Documents Show Gonzales Approved Firings

Quote from james_bond_3rd:

What law did Nixon break?

Answer: None.
More...

Actually quite a few JB.

Not just criminal conspiracy in connection (complicit in the coverup) to Watergate but also a host of illegal fundraising operations in which he was directly knowledgeable.
 
Quote from bigarrow:

Thank you for the question Pa(b)st. No it's not illegal to lie to the press. Remember I'm only an Internet attorney, you should consult a real attorney for specific legal advise and recommendations. The point I was trying to make but obviously failed at was pointing out that the screw up rarely sinks the politician but it's the lie that gets them once it becomes public, meaning they resign in embarrassment or are forced out. If you have any more questions feel free to ask I'll help as best I can.
More...


Resign in embarrassment or forced out? One word. Clinton.
 
Quote from Pa(b)st Prime:

Actually quite a few JB.

Not just criminal conspiracy in connection (complicit in the coverup) to Watergate but also a host of illegal fundraising operations in which he was directly knowledgeable.
More...

Knowledge of a crime does not equal accessory to the crime.

The bar for a president, OTOH, should be much higher than not being a criminal. Same goes for the AG. "No law is broken" cannot be used as an excuse.

Otherwise why would Nixon try to coverup since he broke no law himself (at least prior to the coverup)?
 
No surprise that you don't see the relevance...

Quote from Pa(b)st Prime:

Other than the author of your posted article being Nixon's WH counsel, there's no relevance in it to James Bond's post.
More...
 
There's ZERO analogy between Gonzalez and Nixon.

Bush/Gonzalez can fire anyone they like. Just as Clinton was able to fire 92 Federal prosecutors when he took office.

Did Rove need to explain to Congress the dismissal of Brown from his post at FEMA. Or discuss Rumsfeld's firing?

Back to Nixon. You're right that knowledge of a crime is not in itself criminal. However abetting a criminal in the avoidance of prosecution is a crime. That's why criminal attorney's prefer to not know the complicity of their clients. If I'm a lawyer and you admit your guilt to me then I'm prohibited from developing evidence in your defense that I know is false.
Quote from james_bond_3rd:

Knowledge of a crime does not equal accessory to the crime.

The bar for a president, OTOH, should be much higher than not being a criminal. Same goes for the AG. "No law is broken" cannot be used as an excuse.

Otherwise why would Nixon try to coverup since he broke no law himself (at least prior to the coverup)?
More...
 
Quote from Pa(b)st Prime:

Bush/Gonzalez can fire anyone they like. Just as Clinton was able to fire 92 Federal prosecutors when he took office.
More...

When did Bush take office? Last November?
 
This is what I responded to, relevantly...thanks for the continuing display of your emerging senility.

"What law did Nixon break?

Answer: None.

Quote from Pa(b)st Prime:

There's ZERO analogy between Gonzalez and Nixon.

Bush/Gonzalez can fire anyone they like. Just as Clinton was able to fire 92 Federal prosecutors when he took office.

Did Rove need to explain to Congress the dismissal of Brown from his post at FEMA. Or discuss Rumsfeld's firing?

Back to Nixon. You're right that knowledge of a crime is not in itself criminal. However abetting a criminal in the avoidance of prosecution is a crime. That's why criminal attorney's prefer to not know the complicity of their clients. If I'm a lawyer and you admit your guilt to me then I'm prohibited from developing evidence in your defense that I know is false.
More...
 
Quote from james_bond_3rd:

When did Bush take office? Last November?
More...

So in your opinion firing someone you didn't hire requires less transparency than firing someone you did hire?

The law doesn't care about the difference.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top