Posted on 04/05/2009 11:03:53 AM PDT by Maelstorm
lawyers who do this should be disbarred.
it is really that simple.
Have Ted run in the next Alaskan Senatorial election and win, then he would be in a position to get his pound of flesh.
The dismissal of U.S. Attorneys controversy is a United States political scandal initiated by the unprecedented[1] midterm dismissal of seven United States Attorneys on December 7, 2006 by the George W. Bush administration's Department of Justice. Congressional investigations focused on whether the Department of Justice and the White House were using the U.S. Attorney positions for political advantage. Allegations were that some of the attorneys were targeted for dismissal to impede investigations of Republican politicians or that some were targeted for their failure to initiate investigations that would damage Democratic politicians or hamper Democratic-leaning voters.[2][3] The U.S. attorneys were replaced with interim appointees, under provisions in the 2005 Patriot Act reauthorization.
The left wing news reporters of the WSJ are engaged in lowering expectations BS.
A BAR COMPLAINT AGAINST THE LAWYERS IS NOT DEPENDENT ON THE PROSECUTION SUCCESS. You have prosecutors who concealed evidence. A bar license investigation is required for the administration of justice.
Nifong was disbarred for this stuff.
The fact this is not mentioned is journalistic malpractice.
These lawyers pulling this stuff is a meanace.
The real recounts are the valid and legal ones, and they are dispositive to your assertion, period.
I was right here, on the ground, and those counts that you cite are not worth my spit.
>I prefer logical analysis of statistical information,
LOL! - Statistical information from that media source is an oxymoron and your response is Cognitive Dissonance.
I’m pretty sure we’ve got the same thing going on here in Arizona with Rick Renzi. I expect the ‘RATS to drop all the charges any day now. Some ‘RAT finally got the seat in the House. They made a big show of their indictment by making it into one of their infamous “historical minutes.” They had some female, Hopi lawyer bring the indictment against Renzi. It was almost as big a deal as Napolitano changing the name of Squaw Peak to Piestewa Peak.
there is no such protection from losing the license to practice law. (seperation of powers)
I think you’re wrong about Gore would have been winner in FL. The liberal media all went down to media (USA Today) was one of them, and actually counted the ballots or something, and discovered Bush won FL.
Should he sue? Abso”friggin”lutely!
What makes you think they weren't? Just askin'.
BTW, the investigation started under Gonzales; the trial occurred on Mukasey's watch.
Good point maybe they did. The upshot of all this crap is look at what we got now for a president. Kind of makes one wonder about the adage about fooling the american people all of the time.
Vince
If you read the opinion, it goes into a long discussion, including this:
In this case [Schneider], we need not parse the precise meaning of the words "vexatious," "frivolous" and "in bad faith" because, as will be developed below, Schneider's case clearly falls short of the type of abusive prosecutorial conduct that would trigger Hyde Amendment liability. It may be that some future case may require such an exegetical exercise, but we need not and do not engage in it here. That said, we note that the dictionary definitions of the particular words at issue are consonant with our determination here that the Hyde Amendment does not provide Schneider the relief he seeks.3
I agree.
Larry, I read that Slate piece at the time and agree with its arguments from an existential point of view... the outcome of anything, certainly an election, is actually unknowable. It is imposiible to know if *all* the ballots were counted, essentially.
But the Slate piece does make the point that I agree with: the NORC counted all the ballots cast *that they could discover*, and analyzed them in a variety of ways. If counted by the most restrictive standards, Bush wins (3 such counts). If counted by the less restrictive standards, Gore wins (6 counts).
And in the long run, it didn’t matter, since Bush took the office.
(And in the longer run, it certainly doesn’t matter, because we’ll all be dead. And old Sol will collapse on itself after going through a red giant phase.)
My original point was that the arguments for either a Begich resignation or another repeat election could also have been made by Gore. Certainly the stakes for the country are higher in the matter of a Presidential election than a Senate seat.
The Public Corruption section is run by career civil servants not political appointees. It would have been suicide for anyone in the Bush administration to try to interfere with their actions on the Stevens case. The question is what kind of connections do the attorneys and FBI agents from this department have to either political party including those of their families. That of course won’t be investigated by the MSM.
Lawsuit needs to be multifaceted. The people directly involved need to be squeezed ‘til no drop of fluid remains in their dessicated carcasses. Legally speaking, of course.
Then, the gubmint agencies involved need to be held accountable by being forced to disgorge (as in vomit up) the department heads that allowed something like this to go on.
Their houses need to be razed and the land salted so it can never again grow so much as a blade of grass.
Sometimes I wax poetic on just the possibilities.
when the charges are dropped a bar complaint should IMMEDIATLY follow.
The democrat lawyers should know that bringing these types of charges SHALL COST THEM their ability to practice law.
For too long the laywers who play these games have acted like nifong without fear of reprisal. The RNC needs to wake up and start taking out these prosecutors.
Wrong they were appointed by Bush administration because the position requires an appointment (promotion) but that doesn’t make them Conservatives let alone Republicans. For example according to William M. Welch the head of the public Integrity section is a registered Democrat according to: http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2009/02/former_federal_prosecutor_in_s.html “U.S. Attorney positions often turn over when a new party takes control of the presidency. Sullivan, a Republican, was appointed by President George W. Bush when Bush began his first administration in 2001.
Welch, a registered Democrat, served in the Springfield U.S. Attorney’s office from 1995 to 2006, where he built a reputation as a brainy, unrelenting prosecutor.,...
....For Welch’s part, his pedigree seemed to steer him to public service. His father, the late William H. Welch, was a successful trial lawyer before being appointed to the bench as a Superior Court judge in Hampshire County.”
I’ll bet the others have ties to the Democratic Party as well. Because a lot of spouses use their maiden names professionally it’s hard to know who they are and to track down their connections.
BTW a committee has been set up according to this article to find the new top Law Enforcement in Massachusetts and Welch is the choice (or at least was). Guess who appointed the committee that selected him? Why the noted conservative Republican Sen. Ted Kennedy of course: “Local lawyers agreed the Princeton graduate has the right qualifications, but wondered if any candidate from Western Massachusetts could overcome the overwhelming presence of Bostonians on the search committee.
Of 12 members on the Advisory Committee appointed by U.S. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass, just one is from Western Massachusetts: Northampton lawyer John P. Pucci.”
The date on the article is before the case blew up in Welch’s face.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.