[QUOTE=Apos]
So, Bricker, aside from the nitpick, you don’t think there is anything fishy about a raft of firings of folks that have investigated Republican corruption and replacing them with, among other things, Karl Rove’s former opposition research assistant?
[/QUOTE]
Cite for Bogden, Lam, Ryan, or any of the others having investigated Pub corruption?
[QUOTE=Squink]
Sure it is:
[/QUOTE]
But both Houses still have to vote on the final bill.
[QUOTE=John Mace]
But both Houses still have to vote on the final bill.
[/QUOTE]
And what procedure is there for first bringing it clearly to their attention that the bill they’re voting on now is not quite the same as the bill they voted out into the conference committee?
[QUOTE=John Mace]
But both Houses still have to vote on the final bill.
[/QUOTE]
They don’t always do so. See my lawsuit ref.
[QUOTE=elucidator]
(Note to puppy Dopers: “Big Enchilada” references a comment made by Nixon that he might be able to offer up John Mitchell (Atty. Gen.) to the circling investigators of Watergate, by convincing them they already had the biggest fish they were going to net.)
[/QUOTE]
Thank you, but that doesn’t explain why it’s big enchilada and not, say, big sope, or big burrito.
[QUOTE=Squink]
They don’t always do so. See my lawsuit ref.
[/QUOTE]
But they’re always supposed to do so. What was the result of that lawsuit?
Of course there are going to be times when errors are made, but if so, then I believe such a lawsuit would be upheld. No?
[QUOTE=John Mace]
But they’re always supposed to do so. What was the result of that lawsuit?
[/QUOTE]
Sure, they’re supposed to. There are lots of things the government is supposed to do.
Apparently there were several lawsuits over this. Some have been dismissed, and some are ongoing.
[QUOTE=Squink]
Sure, they’re supposed to. There are lots of things the government is supposed to do.
Apparently there were several lawsuits over this. Some have been dismissed, and some are ongoing.
[/QUOTE]
So, then Congress needs to clean it up. Bush only knows about the bill that was sent to him to sign.
[QUOTE=John Mace]
…Bush only knows about the bill that was sent to him to sign.
[/QUOTE]
Plausible, I suppose, for legislative acts of routine villainy. But the Patriot Act? Not so much.
[QUOTE=elucidator]
Plausible, I suppose, for legislative acts of routine villainy. But the Patriot Act? Not so much.
[/QUOTE]
One rather obscure clause. But still, if I were president, I’d go with whatever bill I signed and if Congress has a problem with that, they can take action.
It was certainly obscure to the Democrats. But a clause that enhances Presidential authority, such as this, is unlikely to escape his attention, or at least the attention of his handlers, which amounts to the same thing.
Besides, you are close to suggesting that the President would sign a bill he hadn’t read, which would…ok, gotta give you that one, his lips would tire.
[QUOTE=John Mace]
One rather obscure clause.
[/QUOTE]
But one that did not mysteriously appear by itself.
‘Temporary’ is good enough for Arkansas US attorney:
No doubt Harriet Miers warned him about such three-ring circuses when she told him how she’d secured him the appointment in the first place.
Meanwhile, Republicans are blocking any reversal of the new rule:
You’d think reversal would be a no brainer, what with Arlen Specter, the man whose staff inserted the original measure into Patriot Act authorization, cosponsoring the measure, but this is Washington, and there’s political grandstanding to be done.
Local speculation has the attorney in our area being fired not because of worries that he might investigate Republican corruption (he’s a Republican himself) but because he refused to waste money looking into ridiculous and petty accusations of Democratic corruption levied by vindictive far-right Republicans looking for payback for having been defeated in the governor’s race.
No hard facts in the article, just a lot of air and innuendo. The most suspicious element of the story is that nobody seems willing to pony up on the specifics of what “performance issues” made it necessary to show the man the door. He got a glowing appraisal seven months ago, and suddenly now he’s getting the boot? Uh huh.
[QUOTE=Squink]
Meanwhile, Republicans are blocking any reversal of the new rule:
[/QUOTE]
The article says they’re not planning a filibuster, so how can they block it?
Ex-prosecutor says pressure political (video interview with David Iglesias, former United States attorney in New Mexico)
Judiciary Subcommittee Issues Subpoenas for Hearing on Case of Fired U.S. Attorneys
So we should find out if there is an odor of fish about this affair, next week.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
I must have missed the posts in which the facts you allege above were established. How many AUSAs, overall, have been removed and what percentage of them were “investigating Republican corruption?” How many AUSAs who have investigated Republican corruption remain in their jobs?
Make a real case, rather than some vague suppositions based on even vaguer event sequences, and I might begin to smell fish.
[/QUOTE]
If it walks like a duck, etc.
Time and time again.
It’s got to be hard that the government you so admire seems to be on the sleazy end, over and over and over again. I feel for those of you who believed what they were selling and helped get them elected.
This lapsed discussion has already been superseded by the thread That CRAAAAAAAAZY conspiracy theory: the mass firings of US Attorneys.
We can continue the discussion, there.
I’m closing this one.
[ /Moderating ]