Bush still dogged about attorneys scandal

[maddezmom]

Source: UPI

WASHINGTON, Aug. 19 (UPI) -- What President George Bush knew about the firings of U.S. attorneys and when he knew it isn't clear from federal court documents, a review of testimony shows.

While the White House said there was "no indication" that Bush knew of the firings beforehand, Justice Department attorneys in court were more vague, ABC News reported Tuesday.

"The record does reflect at this stage that the president was not involved in decisions about who would be asked to resign from the department," Justice Department lawyer Carl Nichols argued in federal court in June. However, "the record does not reflect that the president had no future involvement."

Bush's role -- if any -- in the firings and their aftermath is unclear, ABC said. But in trying to block enforcement of congressional subpoenas against White House aides and seeking documents, the Bush administration "is very consciously trying to walk a very fine tightrope," said Stephen Vladeck, a law professor at American University.



Read more: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/08/19/Bush_still_dogged_about_attorneys_scandal/UPI-21231219161875/

[TechBear_Seattle]

1. What scandal? I remember vaguely there being something about a scandal

But then Paris did something sort of embarassing -- or was it Britney again? Kate'n'Ashley? -- and every news outlet just had to cover it 24/7 until something else came up.

[TrogL]

3. If there's blood in the water, the press may get interested

Watergate had everybody glued to their TV's for weeks.

[pscot]

4. Watergate was a long time ago.

The country has lost 30 I.Q. points since those days.

[Hugin]

2. Why can't those attorneys straighten up and fly right?

In a couple more weeks... This is how it'll be played by the Corporate Media folks. Mark my words.

[DeepModem Mom]

5. K&R

[Doctor_J]

6. yeah right

I hate big media.

I want all the fired attorneys given jobs by Obama's AG, tasked with prosecuting Rove and all the USA's that weren't fired.

[Demeter]

10. Excellent Idea!

You should be chief of staff for Obama's Attorney General! Or whatever the equivalent is.

[bemildred]

7. Arrest his sorry ass, and all of his minions that had any part of it too. nt

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[FiveGoodMen]

11. I'll bet Bush is kicking himself for not just saying the same thing!

The way they've been dodging this, you'd almost think there was something to it.

[Pastiche423]

12. You don't recall an outrage

because what Clinton did has been done by many other presidents. What * did was to politicize the process.

Totally different situation. One is legal, the other is not.

[burythehatchet]

9. "the record does not reflect that the president had no future involvement."

:rofl:

in other (fewer) words:

"the record does not reflect that the president had no future involvement."

[unblock]

13. they deny shrub being involved in WHO would be fired. but not WHY

i'm sure shrub said something to the effect of, "fire anyone who doesn't play ball with our insanely partisan political agenda."

so he wasn't involved in exactly who crossed that line or not, but i'm certain he was very much involved in creating the corrupt criteria for hiring and firing in the first place!

[L. Coyote]

14. "The record does reflect" is a typical non-denial denial!

What matters is not what we have on the record, but what was Bush's role.

This is like saying "I'm innocent until you find the evidence." :rofl:

[radfringe]

15. double negative?

"the record does not reflect that the president had no future involvement."

does this mean the record does reflect future involvement? grammer-cops please chime in

[Supersedeas]

16. the Attorney General is the People's Attorney, Mukasey could clear this up--where is his real

allegiance?