But you don't bother LOOKING at the list, you just assume they did something because it would help strengthen your point if they did?

Rococo4 wrote:

kimbatiste wrote:

Rococo4 wrote:

phdave wrote:

Rococo4 wrote:Most of those named could or should be on the list, but there is little doubt CREW is a left wing organization.

OK if it is most...who shouldn't be on the list?

I didnt read the actual link, but I am guessing they threw Domenici on there based on the fake US Attorneys scandal

Explain.

I mean that are probably including Domenici and Wilson because they inquired about the status of the US Attorney who covered NM, David Ygleisias. I dont think either did anything wrong by asking; Chuck Shumer and the Democrats feel different.

I was responding more to the "fake" comment. I personally have a big problem with a Senator inquiring about the status of an investigation for political reasons. But I often get hung up over that whole separation of powers thing.

jemagee wrote:But you don't bother LOOKING at the list, you just assume they did something because it would help strengthen your point if they did?

I looked at the list. I was right. There is no other reason Domenici would have been there.

kimbatiste wrote:

Rococo4 wrote:

kimbatiste wrote:

Rococo4 wrote:

phdave wrote:

Rococo4 wrote:Most of those named could or should be on the list, but there is little doubt CREW is a left wing organization.

OK if it is most...who shouldn't be on the list?

I didnt read the actual link, but I am guessing they threw Domenici on there based on the fake US Attorneys scandal

Explain.

I mean that are probably including Domenici and Wilson because they inquired about the status of the US Attorney who covered NM, David Ygleisias. I dont think either did anything wrong by asking; Chuck Shumer and the Democrats feel different.

I was responding more to the "fake" comment. I personally have a big problem with a Senator inquiring about the status of an investigation for political reasons. But I often get hung up over that whole separation of powers thing.

Whaa? You don't think it's appropriate to use the legal system to influence elections?

Rococo4 wrote:I mean that are probably including Domenici and Wilson because they inquired about the status of the US Attorney who covered NM, David Ygleisias. I dont think either did anything wrong by asking; Chuck Shumer and the Democrats feel different.

I don't know what you mean by inquiring about the status of the US Attorney. They did what? Was that a typo?

My understanding of the situation is that they did quite a bit more than just ask innocent questions. I'd like to know why you think they did nothing wrong.

And to say that the entire US Attorney firing situation is fake is an extreme comment. I'd like to her more about why you think this way.

Any communication by a senator or house member with a federal prosecutor regarding an ongoing criminal investigation is a violation of the ethics rules that govern the House and Senate... it's against the law of congress.

Regarding the "fake" US Attorneys scandal... what's being investigated is whether some of the US attorneys were targeted for dismissal to impede investigations of Republican politicians and others because they didn't initiate investigations that would damage Democratic politicians or hamper Democratic-leaning voters, as per the allegations. In other words, attempts to influence the 2006 mid-term elections.

phdave wrote:

Rococo4 wrote:I mean that are probably including Domenici and Wilson because they inquired about the status of the US Attorney who covered NM, David Ygleisias. I dont think either did anything wrong by asking; Chuck Shumer and the Democrats feel different.

I don't know what you mean by inquiring about the status of the US Attorney. They did what? Was that a typo?

My understanding of the situation is that they did quite a bit more than just ask innocent questions. I'd like to know why you think they did nothing wrong.

And to say that the entire US Attorney firing situation is fake is an extreme comment. I'd like to her more about why you think this way.

I think this way because the President of the United States has the power to dismiss any US Attorney at any time for any reason. They serve at the pleasure of the President. He could get rid of every single one today if he wanted to. It might not be fair to those fired, you might not like it, but that is the power the (any) President has.

Rococo4 wrote:

phdave wrote:

Rococo4 wrote:I mean that are probably including Domenici and Wilson because they inquired about the status of the US Attorney who covered NM, David Ygleisias. I dont think either did anything wrong by asking; Chuck Shumer and the Democrats feel different.

I don't know what you mean by inquiring about the status of the US Attorney. They did what? Was that a typo?

My understanding of the situation is that they did quite a bit more than just ask innocent questions. I'd like to know why you think they did nothing wrong.

And to say that the entire US Attorney firing situation is fake is an extreme comment. I'd like to her more about why you think this way.

I think this way because the President of the United States has the power to dismiss any US Attorney at any time for any reason. They serve at the pleasure of the President. He could get rid of every single one today if he wanted to. It might not be fair to those fired, you might not like it, but that is the power the (any) President has.

I thought that Bush didn't make these decisions. At least no one I know has specifically stated that Bush orderd someone to be fired. Maybe I missed that.

Hypothetically, do you think that it is just a matter of a president's perogative to threaten to fire USA's who are either investigating members of one party or another or not investigating one party or anther? How about firing someone who is investigating a close political ally and replacing the USA with someone else just so that the investigation would die? If Bush came right out and said this is what he did and said that it is his right to do these things, would that really be OK? It certainly is still under investigation to determine if anything like that happened in this case, but, hypothetically, I assume you agree that these things would be wrong if they happened with any president, right? I think abuse of power implies that someone did something that they had the power to do but should not have done.

Rococo4 wrote:

phdave wrote:

Rococo4 wrote:I mean that are probably including Domenici and Wilson because they inquired about the status of the US Attorney who covered NM, David Ygleisias. I dont think either did anything wrong by asking; Chuck Shumer and the Democrats feel different.

I don't know what you mean by inquiring about the status of the US Attorney. They did what? Was that a typo?

My understanding of the situation is that they did quite a bit more than just ask innocent questions. I'd like to know why you think they did nothing wrong.

And to say that the entire US Attorney firing situation is fake is an extreme comment. I'd like to her more about why you think this way.

I think this way because the President of the United States has the power to dismiss any US Attorney at any time for any reason. They serve at the pleasure of the President. He could get rid of every single one today if he wanted to. It might not be fair to those fired, you might not like it, but that is the power the (any) President has.

nobody is debating whether he had the right to fire them. People wanted to know why. They lied about it. If it is a non-crime, then why lie? To save face? People have the right to know if they politicized these firings, don't they?

It used to be presumed that there was a bright line within the executive branch that divided partisan politics from non-partisan governance activities. You can look back at the administrations of some of our most partisan Presidents--Truman, Nixon, Clinton--and find clear indications of prominent staffers and major initiatives that weren't going in the direction of the president's party.

What these guys understood--even Nixon, and when he lost this understanding, he eventually lost the presidency--is that when you blur that bright line, you weaken the credibility of the presidency. One reason I think Democrats are so rabid over Bush is that a lot of us feel like he isn't "our" president--that he has the mindset, and has been fairly open about this, that he's there to serve only those who agree with him.

If Bush, Rove, Gonzalez, Goodling and the rest of the hyper-partisans of this administration really believed that they could fire the US Attorneys at will, explicitly because they didn't feel those USAs were sufficiently Republican ("loyal Bushies"), they'd have said so. But they haven't; nobody can remember why they were fired, or who made the decision, and all the relevant files evidently have been Raptured beyond subpoena power.

Why haven't they admitted this? Why haven't they said, as the poster wrote upthread, that "the President of the United States has the power to dismiss any US Attorney at any time for any reason"? Because they're trying to preserve the credibility bequeathed by the bright line between politics and governance, even as they've also tried to infuse politics into every aspect of governance.

It's also likely that, after the governance fiascos this approach has produced in executive-branch entities like FEMA and the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq, they realize their credibility is less than zero in claiming that putting hacks, cronies and partisans in key positions actually leads to effective governance.

Disco Stu wrote:

Rococo4 wrote:

phdave wrote:

Rococo4 wrote:I mean that are probably including Domenici and Wilson because they inquired about the status of the US Attorney who covered NM, David Ygleisias. I dont think either did anything wrong by asking; Chuck Shumer and the Democrats feel different.

I don't know what you mean by inquiring about the status of the US Attorney. They did what? Was that a typo?

My understanding of the situation is that they did quite a bit more than just ask innocent questions. I'd like to know why you think they did nothing wrong.

And to say that the entire US Attorney firing situation is fake is an extreme comment. I'd like to her more about why you think this way.

I think this way because the President of the United States has the power to dismiss any US Attorney at any time for any reason. They serve at the pleasure of the President. He could get rid of every single one today if he wanted to. It might not be fair to those fired, you might not like it, but that is the power the (any) President has.

nobody is debating whether he had the right to fire them. People wanted to know why. They lied about it. If it is a non-crime, then why lie? To save face? People have the right to know if they politicized these firings, don't they?

Who lied about what?

Rococo4 wrote:

Disco Stu wrote:

Rococo4 wrote:

phdave wrote:

Rococo4 wrote:I mean that are probably including Domenici and Wilson because they inquired about the status of the US Attorney who covered NM, David Ygleisias. I dont think either did anything wrong by asking; Chuck Shumer and the Democrats feel different.

I don't know what you mean by inquiring about the status of the US Attorney. They did what? Was that a typo?

My understanding of the situation is that they did quite a bit more than just ask innocent questions. I'd like to know why you think they did nothing wrong.

And to say that the entire US Attorney firing situation is fake is an extreme comment. I'd like to her more about why you think this way.

I think this way because the President of the United States has the power to dismiss any US Attorney at any time for any reason. They serve at the pleasure of the President. He could get rid of every single one today if he wanted to. It might not be fair to those fired, you might not like it, but that is the power the (any) President has.

nobody is debating whether he had the right to fire them. People wanted to know why. They lied about it. If it is a non-crime, then why lie? To save face? People have the right to know if they politicized these firings, don't they?

Who lied about what?

The White House lied about why they were fired.

that link doesnt prove they were fired for one reason or another.

Rococo4 wrote:that link doesnt prove they were fired for one reason or another.

That's not why I posted the link. I answerd the question you asked.

And I'm still wondering what you meant by "they inquired about the status of the US Attorney". They did several things that I consider unethical and wrong and certainly qualifies them for inclusion in a list of the unethical. I'm not sure which (if any) of these things I know they did that you are referring to and I don't know why you think there was nothing wrong with what they did.

phdave wrote:

Rococo4 wrote:that link doesnt prove they were fired for one reason or another.

That's not why I posted the link. I answerd the question you asked.

Ok, it doesnt proved they lied. Hows that. Maybe Snow made a mistake. I dont really care either way if some political appointee gets fired. This whole thing started because of the CREW list that included Domenici based on this whole issue.

Even if they did lie about why they fired them, that doesnt make it a scandal in my eyes, since they have right to do it in the first place.

Rococo4 wrote:

phdave wrote:

Rococo4 wrote:that link doesnt prove they were fired for one reason or another.

That's not why I posted the link. I answerd the question you asked.

Ok, it doesnt proved they lied. Hows that. Maybe Snow made a mistake. I dont really care either way if some political appointee gets fired. This whole thing started because of the CREW list that included Domenici based on this whole issue.

Even if they did lie about why they fired them, that doesnt make it a scandal in my eyes, since they have right to do it in the first place.

Really? I seem to recall a certain President that was impeached for lying about his actions and not for the actions themselves (which, while perhaps immoral, were not illegal). Now that the shoe is on the other foot it isn't a scandal?

Rococo4 wrote:Even if they did lie about why they fired them, that doesnt make it a scandal in my eyes, since they have right to do it in the first place.

Are you serious? Is this Celtic btw?

Whether they have the right to fire them isn't the question. You know that. It is why they fired them. They said it was initially because of poor work. That is a lie and that is the problem. The White House didn't want people to think it was done for political reasons while it CLEARLY was and they lied about it.

You may not care but millions of people DO care when The White House lies under oath.

What I find interesting is that they lied to cover up their legal, but obvious political agendas. Clinton lied about his legal but obvious personal agendas. Clinton has a corrupt soul, but they are corrupt politicians.

It seems like we should be able to discuss this without bringing up Bill Clinton. I would prefer that, but oh well.

phdave wrote:It seems like we should be able to discuss this without bringing up Bill Clinton. I would prefer that, but oh well.

Oh come on man, you know the line will always be drawn.

I think it's appropriate to commend Lee Bollinger, the President of Columbia, for his introduction of Ahmadinejad today. I appreciate his honesty and frankness and calling a spade a spade while he sat next to him. Of course, would anyone be surprised if he is involved in an "accident" anytime soon?