Politics – A House panel on Wednesday defied the White House and authorized subpoenas for President Bush's political adviser, Karl Rove and other top aides, setting up a constitutional showdown over the firings of eight federal prosecutors.
Not a member? Sign-up today!
jenniferknowels
getbackerzoo
fyuuuuut
soulkeeper009
rhettdejesus1975
adamhowe1980
mekhifranks1975
rontravel
maneetion
big-ass
stalker20
x-investor
keeper23
bluetexasvalley
round-up
roughtouch
grisha5
IdaTRange
CleoKFletcher
dr_martin
spikogram
woodywood20
DianeSBlack
WilliamKTurner
AngelMCain
JohnCKent
misterkju
fuzzylog
KedoZhopiy
NormanSWofford
followme
stwor
tsigun.tsigun
wgreat69
firstname.lastname
Leannder
nccneon
uncogito
Alexey
cosmogenium
Lisistra
Barney39
kreotel
klutcher
savitr
ishmuga
klon75
joseph.murphy
lovingu
popbob
607)
Here comes the showdown that Bush has promised.
This is more fun than Disneyland!
-V-
?Why has the new govt not done anything but pass non-binding resolutions and investigate everything known to man. I am not a real con, I just want ppl to do things that were promised and get ****** done. So far the dems have not done anything that they promised and done everything that they said ther wouldnt. At least they could do is get the mininium wage passed! Maybe, even, defund the war. Investigate all You Want, you will probally find something, but get something done that really matters to us the people, the REAL AMERICANS!!
face it bro, you were lied to, and you bought it hook, line, and sinker
Anbd I seem to recall there being an impeachment for abuse of powers wasn't it?
From the keyboard to god's eyes!
I want to see Bush/Cheney taken down!
Thats fine to me, if someone can prove something
These people are no better than any of us. They should have to face the music just like any of us would have to do. PERIOD!!
>These people are no better than any of us.
You`re giving these arseholes way too much credit. They are much worse than any of us. They deserve to rot in prison and in hell.
I would just like to point out that the Clintons fired all 93 attorneys in March of 03, and gave them 10 days to get out. This is just more BS by the left to take down the Bush administration. Bush should have just told the left to go pound sand, but for some reason decided to play along with their stupid games.
President's are allowed to fire US attorneys at the start of their term and replace them with their own appointees. All of the recent presidents have done this (Clinton, Bush the Elder, Reagan, Ford, Carter, Nixon, etc. ) The difference is that Clinton and all the others got Senate approval on each and every one of those attorneys.
Clinton never fired a federal prosecutor for political reasons. THAT is the difference.
If they weren't fired for political reason then why? Clinton was the first president to fire all 93 attorneys at one time.
"Equally extraordinary were the politics at play in the firings. At the time, Jay Stephens, then U.S. Attorney in the District of Columbia, was investigating then Ways and Means Chairman Dan Rostenkowski, and was "within 30 days" of making a decision on an indictment. Mr. Rostenkowski, who was shepherding the Clinton's economic program through Congress, eventually went to jail on mail fraud charges and was later pardoned by Mr. Clinton."
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.ht
Your comment doesn't make any sense.
Rostenkowski WAS indicted in 1994, not 1993, so his case was obviously CONTINUED by the new federal prosecutors into the House mail fraud scandal. Also, Rostenkowski pleaded GUILTY to charges of mail fraud, and then served 15 months of his 17 month sentence.
Clinton only pardoned him in 2001, several years AFTER he had already served his jail time.
So where is the corruption?
Never mentioned anything about corruption. Only that it would take the heat off Clinton before anything happened.
"Never mentioned anything about corruption. Only that it would take the heat off Clinton before anything happened."
But the case CONTINUED being investigated while Clinton was STILL IN OFFICE!! Rostenkowski was investigated, indicted, charged, tried, and convicted while Clinton was STILL IN OFFICE!!!
What the hell is your point?
His point is that Clinton got a bj in the oval office.
jealous???
No I'm not jealous. I'm a Democrat.
I'm jealous. Not because of Monica, but to do it in the Oval office. Now thats cool.
And he didn't!
Oh no!
Yeah and George W. Bush has screwed this whole country into the deck so hard we may never recover. I see most of the right wing nuts still pull Clinton out when they have nothing else to say. I hate to tell you there butt-monkey but that was done before GWB took office.
Nice try at mis-direction but it doesn't work.
Oh and in case you forgot to look Bill Clinton has better poll numbers NOW than does George W. Bush.
I can't help but think that your head must be inserted in your rectum.
Fan of Karl Rove I presume.
"I see most of the right wing nuts still pull Clinton out when they have nothing else to say."
-It's to easy. You could almost say instead of telling us to not bring up Clinton, that we should do as you say, not as you do.
Its a good trick. By trying to get everyone to ignore the past you eliminate the things that can be used against you.
"What the hell is your point?"
The point is that it would have looked much worse for Clinton had he still been working for Clinton. Doesn't take much to figure that out. Clinton fired them for political reasons along with every other president.
Who is the "he" you're talking about? Because if it's the prosecutor, then your point makes no sense because the case went on anyway, and Rostenkowski was CONVICTED. WHILE Clinton was still in office.
Do you read, or are you just assuming I said something I didn't?
Okay, then be specific. Who were you referring to?
Wrong Bozo as previously stated all recent presidents including your beloved BUSH fired all 93 at the start of their term.
None of the others including Bush Sr fired any during their administration for failing to follow and support administration political goals as this current incident appears to cover.
Bozo, I said the first, learn to read.
Ian, if you had done your research, you would see that Clinton fired thirty of his newly appointed attorneys during his administration. This came AFTER he fired the initial 93! This is a non issue. Every president has the right to fire his/her attorneys for any reason he/she sees fit.
Wow, a negative vote for postint the truth. I guess it does hurt Ian.
>...you would see that Clinton fired thirty of his newly appointed attorneys during his administration.
All 30 fired, or did they (some?) just resign/get promoted/etc while Clinton was in office. This totally smells like a right-wing talking point consciously worded to suggest something that didn`t happen.
Not saying he didn`t fire any, but since their replacements were approved by the Senate and no investigations were hindered or created due to that, it doesn`t really matter.
Another poster later in this thread says that there were only 3 attorneys fired in 25 years before dumbya. Some one is cooking the books.
All 30 fired, or did they (some?) just resign/get promoted/etc while Clinton was in office.
Good point!! Its true Webster L. Hubbell did resign.........before he went to prison!!
tang is full of beans as per usual...clinton did fire the original 93 but he didnt later fire 30 more...like 3 got fired for misconduct...all i remember is one bit a dancer lol
Another of your lies.Did you shove a radio up your ass to get Republican talking points injected directly into your brain?
EVERY president from Eisenhower on;(and quite a few before then) has replaced the appointees from the previous administration.This is referred to as "house-cleaning": and is a tradition.
Come on, if you are gonna lie, at least make it entertaining....
Prove me wrong. It was always gradual before Clinton.
"Did you shove a radio up your ass to get Republican talking points injected directly into your brain?"
-My ass is smarter than you, it even looked on the internet for the information.
"Prove me wrong. It was always gradual before Clinton."
Nope, it wasn't. It was always gradual before BUSH.
As insideoutgraphics posted later in this thread:
"The Congressional Research Service has confirmed how unprecedented these firings are. It found that of 486 U.S. attorneys confirmed since 1981, perhaps no more than three were forced out in similar ways - three in 25 years, compared with seven in recent months
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/03/2
Oh man you proved me wrong. Crap. If your source is as good as your link to it, I have nothing to worry about.
okay, sorrt about that. the link is
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/03/2
And this is still better than the link theido provided. Which is nonexistent.
Chimper fired all of Clinton's appointees too, if I'm not mistaken. The reason this is so suspicious is because he's let so many go at once--midstream.
Ryan,
Why the hell did Clinton, after firing all 93 attorneys, fire thirty more throughout his administration? You morons seem to think this was ok for Clinton, but not Bush. Hypocrites! That's what you all are. Every last one of you. Yoou saying that they only have the power to fire them at the start of their term, is almost as much bs as you saying Clinton never fired any of them for political reasons. During his first term Clinton fired one of his prosecutors that had recently put in jail an ally of the Clinton administration. After firing him, he pardoned the recently convicted criminal. Why is that ok? How can you libs be so blind? You should be furious with your newly elected congress, that so far they have done nothing but waste time and money. I can't wait till us adults are back in control.
"During his first term Clinton fired one of his prosecutors that had recently put in jail an ally of the Clinton administration. After firing him, he pardoned the recently convicted criminal. Why is that ok?"
Who are you talking about? Rostenkowski? Cause I've already addressed that one. Read above.
The issue is not that the President fired US attornies. The issue is WHY they were fired. Even if I were to concede that Clinton also fired a US attorney for political reasons, THAT DOESN"T MAKE IT OKAY FOR BUSH TO DO IT ALSO!!
Didn't your mother ever teach you that two wrongs don't make a right?
Your argument is like saying that Carter had the right to spy on the GOP because Nixon did it to the Dems. Grow up!!
It does! That is his right. To hire and fire these attorneys for any reason.
Wrong. The president does not have the right to fire US attornies if, for example, the purpose of the firing is to impede an ongoing investigation, as it appears to be the case with the firing of Carol Lam.
That my friend is obstruction of justice.
"Didn't your mother ever teach you that two wrongs don't make a right?"
-Didn't your mother tell you that you shouldn't listen to hypocrits?
So you're argument is basically that if a president commits a crime, it would be okay for a future president to commit the same crime, because it had been done by another president.
You have some f-ed up logic.
after WHY, then the issue will be WHEN they were fired, then HOW, then Who, etc. I would call it strategy and maintenance. In little league football everyone gets to play not so in high school, college and the pros. From what little I know of government it's an "A-game" game. If you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem.
Ryan601
Clueless
President's are allowed to fire US attorneys at the start of their term and replace them with their own appointees.
State the law that says a President is ONLY allowed to fire US attorneys at the start of their term? Can't find it? That's because it does not exist. US attorneys can be replaced at any time for any reason including no reason at all.
All of the recent presidents have done this (Clinton, Bush the Elder, Reagan, Ford, Carter, Nixon, etc.)
Untrue, Only Clinton fired almost all 92 out of 93 US attorneys at the START of his term. Other Pres have replaced all or most US attorneys over the course of their terms. Again it is up to the Pres admin as to whom and when, and that is perfectly legal
Ryan601
Clueless
The difference is that Clinton and all the others got Senate approval on each and every one of those attorneys.
Untrue, Clinton did not seek, get or even need Senate approval before he fired all 92 US attorneys.
Clinton never fired a federal prosecutor for political reasons. THAT is the difference.
Untrue. ALL of the US attorneys were replaced for political reasons, that's kinda why a Pres CAN replace US attorneys, it's a political APPOINTMENT!! ALL POLITICAL appointments are by any definition ARE POLITICAL!!