She prosecuted a great case, caught a political criminal, and was punished for it. What gives?
2007-03-15 14:14:59 · 11 answers · asked by Chi Guy 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
yupchag (below) Which seems more impartial versus political targets?
2007-03-15 14:28:28 · update #1
Reported, for being a dumb a s s
2007-03-15 14:17:37 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
It is so sad to read all these Americans being so misled or uninformed or willfully ignorant.
Firing all the attorneys at the beginning of your term to start a new team is not the same as firing attorneys in the middle of your term who happen to be prosecuting republican criminals.
Doesn't that even matter to you bushites? We always say the man could rape and kill jenna on tv and y'all would still love him. Now, he's using the prosecution power in America to enforce his political agenda - legalized theft for republican bigwigs.
Are you even aware that the rethugs wrote memos on these firings, planning to deal with the political fallout? Are you aware that a gonzalez aid ranked every attorney on 'loyalty' to the president/ Does that bother you?
This is like Nixon firing the prosecutors going after him. It's wrong, it has nothing to do with 'the pleasure of the president.'
2007-03-15 16:53:24 · answer #2 · answered by t jefferson 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Here is what makes me mad, why did it take until now for Gonzales to feel the heat for all of this political junk? A lot of this is 1 to 2 years old. Are they only paying attention now b/c Democrats are in control?
Would the administration have gotten away with it otherwise?
2007-03-15 14:21:05 · answer #3 · answered by Rick 4 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Obviously because she hated America, apple pies, baseball, and freedom. I have also read that she moonlighted as an IslamoFemiNazi lesbian stripper who liked to kick puppies for fun, sold crystal meth to Ted Haggard, and got Rush Limbuagh addicted to OxyContin. Her lesbian wife was the elusive liaison between Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, and helped hide Saddam's WMDs in San Francisco, where they are being readied for a cataclysmic strike on Texas. All of it.
2007-03-15 14:22:45 · answer #4 · answered by Business Hippie 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Karl Rove told him to. And the Senate has the Email to prove it.
Go big Red Go
2007-03-15 14:36:13 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
US Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president. Firing 8 (out of 93) is no big deal. If it were because of that case, don't you think she would have been fired long before the case came to trial? Slick Willie fired 92, did you object to that?
2007-03-15 14:20:13 · answer #6 · answered by yupchagee 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Probably because he could.
No crime, the POTUS can hire and fire US Attorneys, even if he don't like them is a good enough excuse.
2007-03-15 14:44:33 · answer #7 · answered by Duh 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
why did bill clinton fire ALL 123 u.s. attorneys when he first got into the white house?
2007-03-15 14:27:27 · answer #8 · answered by patriot07 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Because Gonzalez cannot allow the great republican theft machine to be dismantled until they've taken every last one of our pennies.
2007-03-15 14:18:20 · answer #9 · answered by cassandra 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Because Bill Clinton did the same. The GOP didn't want to be outdone.
2007-03-15 14:19:08 · answer #10 · answered by The Parthian 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋
She did her job ethically and it made the dictastor angry, so he had his little ***** Gonzalez fire her.
2007-03-15 14:19:57 · answer #11 · answered by Mario Savio 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋