Subpoenas target Justice; White House could be next

Discussion in 'Free Speech Alley' started by macatak911, Mar 15, 2007.

  1. LSUsupaFan

    LSUsupaFan Founding Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2003
    Messages:
    8,787
    Likes Received:
    1,207
    Again there is a big different in an incoming President appointing new attorneys at the begining of his administrarion and firing attorneys during his administration. Clinton appointed all new attorneys in 93 and Bush appointed all new attorneys in 2000. This is normal practice.

    The four figure comes from the 2 attorneys who were fired under Clinton, the 1 fired under Carter, and the 1 fired under Nixon. All of these 4 were fired with cause. The 8 fired by Bush were fired for not 'playing ball'.


    If firing U.S. attorneys who are ethical and perform well is not scandalous and then appointing replacements without congressional oversight isn't more scandalous then I don't know what is.

    It isn't just Democrats calling foul. Two Republican Senators have called for the resignation og Alberto Gonzalez. If there wasn't fire do you think Gonzalez would have admitted he was wrong. He may well have perjured himself.

    I don't think he is a moron. I just think his ethics are about as good as Ken Laye's.
     
  2. kcal

    kcal Founding Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2004
    Messages:
    10,961
    Likes Received:
    7,880
    bill clinton? :)
     
  3. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    Clinton was immoral, not unethical.
     
  4. LSUsupaFan

    LSUsupaFan Founding Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2003
    Messages:
    8,787
    Likes Received:
    1,207
    If the best defense you can muster is to bash a guy who has been out of office for 7 years that's pretty indicitive in itself.
     
  5. USMTiger

    USMTiger Founding Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2003
    Messages:
    1,668
    Likes Received:
    167
    Ok, I see what point Red and Supa are saying now. I think we are more or less disagreeing on terms.

    What do you think of my analysis on this being a Rove tactic to deflect attention from less popular issues? Is this one of Rove's infamous tricks?
     
  6. DRC

    DRC TigerNator

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2003
    Messages:
    4,745
    Likes Received:
    374
    Oh my Red, you cant be serious? :lol:

    What did he have...10 or 20 people in his Administration either investigated or indicted? Stolen FBI files, dubious campaign contributions from China, lying under oath and wasnt he disbarred too? Those are only a few things that come to mind. Clinton was not only immoral he was also highly unethical.
     
  7. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    A Rove dirty trick for sure, but probably not to divert attention. One of the basics of a two-party system is that the two sides provide checks and balances against each other. It generally forces the government to find a consensus of opinion on the issues. This consensus best meets the needs of the broad spectrum of public needs and the overall welfare of the country.

    But after 2000, with all three branches of government in the hands of the republicans, the Neocons decided that they could have everything their way and the Democrats could just suck eggs. This was doomed to failure because the republicans barely won the presidency and had a tiny lead in the Congress. Nevertheless, with a razor-thin majority, no landslide victories, and no mandate from the people, they set about doing what was best for the republican party in general and the George Bush administration in particular.

    There were no attempts whatsoever to engage or represent the 50% of the population that was not on board with them. They made no concessions whatsoever to half the population of the country and their representatives. Worse they began to not even engage the Congress, including the republicans that had been blindly supporting them.

    As a result they have now lost the moderates and are starting to lose the honest and pragmatic conservatives.
     
  8. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    There are people investigated and indicted under any administration including this one. That is a pointless argument. You said Clinton was unethical, I assume, referring to Monicagate, which was a moral failure. He was never found guilty of anything in the Whitewater investigation, an ethic investigation. And he was acquitted in his impeachment.
     
  9. DRC

    DRC TigerNator

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2003
    Messages:
    4,745
    Likes Received:
    374
    Red, Im not talking about Monica at all. He was unethical because he accepted illegal campaign contributions that were later given back because he was caught. FBI files were stolen, thats ethics. He was disbarred and it wasnt for Monica. He wasnt acquitted of lying, he lied. What about the massive amounts of pardons he gave out to people who were his friends or gave money to his campaign or Hillary's campaign? This included drug dealers as I recall. Im sure the list of his unethical behavior is long and ugly if you wanted to research it but to say Clinton was ethical is comedy of the highest order.
     
  10. kcal

    kcal Founding Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2004
    Messages:
    10,961
    Likes Received:
    7,880
    i'm not bashing clinton, once again, i could care less....just wondering how you can defend someone and excuse someone found guilty of perjury and lying to a grand jury yet convict others without the benefit of judge or jury. makes perfect sense to me.
     

Share This Page