View Full Version : Special Prosecutor named in Attorney firings
keirgrey
09-29-2008, 02:41 PM
This was a bit of a surprise. From the New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/30/washington/30attorney.html?em
Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/m/michael_b_mukasey/index.html?inline=nyt-per) appointed a special prosecutor on Monday to investigate whether criminal charges should be brought against former Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/g/alberto_r_gonzales/index.html?inline=nyt-per) and other officials in connection with the firings of nine of United States attorneys (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/u/united_states_attorneys/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier) in 2006.I'm shocked that Mukasey went after Gonzales. Why would he do that? Isn't he afraid he'll follow the 9?
grondramb
09-29-2008, 02:47 PM
interesting day to do it.
Be interesting to see how many pardons this turns into come December and January.
grondramb
09-29-2008, 07:03 PM
Be interesting to see how many pardons this turns into come December and January.
This is a bad scenario for the Bush administration - there is a good chance people won't actually be charged by January but the with the investigation already way the next administration won't have to spend any political capital to prosecute.
By January, the President may not even know who to pardon.
pseudonym
09-29-2008, 07:05 PM
By January, the President may not even know who to pardon.
Hedge your bets, W. Pardon everyone!
grondramb
09-29-2008, 07:11 PM
By January, the President may not even know who to pardon.
Hedge your bets, W. Pardon everyone!
The only way I can see the President being personally prosecuted would be the combination of an Obama victory and the public perception that President Bush abused his pardoning powers.
Be interesting to see how many pardons this turns into come December and January.
This is a bad scenario for the Bush administration - there is a good chance people won't actually be charged by January but the with the investigation already way the next administration won't have to spend any political capital to prosecute.
By January, the President may not even know who to pardon.I can provide the list if he's afraid of leaving someone out. Rove, Gonzales, Miers, Goodling (maybe not, she has immunity), Sampson, Domenici (R-NM, just in case), Griffin, McNulty, Battle (why not, maybe he did something).
And that's just the U.S. Attorney firing scandal. Getting to torture and misc lawbreaking there's Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Addison, Feith...
grondramb
09-29-2008, 07:17 PM
A list of high profile names that long would invite retaliation.
A list of high profile names that long would invite retaliation.
Who would they torture as retaliation? They're good at that!
-smak-
grondramb
09-29-2008, 08:08 PM
Senators of both parties who led a congressional probe of the firings praised Mukasey's decision and cautioned Bush against pardoning anyone as he leaves the White House.
"The American people will see any misuse of the pardon power or any grant of clemency or immunity to those from his administration involved in the U.S. attorney firing scandal as an admission of wrongdoing," said Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080929/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/fired_prosecutors
Turtleboy
09-29-2008, 08:28 PM
Who was that moron who said that this was a nothing story and nothing legal would come of it?
Who was that moron who said that this was a nothing story and nothing legal would come of it?
Tee hee!
You should post the opposite version of that line...
-smak-
grondramb
09-29-2008, 08:33 PM
Who was that moron who said that this was a nothing story and nothing legal would come of it?
I don't know if I said that here but my first take on it was that the President should be able to fire people from appointed positions and that therefore nothing would come of this in the end.
Who was that moron who said that this was a nothing story and nothing legal would come of it?
I don't know if I said that here but my first take on it was that the President should be able to fire people from appointed positions and that therefore nothing would come of this in the end.
I think he was being self depricating.
To be fair, you were both wrong :)
-smak-
Turtleboy
09-29-2008, 08:36 PM
Who was that moron who said that this was a nothing story and nothing legal would come of it?
Tee hee!
You should post the opposite version of that line...
-smak-
Too bad you're a pussy. If you had bet me, you would have won all sorts of free lunches. This; Hillary, hmm.. what else.
Don't you know that I always lose?
Who was that moron who said that this was a nothing story and nothing legal would come of it?Joe Klein at Time Magazine.
Turtleboy
09-29-2008, 08:42 PM
Who was that moron who said that this was a nothing story and nothing legal would come of it?Joe Klein at Time Magazine.
Actually, I was talking about me.
Who was that moron who said that this was a nothing story and nothing legal would come of it?
Tee hee!
You should post the opposite version of that line...
-smak-
Too bad you're a pussy. If you had bet me, you would have won all sorts of free lunches. This; Hillary, hmm.. what else.
Don't you know that I always lose?
You gamble enough. You don't have a rich wife to pay off your gambling debts (guess who smak is referring to :))
1. Hillary would not drop out before the convention - smak
2. Hillary would upset the convention - smak
3. The attorney firing scandal would be huge - smak
You have a blindspot when it comes to Hillary, so I didn't want to take advantage.
-smak-
Turtleboy
09-29-2008, 08:52 PM
Tee hee!
You should post the opposite version of that line...
-smak-
Too bad you're a pussy. If you had bet me, you would have won all sorts of free lunches. This; Hillary, hmm.. what else.
Don't you know that I always lose?
You gamble enough. You don't have a rich wife to pay off your gambling debts (guess who smak is referring to :))
John Kerry?
Too bad you're a pussy. If you had bet me, you would have won all sorts of free lunches. This; Hillary, hmm.. what else.
Don't you know that I always lose?
You gamble enough. You don't have a rich wife to pay off your gambling debts (guess who smak is referring to :))
John Kerry?John McCain?
You gamble enough. You don't have a rich wife to pay off your gambling debts (guess who smak is referring to :))
John Kerry?John McCain?
Winner!
-smak-
AJRitz
09-29-2008, 11:41 PM
Except that it's not really a special prosecutor. It's just a publicly identified AUSA with some extra support. He doesn't have the full powers or protections of a special prosecutor - most importantly, he can be fired by the President.
Sorta ironic, isn't it.
busyba
09-30-2008, 12:35 AM
Except that it's not really a special prosecutor. It's just a publicly identified AUSA with some extra support. He doesn't have the full powers or protections of a special prosecutor - most importantly, he can be fired by the President.
Is it just me or is all this a little familiar?
grondramb
09-30-2008, 08:08 AM
Except that it's not really a special prosecutor. It's just a publicly identified AUSA with some extra support. He doesn't have the full powers or protections of a special prosecutor - most importantly, he can be fired by the President.
Sorta ironic, isn't it.
Yes. But after the way Ken Starr went crazy and turned an investigation of the Clinton's financial dealing before they took office into a trial of President Clinton's sex life, I don't think you will see the other kind again.
But after the way Ken Starr went crazy and turned an investigation of the Clinton's financial dealing before they took office into a trial of President Clinton's sex life, I don't think you will see the other kind again.So because one special prosecutor went spastic, we'll never have another prosecutor who can't easily be stymied or made powerless in investigating executive wrongdoing, by the very people they're supposed to be investigating?
That seems like kinda the wrong reaction to me. How about we try to figure out some method of keeping prosecutors from going Ken-Starr-like spastic?
aindik
09-30-2008, 09:08 PM
But after the way Ken Starr went crazy and turned an investigation of the Clinton's financial dealing before they took office into a trial of President Clinton's sex life, I don't think you will see the other kind again.So because one special prosecutor went spastic, we'll never have another prosecutor who can't easily be stymied or made powerless in investigating executive wrongdoing, by the very people they're supposed to be investigating?
That seems like kinda the wrong reaction to me. How about we try to figure out some method of keeping prosecutors from going Ken-Starr-like spastic?
If they're not supervised by the President, who supervises them?
If they're not supervised by the President, who supervises them?Somebody other than the guy whose group of cronies is being investigated? If we had a functioning DOJ it'd be easier, obviously, but we don't.
RegBarc
09-30-2008, 09:39 PM
If they're not supervised by the President, who supervises them?Somebody other than the guy whose group of cronies is being investigated? If we had a functioning DOJ it'd be easier, obviously, but we don't.
I disagree. The answer to Aindik's question is "no one".
An Independent Counsel is effectively the 4th branch of government.
aindik
09-30-2008, 11:52 PM
If they're not supervised by the President, who supervises them?Somebody other than the guy whose group of cronies is being investigated?
No, specifically, who? Not "who doesn't," but "who does." What is the job title of the person and how did he or she get the job?
If we had a functioning DOJ it'd be easier, obviously, but we don't.
How would that help? Is the DOJ not part of the executive branch?
busyba
10-01-2008, 01:08 AM
If they're not supervised by the President, who supervises them?Somebody other than the guy whose group of cronies is being investigated? If we had a functioning DOJ it'd be easier, obviously, but we don't.
I disagree. The answer to Aindik's question is "no one".
An Independent Counsel is effectively the 4th branch of government.
You mean the 5th branch, don't you?
The 4th branch is Dick Cheney.
:2funny:
No, specifically, who? Not "who doesn't," but "who does." What is the job title of the person and how did he or she get the job?I'm afraid I don't have a ready-built answer for you.
You recognize the problem, right? That it's a joke expecting the current DOJ to give any prosecutor under their and George's control any backup, as opposed to undermining them and refusing to cooperate?
How would that help? Is the DOJ not part of the executive branch?In days gone by we had AGs who felt they served the Constitution and the country and the public first, not the president. Or at the very least tried to make a show of it. That's sure not happening right now. Mukasey's orders appear to be to run out the clock, and so that's all that's gonna happen. Do you think differently?
grondramb
10-02-2008, 02:32 PM
You recognize the problem, right? That it's a joke expecting the current DOJ to give any prosecutor under their and George's control any backup, as opposed to undermining them and refusing to cooperate?
A check against that is supposed to be congressional investigation of executive wrongdoing - this congress just whimpered quietly as the administration took the position it can shut down allegations of wrongdoing against the executive.
A check against that is supposed to be congressional investigation of executive wrongdoing - this congress just whimpered quietly as the administration took the position it can shut down allegations of wrongdoing against the executive.They've hardly "whimpered quietly", they've asked the DOJ and the AG to do their job, and been ignored or rebuffed. The only avenue they have available to them after that is impeachment. They could have taken that path, but it would have overwhelmed the elections and so the Dems chose instead to try to get a Dem in the White House and then the blockage is no more.
That's the other check on executive wrongdoing, slow and not always sure but it's something - the public votes the bums out.
grondramb
10-02-2008, 03:00 PM
A united congress can do all kinds of things - including abolishing the justice department and creating a new law enforcement agency
vBulletin® v3.8.2, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.