Does that mean there will be a problem with the fed's prosecuting people for marijuana offenses?
Printable View
Does that mean there will be a problem with the fed's prosecuting people for marijuana offenses?
Most likely not, Jawndoe, assuming you were serious with your question.
What I'm loving more and more every minute is how this may well be the thing that gets Karl Rove's fat, arrogant, aggressively partisan ass caught in the wringer he's deserved for 15 years of more. Couldn't happen to a sleazier guy. Looks like Alberto Gonzales may take the entire fall, though.
Not just this with Gonzales .... and crooksandliars has a great video clip on why this case is extremely important and it will definitely foil the repukes plans for 2008 .... not to mention the trouble he is in for the Plame outing.
Imformation shows that the WH never did an investigation at all ....on the Plame case .... remember when the illegitimate bush months before the Fizgerald investigation ... was going to get to the bottom of things? Another lie the bushies will overlook.
:noel:
Actually I was very serious with my question. Hopefully however this does cause those criminals who call themselves leaders to get what they deserve.Quote:
Originally Posted by birdgirl73
something that seems to escape understanding by liberals: the President has absolute legal authority to appoint and fire federal judges and attorneys AT WILL, no reason is required (my next-door neighbor was a Federal judge appointed by Reagan, who was immediately fired when Jimmy Carter took office - a good thing, he was a hangin' judge on pot offenses) - also, when President Clinton fired ALL of the Federal attorneys upon entering the White House, not one complaint was heard from the Republicans (evidently, the hated Republicans were educated enough to understand the law, and knew Clinton was within his rights) - also, Reagan fired a bunch, Carter also fired a bunch - it is common practice, and had never been complained about before, it's just more of the same, tired, old 30-second soundbites, (that seems to be enough these days, to sway an election, an election by lazy, uninformed voters - and, that is a sad state of affairs:( :
I believe every president has done these firings at the start of there terms, just as they place in new department heads. However there is a bit more involved in these firings then a simple changing of the guards.
Here is an interview of David Iglesias on CBS. I hate Katie Couric, but atleast you can get a view of one attorney involved.
It's not the fact that they fired the judges, which is in and of itself entirely legal, but the fact that they fired them in midterm after stellar performance reports for assumingly political reasons and then told lies about who ordered the firings. IE. they wouldn't perform the Bush agenda, which is persecute (prosecute) as many Democrats as possible. Federal judges on the Bush program have prosecuted Democrats by a margin of 78%-22%, sort of like a Democratic witch hunt. I thought those Salem days were over, but not in the Bush White House. It's now obvious that Carl Rove ordered the Firings and then blamed it on underlings. The White House (Bush) now has a problem on its hands. Either say it ordered the firings and take the heat, or subject Rove and Gonzales to congressional hearings. Nothing would make me happier than to see Carl Rove (The Mastermind of the Bush agenda) on the hot seat. I'm sure they'll claim executive privelege as they so often have done in the past. This will then be up to the Dermocrats to issue subpoenas and yank them before a congressional committee. I'll be dancing with glee. Carl Rove is the evil genious behind all the lies and misdeeds of the Bush Regime and deserves no less than some long jail term. Compared to the Scooter Libby debacle ( the fall guy for Cheney and Rove) this could progress into something wonderful, the fall of the Rovian empire!
Next time, you certainly need to do much better research before you use the phrase "escape understanding by liberals" or term others as stupid. Federal judges can indeed be appointed and dismissed at will (it's not calling "firing") and often change from administration to administration. But U.S. Attorneys are hired by the Department of Justice, whose head, the Attorney General, changes from administration to administration. The U.S. Attorneys themselves usually do not change out with the pendulum swings in political tides. That's why this firings controversy--the floating of a plan to clean out the ones who weren't sympathetic to the Bush administration--is so egregious. U.S. attorneys have to represent a variety of political persuasions so the entire body of the DOJ can appear fair and impartial since, of course, they're doing judicial and prosecutorial work at very high levels. They keep their jobs based on performance or desire, and though a few may leave spontaneously when the Attorney General leaves or may leave to take better-paying jobs in the private sector, until now, they've not been government employees who are fired at will. They certainly shouldn't be fired for partisan political reasons, and that, again, is why this is such a story. The 8 or 9 U.S. Attorneys who apparently lost their jobs under this "plan" all had exceptional performance records. Here's where you can read more about the DOJ and the U.S. Attorneys. And if you need me to introduce you to my friend Lee, a high-ranking attorney who formerly worked in this very organization in Texas, you can hear it from him, too.Quote:
Originally Posted by freewheelinfrank
The United States Department of Justice - United States Attorneys' Office
You can work on your presidential chronology here:
List of Presidents of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
my reference to Jimmy Carter was a 'typo', as I intended to write Clinton's name - and , I didn't need to research the President's terms to know that - maybe I was even, God forbid, a bit stoned, how unusual for a place like thisQuote:
Originally Posted by birdgirl73