Firecracker Alert !!! - "I DO NOT Serve At The Pleasure Of The President !"

[WillyT]

I'm one to check out what the collective doofi at Faux News are up to on any given day, and boy, am I glad I tuned in this morning. They had an interview with Sharon Eubanks, career prosecutor form the Justice Department. She is the one who was determined by the WH to be asking for too much money in the government's case against Big Tobacco. You know, where the government stepped in, re-wrote her closing argument, and made her read it verbatim???

Well... is she a pistol? Ole Chrissy Wallace wasn't quite sure what to do with her, and man, he did not land a glove on her. Near the end of the interview, he asked her how her case relates to the other prosecutor woes ongoing in the DOJ, and she said nice and firm and clear, "I DO NOT serve at the pleasure of the President!"

No transcript or video yet at FNS, YouTube, or CrooksAndLiars, but I just sent an e-mail to C&L asking them to be on the lookout, and to please post. I will kick this up again, if I find the segment anywhere.

G'Mornin y'all!!!

:bounce::hi::bounce:

[Drum]

1. Glad to hear of this!

Thanks WillyT!

:thumbsup:

[SaveAmerica]

2. Someone needs to start a list of those heroes who do not serve

at the 'pleasure'(gag) of the president!! Thanks for the info, I didn't see that program.

[peacetalksforall]

3. At the pleasure - means MY WAY or HIGHWAY or it means

DO IT MY WAY, THE THIEVES WAY or it could mean THE POOF WAY.

[MissWaverly]

4. I watched it too and thought she was fab

hoping that she will testify before congress, the fact they wrote her closing argument,
should be enough to have the case reheard in my layman's opinion.

:-)

[Justice Is Comin]

6. What about the fact that they wanted her to

have witnesses change their testimony? Wow, that's the hay maker if she'll say that under oath.

[MissWaverly]

7. well, I heard of a case that was thrown out over a typo

and I remember that jurors are not supposed to be exposed to any information that would
bias their judgment, how about the prosecutor? Isn't he supposed to be judging guilt
based on the evidence and not what someone in the backroom is whispering in his ear?

Isn't that what everyone wants, a fair trial, and isn't that what is guaranteed in the
constitution.

[Supersedeas]

15. I'll second that.

[kenny blankenship]

5. But Chris knows how to serve at the pleasure of the President. He knows what Presidents like.

Republican Presidents. Oooh yeah dirty, dirty things. You won't hear him say "I DO NOT SERVE!" Make me do them Mr. President, make me do it again, that's what he says.

[MissWaverly]

8. remember Fox survives by appealing to the little guy

they will not keep their audience by saying the attorneys can be influenced by power jockeys, half their audience share is watching Judge Judy and Judge Hatchett.

[WillyT]

9. Found This Video: CBS News Eye To Eye W\ Bob Scheiffer

"I would be more comfortable if you would refer to them as my supervisors, not my superiors."

:rofl:

Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IuzXs71ZWW0

Still looking for this morning's on FAUX.

:shrug:

[progressoid]

14. Holy crap.

That's stunning.

[WillyT]

10. TRANSCRIPT IS HERE:

<snip>

WALLACE: Now, Ms. Eubanks, the Office of Professional Responsibility, which conducts internal reviews in the Justice Department, looked at these allegations, and here's what they concluded.

And let's put it up on the screen, "Actions in seeking and directing changes in the remedies sought were not influenced by any political considerations, but rather were based on good-faith efforts to obtain remedies from the district court that would be sustainable on appeal."

In effect, OPR, the Office of Professional Responsibility, said your bosses did nothing wrong.

EUBANKS: Well, let's talk about that. The fact is that that's not an independent office. In the first place, Capitol Hill asked the inspector general to look into matters. The inspector general at the department is an independent office.

But the people in OPR, the Office of Professional Responsibility — they report up through the chain, either in fact or certainly in effect, because I had problems with the investigation myself. And I called up the so-called target of the investigation, Robert McCallum, told him about those.

And do you know what he told me? "You know what? I will call Marshall Garrett and I will take care of that for you." That's not in the report.

Furthermore, I was interviewed for an entire day for that OPR report. Not once did they ask about the e-mail exchange between the White House and the Justice Department which I was on. Not one question. It's a whitewash. That's what that is.

WALLACE: And very briefly, what was in the e-mail exchanges? Is there something significant there?

EUBANKS: Yes, it was. After the announcement of the reduction in the amount sought came about, there was a lot of furor from the press. Everyone started asking questions.

So the response that the department had was they wanted to do an op-ed for a newspaper. In this case it turned out to be USA Today.

Robert McCallum was drafting it, and he was sending his draft over to the White House, taking their edits and their remarks and putting it together for the reason why this happened.

<snip>

Link: http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,261052,00.html

Still hoping for video... no luck so far.

[WillyT]

11. Oh... And:

<snip>

WALLACE: We have about 30 seconds left. Do you see some connection between your experience and what happened with the U.S. attorneys?

EUBANKS: Yes. I don't serve at the pleasure of the president, and most of the people who work at the department don't. But they're being interfered with every day in their work.

<snip>

Link: same as above

Just to correct the record, LOL!!!

:shrug:

[guruoo]

12. Sorry, dupe. n/t

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IuzXs71ZWW0

[WillyT]

13. What A Drag... Ain't Finding Any Video...

apparently... nobody finds Faux News worth recording.

:shrug:

[Marie26]

16. Video is up at Fox News Sunday site:

It's on the front page under "Today's Features" -

Fired 'Tobacco' Prosecutor
Sharon Eubanks alleges government limited her case against 'big tobacco'

http://www.foxnews.com/fns/

Maybe someone can post this to YouTube? She has some explosive charges here.