Heritage/Rightwing M.O. or debate: Ignore the real issue and reframe the debate on more favorable terms. This isn't about the "power to hire and fire attorneys". The firing of the attorneys was the tip off that led to the knowledge that WhiteHouse and the Justice Dept. were picking firing attorneys who either WERE investigating republicans or WOULDN'T submit to pressure to investigate democrats before an election. Then they lied over and over about it.
Of course you "don't believe" there is any evidence re: Lam/Cheney.. that's because you are a well paid republi-con, anti-American apologist. And, if you're going to faceitiously attempt to slam me about my spelling (typo really), maybe you should make sure your post is free of any errors. (it's "Partisan" for the record.)
Everyone in the free world understands the fact there is precedent on a Prez replacing these positions. That's not even news. The problem is the circumstances. The fact you are satisfied with "half-truth" reporting is the real crime.
As for Clinton firing all 93 U.S. Attys in '93, "(a)t the time, President Clinton presented the move as something perfectly ordinary: 'All those people are routinely replaced,' he told reporters, 'and I have not done anything differently.' In fact, the dismissals were unprecedented: Previous Presidents, including Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter, had both retained holdovers from the previous Administration and only replaced them gradually as their tenures expired." WSJ, March '07.
According to CRS, "54 U.S. attorneys who were appointed between 1981 and 2006, left office before completing their four-year terms, and whose terms did not extend beyond one President's tenure in office." This situation is has precedent.
That's right - Not only did Clinton do it BUT he was well with within the boundaries of the law just like Bush is. This is a legitimate presidential power. Being in an appointed position means you better keep the person who put you there happy or face the consequences...
Then why compare Clinton replacing all 93 to the Gonzales firings. W replaced 91 US A's in 2001, you used a bogus argument just to say Clinton did it.
Heritage/Rightwing M.O. or debate: Ignore the real issue and reframe the debate on more favorable terms. This isn't about the "power to hire and fire attorneys". The firing of the attorneys was the tip off that led to the knowledge that WhiteHouse and the Justice Dept. were picking firing attorneys who either WERE investigating republicans or WOULDN'T submit to pressure to investigate democrats before an election. Then they lied over and over about it.
phoogoo 4 years ago
Of course you "don't believe" there is any evidence re: Lam/Cheney.. that's because you are a well paid republi-con, anti-American apologist. And, if you're going to faceitiously attempt to slam me about my spelling (typo really), maybe you should make sure your post is free of any errors. (it's "Partisan" for the record.)
opiate69 4 years ago
"The Heritage Foundation is not leaping to the defense of Bush" -BDizzle66
LMAO!!!
nrsaint 4 years ago
Everyone in the free world understands the fact there is precedent on a Prez replacing these positions. That's not even news. The problem is the circumstances. The fact you are satisfied with "half-truth" reporting is the real crime.
nrsaint 4 years ago
As for Clinton firing all 93 U.S. Attys in '93, "(a)t the time, President Clinton presented the move as something perfectly ordinary: 'All those people are routinely replaced,' he told reporters, 'and I have not done anything differently.' In fact, the dismissals were unprecedented: Previous Presidents, including Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter, had both retained holdovers from the previous Administration and only replaced them gradually as their tenures expired." WSJ, March '07.
BDizzle66 4 years ago
According to CRS, "54 U.S. attorneys who were appointed between 1981 and 2006, left office before completing their four-year terms, and whose terms did not extend beyond one President's tenure in office." This situation is has precedent.
BDizzle66 4 years ago
That's right - Not only did Clinton do it BUT he was well with within the boundaries of the law just like Bush is. This is a legitimate presidential power. Being in an appointed position means you better keep the person who put you there happy or face the consequences...
iheartanncoulter 5 years ago
This does as much for the education of the American public as a Rush Limbaugh commentary. And as usual, contains a "Bill Clinton did it" phrase.
nrsaint 5 years ago
Isn't that the standard response, "Clinton did it!" I swear, it's ridiculous.
nrsaint 5 years ago
Then why compare Clinton replacing all 93 to the Gonzales firings. W replaced 91 US A's in 2001, you used a bogus argument just to say Clinton did it.
de52 5 years ago