Comment by The Oracle — June 27, 2007 @ 10:07 pm

Some would querry “What’s the difference?” I say they are worse than the mafia.

Which is why all the U.S. Attorneys who weren’t fired should be subpoenaed to appear before Congress, so they can be asked a whole of questions under oath…especially questions about any contact they’ve had with Karl Rove, or any “instructions” they may have received from Alberto Gonzales about “fixing” the November 2008 elections.

The pattern of blatant corruption in the Republican Party is quite apparent by now. They’ll lie, cheat and steal to force their crazed ideological agenda onto the rest of us, even subverting our Constitution in the process.

Our entire legal system has been assaulted, thus calling into question any action by any “culture of corruption” Republican attorney or judge taken anywhere across our country.

Kavanaugh lied. Kavanaugh shouldn’t just recuse himself, he should immediately resign. Otherwise, the circuit court bench on which his foul butt sits will continue to smell, calling into question the integrity of everyone sitting on the circuit court.

But we know Kavanaugh won’t do the honorable thing and resign. He was placed on the DC circuit court to try to block any criminal charges or accountability ever being brought against Republican officials in the most corrupt administration in American history. I’m certain that the Mafia would have loved to have had that capability.

The problem with all these new revelations is that they are not new. At the time of the confirmation, folks said don’t confirm him and the response was well you don’t really have any proof. It’s the same shtick they’re running with Attorneygate. Got any proof, then go away.

Proof of what? Proof of firing people that serve at the pleasure of the President and can be fired for virtually any reason whatsoever. “Proof” is not necessary to defend something that is not improper.

Just as the Clinton Administration did to 93 US attorneys.

Comment by Not Canadian — June 27, 2007 @ 2:58 pm

Yeah, the stuff they get away with is mindboggling.

Another former Kennedy clerk, White House lawyer Brett Kavanaugh, had made the same argument earlier.

It does sound like he fibbed to Congress though. If he was making “the same” argument “earlier” he was involved in discussions. Especially if he was being used as a sounding board for what Justice Kennedy would do.

The question is, when do they become relevant again? When do they work for the people, which is what they are supposed to do.

Once someone is confirmed or elected, the inertia sets in. No one wants to upset the apple cart because they might be next.

The better play would have been to do what the GOP Senate is doing . . . refuse to let anything come to a vote. Then you wouldn’t have this idiot on the bench or the other 2 idiots ont he SCOTUS. Thanks for nothing, once again

What happened in NC when the prosecutor was disbarred. He was fired before he quit, but he had been disbarred already, yet remained for several days.

Interesting legal question…any lawyers out there?

Comment by dlet — June 27, 2007 @ 3:31 pm”

You forget that a CIVIL SERVANT is in a different class of requirments…..

So the Attorney General and a Federal Judge can retain their positions without being able to legally practice law? That seems kind of hoakey. Must look more into this. Not to say you are not right but it just seems weird.

His Client, the Vice President’

In the summer and fall of 2002, some of the Bush administration’s leading lawyers began to warn that Cheney and his Pentagon allies had set the government on a path for defeat in court. As the judicial branch took up challenges to the president’s assertion of wartime power, Justice Department lawyers increasingly found themselves defending what they believed to be losing positions — directed by the vice president and his staff. One of the uneasy lawyers was Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson , a conservative stalwart whose wife, Barbara, had died on Sept. 11, 2001 when the hijacked American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon. Olson shared Cheney’s robust view of executive authority, but his job was to win cases. Two that particularly worried him involved U.S. citizens — Jose Padilla and Yaser Esam Hamdi — who had been declared enemy combatants and denied access to lawyers.

Federal courts, Olson argued, would not go along with that. But the CIA and military interrogators opposed any outside contact, fearing relief from the isolation and dependence that they relied upon to break the will of suspected terrorists.

Flanigan said that Addington’s personal views leaned more toward Olson than against him, but that Addington beat back the proposal to grant detainees access to lawyers, “because that was the position of his client, the vice president.”

Decision time came in a heated meeting in Gonzales’s corner office on the West Wing’s second floor, according to four officials with direct knowledge, none of whom agreed to be quoted by name about confidential legal deliberations. Olson was backed by associate White House counsel Bradford A. Berenson , a former law clerk to Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy.

Berenson told colleagues that the court’s swing voter would never accept absolute presidential discretion to declare a U.S. citizen an enemy and lock him up without giving him an opportunity to be represented and heard. Another former Kennedy clerk, White House lawyer Brett Kavanaugh, had made the same argument earlier.

Addington accused Berenson of surrendering executive power on a fool’s prophecy about an inscrutable court. Berenson accused Addington of “know-nothingness.”

Gonzales listened quietly as the Justice Department and his own staff lined up against Addington. Then he decided in favor of Cheney’s lawyer.

Comment by dlet — June 27, 2007 @ 3:24 pm”

NOPE!

They MUST be IMPEACHED, or fired by the President!