- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: The IRS has "lost" all Lois Lerner emails to and from the White House, DOJ...
Posted on 6/16/14 at 2:11 pm to Vegas Bengal
Posted on 6/16/14 at 2:11 pm to Vegas Bengal
quote:
Did the Republicans stand shoulder to shoulder with the Democrats when Bush fired US Attorneys for political reasons? You know because they were going after the wrong politicians. Nope... crickets.
The Clinton administration did the same thing in 1993. Were the Dems up in arms then? Nope... crickets.
We can play this tit-for-tat game all day in an attempt to do little more than say "HAH! MY SIDE IS BETTER!". All this does is distract from the very real issue of the IRS targetting and the very questionable excuse of "computer crash" being used to not produce emails.
C'mon folks, stop getting distracted by tangents and stick to the topic at hand.
2
Posted on 6/16/14 at 2:17 pm to Bard
Waiting on someone like VB to come on this board and actually admit this administration did something wrong is like waiting on a squirrel to shite out a coffee table.
Posted on 6/16/14 at 2:19 pm to Scoop
quote:
Waiting on someone like VB to come on this board and actually admit this administration did something wrong is like waiting on a squirrel to shite out a coffee table.
"I'm sure this must come as a great shock to you..."
"No, shitting a sailboat, THAT would be a shock."
Posted on 6/16/14 at 2:37 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
I was also under the impression several of the attorneys involved were appointed by Clinton basically because they were reliably partisan.
All 8 were George W. Bush nominees, six appointed in 2001 and the other two in 2002.
Posted on 6/16/14 at 2:49 pm to NHTIGER
Government employees that live in or around the beltway are mostly dems. and liberal? Color me shocked.
Posted on 6/16/14 at 2:59 pm to Vegas Bengal
quote:Has nothing to do with this...
Did the Republicans stand shoulder to shoulder with the Democrats when Bush fired US Attorneys for political reasons?
Posted on 6/16/14 at 3:03 pm to Taxing Authority
Has everything to do with considering I was responding to someone who brought up Reps and Nixon's behavior.
Posted on 6/16/14 at 3:12 pm to Bard
quote:
The Clinton administration did the same thing in 1993. Were the Dems up in arms then? Nope... crickets.
No. You're wrong.
There's a major difference in replacing US Attoneys appointed by others when coming in office and replacing them because they're not pursing or are pursing investigations against certain politicians and political issues. Bottom line is the Bush adm was using Justice for political purposes. And the fact that so many here are clueless on what happened is amazing.
Nine Senior staff at DOJ resigned including Gonzales (although he had a few scandals under his belt)
Posted on 6/16/14 at 3:14 pm to Vegas Bengal
quote:
Has everything to do with considering I was responding to someone who brought up Reps and Nixon's behavior.
So your response to an example of bi-partisanship in the face of a somewhat similar scandal was to bring up an act of partisanship from an event that's about as similar as apples are to helicopters?
Posted on 6/16/14 at 3:15 pm to Vegas Bengal
quote:FIFY
Bottom line is the Bush adm had the right to replace those attorneys at any point for any reason. Comes with the territory of being president.
Posted on 6/16/14 at 3:26 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
my impressions could be dead wrong. However, I thought the issue was the attorneys were fired not for going after the "wrong politicians," but rather for going after them because of politics, and doing it with prejudice. I was also under the impression several of the attorneys involved were appointed by Clinton basically because they were reliably partisan.
This is my recollection also. These guys were fired for malfeasence or incompetence.
eta: of course to a dedicated DEM like VB, appointing a FAIR attorney is prejudicial to the DEM pov.
This post was edited on 6/16/14 at 3:28 pm
Posted on 6/16/14 at 3:35 pm to Bard
quote:
So your response to an example of bi-partisanship in the face of a somewhat similar scandal was to bring up an act of partisanship from an event that's about as similar as apples are to helicopters?
Actually my response to this:
quote:
Republicans stood shoulder-to-shoulder, for the most part, with the media and Democrats in opposing Nixon's abuse of the executive branch - why does it not surprise me that Democrats - who never break ranks on any issue of significance, ever, - are solidly behind the President on this one.
I'm simply pointing out how wrong Ace is and showing the many times Republicans did not stand "shoulder-to-shoulder" with Democrats in opposing Bush's abuse of the executive branch.
As for you claiming the events are "as apples are to helicopters", lets review....
Here there are accusations that the Obama administration used the IRS to attack political enemies.
There the accusations were that the Bush administration used the DOJ to attack political enemies.
Do apples fly?
And it wasn't only the firing of those US Attorneys but the hiring of new ones:
quote:LINK
An extensive report by the department's Office of the Inspector General and Office of Professional Responsibility concluded yesterday that Goodling and others had broken civil service laws, run afoul of department policy and engaged in "misconduct," a finding that could expose them to further scrutiny and sanctions. The report depicted Goodling as a central figure in politicizing employment decisions at Justice during the Bush administration.
If you want the "Bush did it too" defense to stop, then stop claiming Obama is the worst and Democrats defend their president unlike Republicans because both claims are bullshite.
This post was edited on 6/16/14 at 3:37 pm
Posted on 6/16/14 at 3:39 pm to Vegas Bengal
Anyhow, back on topic..
Obama's right hand gal, Lerner appears to look shady as hell, and it also gives legs to it reaching the WH with this coverup that continues. Obama is the kind of President Nixon wanted to be.
Obama's right hand gal, Lerner appears to look shady as hell, and it also gives legs to it reaching the WH with this coverup that continues. Obama is the kind of President Nixon wanted to be.
Posted on 6/16/14 at 3:49 pm to Vegas Bengal
quote:
If you want the "Bush did it too" defense to stop, then stop claiming Obama is the worst and Democrats defend their president unlike Republicans because both claims are bullshite.
Not Newsworthy:
Reagan: Removed 71/93 in his first year
Bush I: Removed 88/93 in his first year
Clinton: Removed 80/93 in his first year
OMGMUSTBEPOLITICSRAGE:
Bush II: In his second term he removed less than a dozen and all were ones he appointed during his first term.
Got it.
Now back to the conversation at hand...
Posted on 6/16/14 at 3:58 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Never really researched it, so my impressions could be dead wrong. However, I thought the issue was the attorneys were fired not for going after the "wrong politicians," but rather for going after them because of politics, and doing it with prejudice. I was also under the impression several of the attorneys involved were appointed by Clinton basically because they were reliably partisan.
David Iglesias appointed by Bush:
quote:
In the case of Iglesias, the new documents show that White House officials held an active conversation about his performance.
"I would really like to move forward with getting rid of NM USATTY," wrote J. Scott Jennings, a Rove aide in the Office of Political Affairs, to another White House aide, referring to Iglesias. New Mexico lawmakers "are really angry over his lack of action on the voter fraud stuff. Iglesias has done nothing. We are getting killed out there."
Todd Graves appointed by Bush:
quote:LINK
White House officials were consulted in at least some of the other firings of U.S. attorneys, according to the new documents.
In a 2005 e-mail to Miers, a colleague says that "Karl is fine" with a plan to replace Todd Graves, then the U.S. attorney in Kansas City, Mo. Other e-mails say that Sen. Christopher S. Bond (R-Mo.) had requested that Graves be replaced.
quote:Hmmmm LINK
The report said its investigation of Graves' dismissal was "hindered" because it was unable to interview Associate White House Counsel Richard Klingler who "was closely involved with Sen. Bond's staff concerning Graves' removal." The White House also barred investigators from obtaining White House documents.
I could go on but he's a summary:
quote:LINK
Nearly half the U.S. attorneys slated for removal by the administration last year were targets of Republican complaints that they were lax on voter fraud, including efforts by presidential adviser Karl Rove to encourage more prosecutions of election- law violations, according to new documents and interviews.
Of the 12 U.S. attorneys known to have been dismissed or considered for removal last year, five were identified by Rove or other administration officials as working in districts that were trouble spots for voter fraud -- Kansas City, Mo.; Milwaukee; New Mexico; Nevada; and Washington state. Four of the five prosecutors in those districts were dismissed.
There were all Republicans and all Bush appointees. If they actually weren't pursuing cases against Democrats that should have been brought, that's for the DOJ to look at. Not Karl Rove.
Posted on 6/16/14 at 4:08 pm to Bard
quote:
Not Newsworthy:
Reagan: Removed 71/93 in his first year
Bush I: Removed 88/93 in his first year
Clinton: Removed 80/93 in his first year
OMGMUSTBEPOLITICSRAGE:
Bush II: In his second term he removed less than a dozen and all were ones he appointed during his first term.
Once again.... and for the slow readers out there:
quote:What part of that do you not understand? Bush's own Justice Dept investigated and found that the process used to fire the first seven attorneys and two others dismissed around the same time was "arbitrary", "fundamentally flawed", and "raised doubts about the integrity of Department prosecution decisions"
There's a major difference in replacing US Attoneys appointed by others when coming in office and replacing them because they're not pursing or are pursing investigations against certain politicians and political issues.
And how cooperative was the Bush administration? This from that report:
quote:
We also attempted to interview Monica Goodling, a former counsel to Attorney General Gonzales and the Department’s White House Liaison. She declined to cooperate with our investigation. However, on May 23, 2007, Goodling testified before the United States House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary pursuant to a grant of immunity issued by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, and we reviewed the transcript of that hearing.
We also attempted to interview White House staff who may have played a role in the removals of the U.S. Attorneys. We discussed our request with the Office of Counsel to the President (White House Counsel’s Office), and that office encouraged current and former White House employees to agree to be interviewed by us. Several former White House staff members agreed to be interviewed, including Deputy White House Counsel David Leitch; Director of Political Affairs Sara Taylor; Deputy Director of Political Affairs Scott Jennings; Associate White House Counsel Dabney Friedrich, Christopher Oprison, and Grant Dixton; and Paralegal Colin Newman. However, other former White House staff, including White House Counsel Harriet Miers, Assistant to the President and Deputy Chief of Staff and Senior Advisor Karl Rove, Deputy White House Counsel William Kelley, and Associate White House Counsel Richard Klingler, declined our request to interview them.
Miers’s attorney told us that although he understood that considerations of executive privilege were not an issue between the Department of Justice and the White House since both are part of the Executive Branch, an interview with us might undermine Miers’s ability to rely on the instructions she received from the White House directing her to refuse to appear for Congressional testimony. Rove’s attorney advised us after consultation with Rove that he declined our request for an interview. We were informed by the White House Counsel’s Office that both Kelley and Klingler also declined our request.
LINK
What's happening here is child's play compared to what happened under the previous administration. And what did we hear from you guys..... denials... just as you're doing today.
Thank you for proving my point.
This post was edited on 6/16/14 at 4:10 pm
Posted on 6/16/14 at 4:08 pm to Bard
quote:
Clinton: Removed 80/93 in his first year
Steppy Stephanopaulus was stunned W had replaced some attorneys.
Posted on 6/16/14 at 4:10 pm to Vegas Bengal
quote:
What's happening here is child's play compared to what happened under the previous administration.
Posted on 6/16/14 at 4:11 pm to Alahunter
quote:
The IRS has "lost" all Lois Lerner emails to and from the White House, DOJ
Little late to the thread but what difference does it make? right?
Posted on 6/16/14 at 4:11 pm to Vegas Bengal
quote:Didn't the DOJ look at them?
If they actually weren't pursuing cases against Democrats that should have been brought, that's for the DOJ to look at. Not Karl Rove.
Page 15 of 17
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News