Re: A question about the US attorneys firing...
 

[ QUOTE ]
What I was wondering, I guess, is what determines how a president doing something completely within his power as an investigative incident.


[/ QUOTE ]
Because it was shady?

Re: A question about the US attorneys firing...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Instead, criticism of the Bush Administration has centered around the notion that they have excessively politicized the hiring and firing of federal attorneys.

[/ QUOTE ]

One person's "excessivly politicized" is another person's "reasonable course of action." Something being "excessively politicized" seems very vague and if that's what the Democrats in Congress want to subpoena witnesses for then I think they need to make a definitive statement on what they believe "excessively politicized" entails prior to doing so. Forcing a confrontation between the legislative branch and the executive branch over "executive priveledge" IMO needs more justification than some nebulous notion regarding the possibility of something being "excessively politicized." Have they done this yet? Then it might be worthwhile IMO to discuss whether their criteria for something being "excessively politicized" is worthwhile and valid.

[/ QUOTE ]

As I'm not a Democratic member of Congress, it's important to keep in mind that 'excessively politicized' is my vernacular and not theirs. I assume that when/if this controversy reaches its height, the Democrats will claim that the seemingly political nature of the hirings and firings constitute an obstruction of justice:

http://balkin.blogspot.com/#1508057709222146495

<font color="#666666"> "If there was any crime committed here, it was probably the "corrupt" influencing of a government proceeding. See 18 U.S.C. 1505 ("Whoever corruptly . . . influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States, . . . Shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years"); and 18 U.S.C. 1512(c)(2) ("Whoever corruptly . . . obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.")

If, say, Karl Rove, or Harriet Miers, or someone else in the White House, tried to pressure the U.S. Attorneys to drop investigations because the targets (e.g., Duke Cunningham) were Republicans, or to press certain investigations or prosectutions because the targets were Democrats (e.g., pressure to bring "vote fraud" cases regardless of whether there was any evidence of such fraud), that would arguably be an attempt to "corruptly" influence official proceedings -- to bring improper influences to bear on whether an investigation goes forward, or whether a prosecution is initiated."</font>

So, I suspect the Democrats will challenge the Bush Administration's Executive Privilege claim not by citing 'excessive politicization' but instead by accusing the Bush Administration of obstruction of justice.

Second, I think it's a bit hypocritical for Bush Administration apologists to demand a 'strong' justification from Democrats if they choose to demand testimony and issue subpoenas. Congress is granted the Constitutional power to investigate the workings of the Executive branch simply to determine whether legislation is necessary in order prevent or deter undesirable government practices -- so in the same way President Bush can fire and hire US Attorneys as he pleases, so to can Congress issue subpoenas and demand testimony such as their whims dictate.

If you feel Democrats need a 'solid justification' to demand testimony from Karl Rove and Harriet Miers, surely you can understand why Democrats believe the President ought to produce a more 'solid justification' to fire 8 US Attorneys (who were ostensibly doing their jobs well) other than "I could".

Re: A question about the US attorneys firing...
 

Everyone should keep in mind that things do not have to be crimes for Congress to investigate them. Congress is well within its authority to investigate this so that they have the appropriate information going forward to legislate to change the existing laws.

Re: A question about the US attorneys firing...
 

[ QUOTE ]
.. a group tried to register my then 14 year old granddaughter to vote prior to the November elections. They were trying to register voters at a rock concert of some sort that she attended. According to my daughter they would have succeeded if she hadn't interceded.

[/ QUOTE ]

Rock concert. Dark. Ask anybody "Are you registered to vote? Are you 18?"
And some 14 yr old, flattered to be mistaken for 18, decided it would be "cool" to register, despite the fact that she knows she is not supposed to. Luckily your daughter understands what your granddaughter does not.

Since most states require some sort of ID when you show up at a polling place (Cal does), I guess you granddaughter wouldn't have been able to vote anyway.

But this is surely proof of massive voter fraud by (I assume you are sure the group was the NM Dem Party ) the 'bad guys'.

Re: A question about the US attorneys firing...
 

[ QUOTE ]
Instead, criticism of the Bush Administration has centered around the notion that they have excessively politicized the hiring and firing of federal attorneys.

[/ QUOTE ]

Those that complain about this must really hate FDR then.

Re: A question about the US attorneys firing...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I realize it may have been shady ...

[/ QUOTE ]
Why has shady become acceptable?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because people worship FDR for doing the same and worse on a much larger scale?

Re: A question about the US attorneys firing...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Instead, criticism of the Bush Administration has centered around the notion that they have excessively politicized the hiring and firing of federal attorneys.

[/ QUOTE ]
Those that complain about this must really hate FDR then.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, they all swore they would never vote for him again.

Re: A question about the US attorneys firing...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Instead, criticism of the Bush Administration has centered around the notion that they have excessively politicized the hiring and firing of federal attorneys.

[/ QUOTE ]
Those that complain about this must really hate FDR then.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, they all swore they would never vote for him again.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nobody's voting for Bush again either, so I don't see the relevance. This statement might make some sense if Bush were running in 2008.

Re: A question about the US attorneys firing...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Instead, criticism of the Bush Administration has centered around the notion that they have excessively politicized the hiring and firing of federal attorneys.

[/ QUOTE ]
Those that complain about this must really hate FDR then.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, they all swore they would never vote for him again.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nobody's voting for Bush again either, so I don't see the relevance. This statement might make some sense if Bush were running in 2008.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, let's talk relevance then. FDR??? Can we go back to James Buchanan or Millard Fillmore for justification too? Maybe you should just stick to the standard "Clinton did it too, it is all his fault".

Re: A question about the US attorneys firing...
 

[ QUOTE ]

Well, let's talk relevance then. FDR??? Can we go back to James Buchanan or Millard Fillmore for justification too?

[/ QUOTE ]

Nah, they want to keep it at FDR so they can use the internment of the Japanese Americans as justification for Gitmo and beyond.