It has already been explained here dozens of times that it is not unusual for new presidents to fire all the US Attorneys and hire new ones at the beginning of his term of office. (Can’t you trolls find a better line by now?) But, just to set the record straight, Bill Clinton did not in fact fire all 93 of them. At the request of Senator Bill Bradley of New Jersey, he retained Michael Chertoff. Yes, the same M. Jerk-off who now heads the Dept. of Homeland Security.

Can anyone think of anything more corrupting to the national jury pool than this bullsh(t!

Want to get out of Fed. jury duty?

Tell the judge you can’t give the corrupt, Repugniscum run DoJ the benefit of the doubt.

Mention that there is no way to know which DoJ employees (especially ALL USAs) are not sucking up to the Repugniscums and the White House!

Tell the judge you believe the DoJ should be purged from top to bottom.

Ask the judge if he or she is a Repugniscum?

YOU WILL BE DISMISSED!

Or you could keep your mouth shut and work to nullify the jury from within!

Comment by Chaff-Foil Strips To Confuse Radar — August 15, 2007 @ 11:15 am

Another tired Repub “Clinton did it too” talking point that doesn’t hold water. Yes, Clinton fired all the USAs when he took office, and appointed different ones. GEORGE W. BUSH DID THE SAME THING when he took office. So did Ronald Reagan. So did pretty much every president who took over the White House from a different political party.

This doesn’t compare to firing YOUR OWN APPOINTEES in the middle of your term for suspicious reasons.

Next, please.

Comment by Chaff-Foil Strips To Confuse Radar”

The irony here is that bush would have been better off if he *had* simply fired everyone, which is the standard practice with each new administration.

Instead, what he did was attempt to effectively gerrymander DOJ by selectively firing those attorneys not considered sufficiently partisan or politically reliable.

You *do* understand why this is a bad thing, don’t you?

Thank you, I pride myself on being the best.

As has been posted adnausem, if the firings were made to cover up a crime (carol lam) or because a SA refused to go ahead with politically movtived prosecutions that would help the party in power, then there are potential crimes to be investigated. I went into detail about this earlier on this thread, but in typical troll fashion, you folks simply skim past those posts, then later on make the same talking point post. If you want to be taken seriously, be serious. if you want a flaming continue trolling.

Gee, where to start. How about a criminal scheme to force prosecutions on Dems that the local Repugs wanted to get rid of to give their candidate a shot? Uh, can you say FEDERAL CONSPIRACY TO MANIPULATE THE RULE OF LAW?

You wingnuts truly are blind. You see a “crime” when a Prez gets a blowjob yet you can’t manage to comprehend it when the admin. IN TOTAL engaged in many criminal activities and is actively covering it up, or trying to. Their incompetence bit them in the ass, because they stupidly sent tons of emails showing their crimes, many of which have been “leaked”
The USAttorney crimes are just ONE of the many Federal offenses they have committed. The International crimes, violation of the War Crimes Act and the Geneva Conventions not enough for you?
You are all traitors and UnAmerican. Leave now and take your puppet satan president and his ridiculous delusional Xtian crusade with you.
The day will soon come when ALL of them will be indicted and all of YOU will be proven to the world to be just what you are, supporters of a criminal, just like Nazi sympathizers. Keep your head in the sand, but eventually you will not be able to hide. Any decent Republican has long ago left the party. It now consists of only idiot, ignorant, racist chickenhawk warmongers with a collective IQ of about 3.

Says who? the people who are being investigated? you, a kneejerk apolgoist for the bush adminstration?

“Leave the validity, the legality, the constitutionality of their terminations up to an impartial U.S. district judge to decide. ”

And who’s going to prosecute the case? Alberto? someone who has taken the loyality oath? Tell you what, assign a special prosecuter, give him a budget and let’s see what happens.

“not pertinent to my judgment”
And who are you to be making this judgement? Congress is acting well within their powers and responsiblities by providing oversight for th executive branch.

And there have been trolls here who, in rebuttal to some calling for impeachment hearings, claimed impeachment was impossible because there had been no indictments and no convictions.

It’s hard to reason against troll logic like that…

‘“unprecented” is not necessarily illegal.’

and illegal isn’t always selfevident. how can any crime be proven without an investigation first? by your logic there shouldn’t be any invesitgations of any crimes. people should just be somehow magically prosecuted, without evidence and found guilty.

the dems are trying to investigate, and are being obstructed by the bush adminsstration. but according to the trolls on this site, the fact that they don’t have evidence of a crime before they investigate proves somehow that there was no crime. Some trolls here have whined about the length of the investigation, ignoring the constant footdragging of the whitehouse, and the 10 year, 80 million dollare whitewater investation they were so proud of just a few years ago.

I tried talking nice to the trolls this morning, it hasn’t worked. chaffy (or whoever) just ignores fact and logic, (it’s why he’s a republican troll) and something called a bird has flited in with pointless snark.

Comment by Bobwurst — August 15, 2007 @ 11:55 am

I realize the folly of teaching a pig to sing — it’s a waste of time and it annoys the pig. Thanks for the reminder!

Comment by Nachos of Justice — August 15, 2007 @ 11:53 am

And just WHERE would this court be where they would be treated fairly?

I tried talking nice to the trolls this morning, it hasn’t worked. chaffy (or whoever) just ignores fact and logic, (it’s why he’s a republican troll) and something called a bird has flited in with pointless snark.

Comment by Chaff-Foil Strips To Confuse Radar — August 15, 2007

Link to this mythical poll, please.

Comment by Chaff-Foil Strips To Confuse Radar — August 15, 2007 @ 11:17 am

Right now, nobody has been charged with anything. However, if one sees a significant amount of smoke where it ought not to be, the reasonable thing to do is investigate for a possible fire. This is, essentially, what’s going on with the Senate. (Bush shouldn’t feel picked on — this was done to Bill Clinton too, and led to his eventual impeachment).

This has been explained many, many times in TP threads, but I will go over it again. The USAs serve at the pleasure of the president, and he may dismiss any of them any time he wants. Where it gets to be a crime is if he dismisses them for refusal to perform acts that are illegal, or if he dismisses them in order to install another person for the purpose of committing illegal acts. There has been enough “smoke” surrounding this whole mess that it warrants some fire checking.

So, if nobody ever intended for any illegal or unethical actions to be done by the USAs, why in the world is everybody on the Bush staff acting so incredibly guilty? Why can’t Bush just say, “I fired these people because I wanted to. I can do that.” Why in the world does everybody have to hide behind “executive privilege” (as if this has anything to do with national security)? Why do the few people who do wind up testifying say “I don’t recall” or “I can’t answer that” over and over?

When Congress is satisfied there has been no crime committed (no fire, even though there’s smoke), they will drop it.