Comments on: Was U.S. Attorney Fired For Investigating Republican Congressman?

By: Eric

Eric — Sun, 13 Apr 2008 03:49:27 +0000

Eric

Ok, I’m not in complete agreement with this, but I see your point. Thanks for sharing.

By: Gregory

Gregory — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 12:11:11 +0000

Gregory

The pen is really mightier than the sword, as you have proven here.

By: Eric

Eric — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 09:55:20 +0000

Eric

Good Luck..

By: St Paul Bankruptcy Attorney

St Paul Bankruptcy Attorney — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 17:51:23 +0000

St Paul Bankruptcy Attorney

I couldn’t understand some parts of this article, but I guess I just need to check some more resources regarding this, because it sounds interesting.

By: Online Payday Loan

Online Payday Loan — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 06:17:51 +0000

Online Payday Loan

Outstanding provider of low rate pay day advances especially for simple money qualifying.

By: demdandy

demdandy — Thu, 26 Apr 2007 08:44:33 +0000

Judy:

I’m aware that Cheney, as veep, cannot be technically indicted. I used smiles, expensive suits and indictments to attempt a crude analogy of gangsterism vs the two public officials shown in the photo. My other excuse is: I believe Cheney eventually will be indicted as a private citizen. For what? Wait a minute while I search for some links.

Thanks

By: Mr. Bush Goes To Hell

Mr. Bush Goes To Hell — Thu, 26 Apr 2007 00:55:56 +0000

AND Good Night, Joe MAMA!!!

By: Lily

Lily — Thu, 26 Apr 2007 00:55:31 +0000

Oops, attorneys. I guess that negates my whole post.

Read up on it anyway, and see what methods Hitler used to get the nazis into power. Stacking the courts, controlling the media….little things like that.

By: Judy

Judy — Thu, 26 Apr 2007 00:51:44 +0000

Good night, Joe.

By: Mr. Bush Goes To Hell

Mr. Bush Goes To Hell — Thu, 26 Apr 2007 00:48:40 +0000

Yeah, G’nite jake…

Yawn….

Funny how you have all that information about Clinton FIRING ATTORNEYS, and the NAMES OF THE ATTORNEYS, but NONE of the circumstances…

REALLY FUNNY…

By: Judy

Judy — Wed, 25 Apr 2007 23:43:24 +0000

That’s right, Lily, the biggest problem in Germany before WWII were roving packs of wild “attourneys” (sic) without the proper Senate confirmation — give me a break.

Last time I will say it, Mr. Bush Goes To Hell, I am not Jake. I was not aware this was a debate, or that debate rules allow you to call your opponent by a different names / ad hominem attacks. You found the Salon article just fine. This may come as a shocker to you, but not everything in life has a “link” in the Internet. Maybe someday, in your perfect world. Have a good night.

By: Mr. Bush Goes To Hell

Mr. Bush Goes To Hell — Wed, 25 Apr 2007 23:31:09 +0000

jake,

Nope, don’t need it.

But the sitting VP CAN be IMPEACHED (which IS indictment).

Good semantics, though.

Still DON’T HAVE LINKS, but you KNOW so MUCH….

WHY should ANYONE believe you, if you don’t BACK IT UP WITH PROOF?

Any AMATEUR debater know you don’t ask OTHERS to find the “proof” to YOUR statements.

That’s FUNNY, jake…

See you in hell jake/judy (cause I’LL be THERE),

Mr. Bush
MURDEROUS WAR CRIMINAL
COXUCKER PUNK TRAITOR TO THE USA (TM–BushCrimeCo)

By: Lily

Lily — Wed, 25 Apr 2007 23:28:19 +0000

Iâ€™m just trying to think ahead to how this will be applied to the next Democratic President. Has any candidate so far pledged not to fire U.S. Attorneys for political reasons and only for good cause?

Comment by Judy â€” April 25, 2007 @ 4:36 pm

Judy “good cause” is not a requirement for firing a U.S. attourney. These firings are being looked at to determine if obstruction of justice occured, as much evidence points in that direction. The larger issue, IMO, is that a clause was slipped into the Patriot Act stating that the president can appoint a U.S. attourney without Senate confirmation. If this doesn’t sound like a problem to you, perhaps you could read up on pre-Nazi Germany.

By: Judy

Judy — Wed, 25 Apr 2007 23:23:13 +0000

I’m not Jake, and I already said I got the names from the Clinton Library. There is no “link.” How would you “link” to your own bathroom? As for Cheney, I did note that Cheney can be impeached, but let me make my post to demdandy crystal clear:

A sitting Vice President cannot be indicted by a grand jury.

Again, no “link” for that either, but that is the conclusion of the current state of the law in a memorandum from the Office of Legal Counsel at the Department of Justice. I can give you their phone number if you really want to follow up.

By: Mr. Bush Goes To Hell

Mr. Bush Goes To Hell — Wed, 25 Apr 2007 23:04:15 +0000

“IMPEACHING” IS “INDICTING”

Clinton WAS impeached (indicted). He was NOT convicted by the Senate.

In other words, FOUND NOT GUILTY..

No, about those LINKS to your statements???

By: Judy

Judy — Wed, 25 Apr 2007 23:01:32 +0000

demdandy:

A sitting Vice President cannot be indicted. I think Kucinich is trying to impeach Cheney though.

By: Mr. Bush Goes To Hell

Mr. Bush Goes To Hell — Wed, 25 Apr 2007 23:00:49 +0000

jake,

again, you have NO LINKS?

WHY did the ORIGINAL attorneys WHO WERE REPLACED leave??

Were they FIRED, or did they take a position ELSEWHERE??

Because if it IS the latter, this is HARDLY POLITICAL…

Saying it was EXACTLY like Bush is NOT TRUE. Gonzales AND Bush have been SHOWN by emails of Kyle Sampson and others

to have replaced the attorneys because they were either prosecuting Republics or they were NOT investigating “voter fraud” charges by the Republics…

THAT is political, and THAT is OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.

Now, WHY did the Clinton attorneys LEAVE? You seem to have information on the NAMES that you got SOMEWHERE,

so WHY NOT SHOW US THE INFORMATION and let us DECIDE if it was POLITICAL????

What do YOU have to HIDE, Jake?? Just more Bush/Rush azzhole-licking half-truths???

BRING IT ON!!

By: demdandy

demdandy — Wed, 25 Apr 2007 22:53:08 +0000

Looking at the photo without captions, one could assume the two subjects are two mid-level mafioso thugs in expensive suits.
Everyone is always oh-so-happy until the indictments are handed down.

By: Judy

Judy — Wed, 25 Apr 2007 22:30:58 +0000

On the other thread, those are indeed U.S. Attorneys nominated by Clinton between 1997-2000 to replace U.S. Attorneys previously appointed by Clinton (exactly the situation we have with Bush). They were all DEMOCRATS, so you guess if they were all POLITICAL replacements. I don’t know for sure, which is why I am asking the question (see thread topic). I got the information directly from the Clinton Library, so I don’t have any “links” (as I said above). As for Goodling, I don’t know if that is such a good idea — we’ll have to see whether she pulls another Oliver North (he testified before Congress with a grant of immunity during Iran-Contra but, again, I don’t have a “link” for that either).

By: Mr. Bush Goes To Hell

Mr. Bush Goes To Hell — Wed, 25 Apr 2007 22:20:24 +0000

Sure, “jake”.

The PARDON came up AFTER Rostenkowski was CONVICTED by the DEMOCRATIC US Attorney.

NO POLITICS at all.

And on the OTHER THREAD, it’s AMAZING how many US Attorneys you say Clinton “replaced”.

Were THEY all POLITICAL??

And HOW did you “remember” so much, if you have NO LINKS???

Funny, jake.

And PITIFUL.

Monica Goodling has been granted IMMUNITY, and will proceed to bring down Gonzo, Bush, and Cheney, TRAITORS ALL TO THE USA!!!

Have a good CRY, jake…

Heh heh heh! (TM–BushCrimeCo)