Predicto Posted August 30, 2007 Share Posted August 30, 2007 For a detailed discussion, look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S._attorneys_controversy Yeah, I know Wikipedia isn't perfect, but it pulls a lot of information together in one place for you. In this case, there apparently have been no complaints that the Wiki article is biased or inaccurate (Wikipedia lists those complaints at the top of articles). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ATV Posted August 30, 2007 Share Posted August 30, 2007 Thank god we still don't live in times where almost everyone doesn't actually take her spooge for more than what it is - pure propaganda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted August 30, 2007 Share Posted August 30, 2007 I'm sure you did plenty of research on the firings under Reno since the media obviously did not. I will look forward to seeing all the research you have put into each case. Feel free to prove your own accusations. You see I don't believe in the media conspiracy, had something stunk the odds are some reporter or investigator would have dug it up. You do remember that the Clinton admin was in the sights of a special prosecutor right? I find it extremely unlikely that a major political storm such as this would have been overlooked by Ken Starr and the entire media. Not to mention the fact that Clinton was so hated by the GOP that every republican senator and rep in the country would have died for such a scenerio. So present YOUR case instead of asking me to prove a negative. I look forward to seeing your research and fair and balanced conclusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted August 30, 2007 Share Posted August 30, 2007 It is really not that complicated. Traditionally, all US attorneys are replaced when a new President comes in. Clinton replaced pretty much all of them when he came in in 1992, all 93 of them. That's what Presidents do, Clinton, Reagan, whoever, they all put their own people in. That is why there was no "scandal" back in 1992. However, once the new President is in office, US attorneys generally are not fired except under extraordinary circumstances. The reason for that is obvious. The US attorneys' job is to investigate and prosecute crimes, including crimes by political allies of the President. When 8 US attorneys are fired in the middle of a President's term, it is not an unreasonable question for Congress to ask - Why were they fired? For example, were they fired to squelch an investigation into actions by an ally of the President? Then, when the Attorney General goes to Congress to answer this question and his testimony is hopelessly incoherent and is contradicted by other people's testimony, things get even dicier. He looks like a liar. That is why Congressional leaders from BOTH parties wanted him to go. I think you guys are being deliberately obstuse. This is not that complicated. Well said... other then the obstuse comment of course. This is real simple to grasp. Something outside the norm happened, congress asked why, Gonzo then obviously lied about it. Suddenly it's a problem (even if loyalists deem it a non-story because Hannity said so) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winslowalrob Posted August 31, 2007 Share Posted August 31, 2007 Where and when was I supposed to laugh? PJ O'Rourke is funny. Coulter, not so much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BAFGA Posted August 31, 2007 Share Posted August 31, 2007 I don't think it was funny at all. Then again, the unabashed Hokie apologist seems to have a warped sense of humor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.