Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - This is what is wrong with the USA... (Caution adult language and attitude)

- Tilted Politics (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/)

- - This is what is wrong with the USA... (Caution adult language and attitude) (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/114792-what-wrong-usa-caution-adult-language-attitude.html)

GODDAMMIT! I'M MAD AS HELL AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!

No law was broken, end of story.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Selective revisionist history?

You probably know that the firing of the US attorney in the Rostenkowsi investigation (which continued without interuption) was a result of a change of administration in the White House - a common practice (see Reagan, Bush I). What you didnt note, between 1981 and 2006, of the more than 400 US Attorneys who served under both Dem and Repub Presidents, only 10 left office involuntarily for reasons other than a change in administration . In one swoop, Bush nearly matched that number.

If you want to cite recent history, please also note that Clinton allowed more than 30 of his top aides to testify at Repub initiated Congressional hearings (some on as such frivolous issues as the White House christmas card list) on 47 different occasions....putting to rest the bullshit coming out of the current White House:

White House Press Secretary Tony Snow: "It has been traditional in all White Houses not to have staffers testify on Capitol Hill."

White House Counselor Dan Bartlett: "I find it highly unlikely that a member of the White House staff would testify publicly"

Wouldnt you say that is relevant to current events as well?

I dont think you understand the role of Congressional oversight. It is not simply to determine if laws were broken.

And despite Tony' Snow's insistence to the contrary:

"There’s another principle, which is Congress doesn’t have the legislative — I mean oversight authority over the White House." [CNN, 3/22/07]

"First, the White House is under no compulsion to do anything. The legislative branch doesn’t have oversight." [MSNBC, 3/22/07]

"Congress doesn’t have any legitimate oversight and responsibilities to the White House." [Fox, 3/22/07]

Congress does have a responsibility to monitor the Executive Branch, to ensure that the goverment is acting as effectively as possible and in the best interest of the people. not only legally, but without over-politicizing the implementation of the law to the detriment of the people.

The State Dept. describes it this way in a document for foreign countries about how our government works:

Quote:

Congressional oversight prevents waste and fraud; protects civil liberties and individual rights (like the rights of the the US Attorneys from being defamed by claiming poor performance records) ; ensures executive compliance with the law (including possbily exerting undue influence on criminal investigations by firing the US attorneys); gathers information for making laws and educating the public; and evaluates executive performance. It applies to cabinet departments, executive agencies, regulatory commissions, and the presidency.
...
Time and again, the oversight power of Congress has proven to be an essential check in monitoring the presidency and controlling public policy.
http://usa.usembassy.de/etexts/outusgov/over.htm

dc - you just sparked a thought. What would happen is one of those attorneys took the DoJ to court for slander? Slander is so hard to prove, but the DoJ statements were documented very clearly, and so were the positive performance reviews that preceded them.

I don't think slander would work. First I believe slander/liable can only happen against an individual or a company congress is neither. Second the statements were not derogatory or damaging to congress's image.

For instance if a news person got up and said soandso's birthday is on April 22 but really it was May 22 that would not be slander as that statement doesn't cause any damage to the persons image.

Uber...thats a good a question and I really dont know the answer.

However, one of the fired attorneys, David Iglesias, is pursing another avenue of formal complaint against his firing:

Quote:

When he wasn’t doing his day job as U.S. attorney in New Mexico, David Iglesias was a captain in the Navy Reserve, teaching foreign military officers about international terrorism.

But Iglesias’s military service in support of what the Pentagon likes to call the Global War on Terror (GWOT) apparently didn’t go down well with his superiors at the Justice Department. Recently released documents show that one reason aides to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales cited in justifying the decision to fire Iglesias as U.S attorney late last year was that he was an “absentee landlord” who was spending too much time away from the office.
(Iglesias did, in fact, leave the office for 45 days each year...to meet his responsibilities and perform his duties as a captain in the Navy Reserve )

That explanation may create new legal problems for Gonzales and Justice. Iglesias confirmed to NEWSWEEK that he was recently questioned by lawyers for the Office of Special Counsel, an independent federal watchdog agency, to determine if his dismissal was a violation of the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA), a federal law that prohibits job discrimination against members of the U.S. military.

At the encouragement of Office of Special Counsel director Scott Bloch and his deputies, Iglesias said he is this week filing a formal legal complaint with OSC against the Justice Department over his dismissal on this and other grounds. (While the Justice Department normally prosecutes USERRA violations, the OSC, an independent federal agency that protects the rights of whistle-blowers, takes the case when the potential violator is the federal government itself.) “I want to make sure they didn’t fire me because of my military duty,” Iglesias said. “When I was away from the office, it wasn’t like I was going on vacation in Europe.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17951419/site/newsweek/

Again, the Pres has the right to fire anyone in the Executive Branch anytime he wants, without giving a reason (unless a specific reason is given that does potentially violate the law).

It is the subesquent lying, unsupported and undocumented reasons given, conflicting statements from DoJ and the WH, etc....that is the problem and that brought about the need and rationale for this Congressional investigation.

American it is up to congress to make sure that our justice department stays a neutral entity that lawfully enforces our laws. While the executive branch may not have broken any laws they have clearly attempted to make the justice system a political tool for creating propaganda for elections. If you don't see anything wrong with abusing the justice department to slander your political enemies while letting your friends break the law then you are truly not an American. This country was founded on the idea of fair and equal justice. Without justice this country is nothing.

In the corporate world, they'd have grounds for inproper termination. However, they're not subject to those laws, so it's sort of a moot point. I don't think slander would work either. I'm not entirely sure that the administration's even guilty of it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

Sorry - I must have been unclear. I meant that the attorneys would file suit against the DoJ for making patently untrue statements about their job performance which would have a very obvious material impact on their careers. That's the very essence of a slander case. Just because someone can be fired at will doesn't mean you can go around and lie about in a way that damages them.