Reply With Quote
Can they talk about Clinton firing 93 of them when he took office
and about 30 while in office. Just checking.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,259843,00.html
No, Karl has nothing to hide.. he doesn't even have to tell the truth..
Can they talk about Clinton firing 93 of them when he took office
and about 30 while in office. Just checking.
There IS nothing wrong with Clinton firing 93 lawyers.
As far as I am concerned there is nothing wrong with firing all
lawyers........LOL.
But what a bunch of crap, ing about 8, who serves at the
Presidents pleasure.
I actually agree with you ray it ain't no big deal..what confuses me is that the WH & Gonzo have been telling conflicting stories since this all came out... They are actually to blame for making this worse than it would have been.. People don't trust this administration , wait..rationale thinking people don't believe this administration.. and guess what they look like thier lying again.. so if it's a buch of crap then why won't your hero bush just come out and say that?
Karl not under oath? His testimony will be as useful as a pile of .
If I were Congress, I would say, "Karl under oath, else shove it up head's ass".
Seeing Ray use the phrase "who serves at the Presidents pleasure" makes me strangely ill.
Ok, x. I'm calling you out on this one.
You need to show me a link showing Clinton fired 30 of the US Attorneys he appointed before their terms were up.
Bush fired all 93 when he got into office, the difference is, Clinton didn't target the ones that he didn't think helprd enough to push his political agenda, or in some cases, vendettas, later.
Bush warns Dems to take offer in firings
By LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press Writer 2 minutes ago
WASHINGTONYahoo News- President Bush warned Democrats Tuesday to accept his offer to have top aides testify about the firings of federal prosecutors only privately and not under oath, or risk a cons utional showdown from which he would not back down.
Democrats' response to his proposal was swift and firm. "Testimony should be on the record and under oath. That's the formula for true accountability," said Patrick Leahy (news, bio, voting record), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Bush, in a late-afternoon statement at the White House, said, "We will not go along with a partisan fishing expedition aimed at honorable public servants. ... I proposed a reasonable way to avoid an impasse."
He added: "There's no indication ... that anybody did anything improper."
Oh . I'm afraid this is where the Democrats cave, or cut a deal, or have a "Gang of 14" agree to do nothing, or even apologize (like the Durbin fiasco), or escalate the conflict to non-binding resolution status, or let more of our Cons utional rights get obliterated with backdoor meetings, or decide to let Bush invade Iran after all, or . . .
remember when Bush finally talked to the 9/11 Commission, except he didnt take an oath, no notes were taken, Cheney was by his side at all times and no one was allowed to ever talk about what he said?
You're right, he masked the firing of the one he didn't want continuing to pursue his corruption in Arkansas by firing all 93.
Very clever indeed.
The Whitewater witchhunt continued for years AFTER Clinton took office. It cost many $Ms, $60M IIRC, and came up empty handed, just like the flaccid impeachment that the impotent Repugs couldn't consummate.
Clinton probably spent 100s of hours distracted by the "vast right wing/Repug" witchhunts, instead of doing his job, like spending some of those hours on al Qaida.
Last edited by boutons_; 03-21-2007 at 07:16 AM.
Looking for more chicks to share his life/standards with. Maybe a little rape on the side. va job you did
BillyBoy.
Rape???? you guys are desperate.
What Ray fails to grasp is this goes both ways. I don't want anyone, whether they are a Democrat or Republican, to refuse to go under oath in front of Congress. The President's ( In general you bushbots so take bush out of this) staff should have no problem answering questions under oath. Bush made the comment yesterday (I'm paraphrasing) that he felt that if these folks were to testify under oath they could be caught in a perjurous trap. What? Where I come from perjuring yourself means lying under oath. Whomever is called to trestify should be telling the truth..again bushbots for both parties.. so his concern seems to be that if his staff lies then they shouldn't be concerned with perjury..
yes, bring'em all in. Who gives a . They're so afraid of bush getting caught. Why won't they agree to question everybody about everything?
One thing you forgot. Like the Cons ution. You know
seperation of power. Congress cant tell the Prez how
to run his office.
They don't want to tell him how to run it, Ray. They want to question how it's run.
That ok with you?
You aren't very bright are you? And no it isn't alright with
me for them to question how he runs it. It's the Presidents
office not theirs. If they think he violated the law, charge
him and throw him out of office. You know like when a
Congressman violates the law and goes to jail, like, whats
his face in California. Of course some are immune like the
the Louisiana Congressman, who kept a "cool" 90
thousand on hand. And others have been convicted of
bribing him. That I have a problem with DOJ on.
What are you afraid of? Say it.
I am afraid of nothing. What are you afraid of?
If you are afraid of nothing then you should have no problem at all with Rove's testifying under oath before Congress.
I personally am afraid that US Attorneys were fired by the administration that hired them as a political retaliation. With all your ing you have failed to even intimate that it was anything but just that.
And I'm still waiting for you to prove that Clinton fired 30 US Attorneys that he had previously appointed.
One thing you forgot. Like the Cons ution. You know
seperation of power. Congress cant tell the Prez how
to run his office.
So your ok with any President allowing for anyone he considers a part of his 'staff' to be immune from testifying under oath. Where in the cons ution does it define who his 'staff' is? So now we the people should allow the President to give anyone immunity from testifying under oath?
The SC told Nixon to give up his tapes.
"executive privilege" is not in the Cons ution. WTF use is check and balances if you can't check and balance?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
