Re: US AG Alberto Gonzales MUST testify under oath for his role in 'Prosecutorgate'.
- From: Deadrat <a@xxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2007 01:50:10 GMT
Kent Wills <compuelf@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:75j013pgqicusddmth1b95js3hitqgnu82@xxxxxxx:
As I understand it, on Sun, 01 Apr 2007 18:58:53 GMT, Deadrat
<a@xxxxx> wrote:
Kent Wills <compuelf@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:ljrv035rdbpirgcekfhhpthhv49qlnm2rs@xxxxxxx:
As I understand it, on Sat, 31 Mar 2007 20:45:24 -0700, "Fred G.is
Mackey" <nospam@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Kent Wills wrote:
However, since nothing illegal was done, I don't see any
reason to ask anyone any questions.
WTF?
There are plenty of reasons to ask questions, even IF nothing illegal
done.
Since the original claim was that firings were done illegally,
despite any evidence to even support the claim, there is no reason.
Nobody claims that the act of firing a USA is illegal in and of itself.
If the firing was done to prevent a criminal investigation, then that's
called obstruction of justice.
From what I've heard, the claim is that the attorneys were NOT
investigating. To fire them to ensure they won't do what they aren't
doing would be really stupid.
Not the case for Lam. The claim is that she was fired because she was
about to go after more Republicans. That firing could be a crime.
Iglesias was fired because he didn't go after Democrats. That's probably
just a disgrace.
I want to know about both allegations.
Independently of whether justice was
obstructed, Congress may inquire at any time for any reason on the
operations of government that if funds (which is everything).
Within a defined scope, yes.
And do you feel that the USA scandal is outside that scope? A cite to
law or precedent would convince me.
class,whetherBush is our President - he SHOULD be held accountable and that's
or not ANYTHING he does is illegal.
While the firings were pretty dumb, IMO, President Bush has
the authority to terminate the attorneys.
He does. No one disuptes that.
So long as they weren't
done because the attorneys in question were part of a protected
itselfthere's no reason to worry about it.
I've accepted this on faith. Is is true? Congress often exempts
from such rules. Have they also exempted positions that require
Senatorial confirmation?
Huh? Were the attorneys required to be confirmed before they
got the jobs? If so, we can presume they got the confirmations, since
they had the jobs and no one complained.
I seem to have been unclear. I'm asking whether the hiring of USAs is
exempt from discrimination laws.
Until recently, confirmation of interim USAs was not required.
In any case, it would be illegal to fire a USA to prevent an
investigation.
To prevent an investigation they weren't doing anyway? That's
not illegal. That's stupid.
The claim is that people pressured the administration to fire USAs
because the USAs hadn't indicted Democrats before the election or at all.
Depending on how the pressure was brought to bear, that action could be
illegal. I doubt the subsequent firing would be. Just a guess.
shouldFFS, do you think the board of directors of a private corporation
not ask the CEO any questions as long as everything he does is legal?
So the USA is now a business? Will stock prices for the USA,
inc. be affected by this?
Very poor analogy on your part.
This is an excellent analogy.
Not to anyone with any business experience.
How so? You don't think the concept of fiduciary responsiblity cuts
across goverance lines?
The people who authorize the spending of
the money have a fiduciary duty to understand how it's actually spent.
As far as salaries and such, perhaps. They don't have a duty
to question why an employee was terminated, unless some evidence of
the termination being illegal is presented.
In the case of a business, you don't think they have a duty or at least
the authority to question dismissals that might affect company
performance? Lose business? Involve the company in lawsuits? Affect
the company's competitive position?
Are you kidding me?
By the way, the analogy in this case would be to high-level executives,
not mail room clerks.
This applies to government as well as business. What do you think is
inapt?
See above.
All I see above is a claim. Might I have evidence and argument.
.
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: US AG Alberto Gonzales MUST testify under oath for his role in 'Prosecutorgate'.
- Next by Date: Jewish judge frees £7m jewish fraudster after 5 weeks for Holocaust flashbacks
- Previous by thread: Re: US AG Alberto Gonzales MUST testify under oath for his role in 'Prosecutorgate'.
- Next by thread: Re: US AG Alberto Gonzales MUST testify under oath for his role in 'Prosecutorgate'.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
