Scarborough advances false attorney dismissal comparison

Puppy... your earlier post said "An incoming president can 'fire' any and all U.S. attorneys at his or her discretion. Period."

Now you say "It doesn't matter why the president fires these attorneys and it never has. Period."

Of course it's wrong and the evidence of political motivations is obvious.

In 2006, George W used the reauthorization of the Patriot Act to change the law which had a 120 day term limit on mid-term appointments, which bypassed the Senate approval process.

This was not a manufactured issue... this was a real issue because it was unprecedented what they did.

Next I expect you to say. "The President can do whatever he wants (except for Obama) and if it's the President that's doing it, it's not illegal. Period."

As far as the 'outed' agent appearing on the cover of Vanity Fair... what point are you trying to make? That she wasn't an undercover agent?
She was outed in an article by Robert Novak on July 14, 2003. She resigned her position with the CIA in December of 2003. She appeared on the cover in January of 2004. She was an undercover agent from 1985 - 2002 stationed in Athens and Brussels.

I warned you.

It DOES matter why USAs are fired or retained. You can do it for almost any reason, but you CANNOT fire or retain them based on whether they do your political bidding by prosecuting the innocent and protecting the guilty.

Imagine this, Puppies: Bill Clinton goes to US Attorney Brown and says "Congressman Jones is a friend of mine. He looks to be in bad shape at election time. I want you to prosecute his opponent, Republican Smith, so that my buddy Jones has a better shot at getting reelected." Brown says "that's crazy. I have no reason to think that Republican Smith has done anything wrong." Clinton says "You're fired, Brown. I'm putting Black in your place, because I KNOW he'll prosecute Republican Smith even if there's no evidence."

Here's your test, Puppies: Do you accept that Bill Clinton has the right to fire that US Attorney, or do you scream and shout that Clinton is thwarting justice for political gain? I think we know what you'd do -- you'd complain that Clinton is a Nazi and taking away your rights and destroying democracy.

So, it's exactly the same if the roles are reversed. Bush is not allowed to fire USAs to protect his friends and punish his enemies. I know this is a hard concept to grasp, but it's NOT OK just because Bush is a Republican and you agree with him. Some things are above politics. Justice is one of them.

Now, as to Valerie Wilson. General Michael Hayden, the Director of the CIA, says she was covert at the time her identity was revealed. Are you going to go against a department head in a Republican administration who's also a four star general? If a Democrat did that, you'd call it treason. I think you're obligated to accept the word of Hayden, the guy in charge of the department, especially because he'd LOVE to be able to say the opposite. The fact that he's saying something that's against his own self interest lends credibility to what he's saying. Valerie Wilson WAS covert. End of story.

And while I think of it, I'm really irritated by the "Armitage did it" line.

People who want to absolve Bush of all wrongdoing make it sound like leaking secrets is a race --the first one to say something is "the leaker" and everyone else is free to say anything he wants. That's simply not so.

Anyone and everyone who leaks something classified is guilty of a crime. As an example that will make this easy for you to understand, let's say a reporter calls me and says "puppies told me that Jane Johnson is a covert CIA Officer. What do you have to say?" If I know that Jane is a covert CIA Officer and if I tell the reporter, now he has corroboration he didn't have before and he runs with the story. If I didn't tell him, maybe he doesn't get the story confirmed by a second source, so he never prints it. In this scenario, it's the SECOND "leaker" who's the most culpable.

Here's another scenario: A reporter comes to me and says "puppies told me some woman named Jane is a covert CIA Officer. Do you know anything about that?" I say "the only woman I know at the CIA is Jane JOhnson." Now the reporter has something he didn't have before -- the first AND last name of the covert CIA operative. And again, it's the SECOND "leaker" who's most culpable.

Finally, how do you know that the Bush people knowingly leaked the name of a covert CIA operative? Because everyone involved LIED about his role. If they thought they'd done something right and good, they'd be BRAGGING about having done it, not frantically backing and filling to cover it up. In legal terms it's called consciousness of guilt.

You set 'em up, I knock 'em down. Want to try again, puppiesnrainbows?

Puppie, you are incorrect about the Valerie Plame case.

First, Valerie Plame appeared on the cover of Vanity Fair AFTER she had been outted by the administration. She was no longer with the CIA because her cover had been blown.

Second, the CIA requested the investigation because Plame WAS a covert agent, and they felt that she had been illegally outted. They should know, they were the ones who employed her as a covert agent.

Third, she was not outted by Richard Armitage . . . Armitage is just the one who told Novak. Others had been told of her identity prior to Novak's column, but they had not reported it.

Fourth, her ex-ambassador husband reported correctly. There were no yellow-cake deals . . . Bush, et buds, were lying.

Fifth, Scooter Libby was found guilty of obstruction of justice because he lied to the investigators. The investigators were not able to complete the investigation due to the lies of Libby. Libby was the patsy for the administration.

You are also incorrect with your assumption that this is a manufactured issue by the "democrats." The investigation was requested by the REPUBLICAN prosecutors who were fired because they refused to bow the administration to conduct the partisan political witch hunts. They were not fired, as was indicated, for sub-par performance. They were fired for strictly not toeing the party line.

Don't try to discuss legal matters if you don't know what the heck you're talking about. You look foolish.