Getting Feisty

POINTER94

Vice Admiral
Joined
Oct 12, 2003
Messages
5,031
Re: Getting Feisty

Rant off:

Gonna sail away - sun lights another day
Freedom on my mind - carry me away for the last time
RIP Brad Delp


It's like losing a friend I never had. The group that introduced me to Rock and Roll. I still sometimes pop in their first album and I am transported back to high school when girls, and rock music was all that mattered. When musicians were talented and only sometimes beautiful. Boston remains to this day pioneers and innovators and will forever hold a place of honor in any Rock and Roll collection. (rockman, guitarists know what I mean). Thanks for the tribute stevieray, it couldn't have been said any better. :'(

Sorry,
Resume Rant.
 

12Footer

Fleet Admiral
Joined
Mar 25, 2001
Messages
8,217
Re: Getting Feisty

And the President told it like it was today.. FINALLY!!!!
A bit late, but I'll take it :)
 

i386

Captain
Joined
Aug 24, 2004
Messages
3,548
Re: Getting Feisty

I guess you missed my point (or maybe just came back swinging since Gabby had your slack). Regardless, It had more to do with "With his "if you haven't done anything wrong, why should you fear it so" comment his left wing, big gov't bias is clearly evident." than tapping phone lines. I just used that as an example.
 

waterinthefuel

Commander
Joined
Nov 15, 2003
Messages
2,728
Re: Getting Feisty

Oh, uh, ok.
14.gif
 

CJY

Lieutenant Junior Grade
Joined
Jun 19, 2005
Messages
1,242
Re: Getting Feisty

Much complaining about the fact no charges have been brought forward. As others have stated, it's an investigation. If the investigation warrants charges, they will be filed. Would you all be complaining so loudly if Kenneth Starr were running the show? Did you all complain like this 12 years ago? We all know he leads a witch hunt better than any democrat ever could.

Maybe the dems are using tactics similar to those employed by Starr.......just dig until you find something, then bring charges. BTW, I am almost positive that is how an investigation works. Terrible feeling when the shoe gets put on the other foot, is it not? :':)'(
 

POINTER94

Vice Admiral
Joined
Oct 12, 2003
Messages
5,031
Re: Getting Feisty

CJY, There has to be some underlying belief that a crime was committed. Some kind of crime, any kind of crime. Crime defined as something illegal. (Note: there is nothing illegal about firing an AG. For any reason.)

Ken Starr didn't presuppose that a crime was committed. He didn't create new laws to fit a charge. Neither did Fitzgerald. Lil' Nancy, not quite as bright. Someone please share with me exactly what crime that someone is alleged to have committed! Murderers use the attorney client priveldge all the time. And liberals are there to ensure that they get away with it. The president has the right to candid and unabridged counsel. Hence the statue. And he can fire any AG he wants at any time for any reason. But hey, liberals are upset, so we break a few laws for this weeks news cycle gratification.

Rove NEVER has to testify. I don't care how upset a couple of liberals are.
 

OldMercsRule

Captain
Joined
Nov 30, 2006
Messages
3,340
Re: Getting Feisty

CJY said:
Much complaining about the fact no charges have been brought forward. :} As others have stated, it's an investigation. :} If the investigation warrants charges, they will be filed. :} Would you all be complaining so loudly if Kenneth Starr were running the show? Did you all complain like this 12 years ago? We all know he leads a witch hunt better than any democrat ever could. :}:}

Maybe the dems are using tactics similar to those employed by Starr.......just dig until you find something, then bring charges. :} BTW, I am almost positive that is how an investigation works. :} Terrible feeling when the shoe gets put on the other foot, is it not? :':)'(

[colour=blue]Blatantly Intellectually dishonest
The old Liberal fuzzy moral equivilence arguments like USSR = USA; Communism = Capitalism and the left wing screamed that both are equally very bad! Ken Starr investigated well known allegations with well documented specific abuse of power matters that clearly showed probable cause of criminal activity prior to the authorization of his investigation. Is that hard to understand for you? In this matter there is no possibility of any crime , (prior to creating one that would be a process crime) and it is clearly criminalizing politics, and overreaching into the Executive's pervue. If ya like that kinda activity ya clearly want to burn down our system. If you are sooo invested in drinking Kool aid where that prima facia fact is not clearly apparent to you I or anyone else can't possibly help you. JR[/colour]
 

WillyBWright

Fleet Admiral
Joined
Dec 29, 2003
Messages
8,200
Re: Getting Feisty

No suicide bomber should assasinate the president in an airplane with a bomb. He/she will not become a Martyr, he/she will just become dead.


There. That should do it. ALL US telephone and internet traffic is monitored by NSA computers 24/7/365. The computers look for keywords and phrases and flags the communication if it finds any. The words I used just got everyone here tagged. So rest assured that YOUR words are being monitired by the NSA this very minute and take comfort in that, Gabby. Too bad they're distracted from real concerns, but that's what they do.

That's different from the warrantless monitoring that has come under fire in past months, although it is certainly used to tag the communicators and communicatees for the FBI to wiretap. So I might just have gotten all of us on somebody's watch list simply by using those keywords in an otherwise harmless and innocent communication. How's it feel, Gabby? Imagine if the sentences were Not innocent, post #1 of 1 by an alQuedan web surfer bent on "spreading the word" just happening by. Have you checked your no-fly status lately? ;)

( This was a reply to Gabby toward the end of page two. )

Back on subject, the excuses used here to write-off questionable dismissals are simply astounding. All I hear is diatribe after diatribe as to why the truth should not be sought. The dismissals are the evidence, not the violation. The violation would be dismissing them so that criminal investigations and litigations involving political comrades ceased as it's intended result. Obstruction of Justice is a crime of the magnitude of High Crimes and Misdemeanors. E-mails seem to be pointing in that direction. They want clarifications. So why not voluntarily do that? Why take every step available to avoid it? And don't give me that "Let them do their jobs" argument. It could already be done and over with. The campaign to avoid testifying dwarfs the time involved in complying.
 

Gabby

Petty Officer 2nd Class
Joined
Mar 12, 2007
Messages
189
Re: Getting Feisty

I'm a Delta Frequent Flier there WillBForced upon everyone, Silver Medallion level. I get free peanuts. And as I said in my diatribe,if you don't use language that flags your conversation, you have nothing to worry about. And IF they DO flag a conversation, they then analyze it via HUMINT and when they realize there is nothing of substance there, just another chicken little yelling the sky is falling, they dismiss it.

By the way the truth as you see isn't necessarily the truth. It's YOUR truth, and I'm sure to you an important truth. To me your truth might as well be Disneyland. Drugs are Bad UmKay?

Having said that, I hope you have an enjoyable weekend. I'm gonna bone up on my Spanish and Arabic.

By the way, if you want, you can go back to the U.S. Postal Service. I don't think they monitor your comments there. Course it TAKES a while to get them anywhere...:love:
 

POINTER94

Vice Admiral
Joined
Oct 12, 2003
Messages
5,031
Re: Getting Feisty

The violation would be dismissing them so that criminal investigations and litigations involving political comrades ceased as it's intended result.

This is not a crime dispite the fact you discribe it as such. Nixon fired the special counsel/investigator during the watergate scandal. Remember. He wasn't charged with anything for doing so. Constitutional scholars studied it extensively. Nobody went to create non-existant laws or statues but clearly questioned his motivations. I find it funny that liberals are not demanding that Sandy Burgler be forced to identify the documents he jammed down his shorts and destroyed. No, no double standard. :} :} :}

If liberals want to impeach the president they can do so tommorrow with his willfull disregard for one of the few constitutional mandates given to a sitting president. Secure our boarders. :|
 

OldMercsRule

Captain
Joined
Nov 30, 2006
Messages
3,340
Re: Getting Feisty

WillyBWright said:
No suicide bomber should assasinate the president in an airplane with a bomb. He/she will not become a Martyr, he/she will just become dead.


There. That should do it. ALL US telephone and internet traffic is monitored by NSA computers 24/7/365. The computers look for keywords and phrases and flags the communication if it finds any. The words I used just got everyone here tagged. So rest assured that YOUR words are being monitired by the NSA this very minute and take comfort in that, Gabby. Too bad they're distracted from real concerns, but that's what they do.

That's different from the warrantless monitoring that has come under fire in past months, although it is certainly used to tag the communicators and communicatees for the FBI to wiretap. So I might just have gotten all of us on somebody's watch list simply by using those keywords in an otherwise harmless and innocent communication. How's it feel, Gabby? Imagine if the sentences were Not innocent, post #1 of 1 by an alQuedan web surfer bent on "spreading the word" just happening by. Have you checked your no-fly status lately? ;)

( This was a reply to Gabby toward the end of page two. )

[colour=blue]Willy, That type of monitering is and has been going on since the mid ninties when the internet began to get wide spread use. I have referred to the dispute between Algore, (as VP), and then Rep Maria Cantwell. Mr. Gore wanted to require an inside trap door for nany government on all encription protected communications that she and others stopped. That is not just Mr. Bush that does that type of monitoring. Voice phone calls also have sampeling that looks for key words as well, (which goes back years). [/colour]

Back on subject, the excuses used here to write-off questionable dismissals are simply astounding. All I hear is diatribe after diatribe as to why the truth should not be sought. The dismissals are the evidence, not the violation.

[colour=blue]Wow Willy!! Think of what you just said here. The President was given the authority to prosecute under the Cornstitution. Does that mean anything to ya? That's is REAL CLEAR: Willy. The President can hire and or fire all or none outa the US Attorneys at any time for any or no reason n' that's any non "special" DOJ prosecutor. He actually can fire those too, but Nixon got heat for it (that your side seems ta want ta bring back REAL BAD). THOSE GLORY DAYS OF THE MID SEVENTIES eh Willy? Libs n' MSM forced us to our knees with a discraced President n' a Communist victory. I guess you really want total distruction. So if he does his job you cornsider that EVIDENCE OF CRIMINAL activity? If your views prevail our system is likely over. I guess you'll need ta get some firepower n' come hang with Plainsman, Tree n' me @ RR island. We know our ol' black motors wel be snappin' eh Willy?[/colour]

The violation would be dismissing them so that criminal investigations and litigations involving political comrades ceased as it's intended result.

[colour=red]OK spill it: NAME THE PROSECUTIONS!![/colour]

Obstruction of Justice is a crime of the magnitude of High Crimes and Misdemeanors. E-mails seem to be pointing in that direction. They want clarifications. So why not voluntarily do that? Why take every step available to avoid it? And don't give me that "Let them do their jobs" argument. It could already be done and over with. The campaign to avoid testifying dwarfs the time involved in complying.

[colour=red]All Americans please note: The Left wants to rerun the early to mid seventies. THEIR GLORY DAYS!! They want to force a Major DEFEAT on our MILITARY n' Criminalize all non LIBERAL/DEMOCRAT politcs or even ministerial duties are now to be criminal. We will need massive prisons, (Joe Stalin, [the radical Left's true hero, that's why they liked ol' Sadam] called 'em Gulags: Willy) to house all Cornservatives n' Republicans n' most military folks. We will need some (VICTIM) Barbarians to build an army, (they must be real stupid n' incapable of critical thinkin'). Ya really want to end this wonderfull Country Willy? I'm at a loss that you made this post Willy. Respectfully, ('cause I like ya but not your words here my friend) JR[/colour]
 

CJY

Lieutenant Junior Grade
Joined
Jun 19, 2005
Messages
1,242
Re: Getting Feisty

"By the way the truth as you see isn't necessarily the truth. It's YOUR truth, and I'm sure to you an important truth. To me your truth might as well be Disneyland. Drugs are Bad UmKay?"

Umkay, thanks mom. :sarcasm emoticon:
 

treedancer

Commander
Joined
Apr 10, 2005
Messages
2,216
Re: Getting Feisty

Quote Omer

Quote Omer

The President can hire and or fire all or none outa the US Attorneys at any time for any or no reason n' that's any non "special" DOJ prosecutor.


New Mexico Prosecutor David Iglesias, was getting political pressure from lawmakers to indict Democrats in a local corruption case before the Nov. elections. That to you doesnt warrant an investigation? If it holds up, to me it sounds like Obstruction of justice.

And of course you have John McKay in your back yard that is sticking in your craw. Three months before he was fired, a review described McKay as "effective, well-regarded and a capable leader,.

McKay told CBS that when a Democrat won the state's 2004 governor's race, he didn't call a grand jury to investigate voter fraud -- and said he heard about it later. Yep surely no politics here , sure smacks of Obstruction of justice.



but Nixon got heat for it (that your side seems ta want ta bring back REAL BAD). THOSE GLORY DAYS OF THE MID SEVENTIES eh Willy?

Come on JR get off the Nixon case for crying out loud, you and I both know that he let the bumbling burglars loose.:%

Libs n' MSM forced us to our knees with a discraced President n' a Communist victory. I guess you really want total distruction. So if he does his job you cornsider that EVIDENCE OF CRIMINAL activity?

More of the same BS, meaningless rhetoric as above.


OK spill it: NAME THE PROSECUTIONS!!


Obstruction of justice.


We will need massive prisons, (Joe Stalin, [the radical Left's true hero, that's why they liked ol' Sadam] called 'em Gulags: Willy) to house all Cornservatives n' Republicans n' most military folks. We will need some (VICTIM) Barbarians to build an army, (they must be real stupid n' incapable of critical thinkin')

More JR Whooo Meee rhetoric, doesn’t call for an answer.

Here is what Gonzo said last week - Gonzales said last week he was not involved in any discussions about the impending dismissals of federal prosecutors.

Here is what was disclosed Friday March 23rd- On Friday night, however, the department disclosed Gonzales’ participation in a Nov. 27 meeting where such plans were discussed.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17763780

Hhmm seems to be a bit of conflict with them two statements to me, how about you JR?





















[/b]
 

treedancer

Commander
Joined
Apr 10, 2005
Messages
2,216
Re: Getting Feisty

Heres something I had forgot about JR, might have a little bearing on your train of thought, but I doubt it.

ROVE IDENTIFIED 11 PIVOTAL STATES FOR '08; BUSH HAS APPOINTED NEW U.S. ATTORNEYS IN NINE OF THEM……..

Just a coincidence JR?

McClatchy Newspapers: New U.S. attorneys seem to have partisan records
By Greg Gordon, Margaret Talev and Marisa Taylor
McClatchy Newspapers

....Last April, while the Justice Department and the White House were planning the firings, Rove gave a speech in Washington to the Republican National Lawyers Association. He ticked off 11 states that he said could be pivotal in the 2008 elections. Bush has appointed new U.S. attorneys in nine of them since 2005: Florida, Colorado, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Arkansas, Michigan, Nevada and New Mexico. U.S. attorneys in the latter four were among those fired.

Rove thanked the audience for "all that you are doing in those hot spots around the country to ensure that the integrity of the ballot is protected." He added, "A lot in American politics is up for grabs."

The department's civil rights division, for example, supported a Georgia voter identification law that a court later said discriminated against poor, minority voters. It also declined to oppose an unusual Texas redistricting plan that helped expand the Republican majority in the House of Representatives. That plan was partially reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Frank DiMarino, a former federal prosecutor who served six U.S. attorneys in Florida and Georgia during an 18-year Justice Department career, said that too much emphasis on voter fraud investigations "smacks of trying to use prosecutorial power to investigate and potentially indict political enemies."

Several former voting rights lawyers, who asked to remain anonymous for fear of antagonizing the administration, said the division's political appointees reversed the recommendations of career lawyers in key cases and transferred or drove out most of the unit's veteran attorneys....

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/16962753.htm
 

Haut Medoc

Supreme Mariner
Joined
Jun 29, 2004
Messages
10,645
Re: Getting Feisty

Hmmmmmm....
While they do serve at the pleasure of the president, if he brought pressure to bear in an attempt to promote selective investigation/prosecution, I have a problem with that.....
& to fire them for not bending to his wishes is unduly manipulating the system.......
The judicial branch should not be used as a tool for the executive branch to enforce it's wishes.......
Oh, & you can snivel & whine about the Dems & the MSM in the 70's, but the fact is Nixon screwed himself & the Rehubs......;)
Woodward & Bernstein wouldn't have uncovered the 'incovenient truth' if there were none to uncover....
I think 'w' & Gonzo got some 'splainin' to do.....;)
 

12Footer

Fleet Admiral
Joined
Mar 25, 2001
Messages
8,217
Re: Getting Feisty


I am snivveling and whining because the pres did not can 93 of them. But then, he may just want to keep most of them. At least he stood-up to the counter-attack this time...
If I were the pres, I would fire anyone who made my job more difficult. Heck, I kind of do that now whenever it's my call. Nothin personal, but get in my cheerios and prepare for a rude awakening.
 

Haut Medoc

Supreme Mariner
Joined
Jun 29, 2004
Messages
10,645
Re: Getting Feisty

He should have canned all of them from the get go....
A 'fresh start' if you will.....
He made the mistake of not getting his minions in place post haste.....
I suspect that he was too busy planning the Iraqi war.....;)
 

OldMercsRule

Captain
Joined
Nov 30, 2006
Messages
3,340
Re: Getting Feisty

treedancer said:
Quote Omer

Quote Omer

The President can hire and or fire all or none outa the US Attorneys at any time for any or no reason n' that's any non "special" DOJ prosecutor.


New Mexico Prosecutor David Iglesias, was getting political pressure from lawmakers to indict Democrats in a local corruption case before the Nov. elections.

[colour=blue]If a US attorney does not follow THE PROIRITIES OF THE PRESIDENT, THE PRESIDENT CAN FIRE HIM. IF YA CAN'T UNDERSTAND THAT HERE IS ANOTHER WAY TO SAY IT: If Mr Iglesias did not move quickly enough to satisfy the boss, (that's Mr Bush Mr Tree), he may loose his job. I repeat ANY US ATTORNEY CAN BE FIRED FOR ANY OR NO REASON AT ALL. Did you get that one yet? BTW pressure that may appear to be improper happens all the time. BTW, fired employees usually whine. Please step back and use your considerable brain power Mr Tree. Have ya ever employed people: Mr Tree? Do they, (the former employees) feel good when ya let 'em go? Do a little critical thinkin' Mr. Tree! It doesn't take much: Really![/colour]

That to you doesnt warrant an investigation?

[colour=blue]Please explain to me what the crime is Mr. Tree?[/colour]

If it holds up, to me it sounds like Obstruction of justice.

[colour=blue]Where did ya get the smoke?? Ol' Murky has been askin' for some of the stuff you guys are smokin'. Please: Mr Tree! DO YOU THINK NOT PROSECUTING SOMEONE CONSTITUTES OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE?? Please do sume reasearch you are famous for Mr. Tree, n' get Murky some smoke!![/colour]

And of course you have John McKay in your back yard that is sticking in your craw. Three months before he was fired, a review described McKay as "effective, well-regarded and a capable leader,.

[colour=blue]I repeat, ('cause ya may not have ever heard this before). The President can fire any US attorney at any time, (NO REASON NECESSARY). Get it: Mr. Tree?[/colour]

McKay told CBS that when a Democrat won the state's 2004 governor's race, he didn't call a grand jury to investigate voter fraud -- and said he heard about it later. Yep surely no politics here , sure smacks of Obstruction of justice.

[colour=blue]Not Prosecuting is Obstruction of Justice? Please do some home work Mr. Tree. N' where can I get some of what you are smokin'? Could it be that the Republican President of the United States might be corncerned about a Democrat stealing an election in 2004 after a questionable steal in the 2000 Senate race in the same State: Mr. Tree? Maybe Mr. Bush doesn't want another New Jersey in the North West. Is that possible? Could voter fraud prosecution be a high priority for the Bush administration? Please think just a little: Mr. Tree![/colour]

but Nixon got heat for it (that your side seems ta want ta bring back REAL BAD). THOSE GLORY DAYS OF THE MID SEVENTIES eh Willy?

Come on JR get off the Nixon case for crying out loud, you and I both know that he let the bumbling burglars loose.:%

[colour=blue]I have never mentioned Nixon here, before this post, on iboats Mr. Tree. I wana get some of that smoke!![/colour]

Libs n' MSM forced us to our knees with a discraced President n' a Communist victory. I guess you really want total distruction. So if he does his job you cornsider that EVIDENCE OF CRIMINAL activity?

More of the same BS, meaningless rhetoric as above.

[colour=blue]Everything is rhetoric on a thread here at iboats. WbW said that just the act of firing the US Attorneys WAS EVIDENCE OF A CRIME: Mr Tree. The President carrying out his duties: as spelled out in the Cornstatution is a CRIME! When that happens: WE ARE DONE. Civil war begans very shortly afterward.[/colour]

OK spill it: NAME THE PROSECUTIONS!!


Obstruction of justice.

[colour=blue]Which ones, (SPECIFIC CASES) would that be Mr. Tree. I now of no cases in progress that were underway that were interferred with. I want a specific case with the names of the alleged criminals, n' the name of the fired US Attorney who was not allowed to do his or her job: Mr. Tree.[/colour]

We will need massive prisons, (Joe Stalin, [the radical Left's true hero, that's why they liked ol' Sadam] called 'em Gulags: Willy) to house all Cornservatives n' Republicans n' most military folks. We will need some (VICTIM) Barbarians to build an army, (they must be real stupid n' incapable of critical thinkin')

More JR Whooo Meee rhetoric, doesn’t call for an answer.

[colour=blue]When LIBS N' DEMS CALL FOR THE HEADS OF REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES THAT ARE JUST DOING THE JOBS THE CORNSTATUTION STATES THEY CAN DO, N' THE ACTUAL ACT CORNSTATUTES A CRIME: THEN OUR SYSTEM IS OVER. That isn't that hard to understand is it Mr. Tree n' WbW? Can't you two see the very dangerious fallacy here? [/colour]

Here is what Gonzo said last week - Gonzales said last week he was not involved in any discussions about the impending dismissals of federal prosecutors.

[colour=blue]Sloppy politics and statements that are sloppy really don't matter Mr. Tree. Mr. Gonzales handled this very badly. That said: it is no reason to distroy our system of government.[/colour]

Here is what was disclosed Friday March 23rd- On Friday night, however, the department disclosed Gonzales’ participation in a Nov. 27 meeting where such plans were discussed.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17763780

Hhmm seems to be a bit of conflict with them two statements to me, how about you JR?

[colour=red]Definate Conflict. THAT DOES NOT CHANGE ANYTHING: NOT ONE LITTLE BIT!! The president can fire or retain any US Attorney at any time for any reason or no reason at all. If you understand that then this debate can end. I am not defending sloppy politics: IT WAS SLOPPY. The DEMS want to tear us appart: there is no other logical explanation: Mr Tree.[/colour] Respectfully, JR



















[/b]
 

OldMercsRule

Captain
Joined
Nov 30, 2006
Messages
3,340
Re: Getting Feisty

treedancer said:
Heres something I had forgot about JR, might have a little bearing on your train of thought, but I doubt it.

ROVE IDENTIFIED 11 PIVOTAL STATES FOR '08; BUSH HAS APPOINTED NEW U.S. ATTORNEYS IN NINE OF THEM……..

Just a coincidence JR?

McClatchy Newspapers: New U.S. attorneys seem to have partisan records
By Greg Gordon, Margaret Talev and Marisa Taylor
McClatchy Newspapers

....Last April, while the Justice Department and the White House were planning the firings, Rove gave a speech in Washington to the Republican National Lawyers Association. He ticked off 11 states that he said could be pivotal in the 2008 elections. Bush has appointed new U.S. attorneys in nine of them since 2005: Florida, Colorado, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Arkansas, Michigan, Nevada and New Mexico. U.S. attorneys in the latter four were among those fired.

Rove thanked the audience for "all that you are doing in those hot spots around the country to ensure that the integrity of the ballot is protected." He added, "A lot in American politics is up for grabs."

The department's civil rights division, for example, supported a Georgia voter identification law that a court later said discriminated against poor, minority voters. It also declined to oppose an unusual Texas redistricting plan that helped expand the Republican majority in the House of Representatives. That plan was partially reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Frank DiMarino, a former federal prosecutor who served six U.S. attorneys in Florida and Georgia during an 18-year Justice Department career, said that too much emphasis on voter fraud investigations "smacks of trying to use prosecutorial power to investigate and potentially indict political enemies."

Several former voting rights lawyers, who asked to remain anonymous for fear of antagonizing the administration, said the division's political appointees reversed the recommendations of career lawyers in key cases and transferred or drove out most of the unit's veteran attorneys....

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/16962753.htm

[colour=red]I guess I need to say it one more time and maybe it will sink in. The President can fire any or all US Attorneys for political or any other reason(s): Mr. Tree. The President can fire any or all US Attorneys for no reason(s): Mr. Tree.

Now with what we just learned here is a little quiz. If the President fires a US Attorney for a Political reason. Can we execute the President, or through him into a Gulag?

A. Yes

B. No

What is the answer Mr. Tree, (or WbW)? Thank you for your time. JR[/colour]
 

POINTER94

Vice Admiral
Joined
Oct 12, 2003
Messages
5,031
Re: Getting Feisty

Just to lend assistance to liberals who from day one, just can't seem to hear or maybe the concept is too difficult to understand.

The Readers Digest version.

The President can fire any or all US Attorneys for political or any other reason(s).

The President can fire any or all US Attorneys for no reason(s).

Now we can open an investigation into whether President Bush used the wrong fork for his salad during a private meal with his wife...........
 
Top