A little more background on the good citizen that the evil racist IG is harassing:
During the summer of 1995, a 16 year old girl alleged that Johnson had fondled her. Johnson apologized to the girl when confronted by her with that accusation during a phone conversation recorded by Phoenix police though he also stated that "what you're saying happened, I'm not entirely agreeing happened."[21] The Sacramento Bee stated that they had received a copy of a proposed settlement agreement, under which Johnson would have paid the girl's family $230,000.[22] After conducting an investigation, the Maricopa County Attorney's Office declined to prosecute, on the grounds that there was not a reasonable likelihood of conviction.[23]
More stench.
Friday, June 12, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
15 comments:
Cloaca Maxima. Of course, Pepe revels in the miasma -- to him, it smells like roses.
...until Drudge hears about it. Then it's slander.
It's also unconscionable when it's W firing some Dem shysters.
Another one bites the dust.
he fondled a girl ? oh, my. i'd never do such a thing.
Obama in trouble.
The inspector general found that Johnson, a former all-star point guard for the Phoenix Suns, had used AmeriCorps grants to pay volunteers to engage in school-board political activities, run personal errands for Johnson and even wash his car.
Day at the office on Planet Pepe. And, if anyone questions this, just fire him. Joys of Pepean ethics.
I actually find this troublesome. But, given our stance on the firing of the state attorneys "It's the administration's prerogative, end of story", I find it hard to believe you do too.
read your stance
Pepe, those are different jobs! The attys really work at the pleasure of the pres. The IGs don't!
It's a whole different role with different rules.
Shit, man this is the law.
so your objection is a legal one, not one of principle ?
It is one of both, Le Pew
And yours is neither.
Pepe, who gives a shit where my objection comes from? This is not a matter of etiology, it is a matter of law.
Grassley is a moron, but he is in the right when he says that Congress wrote the current law exactly with this in mind.
it matters if, you'll invoke one over the other interchangeably if it serves the purpose of an argument.
The attorney's get fired ? You won't argue beyond the regulations, (although you know damn well that if these were conservative attorneys fired by a liberal administration, you'd be up in arms over the executive branch's appalling arm twisting of the judicial).
this guy gets fired by Obama ? Simply shocking.
In short you are contriving a partisan issue as one of fairness.
Pepe. You have no shame, do you?
It is not a question of attorney generals being fired by a leftist Obama administration. You'd expect, and President's have the right, to appoint simpatico officials to that sort of office. So if Bill Clinton or Obama fired Johnny Stubborn as a means of getting Charlie Lickspittle into that position they are within their rights to do so.
However, this is only as long as Justice is not corrupted.
If Attorney Generals are fired to protect the President or others from investigation into crimes they may have committed, then that is an evil. It is a violation of the Principles of law.
If Inspector Generals are removed from office by Presidential fiat, whether or not it was to protect himself or others from investigations into criminal activity, when Inspector Generals were set up by Congress to have independence from the Federal government/Presidency, then that is also an evil. It is a violation of the Law itself.
Bush fired some folks, none of which were carrying out an investigation into the President or others he may have been trying to protect. He did so for their not being simpatico to his administrations policy for the DoJ. That violated neither the Principle, nor the Law. And has been a prerogative of Presidents since early in the 19th Century [and Bush exercised it far less than, say, the Clintons did]
When the Clintons targeted Attorney Generals who were investigating criminal activity of FOBs, they did violate Principle [although not the Law]. But they never crossed the line into challenging the Law itself and seeking to oust Inspector Generals.
However, your Obamakles has the Audacity of Hope to cross all lines, in the service of Victory and in the destruction of opposition. He violates Principle, Law, Constitution with the same insouciance Versailles pissed on peasants. And, from you, Obamakles is guaranteed leg tingling ululation.
Whatever you can say about our shiny Tyrannus Rex, he certainly has the Sagacity to know his Dopes.
Pepe. You have no shame, do you?
no but it's great that you do.
Post a Comment