The New Accountability in Washington

[sctx]

Originally Posted by roni

In the past it has led to the resignation of Richard Nixon and the impeachment and trial of Bill Clinton.

who held a majority in Congress when Nixon resigned uncle Roni???.......too young to really remember anything more than the fact that Dick creeped me out

[PlayadelSoul]

Originally Posted by roni

Congressional oversight is not the same as criminal investigation. It is an important job of Congress that has not been done with vigor for the past 6 years.

In the past it has led to the resignation of Richard Nixon and the impeachment and trial of Bill Clinton.

It is returning to the role it has traditionally played when one party controlled the executive and the other the legislative. I suspect that Rove does have some questions to answer on the US Attorney issue and I suspect that he will have a full opportunity to do so--under oath.

That falls way short of a witch hunt.

When members of congress single out members of an administration, by name, as supposed criminals, without a shred of evidence, its a witch hunt.

There are members of Congress, on record, as saying that Libby was the fall guy for Rove. This based on a crime that never happened committed by a guy whose name isn't Rove.

[roni]

Originally Posted by PlayadelSoul

When members of congress single out members of an administration, by name, as supposed criminals, without a shred of evidence, its a witch hunt.

There are members of Congress, on record, as saying that Libby was the fall guy for Rove. This based on a crime that never happened committed by a guy whose name isn't Rove.

Well, I was talking about the US Attorney's thing, but I'd say when a jury convicts someone of a crime, it done been committed as far as the law is concerned. That conviction may be reversed on appeal, but until that time it is accurate to say that Scooter, having been committed by a jury, has been convicted of committing a crime.

Your opinion in the matter does not weigh near as much as the conclusion of the jury having heard all the presented facts, having been instructed by the judge and having deliberated for all those days.

[roni]

Golly, Sen. Sununu is already running his next campaign by calling for Poor Al's resignation or firing.

[PlayadelSoul]

Originally Posted by roni

Golly, Sen. Sununu is already running his next campaign by calling for Poor Al's resignation or firing.

I don't think Hillary can be too happy about this. It will bring up the fact that her husband canned every single US attorney when he took office. Including the one that was about to indict Rostenkowski.

[roni]

Originally Posted by PlayadelSoul

I don't think Hillary can be too happy about this. It will bring up the fact that her husband canned every single US attorney when he took office. Including the one that was about to indict Rostenkowski.

Spin your ass off. Every President replaces practically every US Attorney wen they take office - and I think you knew that when you wrote your note cause you are a smart aware fellow.

The unusual thing now is that some were replaced for obviously political reasons in the middle of a term (Lam prosecuted Cunningham, as one example).

[PlayadelSoul]

Originally Posted by roni

Spin your ass off. Every President replaces practically every US Attorney wen they take office - and I think you knew that when you wrote your note cause you are a smart aware fellow.

The unusual thing now is that some were replaced for obviously political reasons in the middle of a term (Lam prosecuted Cunningham, as one example).

Actually, I did not know that. However, I think someone in the Admin wanted to fire all of them after Bush's first term and Bush said no. If it was politically motivated, then there need to be some questions answered. It isn't illegal, in any event. The President can hire and fire who he wants.

[roni]

Originally Posted by PlayadelSoul

Actually, I did not know that. However, I think someone in the Admin wanted to fire all of them after Bush's first term and Bush said no. If it was politically motivated, then there need to be some questions answered. It isn't illegal, in any event. The President can hire and fire who he wants.

I apologize for my mistaken assumption.

[roni]

Weren't Scooter and Clinton charged with pretty much the same crimes?

Wasn't one acquitted and one convicted?

Refresh my memory here.

[PlayadelSoul]

Originally Posted by roni

Weren't Scooter and Clinton charged with pretty much the same crimes?

Wasn't one acquitted and one convicted?

Refresh my memory here.

Pretty much, except Clinton was also charged with witness tampering. Libby could not recall dates and gave erroneous ones instead of saying he couldn't remember.

[roni]

Originally Posted by PlayadelSoul

Pretty much, except Clinton was also charged with witness tampering. Libby could not recall dates and gave erroneous ones instead of saying he couldn't remember.

Did he tamper with a cigar?

[kwagner99]

Originally Posted by PlayadelSoul

Actually, I did not know that. However, I think someone in the Admin wanted to fire all of them after Bush's first term and Bush said no. If it was politically motivated, then there need to be some questions answered. It isn't illegal, in any event. The President can hire and fire who he wants.

The scandal isn't that the president wanted to fire US attorneys, the scandal is that Alberto Gonzoles, under oath before the Senate, stated unequivocally that they were not fired for political reasons, when the record clearly shows that they were. When the chief law enforcement officer of the US LIES UNDER OATH, then there is a big problem. He either needs to take personal responsiblity for his actions by resigning, the President needs to take personal responsibility for the actions of his cabinet member by firing him, or the Congress need to hold him accountable for his actions by bringing articles of impeachment against him, and giving him his due process right to a trial in the US Senate. We are a nation of laws. The only thing that seperates us from anarchy is respect for the rule of law. That is it. When the majority of people no longer have respect for the law due to our leaders showing no respect for the law, then what is to keep us from decending into anarchy? Bill Clinton lied under oath. He was given his day in court before the Senate and aquitted of the charges. Those of us who did not agree with his aquittal held our leaders responsible at the ballot box. The system worked, although not everyone was happy with the outcome (you can't please all of the people all of the time). Personally, for purely political reasons, I think Gonzo should remain in office, as he will be completely ineffectual at furthering the Bush agenda, and he will hang like an albatross around the necks of Republicans in the next election.

[PlayadelSoul]

Originally Posted by kwagner99

The scandal isn't that the president wanted to fire US attorneys, the scandal is that Alberto Gonzoles, under oath before the Senate, stated unequivocally that they were not fired for political reasons, when the record clearly shows that they were. When the chief law enforcement officer of the US LIES UNDER OATH, then there is a big problem. He either needs to take personal responsiblity for his actions by resigning, the President needs to take personal responsibility for the actions of his cabinet member by firing him, or the Congress need to hold him accountable for his actions by bringing articles of impeachment against him, and giving him his due process right to a trial in the US Senate. We are a nation of laws. The only thing that seperates us from anarchy is respect for the rule of law. That is it. When the majority of people no longer have respect for the law due to our leaders showing no respect for the law, then what is to keep us from decending into anarchy? Bill Clinton lied under oath. He was given his day in court before the Senate and aquitted of the charges. Those of us who did not agree with his aquittal held our leaders responsible at the ballot box. The system worked, although not everyone was happy with the outcome (you can't please all of the people all of the time). Personally, for purely political reasons, I think Gonzo should remain in office, as he will be completely ineffectual at furthering the Bush agenda, and he will hang like an albatross around the necks of Republicans in the next election.

I would have to see the transcript of the questioning to make a call on that, but aren't all political apointees hired and fired for political reasons? Its kind of a vague question if that is the way it was presented. Leaves lot of wiggle room or none, depending on how you look at it.

Its like asking Gonzalez if he were hired for political reasons or if the President were elected for the same.

[roni]

It is difficult for Gonzalez, and I think he'll resign within a week or so.

It is the 2 year long email trail clearly showing some of the political trail from The AG's top deputy to the White House that is causing the most trouble. I am not so sure that it is a fact that the AG knowingly lied as much as it is that the AG may not have known what was going on with his top aide.

Lying or incompetence - not a pretty choice to have to make as one decides how to defend one's job and department. Certainly there are other choices, what are those? What will the next days reveal? Leahy was pretty clear on wanting people in front of the Judiciary Committee testifying under oath.

[kwagner99]

Originally Posted by PlayadelSoul

I would have to see the transcript of the questioning to make a call on that, but aren't all political apointees hired and fired for political reasons? Its kind of a vague question if that is the way it was presented. Leaves lot of wiggle room or none, depending on how you look at it.

Its like asking Gonzalez if he were hired for political reasons or if the President were elected for the same.

Here it is, in a nutshell:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...031400519.html