Asturcon wrote on Mar 20, 2007 10:57 PM:There is no doubt, now, the rule of the law is out of the window in the white house.

John wrote on Mar 21, 2007 1:25 PM:It is obvious that this beleaguered White House is protecting its' staff against self-incrimination/perjury by refusing to allow them to testify under oath.

Mike wrote on Mar 21, 2007 1:35 PM:It's that evil liberal media again, out to make the Bush administration look bad. Next they'll be questioning the virgin birth of Randy "Duke" Cunningham.

Ike wrote on Mar 21, 2007 4:00 PM:Please, Clinton (or any other Democrat) would have done the exact same thing if a US Attorney was giving one of his cronies the 3rd degree. Hey Mike: the Bush administration doesn't need much help from anyone else to look bad.

AvistaBee wrote on Mar 21, 2007 5:53 PM:...and now Bush & Co. will agree to private interviews, no sworn oath and no back-up transcript of the conversation. How sweet. If I am ever arrested for commiting a crime, I want the same courtesy extended to me. No recorded police interview and what I say can't be used to incriminate me.

DejaVu: wrote on Mar 21, 2007 7:19 PM:This administration is on the verge of something that has already happened. All that is missing is Nixon. Rule of Law and accountability will prevail, I hope. We as citizens have the privilidge to vote our leadership. We as citizens also have the responsibility to remove, by vote, those who are not leading us where we want to go. Impeach.

Ike wrote on Mar 21, 2007 7:55 PM:What "crime" did Bush & Co commit??

Mike wrote on Mar 21, 2007 8:58 PM:Being in office!

Molly wrote on Mar 21, 2007 11:11 PM:What a strategic move, to claim immigration as the method to fire Lam. Machiavelli would be proud. Perhaps it was only a second line of attack (when things were heating up for Cunningham), to pressure the one who would be responsible for any prosecution with such charges. Issa's methods are so transparent.

Patriot wrote on Mar 22, 2007 7:48 AM:Why the focus on attorney firings when there are other issues with greater impact on Americans, such as collusion to raise gasoline prices, mismanagement of the war, and Bush's quiet plan to merge Canada, the U.S. and Mexico under the Security and Prosperity Partnership. Let's subpeona industry and government officials to testify under oath to these actions.

Random thoughts wrote on Mar 22, 2007 10:50 AM:So lemme get this straight, Bush, with his record and stance on immigration, was displeased with Lam's inefficient prosecution of immigrants? Rrrright. Ike asks 'what crime?'...subpoenas are usually for evidence; arrests are for crimes. The Congress has no right to ask for evidence? Rrrright.

Earth to Kleske wrote on Mar 22, 2007 1:53 PM:The North County Times reports today (March 22) in its lead story that that files released by the Justice Department back the Justice Department's assertion that the displeasure with Lamm was performance-based and went back months. So are you calling your own reporter a liar? Or do you just posit stupid questions in order to generate as many Comments as possible?

Daniel wrote on Mar 22, 2007 2:14 PM:This isn't the first time this administration has resisted testifying under oath. Bush and Cheney refused to testify under oath to the 9/11 Commission. In fact, Bush initially opposed ANY investigation of 9/11--an event that has been used to justify two wars and the erosion of civil rights under the Patriot Act. After pressure from families of the 9/11 victims, Bush finally agreed to answer questions, but only on the conditions that he and Cheney testify jointly in a closed door session, that no transcript or record be kept, and that the notes not be made public. These are the actions of people with something to hide.

Asturcon wrote on Mar 22, 2007 10:55 PM:After 7 years reading and learning of all the corruption, thieving and criminal activities in the US government, (just think what has not been told 95%?) Mexico start to look like a model to follow. But, we knew it when Bush got in the White House, remember the Presidential Bush-Kerry debate, where Bush told us that he did not sign USA into the International Tribunal, so our soldiers wont be prosecuted?. He was talking about himself and his team. And he let us know, very clear, that the rule of law, does not apply to him or to his team.

Mark wrote on Mar 23, 2007 5:29 AM:You are just upset because your boy Cunningham got busted! Clinton fired all 95 US attorneys including the ones investigating his wife for the Whitewater issues and the supposed suicide of her confidants - remember the one who commited suicide with the bullet wounds to the back of the head? It is legal for the president to fire these attorneys no matter what. Keep wasting the countrys time in congress and the senate - dems!

Carol Lam was Fired wrote on Mar 23, 2007 12:38 PM:for Incompetence. Cunningham has already been ousted and sent to the slammer. Goodbye, Carol. Don't let the door hit you on the way out. I'm Glad Carol's not Wasting any more of My Tax Dollars.

Asturcon wrote on Mar 23, 2007 4:49 PM:Yeap, What a blow to the honor of our Arm Forces, I guess what they said is right; there is no honor among thieves.

Amen, Mark wrote on Mar 23, 2007 6:47 PM:The Dems, once again, are outrageous in their hypocrisy. Really, really pathetic, and Leaky Leahy leading the charge! Duke the biggest criminal of our time? Give me a break...look NO further than Slick Willie and his Big Brother Bride. Murder, corruption, extortion, pardons based on $$$, rapist and perjurer!!! I just love the "moral indignation" of these losers.

Response to Ike wrote on Mar 23, 2007 10:20 PM:Let's see now, what crime did Bush and Co. commit? Let's start with missappropriation of the treasury for giving money to the Baseball Players Hall of Fame and for using treasury money to buy drugs for senior citizens. Neither appropriation is authorized in the enumerated powers. I agree that Congress is at fault as well. But this counts since it is a "Bush and Co." question. Bush being the instigator, Co being the Congress that went along. How about, violating basic civil rights through the prosecution of sick people who use medical marijuana. It is voter approved in California, and the Federal government does not have the constitutional authority to regulate it. Its the pesky 10th Amendmeet poping up again. Should we go into torture? I guess I don't have the evidence for that one, so I will not go there.

Warner: wrote on Mar 24, 2007 12:27 PM: Bring down Cunningham the Duke was a walk in the park. He left a paper trail that a nitwit could follow. It was just a matter of being in the right place at the right time for Lam to get him. However there are many more crimes that must be prosecuted which she failed to do according to the reports. You people are letting your political mouths run loose while you don't know what you are talking about. Extra good performance on the job rates rewards - very poor performance on the job rates firing. Period.

get real! wrote on Mar 24, 2007 5:36 PM:Cunningham "Duke", was committing crimes for a long time. If it was so easy to catch him, then why did not anyone else get him?

Right Mark wrote on Mar 24, 2007 6:00 PM:All of Bush's crimes are Clinton's fault. You must have been napping during the Clinton Administration. For eight years he was harassed constantly by the neocons. They tried to find some way to get him. After all our tax dollars wasted trying to find some crime, Whitewater, murder, rape, etc. etc. of which he was innocent, they finally found some sexual dalliance. Of course we found out that most of the hypocrites on the right were doing worse. If only that was the only thing wrong that Bush did. And if you want to throw name calling around, how about - Bush the decider, the chicken hawk warmonger, the alcoholic, the druggie, the CIA outer, (traitor), the stupid, the ignorant. And don't forget he brought religion into the state. JFK promised he would not be bringing the Pope or his religion to the White House. One more thing. Bush has alliowed illegal aliens to invade our Country, and won't send them back. The President is supposed to protect Country from invasion. I guess he is too busy bringing Democracy to Iraq.

Ron wrote on Mar 24, 2007 7:19 PM:She was refusing to enforce immigration law. That's why she was fired.

Teri wrote on Mar 25, 2007 8:22 AM:Get real - end this political fishing trip! The White House has done NOTHING illegal or wrong! Lam was fired because she would not prosecute illegal immigration cases, another fired because he would not prosecute drug cases if they were under 500 lbs. By the way you need to get your facts straight - Cunningham CONFESSED to his wrong doings (and he was not the worst crook in history) how much easier of a case could she ask for?

Ha Ha wrote on Mar 25, 2007 2:11 PM:It is all poltics. And it is Legal. Now what about the real problems facing America. The Iraq war, Illegal Immigration, and Open borders. What about our gasoline, water, and electricty supplies.

John wrote on Mar 25, 2007 5:14 PM:Heres the deal. The Bush bunch fired a bunch of Lawyers who just plain couldnt do ther jobs in a non partisan way.Drug dealers were getting let off, Border crime wasnt being prosicuted. Their just lawyers, we should be applauding the Bush bunch for doing us all a favor.

John wrote on Mar 26, 2007 8:32 AM:You Bush haters are so obvious that its funny as heck. Why is it that you liberal hacks want to wait until someone issues you prayer rugs and your bowing to Mecca before you wake up and realize that a real problem is in progress?Its dam near your front door.Take the war to the enemy and their not in your front yards.Im not a Republican or Democrat,Im an Independent,plain and simple.Why is it that you dems out there talk a big word about bi-partinship when it comes to spending our hard earned cash,but are exactly opposite when it comes to this country I love? Maby you diserve the prayer rugs.Bush fired a bunch of Lawyers,we should be praising him,The only thing lower is maby the Talaban.

Scandal wrote on Mar 26, 2007 10:44 AM: Bush and Rove and Gonzales used the US Department of Justice as the "enforcer", to back up their dirty tricks. I am particularly concerned about the attorneys who weren't fired. They must have played along with this Rovian scheme, and allowed politics to set their judicial agenda. I wonder what environmental disasters were overlooked, which "Pioneers" got a pass on white collar crimes, and what other cases were or weren't brought forward at the bidding of the white house! This taints all of the Judiciary. They are supposed to be an equal and independent branch of government, not the political arm of the white house. The Attorney General is supposed to protect the people, not serve as the President's private lawyer.

To John wrote on Mar 26, 2007 3:13 PM:Are you really that simple or what? He fired 8 attorneys SO THAT HE COULD REPLACE THEM WITH HIS OWN HACKS WHO WOULD DO HIS BIDDING. This wasn't anti-lawyer, this was anti-independant judiciary. There weren't going to be 8 fewer lawyers, there were going to be fewer non-political lawyers serving the people. And since the firing would intimidate all the US Attorneys, it effects just about the whole country. Bush isnt anti lawyer, they kept him out of jail, out of Viet Nam, and helped his dilute the US Constitution. He most definately isnt anti lawyer.....he is anti jusice.

Actually wrote on Mar 26, 2007 3:13 PM:She was continuing to investigate corruption in Republican appointees to the CIA. Her record (look it up) prosecuting immigration cases was very good compared to her peers. The Attorney General's lies to Congress have already drawn the ire of lawmakers of both parties. It seems to be another case of someone being either a "loyal Bushie" or a public servant...seems like you can't be both.

Therese wrote on Mar 26, 2007 3:16 PM:And the walls come tumbling down... God I love America.

to John (8:32) wrote on Mar 26, 2007 3:18 PM:You're not making a lot of sense, John. You rant about the war against terror in this unlikely venue, claim you're not a Republican, and then say that because Bush fired some lawyers, he should be praised. I don't get how these things go together. The closest I can come is that you find Islam an enormous threat to the USA, and that because Bush claims he is the champion fighter in the war against terror (contradicted by 99% of the facts, I might add), everything he does is good and right, even if these have nothing to do with that war. Did I guess right? Because the lawyers in question (most of them) had gotten good performance reviews and Lam, for example, was among the better of her peers in prosecuting immigration cases. So these can't be the reason...

AvistaBee: wrote on Mar 26, 2007 7:12 PM:What goes around comes around, as the saying goes - and speaking of going, it looks as though Gonzales has nothing more to do than turn out the lights and join RumDum for a brew. An endorsement of Gonzales from Dubya a few days ago as "his man", now turns out to be the kiss of death. I wouldn't want to be anywhere near Bush for the next year and a half if I hoped to be re-elected.

John wrote on Mar 26, 2007 9:19 PM:Bush's lackey, Gonzo, won't be marching up to Capital Hill to clarify his conflicting statements any time soon. As with anyone involved with the Bush White House, you either claim amnesia or the 5th lest you perjure yourself as old Scooter did. Not testifying under oath and, of course, no transcripts, helps!

Dave Of The Desert wrote on Mar 27, 2007 12:09 AM:Gonzales' alibi....No Comprende Ingles.

Asturcon wrote on Mar 27, 2007 1:20 PM:Now I am confuse, I o'ready have the "HUNTER/CUNNINGHAM" for President 2008 bumper sticker. But now I think a "HUNTER/GONZALES" for Presidento 2008 will be better, what you think?

jts8970 wrote on Mar 27, 2007 1:36 PM:Over 3000 dead solders based on lies. Bush and Cheney should be impeached and removed from office. Check into a little known group called the Carlyle Group. The war in Iraq is not over, but in the meantime the rebuilding has already started. This has unleashed fierce competition for contracts, which are mainly awarded to American companies. What is remarkable about these companies, is that they have people on their payroll from American politics and the military. Is this a conflict of interest, or is this the new global way of doing business? One of the companies that operates in this manner is the Carlyle Group." On their payroll are people like : George Bush (Sr.), James Baker III and old premier John Major and the Bin Laden family The Carlyle Group is a private investment bank which doesn't come to the publics attention very often, it is one of the biggest American investors of the defense industry, telecom, property and financial services. Carlyle has become the thread which indirectly links American military policy in Afghanistan to the personal financial fortunes of its celebrity employees, not least the current president's father. And, until earlier this month, Carlyle provided another curious link to the Afghan crisis: among the firm's multi-million-dollar investors were members of the family of Osama bin Laden.

Cynic wrote on Mar 27, 2007 5:11 PM:No matter how many illegal immigration cases are prosecuted, illegal immigration will continue. Prosecution won't stop illegal immigration. Carol Lam prosecuted a corrupt congressman and that put a stop to his corruption. Unfortunately for her (and for the rest of the Cunningham's constituents) she lost her job over that. Congress is now wasting time trying to get the Bush administration to admit the obvious: that the firing of Carol Lam and the other prosecutors was (of course!) political and NOT because of any incompetence or poor job performance. But keeping Congress in its current chain-wrapped-around-the-axle mode keeps the congresscritters from considering other important matters. So this controversy is just helping the Bush administration.

Ken wrote on Mar 27, 2007 9:39 PM:Who was next on Carol Lam's list?

John wrote on Mar 28, 2007 1:44 AM:Ouch! the America haters are out in force.

To John wrote on Mar 28, 2007 9:24 AM:Are you one who believes that questioning the government is anti American? Being a good American is about questioning things that you don't think are right or don't agree with. Do you think we should blindly follow the current leaders and not question anything? The most un-American thing you can do is say people are anti American because they choose to voice their opinion and disagree with the Government. Open your eyes they are a shady bunch.

Don't blame John... wrote on Mar 28, 2007 5:00 PM:...he's just spouting off the baseless rhetoric drilled into his otherwise empty head by tools of the man like Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh. These absolutely useless talking heads posit that anyone who dare question this administration's policies is somehow "unpatriotic" or "hates America", and that is an complete fallacy. Lashing out at those who disagree with you is nothing more the refuge of fools who have nothing to back up their arguments. As for the US attorney debacle, it is just another in a long and growing line of scandals for this most corrupt of administrations, starting with a stolen election and leading us to a baseless and horribly damaging war. Mark my words: no matter the result of this current scandal, it will definitely not be the last for Bush and Co.

Justice wrote on Mar 29, 2007 8:24 AM:The President has the right to fire and replace US Attorney's--"they serve at his pleasure". The Attorney General does not have the right to lie to congress--that is a crime! Senator Dominci and the representative from NM do not have the RIGHT to interfer with an ongoing investigation and demand to know wht is in a sealed indictment--that is a violation of ethical rules of the bodies in which they serve! I don't know that Karl Rove has the right to demand that a US Attoney with a high performance record get fired and replaced with a specific individual who happens to be a close personal associate. I also wonder about all the Attorney's who weren't fired and what they were told to do or not to do to hang on to their jobs. The US Department of Justice isn't supposed to be the hammer of the white house's fund raising program.

IMPEACH! wrote on Mar 29, 2007 9:41 AM:Elect a madman and you'll get madness. The insanity must stop - IMPEACH now!

Asturcon wrote on Mar 29, 2007 10:18 AM: White House deals with Cunnningham co-conspirator questioned........ little by little the truth start to came out.... keep tunning.....

Carol Lam was Fired for incompetence wrote on Mar 29, 2007 2:47 PM:Her Record shows a dcline in prosecutions. She got Lazy. She was Warned. Now She's HISTORY! Next case...

Think4yourself wrote on Mar 29, 2007 11:42 PM:US Attorneys are at will employees. If the Bush Administration wants to fire them for tardiness they can make it so. The Democrats are so eager to beat the dead horse on the Republicans it's really difficult to remind myself that we are supposedly all on the same side. The public has been absolutely duped into partisan politics by the endless negative drumbeat of the media. How about some unity for a change?

Asturcon wrote on Mar 30, 2007 12:21 AM:I told you, Mexico should be the model to follow, and now it is, does anyone remember "El Negro Durazo" the Police Chief of Mexico City involve in drug trafficking and everything else. Looks like Gonzales is following his model. I tell you, get you bumper sticker, Hunter/Gonzales for Presidento 2008.

Kristie wrote on Mar 30, 2007 6:41 AM:Months ago I wrote to my representative about Lam not prosecuting coyotes bringing illegals into this country. Why wasn't Johnny Sutton fired for putting border patrol agents in prison while an illegal immigrant drug dealer was set free. Now Sutton just put away another man in law enforcement in prison for shooting at a car of illegals that sped away after being stopped. I'll take Congressman Duncan Hunter or Congressman Tom Tancredo for President if they would secure the border, enforce immigration laws and focus on middle American citizens.

Kerri wrote on Mar 30, 2007 9:21 AM:In my opinion, we need to impeach every Republican and every Democrat and completely start over. Neither party gives a rats ... about the people of America. They only care about themselves and how to destroy the opposite party. The liberal media never reports the entire truth either. America open your eyes!!!!

Kerri wrote on Mar 30, 2007 9:27 AM:NC Times, Why don't you ever post my comments? I had tried several times on several issues to post comments. What is the problem?

Asturcon wrote on Mar 30, 2007 1:36 PM:I think they have a very good reason why, and i do not see any problem.

Gringo wrote on Mar 30, 2007 9:33 PM:We get it already. The Hate America crowd is remains very upset over their inability to steal the presidential election in Florida in 2000, even more frustrated that they lost to the "dumb" guy a second time in 2006, and they really, really, really, really, really, really, REALLY hate George W. Bush! So much so that it is now a "SCANDAL" when the President fires individuals who serve at the will of the President! Next we'll hear some hate America loon state on national television that 9/11 was an inside job. Oops, too late!

Faulty Memories? wrote on Mar 31, 2007 9:26 AM:When they get caught the entire Bush administration comes down with amnesia. If only Clinton had said, "I don't remember having sex with that woman" we would have been spared the whole impeachment fiasco.

Bradabe55 wrote on Apr 2, 2007 12:30 PM:Gonzales should resign or be fired for lying to Congress about his involvement. He swore under oath to up hold the laws of our Nation. He didn't swear to lie to our nation. How many more lies of his are they covering up? Bush has the right to fire and replace U.S. Attorneys at his pleasure but it is usually done when the President takes office not after and especially not when the Attorneys are building cases against corrupt politicians.

antiantipresident wrote on Apr 2, 2007 1:02 PM:No rules were broken. Executive priv for pres. otherwise there would be an indictment. 93 fired by clinton for political reasons not performance reasons when He/she came into office. deal with it.

theTruth wrote on Apr 2, 2007 1:04 PM:Clinton released the biggest tax evader in history (a contributing billionaire)as one of his last acts in office, yet no outcry from the party of the "poor". hypocrisy in action.

dianne feinstein wrote on Apr 2, 2007 1:06 PM:dianne said just 8 or 9 months ago that she was concerned about carol lam's performance and that it wasn't up to par, now she uses an USA today article to support her. What a two-faced unfit citizen.

Peter wrote on Apr 2, 2007 1:21 PM:The U. S. Attorneys should not be appointed by the President!

Ron wrote on Apr 3, 2007 1:33 PM:PoliSci 101: The US Attorneys work for the President. They are all appointed, not elected, not civil servants. Now, class dismissed.

Ron wrote on Apr 3, 2007 1:34 PM:Clinton fired all 93 US Attorneys and most of the media didn't even mention it. Hmm... Spinning this story?, NaHHH....

Mr Toggle Switch wrote on Apr 3, 2007 4:27 PM:Carol Lam was fired simply because she failed to lay it on the line for the simplest of things. For example, Carol Lam didn't once admit that it was only after the Union Trib story on Cunningham's shenanigans and public pressure mounted did she have staff attorneys in her office take action. Carol didn't discover anything. What else could she do but prosecute the Dukester after the public revelations by somebody else?! To allege that she was fired because she was a hot potato and on the verge of prosecuting more corrupt Republicans is hooey and without foundation. This story is all innuendo and political hogwash. She should have been fired. She was insubordinate and a grandstander. She is a politician who reaped a patronage job, and then squawks and yowls when she loses the position. Gimme a break!!

Carolyn wrote on Apr 3, 2007 6:08 PM:Carol Lam was an "at will employee." The Attorney General and/or the President can fire an at will employee without any explanation or reason. Clinton fired all of them, and did not have to explain any of his actions. But don't we love Clinton for what he did best! Not.

Asturcon wrote on Apr 3, 2007 10:41 PM:Ron wrote on April 03, 2007 1:33 PM:"PoliSci 101: The US Attorneys work for the President. They are all appointed, not elected, not civil servants. Now, class dismissed." Ron? where did you went to school? The US Attorneys work for the American People, this is why they are call US, no president's Attorneys. "Not civil servants"?? Who pay them? Who sign their check? Everyone who works for the government, pay with the TAXES of the citizens, is call CIVIL SERVANT, not President's servants. Now, go back to school please, you miss a lot of classes

Ron wrote on Apr 5, 2007 2:13 AM:Wow, listening to the Repug comments here was as Yogi would say "Deja Vu all over again". Recycled talking points to cover the hind quarters to avoid any attention of Lam's investigations into Dusty Foggo and of course, Jerry Lewis. Unfortuntely, this Jerry Lewis isn't funny, unless of course you could the Republican apologists using garbage to try and intimidate those who wanted to see him in an orange jump suit too. But with the Bush InJustice Department, we should expect nothing but persecution of democrats and the only way a Repug will be held accountable, would be by Congressional Subpoena. Ah yes, the sweet sound of subpoena's being delivered. Turn about is fair play!

redwoodtreehugger wrote on Apr 5, 2007 8:07 PM:Carol et al have been busy drinking the kool aid which leads to information distortion, i.e. lying. Clinton got in new USAs at the START of his term, as do most presidents. Bu$h fired these attorneys in mid-stream, which is almost NEVER done. Get a copy of TIME magazine coming out tomorrow and read Joe Klein...might be impeachment time, kiddies.

To Asturcon: wrote on Apr 5, 2007 10:23 PM: I would like you to explain what you think the "Rule of law" is and how it fits into the United States Justice System. If you do not know say so, and I will tell you. Lam was probably concentrating on big fish and forgetting to keep the total pond clean. We all have bosses to please and if you are not a college instructor with tenor you are subject to being fired for poor performance according to your bosses desires. Lams boss was the President of the United States. That is the way that cookie crumbles.

What about... wrote on Apr 6, 2007 10:42 AM:While the bloggers are going round and round about this, no one much seems to be talking about the other part of the situation: that inserted in the Patriot Act was the clause that the President no longer has to get Congressional confirmation of prosecuter appointments. What this has to do with homeland security, I don't know, but it smells to me, doesn't it to you? Congress is already undoing that clause. I wonder how many others our vigilant Congresspeople failed to read that will need to be undone to restore checks and balances to the nation.

Knightwatch wrote on Apr 6, 2007 4:18 PM:U.S. Attorneys work for the President. They are all political appointees. Clinton fired all 93 of the ones who worked for Bush1. Folks, get a library card and choose your arguments, Don't let them choose you.

Stalinist Purges in DC wrote on Apr 7, 2007 5:20 PM:The Bush administration was THE FIRST to get rid of US Attorneys in mid-term. History tells us that while they are political appointees, there is an unwritten rule that the Executive Branch doesn't mess with the Judiciary in Mid-Term to keep the law the law and not, as we have here, a President of the US looking like Josef Stalin in a purge. Because that's what this is: A Stalinist Purge where we now no longer have a system of law, but a system of politics. Have you seen the newest appointments? In Minnesota? Utah? 30-somethings who were Bush boot-lickers now the highest federal law enforcement officers in those states? Gimme a break! If I wanted to live in Soviet Russia, I'd have moved to Moscow.

Knightwatch wrote on Apr 7, 2007 10:33 PM:A President can fire anyone who works for him, anytime.

John wrote on Apr 8, 2007 3:05 AM:Hummm!Must have angered a bunch of liberals. Not hard to do with simple minds.

To John wrote on Apr 8, 2007 9:24 AM:You can't be serious.

RJ wrote on Apr 8, 2007 11:03 AM:Why does the NC times allow readers to trade insults and engage in name calling on these blogs while censoring any negative comments on Dianne Feinstein? Dianne Feinstein is leading the charge against President Bush who broke no laws in the firing of the US Attorneys. Feinstein was one of the first to criticize Carol Lam’s job performance. DOJ officials have pointed to a letter from Dianne Feinstein herself that was sent to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales questioning low prosecution rates in Carol Lam's district. Perhaps Feinstein is trying to direct attention away from the fact she may have abused her responsibilities as a member of the Senate Military Construction Appropriations Subcommittee. Senator Feinstein reportedly cast her votes in favor of her husband Richard C. Blum’s two companies which received billions of dollars worth of military construction contracts. Senator Dianne Feinstein’s alleged transgressions may be as serious as the crimes committed by former Representative Randy Cunningham. The Senator has apparently mastered the art of corruption by cutting out the middleman and redirecting taxpayer dollars directly to her husband’s bank accounts. I believe this type of activity is illegal in the state of California. If Feinstein was a Republican this scandal would be front page news. Feinstein has denied any wrongdoing, so did Cunningham… Where are the news reports? Where are the calls for an investigation?

RJ wrote on Apr 8, 2007 6:45 PM:There seems to be much confusion about what “impeachment” means, as well as what constitutes an impeachable offense. You can not impeach President Bush because you disagree with the war in Iraq (which was authorized by Congress), or because you disagree with his (legal) firing of the US Attorneys, or simply because you hate him. In order to impeach a president you need several elements. First of all the President has to be accused of a crime. Clinton was impeached because he was alleged to have perjured himself before a grand jury (he misrepresented his relationship with Lewinski). The House Judiciary Committee has to initiate a formal inquiry into the merit of impeachment. Based on their inquiry, the House Judiciary Committee will send another resolution to the full House stating whether impeachment is warranted and why. The Full House debates and votes on each Article of Impeachment. Should any one of the Articles of Impeachment be approved by a simple majority vote, the President will be "impeached." However, being impeached is sort of like being indicted for a crime. There still has to be a trial, which the US Senate presides over. The Articles of Impeachment are received by the Senate which then conducts a trial. The President is represented by his lawyers, a group of House members will serve as prosecutors. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides with all 100 Senators acting as the jury.

MadSat wrote on Apr 9, 2007 5:53 AM:Astounding to see someone claiming ignorance of the most obvious political FACTS of the last decade, FIRST, that Clinton was under investigation from the first weeks of his Administration, and NEVER fired any prosecutors after the usual change of party switch when the presidency changes hands, and that SECOND, it is against the law for ANYONE to interfere in a criminal investigation WHETHER OR NOT THEY ARE CAPABLE OF HIRING OR FIRING THE INVESTIGATOR IN QUESTION. Some of the comments I've read here and elsewhere cause me to seriously wonder whether or not the Administration is paying for an "internet presence" on blogs, forums and so forth. And yes, there is a company that does exactly that, they used to have a website but pulled it when the ads for "increase your forum presence" and "control the discussion on the internet" started generating negative publicity.

salice wrote on Apr 9, 2007 10:29 AM:More of the same from the Republicans. When will we get it thru our thick heads this is what happens when we elect them (or they elect themselves)? From Reagan/Bush selling to arms to Iran to illegally bankroll Contra torturers, and arming the murderous Guatemalan & Salvadoran regimes; to the squalid Clinton impeachment farce (an attempt to undo 2 elections); to Cheney/Bush stealing elections, outing a CA agent, unleashing a catastrophe in Iraq, trashing our environment and civil liberties, and much more. No sensible person can expert anything else from this crowd. Please, fellow Americans, let's not fall for their lies any more, and instead let's hold their feet to the fire.

Dubya wrote on Apr 10, 2007 5:51 AM:It's asinine to think Lam's firing was anything but politcally motivated. If an employee's performance is weak in one relatively minor area (coyote prosecution) and excellent in other areas (jailing criminal war-profiteers and politcal influence peddlers) then you counsel that employee on improving performance in the area they're a bit wweak in. You don't fire them and fill their job with someone new. Unless of course you want to disrupt the entire operation.

TOVR wrote on Apr 10, 2007 7:38 AM:More Republicon cover-ups forth coming. Their lies are bubbling to the surface and soon they will be exposed. Even their own are calling for the resignation of Gonzalez. Next should be Rove, then Cheney, then Bush.

RJ wrote on Apr 10, 2007 2:21 PM:Can someone please elaborate on the laws broken by the firing of the US Attorneys?

John wrote on Apr 10, 2007 6:20 PM:Looking back at this blog, Its obvious to anyone reading it that the Anti Bush whiners and haters are out in force, setting themselves up for another hearbreak after the next election. Your hate spiewed forth than,thats why you lost twice and probably three times in a row.You Dems need to relax ,Take your Prozac or Librium ,get your minds under control. Than put someone out ther who actually has a brain and some decent ideas for this country.Got a plan? simple question which every one of your so called leaders running for office avoids,like the Illeagal alien problem thats breaking this countrys back.The war on terror that threatens everyone.

to RJ wrote on Apr 11, 2007 8:39 AM:Time will tell, I guess. There's no question that Bush had the right to fire them since they serve at his pleasure. So that, I don't think, is the issue, though it provides a reason to investigate. I don't know if crimes were committed, but if they were, my guess is that the discovery of such will come from simultaneously looking at some of the prosecutors that were NOT fired. I have an itching suspicion that, as good Bushies, they may have been influenced to refuse to investigate the loyal Repubs, as well as vote tampering/suppression. Perhaps they hounded Democratic candidates improperly. Time will tell. But if, as facts accummulate, we learn that the Justice Department became an arm of the Republical National Committee, with the aim of assisting Republican candidates, then, my friend, you have a major Constitutional and moral violation worthy of the USSR. If anyone were not totally outraged by this, should it be discovered, that person is not an American patriot.

Another suspicion wrote on Apr 11, 2007 8:44 AM:We have a lot of evidence that this administration has done things rather incompetently. I have a suspicion that this same knack for ineptitude will be found in many, many areas currently under wraps by Bush's insistence on secrecy. I don't blame him: if more of his policies and decisions were in public view, my suspicion is that we'd all be shocked. All I ask is the chance for the public to see what has been going on. Not because I want a witch hunt for impeachment. I want the people to get an important lesson in why the balance of powers is so important, why a transparent government is crucial in a democracy. I think the rules might change for the better if we got a glimpse of what these folks called standard procedures. Just a hunch.

Poster of the day wrote on Apr 11, 2007 4:03 PM:John wrote: "Looking back at this blog, Its obvious to anyone reading it that the Anti Bush whiners and haters are out in force..." So are Republicans like me who have had enough of Bush's lies, poor judgment, and outright incompetance. Why are you so eager to defend the worst Republican president in history? Must be his hard-as-nails stance on illegal immigration, right? As for Lam, I couldn't care less about her employment situation. The bigger story here was the creep she brought down. Or shall you be telling us that it's wrong to criticize Cunningham, him being such a fine Republican and all.

datrout wrote on Apr 11, 2007 9:48 PM:What about the other US Attorneys that were removed? Did they all participate in putting Randy Cunningham behind bars? Is that why they too lost their jobs? Lam lost her position because she elected to NOT execute her duties full circle. Had she prosecuted the law without bias she may still be employed. She chose not to prosecute illegal immigrants including drug smugglers, murderers and child molesters simply because they were of foreign decent. Her sheer incompetence is why she lost her job. Clinton personally pardoned convicted drug king pins, including a notorious one, on his last day in office. Additionally Clinton fired ALL the US Attorneys on the job as soon as he took office! The US Attorneys serve at the appointment of the President and it’s his call to remove them. A least Republicans enforce the law and prosecute people regardless of their political affiliation. Lam and the liberal socialists (aka Democrats) are simply spouting off again without any facts to back up their whining. Oh wait, that’s normal for them.

RJ wrote on Apr 11, 2007 10:17 PM:Cunningham got what he deserved I don't care what political party he belongs to...

disgusted Republican wrote on Apr 11, 2007 11:06 PM:These so -called Republicans are hardly that. They are neo-cons hiding behind the religous right. They are Not conservative, in fact they out spend any liberal dems, they attack the constitution which we all have a responsibility to defend. They bank out the future of our grand children, keep people stupid in california's highly acclaimed public school system, playing a flute to all the one eyed sheep who want to rally hate,war and greed. Where have all the real republicans gone? We are in trouble , unless the Democrats can give back the USA to the people.

Artie wrote on Apr 12, 2007 6:26 AM: Carol Lam is an ideological hack who deserved to lose her position!

Left the Dems wrote on Apr 13, 2007 11:42 AM:What this shows is that the Executive Branch is trying to interfere with the Judicial branch of government. In America we have 3 branches: Judicial, Executive, and Legislative. The branches were created to provide a system of checks and balances. When the Executive is able to control or bully the separate branches for its own political needs is wrong and breaks down the system that many have fought for, for so long. Basically, the executive is say that if you don't do what I say, right or wrong, constitutional or not, you will pay. Sounds more like a monarch to me. There is nothing republican or democratic to that-its just wrong. If Clinton were to do the same thing it would be wrong too.

La Cresta wrote on Apr 14, 2007 12:29 PM:The California Prisons are overflowing but there is still room for the White House Gang. Either party and there are crooks, felons or whatever operating with sanction from whatever administration. Don't care what party they are from, if they break the law prosecute them. They need to be held accountable more than a drug addict does because they are abusing power.

charles wrote on Apr 15, 2007 10:21 AM:I presume that the information subpoenaed by Congressman Waxman is the same documentation requested by Carol Lam from the White House early last year and subpoenaed by her in November 2006, just before she was fired? It amazes me that a White House that demands total transparency from the American citizen via their various information retrieval systems should be so secretive and reclusive about their own mundane matters! Perhaps they are unwittingly inviting more scrutiny via more sophisticated technology.

Mike wrote on Apr 15, 2007 1:21 PM:As a small business owner, if there's corruption in my business it needs to be dealt with immediately, whether they be Republican or Democrat. Each week there seems to occur a new scandal each week in this administration. What happened to the Republican part of Reagan and Goldwater? For the Bush supporters, convince us independent and swing voters why should we vote Republican in 2008?

Andrew wrote on Apr 15, 2007 4:07 PM:Lam did a great job in certain areas. Unfortunately, she performed poorly with immigration law breaker cases. She turned her back on the great efforts of DHS law enforcement personnel and US citizens. Also, remember that Pres. Clinton fired every US Attorney! Were you also made at him? Be honest about your politics.

Hey Andrew wrote on Apr 15, 2007 7:27 PM:While it is true that "Clinton fired every U. S. Attorney" when he took office, you neglected to mention that Reagan also fired every U. S. Attorney when he took office. This is not unusual. What I believe is at issue here is firing eight attorneys, for transparently political reasons, mid term (followed by the usual Neo-Orwellian lies, cover up, selective amnesia, etc.).

John wrote on Apr 16, 2007 5:05 AM:Its easy to anger a democrat,just lay the facts out there and watch the hate spiew forth.You will loose the next election just because of that fact.

off target wrote on Apr 16, 2007 9:47 AM:For the last time, the issue is not the firing of prosecutors (which many or most Presidents do and all have the right to do). Nor is it the highly unusual firing of some mid-term (Bush is pretty unique in this, though he still has the right to). Nor is it (or is it?) the fact that the Patriot Act had a clause in it that said that Congress would no longer review prosecutor appointments (the lame-brained Congress approved this, probably without reading it). There is only one real issue: was the Justice Department used to help re-elect Republicans? There are two ways that the Justice Dept is "political". One, that it operates under the philosophy of the President that appointed it, is normal and OK. The other, that it works for the political gain of the President and his party, are anti-Constitutional, probably illegal, and certainly not OK. This is the only issue. It's at the heart of the democracy. No one, Democrat or Republican, if they just focus on this one issue, should tolerate it if it turns out to be true. Such use of the Justice Department is completely Un-American. Can this discussion please, PLEASE just focus on this, the only real issue? Please?

DanD wrote on Apr 16, 2007 10:21 AM:When a government isn't held to the same standard as ordinary citizens, it's time for a change. Vote!!

Mike wrote on Apr 16, 2007 10:58 AM:Gotta wonder, John, do you have the Fox News logo permanently burned into the lower right hand corner of your television set? What (if any) "facts" were layed out there? Which (if any) democrats "spiewed" (sic) hate as a result? Last I heard, the administration is, once again, stonewalling another investigation to avoid laying any facts out there.

Johnny Reb wrote on Apr 17, 2007 5:34 PM:John... You sound more angry and upset than any Democrat I know. I suspect it is because your team is down and we're in the 4th quarter. Poor old Bush is fumbling the ball every time he tries to make a pass - and the scandals keep mounting. Libby, Gonzo, Wolfy, etc. - you could make a career covering their fannies with excuses. I'll buy you a hanky to blow your nose after the next presidential election - because for dang sure, no republican will elected to the whitehouse in the foreseeable future.

JOHN wrote on Apr 18, 2007 1:42 AM:You want scandals Johnny reb? the Clinton administration was full of them,shall we list them?

JR wrote on Apr 18, 2007 9:11 AM:No I don't want to waste the moderator's time. Clinton was then - Bush is now. Those 6 - 14 year old scandals you mention are not causing the problems that we currently face. It's old news. Get up to speed. Stop obsessing in the past and using Clinton's bad behavior to justify the bad behavior of your heros. BTW - I'm not a democrat. I am an independent and I'm fed up with both parties and the partisan hacks that suck up to them. At this time the Republicans are in self destruct mode - so I'm not counting on them regaining the Whitehouse in my lifetime. Looks like the Demos will be the only show in town until another party comes along.

right on JR wrote on Apr 18, 2007 11:42 AM:I am so tired of people defending Bush and other Republicans by saying "what about Clinton?" They are in an impossible bind: if Bush, like Clinton, did terrible things, then since they condemn Clinton, they must also condemn Bush. But they don't! They only condemn those who criticize Bush. It doesn't even make sense. But worse than that, it shows that these folks really have no moral principles: if Clinton did anything, it was wrong; if Bush doesn anything, it's not so bad. It's WHO does it, not what is done. They have loyalty, but no other principles.

jayone wrote on Apr 18, 2007 8:53 PM:Lets get this off the internet. Clinton in his second term fired all of his attorneys. Get a life I am tired of hearing this garabage

US Citizen in Townsite wrote on Apr 19, 2007 8:56 AM:I find it interesting that little if any comment has been made on Darrel Issa's involvement in Lam's removal. I believe that he, like Pete Domenici, was sent on a mission to set up a 'cause' for action. As I write, I'm listening to Attorney General Gonzales attempt to defend his decision to fire the 8 Attorneys for "poor management issues". His defense? He asserts his lack of involvement: "I didn't make the recommendations" and involvement in the process: "I can't recall any specific request". Sounds like "poor management" issues to me. Darrel Issa? It's painfully obvious he's a willing lackey. I wonder what morsel of power he was rewarded with.

Mike wrote on Apr 19, 2007 4:37 PM:Attorney General Gonzales came up with a record setting 71 "I can't remember" 's today. Every other answer he gave was proven to be a blatent lie, right on the spot. It's hard to imagine anybody, outside of a few trailer parks in the bible belt, is still behind this administration.

Yay! wrote on Apr 20, 2007 11:23 AM:Carol Lam should have been fired for not going after REAL criminals. How dare she successfully go after corrupt politicians and hospital systems defrauding patients when bigger fish like undocumented workers, jay walkers and pot smokers are out there to put away. She should be happy she wasn't prosecuted for obstructing justice!

to John 5:05 wrote on Apr 20, 2007 11:32 AM:Its easy to impersonate a neocon...just spew nonsense and conspiracy and call it fact..over and over and over and over...when contradicted with truth, blame media and/or higher education and/or accuse truthsayer of supporting enemy while creating distraction with rampant flag waiving.

Jimbo wrote on Apr 20, 2007 10:36 PM:You just need to know that this is all about politics. We all knew that when the Democrats regained majorities in the House and Senate, witchhunts like this would start happening. It is all about doing as much damage as possible, politically, to Republicans before the next major election. Clinton canned a bushel basketful of prosecutors when he was elected, and it was given little or no coverage. Most of the media is as liberal as the day is long. That is how Imus got away with his antics so long.

El Jefe wrote on Apr 21, 2007 7:56 AM:People are giving Carol Lam all or too much credit when it was the FBI that did all the leg work & handed her a case she could not lose. Her problem is obvious, what has she done lately? Apparently nothing since prosecuting this easy case handed to her on a silver platter. No one even heard of Carol Lam before justice handed her this case!

like a mighty river wrote on Apr 22, 2007 6:28 AM:I would like to see Carol Lam as the replacement for Gonzales.

GregH wrote on Apr 25, 2007 6:50 AM:The president can constitutionally replace them for any reason case closed. Move on lol. Clinton removed 93 - were they all doing a bad job? NO - it was political. Some WERE investigating the clintons. Deal with it.

God Bless the USA wrote on May 25, 2007 12:10 AM:and start auditing and checking ALL of CONGRESS, THE WHITE HOUSE & JUDICIAL BRANCHES FOR PAYOLA, bribes, money laundering, etc. Assign the IRS to audit all of them, to keep their jobs, or fire them! The USA is losing its potential and future due to crooked politics, and this woman is no different. Treat her & Congress just like Duke Cunningham was - that may even bring in enough fine money to reduce our deficit. Start with the oil and illegal aliens industries...who profits/benefits financially from prices and cheap, illegal labor.