- Joined
- Aug 26, 2007
- Messages
- 50,241
- Reaction score
- 19,243
- Location
- San Antonio Texas
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Not familiar with the "pleasuring the President" exception to a validly issued subpoena....must have something to do with that "responsible for nothing....accountable to no one" philosophy of the last decade.
Transcript of Media Availability with Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales (03-13-07)Secondly, the Attorney General, all political appointees, such as U.S. Attorneys, serve at the pleasure of the President of the United States.
The perverse joke in all this is... these are political appointments. Clinton fired the whole bunch. It is all about nothing but the Democrats producing another Stalinist show trial.Serving "at the pleasure of the President" is not a blank check that involves firing them to stop investigations on Republican corruption or because they refuse to dug up dirt on Democrats where none exists. He can fire them because the sky is blue, that's fine, but if he fires them in order to stop an investigation then that is obstruction of justice!
Featured Article - WSJ.comAs everyone once knew but has tried to forget, Mr. Hubbell was a former partner of Mrs. Clinton at the Rose Law Firm in Little Rock who later went to jail for mail fraud and tax evasion. He was also Bill and Hillary Clinton's choice as Associate Attorney General in the Justice Department when Janet Reno, his nominal superior, simultaneously fired all 93 U.S. Attorneys in March 1993. Ms. Reno--or Mr. Hubbell--gave them 10 days to move out of their offices.
Obviously you have no idea about Stalin, communism, socialism, I dare say you don't understand democracy either. If someone commits an act that may be illegal, it's supposed to be looked into. Nixon was wrong, when the president does it, it CAN be illegal.I like that this is how the Marxist/Stalinists define "Change".
"Change has come to Washington..." John Conyers.
Let the libs launch their war against the Bush administration. Trying to take out their political opposition is the only one they have interest in waging and staying true to.
"Change".
It will be both interesting and fun to watch the Stalinists try to criminalize political decisions and decision makers. That is their definition of "hope".
"Hope".
My bet is the Marxist/Stalinists will end up with the egg on their faces.
And the enemies of the world watch this with amusement, cheering the Stalinists on.
That is the "Unite" element. Tie their goals to those of America's enemies.
"Unite".
The perverse joke in all this is... these are political appointments. Clinton fired the whole bunch. It is all about nothing but the Democrats producing another Stalinist show trial.
(PS> You folks are concerned about steriods in sports, but can't get the gumption to look into Fannie and Freddie? How about some real hearings with teeth?)
Featured Article - WSJ.com
Investigating the Firing of Nine U.S. Attorneys: A federal investigation into the firings of nine U.S. attorneys in 2006 by the Bush administration has determined that the firings were "unsystematic and arbitrary, with little oversight by the attorney general, the deputy attorney general, or any other senior department official." Despite the fact that the Justice Department's inspector general and the Office of Professional Responsibility produced a 358-page report, they conclude that more investigation is needed because key witnesses such as Karl Rove and Harriet Miers refused to be interviewed. The report recommended that Attorney General Michael Mukasey appoint a special counsel to determine any criminality. Mukasey followed through on Monday by naming Nora Dannehy, the acting U.S. attorney in Connecticut, to continue the inquiry.
Hot Docs: Investigating the Firing of U.S. Attorneys, Poll on Bailout, Campaign Whoppers - US News and World Report
Why would you care one iota about what happens to those in the Bush admin? It's not like they were ever on your side, unless you still support their brand of republicanism... Are you still a Bushy? One of the 23%?Good try.
Actions speak for themselves.
If you use Marxist economic ideas, you are a? Marxist.
If you use Stalinist tactics with your political opponents, you are a? Stalinist.
Were you this rabid when republicans were witch hunting Clinton?What do you see as a set back?
I see this as a benefit to the Republicans.
I encourage the likes of Conyers to immerse themselves in this endeavor.
Go for it.
Just do it.
I think it's a moronic Stalinist move that will backfire.
BFD that's what they always do. Bush fired almost all of Clinton's appointees and nobody cares because that's what they always do. This is different, and here's why:The perverse joke in all this is... these are political appointments. Clinton fired the whole bunch. It is all about nothing but the Democrats producing another Stalinist show trial.
(PS> You folks are concerned about steriods in sports, but can't get the gumption to look into Fannie and Freddie? How about some real hearings with teeth?)
Featured Article - WSJ.com
BFD that's what they always do. Bush fired almost all of Clinton's appointees and nobody cares because that's what they always do. This is different, and here's why:
1. These attorneys were Bush's own appointees, not Clinton's.
2. Some of them strongly believe that they were fired only because they refused to dig up criminal dirt on Democrats where none existed.
3. Some of them strongly believe that they were fired only because they refused to call off criminal investigations on Republicans.
4. The administration gave conflicting reasons why they were fired.
Now, if that doesn't convince you that at least an investigation is in order, then your bull**** detector is in serious need of calibration my friend.
Marxists and Stalinits are two different ideologies.
Jesus Christ.
BFD that's what they always do. Bush fired almost all of Clinton's appointees and nobody cares because that's what they always do. This is different, and here's why:
1. These attorneys were Bush's own appointees, not Clinton's.
2. Some of them strongly believe that they were fired only because they refused to dig up criminal dirt on Democrats where none existed.
3. Some of them strongly believe that they were fired only because they refused to call off criminal investigations on Republicans.
4. The administration gave conflicting reasons why they were fired.
Now, if that doesn't convince you that at least an investigation is in order, then your bull**** detector is in serious need of calibration my friend.
Speaking of witch hunts, I wonder how Don Siegleman is doing?
Why would you care one iota about what happens to those in the Bush admin? It's not like they were ever on your side, unless you still support their brand of republicanism...
Apparently you misunderstand the difference between your job at burger king and how and why a president can fire people.This has already been talked to death in a dozen other threads, but for what it's worth:
1) So? It's neither unprecedented nor a big deal.
2-3) So? If I ever get fired, I'll probably also think my boss is an incompetent ****head who fired me because I wouldn't do the dumb **** he wanted me to do .
4) So? They don't need a reason or an excuse.
Anyone who didn't resign after Bush's first term. yup.Right, anyone who ever served in the Bush Administration was an evil person who adhered to a particular "brand of republicanism."
Apparently you misunderstand the difference between your job at burger king and how and why a president can fire people.
Anyone who didn't resign after Bush's first term. yup.
Good try.
Actions speak for themselves.
If you use Marxist economic ideas, you are a? Marxist.
If you use Stalinist tactics with your political opponents, you are a? Stalinist.
Don't lie to me!...has a third different ideology.
lolwut?
1) I work at Wendy's, not Burger King. **** "flamebroiling."
2) Please explain to me what the differences are, I'd genuinely love to hear this.
3) I don't even know what you're trying to say.
Okay.
Now why doesn't this surprise me? LOL I guess I'd be stinging if my party were suffering set-backs as well.
This has already been talked to death in a dozen other threads, but for what it's worth:
1) So? It's neither unprecedented nor a big deal.
2-3) So? If I ever get fired, I'll probably also think my boss is an incompetent ****head who fired me because I wouldn't do the dumb **** he wanted me to do .
4) So? They don't need a reason or an excuse.
No, I'm consistent. I don't like it when Republicans waste the taxpayer's time and money with bull**** like this. Conyers is a fool.
The Impeachment didn't include Monica. Duhhhh!Inarguably is right! :2rofll: :2rofll: :2rofll: :2rofll: :2rofll:
Lying before Congress is a crime. Just FYI.
Who lied before Congress?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?