Schumer wants answers on Charlton firing.
Schumer wants answers on Charlton firing.
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) in a letter today called on Alberto Gonzales “to disclose by Friday all contacts between the office of Rep. Rick Renzi (R-Ariz.), the Justice Department and the White House related to his department’s probe of the lawmaker.” Schumer told Gonzales that the new reports out today “raise new and serious questions about whether improper political motivations were involved in your decision to force [former U.S. Attorney Paul] Charlton to resign just a few weeks after the election.”
UPDATE: House Judiciary Committee is looking for documents too:
Paul Charlton, the ousted U.S. attorney from Arizona, followed the rules. He reported an inappropriate contact last fall about an investigation into Arizona Republican Rep. Rick Renzi from the lawmaker’s own chief of staff as is required by Justice Department rules.
But that document is nowhere to be found among the thousands of pages of records turned over by the Justice Department to the House and Senate Judiciary committees investigating whether Charlton and seven other prosecutors were fired to silence public corruption investigations like the one into Renzi.
A House Judiciary Committee aide said that the document is “missing” and they plan to ask the Justice Department to find it and find it fast.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Schumer is stepping up his investigation. Not bad.
April 25th, 2007 at 4:44 pmEasy Chuck!!! Your gonna blow a vein or something!! :)
April 25th, 2007 at 4:46 pm“Schumer wants answers on Charlton’s firing”
Charlton Heston was fired???? The bastards!!!!!
April 25th, 2007 at 4:47 pmUS Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President!
Clinton and Carter replaced US Attorneys for political reasons!
US Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President!
*whirrrr*click!* end trans
April 25th, 2007 at 4:48 pmmis
sion
WOW!!!! The document is missing. Just like the e-mails, and Bush’s military record, and…..
April 25th, 2007 at 4:52 pmImagine that. The document is missing. “Erased”, I’m sure.
Unf#ckingbelieveable.
April 25th, 2007 at 4:54 pm“I can’t recall” and “the documents are missing” will be a fitting Bush legacy.
April 25th, 2007 at 4:55 pmI never thought we’d see more corruption than the Reagan administration. Boy, was I wrong.
April 25th, 2007 at 4:58 pmThe Days of Smoke & Mirrors are rapidly drawing to a close – thank God! Naturally, the indicting report of Renzi’s criminal activities is somehow “lost”…ahem…but what do they take us for anyway? They must believe that the american people are as stupid as they are!
April 25th, 2007 at 4:59 pmAfter six years of not a single subpoena, the investigations of the past three months and their inevitable subpoenaes are causing the repugs to become apoplectic.
April 25th, 2007 at 5:00 pmThis could get very interesting.
It will be the “scandal du jour” for this White House of Corruption and we may even have multiple scandals erupting and overlapping. The level of criminal activity in this GOP and Administration is unprecedented and mind-boggling.
April 25th, 2007 at 5:00 pmFinally, after all this time, to see some serious oversight and fight for transparency and accountability taking place is such a shot in the arm and almost as good as laying on a nice warm sunny beach with the warm ocean waters rushing up and washing over you. What a relief. Now if they can just find those answers and hold these people to account.
April 25th, 2007 at 5:01 pmIt is time to bring back balance and accountability to our government.
Bush’s famous last words as his sorry butt is hauled off to jail: “I can’t remember”….to which the people will ask: Was it the cocaine haze or a case of a fried brain?
April 25th, 2007 at 5:01 pmHey Marie – yes, AND the people need to subpoena those in charge of bringing about subpoenas for the criminal activities over the past 6 years (Repukes) to testify as to whey they sat back and did nothing.
I don’t know about you but I don’t want to be part/parcel of my children and grands asking me why we (and our elected officials) simly sat back and did nothing, do you?
April 25th, 2007 at 5:03 pmThat’s precisely why girly-fart Inhof is so riled up – because he sat on his duff and did absolutely nothing – knowing full well that there were reports of abuse, etc. and he chose to ignore them.
I think Inhof can be tried for “obstruction of justice” when this is outed.
April 25th, 2007 at 5:04 pmI smell something rotten in this administration. Oh, wait, it IS this administration.
April 25th, 2007 at 5:06 pmWith the Justice Department so cavalier with documents, how can they ever prosecute any criminals?
Someone call Homeland Security, the Department of Justice has been hijacked.
April 25th, 2007 at 5:15 pmAnswer is clear even for Chucky. George W. Bush is President of the United States and can fire anyone in the Executive Branch he wants for any reason he wants. Next.
April 25th, 2007 at 5:17 pmPatrick, don’t you need to get to your aerobics goosestepping class or something?
April 25th, 2007 at 5:19 pm“George W. Bush is President of the United States and can fire anyone in the Executive Branch he wants for any reason he wants.”
Wrong, dumbass.
US Attorneys cannot be fired in the middle of an investigation or to stop an investigation for political reasons. It is in Federal law.
Repuke trolls are idiots, and you just proved it once again.
April 25th, 2007 at 5:21 pmIt amazes me everytime I come on this board at the trolls defending criminal acts as if it is okay to be a criminal if you are a Republican. Just the antics of hypocritical, knuckle dragging, morons…with no moral fiber and who care more about their fascist leaders than they have ever cared about America or themselves.
Screw all Reichwing troglodytes.
April 25th, 2007 at 5:23 pmExacta-mundo, Patrick in a jar, G.Doofus can fire anyone in the Executive Branch he wants, for any reason he wants, as can any president.
April 25th, 2007 at 5:25 pmCongratulations, you made a statement which holds water.
“Answer is clear even for Chucky. George W. Bush is President of the United States and can fire anyone in the Executive Branch he wants for any reason he wants. Next.”
when “thought experiments” go wrong.
April 25th, 2007 at 5:28 pmU.S. Attorneys are part of the judicial branch…
April 25th, 2007 at 5:30 pmBush supporter: “Exacta-mundo, Patrick in a jar, G.Doofus can fire anyone in the Executive Branch he wants, for any reason he wants, as can any president.
Congratulations, you made a statement which holds water.”
OK, this is kind of ridiculous because just 12 years ago, Republicans spent millions investigating the fact that the Clintons fired a couple of people in their Travel Office. It got media saturation. Remember? It was called “Travelgate!!!” If repubs didn’t think a President could fire a member of his own travel office for political purposes, they certainly couldn’t be santioning the firing of prosecutors engaged in trials which might be politically damaging to themselves! Why, why, that would be duplicitous and hypocritical! No way!
April 25th, 2007 at 5:32 pmClinton fired attornies in the middle of investigations. That doesn’t count I guess..moonbats.
April 25th, 2007 at 5:33 pmActually US Attorneys are part of the Department of Justice, which sounds like the judiclal branch but isn’t. It’s the Attorney General’s office.
Gonzales is a partisan hack and must resign. But that does not mean the investigation stops.
Chimpy and Gonzo have almost destroyed the rule of law in the US.
Torture, treason, destroying the Bill of Rights and Habeus Corpus, stackign the courts with extreme ideologues, and now the attack on the integrity of the US Attorneys.
Chimpy and the Repukes are crooks and their goal is to take over the government. They still can do this if they can consolidate enough power in the Executive Branch. This must be stopped.
April 25th, 2007 at 5:36 pmThe only moonbat in here is Patrick the idiot.
April 25th, 2007 at 5:36 pmTroll must be losing it, he’s dragging up Clinton again.
Whether Clinton did it DOES NOT MATTER.
Chimpy and Gonzo are BREAKING THE LAW here.
But then you Repukes don’t CARE about the law.
And you don’t care about our great nation.
April 25th, 2007 at 5:37 pmI kinda lost you there towards the end, Sr. Bluedog49.
April 25th, 2007 at 5:45 pmIt is my belief that a president can fire anyone within his own branch of government he wishes to. This may be a mistaken belief, I will welcome your illumination should this be the case.
Your example of Republican witch hunting during the Clinton era is a sad commentary upon the pettiness which the righteous right white wing engaged in.
Which pales in comparison to the insidious corruption of their own ranks.
I was simply giving the pattycrack 1 an attaboy. Gawd knows he has few enough accurate statements.
I’m a Bush detester.
Vaya con Dios!
Thanks for the distinction, Tom3.
April 25th, 2007 at 5:48 pmTom3:
So, you won’t mind if the GOP impeach Clinton (again) for doing it too?
April 25th, 2007 at 5:51 pm#26 Patty Cake 1,
My protologist called today to apologize. Yesterday Exley’s name came up in a conversation and the doctor had a compliment for him. He said he was a perfect anus. Todey the doctor claimed he was mistaken. He was thinking about you instead. He claims when he writes his report you will make medical history for being the only living anus without a brain.
April 25th, 2007 at 5:52 pmClinton replaced HIS OWN appointees, more than eight DEMOCRATIC United States Attorneys (just not all at the same time), and more than two years into his term as well (as if that makes any difference since the Dems are complaining about ANY political reason for such replacements now).
Nonetheless, I’m not referring to replacing all of the prior Administration’s U.S. Attorney appointments at the beginning of a new President’s term. Look it up if you don’t believe me:
Starting with 1997 nominations — Wilma Lewis replaced Eric Holder (who had been nominated by Clinton in 1993 as United States Attorney for the District of Columbia). I’ve got 30 more where that came from.
April 25th, 2007 at 5:53 pmJust in 1997: Beverly Martin, Douglas Jones, Thomas Scott, Mary Lou Leary, and Sharon Zealey. Even more in 1998: Byron Jones, Denise O’Donnell, Paul Warner, Scott Lasser, Paul Seave, Ellen Curran, Stephen Robinson, Richard Deane Jr., Alejandro Mayorkas, Robert Green, Harry Litman, and Jose Rivera. Nominated in 1999: Melvin Kahle, Gregory Vega, Thomas Strickland, Donna Bucella, Daniel French, Quenton White, Jackie Williams, Mervyn Mosbacker Jr., and Carl Schnee. Nominated in 2000: Daniel Webber Jr., Norman Bay, Steven Reed, Ted McBride, and Audrey Fleissig.
April 25th, 2007 at 6:00 pmFolks, TROLL JUDY has been shown to be a TROLL and a LIAR!!
Check it out:
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/04/25/renzi-attorneys/#comment-3770405
Says “she” doesn’t have LINKS to PROOF of what “she” says…
Says Clinton PARDONED Rostenkowski, which is TRUE!
Doesn’t MENTION Marc Rich (Scooter Libby was his attorney!!)
Bush 41 pardoned Orlando Bosch, INTERNATIONAL TERRORIST,
in 1992, and he resides in Miami TO THIS DAY!
Then “jake/judy” says: “I wasn’t DEFENDING ANYONE….”
TROLL, for SURE.
Gotta be “jake”.
See YOU in hell jake/judy (cause I’LL be THERE),
April 25th, 2007 at 6:11 pmMr. Bush
MURDEROUS WAR CRIMINAL
COWARDLY TRAITOR TO THE USA (TM-BushCrimeCo)
Charlton’s office will have a copy of that document.
April 25th, 2007 at 6:11 pm“George W. Bush is President of the United States and can fire anyone in the Executive Branch he wants for any reason he wants. Next.”
Obviously, a deep student of our Constitution wrote this sentence. Snort. Next.
April 25th, 2007 at 6:11 pmMr. Bush Goes To Hell,
I was just thinking that was Jake. Thanks for the confirmation. :)
April 25th, 2007 at 6:14 pmNo, Mr. Bush Goes to Hell, and my name is Judy, not Jake. Your reading comprehension is not very high, is it?
April 25th, 2007 at 6:16 pmClinton was then, and he was raked over the coals.
Bush is now.
That was then, this is now.
STFU Patrick.
April 25th, 2007 at 6:16 pmForTruth:
So, you won’t mind if the GOP impeach Clinton (again) for doing it too?
April 25th, 2007 at 6:21 pmSo, you won’t mind if the GOP impeach Clinton (again) for doing it too?
Comment by Judy
Oy. Good luck with that one, Jake.
There’s a difference between firing an attorney for good cause, and firing an attorney for an illegal cause.
Numerous commenters here have been over and over this with you, Jake. Get a clue or shut the f*ck up.
April 25th, 2007 at 6:25 pmwell. . . FINALLY!
youtube finally finished
processing my video-mash-up
of all the subpoenas, immunity
grants and other assorted and
sundry congressional goodness
of this morning — and, set to a sound-
track to boot! all in a tight 2:30
package — it is free for public use;
just no resale for a profit (like THAT
will EVER be a problem! hah!)
go ahead — you KNOW you want to.
check it out.
April 25th, 2007 at 6:25 pm#14 Comment by veritas — April 25, 2007 @ 5:03 pm
Not only do I want things to be different for my children and grandchildren, I want to be able to say that I played my role in pressing legislators to investigate this, the most corrupt and inept administration in history.
April 25th, 2007 at 6:25 pmTwenty, thirty years from now, we will be asked – why did this happen – and worse, we may be asked, why did you let this happen? I want to be able to say that we tried.
Too many repugs today are more concerned about their own personal comfort and job security than they care for the welfare of America. They care too much about party politics than they care about the people.
So, you won’t mind if the GOP impeach Clinton (again) for doing it too?
Comment by Judy
Are you that stupid?
And how do you impeach someone not in office for the last 6 years?
April 25th, 2007 at 6:26 pmPlease explain the constitutional process to us for that situation. Explain the amendment that would allow such action.
Oh, how I miss the days of Clinton, impeached for f*cking a page and lying about it … as opposed to these days of GWB, not (yet) impeached for f*cking an entire country (or two — at least) and lying about it over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over … repeat until the page is full.
Are Clinton and GWB both evils. If so, I would argue that it is apparent to anyone who is not a moral infant (or, possibly, one of those who voted for GWB on the basis of his being a potential good drinkin’ buddy) that Clinton was the lesser … by orders of magnitude.
April 25th, 2007 at 6:27 pm#ForTruth:
So, you won’t mind if the GOP impeach Clinton (again) for doing it too?
Comment by Judy
“jake”,
Clinton WAS Impeached (brought up on charges).
The Republic-controlled Senate ACQUITTED Mr. Clinton.
Thanks for playing, though, jake…
But I’d LOVE to see how Bush handled IMPEACHMENT for his
WAR CRIMES!!!
Let’s FIND OUT, shall we????
April 25th, 2007 at 6:27 pmDocuments missing? Now who could of expected that? You would think that the repukes would be for open and honest government…..nah, their a bunch of crooks, you might as well just go after all of them it seems.
Come on you Troll scum, quick think of something….like Clinton did it or some other stupid comment.
Hating the Repuke Mafia daily
April 25th, 2007 at 6:30 pmjake is judy now? are all republicans crossdressingclosetedqueers?
April 25th, 2007 at 6:33 pmZooey:
I’m not Jake, but regardless, no one knows if any of those U.S. Attorneys were fired for illegal reasons because Congress never investigated that.
Wayne:
I’m not stupid, but I can read the Constitution. Anyone can be impeached and convicted so as to disqualify said person from holding “any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States” (Art. I, Sec. 3 — not an “Amendment”).
April 25th, 2007 at 6:37 pmjake is judy now? are all republicans crossdressingclosetedqueers?
Comment by bob (not the hacker)
When he was Elizabeth, he said he likes wearing lacy underwear, it makes him feel sexy.
Ichkkkk!!!!
April 25th, 2007 at 6:37 pmMr. Bush Goes To Hell:
I would love for you to impeach Bush. I thought Cheney was up first though?
Buck Fush:
If Bush violated any law, he should be impeached and removed from office. Any other questions?
bob (not the hacker):
I’m not Jake or a crossdressingclosetedqueer (not that there’s anything wrong with that).
April 25th, 2007 at 6:40 pmZooey:
I’m not Jake, but regardless, no one knows if any of those U.S. Attorneys were fired for illegal reasons because Congress never investigated that.
Comment by Judy
That’s what they’re attempting to do now, isn’t it? They shouldn’t be worried, if they have nothing to hide, right?
Your revolving name thing is getting tiresome, Jake. Give it up already.
April 25th, 2007 at 6:47 pmI’m not stupid, but I can read the Constitution. Anyone can be impeached and convicted so as to disqualify said person from holding “any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States†(Art. I, Sec. 3 — not an “Amendmentâ€).
Comment by Judy
Yeah you are stupid, I asked what amendment allows the impeachment of someone not in office, because it is not in Article II. Had to be an Amendment added to allow that.
Article II, Section 4. 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.
Clinton is no longer president, nor is he a civil officer. He no longer holds any office.
Now show me the section that Clinton would be impeached under…….
April 25th, 2007 at 6:53 pmArt. I, Sec. 3.
April 25th, 2007 at 6:55 pmZooey:
I am saying if Bush gets impeached for exactly what Clinton did, then Clinton should be impeached again too. I don’t know how else to explain to to someone who cannot tell the difference between the word “Jake” and the word “Judy” — I know they both have four letters, but they are different words — how would you like it if I called you by some other name?
April 25th, 2007 at 7:00 pmArt. I, Sec. 3.
Comment by Judy
point it out, whichpart of sec 3
I see :
Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States: but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law.
As is pointed out, he no longer holds ANY office. He cannot be impeached now.
I guess you will now state you are a lawyer with a fresh new license straight from a crackerjack box
April 25th, 2007 at 7:04 pm#57 –
JakeJudyHow would Bush get impeached for exactly the same thing as Clinton? Are you offering to take one for the team?
How does one impeach someone who hasn’t been president for over 6 years? Hmmmm?
I’m not changing my name everyday, but if I was and you spotted me, I guess I’d deserve to be called by the name you are most familiar with.
April 25th, 2007 at 7:05 pmJudy, you may not be stupid, but you and many of your fellow republicans are suffering from a shocking lack of common sense. Let me explain.
Republicans investigated Clinton for firing travel office employees, misplacing a couple of file boxes, engaging in a 20-year old failed land deal, providing the Lincoln Bedroom for use by visitors, engaging in a personal sexual affair and even using his Christmas list for politics. Do you really think that Clinton could have possibly fired a prosecutor for illegal political reasons without triggering a new republican investigation???!! Please.
April 25th, 2007 at 7:06 pmI don’t think EITHER Clinton or Bush fired U.S. Attorneys for ILLEGAL political reasons. See the Dems’ hypocrisy now?
April 25th, 2007 at 7:13 pmReally, Judy. You don’t see ANY possible problems here? Dems are 5 times more likely to be investigated. Prosecutors who investigate repubs lose their jobs. Prosecutors who refuse to hurry investigations of Dems lose their jobs. Bush’s chief political officer is involved…. and you don’t see ANY problems. Hmmmm.
April 25th, 2007 at 7:17 pmI don’t think EITHER Clinton or Bush fired U.S. Attorneys for ILLEGAL political reasons. See the Dems’ hypocrisy now?
Comment by Judy
That is your opinion.
Your hypocrisy is you haven’t yet pointed out where in the constitution it allows impeachment for someone not in a federal office.
Just the facts, please
Still waiting…….
April 25th, 2007 at 7:19 pmI don’t think EITHER Clinton or Bush fired U.S. Attorneys for ILLEGAL political reasons. See the Dems’ hypocrisy now? Comment by Judy — April 25, 2007 @ 7:13 pm
BAHAHAHA, that’s completely r*t*rded Jake*ss. Their own emails indicate they did in fact fire attorneys for political reasons. What you *think* (feel) isn’t really important to anyone but yourself, dum bass.
April 25th, 2007 at 7:19 pmWell, I DO think that Bush and Gonzo and Rove DID do it FOR POLITICAL REASONS
AND ILLEGALLY.
With Rove at the heart, which is WHY the White House is now trying to claim the Rove’s RNC emails are covered by “executive influence”,
or some such BULLZHIT.
Cause either they were doing RNC work at the White House (they WERE, according to a White House staffer), violating the Hatch Act,
or they were doing White House (non-political) work, but NOT PRESERVING THE RECORDS by going through the RNC,
a violation of the Presidential Records Act.
In addition, the emails show Gonzo WAS involved (so he initially LIED in January), which is PERJURY,
and the emails WILL show that Rove and Bush WERE involved, and are guilty of OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.
Yup, Bush’s boys DID do CRIMINAL things here, and MORE will be shown.
April 25th, 2007 at 7:19 pmJudy cuts and runs……
April 25th, 2007 at 7:27 pmBluedog49:
Of course there are possible problems, but if some new standard is going to be used for these U.S. Attorney dismissal, then I believe the same standard should be used for all past and future Presidents.
Wayne and Zooey:
I did point out the part of the Constitution and impeachments have happened AFTER someone has left office before (i.e. Secretary of War William W. Belknap).
ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus:
I am not Jake, but I won’t hold my breath waiting for your side to prove it was ILLEGAL (the point I was making).
April 25th, 2007 at 7:27 pm“Perjury and obstruction of justice are crimes against the state. Perjury goes directly against the truth-finding function of the judicial branch of government.” — Repub Senator Brownback, Congressional Record, 2/12/99
April 25th, 2007 at 7:28 pmWe don’t only live by a rule of law, but by a higher standard of ethical and moral principles, we do things everyday that don’t break the law, but wrong is wrong, should they be defended?
Its time people set higher standards for themselves and their leaders. The last time you lied, was it to a repulican or a democrat? The last time you stole something was it from a rebublican or democrat? the last time you lied? I bet you can’t remember can you?
Following laws and following partylines are never enough. These are supposed to be our best and brightest.
April 25th, 2007 at 7:29 pmJudy: “Of course there are possible problems, but if some new standard is going to be used for these U.S. Attorney dismissal, then I believe the same standard should be used for all past and future Presidents.”
Nice try, but there is no new standard at work here. Obstruction of Justice and Lying to congress are crimes now just as they have always been. Using the office of the president for political manipulation has been illegal since the enactment of the Hatch act in the late 30’s.
April 25th, 2007 at 7:34 pmWilliam W. Belknap resigned when impeachment papers were drawn, to try to avoid being impeached. They went through with the impeachment trial anyway.
Nice try on evading explaining how Clinton could be impeached 6 years after leaving office.
April 25th, 2007 at 7:45 pmHere you go, Wayne — JPark brought this up on another thread:
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/pardonop3.htm
April 25th, 2007 at 7:55 pmThis is priceless. George HW Bush pardoned the convicted CEO of Occidental Petroleum who had heavily contributed to his campaign, a convicted heroin smuggler 2 years into a 55-year sentence, an indicted Cuban terrorist and 4 indicted co-conspirators in the Iran-Contra scandal who were scheduled to testify about his part in the scandal….. and wingnuts are talking about a retroactive impeachment of Clinton for pardoning Mark Rich at the personal request of the Prime Minister of Israel???!!!!
I think conservatives are losing their minds. It must be the cognitive dissonance created by continued support of Bush and his gang of criminals.
April 25th, 2007 at 8:06 pmI did point out the part of the Constitution and impeachments have happened AFTER someone has left office before (i.e. Secretary of War William W. Belknap).
Comment by Judy
Good for you, Jake!
Again, good luck with that….
April 25th, 2007 at 8:08 pmIncidentally, for those of you who still believe the media is liberal, the New York Times published 17 articles on Clinton’s pardons and a grand total of one article on George HW Bush’s pardons.
April 25th, 2007 at 8:09 pm#14 Comment by veritas — April 25, 2007 @ 5:03 pm
Not only do I want things to be different for my children and grandchildren, I want to be able to say that I played my role in pressing legislators to investigate this, the most corrupt and inept administration in history.
Comment by Marie #45
Marie and veritas,
What WE do today…
…may be paramount in the ability of future generations of Americans…
…to survive…
…the MONEY the criminal Bushites have BORROWED…
…in order to to STEAL it pretending to pay for this illegal invasion and occupation…
…has to be repaid…
…are WE going to allow America’s future generations to bear the brunt…
…of this CRUSHING debt?
…or are WE going to DEMAND that EVERY ONE of the PNAC architects…
…military industrial complex/corporate war profiteers…
…ffp (formerly msm), and inbred Bushites who supported this sh*t…
…be held accountable?
…Do WE stand up and say “FREEZE ALL of their personal assets”…
…FORCE them (using the Patriot Act) to REPAY this debt!
…THEN incarcerate the profiteers and architects for crimes against humanity…
…in order to reconcile with the rest of the International community…
April 25th, 2007 at 8:20 pmNO MORE Ken Lay’s, Jeffery Skillings, or Bernie Ebbers’…
…time to get some JUSTICE…
…and YES I want my pound of flesh!
April 25th, 2007 at 8:38 pmWayne:
Did you read the article?
April 25th, 2007 at 8:50 pm“Of course there are possible problems, but if some new standard is going to be used for these U.S. Attorney dismissal, then I believe the same standard should be used for all past and future Presidents.”
How in the hell can you apply the same “new standard” to a past president. Wait, do you have a time machine, and what color is thy sky in bizarro world? What a Moron!
April 26th, 2007 at 12:37 pmTo anyone on this list who tries to compare legitimate dismissals of US attorneys by the White House for ALMOST any reason, Bush’s dismissals consititue a conspiracy to circumvent the Hatch Act by pressuring U.S. attorneys to abuse their offices for partisan political purposes. These dismissals were criminal if proven to be directly related to political corruption cases. The possible penalties, I am not sure about.
April 26th, 2007 at 4:19 pm