Hillary Clinton is lying through her teeth and she knows it.

[unregistered]

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Heh, republicans caught with their hands in the cookie jar and, as usual, start pointing fingers at Bill Clinton.

Gonzalez is history. There hasn't been an Attoney General with more contempt for the Constitution since Meece.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

The hypocrisy of the left is breathtaking. Bush should seek out every Clinton holdover and fire their ass just for drill and then thumb his nose at anyone who doesn't like it. It isn't like he is running for office.

At least that could have been defended, unlike the witch-hunt that happened.

 

[jhuson]

ROTFLMAO.

I love it.

Bush gets nailed again and the apologists are out in full force trying to link it to the Clintons.

What makes this even better is that hopefully some of it sticks and there is just enough baggage to keep her from winning the nomination.

Guys, I really wouldn't worry too much about Hillary -- she can't win a national election (unless the Repubs nominate a jagoff like Mit Romney, Huckabee or Brownback).

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

You could have at least spelled his name right. It's Meese, and he had more knowledge of, and more respect for, the Constitution than all of the fucking Democrats you could stick in forty acres.

Yep, thats why he was investigated on corruption charges, not once, but twice.

Then there was that whole Meese commission and the resulting loss in Meese vs. Playboy. First Amendment? We don't need no stinking first amendment.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Clinton only fired, I think, 93. So in liberal math the square root of blue is Chicago.

Bush and Gonzales would have been better off firing them all. They could have defended that.

Singling out Prosecutors who were investigating Republicans and not pressing forward investigations against Democrats under duress before the November elections smacks of conspiracy and ethics violations.

Gonzales will resign or be fired, he probably won't be alone.

 

[unregistered]

 

[hogjack]

Ishmael and busybody

Ishie helps busybody clip newspaper articles (confirming the Grand Leftist Conspiracy) to display on the walls.

So far their love is only in the budding stages.

 

[hogjack]

The hypocrisy of the Left is breathtaking.

That could be true. Or not. Always worthy of attention since hypocrisy deserves lambasting.

Nevertheless, the brethren on the Right must love Vetteman's porn collection and obsession.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

The hypocrisy of the left in the case of the U.S. Attorneys is undenialble to honest people. There are those who like to split hairs and pick flyshit out of pepper all day but an honest person sees the truth.

So your contention is that it's just fine for the administration, republican or democratic, to target certain Prosecutors because they are investigating high profile political officeholders of the same party as the President and aren't bowing to pressure from congresspersons to push forward cases in advance of an election for political purposes? Because this is exactly what is alleged to have happened, and testimony bears out that these firings are completely politically motivated.

I can guarantee that if the parties involved were reversed you would be screaming bloody murder for heads. This is easily proved by your "They did it too" argument while pointing at President Clinton even though the two are hardly comparable.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

I did scream when Clinton did it, but I never said he didn't have the unquestioned right to do so; and I didn't demand his resignation either. Are you trying to say that Clinton's firing of every U.S. Attorney save one wasn't politically motivated? All I'm saying is, neither the Attorney General or the President have to explain to Congress or anyone else why these people were fired, it is well within their purview to do so, as it was so aptly proved by the Clinton experience. All I'm demanding is that you have at least a modicum of memory.

It's customary for State Attorneys to leave their position when the President that appointed them leaves office. Those State Attorneys did not do so, and so forced President Clinton's hand, he fired them.

These State attorneys that were fired were pressured by Republican congresspersons to press cases against Democratic rivals and at least one was warned by the Justice Department to keep quiet or face retaliation.

While President Clinton did indeed replace all 93 state attorneys, he did not do so as a matter of pure political retribution.


As for a modicum of memory:
Mary Jo White, who was U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York from 1993-2002, also stated that the Bush administration’s prosecutor purge is unprecedented in “modern history”:

"You serve at the president’s pleasure, no question about that. … However, throughout modern history, my understanding is, you did not change the U.S. attorney during an administration, unless there was some evidence of misconduct or other really quite significant cause to do so. And the expectation was, so long as that was absent, that you would serve out your full four years or eight years as U.S. attorney."

State attorneys need to serve “without fear or favor and in an absolutely apolitical way.” By firing well-respected federal prosecutors (all that were fired for "performance reasons" received positive evaluations from the Justice Department) and replacing them with Republican loyalists, the Bush administration has politicized the judicial system. These firings are obviously a threat to the rest of the State Attorneys to "Toe the line or else."

 

[unregistered]

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

I'm sorry UD but you are ill informed. Clinton's action was unprecedented. It is cutomary for U.S. Attorneys to submit a resignation as a formality, it is unprecedented for the President to fire all of them. When those firings occur is irrelevant, whether it is in the first term or the second, Face it this is a political reaction by the President's enemies in the Senate, be big enough to admit it.

The President or the Attorney General can fire a U.S. Attorney if they don't like his tie and there isn't a damn thing the Senate can do about except waste the taxpayers money and heat up the planet.

Yes, it was unprecedented in that the State attorneys did not submit their resignations, as is customary when President Clinton took office. They forced his hand, and he fired them to make way for new appointees. He did not single out any of those Attorneys for dismissal, which is exactly what happened here. He cleaned house and appointed new State Attorneys through the normal process and senate confirmation. Which this administration was going to try to bypass using a new provision in the Patriot Act. Hell, one of those attorneys was fired purely to make room for a young Aide to Karl Rove to be appointed.

Keep beating that drum, but the investigations will continue, and heads will roll. Gonzalez will go at the very least, hopefully Rove will see his pudgy ass squarely in front of Congress under oath, and those congresspersons who leaned on States Attorneys for political purposes will face ethics charges and with any luck will go as well.

 

[RobDownSouth]

And she knows the press will not call her on it because she controls the access to the lone rock star of the Democrat Party, President William Jefferson Clinton. So like Easom Jordan and Saddam Hussein, there will be no outing of her lies…

But right now, you Democrats need to pay attention because she is blasting “The Chimp” for firing eight federal prosecutors when her husband fired them all. She is saying that Gonzales must be neutral and not take the President’s side after her husband sent Janet Reno out to explain why Web Hubbell needed all new lawyers. She is saying this is not normative when it in fact is; it was her husband’s act that was unprecedented. She knows you hate George Bush so much that you will not call her on her lie. She is also currently running for President.

You hate George Bush for being a liar. Do NOT vote for this woman, it is NOT a vote for Bill, it is a vote for a liar.

soooo....replacing US Attorneys for investigating Republicans is the norm.

Gotcha. Thanks.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Bullshit, the Attorney General doesn't even have to obey a Senate subpoena concerning this matter. I think you are having another wet dream UD. Total bullshit.

He can try to ignore a subpoena if he wants to risk Contempt of Congress. There is no precedent for executive privilege in this case, the Attorney General is not a "constitutional officer" and so has no executive privilege. The Attorney General is confirmed by the Congress, he can be removed by the same through impeachment if necessary.

Nice try though.

 

[garbage can]

Of course.

Did you hear him in Selma?

That drawl was borderline Dukakis in the Tank.

Ah, yes, Dukakis in the tank, with a helmet 2 sizes too big, and a man who hated the military.... another fucking liar.

 

[hogjack]

Now having said all of that, the fact that I have posted a thread full of porn can in no way be construed as hypocritical to my political beliefs which have always fallen down on the side of maximum freedom.

I might suggest to you that 35,000 views in three months or so on my thread speaks for itself. There are either a lot of folks who love to engage in their own hypocrisy, or simply believe, as I do, in the freedom to view whatever they please.

I concur your thread is very nice and has earned its view totals.

However, neither the "Right" or "Left" vocal proponents are within throwing distance of maximum freedom (depending on how that is defined, of course).

 

[Lasher]

Ah, yes, Dukakis in the tank, with a helmet 2 sizes too big, and a man who hated the military.... another fucking liar.

That's just about how stupid both Hillary and Obama looked drawling in Selma.

 

[busybody..]

Hillary Clinton Suddenly Backslides On Her "Gay Pride"
March 15th, 2007
From, of all places, CNN:


Sen. Clinton dodges question on gays, immorality
March 15, 2007

WASHINGTON (CNN) — Sen. Hillary Clinton sidestepped a question about whether she thinks homosexuality is immoral Wednesday, less than two weeks after telling gay-rights activists she was “proud” to stand by their side.

Clinton was asked the question by ABC News, in the wake of Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Peter Pace’s controversial comment that he believed homosexual acts were immoral.

“Well, I’m going to leave that to others to conclude,” she said…

[H]er initial refusal to answer the question that did not sit well with some gay and lesbian activists.

“I assume that Senator Clinton — who has spoken out strongly against military discrimination, who stands for civil unions and respect for same-sex couples — understands that gay Americans are not immoral, and she ought to say so clearly,” said Evan Wolfson, executive director of Freedom to Marry, a group that advocates same-sex marriage.

Other public figures have been more forceful in taking issue with Pace’s comments, making Clinton’s non-answer even more problematic…

Less than two weeks ago, Clinton received a standing ovation when she addressed the leadership of the Human Rights Campaign, a major gay-rights group.

In her remarks, Clinton expressed strong support for a litany of gay-rights initiatives, including extending civil unions and domestic partnership benefits to same-sex couples and allowing them to adopt children. She said she would work to pass a federal law outlawing employment discrimination based on sexual orientation and propose another measure extending benefits to the partners of federal employees.

“We want to make sure that all Americans in committed relationships have equal benefits, from health insurance and life insurance to Social Security and property rights and more,” she said.

Clinton also said she thinks the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, which keeps gay men and lesbians from serving in the military if they publicly acknowledge their sexual orientation, should be repealed. The policy was put in place in 1993 by her husband, former President Bill Clinton.

“It hurts all of our troops, and this, to me, is a matter of national security,” she said.

The senator even said she “loved the fact” that she and Human Rights Campaign share the initials HRC.

Noting her work with the HRC to defeat a federal constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, Clinton said, “This is exactly the kind of partnership we will have when I am president.”

“I am proud to stand by your side,” she said. “Just as you always have an open door to my Senate office, you will always have an open door to the White House.” …

You have to wonder why she is doing such a 180.

It must be due to polling. (So to speak.)