Get out says this guy

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

??? Obama has zero to do with this. What he thinks doesn't matter a whit.

Holder is the attny general under whose watch these people will be tried. Obama is his boss. Are you seeing the connection here?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Holder is the attny general under whose watch these people will be tried. Obama is his boss. Are you seeing the connection here?

The connection is that the President, other than appointment, has zero influence (however, look during the second Bush term, which introduced serious questions of illegal influence). Remember Watergate? Even the most lawbreaking President's recourse is pretty much only to fire them.

To accuse the current Executive branch of collusion with the AG is a pretty heavy accusation.

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by Riot

The connection is that the President, other than appointment, has zero influence (however, look during the second Bush term, which introduced serious questions of illegal influence). Remember Watergate? Even the most lawbreaking President's recourse is pretty much only to fire them.

To accuse the current Executive branch of collusion with the AG is a pretty heavy accusation.

THINK "CHICAGO"

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Riot

The connection is that the President, other than appointment, has zero influence (however, look during the second Bush term, which introduced serious questions of illegal influence). Remember Watergate? Even the most lawbreaking President's recourse is pretty much only to fire them.

To accuse the current Executive branch of collusion with the AG is a pretty heavy accusation.

It's not collusion. It's chain of command. The Attorney General serves at the pleasure of the president as part of his cabinet. What you are seeing, by virtue of his being allowed to continue in the job, is the president's will.

[hi_im_god]

Originally Posted by joeydb

It's not collusion. It's chain of command. The Attorney General serves at the pleasure of the president as part of his cabinet. What you are seeing, by virtue of his being allowed to continue in the job, is the president's will.

the president can certainly fire the a.g. if he wants.

i think riot's point (and she can correct me if i'm wrong) is that the a.g. in particular is supposed to have an arm's length relationship with the white house to avoid the fact or appearence of political interference in his/her decision's.

you only need to go back as far as the incompetent and gutless alberto gonzales to see why you need a strong individual to stand up against any inappropriate attempts by the white house to interfere in or direct the a.g.'s decisions.

it's appropriate and expected that the secretary of state sometimes receives direction from the white house. it's completely inapproriate and anti-democratic for the nations prosecutor in chief to do so.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by hi_im_god

you only need to go back as far as the incompetent and gutless alberto gonzales to see why you need a strong individual to stand up against any inappropriate attempts by the white house to interfere in or direct the a.g.'s decisions.
.

Reno time!

Set the churches afire!

[Nascar1966]

News flash. O'Dumbass rating drops to below %50. Lets impeach this imbecile before he really ruins this great country of ours and it will take many years to unscrew his mess.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Nascar1966

News flash. O'Dumbass rating drops to below %50. Lets impeach this imbecile before he really ruins this great country of ours and it will take many years to unscrew his mess.

lack of popularity isn't an impeachable offense.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

The connection is that the President, other than appointment, has zero influence (however, look during the second Bush term, which introduced serious questions of illegal influence). Remember Watergate? Even the most lawbreaking President's recourse is pretty much only to fire them.

To accuse the current Executive branch of collusion with the AG is a pretty heavy accusation.

Perception was one of the key reasons stated as to why they would be tried in Federal rather than military court. You seriously think that the rest of the world is going to believe that these guys got a fair trial unless they are acquitted? I know if they were in Russia and Putin or his puppet President said he thought they would be executed before the trail I would have serious doubts that the trial was remotely fair regardless of the guilt of the accused. Same for China or just about any country.

The reality of a situation and the perception are often far apart. Obama's statemnts make it look like he knows what the outcome will be prior to the trial. He should have said some gibberish about believing in the American justice system. But lets face it, the polls dont like the decision and he hates being on the wrong side of those. So he "assured" the unhappy citizens that executions will be held. Prior to the trial being held.