Obamas DOJ was in the bag for Hillary

they FIRED DOJ lawyers who didnt prosecute AACORN

they fired lawyers for sending cheating republicans to prison
 
iolo said:
I call her Mrs Clinto, as I would address her. Don't you have any manners over there?
Click to expand...

You dingbat, she campaigned on her "Christian" name.

hillary-blue-bumper-sticker.png
 
God bless America said:
Odd, since that's not her surname.

What we don't have is centuries of subjugation by England. That's what the impotent Welsh have. Perhaps knuckling your foreheads to your masters on command is considered "mannerly" by the craven sons of St. Davy.
Click to expand...

Methinks it was a semi-freudian slip, iolo dreaming of her clito...
 
evince said:
this is what a DOJ being in the bag for someone looks like folks
Click to expand...

Further investigation and resignations[edit]
Battle resignation[edit]
On March 5, 2007 effective March 16, Michael A. Battle resigned his position of Director of the Executive Office for United States Attorneys (EOUSA).[58][85] On March 6, 2007, Gonzales responded to the controversy in an op-ed in USA Today in which he wrote:
"To be clear, [the firing] was for reasons related to policy, priorities and management — what have been referred to broadly as "performance-related" reasons — that seven U.S. attorneys were asked to resign last December... We have never asked a U.S. attorney to resign in an effort to retaliate against him or her or to inappropriately interfere with a public corruption case (or any other type of case, for that matter). Like me, U.S. attorneys are political appointees, and we all serve at the pleasure of the president. If U.S. attorneys are not executing their responsibilities in a manner that furthers the management and policy goals of departmental leadership, it is appropriate that they be replaced... While I am grateful for the public service of these seven U.S. attorneys, they simply lost my confidence. I hope that this episode ultimately will be recognized for what it is: an overblown personnel matter."[20]
Sampson resignation[edit]
On March 12, 2007, Sampson resigned from the Department of Justice.[57]
On March 13, Gonzales stated in a news conference that he accepted responsibility for mistakes made in the dismissal and rejected calls for his resignation that Democratic members of Congress had been making. He also stood by his decision to dismiss the attorneys, saying "I stand by the decision and I think it was the right decision".[57] Gonzales admitted that "incomplete information was communicated or may have been communicated to Congress" by Justice Department officials,[86][87] and said that "I never saw documents. We never had a discussion about where things stood."
Gonzales lost more support when records subsequently challenged some of these statements. Although the Department of Justice released 3,000 pages of its internal communications related to this issue, none of those documents discussed anything related to a performance review process for these attorneys before they were fired.[88] Records released on March 23 showed that on his November 27 schedule "he attended an hour-long meeting at which, aides said, he approved a detailed plan for executing the purge".[89]
Executive Privilege claims[edit]
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy stated that Congress has the authority to subpoena Justice Department and White House officials including chief political advisor to the president Karl Rove and former White House counsel Harriet Miers.[90] On March 20, President Bush declared in a press conference that his aides would not testify under oath on the matter if subpoenaed by Congress.[91] Bush explained his position saying,
"The President relies upon his staff to provide him candid advice. The framers of the Constitution understood this vital role when developing the separate branches of government. And if the staff of a President operated in constant fear of being hauled before various committees to discuss internal deliberations, the President would not receive candid advice, and the American people would be ill-served.... I will oppose any attempts to subpoena White House officials.... My choice is to make sure that I safeguard the ability for Presidents to get good decisions."[92]
Despite the President's position against aides testifying, on March 21 the House Judiciary Committee authorized the subpoena of five Justice Department officials,[93] and on March 22, the Senate Judiciary Committee authorized subpoenas as well.[94]
Goodling resignation[edit]
Main article: Monica Goodling
Sampson's replacement as the Attorney General's temporary chief of staff was U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, Chuck Rosenberg. Rosenberg initiated a DOJ inquiry into possibly inappropriate political considerations in Monica Goodling's hiring practices for civil service staff. Civil service positions are not political appointments and must be made on a nonpartisan basis. In one example, Jeffrey A. Taylor, former interim U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, tried to hire a new career prosecutor, Seth Adam Meinero, in the fall of 2006. Goodling judged Meinero too "liberal" and declined to approve the hire.[95] Meinero, a Howard University law school graduate who had worked on civil rights cases at the Environmental Protection Agency, was serving as a special assistant prosecutor in Taylor's office. Taylor went around Goodling, and demanded Sampson's approval to make the hire. In another example, Goodling removed an attorney from her job at the Department of Justice because she was rumored to be a lesbian, and, further, blocked the attorney from getting other Justice Department jobs she was qualified for.[96] Rules concerning hiring at the Justice department forbid discrimination based on sexual orientation.
On March 26, 2007, Goodling, who had helped coordinate the dismissal of the attorneys with the White House, took leave from her job as counsel to the attorney general and as the Justice Department's liaison to the White House.[97][98] Goodling was set to testify before Congress, but on March 26, 2007, Goodling cancelled her appearance at the Congressional hearing, citing her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.[99] On April 6, 2007, Ms. Goodling resigned from the Department of Justice.[97]
On April 25, 2007, the House Judiciary Committee passed a resolution, by a 32–6 vote, authorizing lawyers for the House to apply for a court order granting Goodling immunity in exchange for her testimony and authorizing a subpoena for her.[100] On May 11, 2007, U.S. District Court Chief Judge Thomas Hogan signed an order granting Goodling immunity in exchange for her truthful testimony in the U.S. Attorney firings investigation, stating that "Goodling may not refuse to testify, and may not refuse to provide other information, when compelled to do so" before the Committee.[101]
Gonzales resignation[edit]
A number of members of both houses of Congress publicly said Gonzales should resign, or be fired by Bush. On March 14, 2007, Senator John E. Sununu (R, New Hampshire) became the first Republican lawmaker to call for Gonzales' resignation. Sununu cited not only the controversial firings but growing concern over the use of the USA PATRIOT Act and misuse of national security letters by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.[102] Calls for his ousting intensified after his testimony on April 19, 2007. By May 16, at least twenty-two Senators and seven Members of the House of Representatives — including Senators Hillary Clinton (D, New York) and Mark Pryor (D, Arkansas)— had called for Gonzales' resignation.[103]
Gonzales submitted his resignation as Attorney General effective September 17, 2007,[104] by a letter addressed to President Bush on August 26, 2007. In a statement on August 27, Gonzales thanked the President for the opportunity to be of service to his country, giving no indication of either the reasons for his resignation or his future plans. Later that day, President Bush praised Gonzales for his service, reciting the numerous positions in Texas government, and later, the government of the United States, to which Bush had appointed Gonzales.[104]
On September 17, 2007, President Bush announced the nomination of ex-Judge Michael Mukasey to serve as Gonzales' successor.[39]
Testimony of Sara Taylor: Claims of executive privilege[edit]
On July 11, 2007, Sara Taylor, former top aide to Karl Rove, testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Throughout Taylor's testimony, she refused to answer many questions, saying "I have a very clear letter from [White House counsel] Mr. [Fred] Fielding. That letter says and has asked me to follow the president's assertion of executive privilege."[105] Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) dismissed the claims and warned Taylor she was "in danger of drawing a criminal contempt of Congress citation".[105] Senator Ben Cardin (D-MD) took issue with the claim as well, telling Taylor
"You seem to be selective in the use of the presidential privilege. It seems like you're saying that, 'Yes, I'm giving you all the information I can,' when it's self-serving to the White House, but not allowing us to have the information to make independent judgment."[105] Leahy added "I do note your answer that you did not discuss these matters with the president and, to the best of your knowledge, he was not involved is going to make some nervous at the White House because it seriously undercuts his claim of executive privilege if he was not involved."[105] He also said "It's apparent that this White House is contemptuous of the Congress and feels it does not have to explain itself to anyone, not to the people's representatives in Congress nor to the American people."[106]
In summary, Taylor told the Senate that she
"did not talk to or meet with President Bush about removing federal prosecutors before eight of them were fired", she had no knowledge on whether Bush was involved in any way in the firings, her resignation had nothing to do with the controversy, "she did not recall ordering the addition or deletion of names to the list of prosecutors to be fired", and she refuted the testimony of Kyle Sampson, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' chief of staff, that she sought "to avoid submitting a new prosecutor, Tim Griffin, through Senate confirmation."[105][107]
Contempt of Congress charges[edit]
On July 11, 2007, as Sara Taylor testified, George Manning, the attorney to former White House Counsel Harriet Miers, announced that Miers intended to follow the request of the Bush Administration and not appear before the Committee the following day. Manning stated Miers "cannot provide the documents and testimony that the committee seeks."[108]
In response to the announcement, Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) and Rep. Linda Sánchez (D-CA) Chair of the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law, released a letter saying the decision "could subject Ms. Miers to contempt proceedings." Conyers wrote
"I am extremely disappointed in the White House's direction to Ms. Miers that she not even show up to assert the privilege before the Committee. We understand that the White House has asserted privilege over both her testimony and documents, and we are prepared to consider those claims at tomorrow's hearing."
Sánchez wrote
"It is disappointing that Ms. Miers has chosen to forego this opportunity to give her account of the potential politicization of the justice system.", Sánchez added "Our investigation has shown - through extensive interviews and review of documents - that Ms. Miers played a central role in the Bush Administration's decision to fire chief federal prosecutors. I am hopeful that Ms. Miers will reconsider the White House's questionable assertion of executive privilege and give her testimony on the firing of U.S. Attorneys."
On July 17, 2007 Sanchez and Conyers notified White House Counsel Fred Fielding that they were considering the executive privilege claims concerning a "subpoena issued on June 13 to Joshua Bolten, White House Chief of Staff, to produce documents."[109] They warned, "If those objections are overruled, you should be aware that the refusal to produce the documents called for in the subpoena could subject Mr. Bolten to contempt proceedings".[109] The panel ruled the claims of privilege as invalid on a party-line vote of 7–3.[110]
The White House had consistently refused to provide the sought-after documents but has "offered to permit former and current aides to talk with lawmakers behind closed doors—but without a transcript and not under oath."[110] This offer had been rejected by the Democratic Leadership in the House as unacceptable.[110]
On July 25, 2007 the United States House Committee on the Judiciary voted along party lines 22-17 to issue citations of Contempt of Congress to White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten and former White House Counsel Harriet Miers.[111] Committee Republicans voted against the measure, calling it "a partisan waste of time", while Democrats said "this is the moment for Congress to rein in the administration."[111]
White House Press Secretary Tony Snow said of the action,
"For our view, this is pathetic. What you have right now is partisanship on Capitol Hill that quite often boils down to insults, insinuations, inquisitions and investigations rather than pursuing the normal business of trying to pass major pieces of legislation...now we have a situation where there is an attempt to do something that's never been done in American history, which is to assail the concept of executive privilege, which hails back to the administration of George Washington".[112]
Committee Chairman John Conyers said "Unlike other disputes involving executive privilege, the president has never personally asserted privilege. The committee has never been given a privilege log, and there is no indication the president was ever personally involved in the termination decisions."[111] Having passed the Committee, the motion went to the full House, where it was unlikely to receive a vote until after Congress's August recess.[111] If the measure passed the full House, the case would be given to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia. "The administration has said it will direct federal prosecutors not to prosecute contempt charges."[111]
On February 14, 2008, the United States House of Representatives voted 223–32 along party lines to pass the contempt resolutions against White House Chief of Staff Bolten and former White House Counsel Miers.[113][114] Most Republicans staged a walkout during the vote
 
God bless America said:
This thread is a lesson for anyone who fails to thread-ban the crazy old bat.

Wasn't the thread-ban tool instituted mainly to combat her crapflooding?
Click to expand...

I rarely read her posts anyway, and never open a thread started by her. There has never been any logic in her at all.
 
facts dont get nin their heads


is it facts cant live there and know they will die if they get inside?


is it their brain cases are just too thick?


is it that facts would make them rethink their lives?

is it that if facts held any sway in their brains they would have to admitt they were wrong?


is it that facts are swatted away with their flailing hands and wagging lips before they get near their heads?


or all of that?
 
evince said:
no its things like herion that is destroying the small towns all over American and trumpy keeps wagging his lips about helping but never does
Click to expand...

So it's smack you're on now? That explains why you vanish for hours at a time and reappear after you stop nodding.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top