Gee, I guess those e-mails were just... "lost"Follow

Shhhhh Sammie, you will ruin his specious and intellectually dishonest comparison~!

But you have to know it's there and relevant *before* the process occurs. You can't just poke around and see if a crime has been committed. You have to know that a crime has been committed, have reason to suspect that evidence of the crime exists, and *then* you can go poking around looking for the evidence.

That sentence is the legal "punishment" for doing it wrong. Evidence collected as a result of a fishing expedition is not admissable in court. That's what the sentence is saying. I'm saying that what the Dems are trying to do is ignore that, and go fishing anyway figuring that since there's no actual crime here anyway that it doesn't matter. Their ultimate goal is not to actually find actionable evidence, but to find stuff they can push out before "the people" in order to get them to demand the resignation/firing of various personel that they don't like.




Which is exactly why it's inadmissable and any rational person should be condemning the attempt to obtain it. Because the criteria for such an investigation is absolutely zero. Anyone could be subject to this process for any reason at all. There's a reason why we talk about prosecutorial burden in our legal system. It's specifically to prevent abuses like this. Just because you don't like the people who are the targets of this investigation is no reason to turn a blind eye to this sort of abuse. Today it's Gonzales and Rove. Tomorrow it might be someone you don't dislike. But if you establish and allow the process today, it'll be allowed tomorrow.

It's a bad idea all the way around.



Yes. It is. What part of that do you not get? There's no "perhaps" involved. It's waaaaay too broad. The rationale for the investigation is way to flimsy. You've basically got a party that does not like the political decisions made by the other party, so they're trying to misuse the legal system to force them to change their positions (or punish them for making ones they don't like in this particular case).

It's incredibly scary stuff IMO. You should be concerned about it.



That's very nice. I'm not sure what you think it proves. Can the government subpoena email evidence? Of course they can. The issue isn't over the process of doing so, but the *reason* for doing so. You have to have a crime before you can do something like this. Right now, they have no crime. They have no evidence of wrongdoing. Why are they pursuing evidence collection? Because they believe that if they collect enough, they might find evidence of a crime.

And that's a fishing expedition. Plain and simple.



Sure. Except for the part where you have to have evidence of a crime and a reasonable suspicion that more evidence will be found on said email and hard drives. You can't just decide to go looking for evidence of a crime. It's the wrong order. You have to have a crime first, then collect evidence to prove who committed or was involved in the crime. You can't just collect evidence and then see who's guilty of something.


It's a complete violation of the very foundation of our legal system.

No. I'm not. Hence why I've repeatedly stated that the purpose of the investigation is *not* to find someone guilty of a crime, but to find embarrasing information on the other party.

They are, however, using an investigative process that is *supposed* to restrict itself to criminal/constitutional violations in order to do this, which is what I'm talking about here.

There is absolutely no rule in our federal law that says that the president cannot fire these attorneys for any damn reason he wants. Period. Thus, there is no justification for *any* investigation into the reasons they were fired. Period.

What part of that is confusing? There can be no violation of law, nor overstepping of constitutional power. The president has absolute discretion on this matter.




Ok. Fine. Explain to me under what justification this investigation is being conducted. What power granted to congress gives it the right to do this?

For bonus points, explain exactly how this justification could not be used at any time for any reason against anyone that the party in power in congress did not like?

For even more bonus points, explain how this is a good idea.


Since you apparently know everything that is...

Don't confuse him with the law. It's just not worth it.

I didn't ask you whether Congress has the authority to conduct investigations in general. I asked you whether they had the authority to conduct an investigation "into the reasons they were fired".

Congress can conduct investigations into matters pertaining to areas they legistatively control or fund. Thus, they can investigate the actions of members of the Justice Department, because they fund the Justice Department. But only to the extent that they are doing their job and "earning their keep".

The power to fire appointees in this case rests solely with the President. It is *not* a subject upon which the Congres has any interest or power in directly. If he were changing their salaries, or telling them what cases to pursue and which not to, that might be the case. But any investigation could *only* involve such issues. They cannot by definition and constitutional law investigate into "why they were fired". Well. They *can*. But their investigation would not stand up to consitutional muster and they know it. That's why this particular approach is being used. Congress knows that they can't actually pursue this legally. They have absolutely no grounds to protest the removal of an appointee. So they're manipulating the situation in order to try it in the court of public opinion instead.


Obviously, it's working. But you need to recognize that it's not because they have the legal ground to do what they're doing, but largely because most of "the people" don't realize that they don't.