jw sustained a good point in my last question:
Why did Gonzales fired 8 of these attorneys and has problems while Clinton "fired" 93 and no problem.
This is what jw answered and I think he has a point:
"Clinton didn't fire them!
He did not renominate them as holdover appointments. This is a normal political purging...they were "not renominated", they were not fired. Big difference."
his whole issue revolves around letting attorneys work w/o political interference. After confirmation, it is customary to be hands off and let them work w/o political interference. It is also customary to hold them over (holdovers) during the second term. Again, for the same reasons, let them work w/o interference. The issue appears to be that loyalty to Bush seems to be the cause for termination and thusly political interference.
Please remember, Bush wanted to fire all 93 in the middle of his 2nd term which is highly, highly unusual. These AGs were his nominees. Its very odd."
2007-03-20 21:01:42 · 7 answers · asked by gabriell_021 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
So you see, this is why this needs investigation. If these attorneys started to think for themselves and did not want to cover up so much crap from Bush they got fired.
Bush should testify under oath and on record.
Like kehkohjones said:
"Well [...] he can't be accused of perjury if he doesn't testify under oath...isn't that it?"
2007-03-20 21:04:48 · update #1
I'm more interested in finding out why they don't want to testify UNDER OATH... "if (they) have nothing to hide..." as they are so fond of saying!
WHY should they be above the laws, morals and ethics they impose on the rest of the world (or at least the rest of America)? They SHOULD be compelled to testify under OATH... and face legal charges (obstruction of justice) if they invoke their 5th Amendment rights because they are public servants.... (I wish that were part of the law, shucks!). But, I'm sure that Dubya will find a way to divert attnetion to something else and find a way to pardon them (as I'm sure he will do with Libby, just as his term of office comes to an end).
2007-03-20 21:27:12 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
i might want to favor to respond to this question in my personal words, inspite of the obtrusive undeniable actuality that it might want to basically ultimately finally end up being a a lot a lot less eloquently phrased attempt to help what Wayne suggested ("both lied, both cheated..."). correct right here's why i'm answering: JDW1, you're able to be between the major ignorant human beings I actually have ever are available the course of. you're acceptable once you suggested that Clinton did not some thing at the same time as the WTC became into bombed. that could want to favor to have some thing to do with the obtrusive undeniable actuality that he had no longer been president for exceedingly a lot a three hundred and sixty 5 days by ability of creating use of then. Bush presented about more beneficial chance free American deaths than Clinton, palms down. The conflict in Iraq has presented about the shortcoming of existence of one thousand's, and what have we to coach for it? A captured and actually disgruntled Saddam Hussein, who, inspite of the actuality that a heinous chief, had no longer some thing to do with 9/11. someplace Bin encumbered is guffawing and cheering: "Jeb Bush in '08!"
2016-12-02 08:22:42 · answer #2 · answered by bennison 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would love to see him testify under oath before the senate judiciary committee,
Look at the idiots on ths committee. It would C=Spans version of the Simpsons.
2007-03-20 21:30:18 · answer #3 · answered by TedEx 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's not whether USAttys were fired. It's WHY.
Firing them as part of standard spring housecleaning, or even to just provide other people with the opportunity to serve, is fine.
Firing some or all because they will not abuse their positions by playing partisan politics is unethical.
2007-03-20 21:05:22 · answer #4 · answered by coragryph 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
More importantly, why does it make a difference.
Attorney Generals have no authority except to prosecute.
They do not control the Judiciary, that is what a judge is for. Therefore they can not influence the balance of power in the government.... so... what difference does it really make?
2007-03-20 21:07:23 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
bush testify under oath?
LMAO
and without cheney sitting there beside him holding his hand!
2007-03-20 22:32:26 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
timing and motive.
when did they happen...
who benefits.
the plan is hatched.
2007-03-20 21:06:42 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋