Originally Posted by Si modo

Hmm. I guess firing 50+ for political reasons vs. less than a dozen for the same reasons might be enough cause for most with equitable minds.

Originally Posted by mudwhistle

One thing is for sure, Democrats in Congress are once again overstepping their authority in this case and are attempting to bully the Executive Branch.

Originally Posted by mudwhistle

Great timing.

Scott McClellen is releasing a book in all respects putting another spin on old news during his days as WHCD. He must have started writing it soon after he left the White House. What better way to cash in then by selling a bunch of Libs a piece of fiction telling them what you think they want to hear.

Karl Rove is being called to testify and yet another book trashing the Bush Administration is being released during the same time period.


My..........how convenient.


I would believe half of this opportunistic garbage if it weren't so staged.

I'm not sure if this is about finding out new information or just about selling books to Bush haters.

One thing is for sure, Democrats in Congress are once again overstepping their authority in this case and are attempting to bully the Executive Branch. They are using their positions as public servants to score political points in an attempt to win a Veto-proof majority and possibly placing a Dem in the White House to boot.

If I was Rove I would tell them to Kiss My Ass.

He may not decide to give them any sound bites that they can use on the evening news.

I think they are making a mistake by doing this because he's a member of the media now and his side of the story will get out if they continue to go down this road, unlike before when Rove was restrained by his position in the Administration.

Originally Posted by Angry American

Karl Rove can't evoke executive anything; that inherent privilege is exclusive to the president. The most Karl Rove can do is plead the fifth.

Originally Posted by Angry American

And for the record Clinton never fired attorneys for political retribution, they were removed when Clinton took office. The Bush appointed attorneys all received positive reviews from the Justice Department, and were given no reason for their firings. Highly unusual, and do not compare to removals during the Clinton administration at all. The removal of US attorneys during an administration without cause is highly unusual. Bush appointed the attorneys, but when they proved to be too respected as federal prosecutors (i.e. apolitical), Bush replaced them with rubber-stampers, thus politicizing the Department of Justice in an unprecedented way.

Originally Posted by Angry American

That's all well and good, as long as it is within the law, but when the DoJ is being used as a political hatchet to prosecute imaginary crimes for political gain, which threatens to disenfranchise the voting public, then I believe a line has been crossed which demands, at least, all the facts. And you can't have all the facts until there is an investigation, and people are put under oath. Criminal action can't be taken without the facts, but the Bush administration doesn't want anyone to know the facts, and that is suspicious.

If a stranger is found shot dead in my house, the police are still gonna want an investigation, even if I tell them there's no need to investigate because I'm within my right to shoot and kill strangers in my house.

Originally Posted by Angry American

And for the record Clinton never fired attorneys for political retribution, they were removed when Clinton took office. The Bush appointed attorneys all received positive reviews from the Justice Department, and were given no reason for their firings. .

Originally Posted by Imperator

when the DoJ is being used as a political hatchet to prosecute imaginary crimes for political gain, which threatens to disenfranchise the voting public,

can you provdie an exampple please.

So, its not the firings, its whats beneath? A suspicion?

Originally Posted by Imperator

You just agreed that they both did it to drive their own political agendas, Clinton retribution was not necessary because he made sure there never would be any case in which there would be any called for as they would be HIS appointees.
Your point makes NO sense.

He got rid of them because they had served the previous admin. and you know it.
You really are trying to thread the needle here and torture logic out of shape. Because he waited to see if they towed his line and since they didn’t he reclieved them he is now the boogeyman?

They all fire them for politics reasons but because its bush hes guilty of playing politics ..well no shit. This as nothing more than BDS.

Originally Posted by Angry American

This is the primary example:

Justice Dept. Recognized Prosecutor's Work on Election Fraud Before His Firing

Firing Iglesias makes absolutely no sense, unless of course he was standing in the way of the GOP's desire to use their fabricated voter fraud cases to make laws to combat a problem that doesn't exist that result in voter disenfranchisement. The cause and effect is clear, I believe there to be malicious intent to do irreparable harm not only to our justice system, but more importantly, to our freedom to vote.

Originally Posted by Angry American

Sorry you are seriously mistaken, the attorneys in question were all Bush appointees, and highly respected. This is a case where good honest republicans were fired to be replaced by, corrupt and/or inept Bush loyalists.

Originally Posted by Imperator

you didn't get my point, clinton fired them because they were not HIS appointees, so bush fires his own and???? so what?????

an no offense okay but please, you are so sick at heart that republican lawyers were fired? I am sorry but remembering our past conversations etc. I am not moved by your grief in this case...come on dude....

Originally Posted by ViPER

Yes, big difference - they were fired for doing their job rather then towing the corrupt party line.

Originally Posted by Imperator

you didn't get my point, clinton fired them because they were not HIS appointees, so bush fires his own and???? so what?????

Originally Posted by Imperator

an no offense okay but please, you are so sick at heart that republican lawyers were fired? I am sorry but remembering our past conversations etc. I am not moved by your grief in this case...come on dude....