chikinhammr said:
Let me prelude this before I get bombarded with hateful replies. I hate George W.Bush, but I am neither a Republican nor Democrat. The President of the United States has the right and privilege to fire Federal Prosecutors for any reason he or she wishes. These Prosecutors are hired by Presidents based on their politics, and their politics are a perfectly legitimate reason to terminate them. There is nothing sinister about this stupid story. Bill Clinton, a liberal favorite, fired 93 Federal Prosecutors in his first six months in office and nobody said jack shit about it. If Democrats want to bitch about this now, they need to expect scrutiny when it's their turn in the White House again. This story is just so lame. If Bush had any balls, he really would have said "fuck off" instead of cowering like the Pussy he is. This article is totally flawed.

Bush, Clinton, Reagan.. they have all failed to learn the same basic lesson. It ain't the act, it's the cover-up.

Adroitbeing

I'm lost

September 2003

MAR 30, 2007 11:53 AM

oyaji said:

Subrosa said:

chikinhammr said:
This article is totally flawed.

No, your argument is flawed. Every one of your points have been addressed and debunked at length already in the thread. Happy reading, then get back to us.

Exactly.

Why don't you people READ THE THREAD, at least a little of it, before you go off half-cocked? WHY!?

A.) Because they are fucking lazy
B.) Because they think it's more important to be heard than learn something
C.) Because it's easier on the brain to spew preconceived shit out with the keyboard than it is to develop any cognitive skills

I guess those are really all the same, aren't they?

zarth

Seattle, WA

December 2004

MAR 30, 2007 11:56 AM

Adroitbeing said:
A.) Because they are fucking lazy
B.) Because they think it's more important to be heard than learn something
C.) Because it's easier on the brain to spew preconceived shit out with the keyboard than it is to develop any cognitive skills

I guess those are really all the same, aren't they?

Nobody complained when Bill Clinton fired all ninety-three US prosectors. The President is totally in the right on this one. This is just a Democrat Party witch-hunt.

meatpieboy

Korea, D.P.R.

June 2004

MAR 30, 2007 12:05 PM

Zarth said:

Nobody complained when Bill Clinton fired all ninety-three US prosectors. The President is totally in the right on this one. This is just a Democrat Party witch-hunt.

TROLL ALERT!!!

STAND DOWN!!!! LOWER YOUR WEAPONS MEN!

nothing to see here, move along now...

wildswan

I'm lost

June 2006

MAR 30, 2007 01:30 PM

oyaji said: No it can't. Suppose president X has a college buddy who smuggles cocaine into New Mexico. President X calls up the U.S. Attorney for New Mexico and says: "don't prosecute my friend for cocaine trafficking." U.S. Attorney for New Mexico says "I'm sorry president X, but I must apply the law to your college buddy." President X fires U.S. Attorney from New Mexico.

Do you think that's okay?

Do you understand that president X has committed a FUCKING CRIME by pressuring and firing U.S. Attorney for New Mexico.

You're wrong. The president and his agents are not above the law.

The point I was trying to make was that its standard procedure that
No, it's not. It is not standard procedure for a president to mass fire U.S. Attorneys he has appointed while in "the middle" of his term. Find me one other example where this has occurred.

I thought that this should be highlighted.

It's just plain wrong on the spirit and letter of the law to say that the president can fire U.S. Attorneys for what ever reason he wants.