From: "Mark" 

It boils down to this then Rich, I have faith in the overall goodness of
people in general, those charged with forwarding the goodness of the USA in
particular. 

"Rich Gauszka"  wrote in
message news:45ee2e0c$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> or it's used to coerce and 'sicken' Federal prosecutors as per the Senate
> testimony
>
> Mark wrote:
>> Look, as I've already said, I have no problem with the loophole being
>> closed, but it's still just not that big a deal > from self-serving speeches littered with faux questions by Levin, Specter
>> et.al. just before they can't find any reason not to confirm> 
>>
>> "Rich Gauszka"  wrote
in message
>> news:45ee2a35$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>>> It's not the hiring and firing that is the problem. It's the bypassing
>>> of Senate confirmation in the process due to the Bush sponsored change
>>> to the Patriot Act that is the problem - Going from 120 days to
>>> indefinite. It should not be a partisan issue. I wouldn't give the Dems
>>> that power either
>>>
>>> Mark wrote:
>>>> I'm still nonplussed about this whole thing. The president
is empowered
>>>> to fire and hire them at will, he doesn't need any
well-vetted reasons
>>>> for it. You're saying he should have not fired them
because some Dems
>>>> would complain about it? Why?
>>>>
>>>> Look, don't get me wrong, it's fine with me if that
loophole is closed,
>>>> but it's just not a big deal -- it's not like the
appointees don't have
>>>> to follow the law. If Bush wants, for instance, his attorneys to
>>>> prosecute Union pension fund corruption as a higher
priority than CEO
>>>> corruption, that's his perrogative -- they're all going to
get theirs
>>>> in time anyway.
>>>>
>>>> In this example, union guys will be in jail between now
and the Obama
>>>> presidency, then starting in Feb '09 the CEOs will get
theirs >>> example actually, since Bush went after the CEO corruption that was
>>>> hatched before he was elected>
>>>>
>>>> "Rich Gauszka"
 wrote in message
>>>> news:45ee1cdc$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>>>>> "Mark"  wrote in message
>>>>> news:45ee0b2d{at}w3.nls.net...
>>>>>> "Rich Gauszka"
 wrote in message
>>>>>> news:45ee007a$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>>>>>>> Right - bunch of nothing - Just fire those
prosecutors who wouldn't
>>>>>>> file charges against Democrats before the
election then appoint your
>>>>>>> own goons without the need for Senate approval
- Hail Caesar!!!
>>>>>> I simply don't ascribe nefarious motives to every
*single* thing a
>>>>>> president (any president) does. My understanding
is they were not
>>>>>> operating with their priorities in alignment with
those of the
>>>>>> administration. You seem to think his priorities
are filing charges
>>>>>> against Dems, I disagree. Hell Sandy Berger's
sweetheart deal proves
>>>>>> that out. 
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My only complaint is I wish he'd fired them
because they wouldn't
>>>>>> prosecute illegal aliens fast enough, but I know
that's not true.
>>>>>>
>>>>> http://kvoa.com/Global/story.asp?S=6188497
>>>>> What the Justice Department has said about six U.S.
attorneys who were
>>>>> asked to resign. Under each prosecutor are comments
from previous
>>>>> department-issued performances reviews and then
statements Tuesday by
>>>>> William Moschella, an associate deputy attorney
general, about the
>>>>> reasons given that the prosecutors were asked to step down. He
>>>>> testified before a House Judiciary subcommittee.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> CAROL LAM, U.S. attorney in San Diego
>>>>>
>>>>> JUSTICE DEPARTMENT TESTIMONY: "Her gun
prosecution numbers are at the
>>>>> bottom of the list. ... (On immigration cases), her
numbers for a
>>>>> border district just didn't stack up."
>>>>>
>>>>> 2005 PERFORMANCE REVIEW: "An effective manager
and respected leader
>>>>> ... respected by the judiciary, law enforcement
agencies, and (U.S.
>>>>> attorney's office) staff."
>>>>>
>>>>> ___
>>>>>
>>>>> JOHN McKAY, U.S. attorney in Seattle
>>>>>
>>>>> JUSTICE DEPARTMENT TESTIMONY: "The department
really had policy
>>>>> differences and were concerned with the manner in
which he went about
>>>>> advocating the particular policies ... on information
sharing. He
>>>>> spent quite a considerable amount of time advocating
for a particular
>>>>> system."
>>>>>
>>>>> 2006 PERFORMANCE REVIEW: "An effective,
well-regarded and capable
>>>>> leader ... (who) established strategic goals that were
appropriate to
>>>>> meet the priorities of the department."
>>>>>
>>>>> ___
>>>>>
>>>>> BUD CUMMINS, U.S. attorney in Little Rock, Ark.
>>>>>
>>>>> JUSTICE DEPARTMENT TESTIMONY: "His was not for
performance-based
>>>>> reasons. ... The administration asked Mr. Cummins to
move on only
>>>>> after we knew that he had indicated he was not going
to serve out the
>>>>> remainder of his term."
>>>>>
>>>>> 2006 PERFORMANCE REVIEW: "Very competent and
highly regarded by the
>>>>> federal judiciary, law enforcement and civil client
agencies. ...
>>>>> Established strategic goals that were appropriate to meet the
>>>>> priorities of the department."
>>>>>
>>>>> ___
>>>>>
>>>>> DANIEL BOGDEN, U.S. attorney for Nevada
>>>>>
>>>>> JUSTICE DEPARTMENT TESTIMONY: "There was no
particular deficiency.
>>>>> There was an interest in seeing renewed energy and
renewed vigor in
>>>>> that office, really taking it to the next level."
>>>>>
>>>>> 2003 PERFORMANCE REVIEW: "Highly regarded by the
federal judiciary,
>>>>> the law enforcement and civil client agencies, and the
staff of the
>>>>> (U.S. attorney's office). He was a capable leader."
>>>>>
>>>>> ___
>>>>>
>>>>> DAVID IGLESIAS, U.S. attorney for New Mexico
>>>>>
>>>>> JUSTICE DEPARTMENT TESTIMONY: "The district was
in need of greater
>>>>> leadership. ... Mr. Iglesias had delegated to his
first assistant the
>>>>> overall running of his office. U.S. attorneys are
hired to run the
>>>>> office."
>>>>>
>>>>> 2005 PERFORMANCE REVIEW: "Experienced in legal,
management and
>>>>> community relations work and was respected by the
judiciary, agencies
>>>>> and staff. ... Had a well conceived strategic plan
that complied with
>>>>> department priorities."
>>>>>
>>>>> ___
>>>>>
>>>>> PAUL CHARLTON, U.S. attorney in Arizona
>>>>>
>>>>> JUSTICE DEPARTMENT TESTIMONY: "Mr. Charlton had
undertaken in his
>>>>> district a policy with regard to the taping of FBI
interviews and set
>>>>> a policy in place there that had national
ramifications. It did not go
>>>>> through the whole policy process. ... On the death
penalty, we have a
>>>>> process in the Department of Justice. It is the one area that is
>>>>> nondelegable by the attorney general which (Mr. Charlton), in a
>>>>> particular case was told and authorized to seek in a
particular case.
>>>>> He chose instead to continue to litigate after that long and
>>>>> exhaustive process."
>>>>>
>>>>> 2003 PERFORMANCE REVIEW: "Well respected by the
(U.S. attorney's
>>>>> office) staff, investigative and civil client
agencies, local law
>>>>> enforcement community, Native American nations, and judiciary
>>>>> regarding his integrity, professionalism and competence."
>>>>>
>>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5