[Rhodes22-list] Speaking of politicians.

[john Belanger]

second that. the thing that really gets me is all the lying. my father never had any tolerance for liars. i always believed that once you resort to lying to prove your point, you've lost much more than the arguement. 

stan <stan at rhodes22.com> wrote:  welcome Bob and bravo.

ss

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bob Fletcher" 
To: "The Rhodes 22 mail list" 
Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2007 1:38 PM
Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] Speaking of politicians.


> Brad, Wally, ....
>
> For what it adds to this discussion, the current issue of "the New
> Republic," (yes, generally liberal but usually factually accurate),
> observes:
> "U.S. attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president. But, until 
> now,
> presidents have almost never fired proscecutors they appointed in the 
> middle
> of their terms - perhaps only two of the 486 appointed in the last 25 
> years
> have been canned in this fashion. This is in part because presidents from
> both parties have implicitly conceded that these attorneys have a a higher
> loyalty to the law than to political patrons -- an understanding never
> enshrined in the U. S. code but deeply ingrained in the culture of
> Washington.
> "Then came along Karl Rove, Aberto Gonzales, Harriet Myers and the
> reducto ad absureum of unthinking Bush loyalism, Kyle Sampson. In their
> memos they conflate the competence of proscecutors with fealty to the
> Republican Party. Thus they judge David Iglesias to be underperforming 
> for
> his failure to proscecute New Mexico Democrats on tenuous charges on the 
> eve
> of the 2006 election, and they concoct post-hoc rationales for displeasure
> with Carol Lam, who indicted the currupt GOP representative Randy "Duke"
> Cunningham and began scouring the dealings of his seemingly venal 
> collegues
> and their co-conspiritors in the Defense Department. And, in a flash, by
> purging these attorneys,Bushises have subverted a set of norms that had 
> long
> ensured federal proscecutors would deploy the lawwithout partisan favor."
>
> Bob Fletcher
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "TN Rhodey" 
> To: 
> Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2007 10:36 AM
> Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] Speaking of politicians.
>
>
>> Brad,
>>
>> I didn't have a question and I would never ask you to do my research. I
>> used
>> to read your links but quit years ago when I found they often didn't even
>> support what you were saying. I guess if your sole point is/was Hilary is
>> a
>> two faced bitch and Clinton fired all 93 and other presidents fired 80 or
>> so
>> then you are correct. You are incorrect in stating that these firings 
>> were
>> usually done at end of term. My point is Clinton did not start mass
>> firings.
>>
>> One big difference now....Due to the Patriot Act Bush can replace these
>> guys
>> without approval. As for the lie? It is fact that the administration
>> stated
>> they were fired for poor performance and not for political reasons. That
>> sir
>> WAS a lie. What part of any of the above is not true?
>>
>> I still think they would have been much better off fessing up from the 
>> get
>> go. Just like I felt Clinton would have been better off saying "I did 
>> have
>> sex with that women....and others too". So as I have said in every post 
>> on
>> this topic....this problem was more a matter of bad timing (half way
>> through
>> second term), and the BS response afterwards. Add an administration with 
>> a
>> credibilty problem, toss in the Patriot Act loop-hole and things get a
>> little sticky.
>>
>> Regarding my sources....What I got off CNN was copies of actual emails 
>> and
>> PDFs of court transcript. They came up first but who cares? Regardless of
>> what web site one uses for the source of court docs the actual text 
>> should
>> be the same. I am not sure of your point in mentioning FOX verses CNN. 
>> Are
>> you disputing that these are actual transcipts? Facts, facts, 
>> facts....not
>> opinion.
>>
>> I agreed this should have been much ado about nothing and if fact said 
>> so.
>> I
>> am still not sure you realize this. For the most part this mess was
>> created
>> in the typical bumbling fashion we have come to expect from current
>> administration.
>>
>> Wally
>>
>>>From: "Brad Haslett" 
>>>Reply-To: The Rhodes 22 mail list 
>>>To: "The Rhodes 22 mail list" 
>>>Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] Speaking of politicians.
>>>Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 08:51:26 -0600
>>>
>>>Wally,
>>>
>>>Sorry, my ADHD is kicking in again. Exactly what was your question? I
>>>believe it had something to do with "don't all incoming Presidents fire
>>>all
>>>the Federal Attorneys? And my answer was, No. Only Bill Clinton did 
>>>that
>>>in mass. All the others replaced them when their terms expired with
>>>occasional mid term firings. Use your skills on the DOJ website to
>>>confirm
>>>that. My only reason for mentioning the Clinton firings is to point out
>>>Hillary's amnesia. ALL Federal Attorney appointments are political so it
>>>is
>>>only reasonable to assume that their having been fired is also political
>>>to
>>>whatever degree. I am not wrong about the mass firings (in the last 
>>>forty
>>>years or so) and I refuse to do your homework. As to lying - could you be
>>>a
>>>bit more specific? Using the word "performance" as a smoke screen for
>>>having not followed the POTUS's desires is not lying. Not necessarily
>>>good
>>>PR either, but not lying. Reading something on CNN is not fact. You are
>>>welcome to throw out FOX News. There, we're even. The fact that you read
>>>testimony and came up with an opinion is just that, your opinion. As I
>>>said
>>>earlier this morning, investigate the living shit out of this by all
>>>means.
>>>I seriously doubt they'll find a smoking gun, but if they do, smoke'm 
>>>out.
>>>The gist of the complaints the White House had against those fired was
>>>their
>>>pursuit (or lack of) of voter fraud and illegal immigration with one
>>>exception - the one from Little Rock was shit-canned to make way for
>>>someone else as a political favor. Welcome to the real world. If it 
>>>turns
>>>out that they were trying to cover for political corruption, take it all
>>>the
>>>way to impeachment. Frankly, I think we're killing a lot of trees over
>>>nothing. Gonzales may be rendered ineffective for a while or perhaps
>>>permanently. Wasn't that the reason behind this non-scandal from the
>>>get-go?
>>>
>>>Brad
>>>
>>>On 4/5/07, TN Rhodey wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Brad, And you say you don't have a pair of rose colored glasses....As
>>> > usual
>>> > you never answered my question. I freely admitted I hadn't been
>>>following
>>> > this closely. This is not a matter of seeing what you or I want to 
>>> > see.
>>>So
>>> > I
>>> > did a quick check and the facts are simple....
>>> >
>>> > First you are wrong about mass AG firings starting will Clinton. A
>>> > quick
>>> > check does confirm that new Presidents have been firing AGs going back
>>>to
>>> > at
>>> > least Reagan. It looks like Carter and good old Ike had some firings 
>>> > as
>>> > well
>>> > but nothing like the mass numbers since Reagan. Nixon had his own
>>> > issues
>>> > with AGs. Since Reagan it has been routine for 80 or more AGs to be
>>> > dismissed with-in the first 2 years of President's term. Poor old
>>> > Bill....people just love to blame him for everything. LOL
>>> >
>>> > The issue seems to be more a matter of timing, motivation, and the
>>> > administration's BS response to the public. The reasons cited for
>>> > dismissals
>>> > was "poor performance". A quick review of the facts shows this was not
>>> > true.
>>> > Internal Emails and pdfs of recent testimony are all on line. It is
>>>also
>>> > clear these firings were discussed with Gonzales prior to Gonzales
>>> > becoming
>>> > AG. It is also clear that the AG provided misleading information to 
>>> > the
>>> > Senate. It is also clear the the administration wanted to fire the AG
>>>over
>>> > Libby trial.
>>> >
>>> > This might have been much ado about nothing if they didn't initially
>>>fire
>>> > the AGs and then follow up with annouincement that this was do to poor
>>> > performance. Of course the fired AGs complained. Wouldn't you? Being
>>>fired
>>> > is bad enough but go ahead and tell the world the real reason not a
>>> > lie.
>>> > This administration has a history of providing bad information. Why 
>>> > our
>>> > President's ratings aren't even lower is beyond me.
>>> >
>>> > Google is your friend. My sources.. Justive Department site, WIKI, and
>>> > CNN.
>>> > Note CNN and WIKI provided the link to actual emails and PDFs of
>>> > testimony.
>>> > I did not read any editorials....I want facts not opinions.
>>> >
>>> > No spin Brad. Kind of like Dragnet...nothing but the facts. If I have
>>>the
>>> > facts wrong set me straight.
>>> >
>>> > Wally
>>> >
>>> > >From: "Brad Haslett" 
>>> > >Reply-To: The Rhodes 22 mail list 
>>> > >To: "The Rhodes 22 mail list" 
>>> > >Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] Speaking of politicians.
>>> > >Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2007 15:37:30 -0500
>>> > >
>>> > >Wally,
>>> > >
>>> > >You see what you want to see. This is much to do about nothing! Do
>>>your
>>> > >homework and prove me wrong. The facts are what they are, your spin
>>>sir.
>>> > >
>>> > >Brad
>>> > >
>>> > >On 4/4/07, TN Rhodey wrote:
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Brad,
>>> > > >
>>> > > > What?.....This editorial really doesn't address the coment in my
>>> > > > email.....I
>>> > > > will do some checking but I think you are wrong about this 
>>> > > > starting
>>> > with
>>> > > > Clinton. I don't think anyone is saying that Clinto did not fire
>>>AGs.
>>> > I
>>> > > > just
>>> > > > don't think it started with the Clinton's. You post doesn't shed
>>> > > > any
>>> > >light
>>> > > > in either direction. - Wally
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > > >From: "Brad Haslett" 
>>> > > > >Reply-To: The Rhodes 22 mail list 
>>> > > > >To: "The Rhodes 22 mail list" 
>>> > > > >Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] Speaking of politicians.
>>> > > > >Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2007 12:08:47 -0500
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > >Wally,
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > >This is a 'tempest in a teapot', something, anything, to run
>>> > >interference
>>> > > > >during the last two years of a lame duck Presidency. Here is an
>>> > > > editorial
>>> > > > >from the WSJ on the subject.
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > >Brad
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > >---------------
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > >*The Hubbell Standard*
>>> > > > >Hillary Clinton knows all about sacking U.S. Attorneys.
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > >*Wednesday, March 14, 2007 12:01 a.m.*
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > >Congressional Democrats are in full cry over the news this week
>>>that
>>> > >the
>>> > > > >Administration's decision to fire eight U.S. Attorneys originated
>>> > > > >from--gasp--the White House. Senator Hillary Clinton joined the
>>> > > > >fun
>>> > > > >yesterday, blaming President Bush for "the politicization of our
>>> > > > >prosecutorial system." Oh, my.
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > >As it happens, Mrs. Clinton is just the Senator to walk point on
>>>this
>>> > > > issue
>>> > > > >of dismissing U.S. attorneys because she has direct personal
>>> > >experience.
>>> > > > In
>>> > > > >any Congressional probe of the matter, we'd suggest she call
>>>herself
>>> > as
>>> > > > the
>>> > > > >first witness--and bring along Webster Hubbell as her chief
>>>counsel.
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > >As everyone once knew but has tried to forget, Mr. Hubbell was a
>>> > former
>>> > > > >partner of Mrs. Clinton at the Rose Law Firm in Little Rock who
>>>later
>>> > > > went
>>> > > > >to jail for mail fraud and tax evasion. He was also Bill and
>>>Hillary
>>> > > > >Clinton's choice as Associate Attorney General in the Justice
>>> > >Department
>>> > > > >when Janet Reno, his nominal superior, simultaneously fired all 
>>> > > > >93
>>> > U.S.
>>> > > > >Attorneys in March 1993. Ms. Reno--or Mr. Hubbell--gave them 10
>>>days
>>> > to
>>> > > > >move
>>> > > > >out of their offices.
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > >At the time, President Clinton presented the move as something
>>> > >perfectly
>>> > > > >ordinary: "All those people are routinely replaced," he told
>>> > reporters,
>>> > > > >"and
>>> > > > >I have not done anything differently." In fact, the dismissals
>>> > > > >were
>>> > > > >unprecedented: Previous Presidents, including Ronald Reagan and
>>>Jimmy
>>> > > > >Carter, had both retained holdovers from the previous
>>>Administration
>>> > >and
>>> > > > >only replaced them gradually as their tenures expired. This
>>> > > > >allowed
>>> > > > >continuity of leadership within the U.S. Attorney offices during
>>>the
>>> > > > >transition.
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > >Equally extraordinary were the politics at play in the firings. 
>>> > > > >At
>>> > the
>>> > > > >time,
>>> > > > >Jay Stephens, then U.S. Attorney in the District of Columbia, was
>>> > > > >investigating then Ways and Means Chairman Dan Rostenkowski, and
>>>was
>>> > > > >"within
>>> > > > >30 days" of making a decision on an indictment. Mr. Rostenkowski,
>>>who
>>> > >was
>>> > > > >shepherding the Clinton's economic program through Congress,
>>> > eventually
>>> > > > >went
>>> > > > >to jail on mail fraud charges and was later pardoned by Mr.
>>>Clinton.
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > >Also at the time, allegations concerning some of the Clintons'
>>> > >Whitewater
>>> > > > >dealings were coming to a head. By dismissing all 93 U.S.
>>> > > > >Attorneys
>>> > at
>>> > > > >once,
>>> > > > >the Clintons conveniently cleared the decks to appoint "Friend of
>>> > Bill"
>>> > > > >Paula Casey as the U.S. Attorney for Little Rock. Ms. Casey never
>>>did
>>> > > > bring
>>> > > > >any big Whitewater indictments, and she rejected information from
>>> > >another
>>> > > > >FOB, David Hale, on the business practices of the Arkansas elite
>>> > > > including
>>> > > > >Mr. Clinton. When it comes to "politicizing" Justice, in short,
>>> > > > >the
>>> > >Bush
>>> > > > >White House is full of amateurs compared to the Clintons.
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > And it may be this very amateurism that explains how the 
>>> > > > > current
>>> > > > >Administration has managed to turn this routine issue of 
>>> > > > >replacing
>>> > > > >Presidential appointees into a political fiasco. There was 
>>> > > > >nothing
>>> > >wrong
>>> > > > >with replacing the eight Attorneys, all of whom serve at the
>>> > >President's
>>> > > > >pleasure. Prosecutors deserve supervision like any other 
>>> > > > >executive
>>> > >branch
>>> > > > >appointees.
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > >The supposed scandal this week is that Mr. Bush had been informed
>>> > last
>>> > > > fall
>>> > > > >that some U.S. Attorneys had been less than vigorous in pursuing
>>> > > > >voter-fraud
>>> > > > >cases and that the President had made the point to Attorney
>>> > > > >General
>>> > > > Alberto
>>> > > > >Gonzales. Voter fraud strikes at the heart of democratic
>>> > institutions,
>>> > > > and
>>> > > > >it was entirely appropriate for Mr. Bush--or any President--to
>>>insist
>>> > > > that
>>> > > > >his appointees act energetically against it.
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > >Take sacked U.S. Attorney John McKay from Washington state. In
>>>2004,
>>> > >the
>>> > > > >Governor's race was decided in favor of Democrat Christine
>>> > > > >Gregoire
>>> > by
>>> > > > 129
>>> > > > >votes on a third recount. As the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and
>>>other
>>> > > > media
>>> > > > >outlets reported, some of the "voters" were deceased, others were
>>> > > > >registered
>>> > > > >in storage-rental facilities, and still others were convicted
>>>felons.
>>> > > > More
>>> > > > >than 100 ballots were "discovered" in a Seattle warehouse. None 
>>> > > > >of
>>> > this
>>> > > > >constitutes proof that the election was stolen. But it should 
>>> > > > >have
>>> > been
>>> > > > >enough to prompt Mr. McKay, a Democrat, to investigate, something
>>>he
>>> > > > >declined to do, apparently on grounds that he had better things 
>>> > > > >to
>>> > do.
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > >In New Mexico, another state in which recent elections have been
>>> > >decided
>>> > > > by
>>> > > > >razor thin margins, U.S. Attorney David Iglesias did establish a
>>> > voter
>>> > > > >fraud
>>> > > > >task force in 2004. But it lasted all of 10 weeks before closing
>>>its
>>> > > > doors,
>>> > > > >despite evidence of irregularities by the likes of the 
>>> > > > >Association
>>>of
>>> > > > >Community Organizations for Reform Now, or Acorn. As our John 
>>> > > > >Fund
>>> > > > reported
>>> > > > >at the time, Acorn's director Matt Henderson refused to answer
>>> > >questions
>>> > > > in
>>> > > > >court about whether his group had illegally made copies of voter
>>> > > > >registration cards in the run-up to the 2004 election.
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > As for some of the other fired Attorneys, at least one of their
>>> > > > >dismissals
>>> > > > >seemed to owe to differences with the Administration about the
>>>death
>>> > > > >penalty, another to questions about the Attorney's managerial
>>>skills.
>>> > >Not
>>> > > > >surprisingly, the dismissed Attorneys are insisting their
>>>dismissals
>>> > >were
>>> > > > >unfair, and perhaps in some cases they were. It would not be the
>>> > first
>>> > > > time
>>> > > > >in history that a dismissed employee did not take kindly to his
>>> > firing,
>>> > > > nor
>>> > > > >would it be the first in which an employer sacked the wrong
>>> > > > >person.
>>> > No
>>> > > > >question, the Justice Department and White House have botched the
>>> > > > handling
>>> > > > >of this issue from start to finish. But what we don't have here 
>>> > > > >is
>>> > any
>>> > > > >serious evidence that the Administration has acted improperly or
>>> > > > >to
>>> > > > protect
>>> > > > >some of its friends. If Democrats want to understand what a real
>>> > abuse
>>> > >of
>>> > > > >power looks like, they can always ask the junior Senator from New
>>> > York.
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > >On 4/4/07, TN Rhodey wrote:
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > > Brad,
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > > Of course the AGs serve at the President's descrection however
>>> > > > > > I
>>> > >think
>>> > > > >you
>>> > > > > > might be wrong about the firings/replacement starting with
>>> > Clinton.
>>> > >I
>>> > > > > > thought the AG firings started at least as far back as Reagan
>>>and
>>> > >was
>>> > > > >then
>>> > > > > > followed by Bush and Clinton. I thought W's issues have more 
>>> > > > > > to
>>>do
>>> > > > with
>>> > > > > > the
>>> > > > > > timing....if he would of done this in the first year or so it
>>> > would
>>> > > > have
>>> > > > > > merely followed precedent ...by waiting he left the door open
>>> > > > > > to
>>> > > > > > criticism.
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > > Wally
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > > >From: "Brad Haslett" 
>>> > > > > > >Reply-To: The Rhodes 22 mail list 
>>> > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > >To: "The Rhodes 22 mail list" 
>>> > > > > > >Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] Speaking of politicians.
>>> > > > > > >Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2007 08:26:04 -0600
>>> > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > >Wally,
>>> > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > >AG's serve at the President's discretion. Clinton wholesale
>>> > > > replacing
>>> > > > > > ALL
>>> > > > > > >of them at once was a first. The press at the time barely
>>> > mentioned
>>> > > > it.
>>> > > > > > >Bush
>>> > > > > > >replaced 8 out of almost 100. Big deal. This is a huge
>>> > non-story
>>> > > > that
>>> > > > > > >ranks right up there with the one about whats-her-name dying,
>>>you
>>> > > > know
>>> > > > > > the
>>> > > > > > >one, that blonde chick with the big hooters.
>>> > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > >I've been tied down with airplane hangar issues and taxes but
>>> > plan
>>> > >to
>>> > > > >get
>>> > > > > > >on
>>> > > > > > >the lake soon. I haven't bothered to look and see if the
>>> > > > > > >front
>>> > >that
>>> > > > > > passed
>>> > > > > > >here last night has made it past you, but it is chilly this
>>> > >morning.
>>> > > > >At
>>> > > > > > >least there's some wind.
>>> > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > >Brad
>>> > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > >On 4/4/07, TN Rhodey wrote:

=== message truncated ===

 
---------------------------------
Don't be flakey. Get Yahoo! Mail for Mobile and 
always stay connected to friends.