America Moves Into Constitutional Crisis

[Japher]

Not being able to investigate because of "executive privilege" = obstruction of justice

is that a circular reference?

[Ramo]

There's not much of a comparison. Likely in the sense that we've got a few situations that look exactly like obstruction of justice. It would've been a fishing expedition three years ago.

[Ramo]

Not being able to investigate because of "executive privilege" = obstruction of justice

is that a circular reference?

Putting pressure on investigations to damage political opponents or help political allies = obstruction of justice.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
So in essence while Watergate was a fishing expedition on the pretext of investigating a known out and out crime, this is simply a fishing expedition with no criminal fig leaf cover.

God is it any wonder why the approval rating is sitting at 14% for these asshats?

I think a "fishing expedition" on the very likely abuses of power of the President of the United States and his administration is fully warranted.

Frankly, I'm not sure the Dems are Congress are putting enough pressure on this Presidency. Mostly because I don't think they do much after the assertion of executive privilege (designed to hide that these firings were, indeed, based on the fact the prosecutors didn't invent bogus charges against democrats running for office).

[Arrian]

I make no claims of being unbaised, as I've long since come to hate this administration*. I agree with Imran - if anything, I want *more* pressure and "fishing expeditions" into what these *******s were up to.

-Arrian

* - hell, I was seriously pissed by 2003. And it's gotten worse.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Nope. Try again. Prosecutors being political appointees can be fired for practically any reason including politics.

No, there are specific limits on the hiring and firing of prosecutors. Outside those limits, anything's allowed. They could not be fired because they are black, for example. That could violate the law. In this case, these people were fired, most likely, because they were either prosecuting Republicans, or for insufficiently pursuing bogus charges of vote fraud to help game the elections. That's obstruction of justice and more.

Congress isn't fishing here. It's very likely crimes were committed, above and beyond obstructing Congress and lying to Congress.

[chequita guevara]

Leahy and Conyers will begin to consider whether "the White House is in contempt of Congress.," next month. I don't know whether that means July or in 30 days.

[Kuciwalker]

Of course the White House is in contempt of Congress.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by PLATO
Executive Priviledge is a well established precedent in the discussion of political appointees. Congress has no legal leg to stand on. Purely political posturing.

Additionally, no federal law has been broken because the federal prosecutors serve at the pleasure of the President.

There are laws regarding hiring and firing. You know that the person in charge of the hiring process over at civil rights division is in deep **** because he tossed everyone but certain type of Republicans off the hiring list. That's crime. So too there are limitations on the reasons you can fire someone. You can fire them simply because you what to, but it you do it because they are black or female you've broken the law.

Finally, lest we forget...Bill Clinton fired them all when he took office.

That's not the same thing and you know it. All political appointees are fired at the beginning of each new administration.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Of course the White House is in contempt of Congress.

Using that definition, the WH is in contempt of America.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by snoopy369
Same as Watergate; Nixon probably broke no law (at least directly) except for lying about things to cover up what others did on his behalf (illegally). But the lying is something one can be rung up for no matter the case...

The Watergate break in and the warrentless wire tapes of Nixon's political opponents were very clear breaches of the law.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

That's not the same thing and you know it. All political appointees are fired at the beginning of each new administration.

Except that in this case, Bush actually kept a lot of Clinton's appointees.

It is the perogative of the President to fire them at his whim. You are correct in that he cannot fire them based on ciminl reasons. The idea of obstruction of justice has been raised, but I have yet to see any evidence anywhere to substantiate it.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Oerdin


The Watergate break in and the warrentless wire tapes of Nixon's political opponents were very clear breaches of the law.

Nixon did not participate in Watergate...just the coverup (as snoopy369 said) and the President's recordings were not illegal in and of themselves.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Of course the White House is in contempt of Congress.

Not necessarily. Executive privilege has been upheld as a mainstay in the seperation of powers. It may be that SCOTUS will determine that the possibility of criminal activity is great enough to overide executive privilege. However, given the lack of any evidence in this case, it is, IMHO, unlikely.

Therefore, ifthe WH is not subject to Congress jurisdiction in this matter, then they cannot be in contempt.

[Kuciwalker]

WHOOSH