 1:38 pm# 18 L Thomas I have seen Bill Richardson on TV and I think he might make a great President. Thanks for the info. We have friends in NM and I was going to call them to see what opinion of their Governor was. He will need alot of money to be elected President.
March 19th, 2007 at 1:41 pmBy the way, I’d bet the house that “Jake” is the exact same troll that used to be the “Arne Langsetmo” namestealer at Eschaton and elsewhere . . . not, of course, the real Arne, but his name-stealing doppelganger.
Liar! Shill! Goat-molester! Troll!
March 19th, 2007 at 1:42 pm“So, RemoveBush, if you admit that past Presidents have done it at least before and NOT been impeached, do I just have to find 7 more examples for you to change your screen name?
Comment by Jake — March 19, 2007 @ 1:33 pm”
Provide EVIDENCE that those attorneys were fired for political reasons. Show that there were 8 or more fired at one time and that they were fired because they were investigating the party in charge and that they were fired because of that.
One or two firings during a presidency is not something to CRY about…… 8 during the second term, and for STRICLY political reasons (that is to prevent a Republican from being investigated) is though.
Prove this, then maybe….. I doubt you will find ANY president, other than Bush, that has fired this many attorneys for the reasons I stated.
Have fun providing the proof. None of this week arse crap either of making ASSUMPTIONS, it has to be hard facts like we have in this case.
March 19th, 2007 at 1:42 pmerock:
ANSWER: Eight meaningless State resolutions.
March 19th, 2007 at 1:42 pmWhat’s a Jake? What’s a moron doing in bread?
March 19th, 2007 at 1:44 pmBut the administration is still fully correct. They are in fact political appointees that he has the ability to fire whenever he wants for whatever reason he wants. He can actually purge them for no reason at all which is similar to what Reagon, Bush Sr., and Clinton did. Again, this is merely a political show trial designed to gain political power as no crime was committed. They are afterall appointed by a president and can be fired whenever the president feels like it. I wonder how long the media will continue to report this show trial as the story is already getting boring. How many times do we need to hear about a president doing a perfectly legal purge of political appointees before the media becomes bored with it? I know I am bored as they haven’t reported one single new detail that would actually make this a news worthy story. If they could somehow prove that the law that allows the administration to purge political appointees is not actually a law, now that would be news. Simply showing the president doing a perfectly legal act is boring.
March 19th, 2007 at 1:44 pmPlease, oh please! Democrats as always attacking Republicans for what Democrats have also done in the past and excused it.
I am sorry, BOTH parties are being huge hypocrites. Republicans are receiving a bit of their medicine that they handed to Clinton and Democrats when Clinton fired federal prosecutors. And Democrats want Republican blood not matter what and they are creating a false argument that the uneducated and the left wing blind followers will swallow.
Any President at any time of his Presidency can fire a federal prosecutor. It has been done by past Presidents, it was done by our current President and it will be done by future Presidents.
This is a none story that the media and the left are hyping.
March 19th, 2007 at 1:45 pmone problem for the wingnuts:
as snow job said the other day, “don’t be dropping this at the president’s door”
if these attorneys “serve at the president’s pleasure,” then their firings absolutely HAVE to be dropped at the president’s door. otherwise they’re not serving at the president’s pleasure; they’re serving at some political hack in the justice department’s pleasure.
sorry wingnuts. try again.
btw, is “don’t be dropping this at the president’s door” in any way comparable to “the buck stops here”?
March 19th, 2007 at 1:45 pm“I have never stated “Two wrongs make a right.†My argument is that Clinton had the absolute right to fire any U.S. Attorneys at any time and for any reason, and Bush has that same right.
Comment by Jake — March 19, 2007 @ 1:38 pm”
Show me the law or in the Constitution that says he can fire these attorneys!!!!!
There is a law that says he can appoint them, but it does not say that he may terminate them before their 4 year term is up……
Show me the law that states he has the LEGAL authority to do this!
SHOW ME
March 19th, 2007 at 1:45 pmO.K., so you people are all saying that President Carter did NOT fire Marstan for political reasons? I just want to make sure, before I prove that was indeed the case, and then you move the goalposts again.
Comment by Jake
Shit, Jakester. Why stop with Carter? You ought to check out the administrations of William Harrison and James Polk to see if they fired anyone for political reasons.
March 19th, 2007 at 1:45 pmJust like it was a none story back in 1993 when Clinton fired the federal attorneys such because they weren’t Democrats.
March 19th, 2007 at 1:46 pmI had to just once more……
Comment by RemoveBush — March 19, 2007 @ 1:29 pm
Jake has that in common with your average 2 year old. Just when you realize that they are not able to GET it anyway and to just ignore them until they quiet down, he does something that makes you stand up and correct his behavior.
March 19th, 2007 at 1:46 pmWrong again Jake,
Carter removed Marston without any knowledge of his ongoing investigation. This single removal was a mistake and wrong. The difference between a single mistake and 8 “mistakes” is that the latter indicates a desire to systematically impugn the investigatory process.
March 19th, 2007 at 1:46 pm“NO PRESIDENT HAS EVER DONE THIS! IMPEACH NOW!â€
Comment by Jake — March 19, 2007 @ 1:28 pm
How many actions has Bush in fact taken that are represented 100% by this comment?
March 19th, 2007 at 1:49 pmBut I’ll give you one, the Patriot Act, and the already recognized abuses of said act.
Roger_Roger
You poor little thing. Your bored.
I heard jake has these goats and …..
March 19th, 2007 at 1:50 pmNobody wants to play with you anmore jake.
Your all covered with doody-poop.
Comment by mparker — March 19, 2007 @ 1:34 pm
Gee I thought that was ejaculate from his time under White House desks.
March 19th, 2007 at 1:51 pmWell, RemoveBush, I’ve posted this before but since you asked so nicely: at least two statutes provide for the temporary filling of vacancies in the office of United States Attorney, 28 U.S.C. § 546 and 5 U.S.C. §§ 3345-3349d:
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/opinions/09052003_usaqanda.pdf
March 19th, 2007 at 1:53 pmerock,
oh my….can you prove that Carter had no knowledge of Martson’s ongoing investigation?
c’mon guy, be honest. And whether it was one or eight, it is all the same. Where were the Democrats screaming bloody murder back then? or when Clinton did it?
and do you know how many federal prosecutors there are? to claim that firing 8 is an indication of a desire to systematically impugn the investigatory process is pure and utter hyperbole!
March 19th, 2007 at 1:53 pmNo use in even responding to Jake. He ignores any facts and keeps on with the talking points.
March 19th, 2007 at 1:53 pmWhat can you expect from someone who has stated that “Rumsfeld is the best Sec of Defense ever”?
I mean seriously, he is that obtuse.
You just can’t fix stupid, so why even respond to the idiot?
Leave jake alone, he suffers from fetal alcohol syndrome.
Comment by bob (not the hacker) — March 19, 2007 @ 1:37 pm
Compounded by alcohol induced dementia. Followed by a chaser of alzheimers. And after dinner, stupidity.
March 19th, 2007 at 1:54 pmerock:
So, you are interested in 7 more firings for “political reasons” then too? You promise to change you tune as soon as I find those as well?
March 19th, 2007 at 1:55 pmshane,
Oh please, all that that Patriot Act does is compile into one law a bunch of smaller laws that had been around long, i mean a long time before Bush took office.
Most of the laws that the Patriot Act enforces had been used by the Clinton administration to catch mobsters and drug dealers.
March 19th, 2007 at 1:55 pmwayne:
You mean, like the FACTS implicated in this thread that past Presidents have fired U.S. Attorneys for “political reasons” and Feinstein did not get her panties in a bunch back then?!
March 19th, 2007 at 1:57 pmhowsad,
and just like reagan did it in 1981 when the attorneys weren’t repubs. you’re missing the point: neither reagan or clinton replaced any attorneys at any point in their second term. bush has.
i’m fine with him doing it, and not the AG (given they apparently “serve at the president’s pleasure”). but at least they have to have the balls to admit what they’re doing up front (replacing appointees for lack of political loyalty), and not lie about it after the fact.
typical gutless republic party elected official. lying to and ripping off the american people is the reward for winning elections.
March 19th, 2007 at 1:57 pmYou just can’t fix stupid, so why even respond to the idiot?
Comment by wayne — March 19, 2007 @ 1:53 pm
Is this how you liberals show how open minded you are? Is this how you show compassion and acceptance of someone elses right to disagree with you? Is this how the left shows the tolerance they so dearly claim that those that agree with them deserve?
or do you only believe that this right is given to those that agree with your points of view?
March 19th, 2007 at 1:58 pmMy argument is that Clinton had the absolute right to fire any U.S. Attorneys at any time and for any reason, and Bush has that same right.
Comment by Jake — March 19, 2007 @ 1:38 pm
And you keep dodging the issue, which is that -although the US attorneys serve at the discretion of the president- it is unprecedented to fire a large number of them half-way through the term of the same president who appointed them.
Republicans are asking for heads to roll over this firing, too. Even they know something smells rotten.
March 19th, 2007 at 2:00 pm“Well, RemoveBush, I’ve posted this before but since you asked so nicely: at least two statutes provide for the temporary filling of vacancies in the office of United States Attorney, 28 U.S.C. § 546 and 5 U.S.C. §§ 3345-3349d:
http://www.usdoj.gov/ olc/ opinions/ 09052003_usaqanda.pdf
Comment by Jake — March 19, 2007 @ 1:53 pm”
Once again…… R e a l s l o w f o r y o u!
This law states he can appoint!!!!! It does not say he can FIRE!
Show me the law that states he may fire one of these appointed attorneys before their 4 year term is up! Provide the EVIDENCE!!!!
You still have not provided the PROOF I asked for! (AS USUAL)
March 19th, 2007 at 2:00 pm“and do you know how many federal prosecutors there are? to claim that firing 8 is an indication of a desire to systematically impugn the investigatory process is pure and utter hyperbole!
Comment by howsad — March 19, 2007 @ 1:53 pm”
In the manner these were can be! They were investigating Republicans, which could have led to the WH or they did not investigate enough Democrates.
This is POLITICAL and does not belong in our justice system.
This is OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE!
March 19th, 2007 at 2:02 pmso what if the trolls seem want attorneys who are beholden to party loyalty instead of the rule of law?
March 19th, 2007 at 2:02 pmThis “serving at the president’s pleasure” sounds like some Monarchy nonsense. Why are they using that style of language?
Plus I hate that phrase…
March 19th, 2007 at 2:03 pmhowsad, where is it written that the president has the authority to remove anyone from office for any reason?
Show this and the debate will start. Don’t and you have less credibility the Jeff Gannon.
March 19th, 2007 at 2:03 pmWell howsad,
For one thing, Carter claimed that he had no knowledge. Which, while not proof in and of itself, is at least more than the current Joke-in-Chief has offered up.
I won’t even respond to the “Clinton did it” portion of your argument as it is complete nonsense. Please see any other thread on this topic to find out why.
Based on the ongoing activities of the removed attornies, I would say that these firings directly point to an attempt to stop investigations of corrupt Republican party leaders. Frankly I think its rather asinine for someone to suggest otherwise.
March 19th, 2007 at 2:04 pm“Is this how you liberals show how open minded you are? Is this how you show compassion and acceptance of someone elses right to disagree with you? Is this how the left shows the tolerance they so dearly claim that those that agree with them deserve?
or do you only believe that this right is given to those that agree with your points of view?
Comment by howsad — March 19, 2007 @ 1:58 pm”
I just love when the right comes in here stating things like this…… At least you can come in here and speak your point of view.
The right absolutly does NOT allow any such thing. If a liberal tries presenting their side of the view to a republican site, they are banned right off. Or if it’s on a radio station, they are dumped…….
Liberal stations let the Repubs talk and make themselves look like the fools they are, your comments here are a case in point.
Pot meet Kettle!
March 19th, 2007 at 2:06 pmJake is a proud “independent” who, just by coincidence, always seems to be parroting whatever the RNC spin point is on any subject. You can tell this is the case by noticing that he never mentions the fact that both Reagan and the first Bush cleaned house and got rid of their federal attorneys when they took office, just as Clinton did. Jake evidently hasn’t been cleared to, errrrrr, he’s too “independent” to mention these facts.
March 19th, 2007 at 2:07 pmgregor samsa,
Two, that is TWO republicans have called for heads to roll.
RemoveBush, i take it you aren’t a lawyer and you haven’t studied constitutional law. the fact that a President appoints this positions also means that he can fire them at will.
honestly, please call a lawyer and ask.
March 19th, 2007 at 2:07 pm“Donald Shields and John Cragan, two professors of communication, have compiled a database of investigations and/or indictments of candidates and elected officials by U.S. attorneys since the Bush administration came to power. Of the 375 cases they identified, 10 involved independents, 67 involved Republicans, and 298 involved Democrats.”
March 19th, 2007 at 2:12 pm“RemoveBush, i take it you aren’t a lawyer and you haven’t studied constitutional law. the fact that a President appoints this positions also means that he can fire them at will.
honestly, please call a lawyer and ask.
Comment by howsad — March 19, 2007 @ 2:07 pm”
WRONG!!!!!
If that were the case…… Then the president would not have to have them approved by the Congress and he could just put people in these slots when ever he wanted without oversight by the Congress.
Until the Un-Patriot Act, this was the rule of law. This part of the ACT was also slipped in there AFTER the Act had been voted on, which makes the law ILLEGAL!
Care to dispute that?
March 19th, 2007 at 2:12 pmShow where it’s written howsad. Show us all the law of the land that gives the president the power to fire anyone he pleases.
Love to see it so we could then discuss facts. howsad if you can’t
March 19th, 2007 at 2:16 pmhowsad, this is not about a president’s perogative to hire and fire. For the umpteenth time, this is about obstruction of justice. You guys keep insisting on bring up Clinton. Fine. If Clinton peaking into an office and asking his secretary if she’s being treated OK is “obstruction of justice,” I’m sure you can understand why people think firing a U.S. attorney before she has a chance to investigate the Vice President is obstruction of justice.
March 19th, 2007 at 2:20 pm“RemoveBush, i take it you aren’t a lawyer and you haven’t studied constitutional law. the fact that a President appoints this positions also means that he can fire them at will.
honestly, please call a lawyer and ask.
Comment by howsad — March 19, 2007 @ 2:07 pm”
Somehow this did not make it…..
Sure he can APPOINT…… But show me the law that says he can FIRE! Before the Un-Patriot Act, Congress had to approve the attorneys. So your logic of him having unquestioned power is BUNK! If he has to get them APPROVED then he does not have all knowing power to FIRE them.
I guess your not a laywer either??? Your also not that intelligent, as you can’t even figure out this LITTLE fact!
March 19th, 2007 at 2:22 pmLatest Troll Lament: “This is a non-story, being pushed by the left wing media.”
March 19th, 2007 at 2:30 pmJust like Watergate being a “Third-rate burglary.”
Two, that is TWO republicans have called for heads to roll.
Comment by howsad — March 19, 2007 @ 2:07 pm
Actually, it’s four:
Rep. Paul Gillmor
Rep. Dana Rohrbacher
Sen. Gordon Smith
Sen. John Sununu
Plus, Sen. Gordon Smith has said he is “deeply concerned about how this whole process has been handled”, and Sen. Arlen Specter said he though the explanations for firings as “unacceptable” and “mystifying.”
And your reply is not rebuttal, so I will repeat myself: Republicans are asking for heads to roll because even they know something is rotten.
March 19th, 2007 at 2:31 pm#89 You are failing to see the point yourself. The current law allows for the President to purge us attorney’s for whatever reason he wants. He can in fact, purge them for political reasons even. He can even purge them without a reason at all. HE CAN PURGE THEM ANYTIME HE WANTS FOR WHATEVER REASON HE WANTS. You can call it obstruction of justice and many others things but it doesn’t matter because he can still do it at his leasuire. This is why this is called a poltical show trial. This only thing these stories and investigations accomplish is gaining political points as no crime could possibly be committed. You can have a US attorney publicly investigating Bush himself and Bush can come out and purge him.
March 19th, 2007 at 2:33 pm#83 Erok,
Oh please, wasn’t Clinton who said that you can’t believe the word of those that he fired because they obviously were discontent and ready to make any type of accusations against his administration?
does this only apply to Clinton or also to Bush?
In fact, why would you believe the word of individuals that were fired? A court of law is very hesitant to believe the word of a person that was fired, especially if the firing was done for lack of performance?
As for the whole thing that Clinton did it too…well I have read and heard the left and Democrats arguments. Sorry, they don’t wash, Clinton
did it too, Carter did it too and the Democrats didn’t go crazy.
You liberals and dEmocrats are as desperate as conservatives and Republicans were in the 1990s. Just like Republicans and Conservatives wanted Clinton out of office at any cause and they were constantly looking for scandals, so are the Democrats today. They just want to win in 2008, as much as Republicans wanted in 2000 and they will grab unto anything to make a the other party look bad.
March 19th, 2007 at 2:41 pm“You can have a US attorney publicly investigating Bush himself and Bush can come out and purge him.”
if that’s o.k. with you, then so be it. you should scream your support for it and run for office with that as your platform. you’ll do great.
March 19th, 2007 at 2:42 pmHe can in fact, purge them for political reasons even.
Comment by Roger_Roger — March 19, 2007 @ 2:33 pm
Er, no.
There can be no political interference in a criminal investigation, regardless of who, how the US attorneys were selected. They were appointed, confirmed, andtrusted to perform a job.
He can even purge them without a reason at all. HE CAN PURGE THEM ANYTIME HE WANTS FOR WHATEVER REASON HE WANTS.
Roger, the US is not a monarchy.
I know you and your friends have a bit of hard time wrapping your mind around the concept of representative democracy, but the president of the US cannot rule by edict.
Not yet at least. But with your help, it won’t be long before he can.
March 19th, 2007 at 2:44 pmRoger: “HE CAN PURGE THEM ANYTIME HE WANTS FOR WHATEVER REASON HE WANTS.”
That’s not technically correct. He has the right to purge them, but he does not have the right to obstruct a federal investigation or to obstruct justice by unilaterally stopping an investigation. Does our experience with President Richard Nixon ring a bell?
Again, when Repubs claimed Clinton obstructed justice simply by looking into his secretary’s office and asking her if she was being treated OK, I’m pretty sure you smiled and nodded. Let me just point out that your standards have changed since then.
March 19th, 2007 at 2:44 pmGregor Samsa, oh wow four..wathc out now, Republicans are calling for Gonzalez head…..
please, four out of how many?????……
how about turning it the other way around, there are Democrats that say this is a none story that should be left alone and the clinton and carter did the same thing and Democrats didn’t go crazy when they did it? how about that?
please, adding four republicans to your argument doesn’t make your argument stronger.
who cares whether all Republicans and Democrats want heads to roll, w ho cares that four Republicans want heads to roll. Who cares that Democrats want heads to roll.
the fact remains the same, no one under the Bush admininstration did anything illegal or unpresedented.
March 19th, 2007 at 2:45 pm“Serve at the Pleasure of the President” is #10 on the list of:
March 19th, 2007 at 2:45 pm“Top 10 GOP Sound Bites.”
“#93
#89 You are failing to see the point yourself. The current law allows for the President to purge us attorney’s for whatever reason he wants. He can in fact, purge them for political reasons even. He can even purge them without a reason at all. HE CAN PURGE THEM ANYTIME HE WANTS FOR WHATEVER REASON HE WANTS. You can call it obstruction of justice and many others things but it doesn’t matter because he can still do it at his leasuire. This is why this is called a poltical show trial. This only thing these stories and investigations accomplish is gaining political points as no crime could possibly be committed. You can have a US attorney publicly investigating Bush himself and Bush can come out and purge him.
Comment by Roger_Roger — March 19, 2007 @ 2:33 pm”
PROVIDE THE LAW THAT STATES THIS! The law only states he may APPOINT, not fire.
Even then he has to have Congress APPROVE THEM!
This tells me that if he has to have them approved, then he can’t just go firing them anytime he wants. Otherwise Bush would not need to send them to Congress for approval.
I know this concept is not going to sink in for you, but this is FACT!
Show me the LAW that STATES Bush can fire these attorneys! SHOW ME
March 19th, 2007 at 2:46 pmwhy would you believe the word of individuals that were fired?
Comment by howsad — March 19, 2007 @ 2:41 pm
At least one of the US attorneys fired had received good performance reviews before being sacked. He was not “discontent”, or even “ready to make this type of accusations”.
And all 93 attorneys were Pres Bush’s own appointees to begin with.
March 19th, 2007 at 2:47 pmMost of the laws that the Patriot Act enforces had been used by the Clinton administration to catch mobsters and drug dealers.
Comment by howsad — March 19, 2007 @ 1:55 pm
You’re comparing the Rico statute to the Patriot Act. And you think they didn’t need a judges approval based on evidence to wiretap for Rico. That’s a good one.
In addition the war on drugs worked so well I can see why you’d want to use is as a reference guide to fighting terrorism.
ahahahahaha…horse shit
March 19th, 2007 at 2:48 pm“Clinton did it too, Carter did it too”
the main problem is that these firings were done specifically with intent to circumvent senate approval, via a last-minute provision in the patriot act.
March 19th, 2007 at 2:48 pmwhether you’re ignoring this aspect on purpose or not seems up to debate.
but clinton did not try to get around the senate’s approval to get karl rove’s friend in the a.g.’s office in arkansas. neither did carter.
howsad, if you see such equivalence between the 90’s and now, please tell me, where are the “gates?” We had lots of “gates” during the 90’s. Media saturation, congressional investigations, much outrage over things like firing two travel office people for “political reasons”, a 20-year old land deal, a couple of file boxes put in a closet instead of the storage locker across the street, the VP attending a fundraiser where money “may have changed hands at some level.” Do you think the Bush administration has done anything, ANYTHING to merit a couple of “gates?”
March 19th, 2007 at 2:49 pmRemoveBush,
is that your best answer? Republicans and conservatives do it in their blogs and forusm so we do it too?
You don’t get it do you? It isn’t Republicans that waive the flags of tolerance and open mindness around. It is YOU Democrats and Liberals that waive these two flags around. yet you constantly prove that you guys are the least tolerant and open minded individuals on planet earth.
i was pointing out the fact to how with one side of your mouth you demand tolerance and open mindness and an exchange of ideas, but as soon as you get someone that completly disagrees with you, all you do is insult and put people down.
who cares whether the right does it or not, live up to the claims that you make. Live up to the demands that you make.
March 19th, 2007 at 2:49 pmplease, adding four republicans to your argument doesn’t make your argument stronger.
Comment by howsad — March 19, 2007 @ 2:45 pm
It actually does, because it shows your argument about this being a partisan issue is complete nonsense.
the fact remains the same, no one under the Bush admininstration did anything illegal or unpresedented.
Although the legality is still in question, Gonzales’ own chief of staff already admitted Clinton nor Carter ever sought to remove federal attorneys in the middle of their terms.
March 19th, 2007 at 2:51 pmFor all you trolls who think this is a non issue. Why don’t you leave here and go contact all the congress members who think it is an issue.
For the record, your in the wrong place to influence opinions. You will received as little respect here as you give out. Why don’t you go find more nimble brains to convince with your ill informed brain washing.
March 19th, 2007 at 2:54 pmhelenahandbasket,
Democrats, Liberals, just because the media tells you that this is a scandal, it doesn’t mean it is.
Please try to think on your own and stop the mass thinking. Believe me, thinkprogress.org, Clinton, Kennedy, Murtha, Pelosi, Moore, etc, etc, they do not have your best interest at heart. yes, and the same goes with Republicans and their pundits. Most if not all politicians care about one thing, power, control and money.
Every single one of your, including thinkprogress.org is just spewing talking points that have been put out by the Democrats when it comes to this matter.
and if you go on the right wing blogs, they are spewing Republican talking points when it comes to this matter.
both sides and those that make up the party members need to start thinking by themselves instead of spewing politicians talking points that 99% of the time are NOT based on any type of law.
March 19th, 2007 at 2:55 pmPoor Howsad. Liberal are just not walking their talk. They talk of tolerance, but look at them! They will not tolerate treason, graft, war profiteering and obstruction of justice! How hollow their words are!
Go have a good cry, Howsad.
March 19th, 2007 at 2:55 pmGregor Samsa,
are you kidding me? are you for real? you claim this is non partisan becausee 4 republicans called for heads to roll? you can’t be serious right? you are just kidding, correct?
and I guess that most Republicans saying this is a none issue is also non partisan since there are Democrats that also say that this is a none issue, correct? I see you avoided to respond to this part of my last post.
what is good for the gander, is good for the goose, correct?
March 19th, 2007 at 2:57 pmHowsad wants you to know that impeaching a President for lying about a sexual affair is old business. Forget it everyone! The real crime is that these damn liberals would actually try to do something about obstructing federal investigations into bribery, war profiteering, and bilking the American taxpayer out of millions of dollars. It’s an outrage, right howsad?
March 19th, 2007 at 2:59 pmBluedog49,
i take it when you talk about war profeting you include John Edward, John Kerry, Michael Moore, Kennedy, etc who all own stocks in Halliburton, Boeing, Lockheed, and other companies that are involved in the Iraq War.
I mean, you Liberals certainly tolerated war profeting, graft, obstruction of justice under the Clinton, Carter, JFK, FDR administrationsso why not now? Oh my bad, it is because it is not a Democrat that is in the White House that is doing it, right?
you are making my point for me guy.
March 19th, 2007 at 3:00 pm“and I guess that most Republicans saying this is a none issue is also non partisan since there are Democrats that also say that this is a none issue, correct?”
no, this is indeed a partisan issue:
“Donald Shields and John Cragan, two professors of communication, have compiled a database of investigations and/or indictments of candidates and elected officials by U.S. attorneys since the Bush administration came to power. Of the 375 cases they identified, 10 involved independents, 67 involved Republicans, and 298 involved Democrats.”
March 19th, 2007 at 3:01 pm“RemoveBush,
is that your best answer? Republicans and conservatives do it in their blogs and forusm so we do it too?
You don’t get it do you? It isn’t Republicans that waive the flags of tolerance and open mindness around. It is YOU Democrats and Liberals that waive these two flags around. yet you constantly prove that you guys are the least tolerant and open minded individuals on planet earth.
i was pointing out the fact to how with one side of your mouth you demand tolerance and open mindness and an exchange of ideas, but as soon as you get someone that completly disagrees with you, all you do is insult and put people down.
who cares whether the right does it or not, live up to the claims that you make. Live up to the demands that you make.
Comment by howsad — March 19, 2007 @ 2:49 pm”
WHAT!
I pointed out that you CAN come in here and post and make comments as you wish and you will NOT be banned. UNLIKE the Republicans!
WRONG AGAIN! We, speaking as a INDEPENDANT, simply believe in FACTS and will not TOLERATE LIES! By people here DEMANDING FACTS might seem to be disident to your voice, but its simply that we believe in FACTS! UNLIKE YOU!
Simple things like this on the Republican side is a sign of Intolerance from the Democrats or anyone that apposes them. Sorry, but this is called REALITY!
Here is ONE small example of how the Right LIES and TWISTS the facts…… Tonnege (SP?) who testified Friday in the Plame case, and who helped write the law, said under oath that the person needs to be stationed overseas…… THIS IS A LIE!!!!! The Republicans have no bounds for when and what they lie about. When someone holds you to account, then they are speaking out both sides of their mouths……
So when you start presenting FACTS that are not debunked you will find people who want to debate. But continuing to spew the same crap will get you called on it EVERYTIME!
OH….. And it’s not a party side view either, it’s a LAW view!
Your argument is like telling a cop when he pulls you over for running the red light that you should not get a ticket because the guy in front of you did it too.
March 19th, 2007 at 3:01 pmJake
You see I am a South African, I don’t know the minute details of American history (Minute to the point where it hasn’t even gotten into Jimmy Carter’s Wikipedia bio, Marstan doesn’t even have a stub dedicated to him, and Marsden returns some Canadian radio guy.) so this talk about Carter having set a precedent is quite interesting to me.
Indeed, could you also supply a correct spelling of this guy’s name? Because all I get from Googling it is this thread and the bio of some guy called Ben Bradley. Surely if this guy had been fired by Jimmy Carter for political reasons I would get more then that? You righties don’t like Carter much, so it should at least have a bit more coming up then that surely?
I tried Marsden, I got was some Canadian radio guy and I am pretty sure that’s not him, a university prof who didn’t list anything like that on his bio, and a whole bunch of blog entries which are not exactly a highly believable source . I kind of stopped after page 3 though.
Indeed a search in Snopes does turn up a Marstan, but as a reference to Robert E Lee. Marsden returned a article about chain letters and ponzi schemes.
Please, if you have links to a real source on this guy, post them so that those of us who are not American can join in the argument on a more informed footing. Otherwise we will be forced to judge you based on the rest of your argument, which really just amounts to you being no more mature then the average four year old who points to another kid in the playground and whines “But he did it too.”
In fact, one could argue given the lack of sources, that it amounts to a four year old pointing to an imaginary kid and whining “But he did it too.”
March 19th, 2007 at 3:05 pmare you kidding me? are you for real? you claim this is non partisan becausee 4 republicans called for heads to roll?
Comment by howsad — March 19, 2007 @ 2:57 pm
So, if some Republicans also ask for heads to roll, and others have expressed their disapproval -it is still no a bipartisan issue?
Exactly what would the tally need to be, for this to be bipartisan?
Please, do tell.
I see you avoided to respond to this part of my last post.
You compared this firing to what Clinton and Carter did at the beginning of their terms. I already posted a link to an LA Times primer on US attorneys. I suggest you read it.
March 19th, 2007 at 3:05 pmbluedog49,
oh man, you Liberals are truly something else….shall we talk about Sandy Berger and true obstruction of justice? what did he do again? oh that is right, steal top secret documents so that a bipartisan panel wouldn’t be able to tell how incompetent Clinton and his administration were when dealing with terrorist. I guess you tolerate that, my bad.
or how about Clinton being disbared not for cheating on his wife, but rather for obstruction of justice…forget that? oh I forgot, you tolerate that.
Or how about talking about the 5,000+ troops that died under the Clinton administration during Clinton’s wars? oh I forgot, you tolerate this..
or how about talking about Halliburton being given a non-bid contract in Kosovo by the Democrats and the Clinton administration for the reconstruction of Kosovo and Serbia. Oh i forgot, you tolerate this…
March 19th, 2007 at 3:06 pmPatrick since you want to send a copy of the constitution to Sen Feinstein, could you please educate us on where exactly in the constitution it says that US Attorneys are supposed to fulfill the ideology of the presidennts party?
March 19th, 2007 at 3:07 pmremovebush,
wouldn’t you think that the person that wrote the law, Toeising (sp), don’t you think this lady knows more than you and me about the law and who is considered a covert agent?
even Plame said that she wasn’t a lawyer and that she couldn’t answer whether or not she was covert.
March 19th, 2007 at 3:10 pmBloviating and more bloviating. No one has shown the law that gives the president to fireanyone at anytime for any reason. We are a nation of laws and the highest office in the land has to follow the laws just like everyone else. Since none of the Bush Chest Thumpers can provide any evidence to support their claim I will place their slanted views with the likes of Drudge and Rush. You speak well but you don’t say anything.
March 19th, 2007 at 3:12 pmGregor Samsa,
sorry, the LA times is good for one thing, bashing Conservatives. IT is like me pointing you to an article in the Weekly Standard that defends the Bush administration.
March 19th, 2007 at 3:15 pmHowsad that Jake fornicated with Roger-Roger.
March 19th, 2007 at 3:15 pmhellinabucket,
My goodness, you liberals are dense. You liberals are certainly bad lawyers…..
In our government, in any of our State Constitutions and our Federal Constitution, when it says that an office has the power to appoint people to certain positions, it automatically means that they also have the power to fire them!
please study some constitutional law before you make such baseless arguments!
March 19th, 2007 at 3:17 pmHowsad
Frankly, if you can’t take the heat get out of the kitchen. We don’t appologise for having beliefs here, and we don’t appologise for believing that little things like torture, unprevoked invasions, huge deficits, the scuttling of Fema, the scuttling of the Justice Department (Though in truth we should be treating this as a major flaw in the American justice system having been highlighted, rather then as a political point scoring match, the Democrats are, after all, going to be in charge after 2008) and 2.2 million Americans losing their homes, are not acceptable.
That you seem so evidently enamoured in the fact that you are getting shafted, as to demand civility from those who are not, confuses us. Sorry if we tend towards being a bit blunt, but frankly we think you are an idiot.
Jake
Pardon me if I am wrong here, but it was only really the last bit of that legal opinion (Which is to say it is not actually, legally binding) that dealt with the issue at hand, and so far as I can see it only really seemed to deal with acting attorneys. Maybe I misread it, maybe I did not, but surely you can come up with something better then that?
Further, are you entirely blind to the implications of Bush firing people who have gotten good job reviews immediately prior to their firings, for no apparent reason? Do you trust your president so much as to think there is nothing fishy about all this?
Sure it may be legal. It may be legal to set up a telescope right outside your hot neighbour’s window, but don’t you think it is a mite bit suspicious?
March 19th, 2007 at 3:21 pmFirst howsad, it’s wrong of you to assume I’m a liberal. I write here like you and can clearly see you are no liberal. Second, it’s rather assinine of yourself to spout generalities when I have asked for specifics to show where the President has this authority. You haven’t come up with it but throw out insults. I could easily match your insults and that would get us nowhere.
Now can you show us all the law the is applicable or not.
March 19th, 2007 at 3:24 pm“#
removebush,
wouldn’t you think that the person that wrote the law, Toeising (sp), don’t you think this lady knows more than you and me about the law and who is considered a covert agent?
even Plame said that she wasn’t a lawyer and that she couldn’t answer whether or not she was covert.
Comment by howsad — March 19, 2007 @ 3:10 pm”
Apparently NOT!!!!
Here is what the law says…..
She claimed that it was “stationed”.
Now you tell me!
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00000426—-000-.html
For the purposes of this subchapter:
(1) The term “classified information†means information or material designated and clearly marked or clearly represented, pursuant to the provisions of a statute or Executive order (or a regulation or order issued pursuant to a statute or Executive order), as requiring a specific degree of protection against unauthorized disclosure for reasons of national security.
(2) The term “authorizedâ€, when used with respect to access to classified information, means having authority, right, or permission pursuant to the provisions of a statute, Executive order, directive of the head of any department or agency engaged in foreign intelligence or counterintelligence activities, order of any United States court, or provisions of any Rule of the House of Representatives or resolution of the Senate which assigns responsibility within the respective House of Congress for the oversight of intelligence activities.
(3) The term “disclose†means to communicate, provide, impart, transmit, transfer, convey, publish, or otherwise make available.
(4) The term “covert agent†means—
(A) a present or retired officer or employee of an intelligence agency or a present or retired member of the Armed Forces assigned to duty with an intelligence agency—
(i) whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classified information, and
(ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States; or
(B) a United States citizen whose intelligence relationship to the United States is classified information, and—
(i) who resides and acts outside the United States as an agent of, or informant or source of operational assistance to, an intelligence agency, or
(ii) who is at the time of the disclosure acting as an agent of, or informant to, the foreign counterintelligence or foreign counterterrorism components of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; or
(C) an individual, other than a United States citizen, whose past or present intelligence relationship to the United States is classified information and who is a present or former agent of, or a present or former informant or source of operational assistance to, an intelligence agency.
(5) The term “intelligence agency†means the Central Intelligence Agency, a foreign intelligence component of the Department of Defense, or the foreign counterintelligence or foreign counterterrorism components of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
(6) The term “informant†means any individual who furnishes information to an intelligence agency in the course of a confidential relationship protecting the identity of such individual from public disclosure.
(7) The terms “officer†and “employee†have the meanings given such terms by section 2104 and 2105, respectively, of title 5.
(8) The term “Armed Forces†means the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard.
(9) The term “United Statesâ€, when used in a geographic sense, means all areas under the territorial sovereignty of the United States and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands.
(10) The term “pattern of activities†requires a series of acts with a common purpose or objective.
Search this title:
Notes
March 19th, 2007 at 3:24 pmUpdates
Parallel regulations (CFR)
Your comments
even Plame said that she wasn’t a lawyer and that she couldn’t answer whether or not she was covert.
Comment by howsad
what Lying piece of crap you are. Typical….
She stated in front of there hearing she was in fact covert, as well as others stating the same. The CIA forwarded the issue for prosecution because she was covert.
When things do not go the way they want, the trolls revert to LIES.
March 19th, 2007 at 3:24 pmTypical for the so called “Family Values” party.
So if the firing of a US Attorney is shown beyond a reasonable doubt to have been done to preclude the continuation of an ongoing investigation, that is somehow not obstruction of justice??
March 19th, 2007 at 3:25 pmDoun thin so.
wouldn’t you think that the person that wrote the law, Toeising (sp), don’t you think this lady knows more than you and me about the law and who is considered a covert agent?
even Plame said that she wasn’t a lawyer and that she couldn’t answer whether or not she was covert.
Comment by howsad
Toeising(sp) may know the law but she has no idea what Plam’e security status was. She doesn’t have the clearance to know that. She is injecting her own opinion onto the law.
I seem to recall her being sworn in and testifying before a group of some important people that she was covert. I wonder where that was?
Go get some more instructions and come back. I think your last orders are a little old.
March 19th, 2007 at 3:25 pm…and NEITHER are CIA agents…
…let’s see here…
…the TREASONOUS criminal Bushite junta has:
lied about war
bankrupted/ROBBED the country
outed a covert CIA agent
fired Federal Prosecutors right in the middle of important corruption probes
spied on U.S. citizens
removed habaeus corpus from the Constitution
detained U.S. citizens w/out benefit of due process
engaged in torture
mass murdered hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians
…SH*****T…
…I guess “WHITE” is “RIGHT” ‘er “MIGHT…
March 19th, 2007 at 3:26 pmeven Plame said that she wasn’t a lawyer and that she couldn’t answer whether or not she was covert.
Comment by howsad
Howsad you have to lie about something we all saw. That’s compete BS, & you know it.
March 19th, 2007 at 3:27 pmPlame clearly testified that she was covert. Do you have any idea what NOC stands for?
Why are you trying to cover for someone who committed high treason?
Are you begin paid to do this?
Bushlicker!
wayne,
well nice to know that you liberls only know how to communicate with childish insult.
sorry son, but Plame did state that she was not a lawyer and that under the 1982 or 84 law she couldn’t tell whether she was covert or not.
go look at the transcripts of the hearing before you make a buffon out of yourself.
now I await your childish, two year old insults.
March 19th, 2007 at 3:27 pmYou tell ‘em sister! We should impeach the president that had the gall to fire EVERY U.S. Attorney when he took office.
Oh wait, that was, umm… Bill Clinton. Oh, never mind…
March 19th, 2007 at 3:27 pm“In our government, in any of our State Constitutions and our Federal Constitution, when it says that an office has the power to appoint people to certain positions, it automatically means that they also have the power to fire them!
please study some constitutional law before you make such baseless arguments!
Comment by howsad — March 19, 2007 @ 3:17 pm”
Maybe YOU should take YOUR own advice?????
Appointing to obtain approval is not the same as hiring out right!
He can say this is who he would like, but does not mean that the person will make it to the position! The MUST be confirmed by the Congress, therefore your CLAIM that appointing is the same as hiring = being able to fire is NONSENS!
If Bush could simply hire and place them into positions without going through the Congress, then your assumption would be correct! However, since they MUST be approved means that Bush does not hold complete power for these positions and requires OVERSIGHT!!!
I know that this is a SIMPLE thing to comprehend, that’s why I hoped you might get it, but I see that even the simplist things are lost on you!
March 19th, 2007 at 3:29 pmremovebush,
can you please show what Toesing said that contradicts the law that she help write?
As far as I have heard her say and testify she actually said this…”who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States;”
In fact, if you read the law as you cut and pasted it from cornell, guess what….Plame was NOT a covert agent at the moment that Novak put her name in the newspaper.
March 19th, 2007 at 3:30 pmHowsad, Doesn’t Mr. Hayden’s statement saying she was covert clear anything up for you? And where’s that law stating the President has the power. Show it and you’ve got some great talking points and can thumb your nose at anyone here disputing you. Don’t show it and your Becklite.
March 19th, 2007 at 3:32 pmthe LA times is good for one thing, bashing Conservatives.
Comment by howsad — March 19, 2007 @ 3:15 pm
The article doesn’t “bash” anyone. It is simply a primer on the role of US attorneys.
IT is like me pointing you to an article in the Weekly Standard that defends the Bush administration.
Er, no. The article in the LA Times doesn’t defend anything. It merely states the facts -like the fact that the dismissal of eight US attorneys in the middle of the president who appointed them in the first place is unprecedented. But, hey, facts have a well-known liberal bias.
March 19th, 2007 at 3:32 pmremovebush,
my friend, Congress helps in consent and advice the President in appointing people….even if Congress rejects someone that the President wanted appointed, he has the power to appoint that person, I believe, for a full congressional term, just like it happen with Bolton. He was never approved by Congress, the consent and advice of the Congress was against Bolton, but guess what, Bush still appointed him to UN Ambassador, correct?
Congress has the power to impeach members of the Executive Brach, it doesn’t have the power to either appoint them or fire them, the President does.
You are taking a very complicated part of the Consitutiona and simplifying it for your political purposes.
March 19th, 2007 at 3:33 pmSen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) said:
Guess the dems don’t believe their own rhetoric. How many U.S. Attorneys will the next Democratic-party president fire? Based on past history, all of ‘em!
March 19th, 2007 at 3:35 pmDo as I say, not as I do…
“sorry son, but Plame did state that she was not a lawyer and that under the 1982 or 84 law she couldn’t tell whether she was covert or not.
go look at the transcripts of the hearing before you make a buffon out of yourself.
now I await your childish, two year old insults.
Comment by howsad — March 19, 2007 @ 3:27 pm”
My god…… You expect her to make a statement about a law when she is NOT a laywer???? She stated that she was “covert”, and “classified”. As did the Bush appointed CIA director!
She made the statement because she did not want to make a FALSE statement about something she is not knowledgable in, the law! Her statement is not a addmission that she was NOT covert, but that she could not speak to the law because she was not a lawyer!
I guess all the other experts stating that she was in fact covert and classified means nothing, but a woman lying for the Bush crime family is to be believed. Why do you think that Waxman left the record open for toening???? Because he knows she lied and he wanted to give her an opportunity to correct her statement before they close the record and charge her with purgery!
Hell, even I know more about the law than the person lying under oath (toening) who helped write it, as I have shown you the law that shows she is a LIAR!!!!
March 19th, 2007 at 3:39 pmComments by howsad #138, 135
housechump,
What do YOU get out of the deal…
…for DEFENDING Bushiva/L’il Dick’sTREASON and corruption?
…what do Bushiva and L’il Dick provide YOU and YOURS with?
…WHY are YOU so slavishly devoted to these people?
…Inquiring minds REALLY, SERIOUSLY…
…want to know…
March 19th, 2007 at 3:39 pmhowsad
Nope. The law doesn’t work that way, if it says something, that is what it says.
Previous AGs who have been dismissed were mostly guys who had hit the end of their terms, so it didn’t come up (It was closer to not renewing their contracts, then firing them.) Those who weren’t either didn’t press the issue or had very good reasons for getting fired.
Further, if your law is anything like South African law, you have protections against unfair dismissal. These are generally lax, and South African labour law is not exactly the most onerous in the world, but you do have to have a reason to get rid of someone.
So, in South Africa, while you can fire someone – you have to have a reason to fire them, you can’t just decide you don’t like their nose. Now, we are a poor, small third world country in Africa with a huge problem with AIDs, a subpar medical service, crime that makes Iraq look peaceful, a leading political party which is more worried about some Afrikaans folk singer then Robert Mugabe (Who is right on our border) and we have figured these basic protections out. Surely you guys in America have something along the same lines?
And seen as the law is designed to protect the citizen, even if he is a lawyer, such protections would surely come into play here?
March 19th, 2007 at 3:40 pmSome lawyers could make a damn fine argument that as she was managing a front company Brewster Jennings, which had numerous overseas offices, she was in fact “working overseas”.
March 19th, 2007 at 3:42 pmJust sayin.
These clowns set back our national security by years for the sole purpose of punishing dissent to their f*(king war.
“removebush,
can you please show what Toesing said that contradicts the law that she help write?
As far as I have heard her say and testify she actually said this…â€who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States;â€
In fact, if you read the law as you cut and pasted it from cornell, guess what….Plame was NOT a covert agent at the moment that Novak put her name in the newspaper.
Comment by howsad — March 19, 2007 @ 3:30 pm”
Provide her transcrip!!!!
I saw her say that Plame was not “stationed” overseas so she did not fit the requirements of the law.
Also, she was you…….. What is it that you do not understand????? Even the CIA DIRECTOR says she was!!!! She stated she in fact did buisiness overseas before her outing, and according to the law fits into the requirement for “covert”!
What part of the English language on this do YOU not understand?
March 19th, 2007 at 3:44 pm“emovebush,
my friend, Congress helps in consent and advice the President in appointing people….even if Congress rejects someone that the President wanted appointed, he has the power to appoint that person, I believe, for a full congressional term, just like it happen with Bolton. He was never approved by Congress, the consent and advice of the Congress was against Bolton, but guess what, Bush still appointed him to UN Ambassador, correct?
Congress has the power to impeach members of the Executive Brach, it doesn’t have the power to either appoint them or fire them, the President does.
You are taking a very complicated part of the Consitutiona and simplifying it for your political purposes.
Comment by howsad — March 19, 2007 @ 3:33 pm”
WRONG AGAIN!!!! He can appoint them on a “recess appointment” but that is completely different and I don’t recall in RECENT history of a attorney being appointed by a recess appointment.
You REALLY DON’T UNDERSTAND OUR CONSTITUTION DO YOU????
Here, let me help you my mentally challenged friend….
Section 4 – Disqualification
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
This is the equivilent of firing them….. You should go back to school and learn what our Constitution states. They can’t just fire them, and neither can the president! Not until their 4 year term has expired, hence the issue with firing 8 at once before their term expired!
March 19th, 2007 at 3:49 pmWhat part of the English language on this do YOU not understand?
Comment by RemoveBush #145
RemoveBush,
It’s not that housechum “DOESN’T UNDERSTAND”…
…it “DOESN’t WANT to UNDERSTAND”…
…the inbred Bushite cultists are intellectually and morally bankrupt…
…they ONLY seek to amuse themselves by posing strawman arguments…
…of no value to anyone or anything…
…except their own demented tortured souls…
…they worship EVIL and are paying the price…
…their Karma is rotten and so are their pathetic existences…
March 19th, 2007 at 3:50 pmremovebush,
Guys, Plame was not serving overseas!!! she was behind a desk in Langely, VA well for over 5 years when her name was printed in a newspaper!
so, once again, how was Plame undercover when she doesn’t fit the law….
the law says that you had to be working overseas for the CIA in covert operations within 5 years of the outing in order for it to be a crime.
you are making my point and Toesing’s point, Plame had not done any covert job overseas for well over 5 years.
removebush, let me ask you a very honest question, if Plame was covert, why did she write a $1,000 check to Al Gore’s campaign in 2000 under the CIA fake company that she was working for? why? If it was so secret, how was it that the Cubans knew that Plame worked for the CIA long before Bush stepped into office?
removebush, I am sorry to say, your hate for Bush and this administration clouts your logic and power to reason. You seem to be well educated, but your hate for Bush blinds you.
March 19th, 2007 at 3:52 pmJake, this has been explained to you before and you still repeat the same crap over and over as if it hasn’t. Either you’re a paid troll whose job is to just keep coming back and say the same stupid things, or else you’re an extremely dense troll who just won’t let a foreign concept enter his concrete skull. Your choice.
But, whatever other reasons you’ve been given for these firings being unlike those done by Clinton and Carter, and Bush I and Reagan for that matter, consider this if you can: No other president managed to slip a provision into legislation that would exempt the new U.S. attorneys from Senate confirmation. All the other presidents’ choices had to be confirmed. Why not Dubya’s?
March 19th, 2007 at 3:52 pmO.K., so let me test this new standard: if Gonzales called a press conference today and announced he was investigating Cheney, then Bush could not fire Gonzales?
March 19th, 2007 at 3:54 pmremovebush
wrong!! you can fire anyone without their day in court, in fact in most States you can fire anyone for no reason at all.
Impeachment means that you bring up charges, you indict someone, not that you remove them from office.
c’mon now…..the removal from office comes after the impeachment (indictment) and after it has been shown that the person actually committed the crime. You can’t fire anyone from the Executive Branch just because they get impeached.
once again, you are simplifying the Constitution to suit your personal believes and to justify your hate for President Bush.
March 19th, 2007 at 3:55 pmchimpeach:
Because that is the new law (regardless, I think the Administration has pledged to submitting the new U.S. Attorneys for Senate confirmation anyways). Now, can you answer mine I just posted?
March 19th, 2007 at 3:56 pm#147 howsad
Guys, Plame was not serving overseas!!! she was behind a desk in Langely, VA well for over 5 years when her name was printed in a newspaper!
so, once again, how was Plame undercover when she doesn’t fit the law….
the law says that you had to be working overseas for the CIA in covert operations within 5 years of the outing in order for it to be a crime.
She WAS working overseas. Didn’t you hear the testimony? The law doesn’t say she has to be living overseas. She was traveling and working overseas. She may have been operating out of an office in the U.S., but her job took her overseas. The law says “who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States,” and that fits the bill. If Toensing doesn’t like the way her own legislation was written, who should she blame?
And, bottom line, Michael Hayden is a far better judge of whether or not Plame was covert than a political hack and pathological liar like Toensing.
March 19th, 2007 at 4:03 pm“#
emovebush,
Guys, Plame was not serving overseas!!! she was behind a desk in Langely, VA well for over 5 years when her name was printed in a newspaper!
so, once again, how was Plame undercover when she doesn’t fit the law….
the law says that you had to be working overseas for the CIA in covert operations within 5 years of the outing in order for it to be a crime.
you are making my point and Toesing’s point, Plame had not done any covert job overseas for well over 5 years.
removebush, let me ask you a very honest question, if Plame was covert, why did she write a $1,000 check to Al Gore’s campaign in 2000 under the CIA fake company that she was working for? why? If it was so secret, how was it that the Cubans knew that Plame worked for the CIA long before Bush stepped into office?
Here it is again for you:
(ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States; or
Please show me the part in the law that requires someone “serve” for a period of time or what that period of time is defined as?
If you can’t, then I expect you to acknowledge that “serving” can mean for any period of time, including just 5 minutes.
removebush, I am sorry to say, your hate for Bush and this administration clouts your logic and power to reason. You seem to be well educated, but your hate for Bush blinds you.
Comment by howsad — March 19, 2007 @ 3:52 pm”
ONCE AGAIN!!!!
She had been overseas….. Hence “served” overseas….. Serving does not have a timeline to it…. It can be 5 minutes, 5 weeks, 5 years.
If she went over there, and she states that she did prior to the outing, then by LAW and the definition….. Say it with me…… SHE WAS COVERT!
Damn, you as numb as a pounded thumb!
March 19th, 2007 at 4:04 pmchimpeach:
Where did Plame testify she was “serving overseas”?
March 19th, 2007 at 4:05 pm#149 Jake
O.K., so let me test this new standard: if Gonzales called a press conference today and announced he was investigating Cheney, then Bush could not fire Gonzales?
He could fire him, but there would be a compelling argument for calling it obstruction, and Congress would be justified in launching an investigation.
March 19th, 2007 at 4:06 pmRemoveBush
Look, what you are dealing with here is a Republican.
They actually believe that Iraq would actually work, provided everybody with any doubts whatsoever of any little thing to do with Iraq, shut their ears, shut their eyes, and shut their mouths. They believe that an ignorant electorate is a good thing.
They actually, deep down in their hearts think that the K Street Scandal, which was based around an organisation dedicated to the complete destruction of the Democrats, was bipartisan. Further, they believe Delay is some sort of a hero for having set it all up.
They honestly support their leaders’ right to harrass pages, despite it being their leaders who made it illegal to do so. They honestly support Alaska’s efforts to build bridges to no-where, and Congress’ decisions from 2001 to 2005 which both stripped FEMA down to a shadow of its former glory, and stripped funding from the levees in New Orleans.
They honestly support everything that you or I may say the American Republican Party has screwed up, because frankly, they are honestly that stupid. They believe that hiring means the same as firing for crap sakes!
For years these were the same idiots who harped on about critics hating America, about those who simply disagreed with them, personally, as being anti-America. These are the same idiots who believe that the little white lies in Ann Coulter’s books lead to whopping great big truths, and if life teaches anyone with any common sense anything, it is that little white lies lead to whopping big black ones.
They believe the welfare state failed because it didn’t work, whereas the reason why it “Failed” was because it did work, and was simply no longer needed. They believe that America is the world’s most generous giver in aide, when in the first world on GDP it ranks stone last. (Personally I hold that to America’s credit, because I disagree with aide in general, but that is another argument.)
They believe in America but don’t believe in anything America stands for, they are the same kinds of Christians who scream their Christianity at the tops of their lungs despite Jesus specifically saying that that is the sort of behaviour he despised, and they are the kinds of patriots who speak glowingly of giving up their freedoms to beat the terrorists, even thought this was the precise sort of thing that the American founding fathers feared most.
For crap sakes they think nominating with the oversight of the senate, and maybe being able to hire a temp should a crisis come up and the senate not be in session, gives the president the right to fire sitting AGs.
They are not the most sensible people in the world, they are idiots. They have lost their majority, they are desperate to prove that they have a leg to stand on and every week some new story is coming out which shows them up for being complete twits. Eventually something will come along to make Sosad recognise that he is the one being had, but until then, don’t bother with getting frustrated, he will only take it as affirmation.
But do have fun venting spleen.
March 19th, 2007 at 4:10 pm“If you can’t, then I expect you to acknowledge that “serving†can mean for any period of time, including just 5 minutes.
removebush, I am sorry to say, your hate for Bush and this administration clouts your logic and power to reason. You seem to be well educated, but your hate for Bush blinds you.
Comment by howsad — March 19, 2007 @ 3:52 pmâ€
(4) The term “covert agent†means—
(A) a present or retired officer or employee of an intelligence agency or a present or retired member of the Armed Forces assigned to duty with an intelligence agency—
(B) a United States citizen whose intelligence relationship to the United States is classified information, and—
March 19th, 2007 at 4:15 pm
howsad
Her name was known overseas, and covert agents gave her name as part of their cover. She was in fact operating a dummy company if I remember correctly.
Revealing her name meant that it put those agents at risk and brought down that company which was undeniably covert. Just because somebody is in America doesn’t mean they aren’t involved in a covert operation, indeed, to limit just who is covert to overseas operators strikes me as being something only a complete imbecile would do, and notwithstanding my views on GW, the previous governments of America weren’t all quite that inept.
March 19th, 2007 at 4:16 pmWhere did Plame testify she was “serving overseas�
Comment by Jake — March 19, 2007 @ 4:05 pm
Did you watch the hearing? The information is classified.
March 19th, 2007 at 4:16 pm“#
removebush
wrong!! you can fire anyone without their day in court, in fact in most States you can fire anyone for no reason at all.
Impeachment means that you bring up charges, you indict someone, not that you remove them from office.
c’mon now…..the removal from office comes after the impeachment (indictment) and after it has been shown that the person actually committed the crime. You can’t fire anyone from the Executive Branch just because they get impeached.
once again, you are simplifying the Constitution to suit your personal believes and to justify your hate for President Bush.
Comment by howsad — March 19, 2007 @ 3:55 pm”
You are not very bright are you?????
We are not talking about standard firing! We are talking about GOVERNMENT officials that have a different set of rules. MAN!
Impeachment is the means to bring charges, not to convict! The House begins the Articles of Impeachment, and the Senate trys the case. It is the ONLY form of charges that can be brought against a sitting president OR the sitting officials. Hense, no CIVILIAN laws apply!
What part of the ENGLISH LANGUAGE are you having problems with, and with the Constitution??
“You can’t fire anyone from the Executive Branch just because they get impeached.”
“Section 4 – Disqualification
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
Removal from OFFICE is FIRING!!!
Once IMPEACHED they can no longer hold any official title! I would say that this is FIRING and it is permanent!
Maybe you should re-read the Constitution?
March 19th, 2007 at 4:16 pm#151 Jake
Because that is the new law (regardless, I think the Administration has pledged to submitting the new U.S. Attorneys for Senate confirmation anyways)
Yeah, we all know that’s the new law now. The problem with that is that the administration and, in particular, the DoJ folks who were working out the plans for replacing those USAs were keenly aware of that new provision while most of Congress had no idea that it had been slipped in there. And, before we go off on a tangent about Congress voting for bills they haven’t read through completely, remember that it was passed under the Republican-controlled Congress who was routinely scheduling votes on bills without allowing ample time for the Democrats to see what was tucked away inside them.
It was mighty handy having that new provision in there just when the DoJ needed it. Coincidence, I’m sure.
March 19th, 2007 at 4:23 pm#154 Jake
Where did Plame testify she was “serving overseas�
“While I helped to manage and run secret worldwide operations against this WMD target from CIA headquarters in Washington, I also traveled to foreign countries on secret missions to find vital intelligence.”
March 19th, 2007 at 4:26 pmchimpeach
Has anybody actually tested the constitutionality of the Patriot Act yet? I mean, this is one bad law, surely someone could find a provision which voids the whole thing?
March 19th, 2007 at 4:27 pm“Has anybody actually tested the constitutionality of the Patriot Act yet? I mean, this is one bad law, surely someone could find a provision which voids the whole thing?
Comment by Bruce Gorton — March 19, 2007 @ 4:27 pm”
I don’t believe it to be constitutional….
It was inserted AFTER being voted on and never was sent back for another vote! This is AGAINST the Constitution! Only laws that were voted on in BOTH the house and Senate can be binding.
Since this part of the law was inserted after the fact, this makes this part of the law NULL AND VOID!
I don’t know why more people have not stood up!!! Wait, that would be because they would have their character assasinated for doing that by the Repubs.
March 19th, 2007 at 4:33 pm#163 Bruce Gorton
Has anybody actually tested the constitutionality of the Patriot Act yet? I mean, this is one bad law, surely someone could find a provision which voids the whole thing?
The legislation is bad enough as it is, but on top of that the FBI’s been violating it by not even getting the court orders that are required. I’m not sure that it all would pass constitutional muster, but I’ll leave that to the experts to decide.
March 19th, 2007 at 4:33 pmWhere did Plame testify she was “serving overseas�
Comment by Jake — March 19, 2007 @ 4:05 pm
I misread your post in my earlier response and thought it said where was she “serving overseas”. But this is testimony from the hearing:
REP. CUMMINGS: On Wednesday night, I know that Mr. Waxman, our chair, and Congressman Reyes, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, spoke personally with General Hayden, the head of the CIA. And Chairman Waxman told me that General Hayden said clearly and directly, quote, “Ms. Wilson was covert,” end of quote. There was no doubt about it. And by the way, the CIA has authorized us to be able to say that.
In addition, I understand that Chairman Waxman sent his opening statement over to the CIA to be cleared and to make sure that it was accurate. In it he said, quote, “Ms. Wilson was a covert employee of the CIA,” end of quote. Quote, “Ms. Wilson was undercover,” end of quote. The CIA cleared these statements. I emphasize all of this because I know that thereare people who are still trying to suggest that — that what seems absolutely clear isn’t really true, and that you weren’t covert. And I think one of the things we need to do in this hearing is make sure thereisn’t any ambiguity on this point.
Just three more questions. Do you hold this covert status at the time of the leak — did you — the covert status at the time of the leak?
MS. PLAME WILSON: Yes, I did, Congressman. Yes.
REP. CUMMINGS: Number two, the Identities Protection Act refers to travel outside the United States within the last five years. Let me ask you this question — again, we don’t want classified information, dates, locations or any other details — during the past five years, Ms. Plame, from today, did you conduct secret missions overseas?
MS. PLAME WILSON: Yes, I did, Congressman.
REP. CUMMINGS: Finally, so as to be clear for the record, you were a covert CIA employee and within the past five years from today you went on secret missions outside the United States , is that correct?
MS. PLAME WILSON: That is correct, Congressman.
REP. CUMMINGS: I want to thank you, and I hope this committee now has cleared up the issue of covert — of whether Ms. Plame was a covert agent, and I yield back.
March 19th, 2007 at 4:38 pmNat:
She also testified “I’m not a lawyer, but my understanding is that I was covert”. That, and the double hearsay purporting to be from Hayden won’t even get you a cup of coffee. But, putting that aside for now, and assuming she was “covert” under the legal definition, there are still issues like:
1) Was she “serving” overseas?
2) Was the United States taking “affirmative steps” to protect her identity?
3) Was her status declassified by the Vice-President?
Etc., etc.
March 19th, 2007 at 4:55 pm“1) Was she “serving†overseas?
2) Was the United States taking “affirmative steps†to protect her identity?
3) Was her status declassified by the Vice-President?
Etc., etc.
Comment by Jake — March 19, 2007 @ 4:55 pm”
Jake, all of these have been answered MULTIPLE TIMES for you……
Here once more.
1) YES! She did “serve” overseas according to Plame and Hayden.
2) YES, but not the WH! The CIA had done all it could to ensure her identity was not provided. By the way….. The law states it is a crime to devulge a CIA idnetity either…… Get this….. Intentionally or Unintentionally!!!! That is the LAW!
3) ONLY the ORIGINATOR of the CLASSIFICATION can DECLASSIFY something. The President or Vice-President can submit a REQUEST to declassify something, but the ORIGINATOR MUST authorize the declassification. IS Cheney or Bush the ORIGINATOR of the CIA?
There is NO question to Plames “covert” status or the FACT that Bush and Cheney outed a CIA NOC.
Despite your child like mentality, I know deep down you understand this you are just playing your 3 year old very well.
March 19th, 2007 at 5:02 pmHow to tell if someone has been getting their news from FOX:
1. Valerie Plame testifies under oath that she was covert and she had served oversees during the previous 5 years before her cover was ruined.
2. The head of the CIA confirms all of this while under oath.
3. Fox Viewer: “Guys, Plame was not serving overseas!!! she was behind a desk in Langely, VA well for over 5 years when her name was printed in a newspaper!”
4. Fox Viewer: “Was she “serving†overseas?”
March 19th, 2007 at 5:23 pm#168 Jake
1) Was she “serving†overseas?
Apparently, it’s the “serving” part you’re getting stuck on. Did she “serve” anywhere? Was her employment at the CIA alone not considered “serving”? I don’t think this really requires a lot of semantic analysis. If Ms. Toensing had a very narrow interpretation of “serving”, she should have included it in the code. But, if you need a reason for keeping ones identity covert, it would simply make sense to do so when that person is conducting “secret missions to find vital intelligence” overseas. If Plame traveled to the Middle East, as long as her name and appearance were known, but the fact that she worked for the CIA was not, that would meet the needs of a covert status. Under those circumstances, she could do her job without a great deal of risk to herself or others involved in that operation.
2) Was the United States taking “affirmative steps†to protect her identity?
Do you mean, did the CIA make an effort to keep the White House from blowing her cover? There are a lot of people in the administration who have clearances and were allowed to know things that they had no good reason to know. This White House has a very casual attitude about standard security practices. For starters, if you know someone is employed by the CIA, but you don’t know for sure if they’re status is covert, you assume that it is until you find out for certain that it isn’t. That would be common sense for someone who was given a secret or top secret clearance and who was paying attention while they were being briefed on what it means to have one. Rep. Davis appeared to be laying the blame at the CIA for not letting everyone know that her status was covert, and he seemed to imply that it was the CIA’s fault that the administration was allowed to be so cavalier about telling the media that Plame worked at the CIA. Maybe it WAS the CIA’s fault for not realizing what a bunch of irresponsible hacks were employed by the administration. The fact that Karl Rove still has a clearance shows that they’re still not taking security seriously.
3) Was her status declassified by the Vice-President?
Has he said that he did? If so, was he authorized to do so?
March 19th, 2007 at 5:28 pm1) Was she “serving†overseas?
-Yes.
2) Was the United States taking “affirmative steps†to protect her identity?
-No, those bastards outed her.
3) Was her status declassified by the Vice-President?
Comment by Jake — March 19, 2007 @ 4:55 pm
-I don’t think he can declassify information like that on a whim. Wouldn’t he have to consult with the CIA to make sure he was not endangering national security?
March 19th, 2007 at 5:48 pmI must have missed the day when Hayden was under oath. All I heard was that Waxman (not under oath) says he talked to Hayden (I assume not under oath) and then Waxman told Cummings (also not under oath). As for “serving” overseas — I think it is a valid question — for instance, if she went on vacation to Hawaii, is that “serving” overseas?
Maybe I missed the TESTIMONY where she stated what she did specifically, as well as where and when. As for the United States taking affirmative steps to protect her identity, that’s right from the IIPA law. The CIA did NOT do everything they could — Novak himself explained if Tenent had called him and asked him not to publish her name, he would have complied. I am not discussing “intetionally” or “unintentionally” but since you brought it up, doesn’t there have to be a “pattern of releasing” said information? Was the law even written to apply to CURRENT Executive branch officials?
Finally, last time I checked the Executive Order, either the President or Vice President of the United States can declassify material without the approval of some lackey at CIA.
March 19th, 2007 at 5:55 pmI think it is a valid question — for instance, if she went on vacation to Hawaii, is that “serving†overseas?
Going to Hawaii is not serving overseas because Hawaii is a part of the United States.
March 19th, 2007 at 6:11 pmNat:
EXECUTIVE ORDER 13292
- – - – - – -
FURTHER AMENDMENT TO EXECUTIVE ORDER 12958, AS AMENDED,
CLASSIFIED NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to further amend Executive Order 12958, as amended, it is hereby ordered that Executive Order 12958 is amended to read as follows . . .
Sec. 1.3. Classification Authority. (a) The authority to classify information originally may be exercised only by:
(1) the President and, in the performance of executive duties, the Vice President;
(2) agency heads and officials designated by the President in the Federal Register; and
(3) United States Government officials delegated this authority pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section.
. . .
Sec. 3.5. Mandatory Declassification Review. (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, all information classified under this order or predecessor orders shall be subject to a review for declassification by the originating agency if:
(1) the request for a review describes the document or material containing the information with sufficient specificity to enable the agency to locate it with a reasonable amount of effort;
(2) the information is not exempted from search and review under sections 105C, 105D, or 701 of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 403-5c, 403-5e, and 431); and
(3) the information has not been reviewed for declassification within the past 2 years. If the agency has reviewed the information within the past 2 years, or the information is the subject of pending litigation, the agency shall inform the requester of this fact and of the requesters appeal rights.
(b) Information originated by:
(1) the incumbent President or, in the performance of executive duties, the incumbent Vice President;
(2) the incumbent Presidents White House Staff or, in the performance of executive duties, the incumbent Vice Presidents Staff;
(3) committees, commissions, or boards appointed by the incumbent President; or
(4) other entities within the Executive Office of the President that solely advise and assist the incumbent President is exempted from the provisions of paragraph (a) of this section. However, the Archivist shall have the authority to review, downgrade, and declassify papers or records of former Presidents under the control of the Archivist pursuant to sections 2107, 2111, 2111 note, or 2203 of title 44, United States Code. Review procedures developed by the Archivist shall provide for consultation with agencies having primary subject matter interest and shall be consistent with the provisions of applicable laws or lawful agreements that pertain to the respective Presidential papers or records. Agencies with primary subject matter interest shall be notified promptly of the Archivists decision. Any final decision by the Archivist may be appealed by the requester or an agency to the Panel. The information shall remain classified pending a prompt decision on the appeal.
. . .
Sec. 4.4. (b) Waivers under this section may be granted only if the agency head or senior agency official of the originating agency:
(1) determines in writing that access is consistent with the interest of the national security;
(2) takes appropriate steps to protect classified information from unauthorized disclosure or compromise, and ensures that the information is safeguarded in a manner consistent with this order; and
(3) limits the access granted to former Presidential appointees and Vice Presidential appointees to items that the person originated, reviewed, signed, or received while serving as a Presidential appointee or a Vice Presidential appointee.
6.1. (l) “Declassification authority” means:
(1) the official who authorized the original classification, if that official is still serving in the same position;
(2) the originators current successor in function;
(3) a supervisory official of either; or
(4) officials delegated declassification authority in writing by the agency head or the senior agency official.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/bush/eoamend.html
March 19th, 2007 at 6:12 pmMaybe I missed the TESTIMONY where she stated what she did specifically, as well as where and when.
Comment by Jake — March 19, 2007 @ 5:55 pm
She couldn’t testify about the specifics and the house members could not ask her about the specifics because the CIA deemed it classified information. I don’t why the CIA would deem a vacation in Hawaii as classified info. How did you get that information?
March 19th, 2007 at 6:16 pmhttp://www.fas.org/sgp/bush/eoamend.html
Comment by Jake — March 19, 2007 @ 6:12 pm
Just point me to where it says they can declassify info w/o going through the CIA because I don’t see it.
March 19th, 2007 at 6:23 pmThe CIA did NOT do everything they could — Novak himself explained if Tenent had called him and asked him not to publish her name, he would have complied.
Comment by Jake — March 19, 2007 @ 5:55 pm
The CIA did what they could to stop him w/o revealing classified information.
March 19th, 2007 at 6:28 pmBy the way, I’d bet the house that “Jake†is the exact same troll that used to be the “Arne Langsetmo†namestealer at Eschaton and elsewhere . . . not, of course, the real Arne, but his name-stealing doppelganger.
No. Gordon the Muddleheaded was stoopider … but no more dishonest. Jake at least makes a little bit of sense occasionally, albeit his “facts” (cribbed from the RNC “talking points”) are all wrong.
Cheers,
March 19th, 2007 at 7:11 pm…Novak himself explained….
LOLZ!
March 19th, 2007 at 8:38 pm#173 Jake
As for “serving†overseas — I think it is a valid question — for instance, if she went on vacation to Hawaii, is that “serving†overseas?
No, it’s not a valid question if you’re going to say something ridiculous like that. Once again:
“…I also traveled to foreign countries on secret missions to find vital intelligence.â€
How can you confuse that with a vacation to Hawaii? For as much as the original question was valid, it’s been answered and there’s no reason to keep asking it.
March 19th, 2007 at 9:13 pm#172 Jake
Maybe I missed the TESTIMONY where she stated what she did specifically, as well as where and when.
Of course it wasn’t in the testimony. What she did, specifically, and where and when are classified. And, since the White House didn’t choose to blab about that, it will remain classified.
As for the United States taking affirmative steps to protect her identity, that’s right from the IIPA law. The CIA did NOT do everything they could — Novak himself explained if Tenent had called him and asked him not to publish her name, he would have complied.
Information was leaked to Novak that he was not authorized to have. He asked the CIA to tell him if that information was classified. They weren’t authorized to tell him. They simply said “Don’t print it.” If Novak weren’t such an idiot, that would be enough. And, if it hadn’t been for the fact that the people who leaked that to him were top White House officials, the CIA might have taken some action against the leakers right there and then.
I don’t know why this security stuff is so hard for righties to understand.
March 19th, 2007 at 9:41 pmActually, Dianne, these purged attorneys were “political apointees” of Bushland Uber Allies–THE EXTRAORDINARY THING ABOUT THIS ALL IS THE FACT THAT THESE ATTORNEYS WERE DOING THEIR JOBS IN AN EXCELLENT AND LAWFUL FASHION AND PURSUING CORRUPTION AND INFLUENCE PEDDLING–THEREBY BEING PERSECUTED AND TERMINATED FOR PULLING A “THOMAS A BECKET” UPON CHIMPya/GONZO—-”WHO WILL RID US OF THESE MEDDLESOME PROSECUTORS?????????”
March 19th, 2007 at 10:31 pm[...] discrimination or 2) guilty of using sexual discrimination as an excuse for appointing a “loyal Bushie” as a federal [...]
March 20th, 2007 at 5:47 pmNo Faxing Payday Loan
March 17th, 2008 at 11:58 pmAss Round Ass Tight Ass
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 1st, 2008 at 9:08 amBritni
The TrackBack specification was created by Six Apart, who first implemented it in their Movable Type blogging software in August
April 2nd, 2008 at 7:09 amGay Incest Gay Cumshots Gay Jock
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 3rd, 2008 at 6:54 amAccounting Financial Financial Success
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 8th, 2008 at 10:05 pm