More Sen. Schumer craziness

MDP - Frankly, I'm tired of people equating Clinton's firings with Bush's firings. Clinton fired all the US Attorneys immediately after he took office because they had been appointed by the previous administration. This is normal and all president's do it. Despite the fact that I think US Attorneys should be hired based on their qualifications, the jobs are purely political and appointees serve at the whim of the president. New president, new attorneys. Nuf said.

Bush, on the other hand, fired attorneys he himself appointed, so it had nothing to do with the new president, new attorneys concept that Clinton and most other modern presidents followed. Bush (or more accurately, the Justice Department), fired the handful of appointees for whatever other reasons they saw fit. As noted, these attorneys serve at the whim of the president and they can be canned anytime for any reason. The accusation (as yet unproven) seems to be that there was some politicing going on that reached far beyond the politics of political whim. Had Gonzales simply said they were canned because the president felt like it, all would have been forgotten, or more likely, gone unnoticed. Instead he weaved and dived and contradicted himself at every turn, appeared to be incompetent, and blew up the floodgates of an untrusting opposition party majority in the senate, thereby inviting, no, demanding, that he be called on the carpet. Gonzales was so incompetent in his handling of the firings that even many Republicans think he's full of crock.

Schumer, for what it's worth, is a bit of a microphone hog, always seeking out an opportunity to offer a sound byte to the media. Sure, the left loves him, but most centrists think he overplays the indignant keeper of integrity bit. Even so, going after Rove is both highly partisan and highly appropriate congressional oversight, depending on how you look at it. Was Rove the architect of all that is Bush? Pretty much. Should he get credit for Bush's success? Absolutely. Should he get grief from Bush's failures? Well, possibly. Schumer thinks so, others don't. As for confirming supreme court nominees, obviously Schumer was blustering.

I agree with you about it going away if the President had just come forward and said I fired them. Because they like most other people in the executive serve at the pleasure of the President. Gonzales was promoted one job too many.

The President can fire any US attorneys anytime he wants. "FACT." I live in NY. UP-CHUCK SCHUMER is a total jerk- o--. As far as BJ- Billie goes he fired them all because he was afraid they may investigate his shady deals in Arkansas. Hurry- Hurry neo libs, get Rove he may be escaping.

Seems like the dems are upset that Clinton was impeached, and they are trying to do the same to Bush. That said, even though the president has the right to hire and fire the attorneys whenever he feels like, it does seem rather suspicious.

Micky: The president can fire attorneys any time he wants. They cannot and should not fire them for not holding the right political opinions, or for refusing to prosecute cases with political slants. All Presidents generally fire the all the attorneys at the beginning of their terms. Only Mr. Bush fires his own appointees midstream for political reasons.

James: You're joking, right? You equate trying to impeach a sitting president over a blowjob with picking a war on false a false premise and killing close to 4,000 of our own people as a result? BTW please remember that while Clinton was indicted (accused....impeached) he was also acquitted. Surely lying about going to war is a bit more serious than lying about getting a blowjob. I personally am happy that the majority of Democrats are not willing to drag the country through the mess of an impeachment they have no chance of winning as the Republicans were.

David: Nicely said. It's nice to read thoughtful commentary rather than people who use dumb cutesy poo name calling in lieu of facts and thinking.

"He seems to forget that his buddy President Clinton fired the whole bunch. "

This is a deceptive right wing talking point. Clinton replaced all 93 when he first took office, not when he entered his second term.

The fact of the BA's firing of these highly competent, capable US attorneys that points political justification being the motive behind them is what is being investigated. They were not fired for incompetence or for not performing their duties.

They were fired because they weren't going after enough democrats aggressively enough, right before elections (which would be illegal interference into an election), while investigating corrupt republicans too aggressively. Some very significant cases against the culture of corruption simply mysteriously vanished after the replacements.

The fact is, all evidence, based upon testimony in front of congress, indicates that these attorneys were fired purely for political reasons (gee...imagine...this white house politicization something....who would ever guess?), and the fact that key persons have lied under oath, and/or have refused to testify, and the white house has utterly refused to turn over critical documents pertaining to these firings indicates a clear intent to deceive and prevent congress from fully investigating the matter.

If the white house were innocent, they would have no problem testifying and telling the truth under oath, and would not be refusing to turn over documentation. It is absolutely critical that congress complete their investigation, or hold those standing in obstruction of justice accountable. Anyone who doesn't understand this doesn't understand the rule of law, and how vitally important it is to maintain at all levels.

Yes, the president can fire US attorneys as he sees fit. However, he CANNOT fire them for purely political reasons, which appears to be the case here. He also cannot instruct his minions to lie under oath about it in front of congress. Let's not forget that it was the LYING that got them into this mess in the first place. If they had nothing to hide and therefore had not lied about the firings, they wouldn't be under investigation at all.

" Seems like the dems are upset that Clinton was impeached, and they are trying to do the same to Bush. "

Rule of law. Presidents do NOT have legal authority to fire and replace US attorneys for purely political reasons, nor do they have the right to lie about it or instruct others to do so. Honest testimony used to be really important to republicans, when it created the opportunity to impeach a democratic president for getting a blow job. Now that it involves the blatant politicization of the most critically important department in the white house, and the subsequent cover up of that politicization, honesty doesn't matter one bit. Nice double standard.

Rule of law matters.

The BIG difference is bush DESERVES TO BE IMPEACHED.

Don, what do you propose as an article of impeachment?

"Rule of law. Presidents do NOT have legal authority to fire and replace US attorneys for purely political reasons, nor do they have the right to lie about it or instruct others to do so."

Are you trying to say that the fireing of US attorneys when a president takes office which is obviously for political resons is OK but fireing US attorneys at a later date for political reasons is Forbidden?

Does that make sense? Not to me it don't. Clinton did not get impeached for his In the Oval Office sexual affairs, he got impeached for lieing to Congress about it. He got away with it because the DEMOCRATS in congress voted to aquit.

Impeach Bush if you must but do it for the right reasons this is not one of them.

Schumer and a news conference...no news there! Well, did anyone get hurt stepping between him and the camera? LOL

" Don, what do you propose as an article of impeachment?"

How about his illegal NSA spy program, for starters? That one's a no-brainer, since a federal court has already ruled it illegal, and he's admitted to doing it. Slam. Dunk. Impeach. Remove. Convict. Incarcerate. Case closed.





"
Are you trying to say that the fireing of US attorneys when a president takes office which is obviously for political resons is OK but fireing US attorneys at a later date for political reasons is Forbidden?"

If they're fired for no reason other than that they were conducting investigations against corrupt republicans and refusing to concoct bogus investigations right before elections against democrats, that is illegal. Sorry. And, of course, lying to congress and obstructing justice is also illegal. Sorry again. Rule of law, remember?





"Clinton did not get impeached for his In the Oval Office sexual affairs, he got impeached for lieing to Congress about it."

Actually, he "lied" to a grand jury in his deposition. Isn't it interesting that Rove and Libby got to do many "do overs" when they lied to a full grand jury, but Clinton was immediately impeached for not being truthful in his deposition? Sorta seems a tad double-standard-ish to me.

Also, it's worth noting that the special prosecutor had absolutely no jurisdiction to pry into the man's private life. He was brought in to continue an investigation into allegations of crimes committed with regard to a land deal in which the Clinton's lost money. He was brought in after a previous special prosecutor had found NO EVIDENCE to either warrant indictment or even continuing the investigation. The republiCONs in congress would have none of that, however. They brought Starr in to carry on an investigation that the previous prosecutor had deemed unworthy of pursuing.

In the end, Starr agreed that the investigation was not worth pursuing, but that wouldn't suffice for the hypocritical dickwad republiCONs in congress. No, they wanted Clinton's head, one way or another. They simply couldn't tolerate the fact that he was a better republiCON president than they could ever hope to produce from their own ranks, and they just HAD to do something to bring him down.

Therefore, they entrapped him, by paying a "friend" of Monica to get her to tape private conversations, and get Monica to speak about an ADULT, CONSENSUAL affair. Once on tape, while giving a deposition on the whitewater investigation, the sleazy Starr brought Clinton into a trap, knowing full well that not only was the question far out of bounds for him to ask, but that Clinton would absolutely deny it on record.

Trouble is, the American public saw it for what it was...a nasty, partisan attempt to destroy a highly popular president. Clinton's popularity ratings never sunk lower than just over twice that of this miserably failed president's, even at the height of the impeachment. The public was disgusted and disgraced by the entire sham.




"He got away with it because the DEMOCRATS in congress voted to aquit."

Excuse me, liar, but republiCONs were in charge of the senate at the time. It was your pals who could find no justification for removing him from office, because they knew that his "crime" did not rise to the level of impeachment.





"Impeach Bush if you must but do it for the right reasons this is not one of them."

Oh, but impeaching Clinton for trying to keep a very private issue private was? It's about rule of law, pal. Presidents do not have the right to abuse their power for partisan purposes, nor do they have the right to with hold information from congress or lie under oath. He could be impeached simply for refusing to turn over pertinent documents. He has to outline his justification for executive privilege, and he has failed to do so. He is simply refusing to comply with a congressional order. That, in itself, is an impeachable offense.

So it violating the presidential records act, btw, which we now know that he is also guilty of, since he has apparently "lost" 5,000,000 white house emails. Oh, caging lists for the purpose of disenfranchising voters is also illegal. And, fortunately, several of those "lost" emails have turned up in the hands of a brilliant journalist, and he's shared them for all to see. More than one of them contains very detailed information about such caging lists. Ooopsies. Looks like there's plenty of impeachable dirt lying around.

Unfortunately for the nation, the Pussycrats aren't going to carry out their constitutional obligation, because they know that leaving Bush in office for another 18 months will do such immense damage to the GOP that they'll undoubtedly sweep in 2008, and the disastrous neocon-religionut-led GOP will become an awful memory.