Discussion in 'Law and Justice System' started by JimH52, May 22, 2008.
Good. Now if he doesn't appear they issue an "inherent contempt" charge. Then he can be picked up and put in jail until he decides to talk.
Why is it that none of these Bush folks can be asked to be sworn in and speak under oath? What are they afraid of?
I will come and talk, but you can't swear me in and you can't record what I say. What a crock of crap.
Are they concerned that they might Clinton themselves if sworn in?
When Bush appeared before them, he brought unka Dick with him. They set the same bullshit conditions.
Well, they know what *they* did to Clinton and what they used it for.
Better watch this.....................http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/327.html
Ok, so why won't the Democratic Leadership let this go? The President has the privilege of hiring and firing in this area.
The Democrats NEVER mention why Former President William J. Clinton (D) fired all 93 US Attorney's in March of 1993. No reason was given, other than the Former President wanted new ones.
However, when President George Bush (R) fired 9 US Attorney's for the same reasons given, all of a sudden there is wrong-doing. Dems want hearings. Dems want justice. The "Blame George Bush" crowd is beating a dead horse here. There is no reason the Democrats need to know any more information. The President was unhappy with those people, and DID HIS JOB by firing people and getting new ones.
Now, about Gov. Don Siegelman. He was corrupt. The affidavits given on what Rove said about this issue have more holes in them than swiss cheese. There are quotes like "I was misquoted" or "You took it the wrong way" or "He may or may not have said that." Siegelman was found to be corrupt. The Investigation into his corruption was launched in 1999 by the Clinton Administration anyway. Why do we keep going back to this stuff?
If you cant figure out why congress's approval ratings are some of the lowest in history, here is one of the reasons why..... unwarrented investigations into nothing to make Republicans look guilty of nothing....
What's sad is that you can't understand the difference between every president asking for the resignations of all attorneys general upon coming into office... and firing specific attorneys general because they won't use their job to advance the purposes of a political party's electoral agenda.
Good luck. The Bush administration has been ridiculously secretive.
Bottom line: If you have done nothing illegal or unethical, then you have nothing to worry about.
Why did Mr. Clinton wait until March? He found that the Attorney's Bush Sr and Regan appointed were not to his liking.
There is no issue here. I don't ask why Clinton fired them. I don't ask why President Bush fired them. They are all part of the President's administration and it is the President's job to make sure those people are doing their jobs according to Constitutional or Lawful guidelines.
The Democratic Run Congress is out to investigate nothing and waste a lot of money and time. The Administration is doing the nation a favor by telling them no, they are saving money and time that the Dem's would waste otherwise.
There is nothing to hide here. The only reason this is an issue is because Democrats said something, unlike when Clinton fired them, there was silence.
Neither of them did anything wrong in this situation.
In layman's terms, it's just more partisan witchhunting. It really doesn't matter what anyone before Bush did. All that matters is slinging crap against the wall in hopes something will stick.
I wouldn't care if Congress held me in contempt of Congress. At least they'd have gotten something right for once.
The difference is firing US attorneys for prosecuting Republicans and not for prosecuting Democrats. They serve at "the pleasure of the president", but its not acceptable for the president to direct them who to prosecute based on the political affiliation of the individual under investigation.
By the way Maneal, you got some of your facts wrong.
Clinton didn't fire the US attorneys. They resigned, as they always do, at the beginning of a presidents term. Firing them in the middle of the term for SPECIFIC decisions is unprecedented.
Also, Clinton didn't keep the attorney's because it is tradition to get new ones at the beginning of each new administration.
Bush fired people HE himself had hired. And why? Its obviously NOT the same as Clinton's reasons. In fact Bush gave a series of reasons that were contradictory. That and a series of administration officials ended up resigning over the incident.
Maneal, you said its the president's responsibility to make sure they are doing their job? Tell me how they were failing at their job. Many of them had stellar job performance records. How exactly were they failing?
Saying that this was the same as Clinton's US attorneys is pure ignorance.
Separate names with a comma.