speaking of wiping asses with the Constitution.....

Tom Littleton wrote:
Howabout ole Harriet Miers big idea? Let's just fire
all 93 US Attorneys and use the Patriot act to appoint
our guys without Congressional oversight! I think Carl
has a friend who would make a fine prosecutor(read:
prosecute Democrats and other folks we don't like).

please, assorted acolytes: explain to me again how Bill Clinton rose to
impeachable status and this **** doesn't?
At least, with a Congress from the opposition party, we will see some
oversight(in overdrive, I would imagine).
And, we will see people testifying in public, under oath.
This one could prove very interesting........
Tom



So all those US Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president. They
can be hired or fired any time. One at a time or all at once.

You ask about Clinton? He did the same thing within the first year and
a half of his first term.

On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 18:06:52 -0500, Old Guy
wrote:

Tom Littleton wrote:
Howabout ole Harriet Miers big idea? Let's just fire
all 93 US Attorneys and use the Patriot act to appoint
our guys without Congressional oversight! I think Carl
has a friend who would make a fine prosecutor(read:
prosecute Democrats and other folks we don't like).

please, assorted acolytes: explain to me again how Bill Clinton rose to
impeachable status and this **** doesn't?
At least, with a Congress from the opposition party, we will see some
oversight(in overdrive, I would imagine).
And, we will see people testifying in public, under oath.
This one could prove very interesting........
Tom



So all those US Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president. They
can be hired or fired any time. One at a time or all at once.

You ask about Clinton? He did the same thing within the first year and
a half of his first term.


Cite?


g.c.

George Cleveland wrote:
On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 18:06:52 -0500, Old Guy
wrote:

Tom Littleton wrote:
Howabout ole Harriet Miers big idea? Let's just fire
all 93 US Attorneys and use the Patriot act to appoint
our guys without Congressional oversight! I think Carl
has a friend who would make a fine prosecutor(read:
prosecute Democrats and other folks we don't like).

please, assorted acolytes: explain to me again how Bill Clinton rose to
impeachable status and this **** doesn't?
At least, with a Congress from the opposition party, we will see some
oversight(in overdrive, I would imagine).
And, we will see people testifying in public, under oath.
This one could prove very interesting........
Tom


So all those US Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president. They
can be hired or fired any time. One at a time or all at once.

You ask about Clinton? He did the same thing within the first year and
a half of his first term.


Cite?


g.c.


Check histort, its public record!!

Here, I Googled it for you:


http://digg.com/politics/Bush_Admini...y_Resignations

http://sg.answers.yahoo.com/question...5153903AAUfboX

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002349.php

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/arti...9/174006.shtml

In article ,
says...
Check histort, its public record!!

Here, I Googled it for you:


http://digg.com/politics/Bush_Admini...y_Resignations

http://sg.answers.yahoo.com/question...5153903AAUfboX

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002349.php

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/arti...9/174006.shtml


Just a hint, Dude. If you're trying to convince somebody in a political
debate, you really need to come up with some actual objective news
sources for your facts. The crap you just posted would only impress
somebody who has watched so many hours of the Fox Noise Channel that
they don't even recognize bias when they're standing knee-deep in it.

Kevin

On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 19:22:11 -0500, Kevin Vang wrote:

In article ,
says...
Check histort, its public record!!

Here, I Googled it for you:


http://digg.com/politics/Bush_Admini...y_Resignations

http://sg.answers.yahoo.com/question...5153903AAUfboX

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002349.php

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/arti...9/174006.shtml


Just a hint, Dude. If you're trying to convince somebody in a political
debate, you really need to come up with some actual objective news
sources for your facts. The crap you just posted would only impress
somebody who has watched so many hours of the Fox Noise Channel that
they don't even recognize bias when they're standing knee-deep in it.

Kevin

Will this one do:

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstra...nton%2c%20Bill

IAC, Reno did ask for all to resign. There simply isn't enough publicly
known about these firings yet.

TC,
R

Kevin Vang wrote:
In article ,
says...
Check histort, its public record!!

Here, I Googled it for you:


http://digg.com/politics/Bush_Admini...y_Resignations

http://sg.answers.yahoo.com/question...5153903AAUfboX

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002349.php

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/arti...9/174006.shtml


Just a hint, Dude. If you're trying to convince somebody in a political
debate, you really need to come up with some actual objective news
sources for your facts. The crap you just posted would only impress
somebody who has watched so many hours of the Fox Noise Channel that
they don't even recognize bias when they're standing knee-deep in it.

Kevin


i goggled, these appeared. If you want to read them, fine. Whatever.

On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 18:58:45 -0500, Old Guy
wrote:

George Cleveland wrote:
On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 18:06:52 -0500, Old Guy
wrote:

Tom Littleton wrote:
Howabout ole Harriet Miers big idea? Let's just fire
all 93 US Attorneys and use the Patriot act to appoint
our guys without Congressional oversight! I think Carl
has a friend who would make a fine prosecutor(read:
prosecute Democrats and other folks we don't like).

please, assorted acolytes: explain to me again how Bill Clinton rose to
impeachable status and this **** doesn't?
At least, with a Congress from the opposition party, we will see some
oversight(in overdrive, I would imagine).
And, we will see people testifying in public, under oath.
This one could prove very interesting........
Tom


So all those US Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president. They
can be hired or fired any time. One at a time or all at once.

You ask about Clinton? He did the same thing within the first year and
a half of his first term.


Cite?


g.c.


Check histort, its public record!!

Here, I Googled it for you:


http://digg.com/politics/Bush_Admini...y_Resignations

http://sg.answers.yahoo.com/question...5153903AAUfboX

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002349.php

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/arti...9/174006.shtml


Were any of them fired because they refused to do political dirty work
for Clinton. He replaced them at the beginning of his term, as was his
right. The ones being fired now seem to have resisted White House
pressure to use their offices for the political benefit of the GOP.
One is patronage, like it or not. The other is using the power of the
State to punish your political opponents. No one is questioning GW's
right to fire them, they are questioning his motivation.


g.c.

I'm not too quick to accept as "facts" the fact that some guy in Singapore
posts it to a blog. As noted by another,
you have do present better data than that OG, just find
and post the number and dates of such firings. As noted,
it is traditional to do a bit of patronage hiring at the beginning of a
term, but firing people midterm is less frequent, and the suggestion of a
wholesale turnover in year 5 or 6 of an administration borders on the
obscene.
Tom

On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 01:19:24 GMT, "Tom Littleton"
wrote:

I'm not too quick to accept as "facts" the fact that some guy in Singapore
posts it to a blog. As noted by another,
you have do present better data than that OG, just find
and post the number and dates of such firings. As noted,
it is traditional to do a bit of patronage hiring at the beginning of a
term, but firing people midterm is less frequent, and the suggestion of a
wholesale turnover in year 5 or 6 of an administration borders on the
obscene.
Tom

FWIW, I think you'll find the Miers "clean house" nonsense was something
she proposed as a part of the replacing at beginning of Bush's 2nd term.
And also FWIW, Reno did ask all to resign, and many objective sources
speculated it had, at least in part, to things like Dan Rostenkowski's
troubles.

TC,
R

Tom Littleton wrote:
I'm not too quick to accept as "facts" the fact that some guy in Singapore
posts it to a blog. As noted by another,
you have do present better data than that OG, just find
and post the number and dates of such firings. As noted,
it is traditional to do a bit of patronage hiring at the beginning of a
term, but firing people midterm is less frequent, and the suggestion of a
wholesale turnover in year 5 or 6 of an administration borders on the
obscene.
Tom



Is it obscene? Why? Why were they fired? Were they fired for
non-performance?