"When Republicans win elections, liberals are quick to cry fraud. But when actual fraud is found, they are just as quick to deny it, if Democrats are the ones who benefit."Liberal friends, I'm very eager to hear your opinion.
Hello world!
7 years ago
17 comments:
Have any Democrats come to the defense of Acorn in the cases cited by John Fund? Here is the Statement of Sen. Leahy in regards to the Attorney firings:
The Attorney General's own former Chief of Staff testified under oath that Karl Rove complained to Attorney General Gonzales about David Iglesias not being aggressive enough against so-called "voter" fraud, which explains his being added to the list.
With respect to Mr. Iglesias, the former U.S. Attorney in New Mexico, the evidence shows that he was held in high regard, considered for promotion to the highest levels of the Department and chosen by the Department to train other U.S. attorneys in the investigation and prosecution of voter fraud.
Then as the election approached in 2006, Administration officials received calls from New Mexico Republicans complaining that Mr. Iglesias would not rush an investigation and indictments before the November election.
True accountability means being forthcoming, and true accountability requires consequences for bad actions. This hearing is such an opportunity.
This is a classic example of Conservative bait-and-switch. Take a Statement by Leahy which calls into question whether an attorney was fired because he wouldn't bring charges against someone quick enough or fast enough for local Republicans; and then flip that to say that Democrats are defending groups like Acorn (or to be more exact, the people hired by Acorn to get voters registered) who are accused of falsifying voter registration forms.
The question is, were the Prosecutors fired for not bringing charges against verifiable cases of fraud? Or were they fired for not bringing a half-assed case before a Grand Jury in time to make the headlines of the local papers?
I'm not really sure whether Dems are defending the ACORNers (regardless ACORNers are certainly Democrats, and I don't hear many--any?--Democrats condemning them), and I'm not sure what you mean by a "bait and switch."
Leahy and other Democrat Leaders pooh-pooh concern about voter fraud. There is substantial evidence of voter fraud. U.S. Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President.
It is about time that someone began paying attention to voter fraud, Karl Rove represents the head of the RNC--George Bush, and (judging from Iglesias' statements made in the recent NOW pseudocumentary on "voter caging") Iglesias had ZERO interest in prosecuting voter fraud.
And re. "mak[ing] the headlines" prior to an election: the reality is that voter fraud is difficult to prosecute (re-read Fund's article). You're better off deterring it than trying to catch people who do it (especially after they've already disenfranchised voters and impacted an election). And did I mention that U.S. Attorneys (like the 93 fired by Bill Clinton on his first day in office) serve at the pleasure of the President?
Ned,
They serve at the pleasure of the President, sure. But the case the Democrats are making is that the President's office was putting political pressure on the attorneys to bring indictments when political decision makers decided so.
Is it your presumption that the Attorney's should make decisions on specific cases at the behest of political appointees in the White House? If so, I think our definitions of "Justice" are extremely different.
"Is it your presumption that the Attorney's should make decisions on specific cases at the behest of political appointees in the White House?"
Not at all, but "political appointees" certainly reflect priorities and values of an administration and there's no evidence that the cases weren't prosecutable, it's that they were simply not prosecuted. But, speaking of political prosecutions . . . is it your presumption that Congress should use its investigatory powers to rake members of the opposing party over the coals for the headlines?
It is my presumption that the House should investigate the Executive branch....seems like that is what they are doing.
"investigate" it for what? for anything?
Pretty much. I don't think any of the branches of Government should have secrets unless they are for the sake of National Security. And in those cases, they should be investigated by select committees in closed door meetings.
Of course, like all sorts of investigations, there may actually be no fruits...but I do believe that every branch should have some sort of check.
Well dang, Sean, what constitutes a "secret" or a secret that needs to be rooted out?
I think you'd have a hard time arguing that these investigations (and rumors of investigations) are in good faith. They're smear fests related to disagreements over policy. Dems lost the election for president; therefore, Dems don't get to dictate what the President does.
Heh, King George, eh?
I think you would have a hard time arguing that voters narrowly re-elected Bush under the auspices that he could do whatever he wanted, however he wanted, whenever he wanted; with no oversight whatsoever.
I hope that when the Democrats regain the White House in 2008, we continue to investigate the Presidency....I'm a firm believer that keeping a politician on his/her best behavior makes them a better public servant in the long run.
You may see the headlines and think that Democrats are simply investigating to "grab them," but if there had been oversight in the 6 years with GOP rule in the Congress, perhaps the headlines would be much more muted today.
Okay Sean. What is the worst thing (for Republicans) that can come out of these hearings? Certainly nothing worse than is being asserted ad nauseum in the MSM and in every Dem press availability.
THE PRESIDENT DOESN'T HAVE TO HAVE A GOOD (Democrat-approved) REASON TO FIRE A U.S. ATTORNEY. THE PRESIDENT DOESN'T HAVE TO COME UP WITH THE IDEA TO FIRE SOMEONE ALL BY HIMSELF.
I guess the high approval ratings for Congress reflect "the voters'" approval of the Witchhunt Congress? Maybe if more of the "oversight" was done in closed-door sessions (as you seemed to prefer) the "oversight" wouldn't reek so of disingenuousness.
I have to say that this thread has strayed from the point of the post. Please forgive Republicans for not being as confident as you of Pat Leahy's even-handedness. It isn't criminal to defeat a Democrat in an election, or disagree with a Democrat on public policy.
Ned,
I think the inquiries have the actual firings. But yes, it is worrisome if the President is firing attorneys for not making political decisions about when and why to bring an indictment.
I understand your concern, but "political" is in the eye of the beholder, isn't it? It is certainly within Congress' purview to provide oversight of the Executive branch, and it is certainly within the Executive Branch's purview to not go along when they don't feel it is appropriate and within my purview--as a citizen, to complain or criticize Congress when I disagree with how they're doing their work. Fortunately for your side, there is a massive Media infrastructure and citizen half-attentiveness to move you toward your political objective.
But again, this mountain of electoral shenanigans is problematic and more endemic, broader in its impact and more anti-democratic than whether Karl Rove suggested some U.S. Attorney should get the boot. I haven't heard much on the point lately, but are y'all still contending that the firings were intended to scuttle major-league corruption investigations of powerful Republicans?
Ned,
Here is the problem. You can argue about the liberal media and the lazy citizenry, but when it comes down to it, your side is arguing for Cap'n 30%'s ability to do what he pleases without oversight into his decisions.
That isn't going to be a popular position whether the President is a Democrat or Republican.
You don't think incessant accusations in the MSM has any impact on the public's perception of a President?
No one (that I know of) is arguing that a President shouldn't be accountable to Congress (aka "the Less than 30% Crew"), but your response raises an important question . . . what do you think is meant by Congress' (">30CRU") duty of "oversight"? Is there any "secret" that need not be "exposed"?
Ned,
No, there should be no secrets in Government beyond those kept for National Security purposes.
. . . we may need to install a surveillance system in every government office in every branch of gov't, top to bottom . . .
Ned,
No arguments here.
Post a Comment