House panel defies Bush, votes for subpoenas

[estranged4life]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

But, the sole issue is will this matter enough to people to get them to vote for:

1. Hillary

or

2. Obama

Maybe enough conservatives will not vote

Man, we're forgotten faster than you can say "November Election Results are in"


Hmmm, let's see:

Obama - Very possible I could vote for him

or

Hillary - I would rather never listen to another single musical note by anyone (!!!) than vote for her

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

The pardons come after the election and right as the Pres. is leaving office - at least traditionally.

I'm talking about his father dear. Remember?

[strandinthewind]

http://www.landmarkcases.org/nixon/privilege.html

Here is a lesson on Executive Priv.

Here is a cool article on pardons:

President Bush Pardons 14 People

WASHINGTON, Sept. 28, 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CBS/AP) President Bush granted pardons Wednesday to 14 people, including a member of the mineworkers union who was convicted for his role in bombings at a West Virginia coal mine, a counterfeiter and a bootlegger.

Jesse Ray Harvey of Scarbro, W.Va., was given a 25-month sentence in 1990 after his conviction for using explosives to damage Milburn Colliery. The mine had been the target of a long strike by about 45 members of a United Mine Workers local.

CBS News correspondent Mark Knoller reports that the pardons Wednesday bring to 58 the number of pardons granted by Mr. Bush.

By comparison, his father, former President George H.W. Bush, granted 74 in four years; former President Bill Clinton granted 396 in eight years; former President Ronald Reagan did 393 in eight; former President Jimmy Carter did 534 in four. And former President Richard Nixon, who got one of Mr. Ford's 382 pardons, granted 863, reports Knoller.

Some pardons, like the one Mr. Ford gave Nixon in 1974, protect recipients from going to jail or reduce their sentences. But Mr. Bush has granted clemency mainly to allow people who committed relatively minor offenses and served their sentences long ago to clear their names.

Others granted pardons Wednesday were:


Gene Armand Bridger, Elkhart, Ind., conspiracy to commit mail fraud, mail fraud, sentenced May 29, 1963, to five years probation.


Cathryn Iline Clasen-Gage, Rockwall, Texas, misprision of a felony, sentenced Aug. 21, 1992, to 18 months in prison and a year of supervised release.


Thomas Kimble Collinsworth, Buckner, Ark., receipt of a stolen motor vehicle that had been transported in interstate commerce, sentenced Aug. 22, 1989, to three years probation and a $5,000 fine.


Morris F. Cranmer Jr., Little Rock, Ark., making materially false statements to a federally insured institution, sentenced March 30, 1988 to nine months in jail.


Rusty Lawrence Elliott, Mount Pleasant, Tenn., making counterfeit money, sentenced April 26, 1991, to a year and a day in prison, two years supervised release and a $500 fine.


Adam Wade Graham, Salt Lake City, Utah, conspiracy to deliver 10 or more grams of LSD, sentenced Nov. 23, 1992 to 30 months in prison and five years of supervised release, including 250 hours of community service.


Rufus Edward Harris, Canon, Ga., possession of tax-unpaid whiskey, sentenced June 17, 1963, to two years in prison, possession and sale of tax-unpaid whiskey. He also was on May 28, 1970 to five years in prison, later reduced to two years probation.


Larry Paul Lenius, Moorhead, Minn., conspiracy to distribute cocaine, sentenced Sept. 29, 1989, to 36 months probation and payment of $2,500 in restitution.


Larry Lee Lopez, Bokeelia, Fla., conspiracy to import marijuana, sentenced July 19, 1985 to three years probation.


Bobbie Archie Maxwell, Lansing, Mich., mailing a threatening letter, sentenced Sept. 6, 1962, to 12 months probation.


Denise Bitters Mendelkow, Salt Lake City, Utah, embezzlement by a bank employee, sentenced May 21, 1981, to two years probation.


Michael John Pozorski, Schofield, Wis., unlawful possession of an unregistered firearm, sentenced Sept. 14, 1988, to four years probation and payment of a $750 fine.


Mark Lewis Weber, Sherwood, Ark., selling Quaalude tablets, selling, using and possessing marijuana, sentenced Aug. 20, 1981, following Air Force court-martial to 30 months confinement at hard labor, forfeiture of 30 months pay at $334 a month and a dishonorable discharge.


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/...le889049.shtml

_________________________

There is also a rather significant question of whether Libby can qualify for a pardon under the current DOJ guidelines

[strandinthewind]

Also:

March 21, 2007
Op-Ed Contributor
Why I Was Fired
By DAVID C. IGLESIAS
Albuquerque

WITH this week’s release of more than 3,000 Justice Department e-mail messages about the dismissal of eight federal prosecutors, it seems clear that politics played a role in the ousters.

Of course, as one of the eight, I’ve felt this way for some time. But now that the record is out there in black and white for the rest of the country to see, the argument that we were fired for “performance related” reasons (in the words of Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty) is starting to look more than a little wobbly.

United States attorneys have a long history of being insulated from politics. Although we receive our appointments through the political process (I am a Republican who was recommended by Senator Pete Domenici), we are expected to be apolitical once we are in office. I will never forget John Ashcroft, then the attorney general, telling me during the summer of 2001 that politics should play no role during my tenure. I took that message to heart. Little did I know that I could be fired for not being political.

Politics entered my life with two phone calls that I received last fall, just before the November election. One came from Representative Heather Wilson and the other from Senator Domenici, both Republicans from my state, New Mexico.

Ms. Wilson asked me about sealed indictments pertaining to a politically charged corruption case widely reported in the news media involving local Democrats. Her question instantly put me on guard. Prosecutors may not legally talk about indictments, so I was evasive. Shortly after speaking to Ms. Wilson, I received a call from Senator Domenici at my home. The senator wanted to know whether I was going to file corruption charges — the cases Ms. Wilson had been asking about — before November. When I told him that I didn’t think so, he said, “I am very sorry to hear that,” and the line went dead.

A few weeks after those phone calls, my name was added to a list of United States attorneys who would be asked to resign — even though I had excellent office evaluations, the biggest political corruption prosecutions in New Mexico history, a record number of overall prosecutions and a 95 percent conviction rate. (In one of the documents released this week, I was deemed a “diverse up and comer” in 2004. Two years later I was asked to resign with no reasons given.)

When some of my fired colleagues — Daniel Bogden of Las Vegas; Paul Charlton of Phoenix; H. E. Cummins III of Little Rock, Ark.; Carol Lam of San Diego; and John McKay of Seattle — and I testified before Congress on March 6, a disturbing pattern began to emerge. Not only had we not been insulated from politics, we had apparently been singled out for political reasons. (Among the Justice Department’s released documents is one describing the office of Senator Domenici as being “happy as a clam” that I was fired.)

As this story has unfolded these last few weeks, much has been made of my decision to not prosecute alleged voter fraud in New Mexico. Without the benefit of reviewing evidence gleaned from F.B.I. investigative reports, party officials in my state have said that I should have begun a prosecution. What the critics, who don’t have any experience as prosecutors, have asserted is reprehensible — namely that I should have proceeded without having proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The public has a right to believe that prosecution decisions are made on legal, not political, grounds.

What’s more, their narrative has largely ignored that I was one of just two United States attorneys in the country to create a voter-fraud task force in 2004. Mine was bipartisan, and it included state and local law enforcement and election officials.

After reviewing more than 100 complaints of voter fraud, I felt there was one possible case that should be prosecuted federally. I worked with the F.B.I. and the Justice Department’s public integrity section. As much as I wanted to prosecute the case, I could not overcome evidentiary problems. The Justice Department and the F.B.I. did not disagree with my decision in the end not to prosecute.

Good has already come from this scandal. Yesterday, the Senate voted to overturn a 2006 provision in the Patriot Act that allows the attorney general to appoint indefinite interim United States attorneys. The attorney general’s chief of staff has resigned and been replaced by a respected career federal prosecutor, Chuck Rosenberg. The president and attorney general have admitted that “mistakes were made,” and Mr. Domenici and Ms. Wilson have publicly acknowledged calling me.

President Bush addressed this scandal yesterday. I appreciate his gratitude for my service — this marks the first time I have been thanked. But only a written retraction by the Justice Department setting the record straight regarding my performance would settle the issue for me.


David C. Iglesias was United States attorney for the District of New Mexico from October 2001 through last month.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/21/op...gewanted=print

[The Tower]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

The problem now is, if Gonzales does resign they will try to replace him with soemone equally gross. However, the nominee would have to be confirmed by the Senate.

Good luck with that one.

What I would really like to see is Karl Rove with his (political) balls cut off. Harriet and the others are just collateral damage, now aren't they?

I think Chubby Rove is already at that state at this point in the game. I think getting the scuzzy stuff that Miers did on the record is good for the country, though.

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

That third dark horse hasn't entered the race yet. And we all know he's really no dark horse at all.

I'm still not sure if Gore's gonna do it. I can dream, though.

But really it's all about the pardons too. Will what Scooter's wife said the other day come true? ("We are going to f*ck them!") Or will they reward him for falling on his sword? I guess we'll have to wait until Christmas Eve 2008 to see. The apple doesn't fall that far from the tree.

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

The pardons come after the election and right as the Pres. is leaving office - at least traditionally.

From what I've heard, no one in the administration wants Libby to actually have to serve any time. I don't believe his case will get beyond the initial appeal. So, BushCo may have to address the pardon issue before the 2008 prez election.

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by skcin

Who? Edwards? Gore?

It's Gore baby. He's got to do it for the good of the country. I think he's playing it smart right now. He's got plenty of time to announce and not spend all of his money. There are a lot of key people betting he will be getting in this race. I hope to god they're right.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

It's Gore baby. He's got to do it for the good of the country. I think he's playing it smart right now. He's got plenty of time to announce and not spend all of his money. There are a lot of key people betting he will be getting in this race. I hope to god they're right.

He will lose. He cannot excite the base like Hillary or Obama. But, stranger things have happened

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by The Tower

I think Chubby Rove is already at that state at this point in the game.

I think something like this might ease the pain (just a bit) of the last six plus years:

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

He will lose. He cannot excite the base like Hillary or Obama. But, stranger things have happened

He won't lose. He didn't lose in the first place. Al Gore is looking pretty good to a lot of those people who thought they were "sending a message" by voting for Nader. He's probably looking pretty good to some middle of the road Republicans too. I think we're (the voting populace) going to go for smarts this time and pretty much the polar opposite of what we've had for the last six years.

[gldstwmn]

Senate votes to end Gonzales' power to name prosecutors

http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/b...ORS_S1.article

March 21, 2007
BY Pete Yost and Lara Jakes Jordan Associated Press
WASHINGTON -- The Senate voted overwhelmingly Thursday to end the Bush administration's ability to unilaterally fill U.S. attorney vacancies as a backlash to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' firing of eight federal prosecutors.

Click the link for the full article.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

He won't lose. He didn't lose in the first place. Al Gore is looking pretty good to a lot of those people who thought they were "sending a message" by voting for Nader. He's probably looking pretty good to some middle of the road Republicans too. I think we're (the voting populace) going to go for smarts this time and pretty much the polar opposite of what we've had for the last six years.

Who knows. Personally, I think he is way too boring to get elected. I also think Rudy G. will wipe the floor with him.

If he ran an independant, all he can do is siphon votes from Hillary or Obama.

In any event, I do not think he is going to run.

But, time will tell.

[The Tower]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Who knows. Personally, I think he is way too boring to get elected. I also think Rudy G. will wipe the floor with him.

Rudy Giuliani is a joke.

As if any social conservative would ever support a twice divorced supporter of Roe vs. Wade who lived with his partnered gay friends for a time.

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Who knows. Personally, I think he is way too boring to get elected. I also think Rudy G. will wipe the floor with him.

The Evangelicals ain't coming out for Rudy. That's at least 30% of their base.

[estranged4life]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

If he ran an independant

I just blew chuncks on my keyboard from that statement ^^^^




Btw, not to nit-pick, but it's I-N-D-E-P-E-N-D-E-N-T


I will be honest, though I think Al Gore has the personality of a toothpick, I would prefer him over Hillary "I wonder if Tyson Foods' Chicken **** smells good in the Illinois River that runs through Tahlequah, OK?" Clinton

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by The Tower

Rudy Giuliani is a joke.

As if any social conservative would ever support a twice divorced supporter of Roe vs. Wade who lived with his partnered gay friends for a time.

Je likely will get the R nomination. Who else so they have that can possibly beat Hillary? McCain is their only other shot and he cannot beat her.