Prosecutor Says Bush Appointees Interfered With Tobacco Case

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by zimv20, Mar 22, 2007.

  1. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #1
    wash post

    *this* illustrates why the current scandal isn't at all about the firings, it's about the bush administration using the DoJ for political ends: investigating dems, halting investigations on repubs, and now interference in a case against donors.

    look for even unrelated cases to be retried or overturned when defense attorneys start claiming reasonable doubt in whether their clients' unfavorable results were due to tampering. this could result in a massive loss of confidence in our judicial system.
     
  2. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #2
    Wow, this thing is getting bigger by the day.

    Pressuring prosecutors to go easy on Big Money donors? I'm sure the Bushistas will tell us that that's legal too...
     
  3. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
  4. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
  5. Swarmlord macrumors 6502a

    Swarmlord

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2006
    #5
    And after all the work the 9th Circus Court of Appeals has done to strengthen our confidence too. Imagine that.
     
  6. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #6
    Well at least you didn't invoke Clinton, that's a start. At least everything the 9th Circuit has done has been done above board and in plain view for everyone to see.

    How do you feel about political pressure being applied to prosecutors (let's talk abstractly here, no regard for which party is pressuring prosecutors)?
     
  7. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #7
    I agree, He & Cheney& Rove and the republicans took us int Iraq when we were attacked by Saudis. Bush & Cheney knew they had nothing on Iraq yet they sold us this war over & over & over and Bin Laden is still free.:mad:
     
  8. Swarmlord macrumors 6502a

    Swarmlord

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2006
    #8
    In the abstract - dealing with the issue on a more local level - it's unfortunately a fact of life that the prosecutors have political pressure applied to them. The district attorney is an elected position in most cities to my knowledge and the mayor, city council and police chief all exert pressure on the prosecutors as to what is charged, who is prosecuted, what is plea bargained etc. I'm not saying it's a good thing. I'm just saying it's a reality at all levels.

    As far as the checks and balances on the executive branch of government, that's why there are two other branches. I don't expect employees of the excutive branch to be the checks and balances on their own boss.
     
  9. zimv20 thread starter macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #9
    when dealing w/ illegalities, i do. i do believe that when nixon told john mitchell to fire the prosecutor investigating him, mitchell refused.

    funny times when i'm missing john mitchell as attorney general...
     
  10. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #10
    Our laws shouldnt be subject to what political party is in charge, yet Bush & gang have made it an Art. Draft dodging scum, the whole party seems to have draft dodging scum pushing their views. They wave the flag but these guys are the least Americans I can think of.
     
  11. zimv20 thread starter macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #11
    i reckon the former employees of Enron are sitting at home today wondering about WH interference in the trials of skilling and lay.

    and if it cost them an opportunity to get back some retirement savings.
     
  12. obeygiant macrumors 68040

    obeygiant

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    totally cool
    #12
    So this is the smoking gun? Pretty weak.

    The fact that the US government wanted to fine big tobacco 10 billion instead of 130 billion is hardly a reason to subpoena half the Bush Administation in the firing of the USAs.

    Lets face it, there is no evidence. Again, hatred for Bush is clouds reason.
     
  13. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #13
    Generally, judges represent the cross section of society they're meant to serve. Are we supposed to ban all judges from California in order to satisfy your sense of justice?
     
  14. Swarmlord macrumors 6502a

    Swarmlord

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2006
    #14
    California is a large place and those to the north are not quite the same as those to the south. I knew quite a few good judges in San Diego county. I worked for one of them and took a class from another. Their chances of being appointed to the Ninth Circuit? Nearly zero.

    If you want to judge how in touch with reality the Ninth Circuit is, look at the overturn record on their decisions.
     
  15. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #15
    No evidence? What!?! :eek: Have you not been paying attention? Remember the e-mails? You really think this is just some retired lady who doesn't like Bush? You're right about one thing though, this isn't a smoking gun. We've already had the smoking gun. Several of them in fact. It's just more of the consequences of what we've been so mad about. And even worse than the act is the cover up.

    This is definitely unethical, and more than likely illegal, so my only question is why you still aren't angry that this administration has been abusing it's power.
     
  16. obeygiant macrumors 68040

    obeygiant

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    totally cool
    #16
    What are they?
     
  17. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #17
    California's divide is more coastal / inland than north / south. Remember, that beacon of liberalism - every conservative's favorite whipping boy - Hollywierd, is in Southern California. Yet San Francisco is in Northern California. Green-freak heavan (otherwise known as Santa Barbara) is in SoCal.
     
  18. obeygiant macrumors 68040

    obeygiant

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    totally cool
    #18
    I always thought Mendicino/Humboldt/Arcada was big time Green territory.
     
  19. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #19
    You've got to be joking.
     
  20. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #20
    Not really. It's about evenly split between pothead hippies and redneck loggers.
     
  21. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #21
    What about the Microsoft antitrust verdict, for which the outcome should have been a break up of Microsoft? Bush declared he'd not follow though on September 6, 2001 and in November the DoJ settled, forcing MS to give up just about nothing at all.

    That's not justice, it's tacit approval of predatory, manipulative and monopolistic market manipulation by corporations.
     
  22. zimv20 thread starter macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #22
    yeah, no kidding. what if every circuit and supreme court case since jan 2001 comes into doubt? talk about a cluster****.
     
  23. obeygiant macrumors 68040

    obeygiant

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    totally cool
    #23
    ahh, no. What are the several smoking guns? do explain.
     
  24. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #24
    I've counted about 20 links I've posted proving this is an issue. If some people still don't see the issue, I don't know what any of us can do to convince them. And yet, we keep trying. Here's another run down.

    They fire all the prosecutors when he comes into office, and hire new ones, just like the last couple of Presidents, which is fine. Then, they decided that some of them weren't doing what they wanted. Ok, except what they wanted to do was unethical, partisan, and quite possibly illegal. These were good lawyers with good reviews, while others with not so good reviews were allowed to stay on because they did things like going after Dems before elections even if they weren't guilty of anything to give fodder for their opponents, while ignoring the Repubs who were actually guilty of something. Those who dared prosecute the Repubs, and took their time to build cases against Dems and refused to file charges unless there was an actual crime, were let go for no other reasons. New attorneys loyal to their party over the law were brought in to replace them. Some of them guilty of things like jury and election tampering. Also, it now looks like campaign contributors like tobacco companies were given lesser fines that originally ordered or charges were simply dropped against them. Those involved claim not to be, despite e-mails proving they were. Those were the smoking gun, and more and more are coming out all the time. They clearly show who did what and why, as well as proving that they've been lying about who did what and why. On top of everything else, Bush refuses to let them testify under oath, claiming he doesn't want showboating. He said this while showboating (standing in front of soldiers and their families) after Gonzales showboated a little too (standing among a group of children, saying he did it for them :confused: yeah, I don't get that one either). Ignoring the fact that they can do it behind closed doors, the Dems (and some Repubs who aren't happy with this either) just want a record so it isn't a he said/she said type of thing where they can later claim they said something else. It's also likely, as more proof comes out, they could be convicted of perjury if they don't tell the truth, which, as we've seen from the e-mails, they'd have to unless they want to admit guilt in abusing their power for political purpose, because as I've said, though the USAs work under the administration, they work for the public good, and are required to follow the law, even against their boss' buddies and cohorts. So the Dems and angry Repubs showboat anyway. And all the other side can say is that they don't see the issue, even when confronted with the obvious multitude of proof something unethical, and very likely illegal, has happened. They can fire them, sure, but it's why they fired them, and the fact that they've been lying about it that's the issue. They abused their power. That's a bad thing.

    Did I get everything?
     

Share This Page