Joey Balls Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 While the forced resignation of eight US attorneys because they weren't radically conservative enough for the White House may seem like just another scandal in the most corrupt administration of our lifetimes, it may just spell Karl Rove's demise. Rove pushed hard to replace the Arkansas attorney Cummins with the conservative ideologue wackjob Tim Griffin. Also forced to resign was Buffalo attorney Michael Battle. While the mainstream media seems to be focusing on the possible resignation of incredibly inept Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, the more interesting upcoming events in this story will be when Rove and/or Harriet Miers is subpoened. Who knows how far up it goes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 When something more substantial happens this will disappear faster than, well, Harriet Myers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 When something more substantial happens this will disappear faster than, well, Harriet Myers or should I say Gary Condit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 should I say Gary Condit. The only man happy 9/11 happened... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joey Balls Posted March 15, 2007 Author Share Posted March 15, 2007 When something more substantial happens this will disappear faster than, well, Harriet Myers. Well they just postponed the predicted subpoenas of Rove and Miers today so once that happens then we'll see. But it is interesting that many conservatives are coming out against Gonzales' office. I hate to say it but he made John Ashcroft appear competent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 Well they just postponed the predicted subpoenas of Rove and Miers today so once that happens then we'll see. But it is interesting that many conservatives are coming out against Gonzales' office. I hate to say it but he made John Ashcroft appear competent. And Gonzales makes every decision for the 110,000 people under him. Right, got it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 Keep repeating your political mastrubation. Were you up in arms when Clinton fired ALL the US Attornies AT ONCE? And what has Rove done excpt be a Republican? He's a republican! Burn Him! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 The only man happy 9/11 happened... You mean the only man stateside who's happy... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 And what has Rove done excpt be a Republican?He's a republican! Burn Him! He did make gay marriage the most important wartime issue, for starters... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 Keep repeating your political mastrubation.Were you up in arms when Clinton fired ALL the US Attornies AT ONCE? And what has Rove done excpt be a Republican? He's a republican! Burn Him! Included in those firings were the ones investigating Dem House of Reprensentative power broker Dan Rostenkowski and the one investigating the Clintons' involvement in the Whitewater land scandal. Long before the the Clinton administration introduced the phrase into the popular lexicon - "I have no specific recollection". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 You mean the only man stateside who's happy... Thought it was understood...but that's probably not the best assumption to make with this mouth-breathing crowd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 Included in those firings were the ones investigating Dem House of Reprensentative power broker Dan Rostenkowski and the one investigating the Clintons' involvement in the Whitewater land scandal. Long before the the Clinton administration introduced the phrase into the popular lexicon - "I have no specific recollection". But...But...But........ Joeyballs regurgitating again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 But...But...But........ Joeyballs regurgitating again. Aha! Balls was the missing X-moron member i kept forgetting! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 Aha! Balls was the missing X-moron member i kept forgetting! Too funny! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 Can we please get past this ridiculous notion that "Clinton did it too!!!!" Via McClatchy, Washington Bureau Current situation is distinct from Clinton firings of U.S. attorneys Mass firings of U.S. attorneys are fairly common when a new president takes office, but not in a second-term administration. Prosecutors are usually appointed for four-year terms, but they are usually allowed to stay on the job if the president who appointed them is re-elected. Even as they planned mass firings by the Bush White House, Justice Department officials acknowledged it would be unusual for the president to oust his own appointees. Although Bill Clinton ordered the wholesale removal of U.S. attorneys when he took office to remove Republican holdovers, his replacement appointees stayed for his second term. Ronald Reagan also kept his appointees for his second term. For those who are a bit slow, or might have a hard time reading while their heads are shoved far up Drudge's ass, these were US attorneys who were removed during this administration's second term, and were removed in the middle of the term. While it is customary to remove previous admin holdovers when taking office (as was done by Clinton in '93, and dubya in '01), it is uncommon have them removed mid-term. One more time...it is uncommon to remove them mid-term. This had zero to do with a normal administration change. This had zero to do with job performance. It's not like Clinton. It's not like Reagan. The fact that someone resigned and lawyered up already, and the fact that some in the GOP are already calling for Abu Gonzales' resignation should tell you just how freaking not normal purging eight US attorneys is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 This had zero to do with a normal administration change. This had zero to do with job performance. It's not like Clinton. It's not like Reagan. The fact that someone resigned and lawyered up already, and the fact that some in the GOP are already calling for Abu Gonzales' resignation should tell you just how freaking not normal purging eight US attorneys is. Oh for Pete's sake. Get the analogies right. It's not based on Administration change. It's based on AG change. Clinton only had 1 AG, so there was no reason to change Reno attorneys for both terms. Gonzales was offered to fire the entire team of US attorneys to be consistent with the usual practice of an incoming AG starting his slate with new attorneys. He obviously felt that he didn't want to do that, but got rid of 9 that were problematic. This is what I love about the crying. Worry about the 9 and ignore the 100 others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 Oh for Pete's sake. Get the analogies right. It's not based on Administration change. It's based on AG change. Clinton only had 1 AG, so there was no reason to change Reno attorneys for both terms. Gonzales was offered to fire the entire team of US attorneys to be consistent with the usual practice of an incoming AG starting his slate with new attorneys. He obviously felt that he didn't want to do that, but got rid of 9 that were problematic. This is what I love about the crying. Worry about the 9 and ignore the 100 others. That would be reasonable if it were true. Is it true? Regardless of who the AG is, I just like the idea of attorneys losing their jobs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 Regardless of who the AG is, I just like the idea of attorneys losing their jobs. True, that. How is "unemployed attorneys" a bad thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 True, that. How is "unemployed attorneys" a bad thing? I always look for the win-win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 Can we please get past this ridiculous notion that "Clinton did it too!!!!" Only when the left stops saying that the Clinton BJ witch hunt was bigger than the Scooter Libby witch hunt everytime someone from the right brings up the Libby witch hunt. Man, this "we never do that" chit is amazing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts