Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Truthmatters, Jun 11, 2007.
I found Bj Clinton's blow job being done in the oval office, and then him lying about it Appalling....
I could care less if Gonzales goes..
But....I find Metcalfe's article a little suspicious..
He sure didn't have a problem when Clinton fired all the prosecutors... at the beginning of his Presidency....
I think you need to do more reading on the subject.
This Firing was unprecidented.
You see it IS kinda tradition to replace them all upon entering office and Bush and Clinton both did that.
What is unprecidented is to them Fire them again because they did not prosicute what you wanted them to.
There is ample evidence that this was done in a partisan manner.
Now I do think Clintons BJ had nothing to do with partisan politics although the pursuit of the case against him did.
If you think the two cases are in any way simular than you have a microscopic understanding of the law.
I think you need to do a little more reading on the subject. The attorney's serve at the pleasure of the President. He is free to hire and fire them as he sees fit.
The fact Bush did so mid-term is neither unprecedented, nor unlawful. It's really as simple as that.
go read up gunny you are wrong
"dismissal of U.S. Attorneys controversy is an ongoing political dispute initiated by the unprecedented dismissal of seven United States Attorneys by the George W. Bush administration on December 7, 2006 "
"In contrast to the 2006 dismissals, Presidents rarely dismiss U.S. attorneys they appoint. Kyle Sampson, Chief of Staff at the Department of Justice, noted in a January 9, 2006, e-mail to Harriet Miers: "In recent memory, during the Reagan and Clinton Administrations, Presidents Reagan and Clinton did not seek to remove and replace U.S. Attorneys they had appointed, but instead permitted such U.S. Attorneys to serve indefinitely under the holdover provision." (underlining original). There is no precedent for a President to dismiss several U.S attorneys at one time while in the middle of their terms."
also from the above link
Afraid not. Just more of your left-wing ka-ka.
These actions are also illegal if it is proven it was done to stop investigations or promote false charges.
Both cases have very compelling evidence turning up.
Numbers are irrelevant. You aren't listening. The attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President. They are political appointees, plain and simple. They can be dismissed for whatever reason the President sees fit.
This isn't that hard; yet, you choose to make more of it than is there in your neverending quest to point a finger at the right.
Separate names with a comma.