Karl Rove must be related to Rose Mary Woods

fhl · Apr 16, 2007

Quote from Alex_in_Oz:

Well it sure is fun watching the republicans and their supporters attempting to defend the indefensible!

The GOP just never in their wildest dreams (nightmares?) thought they would be held to account. ROFLMFAO!!!!!!

Where are the "Swiftboat Veterans" when you need them?

Don't need the swiftees this time. With or without Alberto, we'll still impose our theocracy on you.

kut2k2 · Apr 16, 2007

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

This is why the White House should not even attempt to cooperate with thugs like Leahy and Waxman. Their only interest is in partisan warfare.

Unlike the GOP Congress, right? No, wait, that's not right.

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

Firing US Attorneys is none of congress' business. Bush should have said that from the get go. If they file subpoenas, go to court and fight them. Clinton certainly used that option plenty.

Name one US attorney Clinton fired in the middle of his/her term.

AAAintheBeltway · Apr 16, 2007

Quote from kut2k2:

Unlike the GOP Congress, right? No, wait, that's not right.
Name one US attorney Clinton fired in the middle of his/her term.

Clinton fired every single US Attorney when he took over. One of them was investigating him, his wife and their real estate scandals. That's far more egregious than anything Bush has even been accused of.

Bottom line is a president can fire a US Attorney anytime he wants to. Too bad he didn't fire that asshole Johnnie Sutton, who has made an obssession of putting Border Patrol agents in prison. Wonder where his orders come from? But leave it to the democrats to miss the real scandal and concentrate on a manufactured one.

kut2k2 · Apr 19, 2007

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

Clinton fired every single US Attorney when he took over.

They ALL do. I said "fired IN THE MIDDLE of their terms."

Clinton fired none in the middle of their terms. Before Bush Jr., it was almost unheard of to do so. The few US Attorneys who were fired mid-term over all the previous US presidents were all guilty of clear-cut egregious personal behaviour. Bush Jr. once again takes us to a new low.

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

One of them was investigating him, his wife and their real estate scandals. That's far more egregious than anything Bush has even been accused of.

You must be mainlining the Kool-Aid. Let me tell you about a guy named Ken Starr. He investigated the Clintons using resources that a mere US Attorney could only dream of. Regarding Whitewater, he found that there was no there there.

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

Bottom line is a president can fire a US Attorney anytime he wants to.

Nope, not when he refuses, as this administration did, to get Senate approval for the replacements. Too many unanswered questions, answers that are even now being sweated out of "Fredo" Gone-zales.

fhl · Apr 19, 2007

The relevant issue is whether anyone was fired to stop an investigation into a political crony. There is no evidence Gonz did that. If he did, it would be time for him to be fired. There is an abundance of evidence that they were evaluated and fired for not going after voter fraud and illegal immigration and republican priorities. This is completely legit.

Clinton's firing of prosecutors who were investigating Rostenkowski, who was his point man to get his tax bill through, and the prosecutors/judges who would be in charge of whitewater was 100 times more egregious.

Bush had nothing to do with Ken Starr. Don't know why I should have to mention that, but apparently there are people who are unaware of that.

fhl · Apr 19, 2007

The relevant issue is whether anyone was fired to stop an investigation into a political crony. There is no evidence Gonz did that. If he did, it would be time for him to be fired. There is an abundance of evidence that they were evaluated and fired for not going after voter fraud and illegal immigration and republican priorities. This is completely legit.

Clinton's firing of prosecutors who were investigating Rostenkowski, who was his point man to get his tax bill through, and the prosecutors/judges who would be in charge of whitewater was 100 times more egregious.

Bush had nothing to do with Ken Starr. Don't know why I should have to mention that, but apparently there are people who are unaware of that.

Also, it is false to assert that I replacement has to be approved by the senate before a judge can be fired. That is complete nonsense.

kut2k2 · Apr 22, 2007

Quote from fhl:

The relevant issue is whether anyone was fired to stop an investigation into a political crony. There is no evidence Gonz did that.

Bullshit. Those US Attorneys were fired for investigating Republicans (like Carol Lam in San Diego, who bagged Duke CunningSCAM and was going after Foggo, Wilkes and Rep. Jerry Lewis), or for not rabidly prosecuting Democrats (like David Iglesias in NM, who got hassled by Senator Domenici and some Congresswoman for not rushing an incomplete investigation against NM state Democrats before the 2006 elections).

Quote from fhl:

If he did, it would be time for him to be fired.

Ya think?

Quote from fhl:

There is an abundance of evidence that they were evaluated and fired for not going after voter fraud and illegal immigration and republican priorities. This is completely legit.

Yeah, "Fredo" was sooo convincing in his hearing, even more Republicans came out calling for his resignation.

Quote from fhl:

Clinton's firing of prosecutors who were investigating Rostenkowski, who was his point man to get his tax bill through, and the prosecutors/judges who would be in charge of whitewater was 100 times more egregious.

Bullshit. Not a single Republican raised this issue at the time. Now you reichtards feign outrage? Lame.

Besides, even if you were right, two wrongs don't make a right. But I really don't expect sociopathic reactionaries to realize that.

Quote from fhl:

Bush had nothing to do with Ken Starr. Don't know why I should have to mention that, but apparently there are people who are unaware of that.

I never said Bush had anything to do with Ken Starr. Any relatively bright child would have had no trouble following my reasoning:

Ken Starr, using resources that only a special prosecutor could muster, found that the Clintons were innocent of all the Whitewater accusations. There was no there there. So any so-called Clinton conspiracy to "thwart justice" by firing the Reagan/Bush US Attorneys at the END of their terms was pointless anyway. Sorry simple logic befuddles you, but that's the price of being a reichtard. Sucks to be you.

Quote from fhl:

Also, it is false to assert that I replacement has to be approved by the senate before a judge can be fired. That is complete nonsense.

Nobody said anything about BEFORE.

Bitstream · Apr 22, 2007

Quote from fhl:

The relevant issue is whether anyone was fired to stop an investigation into a political crony. There is no evidence Gonz did that. If he did, it would be time for him to be fired. There is an abundance of evidence that they were evaluated and fired for not going after voter fraud and illegal immigration and republican priorities. This is completely legit.

[...]

LOL

AAAintheBeltway · Apr 22, 2007

Quote from kut2k2:

Bullshit. Those US Attorneys were fired for investigating Republicans (like Carol Lam in San Diego, who bagged Duke CunningSCAM and was going after Foggo, Wilkes and Rep. Jerry Lewis), or for not rabidly prosecuting Democrats (like David Iglesias in NM, who got hassled by Senator Domenici and some Congresswoman for not rushing an incomplete investigation against NM state Democrats before the 2006 elections).
Ya think?

Yeah, "Fredo" was sooo convincing in his hearing, even more Republicans came out calling for his resignation.

Bullshit. Not a single Republican raised this issue at the time. Now you reichtards feign outrage? Lame.

Besides, even if you were right, two wrongs don't make a right. But I really don't expect sociopathic reactionaries to realize that.

I never said Bush had anything to do with Ken Starr. Any relatively bright child would have had no trouble following my reasoning:

Ken Starr, using resources that only a special prosecutor could muster, found that the Clintons were innocent of all the Whitewater accusations. There was no there there. So any so-called Clinton conspiracy to "thwart justice" by firing the Reagan/Bush US Attorneys at the END of their terms was pointless anyway. Sorry simple logic befuddles you, but that's the price of being a reichtard. Sucks to be you.
Nobody said anything about BEFORE.

Ken Starr never exonerated Clinton for Whitewater. The problem with Clinton was there were so many scandals, it would have taken several special prosecutors to handle them all. Starr made an ill-considered decision not to prosecute Hillary for perjury and obstruction, no doubt due in part to the shellacking he was taking from partisan democrats who knew Clinton was corrupt but who put politics above the country. Clinton committed perjury in a federal sexual harrassment lawsuit in which he was the defendant. Starr no doubt thought any decent Senator would find that compelling enough to rise above politics and vote to rid the Oval Office of the Clinton stain. Unfortunatley, he underestimated how craven the mdoern democrat party had become.

Seeing how crazed the same democrats are over the US Attorney "scandal", can you even imagine how they would have acted if Bush had been in Clinton's shoes?

AAAintheBeltway · Apr 22, 2007

If the US Attorneys were fired for investigating Republicans, why is it that Sen. Diane Feinstein actually wrote a letter to the Attorney General last year complaining that Lam was not prosecuting immigration offenses?

That would be the same Sen. Feinstein who chaired a Senate military contracting sub-committee that oversaw numerous contracts awarded to ther husband's companies. And poor old Duke Cunningham is rotting in prison for letting people buy him dinner a few times.