Still Hating America.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

link

[Adder]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
If a case has merit, why can't it be brought? If a case doesn't have merit, won't it be rejected by a grand jury...?

You are joking about this part right? You ever serve on a grand jury? The old saw about a ham sandwhich is not a joke.

I am surprised, however, that you think it is okay to pursue corruption cases based on the politics of the target. To me, that does beyond basic prosecutorial discretion.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter

• WASHINGTON - Two weeks after Arizona U.S. Attorney Paul Charlton was ordered to give up his post, he sent an e-mail to a top Justice Department official asking how to handle questions that his ouster was connected to his investigation of Rep. Rick Renzi, R-Ariz.
  
  . . .
  
  In October, Justice Department officials confirmed that Renzi was the subject of an inquiry into a land swap that would benefit a friend and business associate. Renzi has denied any wrongdoing. He could not be reached Tuesday.
  
  Renzi is a Bush loyalist. When Renzi was locked in a battle for his congressional seat last year, the president came to Arizona to campaign for him.
  
  When the first list of U.S. attorneys targeted for ouster was drafted, Charlton's name was not on it. But his name was on a subsequent list, drafted in September. Although the Renzi inquiry was not yet public, it is likely the Justice Department was aware of the investigation, said a former U.S. attorney who is familiar

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepu...orney0321.html

Using that expensive education that your mother gave so many blow jobs to pay for, can you see a pattern emerging?

you know my mother had throat cancer and can't take in anything orally right? nice job.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Adder
You are joking about this part right? You ever serve on a grand jury? The old saw about a ham sandwhich is not a joke.

Perhaps, but it suggests there's at least something there.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Didn't they retrieve some? Was there damning stuff in those? Or is asking loaded questions better rhetorically?

you've done enough litigation to know you should just give up all documents- none of them are that bad. but the people that hide them, or go into the national archives and smuggle them out in their underwear- they know they're guilty.

Here's your problem- nothing anyone in any subsequent admin will, or could do, won't find a worse analog in the clinton admin. They fired an entire office to make room for Bill's cousin for god's sakes. what are you talking about some usas for?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
No. So what did your BFF say about the Wisconsin case?

(this isn't really the post I should be responding to)

Anyway, the prosecution of state-government corruption cases under federal law (wire fraud etc.) has always been one of the trickiest issues of both criminal law and federalism. There is, at least, the Guarantee clause that arguably justifies it. By comparison, there is no Guarantee clause with respect to the federal government. So the idea that the president can somehow be prosecuted for failing "faithfully" to execute the laws seems pretty far-fetched.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
No. So what did your BFF say about the Wisconsin case? Did he tell you about lots of other times that the Seventh Circuit has sprung defendants like that?

I hope it common to immediately spring a convict if an appeals court all agree the convict has found some argument that will let them off.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
you've done enough litigation to know you should just give up all documents- none of them are that bad. but the people that hide them, or go into the national archives and smuggle them out in their underwear- they know they're guilty.

You've done enough litigation to know that making up facts contradicted by sources like the Washington Post is a bad idea.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You've done enough litigation to know that making up facts contradicted by sources like the Washington Post is a bad idea.

i want to retire never having the WPo agree with me. so far I'm on track.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
(this isn't really the post I should be responding to)

Anyway, the prosecution of state-government corruption cases under federal law (wire fraud etc.) has always been one of the trickiest issues of both criminal law and federalism. There is, at least, the Guarantee clause that arguably justifies it. By comparison, there is no Guarantee clause with respect to the federal government. So the idea that the president can somehow be prosecuted for failing "faithfully" to execute the laws seems pretty far-fetched.

I thought the President couldn't be "prosecuted" for anything -- just impeached.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I thought the President couldn't be "prosecuted" for anything -- just impeached.

they can be disbarred.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Adder
You are joking about this part right? You ever serve on a grand jury? The old saw about a ham sandwhich is not a joke.

I am surprised, however, that you think it is okay to pursue corruption cases based on the politics of the target. To me, that does beyond basic prosecutorial discretion.

a bit of a segue, but handicapped makes a tie: I was just in the new "it" place here, a chain steak house called fleming's (from the OC originally- hi ncs and fringey!) anyways in the restroom thee seemed to be two identical sinks- but one had a wheelchair symbol with the legend "accessible sink."

Q: what makes a sink accessible?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

One of Tyler Cowen's readers asks him who he's backing for President. I like his answer:

• Who do you want for the GOP ticket in '08 Dr. Cowen?
  
  So asks Chris in the comments. Right now I don't have favored candidates in any of the parties, either here or abroad. Furthermore I will deliberately resist developing such favorites, and insofar as I can't help having them, I won't tell you who they are. I don't mean this in a libertarian "they are all crooks" sort of way, though that may be true. It still really does matter who governs, and so we should take this process of candidate evaluation seriously. It is just that I don't want to be part of it.
  
  As a blogger rather than decision-maker I am allowed my small space for protest. I wish to protest our excessive tendency to choose sides with one group of people rather than another. I wish to protest excess partisanship, and in particular excess partisanship motivated by the construction of "imaginary good" and "imaginary bad" political personalities.
  
  As biological creatures we are programmed to respond to faces, voices, names, and identities. We praise them, follow them, condemn them, figure out what side they are on, just like good ol' East African Plains Apes. Who is not excited to see a President of the United States attending a Wizards game in a nearby box? I know I was, and I didn't even vote for him. Chimps will give up bananas, just to be able to gaze at photos of high-status other chimps.
  
  I would like for my posts on MR to be one small space where these necessary but ignoble human tendencies toward personalization are resisted and sometimes even criticized. I am biased, just as you are. But for aesthetic reasons I would rather my biases be played out in the realm of ideas, rather than directed at people. And at the margin, some of you should be just a little more like me.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
i want to retire never having the WPo agree with me. so far I'm on track.

I might respect that if it were limited to the editorial page, but as applied to the news or business reporting, or the movie reviews and listings, it seems foolhardy.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Adder
While you are certainly correct, we do not often go to that level of expense to recover previously deleted materials. Then again, I have never been involved in a case where there was an allegation that materials were deleted after there was an obligation to preserve them.

You haven't had the lectures about the new federal rules of civil procedure and preservation? Our litigation people get mini heart attacks when they hear about how much information gets stored on disaster recovery backup tapes.

ETA: It appears I should have read a couple hundred posts before jumping in on the discussion. Still, I've stopped sending as many e-mails at work lately when a phone call will do.