Seahawks

Just becuase your a fanatic suck my own cock dem, give it up. Struck some nerves yesterday, got all the freaks riled.

Still shitting your pants?

V7 your the biggest idiot of all. Lead the group. Well I hope I'm a close second on your list, cock smoker. No your just mud scum. Mud can't get on a list.

V7 your the biggest idiot of all. Lead the group.

Bottom line Bush can fire them all day long. Clinton was under oath for Whitewater when he made his Monica statements and was able to cover up all his dealings.

President Bush fired eight U.S. Attorneys, which, by the way, is his privilege, and Hillary swoons, briefly holds her breath, then demands that everyone remotely connected to these firings resign. As I watched her make this pious pitch, I couldn’t help but remember a column I wrote back during the Clinton years, listing all the criminal convictions during his administration. Here is but a portion of that list: Rep. Albert Bustamante, (D-Texas), racketeering and mail fraud, 1993, 54 months in jail; Rep. Joseph Kolter (D-Pa.) stole $9,300 from the House Post Office, 1996, six months in jail; Rep. Nicholas Mavroules (D-Mass.), tax fraud, 1993, 15 months in jail; Rep. Mel Reynolds, (D-Ind.), sexual assault and child pornography, 1995, 21 months in jail. In view of the Clinton’s disgraceful hypocrisies, one can see that the President is guilty of, well, amateurism. What else explains how the simple, routine act of firing federal employees can be blown up to Watergate proportions? One answer is that Hillary, desperately concerned about her poll ratings, has seized upon the firing to bolster her ratings. The First Windbag of Arkansas is in attack mode. I would caution Hillary, though, that with all her experience in Congressional probes and such, she should call herself as the first witness and bring with her, as trusted counsel, Webster Hubbell.

In 1993, Attorney General Janet Reno fired 93 U.S. attorneys at the discretion of the Clinton White House. And talk about partisan motives: the attorneys were dismissed just as investigations were getting underway into Bill and Hillary Clinton's involvement in the Whitewater land deal. Federal prosecutors were turning up the heat, and the White House fired those attorneys and replaced them with new appointees less likely to launch serious investigations into the scandal. Unquestionably, Clinton had the power to do so, but where were the hearings then? You guessed it — Democrats controlled Congress.

That's not what I understand. Patriot Act II extended the power of the executive to appoint US Attorneys without the consent and will of the Senate, although A.G. Gonzalez testified to a Senate committee that the administration had every intention of continuing to get Senate approval for appointments. And that is irrelevant to any ethics or legal violation that may have occurred if Republican Congressmen or Senators did indeed attempt to interfere with a current US Attorney investigation or court case. And if they used their influence inside the party to "encourage" the President to dismiss these US Attorney's prematurely. P.S. Anyone calling me dumb should first make sure their spelling, punctuation and grammar are correct, you uneducated ass. Looks like from these legal document maybe another 120 days if I'm reading it right. U.S. attorneys are appointed by the President and approved by the Senate.7 In 2006, amendments to the Patriot Act made it permissible for the Attorney General to appoint interim U.S. attorneys, without Senate approval, for the remainder of the sitting President’s term.8 Congress removed this amendment on March 20, 2007, however, and restored the interim appointments to a duration of 120 days without Senate approval.9 On the other hand, it is well-known that United States attorneys are subject to removal by the President at his sole discretion.

He may not have, can't remember. But that is funny.

Fanatically dems are all the same. Think they have all the answers and there shit don't stink

Monica Goodling's lawyer is basically making the case that she can't testify because she might incriminate herself for perjury! "I take the fifth because I might incriminate myself by committing a crime while testifying." That's a good one. I'll have to remember it (if it works) if I ever don't want to testify about something. Its the same fifth that Clinton took.

apparently, you're massively confused about the nature of the us attorney's office. answer the questions about your situational ethics, noob. since it's obvious to everyone and their dog that gonzales lied to congress, he should be tossed out, right? or should he be given the medal of freedom and a promotion? how about all that illegal fbi activity? how do you feel about that? you're probably alright with that, herr seahawk. YOu know why the Dems lost last time??? Becuase of knobs like you guys. This conspiricay shit with nothing to back it off sends normal people running the other way. Your knobs, get some fricking brains.

Except it is illegal for member of the Legislative branch to interfere with investigations and court proceedings of the Department of Justice. It also violates the Senate's and the House's Code of Ethics. And it is a little suspicious that three of the eight US Attorneys report having conversations with at least one Congressman or Senator regarding an investigation or case. Its also a little suspicious that all eight reported having special meetings with senior administration staff members, all about investigations or cases that could influence or effect the mid-term election. It was stupid for Congress to sign away its rights in the Patriot Act. This is clearly another example why. Signed, Registered Independent Kind of a dumb comment becuase the patriot act being signed has only to do with the putting into power of said people, with out consent of congress, It has nothing to do with the firings. And is no longer law as of March 2007.

Doesn't matter if I could prove or not. He had the right to do it.

same whinging neocon who can't think for himself, always complaining about Clinton, and rationalizing the behavior of the current administration. care to explain all the hundreds and thousands of hours of testimony by Clinton White House officials, at the president's behest I might add, before Congress, all with transcripts and in the open? Or is Bush just 'special' and shouldn't be held to the same standards? Why is open and transparent government only something you require of Democrats? The President has sole authority to remove U.S. attorneys at his discretion. Article II Therefore nothing criminal done. Clinton I thought was sworn in but I may be wrong in that.

If you really believe it's this simple especially after 6 years of constitutional abuse, consolidation of executive power, and sidelining of congressional oversight, then you deserve the dictatorship you seem to desire. The rest of us don't want the same as bootlickers like you. Same dem sreaming as always. Come up with something new. If they didn't want the same bootlickers why is it 6 years?? Oh wait it was stolen. LOL ignorant smuck.

Its funny how when the Dems want something they are willing to break the constitution. Just like you, you scranny little ass wipe.

Given the President’s unquestioned constitutional and statutory authority to remove U.S. attorneys at his discretion, a Congressional attempt to force disclosure of communications involving senior White House staff on this issue is inappropriate. The President’s invocation of executive privilege for discussions or documents concerning the removal of U.S. attorneys is designed to meet the requirement of confidentiality. Any Congressional attempt to interfere with the President’s ability to obtain confidential advice about the desireability of removing certain employees from their positions would constitute an egregious intrusion into an area of responsibility allocated by the Constitution solely to the President, thereby violating the constitutionally mandated separation of powers.

Point is simple. Seems the DEM stupid level in here is high. Both Parties do acts that benifit there own party. For the Dems to scream about this when they do there own shit is just a bunch of posturing for the white house in 2008. Take off your dem fog glasses.

The Kettle wants to call the pot black.

I beleive the Pres can Hire and fire Attoney's when ever he wants. Has the consitution changed? Shall I dig up the info on Clinton firing attoney's working on the WhiteWater scandal?? Nothing new here. Just Dems little mad some of there boys got let go.

Amazing how some of the 93 her husband let go were ones prosecuting the White Water dealings. guess the Dems shit don't stink. DES MOINES, Iowa - Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton on Monday dismissed any comparison between the firing last fall of eight U.S. attorneys with the replacement of 93 U.S. attorneys when her husband became president in 1993

You sound like that is a bad thing. guess if I was married to Hilliary I might want that too. Am I hearing you right? You want Hillary to suck your #$%%? Not that bitch. Hows that for words Seagal. Can you point out my sins again???

I don't think he thinks any of us have pure thoughts.

Where you aiming at Kevbone??? Not what I expected. Cute and holding a gun impressive. Not shown- the old computer monitor she was aiming at. a 3 or 4 point buck would really been impressive.