[quote]Headhunter wrote:
So Clinton had good reason to fire 93 all at the same time?
LMAO!!
[/quote]
Now, now. I’m sure Brad spoke up against those too. After all, he can’t seriously believe that all least some of those firings weren’t political in nature.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Bush can fire them all at the drop of a hat for no reason. Just like Clinton did.
[/quote]
Pay attention please. The president can fire the US Attorneys for “no reason”. But if he fires them for a “bad reason” then he will come under fire.
Clinton fired US Attorneys to put progressives or moderates in, presumably. Similarly, George Bush fired US Attorneys to put Conservatives in. This is considered acceptable and not considered a “bad reason”.
But if Bush fired US Attorneys (as alleged) because
then these are considered "bad reasons’ and hence the Gonzales tit-in-the-wringer.
Now, if you want to argue that the president has unlimited power and can do whatever the fuck he wants, whenever he wants, and doesn’t have to answer to anybody, ever, then that is a different conversation.
Again, for the slow readers here (3rd time): the president cannot fire US Attorneys for “bad reasons” according to Republican Senator Arlen Specter, former Committee Chairman for the Judicial Committee. That’s the allegation: that US Attorneys were fired for unacceptable reasons.
I think I’ll trust Senator Spector’s opinion over Zap Branigan’s.
[quote]Brad61 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Bush can fire them all at the drop of a hat for no reason. Just like Clinton did.
Pay attention please. The president can fire the US Attorneys for “no reason”. But if he fires them for a “bad reason” then he will come under fire.
Clinton fired US Attorneys to put progressives or moderates in, presumably. Similarly, George Bush fired US Attorneys to put Conservatives in. This is considered acceptable and not considered a “bad reason”.
…[/quote]
You said they should not be fired for political reasons. They were all hired and fired for political reasons. It is a political position.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
You said they should not be fired for political reasons. They were all hired and fired for political reasons. It is a political position.
[/quote]
No I didn’t say that. I said the Justice Department should not become a political arm for the GOP. I understand completely that Republicans generally want conservative judges and Democrats generally want liberal judges. I understand that Clinton and Bush both ‘cleaned house’ when taking office.
The issue now is that certain judges were singled out and fired for reasons that sensible people on both sides of the political spectrum consider illegitimate.
Maybe you just don’t fall into the ‘sensible’ category though, like a few of the right wingers here.
[quote]Brad61 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
You said they should not be fired for political reasons. They were all hired and fired for political reasons. It is a political position.
No I didn’t say that. I said the Justice Department should not become a political arm for the GOP. …[/quote]
But it is OK for the Dems to fire everyone and appoint their political cronies?
How is firing a select few more political than a mass firing and substitution with hand picked political stooges?
I mean honestly you are making no sense here whatsoever!
Can you read? I’m not convinced that you can.
I gave you three examples of how singling out attorneys for “bad reasons” was different than firing the whole group of attorneys when the presidency changes hands. I even numbered the examples. I did it two different times.
It’s like I’m talking to a friggin’ tree stump here.
Don’t worry buddy, smart people understand, and that’s what matters.
[quote]Brad61 wrote:
Not a “bad reason.” The office is political. The president can put a friend or any other qualified person in the position, simply because he wants to.
This would be damning. Where’s the evidence to support it? What if the attorney was prosecuting Republican corruption maliciously? Should he get a free pass? Or is job performance a “good reason?”
What if there was evidence, and the attorney still didn’t prosecute it for his own political reasons? If the president hires someone who is willing to prosecute the case, and there isn’t evidence, it shouldn’t proceed in court.
[/quote]
I think the definition of “bad reasons” expands to meet the conditions, in this case…
[quote]Brad61 wrote:
I gave you three examples of how singling out attorneys for “bad reasons” was different than firing the whole group of attorneys when the presidency changes hands. I even numbered the examples. I did it two different times.
[/quote]
So if there were US Attorneys investigating, say, the Clintons… and Clinton had all US Attorneys fired so he could not be accused of singling out just the ones investigating him… that would be OK?
So, by the same token, if Bush had just fired all the US Attorneys and replaced them with conservatives, there would be no story? Somehow I don’t believe that.
[quote]Brad61 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
You said they should not be fired for political reasons. They were all hired and fired for political reasons. It is a political position.
No I didn’t say that. I said the Justice Department should not become a political arm for the GOP. I understand completely that Republicans generally want conservative judges and Democrats generally want liberal judges. I understand that Clinton and Bush both ‘cleaned house’ when taking office.
The issue now is that certain judges were singled out and fired for reasons that sensible people on both sides of the political spectrum consider illegitimate.
Maybe you just don’t fall into the ‘sensible’ category though, like a few of the right wingers here.[/quote]
One of the people fired by Clinton was investigating Whitewater. Is that a good reason to fire that person?
LMAO!!
[quote]Brad61 wrote:
Can you read? I’m not convinced that you can.
I gave you three examples of how singling out attorneys for “bad reasons” was different than firing the whole group of attorneys when the presidency changes hands. I even numbered the examples. I did it two different times.
It’s like I’m talking to a friggin’ tree stump here.
…[/quote]
Yes it is. Clinton fired every single god-damned one of them for “bad” (political) reasons. Bush only fired a handful. You can keep spinning away but it does not change the facts that it is OK to hire and fire these guys for political reasons.
Bradley wrote:
And then stated:
Can you even wrap your head around how inconsistent you’re being?, I mean, damn!
You’re embarrassing yourself boy.
Try to understand this, the POTUS can fire any of the attorney’s, at any time, for any reason, period. He could fire a US attorney for having red hair, for driving a mini van, for being too “progressive”, bad job performance, whatever. He has the power to up and fire ANY attorney, at ANY time. It is a political appointment and they serve at the absolute leisure of the president.
I agree with HH, the AG should politely tell them to get fucked.
Bush (43) did not fire these people when he took office because he was too focused on other things.
Big mistake.
Waiting to fire these people until they would not do your bidding is even more idiotic.
Nothing new.
[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
Bush (43) did not fire these people when he took office because he was too focused on other things.
Big mistake.
Waiting to fire these people until they would not do your bidding is even more idiotic.
Nothing new.[/quote]
One of them, forget who, was letting in illegal aliens left and right.
More than 8 should have been fired; that’s actually probably too few. Bush is ‘too nice’.
[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
Bush (43) did not fire these people when he took office because he was too focused on other things.
Big mistake.
Waiting to fire these people until they would not do your bidding is even more idiotic.
Nothing new.[/quote]
He didn’t fire them as part of the “working with the Dems” and “changing the partisan politics in Washington” thing that he discussed during his campaign.
Obviously it didn’t work.
He was foolish to make even a slight attempt. It is just not the way things are done.
It is a major reason he is having problems in many government agencies. He didn’t throw out all the Clinton appointees.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
So if there were US Attorneys investigating, say, the Clintons… and Clinton had all US Attorneys fired so he could not be accused of singling out just the ones investigating him… that would be OK?
So, by the same token, if Bush had just fired all the US Attorneys and replaced them with conservatives, there would be no story? [/quote]
Valid questions. That’s why there are investigations. But if you read the responses of the other dumbasses (Tell the investigators to go to hell! The president can do anything he wants, whenever he wants) the investigations are an outrage.
Man, I guess Congress exercising their oversight duties and acting as a co-equal branch of the federal government, is really gonna suck for the Bushie crowd. You guys got too comfortable with the Bush Rubber-Stamp Congress, I guess. Those days are over though.
Boo hoo.
Enjoy the next two years, I know I will.
[quote]
if Bush had just fired all the US Attorneys and replaced them with conservatives, there would be no story? [/quote]
Has Bush ever appointed a single Democrat to do anything important? Can you name one? Did he install a single Democrat in a US Attorney position, ever? Your question implies that you think he did. If so, you would be wrong.
[quote]Brad61 wrote:
nephorm wrote:
So if there were US Attorneys investigating, say, the Clintons… and Clinton had all US Attorneys fired so he could not be accused of singling out just the ones investigating him… that would be OK?
So, by the same token, if Bush had just fired all the US Attorneys and replaced them with conservatives, there would be no story?
Valid questions. That’s why there are investigations. But if you read the responses of the other dumbasses (Tell the investigators to go to hell! The president can do anything he wants, whenever he wants) the investigations are an outrage.
Man, I guess Congress exercising their oversight duties and acting as a co-equal branch of the federal government, is really gonna suck for the Bushie crowd. You guys got too comfortable with the Bush Rubber-Stamp Congress, I guess. Those days are over though.
Boo hoo.
Enjoy the next two years, I know I will.
if Bush had just fired all the US Attorneys and replaced them with conservatives, there would be no story?
Has Bush ever appointed a single Democrat to do anything important? Can you name one? Did he install a single Democrat in a US Attorney position, ever? Your question implies that you think he did. If so, you would be wrong.
[/quote]
Amazing post…
The Senate or House telling Bush who he can fire or not, is like your accounting department telling your sales department whom to hire or fire. Then, when the sales department tries to be nice and answer your questions, the accounting department takes 'em to court.
Brad, you are quite the character…
Tell you what: I’ll be Bush and you be the Dems.
Bush: “Mind your own fucking business!”
There, end of story.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Tell you what: I’ll be Bush and you be the Dems.
Bush: “Mind your own fucking business!”
There, end of story.
[/quote]
Wait, I thought you hated Bush now?
I know, you’re confused. You don’t know what you think anymore. You’ve had your heart broken by George, and yet you still love him so much. Just let go, buddy! Life goes on! You’ll find some other douchebag to pin all your political illusions onto.
May I suggest… Rudy??? You’d make a cute couple!
By the way, Congress is a co-equal branch of the federal government, despite Bush’s grab for additional powers. He’s going get get spanked pretty hard on that. Pay attention.
[quote]Brad61 wrote:
By the way, Congress is a co-equal branch of the federal government, despite Bush’s grab for additional powers. He’s going get get spanked pretty hard on that. Pay attention.
[/quote]
Interesting, Brad. Do tell what “co-equal” power the Senate has in play here.
You seem to know, or you wouldn’t use “co-equal”. So tell us.
[quote]Brad61 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Tell you what: I’ll be Bush and you be the Dems.
Bush: “Mind your own fucking business!”
There, end of story.
Wait, I thought you hated Bush now?
I know, you’re confused. You don’t know what you think anymore. You’ve had your heart broken by George, and yet you still love him so much. Just let go, buddy! Life goes on! You’ll find some other douchebag to pin all your political illusions onto.
May I suggest… Rudy??? You’d make a cute couple!
By the way, Congress is a co-equal branch of the federal government, despite Bush’s grab for additional powers. He’s going get get spanked pretty hard on that. Pay attention.
[/quote]
Well, you’ve managed to exceed your previous posts. You do know about seperation of powers and a thing called the Constitution?
How does my taking Bush’s part in this conflict with how he has betrayed the Republican/Conservative movement? His perogatives are spelled out IN THE CONSTITUTION. The Dems are trying to blur the seperation (such as Nancy’s treasonous trip to Syria).
If you lib/dems want a dictatorship, just say so and quit trying to blur your way into one.
Trying to take power by destroying the seperation of powers is treasonous. Enjoy defending that, Brad.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
These people are all employed ‘at will’. That means that GWB can fire them at the drop of a hat.
The problem is that GWB treats the Dems with respect and actually expects the same back (LOL). So, when they asked about the firings, they got responses and began looking for ‘lies’. Pure evil…
He should have told them to mind their own fucking business and that’s EXACTLY how I would have put it to them — behind closed doors of course; don’t want to offend the soccer moms and the faint-of-heart rodents that proliferate over here. [/quote]
What in the hell are you talking about?
The GOP has been basically squashing the dems politically since the Republican rev.
The democrats, if you ask me, have let the GOP get away with tons of shit it shouldn’t have.
The party in power will never respect the other. Only a few presidents have done it.