[soryalomop]

A short while ago I made a thread about the prosecutor who was fired so Rove's cloney could have the job. http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/brea...t-his-job.html

That was at the same time that 8 attorneys were all fired at once. Now 6 of them have testified to congress. Iglesias was called on the phone by two Republican senators (Heather Wilson and Pete Domenici) on seperate occasions asking him about sealed indictments. The indictments were about a Democrat and these two Republicans wanted to pressure them to be made public before the election. Very unethical behavour.

These attorneys are responsible for bring some of the Republican criminals to justice, Randy Duke Cunningham for instance.

They were warned by the Justice Dept not to talk publically about their being fired.

Sign Up

[TOD4wDTQ]

Can you say sour grapes? I mean so some liberal attorneys get replaced with conservative ones. For this you want what?

Varus

[Shipsyspeepay]

Its like Sports for example.What you do when your team doesnt win or make the playoffs? You fire the manager or the head coach. When your candidate doesnt win an election you fire a bunch of people.Rummy was forced to resign cause the democrats won the election.Samething when the republicans won majority in both houses in 1994.As the result of that Bill Clinton Chief of Staff Fired Joyce Elders because the stuff she says cause the democrats to lose majority.

[soryalomop]

Can you say sour grapes? I mean so some liberal attorneys get replaced with conservative ones. For this you want what?

Varus

Can you provide a link that says they are liberal attorney's being replaced with conservative ones?

Maybe if liberal means = indicting criminals regardless of party and
conservative means = only indicting people of the opposing party....

If that's the definition, maybe you're right!

[Mjypksun]

Ahh yes. Iglesias was simply asked how long the trial may take and what was going on with it. It seems Domenici wanted an update since Vigil was charged with these crimes in September of 2005 and the case was taking a really long time.


The trial is in regards to several democrats taking millions in kickbacks and screwing the state of New Mexico. Robert Vigil (state treasurer) was found guilty and received a 37 month sentance.

[Mjypksun]

Oh and Iglesias is a republican.

[Grizli]

Only the latest example of this kind of game.

Alberto Gonzalez caused 10 Attorneys to leave the DOJ in disgust after he muzzeled the Dept's Civil Rights Division re: the Georgia Voter ID Bill.

[soryalomop]

Ahh yes. Iglesias was simply asked how long the trial may take and what was going on with it. It seems Domenici wanted an update since Vigil was charged with these crimes in September of 2005 and the case was taking a really long time.


The trial is in regards to several democrats taking millions in kickbacks and screwing the state of New Mexico. Robert Vigil (state treasurer) was found guilty and received a 37 month sentance.

He was asking about a sealed indictment which is against the law to discuss and he was pressuring the attorney to make it public before the election, for political reasons. Talk about dishonesty in politics!

And you are OK with it?

Why because he's a republican? If a Dem did that, wouldn't you be posting against him instead of making excuses?

[deackatera]

Thank God these fired U.S. Attorneys finally get a voice, and a chance to expose what really went on. It has been far too long since they were fired without cause. I can hardly wait till the wrath of the U.S. Congress falls on the President. How can he possibly justify firing every U.S. Attorney in the country? (Except one.) And without even a polite note explaining why?

Only one U.S. Attorney escaped the carnage. And it's fortunate for him that he did - he is now the Director of Homeland Security. What careers have the others had since being summarily and unjustly fired?

Go get 'em, Samatha. I'm glad to see you've started a thread to examine this travesty. Let us know what you find out. In the private sector, firing someone without cause, is often grounds for a lawsuit. Do you think it's possible to sue the President himself, on mulitple counts of the same unjust act? He has fired EVERY U.S. attorney in the country! (Except that one).

The firing took place on March 24, 1993. The President was Bill Clinton. Many speculate he did it to defuse investigations into Democrat Congressman Dan Rostenkowski's activities in the House Banking Scandal, and also to defuse an ongoing investigation into a little-known group called Whitewater Investments of Little Rock, Arkansas.

See ATTORNEY GENERAL SEEKS RESIGNATIONS FROM PROSECUTORS - Free Preview - The New York Times

Samantha, I'm glad you feel these mass, unjustified firings might not have had "no reason" after all. They certainly smell bad, at least in some quarters.

Go get 'em! You WILL let us know what you find, won't you?

[soryalomop]

Acorn: Let's talk about current affairs shall we? I understand your only argument is to bring up Clinton, but it's tired and boring.

bigtlilodd: I don't know what party Iglesias is registered with. What does the party affiliation of the fired lawyer have to do with anything? The party affiliation of the senators who called him asking unethical questions is important because they wanted a democrat lawsuit to be made public before the election, for political reasons. But the party of the attorney doesn't have anything to do with it.

[SmuffNuSMaxqh]

The firing took place on March 24, 1993. The President was Bill Clinton.

I believe you're thinking about a different case. This USA Today article clearly states that the "forced resignations" Sam is referring to took place last year: USA Today

[deackatera]

Yep, and the Times article states just as clearly that a whole lot more firings took place on March 24, 1993.

Does the passage of time diminish the import of the crime?

Are you interested in the unjust firings of U.S. Attorneys, some of whom were conducting ongoing investigations? Or aren't you?

Or are you merely interested in going after Republicans, using the firing of U.S. Attorneys as an excuse, and you don't actually care about the firing of U.S. Attorneys at all?

Could it be that this is another misnamed thread, designed to disguise your real agenda to destroy Republicans?

Prove me wrong. Please.

[SmuffNuSMaxqh]

Yep, and the Times article states just as clearly that a whole lot more firings took place on March 24, 1993.

Does the passage of time diminish the import of the crime?

Are you interested in the unjust firings of U.S. Attorneys, some of whom were conducting ongoing investigations? Or aren't you?

Or are you merely interested in going after Republicans, using the firing of U.S. Attorneys as an excuse, and you don't actually care about the firing of U.S. Attorneys at all?

Could it be that this is another misnamed thread, designed to disguise your real agenda to destroy Republicans?

Prove me wrong. Please.

I really don't care one way or the other. But the case you're referring to is 14 years old. The one Sam is referring to is a year old.

While the passage of time doesn't make something "less wrong", the instance itself has no real bearing on the case currently under discussion.

I don't really go for the "well, they did it, so now we can" argument which, and I apologize if I'm wrong, you seem to be making.

Clearly, in '93, there were some serious problems. The seriousness of them, though, does not negate the seriousness of the one Sam is talking about, if the allegations are true.

That's all I'm sayin'...

[ReginaPerss]

I really don't care one way or the other. But the case you're referring to is 14 years old. The one Sam is referring to is a year old.

While the passage of time doesn't make something "less wrong", the instance itself has no real bearing on the case currently under discussion.

I don't really go for the "well, they did it, so now we can" argument which, and I apologize if I'm wrong, you seem to be making.

Clearly, in '93, there were some serious problems. The seriousness of them, though, does not negate the seriousness of the one Sam is talking about, if the allegations are true.

That's all I'm sayin'...

If this is a reason for not voting for Republicans, it's equally a reason for not voting for Democrats is what I believe Acorn could be saying.

So, we're both slime, and you shouldn't vote for either of us...

[JTS_tv]

There is a difference between being fired and being asked to resign.

How many of those AGs actually resigned?

[gimffnfabaykal]

A short while ago I made a thread about the prosecutor who was fired so Rove's cloney could have the job. http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/brea...t-his-job.html

That was at the same time that 8 attorneys were all fired at once. Now 6 of them have testified to congress. Iglesias was called on the phone by two Republican senators (Heather Wilson and Pete Domenici) on seperate occasions asking him about sealed indictments. The indictments were about a Democrat and these two Republicans wanted to pressure them to be made public before the election. Very unethical behavour.

These attorneys are responsible for bring some of the Republican criminals to justice, Randy Duke Cunningham for instance.

They were warned by the Justice Dept not to talk publically about their being fired.

Sign Up

The attorneys were fired because of a lack of performance.... they didn't meet the policy goals of the White House on immigration and firearms...

Stop making this a partisan thing .. geez

White House Backed U.S. Attorney Firings, Officials Say
The White House approved the firings of seven U.S. attorneys late last year after senior Justice Department officials identified the prosecutors they believed were not doing enough to carry out President Bush's policies on immigration, firearms and other issues, White House and Justice Department officials said yesterday. Since they are appointed and they failed to meet the priorites .. well .. it makes perfect sense. Now, if you want to complain on the lack of communication [from the administration] to pre-emptively explain why the attorneys were replaced, I would agree with that argument.

[Nurse_sero]

There is a difference between being fired and being asked to resign.

How many of those AGs actually resigned?

What's the difference between being fired and being asked to resign? Probably semantic I think. Fact is the Senate knows it stinks.

[shodulsilfeli]

Does the passage of time diminish the import of the crime?

Yup! Thats why we have the statutes of limitations.

[gimffnfabaykal]

Yup! Thats why we have the statutes of limitations.

The statutes of limitations does not diminish the importance of a crime, it merely sets the maximium time period that legal proceedings may be initiated .. besides, it does not apply to all crimes.

There is no statute of limitation on homicide, for instance.

[tactWeiccaf]

A short while ago I made a thread about the prosecutor who was fired so Rove's cloney could have the job. http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/brea...t-his-job.html

That was at the same time that 8 attorneys were all fired at once. Now 6 of them have testified to congress. Iglesias was called on the phone by two Republican senators (Heather Wilson and Pete Domenici) on seperate occasions asking him about sealed indictments. The indictments were about a Democrat and these two Republicans wanted to pressure them to be made public before the election. Very unethical behavour.

These attorneys are responsible for bring some of the Republican criminals to justice, Randy Duke Cunningham for instance.

They were warned by the Justice Dept not to talk publically about their being fired.

Sign Up

If I'm not mistaken, past presidents have fired US attorneys when they have taken office. I believe Klinton fired all except one and I also think Reagan fired US attorneys.

So what if Bush does it now instead of when he took office?

Kramer