...concerning his involvement with the 8 firings...
As the emails now plainly show, he was directly involved which contradicts his temporary amnesia.
2007-03-27 02:54:39 · 20 answers · asked by Chi Guy 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Real est (below) His meetings, as revealed in the emails, were of determining who to fire and to give what reasons for the firings. Ones head in the sand will not subvert the truth.
2007-03-27 03:18:53 · update #1
Doc (below) the question is about the lies, not the authority to fire someone. Focus...
2007-03-27 03:20:35 · update #2
It's a lie and we should know WHY he was lying about his involvement - what is he hiding.
2007-03-27 03:00:40 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
What it is truly, is you (along with the majority of Americans) getting caught up in the political plot to ignore facts and discredit the republican party all just prior to a major election. The federal judges are appointed , not elected and can be dismissed without just cause -- and usually are immediately after an election (Clinton fired 49 and no one batted an eye, certainly you didn't). And that these"judges" are all now crying foul is absolutely pathetic. It'd be like enlisting in the military for the college education/opportunity and completely ignoring the possibility of being called upon to go to war, whether you believe in the cause or not. You've already given these over paid stuffed shirts more time and attention than what's deserved. Can we please now move on to something truly important?
It was one of those moments, like when you catch your five year old in the act of doing something they didn't want you to see. You ask him what he was doing and he gives up anything but the whole truth. You caught him off guard. It wasn't illegal. I wouldn't even call it immoral, I WOULD however call it call it hipocrisy, that it's all right for one party to do this, but then throw their sucker in the dirt when the other tries to do the same. I WOULD call it, the media showing it's true colors and agenda. And I would EVEN go so far as to say that it shows just how stupid, childish and immature a great many of my fellow Amreicans are, that they would even bother to give this two seconds worth of attention. Flippin' pathetic. Is THAT focus enoug for you?
2007-03-27 10:11:36 · answer #2 · answered by Doc 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Don't think it is illegal. If a false statement is made under oath, then it becomes illegal.
Most of the rather messy issues that have arisen from the Bush administration cannot be considered illegal, but I must say their almost pathological, chronic use of dodges (probably based on the constant hammering they get from the media, regardless of what they do, good or bad) is very disappointing and feeds into the hands of their political enemies.
They would be smart to just do what is right for America, get it done, and move on to the next issue. Everything else is just so much crap.
Too bad the public in general can't see the biased news reporting for what it is.
2007-03-27 10:08:40 · answer #3 · answered by Philip H 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
His early public statements are at least unethical and hopefully will also be found to be evidence enough that his 'actions' will be found to have been illegal. If his boss, who could not have selected such a group of losers as his advisers and cabinet have proved to be without supernatural stupidity AND bad luck, actually was involved in the firing of those attorneys for political reasons, we may even have an impeachment of a President emanate from this.
2007-03-27 10:01:35 · answer #4 · answered by Nightstalker1967 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Lams dismissal while directly in the middle of Duke Cunningham's trial is the real problem here. This is the obstruction of justice Gonzo is involved in, not to mention Gonzo's communication e-mails with Senator Feinstein over the matter several times.
2007-03-27 10:27:56 · answer #5 · answered by leonard bruce 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Those in power can do most anything so I would claim his statements were unethical AND illegal. Why would anybody lie for the current scumbag occupier of the White House - unless they were promised a BIG paycheck down the road? These folks better look to see what promises were made by this scumbag - and determine the % of promises that weren't kept.
2007-03-27 10:00:33 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Well if the emails had been properly deleted this wouldnt even be an issue now would it.
It wasnt so much misleading or lying as he thought he could get away with it because all evidence had been done away with.
2007-03-27 09:57:03 · answer #7 · answered by Perplexed 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I'm hoping that this, too, doesn't get swept under the carpet. There is enough here, I believe, to blow a whole lot wide open. And if the dems just stick to their guns, America might finally learn some hard fought truths. Keep your fingers crossed....
2007-03-27 10:00:04 · answer #8 · answered by Super Ruper 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Unethical.
2007-03-27 09:57:50 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Neither...it was the truth...He was not DIRECTLY involved...he knew of it...
Let me put it simple for you libs....
You know of the goings on in Congress...but you are not in Congress therefor not DIRECTLY involved....
Or is that to advanced for your intellect...after all you say GW is stupid...and HE BEAT YOU TWICE...that says a lot of your intellect or rather the lack there of.....
2007-03-27 10:04:56 · answer #10 · answered by Real Estate Para Legal 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Unethical. Dishonest. Immoral. But not illegal. There is no crime in lying. There is only crime in lying under oath. Which is why Bush is resisting sworn testimony. Because Bush's loyalty is to his cabinet, not to the American people.
2007-03-27 09:59:38 · answer #11 · answered by Bush Invented the Google 6 · 1⤊ 3⤋