Hillary’s Hypocrisy

[VRWC]

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/fe...ml?id=110009784

 

Hillary Clinton Calls for Gonzales' Resignation over the firing of 8 U.S. attorneys.

 

"I'm deeply disturbed by what we have learned thus far," Clinton said, "and I join those who are calling for a full and thorough investigation to try to get to the bottom of these very political decisions that interfere with prosecutorial responsibility by U.S. attorneys, and I think that the attorney general should resign."

 

Mean while back in ’93 Mr. “BJ” Clinton fired all 93 U.S. Attorneys.

 

When Clinton's husband took office in 1993, one of the first actions his attorney general took was to remove every U.S. attorney. Clinton was asked how this was different from the termination of eight U.S. attorneys last December.

"There is a great difference," Clinton said. "When a new president comes in, a new president gets to clean house. It's not done on a case-by-case basis where you didn't do what some senator or member of Congress told you to do in terms of investigations into your opponents. It is 'Let's start afresh' and every president has done that." <- Another Lie by Hillary

The firing of all U.S. Attorneys where never done by any President.

 

The Law Reads:

3-2.120 Appointment

United States Attorneys are appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate for a four-year term. See 28 U.S.C. Sec. 541. Upon expiration of this term, the United States Attorney continues to perform the duties of the office until a successor is confirmed. United States Attorneys are subject to removal at the will of the President. See Parsons v. United States, 167 U.S. 314 (1897).

 

 

Seems to me that Clinton is the biggest Hypocrite when it comes to this Presidents actions vs. her husbands.

[Sketch Soland]

The only problem with your claim is that it is a tradition for an incoming president to fire or not renew old attorney generals and appoint new ones.

 

The Answer to the last question on this page states that turnover is common following a change in the presidential administration:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070306/ap_on_...prosecutors_q_a

 

As the last Q & A on the page also states, the Congressional Research Service also found that there have been only 5 cases in the last 25 years of a US Attorney being fired following "reports of questionable conduct".

 

The most recent wave of 8 firings, then, would seem, at the very least, to be "highly unusual", and as such, would bear a closer look to determine the reason for such an action. A thread dedicated to smearing Mrs. Clinton, who I have no personal love for whatsoever, seems counter productive to discussing the facts and issues that are pertinent .

[DC Tom]

The only problem with your claim is that it is a tradition for an incoming president to fire or not renew old attorney generals and appoint new ones.

 

The Answer to the last question on this page states that turnover is common following a change in the presidential administration:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070306/ap_on_...prosecutors_q_a

 

As the last Q & A on the page also states, the Congressional Research Service also found that there have been only 5 cases in the last 25 years of a US Attorney being fired following "reports of questionable conduct".

 

The most recent wave of 8 firings, then, would seem, at the very least, to be "highly unusual", and as such, would bear a closer look to determine the reason for such an action. A thread dedicated to smearing Mrs. Clinton, who I have no personal love for whatsoever, seems counter productive to discussing the facts and issues that are pertinent .

 

Still, without reading Parsons vs. US, "United States Attorneys are subject to removal at the will of the President." is pretty damned cut-and-dried. You're a US attorney, the President can fire your ass at will. Period.

 

Have to read Parsons to confirm that...but I'm not seeing where anything "wrong" was done so far.

[X. Benedict]

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/fe...ml?id=110009784

 

Seems to me that Clinton is the biggest Hypocrite when it comes to this Presidents actions vs. her husbands.

I just think it is funny that you think it is hypocritical to be partisan.

[Sketch Soland]

Still, without reading Parsons vs. US, "United States Attorneys are subject to removal at the will of the President." is pretty damned cut-and-dried. You're a US attorney, the President can fire your ass at will. Period.

 

Have to read Parsons to confirm that...but I'm not seeing where anything "wrong" was done so far.

 

I do not know the inner workings of this specific law enough to know if there is anything "wrong" about the most recent 8 firings. Just that it is "highly unusual" in the track record of the last 25 years of District Attorneys being fired for misconduct, which only means that it is "out of the ordinary". But this was not my main point....

 

My main point was to state that it is common practice for Presidents to bring in a generally new wave of DA's on the start of their term. This turnover is common practice. If the OP had done even a cursory fact check, he would have known this.

[DC Tom]

I do not know the inner workings of this law to know if there is anything "wrong" about the most recent 8 firings. Just that it is "highly unusual" in the track record of the last 25 years of District Attorneys being fired for misconduct. But this was not my main point....

 

My main point was to state that it is common practice for Presidents to bring in a generally new wave of DA's on the start of their term. If the OP had done even a cursory fact check, he would have known this.

 

Yeah, and it's highly unusual for stacked blonde to be getting me off in the back seat of an '88 Saab 900. But it has happened.

 

"Highly unusual" doesn't prove anything.

[Sketch Soland]

Yeah, and it's highly unusual for stacked blonde to be getting me off in the back seat of an '88 Saab 900. But it has happened.

 

"Highly unusual" doesn't prove anything.

 

Tom, did I say it proved anything?

 

Please show me where I said it proved something.

 

Or maybe "out of the ordinary" = "Totally Illegal", in your mind?

 

8 firings, when there was only 5 in the last 25, is "out of the ordinary". That's all. Doesn't have to be anything illegal about it.

 

I'm not Holcombs Arm and therefore I do not care to get in a latent internet quarrel about dice and whose evolution is bigger than the others.

 

Just please don't take me out of context.

[GG]

Tom, did I say it proved anything?

 

Please show me where I said it proved something.

 

Or maybe "out of the ordinary" = "Totally Illegal", in your mind?

 

8 firings, when there was only 5 in the last 25, is "out of the ordinary". That's all. Doesn't have to be anything illegal about it.

 

I'm not Holcombs Arm and therefore I do not care to get in a sexually latent internet quarrel about dice and whose evolution is bigger than the others.

 

Just please don't take me out of context.

 

Isn't the fuller context how many have been fired over the past 25 years vs how have been fired for questionable conduct. Seems that a lot more than 5 have been fired over the past 25 years.

 

Could be another case of the administration's inability to get out of its own way. They had the right to fire any prosecutor at will. Just do it. Don't invent a reason that will come back to bite you.

[Sketch Soland]

Isn't the fuller context how many have been fired over the past 25 years vs how have been fired for questionable conduct. Seems that a lot more than 5 have been fired over the past 25 years.

 

Could be another case of the administration's inability to get out of its own way. They had the right to fire any prosecutor at will. Just do it. Don't invent a reason that will come back to bite you.

 

Yes, as I stated in my first post, it is common practice for presidents to greatly overhaul the DAs every four years, as they like to appoint new DAs and each DA anyway serves a four year term, yes, at the complete behest of the president. The turnover at the start of a new adminstration is extensive. There have, however, according to the Congressional Research service, been only 5 firings in the last 25 years due to supposed misconduct. So "non-renewals" by a new adminstration is routine, firings for misconduct or alleged misconduct is not so routine.

 

These eight firings are a political issue and not a legal one, it seems, by which I mean that the authority to fire them was legal but the handling, maneuverings, motivations for and PR surrounding the firings is coming under serious fire by Democrats and Republicans alike. This doesn't make them illegal, however, as far as I understand the situation.

[GG]

These eight firings are a political issue and not a legal one, it seems, by which I mean that the authority to fire them was legal but the handling, maneuverings, motivations for and PR surrounding the firings is coming under serious fire by Democrats and Republicans alike. This doesn't make them illegal, however, as far as I understand the situation.

 

So, we agree then.

[DC Tom]

Tom, did I say it proved anything?

 

Please show me where I said it proved something.

 

Or maybe "out of the ordinary" = "Totally Illegal", in your mind?

 

No, you didn't.

 

It was more a preemptive strike at the inevitable molson_goldfish stupidity. And I shouldn't have said "highly unusual doesn't mean illegal"...I should have said "highly unusual doesn't mean there's anything wrong with it." Would have fit my analogy better, too.

[Sketch Soland]

No, you didn't.

 

It was more a preemptive strike at the inevitable molson_goldfish stupidity. And I shouldn't have said "highly unusual doesn't mean illegal"...I should have said "highly unusual doesn't mean there's anything wrong with it." Would have fit my analogy better, too.

 

LOL, yes, it does fit the analogy better.

 

"Highly unusual" does also not necessarily mean there's anything "wrong" with it, either, that is true. However, it usually does provoke inquiry into why some thing is "highly unusual". A working system of governance imo should have checks, balances, and safeguards in place to check on "highly unusual" situations when they occur, and if the "highly unusual" situation is completely legal and above board, then great, no harm done, but sometimes it is these situations that, when the veil is pulled back, become the ones that need to be really looked at. (run-on sentence!)

 

So, we agree then.

 

I would agree that the Justice Department has supremely botched the handling of these firings, yes, and that it is symptomatic of a greater degree of incompetency that pervades not only the justice department but many levels of our bureaucracy and current adminstration, as well.

[molson_golden2002]

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/fe...ml?id=110009784

 

Hillary Clinton Calls for Gonzales' Resignation over the firing of 8 U.S. attorneys.

 

"I'm deeply disturbed by what we have learned thus far," Clinton said, "and I join those who are calling for a full and thorough investigation to try to get to the bottom of these very political decisions that interfere with prosecutorial responsibility by U.S. attorneys, and I think that the attorney general should resign."

 

Mean while back in ’93 Mr. “BJ” Clinton fired all 93 U.S. Attorneys.

 

When Clinton's husband took office in 1993, one of the first actions his attorney general took was to remove every U.S. attorney. Clinton was asked how this was different from the termination of eight U.S. attorneys last December.

"There is a great difference," Clinton said. "When a new president comes in, a new president gets to clean house. It's not done on a case-by-case basis where you didn't do what some senator or member of Congress told you to do in terms of investigations into your opponents. It is 'Let's start afresh' and every president has done that." <- Another Lie by Hillary

The firing of all U.S. Attorneys where never done by any President.

 

The Law Reads:

3-2.120 Appointment

United States Attorneys are appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate for a four-year term. See 28 U.S.C. Sec. 541. Upon expiration of this term, the United States Attorney continues to perform the duties of the office until a successor is confirmed. United States Attorneys are subject to removal at the will of the President. See Parsons v. United States, 167 U.S. 314 (1897).

Seems to me that Clinton is the biggest Hypocrite when it comes to this Presidents actions vs. her husbands.

Not to turn this into "Crossfire" or anything--Eh, Bluefire?--but a Republican has come out for his firing, too. A Northern Republican, btw. The winds of change?

 

WASHINGTON - Sen. John Sununu (news, bio, voting record) of New Hampshire on Wednesday became the first Republican in Congress to call for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' dismissal, hours after President Bush expressed confidence in his embattled Cabinet officer.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070314/ap_on_...les_prosecutors

[Alaska Darin]

Not to turn this into "Crossfire" or anything--Eh, Bluefire?--but a Republican has come out for his firing, too. A Northern Republican, btw. The winds of change?

 

WASHINGTON - Sen. John Sununu (news, bio, voting record) of New Hampshire on Wednesday became the first Republican in Congress to call for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' dismissal, hours after President Bush expressed confidence in his embattled Cabinet officer.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070314/ap_on_...les_prosecutors

So is Sununu a racist for wanting to fire a Mexican American? This stuff is so confusing.

[/dev/null]

So is Sununu a racist for wanting to fire a Mexican American? This stuff is so confusing.

Of course he's a racist. He's a Republican

[GG]

So is Sununu a racist for wanting to fire a Mexican American? This stuff is so confusing.

 

He felt left out, since there are no illegal Mexicans in NH. Same for Dems, they needed their own Mexican to pick on.

[ExiledInIllinois]

Pendulum Swinger

 

I meet you for coffee

We get together periodically

I got a bad case I can't shake off of me

The fevered walking round wondering how it ought to be

You work in the system

You see possibilities and your glistening

Eyes show the hell you're gonna give 'em

When they back off the mic for once and give it to a woman

 

I dream like a mad one

Brutal fantasies I catch as catch can

I'm a psychic and a laywoman

I see love and I like to make it happen

What we get from your war walk

Ticker of the nation breaking down like a bad clock

I want the pendulum to swing again

So that all your mighty mandate was just spitting in the wind

 

It doesn't come by the bullwhip

It's not persuaded with your hands on your hips

Not the company of gunslingers

The epicenter love is the pendulum swinger

She is she is she is

 

It's fine about the old scroll Sanskrit

Gnostic gospels the da vinci code a smash hit

Aren't we dying just to read it and relate

Too hard just to go by a blind faith

But they left out the sisters

Praying to a father god so long I really missed her

The goddess of benevolence

You should listen to your mama if you have a lick of sense left

 

Pushed under by the main press, buried under a code of dress

Relegated by the Vatican

But you can't keep a spirit down that wants to get up again

 

If we're a drop in the bucket

With just enough science to keep from saying phuck it

Until the last drop of sun burns its sweet light

Plenty revolutions left until we get this thing right

[PastaJoe]

DAs can be removed for good reasons, or no reason, but when they're removed for bad reasons such as politicians thinking they're going too slow to investigate Democrats and too fast investigating Republicans, and politicians are trying to influence them, then it does require Congress to do their oversight job. These were Republican appointees, but I would like to think that when a DA takes office they will make judgements based on facts and not political views. Otherwise we can't trust their decisions. Seedy Gonzalez has lost credibility and can no longer be trusted to make judgements just on the facts.

[Live&DieBillsFootball]

DAs can be removed for good reasons, or no reason, but when they're removed for bad reasons such as politicians thinking they're going too slow to investigate Democrats and too fast investigating Republicans, and politicians are trying to influence them, then it does require Congress to do their oversight job. These were Republican appointees, but I would like to think that when a DA takes office they will make judgements based on facts and not political views. Otherwise we can't trust their decisions. Seedy Gonzalez has lost credibility and can no longer be trusted to make judgements just on the facts.

 

I agree totally. What they did is not illegal, but firing them for not being partisan enough seems unethical. An administration gets to appoint partisan DA's, but once appointed they should be expected to be independent in bringing cases.

 

Makes you wonder about the rest of the DA's that were deemed "acceptable" and kept their jobs.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

You're not paranoid if they really ARE out to get you, eh?