Fox News anchor Bill O’Reilly finally provided some perspective on the U.S. attorney firing story with some information the mainstream media will not report. On the March 22 edition of "The O’Reilly Factor," O’Reilly exposed much of the media spin on the situation from members of the White House press corps to several print media outlets. He then explained plausible reasons why three of the eight U.S. attorneys were fired.
The mainstream media hinted that the administration fired San Diego attorney Carol Lam for prosecuting former Republican Congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham. What they failed to report is that Ms. Lam did not aggressively prosecute illegal alien criminals. Her lax approach concerned even Democratic Senator Diane Feinstein. Paul Charlton was not aggressive in pursuing marijuana cases, and even the liberal "Los Angeles Times" editorialized against fired attorney Kevin Ryan.
Following his "Talking Points Memo," when interviewing Dick Morris, O’Reilly made an interesting analysis as transcribed by MRC's Brendan Jones.
O'REILLY: I know. That's what I don't get. But, here's something really interesting. We called over the past few days and it had to be about a hundred Democrats. People usually come on The Factor in an instant. Nobody wants to come on. Because they know that I'm going to present this evidence and they can't answer it. But you know why they really won't come on, because the press is carrying their water for them.
The relevant transcript of Bill’s "Talking Points" is below.
BILL O'REILLY: Once again I'm put in a position of having to defend the Bush administration, which is not my job. My mandate is to watch the Bush administration and everybody else, to watch them who holds power in this country. But the U.S. attorney thing is absurd, a fabricated event designed to hurt the president and make it easier for the Democrats to consolidate their power and elect a president in 2008. That being said, all Mr. Bush has to do is to tell Tony Snow to explain the reasons why all eight prosecutors were replaced. Snow could do that in his sleep. Just go, boom, boom, boom, have a nice weekend. But because the Bush administration is so reluctant to explain anything, the media is running wild.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER 1: Is the White House ready for this to be played out in court for a political public spectacle?
REPORTER 2: How do you avoid the appearance of stonewalling?
REPORTER 3: What do you say to criticism that this is part of a pattern of secrecy?
BRIAN HENRY: Are you afraid that they will be able to go through and find inconsistencies in testimony if there's a transcript?
BRET BAIER: This is the final offer? This is it?
SNOW: Yes.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O'REILLY: Now, on the print side, here we go. The ultra-liberal "Baltimore Sun" says, quote: "Either he," the president, "doesn't recognize the weakness of his position or he has something awful to hide." Uber-left "Newsday" writes, quote: "Gonzales wasn't telling the truth when he said the prosecutors were fired for poor job performance." OK, "Newsday," prove it. Prove it. Demonstrate the attorney general was lying. If you can't, close up shop. And the absolute topper comes from The "Brattleboro Reformer," which says, quote: "This whole affair is too reminiscent of Watergate." No, it's not. There's not even a hint of illegality in play. By the way, the radical left Vermont paper has also called for the president's impeachment. The only way this dopey story matters is if the Bush administration fired a prosecutor who was looking into political corruption. If that happened, the president is doomed. But there's no evidence of that. In fact, "The Factor's" initial investigation shows that at least three of the fired U.S. attorneys were controversial, to say the least. In San Diego, U.S. attorney Carol Lam was under fire for failing to prosecute illegal alien criminals. On June 15, 2006, Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein complained about Ms. Lam to Alberto Gonzales, quote: "It is my understanding that Ms. Lam may have some of the most restrictive prosecutorial guidelines nationwide for immigration cases, such that many Border Patrol agents end up not referring their cases." That was Feinstein then. Here she is now.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN, D-CALIF.: The White House is in a bunker mentality: won't listen, won't change. I believe there is even more to come out.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O'REILLY: Yeah. And then there's fired U.S. Attorney Paul Charlton, who wouldn't prosecute pot-smuggling cases unless they were above 500 pounds. Wow. How about San Francisco federal prosecutor Kevin Ryan? Here is what the liberal Los Angeles Times wrote about him today: "It was only when a Democratic judge threatened to go to Congress to raise a public fuss over Ryan's poor performance that Ryan was put on the termination list, according to e-mails released by the White House."
—Justin McCarthy is a news analyst at Media Research Center.















Comments Policy
Poor lefties...they are so us
March 23, 2007 - 15:56 ET by HokieconPoor lefties...they are so used to seeing poor performance rewarded that their collective breeches got knotted up when poor performers were actually FIRED!! The horror!
--Hokiecon
Besides, there isn't supposed
March 23, 2007 - 16:06 ET by Sonny LykosBesides, there isn't supposed to be any "scoring" on performance, and GW was not "sensitive' to their needs.
Why can't we all just hug and get along?
<<hug>>--Hokiecon
March 23, 2007 - 16:23 ET by Hokiecon<<hug>>
--Hokiecon
If they're so right, why th
March 23, 2007 - 21:01 ET by The TruthIf they're so right, why they're so afraid of testifying under oath and having transcripts?
Why are they afraid? They are
March 23, 2007 - 22:48 ET by Independence4AllWhy are they afraid? They are not. They don't want to get set up by Dems who can't wait to try and trip them up while questioning to see if they can trump up a "process crime" like in the Libby trial.
This whole thing is BS in the first place. Political? Of course it's political. US attorneys are political apointees. They serve at the pleasure of the President. End of story. Good night. Goodbye.
OReilly viewers don't watch t
March 24, 2007 - 12:50 ET by joe conservativeOReilly viewers don't watch to be informed but to have their delusions validated by this mouth piece of Prez AWOL.
joe,Why don't you try somethi
March 24, 2007 - 12:55 ET by Blondejoe,
Why don't you try something new for a change?
Boring.
Joe's doing his best, Blonde
March 24, 2007 - 13:15 ET by RJBlonde, Joe Conservative is doing his best. Give him a break. He repeats the same message over and over because he can't "try something new" until his handlers teach him a new sequence of keys to punch.
Joe conservative
March 24, 2007 - 13:35 ET by misterbillHe is from the shallow end of the gene pool.
One of the things the MSM do
March 23, 2007 - 16:16 ET by rbosqueOne of the things the MSM does best is censorship by ommission. Selective reporting is what they do to spin the news, this story is no exception.
Declining to prosecute pot s
March 23, 2007 - 16:23 ET by Agnostic frontDeclining to prosecute pot smugglers unless the smuggle more than 500 pounds of pot is not unreasonable. They have better crap to do and this would hardly be a reason to fire a prosecutor. How about setting federal guidelines as to the amount of pot that requires federal prosecution? Why leave it up to the individual prosecutor?
Moreover, O'Reilly also doesn't address the other five who were apparently fired for no real reason, other than failure to politically capitulate.
"Moreover, O'Reilly al
March 23, 2007 - 16:31 ET by MightyMouth"Moreover, O'Reilly also doesn't address the other five who were
apparently fired for no real reason, other than failure to politically
capitulate."
Sounds like perfectly good reason for them to be fired to me. Dissention and mutiny in the ranks should not be permitted!
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Maybe it is, it's just never
March 23, 2007 - 16:34 ET by Agnostic frontMaybe it is, it's just never been done before, and congress is in the process of removing Bush's ability to appoint fed pro's without congressional approval because of these firings.
Correct me if I am wrong, but
March 23, 2007 - 16:39 ET by HokieconCorrect me if I am wrong, but didn't Clinton fire a bunch of attorneys for the same (or perhaps lesser) reasons? Isn't it normal for administrations to periodically remove political appointees since they do serve at the behest of the Executive and the approval of Congress?
--Hokiecon
You are wrong. Clinton fired
March 23, 2007 - 16:52 ET by Agnostic frontYou are wrong. Clinton fired all of the fed's when he came into office, as did GWB. It is highly unusual for fed's to be dismissed in mid-term.
"You are wrong. Clinton
March 23, 2007 - 18:10 ET by ckc1227"You are wrong. Clinton fired all of the fed's when he came into office, as did GWB. It is highly unusual for fed's to be dismissed in mid-term."
Then he was right, not wrong. And just because it is "unusual" to dismiss during mid-term doesn't mean it is wrong to do so.
As for BOR, he gave legitimate reasons for the firing of 3 of the attorneys, which is 3 more reasons than have been given by any MSM outlet. Just because he didn't give reasons for the other 5, which he explained, doesn't mean there weren't legitimate reasons to do so.
Hokiecon,I believe I am rig
March 23, 2007 - 16:55 ET by MightyMouthHokiecon,
I believe I am right on this... Congress must approve the appointees but does not have to "approve" an appointees removal.
The dems are doing nothing more than grandstanding.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
MM
March 23, 2007 - 17:04 ET by gfrrman"Congress must approve the appointees but does not have to "approve" an appointees removal."
MM I believe the Patriot Act changed this provision. The point is that NOTHING improper or illegal has been done and this whole thing by the Democrats is much ado about nothing!!!
Actually, it has been done
March 23, 2007 - 16:44 ET by MightyMouthActually, it has been done before but not this number of firings. And in my opinion Bush should just tell everyone why each one was fired. There is way too much time being wasted on this. Keep one thing in mind though...the democrats started it! And why? Not for the noble reason given to get to some kind of "truth", but because many of them are power drunk psychopaths!
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Its just never been done befo
March 23, 2007 - 16:58 ET by Mr. KafirIts just never been done before?!?!? So on what planet did Clinton fire 93 prosecutors?
Kafar...That would be the pla
March 23, 2007 - 17:11 ET by bassndudeKafar...That would be the planet Demos. Or was it Upyoursmos....I cant keep em straight. But Clinton is a citizen of both I think.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
WTF? Really? If some drug smu
March 23, 2007 - 16:37 ET by Mr. KafirWTF? Really? If some drug smuggler pulled up to a public school with 450 pounds of cannibis to sell to children that's okay with you? Dumbass.
What's so magical about 500? Why not 1000?
Why even prosecute victimless crimes, after all, no one is really hurt. Schmuck.
I make a legitamate argument
March 23, 2007 - 16:44 ET by Agnostic frontI make a legitamate argument and I am a dumbass and a schmuck. Okay retard, ever heard of "police" and "district attorney's." I didn't say that smuglers with less than 500 shouldn't be prosecuted, it's just something that this particular prosecutor felt that the FEDERAL government shouldn't be wasting its time or resources with, which is legitimate position. Always got to bring the children into, too. Ass.
Look a$$hole, you are a crimi
March 23, 2007 - 17:07 ET by Mr. KafirLook a$$hole, you are a criminal enabler. Go pull that shit over at dailykos. Your brains are made of sh!t.
Here, I'll help you out with your illogic: A SMUGGLER by definition comes from outside the U.S. Therefore, the Feds can, did, and should prosecute them. You are a bigger schmuck than balboa. Wear that moniker with pride.
You need to smoke a fat blunt
March 23, 2007 - 17:12 ET by Agnostic frontYou need to smoke a fat blunt and calm down, junky. You sound like you're on crystal meth now, so don't rob any convenience stores this weekend. I am not going to represent you if you do.
You must think you are the ne
March 23, 2007 - 17:28 ET by Mr. KafirYou must think you are the next William Kuntsler. Newsflash: You are an arrogant pr!ck. But keep trying, it's amusing.
I have a theory that attorney
March 23, 2007 - 17:50 ET by BDI have a theory that attorneys in the US have obviously outgrown their habitat.
We now have attorneys who try to turn a buck by defending the scum of the earth, usually by invoking some novel approach to impugn the law enforcement agency that arrested their client regardless of obvious evidence.
I support a limited and targeted hunting season on such attorneys in order to get them back into ecological balance with society.
Can you imagine having a pair of hunters with twelve gauge shotguns hiding in a tree blind under a decoy constructed to look for a car crash or derelict who has slipped on a patch of ice in your front yard awaiting the proverbial ambulance chasing personal Injury lawyer. AWESOME fun!!!!
Or we could construct "Lawyer Refuges" near courthouses to provide the respite while the hunters await their flight to Asbestos claims, Hospitalization claims, or my favorite "Class Action Lawsuits" in which the lawyer gets 25-60% of the return.
"I didn't say that smu
March 23, 2007 - 18:13 ET by ckc1227"I didn't say that smuglers with less than 500 shouldn't be prosecuted, it's just something that this particular prosecutor felt that the FEDERAL government shouldn't be wasting its time or resources with, which is legitimate position."
And, as a result, his ass got fired by someone who thought he should be prosecuting these cases, which is also a legitimate position.
kafir- What's so magical about 500? Why not 1000?
March 23, 2007 - 21:31 ET by misterbillWhat's so magical about 500? Why not 1000? Excellent point. Apparently not, to anyone who hates Bush.
An ugly American is one who does not support his country.
Agnostic: In case you didn't
March 23, 2007 - 16:50 ET by QueenMumAgnostic: In case you didn't actually see the segment, O'Reilly explained that he and his staff were only able to get the information on three of the prosecutors as of the time of the broadcast. Stay tuned. I would guess they're probably still working on it. Your assumption re: why he didn't address the other five is nothing but wishful thinking. Or have you done your own investigation? If so, please provide us with what you've found - other than what you believe is "apparent".
P.S. I believe there are federal guidelines re: the amount of pot in possession that constitutes a federal crime. I'll get back to you on that if I can find the information.
Here you go, Agnostic. Federal Marijuana Laws
I am a defense attorney in Pe
March 23, 2007 - 17:08 ET by Agnostic frontI am a defense attorney in Pennsylvania and have never heard of the Fed Pros here prosecuting marijuana anything. They go after harder drugs on a regular basis, but my experience with them is most often connected with bank robbery and kidnapping when it involves interstate transportation.
A defense attorney? That expl
March 23, 2007 - 17:18 ET by Mr. KafirA defense attorney? That explains why you are a criminal enabler. You are a dirtbag. Do you defend child rapists? Or pedaphiles? How 'bout mass murderers? You do so much good for society. I bet you are real proud of yourself. Go back to trade school and learn a vocation that helps society not hurts. Sewer worker sounds about right for you.
Mr. Kafir: Everyone charged
March 23, 2007 - 17:56 ET by QueenMumMr. Kafir: Everyone charged with a crime in America is entitled to a defense attorney. Often a defendant is obviously guilty of the crime and it's the defense attorney's job to do what they can to see to it that the accused's rights are defended and that any sentence imposed is fair.
attorneys
March 23, 2007 - 18:07 ET by gfrrmanYou may abhor them, but it is a good thing that defense attorneys exist. Their job is to make sure the prosecuter PROVES his/her case. As much as I dislike most all attys, they do have an important function in our country. My problem is with "ambulance chasing" attorneys in the mold of John Edwards.
The function must exist, but
March 23, 2007 - 18:17 ET by BDThe function must exist, but the role should not be permanent.
I have always thought that ALL lawyers shoudl be public servants who are assigned on a case by case basis to each case - luck of the draw such as we get in the DOD. (Works for us)
Failing that, there should be a special skills tax in which a defense lawyer following his completion of a case in court would be forced to work for a prosecuter for an identical time period he took up the judges time probono or at wage grade level.
This would have the effect of keeping defense lawyers attempting to succeed (Who would wish to ruin a good sucess/loss ratio by punking a case) and quick (they would not wish to work for a year at governmental level because they stretched out Charles Mansons case for a years worth of motions.
This would work, and bring lawyers back into a respectful place in society.
Queen:Concur, but the legal c
March 23, 2007 - 18:08 ET by BDQueen:
Concur, but the legal culture in ths country has long gone by the point whereby the defendant gets an adequate defense. That point was probably passed in the 1950's.
We now have lawyers who specialize in essentially cheating for their client.
There are now legal specilists who monitor jury selection to kick virtually all potential members of a jury pool off unless they are pre-disposed to vote for the defendant or are against punishment such as the jurists in Vermont who believe that transgressions require "Treatment."
I did a quick survey once of all the officers I had worked with. We live in small communities, but none had ever actually been allowed to serve on a jury even though we had made it to the empaneling process.
Why is that? Simple, Defense lawyers realize that Army officers have usually served as judge/jury/ and of course executioner and feel morally capable of performing the function in the future. Defense lawyers dismiss anyone who feels that moral ability since they want the weakest indivduals in society judging their clients.
Usually, when a defense lawyer hears that the potential juror is an officer, or NCO of either the active force or the Reserve they make peremptory challenges.
Can you imagine if 12 African American Army officers had been present in the OJ SImpson trial? He would be mouldering inhis grave by now based on the evidence shown to the judge and jury..
Can you imagine if 12 Afric
March 23, 2007 - 19:11 ET by John in CACan you imagine if 12 African American Army officers had been present
in the OJ SImpson trial? He would be mouldering inhis grave by now
based on the evidence shown to the judge and jury..
BD, in that scenario, OJ would have likely been found guilty and sentenced to death. But, the trial was in CA, and here it's at least 25 years between sentencing and actual execution.
Give a Democrat Party free America a chance!
Defense attorney's such as AF
March 23, 2007 - 20:22 ET by Mr. KafirDefense attorney's such as AF are scum. Did you notice how children are not an issue in his world? BTW, if a defense attorney has evidence his client is guilty, I think he has an obligation to present it to the court. That way, justice and society are served. 99% of the accused in our courts are guilty of their charges. Its just that scum like AF, hide evidence, confuse jurors, and play legal technicalities so their "criminal" defendent is unleashed upon society again.
Defense attorney's such as AF
March 23, 2007 - 20:22 ET by Mr. KafirDefense attorney's such as AF are scum. Did you notice how children are not an issue in his world? BTW, if a defense attorney has evidence his client is guilty, I think he has an obligation to present it to the court. That way, justice and society are served. 99% of the accused in our courts are guilty of their charges. Its just that scum like AF, hide evidence, confuse jurors, and play legal technicalities so their "criminal" defendent is unleashed upon society again.
Over the course of the last t
March 23, 2007 - 17:29 ET by JDWOver the course of the last two years drug cartel assaults against border patrol agents have more than doubled, primarily marijuana. the fight for territory/smuggling routes is destroying our ability to control the borders. They do 'import' illegals, weapons, and other drugs as well. The head of the border control council is focused on drugs.
JDW
Wounded skier, beware of mistakes.
News media: Scoreboard for terrorists
Oops. My bad.
March 23, 2007 - 17:44 ET by QueenMumOops. My bad.
Agnostic: I believe it makes
March 23, 2007 - 17:46 ET by QueenMumAgnostic: I believe it makes a difference that Paul Charlton served in the State of Arizona, not Pennsylvania. Reference JDW's post.
Failing to prosecute over 500
March 23, 2007 - 17:40 ET by BDFailing to prosecute over 500 pounds is not unreasonable? YOU ARE KIDDING, RIGHT?
How about failing to presecute dealing only 50 pounds to school children? Failing to presecute the massacre of only five people versus 50?
COME ON! He needs to get flushed from the legal system and forced to write wills for little old ladies with 50 cats.
We also had 93 fired by Clint
March 23, 2007 - 16:49 ET by JDWWe also had 93 fired by Clinton in 3/93.
JDW
Wounded skier, beware of mistakes.
News media: Scoreboard for terrorists
I strongly disagree. Explaini
March 23, 2007 - 16:52 ET by KC MulvilleI strongly disagree. Explaining the firings would be a disaster.
I didn’t agree with O’Reilly’s report, and the Dick Morris interview after, because they both argued that Bush should explain why he fired the attorneys. That is precisely the point. Bush doesn’t owe the senate an explanation, and he certainly doesn’t owe one to the media.
Congress has oversight, but not authority, over the Justice Department. That means, in essence, that while Congress has the responsibility to make sure that no crimes or wrongdoing occurred, they do not run the department. Bush doesn’t answer to them. The crucial fact here is that the president has express authority to hire and fire the attorneys. By definition, then, firing the attorneys for any reason is not a crime; therefore, Bush doesn't owe Congress an explanation. If, on the other hand, Bush misused the attorneys to commit a crime, then Congress would be within its rights to demand testimony and action. But since everyone acknowledges that no crime occurred, Congress has no right to demand an explanation, and Bush shouldn’t surrender one.
This is not the same point as executive privilege, although that also comes into play. My point here is that the Democrats are trying to confuse the public about the difference between oversight and authority. If Bush does explain himself, even if the reasons are great for public relations, he will reinforce the confusion.
And let's not kid anyone. If Congressional Democrats get away with the fraud that their oversight gives them authority over cabinet departments ... how long will it be before they start demanding testimony about every policy they don't like? How long before Senator Schumer demands testimony, under oath, for every battlefield decision? They have the right to investigate crimes, but they don't have the right to frustrate policy.
But the Patriot Act gave Bush
March 23, 2007 - 17:03 ET by Agnostic frontBut the Patriot Act gave Bush and the Justice Department the authority to fire and then re-appoint attorney's without congressional approval. Congress is now in the process of passing a bill which takes back the congressional power to approve appointees. While it may not have been illegal, it was dumb. Bush will be in the position of only being able to appoint temporary prosecutor's until congress approves full time ones.
Agnost
March 23, 2007 - 17:13 ET by gfrrmanSo why the uproar? It's called angry Democrats WITHOUT an agenda.
Please keep in mind, the left
March 23, 2007 - 17:17 ET by hatukPlease keep in mind, the left does not care about facts, guilt or innocence, it is the seriousness of the accusation that matters and that is all that matters. The MSM will do the rest, trial and conviction in the media follows!
hatuk
March 23, 2007 - 17:29 ET by gfrrman...except when it is one their own. ie: William "cold cash" Jefferson, Harry Reid being a couple right off the top of my head.
gfrrman - the impetus (and vo
March 23, 2007 - 19:13 ET by ding7777gfrrman - the impetus (and votes needed) to rollback the provision of the Patriot Act (which allowed the AG to appoint USAs w/o Senate confirmation) originated from Gonzales lying to Congress about the "resignations".
Don't lie to Congress!
Three bags full!~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
March 23, 2007 - 19:17 ET by Free StinkerThree bags full!
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"George W. Bush simply reminds leftists everyday what they will never be. And they hate him for it." --Tammy Bruce
777
March 23, 2007 - 19:20 ET by gfrrmanDude there is NO CRIME. Get that through your empty head. The POTUS can fire those attnys whenever he likes. He never lied. BDS
gfrrman - Liberals refuse to
March 23, 2007 - 19:22 ET by Free Stinkergfrrman - Liberals refuse to see anything but what they are told to believe, so I doubt ding will listen.
FreeS
March 23, 2007 - 19:26 ET by gfrrman(with hands over their ears)....nyah,nyah,nyah,nyah...I can't hear you...wah,wah,wah! You are so correct Free. If it's off the talking points they are lost. Deny it exists and obfuscate.
Lie, cry, or deny
March 23, 2007 - 19:31 ET by Free StinkerI like to call it "Lie, cry, or deny" ;-)
FreeS
March 23, 2007 - 19:41 ET by gfrrmanYou left out yell louder(talk over) and call names(Nazi is the classic)
LOL!
March 23, 2007 - 19:47 ET by Free StinkerLOL!
gfrrman - Too bad Gonzales di
March 24, 2007 - 00:35 ET by ding7777gfrrman - Too bad Gonzales didn't take your advice and tell those Senators that the "POTUS can fire those attnys whenever he likes". Then he wouldn't had to lie.
From the AP
contradict = lied. Gonzales lied to Congress.
dingaling
March 24, 2007 - 00:46 ET by gfrrmanThe problem you seem to not comprehend is that HE DIDN'T fire anyone!!!! So the AP has decided that he contradicted himself??? SFW?? You are sooooooo desperate!! And you're WRONG. Sorry kiddo.
ding7777 demoloon inquisition - and later conviction
March 24, 2007 - 02:17 ET by SportPoliticsding7777 demoloon inquisition - and later conviction:
"Alberto G. - were you or were you not closely involved in these firings !!? " " Be aware, you are under oath !!??!! "
Alberto: " No, I wasn't closely involved. "
______________________________________
" Mr. Gonzales - we have aquired documents- is THAT YOUR SIGNATURE !! ON THIS VERY DOCUMENT - THAT ALLOWS THE FIRINGS TO PROCEED !!???!!? You swore under oath to us last week - and we're looking into what a perjury charge could mean !!??!!"
Alberto: Let me see. Yes,that's my signature, this was one of 132 orders I signed that morning in the meeting, like I do 4 out of 5 days every week. That's the law, I have to sign them,or the justice department cannot function. You made that the law, Mr. Waxman. Iwish Iweremore closely involved in things, but you democrats call me to your offices and over here like you did George Tenet - about 45 times a week. Then I have to waste my time seeing reporters after you make press statements.
" I'm AGHAST !?? !! " " Is this what you call respecting the congress !!?? Ablerto !!!! "
__________________________________________________
The liberal retards sputtered a few more hours,stood up - declared themselves oversight queens, then romped off to thier early Tuesday evening 5 day weekend.
Sports
March 24, 2007 - 02:21 ET by gfrrmanDamn Sport', that was excellent...I needed a good laugh this late in the AM. Good work!
SportPolitics - If only your
March 24, 2007 - 07:24 ET by ding7777SportPolitics - If only your made up scenario were true! The facts are much more damaging, unless Alberto sleeps through meetings with his top staff?
gfrrman - the impetus (and vo
March 23, 2007 - 19:22 ET by ding7777gfrrman - the impetus (and votes needed) to rollback the provision of the Patriot Act (which allowed the AG to appoint USAs w/o Senate confirmation) originated from Gonzales lying to Congress about the "resignations".
It must have been a Republican agenda too, since it was passed in the Senate by a vote of 94 - 2.
7777
March 23, 2007 - 19:32 ET by gfrrmanDing you just don't get it!! Sure the Patriot Act was rolled back was it last week? It STILL means that, and I REPEAT, the POTUS can get rid of these attnys ANYTIME HE WANTS!!! Are you that blockheaded? The rollback is from now on. It is NOT retroactive!!! What's done is DONE. I know that simple little fact will escape you.
gfrrman - Try to understand t
March 23, 2007 - 20:56 ET by ding7777gfrrman - Try to understand this, ok?
Bush fired the USAs because he thought he did not need Senate confirmation for the replacements. How many USAs do you think Bush would have fired if he knew he needed Senate confirmation for the replacements? Even the political hack replacemnet Giffen withdrew once Senate confirmations were back on the table.
Bush can fire whoever he wants but he needs to inform the Congress critter who recommended the USA why that person is being fired and he can't trash professional reputations and expecting the 8 USAs not to go public to deny it.
7777
March 23, 2007 - 21:05 ET by gfrrmanding, it's so useless to even try with you. Why? Because you are soooooo wrong!!! It doesn't matter why Bush fired those attnys...get it? It DOES NOT matter!!! The only thing that changes now, due to the fact that the Senate changed the Patriot Act recently, is that Bush will have to get the new US attnys approved by the Senate. He DOES NOT have to explain to ANYONE why they were fired!! All he has to do is say, "you're fired"....no explanation or reason, just "you're fired". Btw, show me where he "trashed reputations". You can't and you won't.
gfrrman - Why are you having
March 24, 2007 - 00:24 ET by ding7777gfrrman - Why are you having such a hard time with this? No matter what you think, Bush cannot use the USAs to damage Democrats and/or protect Republicans.
btw: For most people, having your boss publicly say you were fired for "performance reasons", is trashing a professional reputation.
7777
March 24, 2007 - 00:30 ET by gfrrmanOnce again ding-a-ling. Bush can fire any damn USA that he wants ANYTIME he wants. Got it? So with your reasoning BjC should have been excorciated 93 times as much as Bush for firing 93 USAs. Damn I got fired...I have been trashed professionally! You are not only hopeless, but clueless as well. Get a grip kid!
gfrrman - This was not a chan
March 24, 2007 - 00:48 ET by ding7777gfrrman - This was not a change of administration firing. No one said a word when Bush43 fired all 93 of Clinton's USAs.
If you are a professional, and your boss unjustly said he fired you for "performance reasons", then yes, your professional reputation was trashed.
Not too many top tier professionals highlight "I was fired for performance reasons" on their resumes. Wonder why?
ding7
March 24, 2007 - 01:06 ET by gfrrmanLife sucks..tough. Wah.
gfrrman
March 24, 2007 - 02:03 ET by SportPoliticsWell, it seems the provision for appointing US attourneys used to go to a lower court. They seem to leave out entirely wether or not the senate ever confirmed those...
Then the patriot act changed it - Gonzales could have appointed apparently for the remainder - until another slick willie comes by and fires them all to cover up his crimes.
The new thing is Gonzales can appoint for 120 days. If there isn't a permanent named by then (presumably the 120 day person) - then IT FALLS BACK TO A LOWER COURT.... (where it apparently was before 911 ).
Yes, so ... the soup is thick.
" Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has staunchly denied that charge and promised to submit every replacement for Senate confirmation. He has said district court judges are sometimes not qualified to appoint federal prosecutors."
" Senate Democrats accuse the administration of slipping the provision into the Patriot Act reauthorization that took effect last March with the intent of circumventing the Senate confirmation process and rewarding political allies. Specter, who wrote the reauthorization as chairman of the committee, says he was unaware of that provision and opposes it."
As were - all the people voting for it. Yes,those gigantic superbills - like these HUGE ones- bigger than EVER before by the democrats now - are so slippery- aren't they..
THE CONGRESSPERSONS HAVE NO CLUE ABOUT THE TOTALITY OF WHAT THEY ARE VOTING FOR....
Then, you have that BACKROOM committee of bureaucrats - " WHO HAVE TO FIND LEGAL LANGUAGE AFTER THE BILL PASSES" - and make it "match" the intent of the wording of the passed bill....
That doesn't always work out as planned... that little "coding the bill"into LAW.
LOL
Arlen Spectre- RINO - a pain in the a** as usal - had no idea that provision was in the bill.....just like every democrat who voted on it.
AMAZING.
Sport
March 24, 2007 - 02:10 ET by gfrrmanMy friend you are preaching to the choir. Superbills, I agree, do suck but politicians from both sides have done this and if they don't read them all....then whatcha gonna do? These idiots write all our laws, and then sometimes when someone is arrested for something they had no idea about, along comes someone and says, "ignorance of the law is no excuse"....LMAO!!!! I've read all I can about this and it boggles my mind that the Dems are making it out to be such a "scandal"...BS!!!!!...and AMAZING!
Hell I got fired once and FOU
March 24, 2007 - 00:36 ET by Airforce_5_OHell I got fired once and FOUND A BETTER JOB!!!!
Any subpoenas to the White House are just a WITCH HUNT.
Sorry Ding, you are wrong.
Airforce_5_O - I doubt if you
March 24, 2007 - 00:56 ET by ding7777Airforce_5_O - I doubt if your firing was comparable (one of only 93 such positions in the country and your boss goes on network TV to claim you were fired for "performance reasons" - reasons you were never made aware of)
The USAs are not Bush's private domain to damage Democrats and protect Republicans.
Sorry AF50, that's not the way it works.
Ding- Boo Hoo. It is not a
March 24, 2007 - 01:12 ET by Airforce_5_ODing- Boo Hoo. It is not a matter of a free pass. There was no crime committed. The President has the power to Fire them for PICKING THEIR NOSES, if he bloody well wants too.
Call it what is it is by the Dems in Congress...A Witch Hunt.
They are not concerned over 8 attorneys losing their jobs, they want the White House Staff under oath and ask questions about the last 7 years.
Move on man. Go kick another dead horse.
A50
March 24, 2007 - 01:19 ET by gfrrmanDing doesn't get what this is all about. Like you said, the Dems only want people under oath to testify. They might ask some questions about the attnys, but once under oath it will be a witch hunt and they will and can ask any question they want...and then..GOTCHA. They're grasping at straws, trying to make something, anything to stick on the WH! Their main goal is BUSH!!
What gets me is Bush's term w
March 24, 2007 - 01:27 ET by Airforce_5_OWhat gets me is Bush's term will end soon and they are going gang busters on every little thing they can. But the Liberal memories are short when it comes to their own....Can you say Whitewater?
But now I'm kicking the dead horse.
A50
March 24, 2007 - 01:38 ET by gfrrmanAnd you just know that the Dems would be having conniption fits if the tables were reversed. Clintons' legacy was a laundry list of corruption. How many people mysteriously died or went to prison for that POS?...and he's clean...NOT! Machiavelli anyone? History began in 2001, ya know. ;-)
About 57 went to prison,
March 24, 2007 - 02:28 ET by SportPoliticsAbout 57 went to prison as I recall somewhere before the count was done, about as many died mysteriously and some were covered up by slick willies personal Coroner-(rofl its true)...and about 125 fled the nation on charges or before testifying but after being subpeonaed.
So yeah, a few got busted recently - like Sandy fatburglar. LOL
They're still getting BUSTED.
Sport
March 24, 2007 - 02:43 ET by gfrrmanOr they were pardoned....
Waxman can stand up
March 24, 2007 - 01:34 ET by SportPoliticsWaxman can stand up, and claim that the head of DIA told him that "he clears his statement that Valerie Plame was undercover"...
Then later we can find out noone at the CIA or DIA - nor the head DIA that waxxyboy supposedly yakkerred to - can "release that information"...
LOL - So Waxman got his "words to say okayed" - because noone - and certainly not the DIA will "spill the beans" and wreck the 3 years of insane USA babbling, nor tell Waxman what he can and can't say in his own hearing.
The reason they won't do it is : That's a real security threat. The idea that - so many democrats can lie to us for so long openly and publicly - IS A THREAT TO THE NATION IF THE GENERAL PUBIC minded democat FINDS OUT.
If the above is INCORRECT - then Henry Waxman has revealed " CLASSIFIED information about Valerie Plame's status" - and he needs to step down and go to prison.
Valerie Plame herself said in the "hearing" - " I'm not a lawyer, I don't know what my staus was".
Golly, a cia covert/uncover WIB(woman in black) spy - and she herself has no idea if she was covert...
Dudes, let's face it, LIARS and LOONS - known as democrats - are everywhere.
Sports
March 24, 2007 - 01:47 ET by gfrrmanDon't forget that "undercover" and "covert" are two completely different things. Victoria Toensing tried to get that out but the Waxman kept not letting her answer any questions. Imagine that, the person that wrote the law about covert and such was not allowed to answer questions when asked about the subject. ......"I'm not going to give you my time Ms Toensing". Mind boggling!! LIARS and GOONS indeed!!
Yes ding777 it is Bush's perrogative, to destroy democrats
March 24, 2007 - 01:37 ET by SportPoliticsYes ding777 it is Bush's perrogative, to destroy democrats. It's his playground. The AMERICAN PEOPLE SPOKE DURING THE LAST PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION AND THREW YOU IDIOT DEMOLOONS OUT.
BUSH WAS RE-ELECTED BY AN EVEN VASTER MAJORITY OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
HUNDREDS, - READ THAT - HUNDREDS OF REPUBLICANS WERE RE-ELECTED TO CONGRESS OR REMAINED THERE.
THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN YOU LOSER.
Sport;Save your breath. He
March 24, 2007 - 01:58 ET by Airforce_5_OSport;
Save your breath. He just don't get it.
A50
March 24, 2007 - 02:03 ET by gfrrman.....and if it hit him in the caboose he still wouldn't get it.
LOL well we do try.
March 24, 2007 - 02:15 ET by Airforce_5_OLOL
well we do try.
Least we forget Ding.
March 23, 2007 - 21:27 ET by Airforce_5_OLeast we forget Ding.
Yup, thanks to CONGRESS, the
March 23, 2007 - 21:50 ET by dahliatraversYup, thanks to CONGRESS, the President doesn't need Senate advise-and-consent of his US Attorney appointments, at least for the moment. Still looking for a crime here ...
The basic formula is that the
March 23, 2007 - 18:59 ET by KC MulvilleThe basic formula is that the executive has the right to appoint nominees, with the advice and consent of the senate. As I understand it, the Patriot Act clause interfered with Congress’ right to offer consent, and therefore, we were correct to remove that clause.
However, oversight is not authority. Congress has the right to investigate the misuse of authority, but they do not have the authority themselves. That would be a confusion of their proper role.
Over the last few years, however, senate Democrats have exploited this confusion. The Democrats push the idea that the constitution gives them input into the nomination process. It doesn’t. Instead, their consent was required because we shouldn't trust the executive to assure us that their nominee is honest. Obviously, if the executive nominated a “scoundrel,” any executive investigation into the nominee’s integrity would be a fraud. That’s why it makes sense to give that role to the senate. (Note, of course, that the job was only given to the senate, not to the Congress as a whole. That supports the interpretation that appointing officers is not a legislative power.)
To make a long story short, if the Democrats wanted to play “constitution” by the rules, they would approve Bush’s upcoming nominees (as long as the nominees are qualified). However, if they wanted to cheat and claim they belonged in the nomination process … they would proceed exactly as they’re proceeding.
Thank you, KC. After reading
March 23, 2007 - 17:03 ET by QueenMumThank you, KC. After reading your explanation, I'm inclined to agree with you. You're right. It's all about confusing the average American into believing the "culture of corruption" crap.
Next on the list for Dems:
March 23, 2007 - 18:24 ET by ckc1227Next on the list for Dems: Investigating Bush for eating lunch. See, most Presidents eat lunch between 12:00 and 12:30; Clinton usually ate lunch at 1:00, but he gets a pass because at least it happened at the top of the hour. Bush, however, likes to eat lunch at 12:45. Unacceptable. Hearings set to begin on Tuesday to investigate this legal but horrible misuse of power by the President.
ckc I share your satire. Bu
March 23, 2007 - 19:17 ET by radiofitz34ckc I share your satire. But I seemed to have lost my funny bone today. I'm glad O'Reilly at least tried to make some sense of this witch hunt. The other news stations can't be bothered with anything resembling facts. On this Fed prosecutor issue, it's all commentary all the time.
I agree totally, Radio. I'm
March 23, 2007 - 19:58 ET by ckc1227I agree totally, Radio. I'm glad O'reilly made the effort too. His main point was that the info was there for anyone willing to look for it, but, as you stated, no one else is willing to look. They're afraid they might discover the truth.
Illegal Immigrants cause global warming. Build the wall to save the Earth. Don't we owe it to the children?
ckc
March 23, 2007 - 20:01 ET by gfrrmanTruth and facts are "gray areas" and "nuance" to the left.
O'Reilly distorts again (Surp
March 23, 2007 - 18:54 ET by ding7777O'Reilly distorts again (Surprize!!). Feinstein wrote the letter to DOJ re Lam based on a bogus report that Darrell Issa leaked to the media (which was getting a fair amount of play). The DOJ replied to Feinstein that Lam's caseload re immigration was favorably rising in 2006
777
March 23, 2007 - 19:07 ET by gfrrmanSo what? No matter how much you complain the POTUS can get rid of those attys whenever he wants. No crime NO foul!! Get over it.
gfrrman - the crime is lying
March 23, 2007 - 19:28 ET by ding7777gfrrman - the crime is lying to Congress which Gonzales and his staff did.
777
March 23, 2007 - 19:34 ET by gfrrmanYou're hopeless
dingbat, y'all carry that &
March 23, 2007 - 19:59 ET by radiofitz34dingbat, y'all carry that "lying" word in your hip pocket. When you say it has no meaning.
"gfrrman - the crime i
March 23, 2007 - 20:04 ET by ckc1227"gfrrman - the crime is lying to Congress which Gonzales and his staff did."
Enlighten us. What was the lie again?
Illegal Immigrants cause global warming. Build the wall to save the Earth. Don't we owe it to the children?
ckc
March 23, 2007 - 20:06 ET by gfrrman...I repeat.... just hopeless.
Not my job
March 24, 2007 - 00:03 ET by nkviking75O'Reilly: "Once again I'm put in a position of having to defend the Bush administration, which is not my job." What is it with Presidents named Bush? I remember tearing out my hair in '92 when the first President Bush was losing to a "bozo" (Bush's word) named Bill Clinton. Clinton was very beatable, but Bush seemed totally unwilling to defend himself against blatant lies from Bubba. We all know what happened. And for the most part, his son has taken a fire hose barrage of manure from the left with little effort to fight back. I don't expect it, but I really want to see GWB and his administration kick butt and take names every minute of the way until noon EST on 1/20/09. A spirited defense would wreck the Democrats.
As Glenn Beck said on his TV
March 24, 2007 - 05:56 ET by BW222As Glenn Beck said on his TV show, there's something terribly wrong with any list of fired U.S. Attorneys that doesn't start with Johnny Sutton.
Gonzales should be gone not because of the firings but because of his incompetence and refusing to enforce this country's immigration laws.