Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
What do you expect from Joe Biden? Good judgement? From Gonzo's confirmation hearing:
SEN. BIDEN: "And so when I get to ask my questions, I hope you'll be candid about it, because -- not that it's relevant -- I like you. I like you. You are real -- you're the real deal."
http://www.humanrightsfirst.com/us_law/etn/gonzales/statements/gonz_testimony_010604.htm
>>>"They should have done it a few weeks ago"<<<
White House: Gonzo Still Our Guy
President Believes Embattled Attorney General Alberto Gonzales Can Overcome Challenges
WASHINGTON, March 30, 2007
(CBS/AP) The White House said Friday it believes embattled Attorney General Alberto Gonzales can survive the uproar over the firing of eight federal prosecutors, a day after his one-time chief of staff undercut Gonzales' account of the firings.
"I can tell you that the president has confidence in him," said Deputy White House press secretary Dana Perino. "The president believes the attorney general can overcome the challenges that are before him."
On Thursday, former Gonzales aide Kyle Sampson told a Senate hearing that rather than merely signing off on the firings, as Gonzales has repeatedly stated, Gonzales was in the middle of things from the beginning.
"I don't think the attorney general's statement that he was not involved in any discussions of U.S. attorney removals was accurate," Sampson told a Judiciary Committee inquiry into whether the dismissals were politically motivated.
"I remember discussing with him this process of asking certain U.S. attorneys to resign," Sampson said.
Sampson also told the panel that the White House had a large role in the firings, with one-time presidential counsel Harriet Miers joining Gonzales in approving them. And under questioning from Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., Sampson said that looking back, he should not have advocated the firing of one prosecutor in particular, New Mexico's David Iglesias.
The administration maintains that the firings were appropriate because the prosecutors serve at the pleasure of the president.
Asked about Gonzales during a closed-door meeting with House Republicans on Thursday, Mr. Bush did not defend his longtime friend, according to one official who attended the session and demanded anonymity because it was private.
Instead, Mr. Bush tepidly repeated his public statement: The attorney general would have to go up to Capitol Hill and fix his problem, according to this official.
The president may still have confidence in Gonzales, but the exit door is always unlocked, CBS News senior White House correspondent Bill Plante reported.
Publicly, the White House has said continually that Gonzales retains Mr. Bush's confidence, even while it has also said that Gonzales and his department must address Congress' concerns and questions.
"It's hard to imagine that he (Gonzales) survives because there's so few Republicans that really want him to survive right now," Jim VandeHei, executive editor of Politico.com, told CBS' The Early Show.
One of the eight federal prosecutors ousted last year, Bud Cummins told the University of Arkansas Clinton School of Public Service Thursday that the Justice Department suffered from an "over-enamorization" with the White House.
Cummins, who was U.S. attorney in Little Rock, Ark., acknowledged that he served at the political pleasure of the president, but said Gonzales was remiss for not placing a "firewall" between politics and the work of the Justice Department.
As political theater, Sampson's appearance on Capitol Hill ranked with some of the most eye-catching hearings of recent years; the witness was faced off against a host of cameras and senators inclined toward lawyer-like interrogations in a cavernous Senate hearing room packed with spectators.
Sampson's account of the firings of eight U.S. attorneys over the past year lent weight to some of the most damaging Democratic criticism about the matter: that Gonzales was at the heart of the firings despite ever-changing Justice Department accounts of how they were planned; that some of the prosecutors were fired for political reasons; and that White House officials — including presidential counselor Karl Rove — played more than a limited role in the firings.
Afterward, one of the two Senate Republicans who are key to Gonzales' professional fate said he found Sampson credible and left the hearing with more questions about the attorney general and the firings than he had to begin with.
"He has many questions to answer," said Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the panel's ranking Republican. Sampson's conflicting account with Gonzales' pose "a real question as to whether he's acting in a competent way as attorney general," Specter said.
Gonzales has said, repeatedly, that he was not closely involved in the firings and largely depended on Sampson to orchestrate them.
Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said that Gonzales has clarified his statements.
"His discussions with Mr. Sampson were focused on ensuring that appropriate people were aware of and involved in the process," Roehrkasse said. "He directed Mr. Sampson to lead the evaluation process, was kept aware of some conversations during the process, and that he approved the recommendations to seek the resignations of select U.S. attorneys."
Sampson resigned March 12. A day later, Gonzales said he "never saw documents. We never had a discussion about where things stood" in the firings.
Gonzales is not scheduled to appear publicly on Capitol Hill until April 17 in front of the same Senate committee. More and more Democrats and Republicans have called for him to step down, but Roehrkasse said the attorney general has no plans to resign.
The grim-faced Sampson, a longtime and loyal aide to Gonzales, said other senior Justice Department officials helped to plan the firings, which the White House first suggested shortly after Bush won a second term in 2004.
Sampson said he was never aware of any case where prosecutors were told to step down because they refused to help Republicans in local election or corruption investigations. He also said he saw little difference between dismissing prosecutors for political reasons versus performance-related ones.
Sampson said he should have been more careful to prevent Paul McNulty, the deputy attorney general, and William Moschella, the principal associate deputy attorney general, from giving incomplete or misleading information to Congress in describing the dismissals.
He said that White House political staffers working for Rove were involved closely in the plans to replace prosecutors — as evidenced by thousands of department e-mails released to Congress.
It was Miers, he said, who initially floated the idea of firing all 93 federal prosecutors and ultimately joined Gonzales in approving those who were turned out.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/30/politics/main2627715.shtml
>>>Blogging with Bush<<<
"OLBERMANN: Lastly, I must ask you about the blog that the president cited today. It‘s now been identified. It‘s IraqTheModel.com. There‘s a pair of dentists who‘ve generally been sympathetic to the American mission. They met with the president in the Oval Office three years ago. But as late as last Friday, on the same blog, they said (INAUDIBLE) the administration, quote, “needs to revise the way it‘s been handling and planning for this critical war.” We‘re down to the president quoting a couple of dentists to prove that the surge is working?
CHANDRASEKARAN: Well, you know, there are dozens of Iraqi bloggers. And I dare say IraqTheModel is one of very, very few to be as rosy as it is, just notwithstanding some of their own skepticism about things and some of their own critical comments. I mean, those guys aren‘t idiots.
But, you know, if we do a more representative sample of what Iraqis are writing in their blogs, and I read a lot of them, you won‘t find as optimistic of a portrait as IraqTheModel portrays."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17856294/
Right. Problem is......most c graders go on to sell shoes or clean windows. This one runs the world's only superpower, nuclear heads and all.
That's your answer?
>>>Only an American defeat in Iraq can ensure the Democrats' political victory next year. Their only strategy is to sabotage the chances for a military victory in Iraq without being held responsible for a defeat.<<<
A political party acting in accordance with the will of a large majority of the population is engaged in sabotage? If that's the case then what's it called when the president ignores that same majority?
Contempt.......not hatred. And forget the numbers. Nobody has the exact figures anyway. $10 billion or $6 billion.........I don't care. Wasn't Israeli welfare originally meant to promote peace and a stable flow of oil? You have to go deep into the house chambers of US congress to find people who refer to Israel as a peace loving nation and even they squirm when they say it. Also......Israel is the 16th wealthiest country on earth in terms of income per capita. With a tax base like that, why do they need more US financial aid each year than the rest of the world combined?
And this reads like a book. What's the excuse?
ISRAELI VIOLATIONS OF UN RESOLUTIONS
http://www.geocities.com/savepalestinenow/unresolutions/studyguide/sgunres1e.html
>>>the real question is why israel was so friendly? why is anything left standing at all?<<<
Always good to hear your even handed take on Israel brainless. Now fill me in on what $10,000,000,000 in annual aid to Israel buys US taxpayers. How would they suffer if $10 billion annually was scaled back by 50%, 75% or even 100%? If Israelis at least showed some appreciation but I don't see it. All I see is self absorbed, arrogant pricks who seem to think they're entitled to $10 billion of our money and that we ought to feel proud to hand it over to them.
>>>and to NOT even mention .. all those 'cluster bombs' .. that were dropped<<<
Which were a violation of a "use agreement" between the US and Israel. But so what? Israel systematically violates most of what they agree to comply with including UN resolutions and never suffer consequences. Except increased financial and military aid from america of course.
"WASHINGTON, Jan 29 (Reuters) - The United States said on Monday Israel may have violated an agreement with Washington in its use of U.S.-made cluster bombs during last July's war with Hezbollah guerrillas in Lebanon.
"There were likely violations," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack told reporters.
The State Department said it had delivered a classified preliminary report to the U.S. Congress on Monday indicating possible violations of a "use agreement" between the United States and Israel over the cluster bombs.
McCormack declined to say how Israel violated U.S. rules in its use of U.S.-made rockets armed with cluster bombs in Lebanon, saying such information was classified."
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N29175581.htm
>>>I guess the 1000's of rockets fired from inside Lebanon by Hezbollah are considered friendly by you, huh??<<<
Judging by the damage each side inflicted, those rockets seem to work better as propaganda tools for US/Israel than as actual weapons for the Lebanese.
Civilian casualties from the war:
Lebanon: 1187 dead, 3600 wounded, 1,000,000 homeless
Israel: 43 dead, 33 wounded
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict
>>>I guess Iranian support of Heszbollah - monetary and with weapons should make Israel more friendly towards Iran, right.<<<
No it shouldn't but what's accomplished by pulverizing neighboring countries over minor border incidents?
>>>Given their geographical position and the hatred they are surrounded with, it would be suicidal for them to respond to attack with anything less than they have<<<
See previous..
>>>DO you thinkj it's a mistake to support of friendly democracy in that part of the world?<<<
Friendly?
In response to two Israeli soldiers captured on Lebanese soil. I tell you...........some countries have all the luck, like Lebanon. Just imagine if Israel had been unfriendly...
>>>It just seems that some people want to believe lies .. and going further ... do not even mind being lied to ... on a regular basis for 6 years ..<<<
Some are genuine diehards but listening to others you gotta think it's easier for them to make fools of themselves trying to rationalize and "explain" stupidity than to admit they are victims of stupidity. I mean.......how do they bow out gracefully at this point? "I've misjudged for 6 years......just a little slower than most but i get it now..."
>>>Iraq: Slowly but surely<<<
With emphasis on slowly and question mark after surely? Reality check here from Michael Ware responding to John Mccain who obviously smoked crack during lunch today:
BLITZER: Has there been this improvement that Senator McCain is speaking about?
MICHAEL WARE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, I'd certainly like to bring Senator McCain up to speed, if he ever gives me the opportunity. And if I have any difficulty hearing you right now, Wolf, that's because of the helicopter circling overhead and the gun battle that is blazing just a few blocks down the road.
Is Baghdad any safer?
Sectarian violence -- one particular type of violence -- is down. But none of the American generals here on the ground have anything like Senator McCain's confidence.
I mean, Senator McCain's credibility now on Iraq, which has been so solid to this point, has now been left out hanging to dry.
To suggest that there's any neighborhood in this city where an American can walk freely is beyond ludicrous. I'd love Senator McCain to tell me where that neighborhood is and he and I can go for a stroll.
And to think that General David Petraeus travels this city in an unarmed Humvee. I mean in the hour since Senator McCain has said this, I've spoken to some military sources and there was laughter down the line. I mean, certainly, the general travels in a Humvee. There's multiple Humvees around it, heavily armed. There's attack helicopters, predator drones, sniper teams, all sorts of layers of protection.
So, no, Senator McCain is way off base on this one -- Wolf.
BLITZER: Michael, when Senator McCain says that there are at least some areas of Baghdad where people can walk around and -- whether it's General Petraeus, the U.S. military commander, or others, are there at least some areas where you could emerge outside of the Green Zone, the international zone, where people can go out, go to a coffee shop, go to a restaurant, and simply take a stroll?
WARE: I can answer this very quickly, Wolf. No. No way on earth can a westerner, particularly an American, stroll any street of this capital of more than five million people.
I mean, if al Qaeda doesn't get wind of you, or if one of the Sunni insurgent groups don't descend upon you, or if someone doesn't tip off a Shia militia, then the nearest criminal gang is just going to see dollar signs and scoop you up. Honestly, Wolf, you'd barely last 20 minutes out there.
I don't know what part of Neverland Senator McCain is talking about when he says we can go strolling in Baghdad.
BLITZER: What about this vote? The tug-of-war, the political battle unfolding here in the Senate. The House of Representatives calling for some sort of timeline for a withdrawal of combat forces.
How does this play out in Baghdad? What do people there where you are, Michael, say about this?
WARE: Well, on the ground, it barely passes without a flicker. Of course, people take notes of the domestic politics back in D.C., in the United States. But honestly, that seems so far removed from the reality here on the ground.
People are still dying in the dozens every single day. There may be a security crackdown, but al Qaeda's suicide car bombers are still getting through. And we're finding 20, 30 tortured, executed bodies on the streets of the capital every morning, and American troops continue to die every day.
And just this afternoon, we've seen a double suicide truck bomb attack, followed by ground infantry assault by al Qaeda launched against an American position. Now, that was repelled, but eight American boys were wounded in the process.
Do you think anyone enduring that is paying attention to artificial deadlines that are going to get vetoed by the president? And even if they were to pass through the legislative process, would only serve al Qaeda and Iran, America's enemies? No. People are focusing on the near game -- Wolf.
BLITZER: Michael Ware reporting for us from Baghdad.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0703/27/sitroom.02.html
So there.....
>>>We were attacked on 9/11 and the President responded. He said it was going to be a long war and take a very long time. He didn't lie about anything.<<<
Thanks for finally removing any doubt on whether you're a real poster or a discount gop plant. The things you say are so incredibly stupid that if they were your real thoughts I doubt you'd be able to operate a computer.
>>>I will forgive Colin Powell. I have done the wrong thing for the right reason before.<<<
No argument on the wrong thing but what was the right reason for what he did?
>>>traditional European populations will be minorities in their own countries by mid-century<<<
Not unlike what cubans are accomplishing in south Florida and mexicans in southern California. Is it imperialism (The policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations.) or natural consequences of lax immigration policies?
>>>Is he related to Kate O'Beirne<<<
He's her husband.
This is what happens when loyalty to the king trumps real credentials for the job. Who's counting the clueless fools he's been surrounding himself with anymore? Not even the reconstruction in Iraq was spared:
"After Saddam Hussein’s government was removed from power in April 2003, the effort of “reconstruction” in Iraq attracted many Americans. However, before any American could go to Baghdad they had to make it through Jim O-Beirne’s screening process at the Pentagon. Applicants needed not be experts in Middle Eastern affairs or in post-conflict reconstruction. In fact, the most important qualification for these applicants was that they were loyal to Bush.
Applicants were openly asked who they voted for in the 2000 elections, and whether they support the way the “war on terror” was being waged. Two applicants were even asked their views on Roe v. Wade. Consequently, this politically exclusive screening process resulted in a staff that was more concerned with remaking Iraq in the image of a conservative United States than with the CPA’s stated goals of strengthening Iraq’s army and police forces and increasing electricity production."
http://www.jwharrison.com/blog/2006/09/21/iraq-reconstruction-loyalty-to-gop-more-important-than-ski...
>>>it is a step by step process -- note that Bush always says that our leaving Iraq is based on the condition that
"the rights of all Iraqis are secure under the rule of law"<<<
In other words, current hostile elements within muslim populations will no longer be hostile to americans once they feel "secure under the rule of law"? Sounds good until you take a moment to think it over and then recognize that it has exactly nothing to do with reality.
>>>"BUSH AFFIRMS SUPPORT FOR GONZALES"<<<
Sounds ominous....
Gonzales is toast. This ought to do it.
"The Nov. 27 meeting, in which the attorney general and at least five top Justice Department officials participated, focused on a five-step plan for carrying out the firings of the prosecutors, Justice Department officials said late Friday.
There, Gonzales signed off on the plan, which was crafted by his chief of staff, Kyle Sampson. Sampson resigned last week amid a political firestorm surrounding the firings.
The documents indicated that the hour-long morning discussion, held in the attorney general's conference room, was the only time Gonzales met with top aides who decided which prosecutors to fire and how to do it.
On March 13, in explaining the firings, Gonzales told reporters he was aware that some of the dismissals were being discussed but was not involved in them.
"I knew my chief of staff was involved in the process of determining who were the weak performers — where were the districts around the country where we could do better for the people in that district, and that's what I knew," Gonzales said last week. "But that is in essence what I knew about the process; was not involved in seeing any memos, was not involved in any discussions about what was going on. That's basically what I knew as the attorney general."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/23/politics/main2604296.shtml
Just by chance this comes out hours after his chief of staff agrees to spill the beans in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Fredo ok'd USA firings 4 months ago
"Attorney General Alberto Gonzales approved plans to fire several U.S. attorneys in a November meeting, according to documents released Friday that contradict earlier claims that he was not closely involved in the dismissals."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/23/politics/main2604296.shtml
Any further arguments over why these creeps need to be sworn in before testifying?
You're arguing against yourself here. First you say "Islamic ruled countries" are the real enemy and then you praise Iraq which like it or not is under Islamic rule as a beacon of freedom and joy.
>>>It is Islamofacism i.e. Islamic ruled countries<<
Like Iraq after 4 years of "reform" and 2 elections?
>>>what I know is that it is not possible to win the GWOT without taking out the Iranian regime with a shock and awe campaign<<<
I know I've asked you this before so either I forgot what you said or your answer was not constructive. If you accept that Al Qaeda is the primary enemy and that they have cells in 100 countries, how will an attack on selective Iranian targets be helpful?
I'm not assuming anything. If it wasn't clear, my question applied to a case where the brits DID enter Iranian territory. They've done it in the past.
"In June 2004, six British marines and two sailors were seized by Iran in the Shatt al-Arab. They were presented blindfolded on Iranian television and admitted entering Iranian waters illegally, then released unharmed after three days."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/23/world/main2600191.shtml
What's the rationale here trader? Why is it ok for americans to arrest Iranians in Iraq but Iranians can't touch anyone who enters their territory? This is not a matter of defending Iran but to question why they in your opinion don't have a right to defend their borders?
US military says 5 Iranians arrested in Iraq have ties to Revolutionary Guard. Tehran calls for release of 'diplomats,' compensation for damage
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=2&article_id=78544
dead as a performer but last I heard alive as Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, George Bush cheerleader.
excellent.......evangelist and Bush republican Pat Boone now in "metal mood". Why didn't somebody stop this?
>>>a very weak horse for the congress to ride in a contest with the executive branch<<<
Maybe so but at what political cost? Refusing to comply with 3 lousy subpoenas for the purpose of investigating possible corruption of the justice system pretty much guarantees some comparisons with the past. Like this:
Back in the mid-1990s, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, aggressively delving into alleged misconduct by the Clinton administration, logged 140 hours of sworn testimony into whether former president Bill Clinton had used the White House Christmas card list to identify potential Democratic donors.
The government reform panel alone, for example, issued 1,052 subpoenas related to investigations of the Clinton administration and the Democratic National Committee from 1997 to 2002, and only 11 subpoenas related to allegations of Republican abuse.
The panel received more than 2 million pages of documents and heard from 44 Clinton administration officials, including two White House chiefs of staff, according to statistics culled by Democratic staff on the Government Reform Committee.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/11/20/congress_reduces_its_oversight_role...
What's the defense from the WH again? Political games?
>>>eight people have eight different ideas of what they heard, saw, did, thought, about anything happening of importance about firing eight US attorneys Bush fired them get over it<<<
You're putting up a good fight hap but I'm afraid only you and eddie really think you're making a good point. The testimony of the fired attorneys probably ranks dead last on the list of reasons this is being discussed at all. Chew on this for a while instead: 7 of the 8 were working on corruption cases, most if not all had recent favorable performance reviews, one was mentioned in internal WH emails as "trouble" and another one was pressured into prosecuting democrats in advance of the November election. Sorry but I won't get over this until Rove, Meyers and "Fredo" testify under oath about this "non-story".
>>>why isn't Cheney getting treated at Walter Reed?<<<
Compassion........save the best resources for wounded troops. Lynne will tell you that's just the kind of guy he is.
>>>but numerous people involved have different understandings and memories (and positions)<<<
We're talking about the WH's involvement in general now - not about certain individual's specific statements. First they said there was no WH involvement period, then as the emails started leaking the well......uh I guess.....ahem, maybe someone said routine started. At least they've finally figured out it's better to just shut up and regroup than to spray poorly rehearsed lies all over DC.
and a proven liar which is why "just trust him" isn't working now.
>>>why is it unreasonable to ask witnesses to be sworn in?<<<
It would seem especially reasonable to swear Karl Rove in since he just escaped fresh lies to the WH press secretary and possibly a grand jury about his role in the CIA leak.
gotta tell you eddie........I ask myself how long before it gets embarrassing for those who have spent the past 6 years making excuses for the most amazing collection of idiots behaving badly the country ever saw in high office. At this point one has to assume there is no pain threshold. Anyway..........as for the CIA leak I'd be interested to hear your opinion on this: All the leak suspects......Libby, Rove and Armitage have testified to the fact that they didn't know what Plame's CIA status was. In other words...........they had to assume that she could be covert and that throwing her name around may not serve the country's best interests, especially at a time of war. But they didn't care........for reasons many don't understand.
Point is........even if criminal behavior can never be established, what does it say for the character of Rove, Libby and Armitage to gossip about what they surely understood was a possible covert CIA agent and what does it say for the character of the whole Bush community who think absolutely nothing of it if they don't go all out and defend it?
>>>Again, quoting people who were fired isn't really conclusive.<<<
Exactly, which is why they don't rely upon that alone.......as you should know. They're using testimony from the fired people along with WH communications, case history and performance reviews.
>>>won't you concede that the dems motivation here is at least partly political in their desire for a hearing with Rove??<<<
Of course it is, just like republicans trying to get hearings with Clinton for political purposes. Both sides had legal issues to back it up with though, some more legitimate than others but still good enough excuses for public consumption.
>>>these inconsistent statements are evidence of obstruction of justice.<<<
Not totally out of line. They were asked what happened and gave a different account each time they were asked until 4 days later, facts (emails) caught up with them and they red faced - closed the door shut. What word describes that behavior better: cooperation or obstruction?
>>>I haven't seen any concrete evidence of this. Please provide links<<<
"Concrete evidence" is what you get from investigating and from honest testimony which is what's being suggested.
None of this seems suspect to you?
"But one of the fired U.S. attorneys is from San Diego. Feinstein said Carol Lam was fired after she sent a notice to the Justice Department that she had a case against Dusty Foggo, a defense contractor.
"The next day, an e-mail went from the Justice Department to the White House saying 'We have a real problem with Carol Lam"
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/18/ftn/main2581974.shtml?source=RSSattr=Politics_2581974
"In an interview Tuesday, Iglesias said the two lawmakers called him about a well-known criminal investigation involving a Democratic legislator.
Iglesias said the lawmakers who called him seemed focused on whether charges would be filed before the November elections. He said the calls made him feel "pressured to hurry the subsequent cases and prosecutions"
An eighth prosecutor, in Little Rock, also was removed in December, to make room for a former aide to presidential adviser Karl Rove."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/28/AR2007022801502_2.html
>>>that doesn't change the legal fact that he can fire tham legally whenever he chooses<<<
For poor judicial performance........not for failing to carry political water.
>>>Again, even if the firings were politically motivated and coordinated from the WH, how is that illegal??<<<
First off, if a president feels like firing US attorney's he's expected to do so at the time he takes office - not 2 years later because they prosecute political friends or don't prosecute political foes. How's that illegal? Not sure exactly how the crime would be defined but as usual with Bush it has to do with pissing on the constitution. Here:
"The Right to a fair trial is an essential right in all countries respecting the rule of law. It is explicitly proclaimed in Article Ten of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Sixth Amendment of the US Constitution, and Article Six of the European Convention of Human Rights, as well as numerous other constitutions and declarations throughout the world."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_a_fair_trial
So my question to you is: How can you have fair trials if prosecutors are intimidated by the White House in terms of who they should go after and who should be left alone?