Advice needed Please.

[George Boutwell]

Black Bart, there are no special prosecutors and haven't been for years and years. If there were, they would be appointed by the President like other prosecutors, but that won't happen because there isn't even a special prosecutor law and Congress is never going to grant that power again.

Yes, but we do have Special Counsels, as in Patrick Fitzgerald of the Scooter Libby case. He was appointed by none other than the recently-resigned James Comey, Deputy Attorney General on December 30, 2003 (Attorney General Ashcroft was healthy, but had recused himself from the appointment process). The issue of who would appoint a Special Counsel in this case, is an interesting point to consider.

[geekgirldany]

No, you have posted about two lawyers -- the one who is a friend of hers, and the one who is a friend of yours. My guess is that you are both getting free legal advice from professoinals who are trying to see things from your points of view. This, of course, justifies observers taking pot shots from the side lines at the entire legal profession.

Your guess is wrong. I am paying by doing non accounting work for him... he then advised me. Its called bartering. I understand your point.

[Black Bart]

Well then,

Black Bart, there are no special prosecutors and haven't been for years and years.

that's different. Somebody should have told Bill Clinton that guy Ken Starr who was trying to get him impeached and/or hung from the nearest tree over Whitewater wasn't a special prosecutor -- shoot; he was a "special counsel" or an "independent counsel." I bet he'd have felt a lot better about the whole thing.

Nobody is accusing the President of anything in this scandal. Ms. G. took the fifth because she knows her own signature is on documents that order federal employees to be hired and fired according to their political opinions instead of their job skills, which as an attorney herself she recognizes to be a felony.

I know they're not directly accusing the president, but they're trying to get Gonzales thrown out (justifiably) which would reflect on Bush and stoke their "culture of corruption" bonfire. I'm just saying she did the smart thing taking the fifth because Schumer and Leahy will crush any right-wing lackey who gets in the way of their taking Bush down. Her lawyer figured they were setting her up to be the fall guy/girl. Although she filled their bill as a hard-working right-wing zealot, I think they regarded her as a buffer against possible indictments of higher-ups when Gonzales took the unprecedented step of hiring her, a young and relatively inexperienced attorney, and catupulting her over the heads of seasoned veterans into the powerful position of being able to hire and fire U.S. attorneys. I'm a conservative, but I'm under no illusions about Bush, Gonzales, Rove, or the rest of them -- it beggars the imagination for them to claim they were "out of the loop" or "not involved in the decision" regarding the mass firing of those attorneys (as if a novice would even consider taking such high-level actions upon herself without asking the boss).

By the way, I'm not so sure you're right about their not being able to get rid of somebody for political opinions. As I understand it, the attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president and, as long as a firing is not done to obstruct an ongoing investigation, they can be fired just because the president doesn't like them or whatever. You're a smart guy and all, but do you know 'bout as much as Boutwell?

Let's ask him -- he claims to know lots of shysters XXX--Strike That--I didn't mean the ones like me and you run into in real life that are chasing a Mercedes, a Mont Blanc, and a Rolex. We need to know what George has heard from those pure-of-heart pro-bonoers that he pals around with -- you know, the ones out collecting for the Red Cross.

Whaddaya say, Georgie? Is it legal to fire apostates?

[veritas]

I read recently the lost emails

showed up in the private living quarters in the Whitehouse . No one seems to know how they suddenly appeared there. Someone did say they thought they saw Sandy Berger running downstairs with some strange bulges in his pants.

[George Boutwell]

Not sure which is more pathetic

Rehashing events of the last century?

Or grousing about someone's misdemeanor conviction?

[Black Bart]

Wait...wait...I..I..yes, it's becoming clearer...

...lawyers...trying to see things from your points of view

AXE MURDERER: I need someone to get me off.
PRO BONOISH LAWYER: All very well and good, AM, but, as I recall, you invaded a home and massacred several people in a rather horrific manner during the course of an armed robbery. Is that an accurate summary?
AM: I cut their heads off.
PBL: Ah, yes, yes, well...these things...ah... happen, you know. I'm sure we can round up a psychiatrist who'll testify that you weren't responsible and were under the influence of something -- Twinkies maybe. Or you were in Cleveland at the time. Or capital punishment is against your principles. Any of those apply?
AM: The cops caught me in the house with a head in one hand and a bloody axe in the other.
PBL: Yes, umm, well, that narrows it down a tad. What about "bad childhood" and you were "misunderstood?"
AM: Both my parents smoked marijuana, but they would never give me a puff.
PBL: Hmm, perhaps another approach -- maybe throw yourself on the mercy of the court with a plea for lieniency and reduced sentence. What charge would be acceptable to you?
AM: What about "malicious mischief?"
PBL: Umm, I don't think that's on the program and, frankly, I'm having a heck of a time seeing your point of view on this.
AM: Here's five thousand bucks for openers.
PBL: Ahem...well...now things are coming a little more into focus; in fact there's just not much question that you're being railroaded by an unprincipled prosecutor out to make a name for himself. I'll get cracking on this right away. Any thoughts that might help our case?
AM: There's two sides to every story?
PBL: Good point and very well-spoken -- I'll see yours get told. But, uh, tell me; just as a point of curiousity -- did you have to slaughter the entire family?
AM: Well, they was home.

[veritas]

Rehashing events of the last century?

Or grousing about someone's misdemeanor conviction?

Nonsense, I have not yet begun to defile myself

[Black Bart]

Veritas

Not sure which is more pathetic

Rehashing events of the last century?

Or grousing about someone's misdemeanor conviction?

Although you have not yet begun to fight (er, defile), I contend that my topic (rehashing events of the last century) is more pathetic than thou's. In fact, I once argued this very point to my history teacher, who promptly flunked me.

Oh well; guess we better quit. Boarders are prob'ly gettin' tired of it (I know I am) and George is highly *issed because we dissed lawyers (you know how he doesn't like anybody to disagree with him). Back to taxes, I suppose.