[soryalomop]

Y'all are discussing the fact that they were fired and the reason the White House is giving for them being fired. The issue that they testified before congress with is that previous to being fired, for example Iglesias was called on two seperate occasions by two republican senators asking unethical questions about a sealed indictment.

New Mexico's David Iglesias told lawmakers he felt pressed by Sen. Pete Domenici (news, bio, voting record), R-N.M., last October to rush indictments against Democrats before Election Day in November. "If the allegations are correct, then there has been serious misconduct in what has occurred in the terminations of these United States attorneys," Sen. Arlen Specter (news, bio, voting record) of Pennsylvania said.

As a former district attorney in Philadelphia, he said prosecutors should operate "unfettered."

Domenici and Rep. Heather Wilson (news, bio, voting record), R-N.M., have acknowledged making the calls. They have denied placing political pressure on Iglesias. Neither responded to requests for reaction to Iglesias' testimony.

The two lawmakers may face additional questions over the matter. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (news, bio, voting record), D-Md., said the House ethics committee "has a responsibility" to investigate Wilson's conduct. A watchdog group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, has called for investigations of both Wilson and Domenici. Iglesias told the panel he received a call from Wilson in mid-October in which she asked him about sealed indictments — a topic prosecutors cannot discuss. Wilson's question "raised red flags in my head," Iglesias said.

"I was evasive and nonresponsive to her question," Iglesias told the panel, saying he talked generally about why some indictments are sealed. "She was not happy with that answer. And she said, 'Well I guess I'll have to take your word for it." The call ended almost immediately, Iglesias said.

Asked by Schumer if he felt pressured by that call, Iglesias replied: "Yes sir, I did."

Cummins was threatened by the Justice Dept not to talk to reporters about being fired.

Arkansas' Bud Cummins wrote other fired prosecutors in an e-mail last month of a "message" conveyed by a Justice Department official that if they continued to talk with news reporters, the agency "would feel forced to somehow pull their gloves off" and fight back. In the Arkansas firing, the Senate committee released an e-mail written by Cummins regarding a phone call he says he received Feb. 20 from a department official.

Mike Elston, chief of staff to Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty, expressed displeasure that the fired prosecutors had talked to reporters about their dismissals, according to the text.

"If they feel like any of us intend to continue to offer quotes to the press, or organize behind the scenes congressional pressure, then they feel forced to somehow pull their gloves off and offer public criticisms to defend their actions more fully," Cummins said in the e-mail to five other fired prosecutors.

"I don't want to overstate the threatening undercurrent in the call, but the message was clearly there," he added. And McKay was asked by an aid to another Republican congressman about an investigation but did not answer the questions.

John McKay, the fired U.S. attorney in Seattle, said he stopped a top aide to Rep. Doc Hastings (news, bio, voting record), R-Wash., from asking him detailed questions about an investigation into the disputed election of Washington state's Democratic Gov. Christine Gregoire in 2004. These are clues as to why they may have been fired. They were not doing the Republicans bidding.

Fired U.S. attorneys felt 'leaned on' - Yahoo! News

[gimffnfabaykal]

Y'all are discussing the fact that they were fired and the reason the White House is giving for them being fired.

.... and you're discussing the reason that they said they were fired .. Domenici started to file complaints with the Department of Justice long before the 2006 elections concerning the performance of Iglesias ... now while it may appear that the corruption investigation was the sole reason to remove him, this evidence makes it clear that it wasn't the sole purpose for his removal.

[Mjypksun]

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?

I don't think I would post against a dem for simply asking how long the case would take. If Domenici asked to know the contents of the indictments then I would be upset, however he seems to have only asked how much longer this trial was going to drag on. This was a serious case involving many dems accepting kickbacks for many years.

As for the party of Iglesias, someone said something about getting rid of dem judges and replacing them with rep judges. I was pointing out that persons error.

[deackatera]

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 didn't say that it did. My point instead was, that people here seem to be interested in an action that makes Republicans look bad. I was wondering if they were truly interested in the action, or merely in making Republicans look bad. So far I have seen interest in the one making Reps look bad, and ZERO interest in a more extensive action by Democrats. But the day is young, and it's theoretically possible that some Republican-basher may yet examine the other, more extensive, case of US-attorney firing.

As for "crime" or unethical conduct... U.S. Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President. If he wants to fire one, ten, or all of them, he can. I did not object when Clinton fired all 93 of them in 1993, and I do not object to Bush's firing of 10 of them today.

The President's job is to see that the laws are faithfully executed. The U.S. Attorneys are his direct instrument for doing so. If one or more of them aren't doing it the way he wants, it's his choice and even DUTY to replace them with people who will. Whether the President is Bill Clinton or George W. Bush.

There have been reasons advanced why George Bush should fire the attorneys he did (lack of performance on Immigration and Ethics issues), and reasons why he should not (some are involved in active investigations, some against members of his party). Reasons have also been advanced why CLinton should not have fired all 93 of them in 1993 (Some were involved in investigations against emmbers of his party). No reasons have been advanced why he SHOULD fire them.

But, again, the day is young. I asked for examinations of both firings... since people here say they are interested in U.S. attorney firings. The response so far, indicates that they are interested only in firings that seem to make Republcians look bad, and no interest in far more extensive firings that made a Democrat look bad.

That says a lot about the people claiming only interest in US Attorney firings. It says that perhaps they are not being honest about their motivations, and casts large doubts about the sense in paying attention to them.

Personally, I think there is no real problem with either set of firings - a view I held even back when only Cinton had done them. But some here now claim they dio see problems. I am encouraging them to examine the firings (all of them) - but am struck by the strange one-sidedness of their "interest".

Of course, considering the source, I cannot say I'm surprised. SSDD.

[soryalomop]

But, again, the day is young. I asked for examinations of both firings... since people here say they are interested in U.S. attorney firings.

You should probably go make your own thread on the issue. This thread is about the 6 attorneys who have testified before congress on Tuesday.

[Intockatt]

IMHO as a registered Independant I look on this with a little concern. Like it or not G.W.Bush doesn't have the support of a majority of Americans due to his own actions, not just the Iraq war but many other issues as well and the Republican party, by not holding him accountable for many things is going to catch much of that fall-out This will most likely translate to more Dems in the congress, senate and maybe the Whitehouse in the 08 elections. I would much rather see one party hold the Whitehouse, the other party controll Congress and an even split in the Senate. This I believe provides the "Checks and Balances" we need. It has already been proven that "One party rule does not and will not work"

[Nurse_sero]

Yup! Thats why we have the statutes of limitations.

I think it's more a case of the defence being at a disadvantage if a charge is brought some years after an alleged event.

[shodulsilfeli]

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.

Murder and warcrimes are the only ones I know which lack statute of limitations. And you're right the statute of limitations does not diminish the import of the crime, they merely recognize that the crime is less important. The crime diminishes in importances all on its own.

Suppose someone stole a loaf of bread back in the 60s, does that crime seem important to you? I could see some importance in prosecuting it if you caught the person today, but not years down the road when you review some security tapes.

[shodulsilfeli]

I think it's more a case of the defence being at a disadvantage if a charge is brought some years after an alleged event.

It's both, if you bring up a charge so long after the fact that you can't find witnesses, evidence, etc. its a problem. But also so we don't clog the court with ancient cases which have little relevance. Since after all if someone functioned just fine, even though they committed a minor crime three decades ago, and has committed none since where is the harm to society in leaving them free?

[Nurse_sero]

It's both, if you bring up a charge so long after the fact that you can't find witnesses, evidence, etc. its a problem. But also so we don't clog the court with ancient cases which have little relevance. Since after all if someone functioned just fine, even though they committed a minor crime three decades ago, and has committed none since where is the harm to society in leaving them free?

Yes good points.