Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JDN who wrote (761361)	4/17/2007 2:59:55 PM
From: pompsander	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

I am only guessing here...but since Mr. Gonzales' deputy is the one who claimed the Fifth Amendment protections (protection against self-incrimination) and her attorney is talking about a "perjury trap", I would suppose that she is on record somewhere having said something that was not true... She will now be under oath and if she restates what she said before, she believes she might commit perjury. If she tells the truth now, she will be asked why she did not tell the truth before and badgered relentlessly about which statement is the real truth (thus, the "trap" - lying now or lying then?) If she is given immunity she can tell the "truth" now and not worry about her former conflicting statements. JDN, the point here is not the firing of the attorneys. It was always the President's right to let 'em go. But many statements were made by various people about WHY they were let go (don't ask why they did this - its too dumb for words), WHO was involved in the decision, WHEN it took place, WHETHER the attorneys were fired for incompetence (again...why anyone said anything except they serve at the pleasure of the President is beyond me!) etc. etc. It is not the firing that is the problem. It is the utter ineptness of the planning, execution and reasoning given for the firing. Now we have a lady feeling she is so twisted and convoluted in her dealings and statements she is at risk of lying under oath.... Gonzales has not helped matters at all, but this is a massive incompetence mess...

To: JDN who wrote (761361)	4/17/2007 4:01:44 PM
From: pompsander	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Senate Democrats alter 'earmark' rules By ANDREW TAYLOR, Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON - Under pressure from GOP conservatives, the chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee announced new rules Tuesday to overhaul the way lawmakers send taxpayer dollars to their districts and states. The move by Appropriations Chairman Robert Byrd (voting record), R-Okla., increased the pressure to change the much-criticized, often secretive way in which "earmarks" are inserted into appropriations legislation. The rules would require all earmarks — the footnotes in bills that lawmakers use to deliver federal bacon to their states — be clearly identified in documents accompanying appropriations bills. The requesting senator, the recipient of the earmark and its purpose would have to be made public and posted on the Internet. Senators would also be required to certify that neither they nor their spouses would benefit financially from any earmark. The idea is that greater openness and public scrutiny of earmarks — which critics often called "pork barrel" spending — would mean some of the more wasteful projects would get killed before being added to legislation. "The changes that we are making in the appropriations process will help to restore confidence in the Congress," said Byrd. "We will increase accountability and openness, while we also will work to substantially reduce the number of earmarks in legislation." The new rules resemble those passed by the Senate in January as part of an ethics reform bill that has yet to pass the House. But the annual appropriations process gets started next month and Senate Democrats had given no sign they would require changes to the earmarking process absent action on the ethics bill. Coburn and DeMint had protested that Democrats had signaled they would ignore the rules, and they came to the floor Tuesday to press for broader and stronger earmark reforms, having won a unanimous 98-0 vote in January. They lost a procedural bid to change Senate rules — a more difficult hurdle than simply altering Appropriations Committee policies — but Byrd's announcement seemed linked to the conservative duo's stepped-up efforts. The Senate earmark reforms have stalled in the House, which has separately imposed new earmark rules on its members. Coburn noted that the Appropriations Committee had not implemented the reforms when instructing senators on how to officially ask for earmarks. Byrd spokesman Tom Gavin said new instructions would be issued later Tuesday. Earmarks blossomed under GOP control of Congress, much to the dismay of conservative stalwarts. The public has been angered by scandals such as the bribery conviction of former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, R-Calif., who obtained more than $2.4 million in bribes after using his seat on the House Appropriations Committee to obtain earmarks for defense contractors.

To: JDN who wrote (761361)	4/19/2007 10:35:32 AM
From: Peter Dierks	Respond to of 769670

"Do these attorneys not serve at the behest of the President. If its illegal to fire them THEN SHOULD CLINTON be arrested for firing all 73?" I thought it was 93. But Clinton only did it to protect himself, as the Arkansas attorney was reportedly within two weeks of bringing charges against Clinton. President Bush did it because the attorney's were avoiding bringing charges on voter fraud cases. Democrats are consistent: Firing attorneys who clog the courts is a public good.