From the "Give Impeachment a Chance" files ...

Top aides to former Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales employed a political and ideological litmus test to weed out candidates for career and other positions at the Justice Department, an internal department report concluded Monday.

The audit by the department's Office of Inspector General and Office of Professional Responsibility concluded that former Gonzales aides Monica Goodling and Kyle Sampson violated department policies and federal civil-service laws.

Both Goodling and Sampson left the Justice Department last year amid the tumult surrounding the alleged politicization of its ranks under Gonzales that included the politically charged firing of nine U.S. attorneys. It was unclear whether either individual would be disciplined since they had left government.


http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/washingtondc/la-na-justice29-2008jul29,0,5266095.story

What do you expect from a regime that treats The Constitution as toilet paper ?

They are finally catching on that all those political appointees that come from ultra right religious schools are there to shore up idiot George's hold on our government in the most unConstitutional way.

I'm wondering if it is indeed possible to fire each and every one of the people hired, or appointed under idiot George... including the head of the SCOTUS.

Each one is a time delayed boobie-trap designed to do America, it's citizens, and the definition of the United States harm.

This is not good...but I like to recall the time when Hillary fired the entire White House Travel office staff and replaced them with her good friends.

This is not good...but I like to recall the time when Hillary fired the entire White House Travel office staff and replaced them with her good friends.

Do you really believe that is similar to the current situation?

Do you really believe that is similar to the current situation?I see. So, when your people do it, you're cool with it...when the "other guy" does it, you're the first one to criticize?

As I said, if this is true, it is a very bad thing. I'm not offering excuses for anything....but you seem to be.

Also, I'm glad you have no sympathy for those Travel Office people who lost their jobs. Many of them were career people who had worked for Democrat and Republican administrations.

I see. So, when your people do it, you're cool with it...when the "other guy" does it, you're the first one to criticize?

As I said, if this is true, it is a very bad thing. I'm not offering excuses for anything....but you seem to be.

Also, I'm glad you have no sympathy for those Travel Office people who lost their jobs. Many of them were career people who had worked for Democrat and Republican administrations.

You are equating travel staff with judges and prosecutors.

You are equating the presidents wife with the illegal activities of the Justice Dept.. the chief enforcement arm of our government?

And you think I'm unfair for not seeing it that way too?

I just don't see a connection, and your sense of scale could use a turn up.

This isn't about "YOUR PEOPLE vs MY PEOPLE".

It's about the American system of justice we ALL have to live under.

I think you KNOW that and are just dodging and spinning.

Wow, way to conflate two completely different situations.

The travel office was the source of several leaks including the President's detailed schedule. Instead of a witch-hunt, there was a cleansing.

On the other hand, the Justice Department situation is a continuation of the same strategy the GOP has been using that the Nazis were so fond of. The K-Street project, make sure every good Arian... err, conservative, understands that when they hire, promote, or vote they have to put the Party before other interests. This is especially important in law enforcement where friends need to be given some latitude when they make mistakes and enemies need to be publicly humiliated. It is a power-grab intended to derail democracy. Not surprising from a party that has completely run out of ideas to sell.

I see. So, when your people do it, you're cool with it...when the "other guy" does it, you're the first one to criticize?

As I said, if this is true, it is a very bad thing. I'm not offering excuses for anything....but you seem to be.

Also, I'm glad you have no sympathy for those Travel Office people who lost their jobs. Many of them were career people who had worked for Democrat and Republican administrations.

You don't even know what you're talking about!

This isn't about travel offices, this is about some of the worst corruptions and scandals ever in the history of this country!

You don't even know what you're talking about!

This isn't about travel offices, this is about some of the worst corruptions and scandals ever in the history of this country!

I would think its a safe bet that you have no clue what any of the above posts are talking about. You just attack anyone or anything that does not agree with your hatred of Bush, the GOP, or anything and anyone that is not far left. Your posts prove that.

At least Liberty bell and Grimrebuke are knowledgable about the topic though they disagree with Soylent. You however jump in the discussion with no clue whats so ever.

I would think its a safe bet that you have no clue what any of the above posts are talking about. You just attack anyone or anything that does not agree with your hatred of Bush, the GOP, or anything and anyone that is not far left. Your posts prove that.

Actually I do, it's people such as yourself who have no idea what's going on in this country which is why you say such ridiculous things.

Do you even know what this scandal is about before you start in with the "hate Bush" idiocy?


At least Liberty bell and Grimrebuke are knowledgable about the topic though they disagree with Soylent. You however jump in the discussion with no clue whats so ever.

As I've always said, the neo-cons are constantly projecting their faults onto others, which would explain why you're making me the subject instead of this huge scandal. It's the classic neo-con trick, change the subject so that their beloved political hacks get the usual free ride..:nonono:

You are equating travel staff with judges and prosecutors.They're all federal employees.

I've stated that if the accusations are true, I condemn what happened. Yet, you will not condemn the same sort of thing happening under a Democrat administration. That seems to be very telling as to which of us is fair-minded and which of us is a partisan hack.

You are equating the presidents wife with the illegal activities of the Justice Dept.. the chief enforcement arm of our government?Actually, I'd like to know why the president's wife has the power to fire federal employees. She wasn't elected to any office. I guess you're not a big fan of Democracy, eh?

I just don't see a connection, and your sense of scale could use a turn up.

This isn't about "YOUR PEOPLE vs MY PEOPLE".

It's about the American system of justice we ALL have to live under.

I think you KNOW that and are just dodging and spinning.I'm not dodging or spinning anything. I condemn any wrong doing under Bush. You can't bring yourself to even see any possible wrong doing by Clinton. It seems to be "YOUR PEOPLE" against the world.

This isn't about travel offices, this is about some of the worst corruptions and scandals ever in the history of this country!I see. So, you think hiring and firing of some federal employees is okay and for others it isn't?

Just to be clear, I'd like a list of which categories of federal employee hiring or firing you think should have special protection and which shouldn't. Thanks.

The travel office was the source of several leaks including the President's detailed schedule. Instead of a witch-hunt, there was a cleansing.I see. So, you think that if someone in your department did something wrong or unetical, that you and all the other co-workers in that department should lose their jobs?

How very compassionate of you.

They're all federal employees.

I've stated that if the accusations are true, I condemn what happened. Yet, you will not condemn the same sort of thing happening under a Democrat administration. That seems to be very telling as to which of us is fair-minded and which of us is a partisan hack..

Actually, all it proves is that somebody is spinning for all they are worth and finding no traction.

Desparation has deeply set in and there's no where else to turn...You and McCain share this trait.

Actually, I'd like to know why the president's wife has the power to fire federal employees. She wasn't elected to any office. I guess you're not a big fan of Democracy, eh?.

There's that twist again.
Perhaps you can start a thread asking that question.

That would be reasonable since it has ZERO to do with THIS thread.

I'm not dodging or spinning anything. I condemn any wrong doing under Bush. You can't bring yourself to even see any possible wrong doing by Clinton. It seems to be "YOUR PEOPLE" against the world.

So... Former president Clinton hasn't been in office for HOW long?

(But his wrong doings, which did not result in the near undoing of our nation are STILL fresh in your memory...)

Interesting

Re: "It seems to be "YOUR PEOPLE" against the world.", that comment is best reserved for the Neo-Con's, don't you think? LOL

I see. So, you think that if someone in your department did something wrong or unetical, that you and all the other co-workers in that department should lose their jobs?

How very compassionate of you.

I think that if we created an atmosphere of partisanship against our employer where breaking policy and leaking confidential information to the media was tolerated and covered-up, yes, we should all lose our jobs. The problem in both cases is the same, Federal employees who were slowly replaced over the decades based on their political stripe were putting the GOP before their jobs. They forgot that they worked for the Office of the President of the United States and instead thought they worked for the RNC. In the first instance they leaked sensitive information. In the more recent instance they took on sub-standard personnel in an effort to build into the Federal system a legacy whose first priority was the RNC, not the People.
I know you are comfortable with that, but I'm not. Every evil empire risen from representative government was built the same way.

In spite of the teapot tempest , at the behest of the usual rightwing trouble makers, Clinton was exonerated (for you GOPers that means free from guilt or blame) by independent council for the so called "travelgate" .. they fired a staff who kept an illegal slush fund and were inept at basic recordkeeping

The lame attempts at derailing by Clinton Distraction aside, the justice department findings are simply more proof, as if more was needed, that this was just another illegal Rovian attempt to take over the complete workings of the federal government and stuff it with GOP-Bush loyalists

Clinton was exonerated (for you GOPers that means free from guilt or blame) by independent council for the so called "travelgate" ... Okay, so I guess we'll have to wait for someone to be found guilty in this case before we can pass judgment. Is that your stance?

Okay, so I guess we'll have to wait for someone to be found guilty in this case before we can pass judgment. Is that your stance?

In Clinton's case, there was an investigation which showed that the travel department needed firing. In this case there is an investigation which has showed that the Party has manipulated the hiring process for political reasons and undermined the law and US security. So, we've found them guilty and we can pass judgment.

Politics are supposed to influence Justice Department hirings. In fact, the Executive Branch (supposedly) has a mandate from the people to make appointments that reflect the administration's politics.

I don't agree with those politics, but I still fail to see how this is a crime or abuse of power.

Politics are supposed to influence Justice Department hirings. In fact, the Executive Branch (supposedly) has a mandate from the people to make appointments that reflect the administration's politics.

I don't agree with those politics, but I still fail to see how this is a crime or abuse of power.

Not according to federal statute or DOJ policies .. they dont even want the appearance of partisanship

As employees of the Department of Justice (Department), we have been entrusted with the authority to enforce the laws of the United States, and with the responsibility to do so in a neutral and impartial manner. For the public to retain its confidence that we are adhering to our responsibility, we must ensure that politics--both in fact and appearance–-does not compromise the integrity of our work.


In 1994 Congress amended the Hatch Act, 5 U.S.C. 7321-7326, to remove certain restrictions on political participation by most government employees All Department employees, however, must continue to take care that their activities do not compromise the integrity of the Department in enforcing the law, or create conflict or apparent conflict of interest with the neutral and impartial administration of justice.

Although I feel uncomfortable in the position of defending the Bush administration, even they admit that the Hatch statute as amended tends to deflate the Dem's claims.

The Justice Department's enforcement priorities have always been politically defined. They aren't necessarily supposed to be unbiased; the federal bench is. That was no less true for Democratic administrations than it is for the GOP.

Politics are supposed to influence Justice Department hirings. In fact, the Executive Branch (supposedly) has a mandate from the people to make appointments that reflect the administration's politics.

I don't agree with those politics, but I still fail to see how this is a crime or abuse of power.

Perhaps it's because you are missing the pure scale involved.

Hiring new attys. due to attrition is one thing; if you want a certain person somewhere in particular, you reassign someone and assign the person you want to that spot.

But in THIS instance, they were gutting the ranks of dems or anyone that wasn't to hard core "true believer".

..... And what do you make of the interview questions?

Goggle the words "What is it about George W. Bush that makes you want to serve him? "

You will get two million, five hundred and sixty thousand hits.

Each one mentioning the question asked of those seen as fit to be interviewed.

"What is it about George W. Bush that makes you want to serve him? "

Does that seem like a reasonable job interview question, even in light of knowing it's a political appointee slot?

That is the expectation of loyalty to an individual being implied as the criteria for getting the job.

"What is it about George W. Bush that makes you want to serve him? "

Thats just WRONG .. creepy even ... imagine the kind of perverse partisan toxicity that must have permeated into every nook and cranny of Bush Regime Washington

The DoJ is supposed to serve the country and the Constitution .. these were obviously foreign concepts during the Rove Age

Gee, this is a first; politicians getting people that they know jobs. I'm just shocked and bewildered.

Cronyism, nepotism and lots of other ism's are rampant in the political world, and the rest of the world for that matter. Politics is a business, and as in many businesses, it ain't what you know; it's who you know.

The Clinton's were notorious for this sort of thing, and even though it angered many people, no one really got into much trouble.

If laws were broken and it's worth prosecuting, then so be it, but policies aren't laws, and violating policy can only get a person disciplined or fired in most cases, as opposed to doin' hard time as a result of breaking actual laws.

So, we've found them guilty and we can pass judgment.Was someone convicted in a court of law?

Gee, this is a first; politicians getting people that they know jobs. I'm just shocked and bewildered.

Cronyism, nepotism and lots of other ism's are rampant in the political world, and the rest of the world for that matter. Politics is a business, and as in many businesses, it ain't what you know; it's who you know.

The Clinton's were notorious for this sort of thing, and even though it angered many people, no one really got into much trouble.

If laws were broken and it's worth prosecuting, then so be it, but policies aren't laws, and violating policy can only get a person disciplined or fired in most cases, as opposed to doin' hard time as a result of breaking actual laws.

I think it's entirely possible that we will see some criminal prosecutions stem from this.

The flood gates are about to be opened anyway, and that will also explain a softer, gentler George W. Bush of late.

He's not finding a grateful nation waiting for him to leave office, he's finding a vengeful one.

I think it's entirely possible that we will see some criminal prosecutions stem from this.

The flood gates are about to be opened anyway, and that will also explain a softer, gentler George W. Bush of late.

He's not finding a grateful nation waiting for him to leave office, he's finding a vengeful one.

There are no flood gates.

Presidents pardon everyone that matters before they leave, and there's no illegality in a President pardoning himself if necessary.

But, I heard of all the evil revelations and consequences that were going to happen after Clinton left office, and Reagan, Carter, etc. It just never does. It won't this time either, and no one important is going to take a fall.

As we speak, we're negotiating immunity for US soldiers in Iraq as a condition to leave. Do you suppose that the rest of the government is just going to sit back and not cover their asses as well?? I doubt it.

More or less, the POTUS is empowered to hire anyone he wishes for whatever reason he wishes to, as long as personal financial gain and/or nepotism aren't involved.

As a Democrat, I certainly expect Democratic presidents to hire liberal prosecutors and put liberals in the federal courts. I can't really criticize the Republicans for doing the same thing.

There are no flood gates.

Presidents pardon everyone that matters before they leave, and there's no illegality in a President pardoning himself if necessary.

But, I heard of all the evil revelations and consequences that were going to happen after Clinton left office, and Reagan, Carter, etc. It just never does. It won't this time either, and no one important is going to take a fall.

As we speak, we're negotiating immunity for US soldiers in Iraq as a condition to leave. Do you suppose that the rest of the government is just going to sit back and not cover their asses as well?? I doubt it.

George W. Bush can certainly pardon anyone, including himself in any current instance where charges are presented.

However, once he's out of office his ability to pardon anyone, including himself, vanishes like the morning dew.

In effect, pressing charges once he no longer enjoys the perks of being a sitting president makes things so much simpler and tidier.<wry grin>

More or less, the POTUS is empowered to hire anyone he wishes for whatever reason he wishes to, as long as personal financial gain and/or nepotism aren't involved.

As a Democrat, I certainly expect Democratic presidents to hire liberal prosecutors and put liberals in the federal courts. I can't really criticize the Republicans for doing the same thing.

While I see your point and respect it, a glance at "the big picture" will tell you that this is part of a larger snowball; pointing out the nature of Bush's appointees (their loyalty is sought, not for the country or even a business entity, but for George W. Bush personally).

That is more than mere political ideology driving staff placements.

It's infiltration.

I would think it would be a great cause for re-examining quite a few new hires and making changes where appropriate.

This only helps to highlight the need for it.

George W. Bush can certainly pardon anyone, including himself in any current instance where charges are presented.

However, once he's out of office his ability to pardon anyone, including himself, vanishes like the morning dew.

In effect, pressing charges once he no longer enjoys the perks of being a sitting president makes things so much simpler and tidier.<wry grin>

True, but it still won't happen. We Americans just don't prosecute our ex Presidents. If we did, we could find something on every last one of them, even poor old Jimmy Carter, and that would eventually result in no one running for the office in the future.

If anyone should have been prosecuted, it was Nixon, yet instead, he received a full pardon and went on to become a valued foreign policy consultant for every one of his successors, except for Jimmy Carter.

While I see your point and respect it, a glance at "the big picture" will tell you that this is part of a larger snowball; pointing out the nature of Bush's appointees (their loyalty is sought, not for the country or even a business entity, but for George W. Bush personally).

That is more than mere political ideology driving staff placements.

It's infiltration.
It would be "infiltration" if Bush had lost; like it or not (I certainly don't), he won. Clearly, I don't think we should set a precedent which would prevent Obama from hiring liberals for the same posts if he wins.

It would be "infiltration" if Bush had lost; like it or not (I certainly don't), he won. Clearly, I don't think we should set a precedent which would prevent Obama from hiring liberals for the same posts if he wins.

We aren't talking about the White House press office, where it is expected that political views will be influential over the job. We are talking about prosecutors whose job it is to serve the people and the law. To create a situation where law enforcement is hand picked in order to ensure they do not uphold the law, but rather uphold a political agenda and enforce it at gun point is no way to run a democracy.

True, but it still won't happen. We Americans just don't prosecute our ex Presidents. If we did, we could find something on every last one of them, even poor old Jimmy Carter, and that would eventually result in no one running for the office in the future.

If anyone should have been prosecuted, it was Nixon, yet instead, he received a full pardon and went on to become a valued foreign policy consultant for every one of his successors, except for Jimmy Carter.

We've never had a president that was so low down and driven to support our nations enemies like this one.... and never had one that overstepped his authority to the degree that Bush has.

We may never have prosecuted ( or officially executed) any former president, but since this one seems to have broken so many records and created so many "firsts", it is completely fitting that THIS be OUR first prosecution and if found guilty of any single crime that warrents it, our first official, legally sanctioned execution of an ex-U.S. president.

I'd vote for it without hesitation.

None what-so-ever.

It would be "infiltration" if Bush had lost; like it or not (I certainly don't), he won. Clearly, I don't think we should set a precedent which would prevent Obama from hiring liberals for the same posts if he wins.

I respectfully disagree.

While the Justice Dept follows the agenda of the sitting president, it's ranks have never been fully political, and it isn't the president's private entity.

Obama won't have any trouble filling job slots because the Dem congress is sllated to expand it's majority hold.

There's no constitutional or statutory limitation on the President's authority to hire. The electoral majority expects him to hire conservatives.

There's no constitutional or statutory limitation on the President's authority to hire. The electoral majority expects him to hire conservatives.

That's because the electoral majority is ignorant of the intentions of the Founding Fathers and the danger of letting the police be replaced by Brown Shirts.

There's no constitutional or statutory limitation on the President's authority to hire. The electoral majority expects him to hire conservatives.

But do they expect the president to go out of his way to prosecute the opposing party and to stifle prosecution of wrong doing within his own party?

Is it considered unlawful to stack the deck in this manner?

Here is a primer on the subject ( And don't be upset by the title... I didn't come up with it.) :

"A Complete Idiot’s Guide to the Federal Prosecutor Firings "

"appointments by the A.G. only last for 120 days, or until Mr. President appoints a “real” F.P. himself. But hold on a minute! “I heard about all these firings,” you say. “From what you’re telling me now, the A.G. doesn’t have that much power… or only 120 days worth of it. Right?”

Not if Mr. Bush has anything to do with it. In March 2006, via the Patriot Act, Bush conveniently did this:

(c) A person appointed as United States attorney under this section may serve until the earlier of—(1) the qualification of a United States attorney for such district appointed by the President under section 541 of this title; or (2) the expiration of 120 days after appointment by the Attorney General under this section. (d) If an appointment expires under subsection (c)(2), the district court for such district may appoint a United States attorney to serve until the vacancy is filled. The order of appointment by the court shall be filed with the clerk of the court.”


Replacing it with this:(c) A person appointed as United States attorney under this section may serve until the qualification of a United States Attorney for such district appointed by the President under section 541 of this title.

The translation again: whoever the A.G. appoints can serve until Mr. Bush appoints a nomination himself. Now, what do you suppose would happen if Mr. Bush “forgot” to appoint someone? That’s right; Senate’s power to do anything is completely removed, and the A.G.’s “120 day appointment” power lasts indefinitely (ie forever). "

http://mangoicecream.wordpress.com/2007/03/30/a-complete-idiots-guide-to-the-federal-prosecutor-firings/

A new wrinkle has just developed.

As expected, yet another of idiot George's political appointee's has come through for him.

"AG Mukasey: No prosecutions for ex-Justice officials "

"Mukasey used his sharpest words yet to criticize the senior leaders who took part in or failed to stop illegal hiring practices during the tenure of his predecessor, Alberto Gonzales. The scandal reverberated throughout the Bush administration and ultimately factored prominently in Gonzales' decision to resign.

But, Mukasey told delegates to the American Bar Association annual meeting, "not every wrong, or even every violation of the law, is a crime. In this instance, the two joint reports found only violations of the civil service laws."

For nearly two years, top advisers to Gonzales discriminated against applicants for career jobs who weren't Republican or conservative loyalists, an internal investigation concluded last month.

The federal government makes a distinction between "career" and "political" appointees, and it's a violation of civil service laws and Justice Department policy to hire career employees on the basis of political affiliation or allegiance."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-08-12-mukasey-justice-department_N.htm

That's a total load of horse droppings.

Laws were broken.. he says so himself... he is only practising sellective prosecution.

If the average person broke any of these laws, THEY would be prosecuted.

... and what's this crap about not every violation of the law is a crime?.....

Just to begin with, it's perfectly legal to discriminate against someone on the basis of their political beliefs. The Equal Opportunity and civil service laws make that abundantly clear.

They were all written during the Cold War when people with unpopular political beliefs were considered a top law enforcement priority.

Just to begin with, it's perfectly legal to discriminate against someone on the basis of their political beliefs. The Equal Opportunity and civil service laws make that abundantly clear.

They were all written during the Cold War when people with unpopular political beliefs were considered a top law enforcement priority.

I think your disagreement is with the nations "current" top law enforcement officer, who states otherwise... as well as with Congress ( Both sides of the isle.)

Funny thing though.....If I understand this situation correctly ( and I believe I do), this is about members of the Justice Dept. overstepping the established boundries....and here is the nations top law enforcement officer stating that laws were indeed broken....But he isn't going to enforce them.

So, in effect, he is refusing to do his job.

I am mindful that the practices of the Justice Dept. that caused all this ruckus were that they (the Justice Dept) were loading up the court system, the Immigration system, and Federal Prosecutors with Bush loyalists.. answerable only to him... and that this was designed to stop prosecution of any and all republicans, and increase prosecution of any and all Dems.

The cherry on top is that here is the nations top Law enforcement officer pretty much doing the very same thing... and THIS is the guy that is tasked with "fixing" this?

I see a "FIX", all right.. and it's definately "in".

Here's the specific statute in question. You tell me:

"covered position" means, with respect to any personnel
action, any position in the competitive service, a career
appointee position in the Senior Executive Service, or a position
in the excepted service, but does not include any position which
is, prior to the personnel action -
(i) excepted from the competitive service because of its
confidential, policy-determining, policy-making, or policy-
advocating character; or
(ii) excluded from the coverage of this section by the
President based on a determination by the President that it is
necessary and warranted by conditions of good administration;
and

(C) "agency" means an Executive agency and the Government
Printing Office, but does not include -
(i) a Government corporation, except in the case of an
alleged prohibited personnel practice described under
subsection (b)(8);
(ii) the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Central
Intelligence Agency, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the
National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, the National Security
Agency, and, as determined by the President, any Executive
agency or unit thereof the principal function of which is the
conduct of foreign intelligence or counterintelligence
activities; or
(iii) the Government Accountability Office.

http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t05t08+179+1++()%20%20A ND%20((5)%20ADJ%20USC):CITE%20AND%20(USC%20w/10%20(2302)):CITE

Seem to me: 1) the President has broad discretionary power; and 2) that Justice Department is probably excluded anyhow.

Here's the specific statute in question. You tell me:



http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t05t08+179+1++()%20%20A ND%20((5)%20ADJ%20USC):CITE%20AND%20(USC%20w/10%20(2302)):CITE

Seem to me: 1) the President has broad discretionary power; and 2) that Justice Department is probably excluded anyhow.

I notice that this document came from the House of Representatives...

That aside, it is acknowleged by all interested parties that crimes were comitted .

It is also acknowleged that the ATTY. Gen. serves at the pleasure of the president.

Once you get past that point, there are lines of authority and rules of practice that determin who can do what and how.

According to the Atty. Gen.:"The federal government makes a distinction between "career" and "political" appointees, and it's a violation of civil service laws and Justice Department policy to hire career employees on the basis of political affiliation or allegiance." "

No one questions that the hiring practices at the Justice Dept were out of bounds... and the only question left is the one I posed in my last post:

"I am mindful that the practices of the Justice Dept. that caused all this ruckus were that they (the Justice Dept) were loading up the court system, the Immigration system, and Federal Prosecutors with Bush loyalists.. answerable only to him... and that this was designed to stop prosecution of any and all republicans, and increase prosecution of any and all Dems.

The cherry on top is that here is the nations top Law enforcement officer pretty much doing the very same thing... and THIS is the guy that is tasked with "fixing" this?"

The law essentially gives the POTUS freedom to make appointments at will. Perhaps it's against Justice Dept policy...but their policy is subordinate to the president's executive authority.

Under the applicable titles, there does not seem to be an effective limitation on the President's authority, unless there's some obscure codicil of which I'm not aware. The AG may have some political reason for his remarks: "cooling the mark" like the old-time con men.

The law essentially gives the POTUS freedom to make appointments at will. Perhaps it's against Justice Dept policy...but their policy is subordinate to the president's executive authority.

Under the applicable titles, there does not seem to be an effective limitation on the President's authority, unless there's some obscure codicil of which I'm not aware. The AG may have some political reason for his remarks: "cooling the mark" like the old-time con men.

It's a bit late in the day for that.

Like any old time "jelly-roll" artist, or long-con gamer, the object of the exorcize is for the mark to NEVER wake up until the player is long gone.

However, most of the nation is now awake ( with the exception of those who don't have the equipment to recognize that they've been played.), and the player and his troop are still on the playing field.

Usually, when such things occur, it gets pretty messy for the player.

I'm hoping that's what happens next.

Remember that doofy smile on Tom DeLay's face as he took his mugshot? You can understand how these people's minds work when you see something like that.. it was so out of place.

I fully expect Bush to have that doofy smile on HIS face at some point ( when he isn't doing a soft-shoe like he did while waiting for McCain to show up at the White House.)

It's a mad bluff of a smile brought about by having his "hold cards" fully exposed.

But, back to the topic: This is one con that simply isn't going to run it's course in a way the the player likes.

If Obama wins, there will be a new Atty Gen, who SHOULD go after anything that hasn't already been addressed, and he will have the FULL backing of the new president to "sic em".