Ok, now you're just spinning.

There's a huge difference between, I'd like to have Federal Prosecutors who share a common legal viewpoint, so I think I'll nominate them and let the Sentate confirm them...and in all but the most extreme circumstances let them serve out my term so you can do your job without fear of political influence.

Than, well, I thought we shared a common political viewpoint, but you seem to be spending a little too much time upholding the laws in ways that are causing me pain. So I think I'm going to fire you now midstream and replace you with someone of my choosing alone, that's going to do a much better job of following my political agenda...

And when questioned about it, I'll say it's for performance reasons. And when that's proved to be not accurate I'll just make something up, and point fingers, and then blame the media for a witch hunt.

It's called impropriety.

-spence

Wow...the Senate votes 96-4 to require Bush to present all appointments for Senate approval.

The subpoenas are starting to fly. As a citizen of the USA it's quite refreshing to see bi-partisan oversight and the healing of our government.

:lurk:

-spence

The president gets to appoint judges with common political viewpoints why not AG's?

When Hillary was president what was that mess she got herself and the first man into over travelgate. She had those people canned for telling the truth and nothing happened. Didn't her friend end up going to jail and she and Bill skated. Refresh my memory Spence, please? And I'm not being a wiseass by asking.

That's not the issue here, please reread the thread :)

Hillary was President :hs: :laugha:

I don't remember exactly, but it's a moot issue. How come some people keep returning on the old "two wrongs make it right" line of defense?

-spence

I think its more like people keep returning to the old "double standard" line of reasonable thought. By the way wasn't one of the prosecutors let go by Clinton involved in the Whitewater investigation, or is it out of bounds to mention that? And history isn't moot.

It's not out of bounds, it's just a meaningless talking point :hihi:

1) The prosecutor in place was fired along with the other 93 in a routine dismissal and replaced via Senate approval.

2) It's been reported that the prosecutor who was fired, a Bush appointee had actually resisted investigating Whitewater despite pressure from the Bush administration to do so



3) After years and millions of taxpayers money spent investigation Whitewater during Clinton's presidency, the investigation ended without any claims of wrongdoing

So the characterization that Clinton fired a specific Federal Prosecutor to impeed an investigation into his own dealings is simply not supported by the facts.

You know, some grapes would go nicely in your salad. And those little mandarin oranges :drool:

-spence

"I's been reported"? Sounds like spin to me.
How about Jay Stephens who was midway through an investigation of Ways and Means Chairman Dan Rostenkowski who was indicted and convicted (and later pardoned of course) despite Clintons best effort to protect him. Does the fact he was one of 92 excuse that? Just routine right? Sorry Spence but Bush is no worse than Slick in this case. Just another case of the old double standard. Theres plenty more documented reasons why Clinton dismissed 92 FP's, I'll keep them coming if you want.

I hear grapes go better with Kool-Aid, is that true?

Follow the link, read the quotes, do some work instead of just ignoring the evidence and reciting anything, anything you can scrounge up to obfuscate the situation.

Did Clinton mislead Congress as to the motivation for his firings? Did Clinton dismiss prosecutors mid-term so the rest had to watch their backs? When Reagan or Bush 41 or Bush 43 did the same thing did they interrupt any existing cases against government officials?

I'd bet they did.

Clinton's own appointed replacement continued the investigation, indicted and convicted Rostenkowski!

The prosecutors appointed from both parties did their jobs in enforcing the laws. The Sentate provided oversight...

The system worked.

Why don't ya grab these...

-spence

LMAO............So Clinton supported the investigation and prosecution of Rostenkowski, right? That must be why he pardoned him. This thread was not intended to defend Bush or prosecute Clinton, it's intent was to point out a double standard that we witness in play by the media everyday. If you dont see it your blind. You have posted nothing that dispels that common belief. Clinton dismissed those prosecutors because he felt they didn't share his priorities, likewise Bush. Like it or not that is their perogative. I'm still waiting for Sandy Burglars lie detector test, but the media seems to have forgotten about that. His crime was and is far more serious than this media blitzkrieg, but they dont like to talk about that.

Good God man, now you're mixing your talking points.

Clinton supporting the Rostenkowski's prosecution isn't the question, of course he didn't. But he clearly did allow the system to indict and convict, so one would assume he didn't fire the prosecutor to impeed the investigation as so many would like to think.

If the pardon was ethical is a separate issue.

Have you read a thing I've posted, or do you just blindly cut and paste from goptalkingpointsmemo.com?

This entire scandal arose because the Justice Department appears to have misled the US Congress.

It's exploding because the Executive Branch is declaring executive authority to impeed an investigation to see if this is really true.

Would you like me to go back 10 years or so and print to quotes of Clinton's attack dogs, crying foul at his shameless use of executive privelage to limit transparancy? With all that Clinton still allowed some 41 aides to testify under oath!

Your bushbotic GOP gyro-coding has you on your head, and you think everyone else is upside down!

-spence

The entire scandal exploded because the Media and their Democratic alliance chose to use the excuse of a boiler plate reply to a question that wasn't even required to be answered as cause for a fishing expedition. The scary part are the blind minions who can't even see through the hypocritical BS.

And again you are confusing anyone who see's through that hypocritical, double standard as GOP Lemmings. I despise hypocrisy on both sides it just so happens you guy's supply me with much more fodder.

:rotf3: :as: :conf:

Only the Bush Adminstration could give a boilerplate response to an unprecidented organizational change....

...and expect those sworn to provide oversight to blindly rubberstamp the unprecidented organizational change.

-spence

Anybody seen any herring scouts yet?

No, but I'd certainly say the Sniper is having difficulty swimming upstream :devil: :hihi:

-spence

spence, i think you found your new fishing partner for the season :hihi:

Huh? :confused:

Sniper doesn't fish, he boats :jester:

-spence

"3) After years and millions of taxpayers money spent investigation Whitewater during Clinton's presidency, the investigation ended without any claims of wrongdoing"

I think the number of people that went to jail for this might disagree with you. We won't mention the people that ended up dead. The US attornies serve at the pleasure of the President. It's just that simple.

Then add "against Clinton" as that's what I obviously meant :wavey:

And yes, we all know Bill and Hillary pulled the trigger on Vince Foster and at least a few dozen others :doh:

-spence

Actually rumor has it the Taunton River runs are loaded.

Last report DNC volunteers were working vigorously to register the newcomers as Democrats in preparation for the 08 elections. When it was pointed out that fish are not legally qualified to vote, the volunters scoffed at the idea saying those laws only applied to Republicans and swore to investigate and subpoena any and all who disagreed with them. :claps: :bl: When they were challenged further they simply ran away as fast as they could. :lossinit:

didja know herring communicate by farting? im serious.

I wish I could cast to Tuna from the beach. But I really can be found pounding the surf in Marshfield and Scituate every so often. Can I fish with you now? :chatter

I do too, whats so strange about that? So far I've only learned to say "you better leave the room" but I'm working on expanding my vocabulary.

I speak herring as well, and at sometimes the very complicated language of the mud shart :hihi:

So is that how you're communicating in this thread, by herring fart :hee: :hihi: :devil: :laugha:

Sorry about all of this, for a moment I thought I was Uffah!! :musc:

-spence

All Republicans wear panties and frilly flowing wigs :o

So.... after many posts and distillation we all agree that it does`nt matter who is in power... what group won the battle.... we as human beings tend to be far from perfect and though life is good its tough a nails sometimes.

anybody want to unplug from the matrix and fish soon?

NEBE=fartologist:jump:




Thanks for the levity:jump:

When a new administration comes in it is practive to appoint new AGs that are in line with your political views. Those appointments are submitted to the senate for approval. Under the legislation that extended the Patriots Act an additional provisions was put in to allow the appointment of a U

Sorry for the previous post I hit the wrong key.

When a new administration comes in it is practive to appoint new Attys that are in line with your political views. Those appointments are submitted to the senate for approval. This is part of the check and balances. Under the legislation that extended the Patriots Act an additional provision was put in to allow the appointment of a US Atty without Senate approval. This was to cover instances where an Atty dies or becomes incapacitated and an ongoing investigation or trial would be impaired. It is the use of this provision, intended to help the fight against terrorists, as a means to replace people with political appointments without review by the Senate which is really the issue here. I voted for the guy but his underlings willingness to twist and undermine basic principles of law and sepeartion of powers to extend their power is starting to scare me.