Bush worming off the hook in White House email fiasco

"improperly sacked a bunch of public prosecutors."
The prosecutors in question serve at the pleasure of the President. He has the right to fire all of them with no justification at all. The idiot Clinton just that.
Freaking liberals! The were just pissed off Bush got rid of a bunch of their liberal hack buddies, waaa, to freaking bad.

Guys, as usual, the Demoncrap party has deliberately muddied the waters in yet another feeble attempt to politically embarress the current Administration.

Those attorneys are appointed "at the pleasure" of the President, who has the authority to replace them at any time. The congressional Demoncraps didn't like it, because all of the attorneys were hard-core leftists, i.e., good, dues-paying members of the Demoncrap party.

Very overhyped nonsense, but then what does one expect from the party of slave-owners and Klukkers?

Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely

Time for the journalist to go look up what separation of powers means.

Give me a break with your lame political rhetoric. You have a very short and feeble memory if you don't recall all the BS the Republican party pulled when there was a Democrat last in power.

The attorneys were all hard-core leftist? What are you smoking and can I get some? I will remind you that the issue was not that Bush wanted to appoint his own people when he got elected. The issue is that he was firing AG's because they would not prosecute according to "guidelines" laid out by the party. The AG's fired insisted on prosecuting according to the law. How crazy! This happened long after Bush was already elected and he passed on putting his own people in place then.

Your last sentence is too bizarre to even comment on. I will say that at least Democrats get caught in innappropiate situations with women.....Republicans tend to get caught with men or teenage pages....


@Rick & Regulas: If you cared to read the facts you would find that a good number of those attorneys were in fact long time republicans. It is so typical of some people though to take the high road and believe the lame old excuse: "they were hardcore leftists". So typical of you guys to eat the propaganda, line, hook and sink without checking both sides of the story.

They were fired because they didn't follow the version of the law as dictated by the administration, plain and simple. The administration likes to "interpret" the law however they like and not have to face any consequences. It is pretty obvious they don't want any "rogue" attorneys asking too many questions.

LOL @ Bush defending idiots like Regulas and Rich. Small minded people think alike. 

... oh, and before I get ahead of myself, regulas - you're a moron as well.

"Serving at the pleasure of the president" means just that. Historically speaking, that means when a new administration takes over the white house the president typically fills portfolios (like the office of the attorney general) with people from the same party, and barring some serious bungling, these people serve throughout the term of the president (4 or 8 years.)

All these prosecutors were vetted for their positions by republicans. All of the attorneys were republicans. They were all sacked for failing to bring politically motivated prosecutions (voter fraud prosecutions) for which there was insufficient evidence to to uphold a conviction.

These guys were basically sacked for failing to participate in smear tactics against democrats in order to aid (re-)election campaigns of republicans.

@regulas: And this kind of mid-term dismissal without cause is unprecedented.

Isnt't it funny to see people get excited over a 2*1/2 party system?

How about a search at http://www.whitehouse.org/

Which ones are Tories, and the Labour is who, and what is a liberal Democrat?
Auntie just tell me, fair and balanced.
I'm too timid to buy the Daily Show handbook "America (The Book) Teacher's Edition: A Citizen's Guide to Democracy Inaction" because of fear of unsettling nude photos of the Supreme Court justices. I've been prone to this nightmare, and would really appreciate a wake up call. Really how can they uphold the law at their age? much less email? We've been robed!

You ought to know what you're talking about. First, it's very common for an incoming President to replace the previous ones appointees with ones of his own. Bush did that.

The FIRINGS took place DURING the Bush term, and it was Bush's OWN appointees he himself was dumping because they refused to prosecute in the manner he wished, but instead chose to follow the law.

Rich W, regulas and Dave all seem to have no idea what really happened, no wonder the general public doesn't really care about this.

Bush, like Clinton before him and dating back probably 100 years or more, replaced ALL the attorneys when he took office. No one has a problem with that, Republicans expect that Obama will do the same thing if he is elected.

The problem was that a few years later Bush fired a number of his appointees because they didn't toe the party line and do things his way. While this is not illegal in and of itself, it is definitely something that has never been done before and what people want to determine is whether the Republican party had anything to do with the making the list of "misbehaving" attorneys for him to fire.

No, this isn't on the level of "what were the real reasons for going to war with Iraq" or "what did we know before 9/11", but it is highly suspect that the Bush administration has "lost" the emails and is fighting this so hard. There may be some illegal activity that is being concealed here, much like how Clinton get a BJ from an intern wasn't illegal, but lying under oath about it was.

That's got to be the most awkward play on the party's name I've ever seen.

> ... the BS the Republican party pulled when there was a Democrat last in power. 

wha...? say, what? You mean, like, "I don't know that woman, Monica Lewinsky." or "... the files just appeared on the table" or Vince Foster's blood running up hill against gravity, or "I smoked Marijuana, but didn't inhale."


> ... The issue is that he was firing AG's because they would not prosecute according to "guidelines" laid out by the party.

And I'm sure Clinton's reasoning when he fired prosecutors was entirely proper ... in your eyes. Did you say anything back then, about those firings? Or are you implying that the Republicans ought to have SCREAMED bloody murder back then?

> ... Democrats get caught in innappropiate situations with women.....Republicans tend to get caught with men or teenage pages.... 

Um, what about Studs Terkel? Or Barney Frank? Both absolute disgraces. Or, umm, say, didn't the music director at Obama's church have a little problem this last Christmas? It's not nice to fool with Mother Nature [Billary] nor a muslim running for president. Ok, "closet" muslim.


Given the amount of effort that is put in understanding one another, it is truly surprising that the States are still United.
Frankly, guys, just split up already and go back to North and South, or Wankers and Cutthroats, or whatever you want to call it.
Then you'll see just how feeble your "side" actually is.

***Sarcasm On***
I agree Rich and M. We Republicans are always right because God speaks directly to our party leaders. God said we must oppose the evil Democrats until he gets ready to burn them all in HELL! 
I got to go listen to Rush now so I know what to believe this week.
Obama is a Muslim!!!
Obama is a Muslim!!!
Obama is a Muslim!!!
Ahhhhhhh
***Sarcasm Off***

Jumbo - get your war-whoring ass out of the White House, your party ain't fit to sit aside that geometrically Masonically-aligned pentagram.

Cut the crap with your History of the GOP; that's all it is - history. It hasn't been that way since oooh prolly 'round about the end of WW2. And surely since the Nixon-Reagan era, you have been nothing but the Party of exploitation of animals, the environment, people in poor nations, and your own workforce -

how many employed in the war machine?

What a real Party would do: think about the future, build a world worth living in.

What you do: greed, corruption, war, censorship, lies.

It's not about that there's corruption in the other party too; it's about that in every way possible, you are a million times worse for your nation and the whole world than they are when they are in power.
You have NO BEDSIDE MANNER; that's the difference.
You eat fear, you like scaring people, and you are soooooo jealous of anyone that is a natural leader.

Sane people see a natural leader and think 'thank keyrist someone is there in that sham of a system who knows what to say etc'; you see a natural leader and think 'that should be me, I'm great too, waaaaaaah!'

You DON'T think of the greater good, you look at it selfishly, personally, and like an egomaniac.
THAT'S why you are not fit to be there, because you're too small minded and you truly consider it a personal contest that you are in, at the expense of all the things you pretend to care about. Those things you say are just words for you, that you feel will aid you in getting one-up on your opponents in politics.

You don't know how to run it properly, you just always use it for war.
And - when you are in power, you let stupid small-minded people have a say in areas that affect other people's lives, because you are sore about not being intellectually developed enough, and you want to punish people who are clever and deserving of their positions in life by stopping them from getting anywhere.

@M: If we keep pulling both parties dirty laundry we will keep going for eternity. Let's face it, both Reps and Dems have a LOT of political scoundrels. All of them as bad as the next. No question about it.

But the point of the article and the discussion about it is how the Administration fired these lawyers and how they want to hide any possible information about it.

The firings are not the problem, the issue is when and how they were fired. A president firing their own appointees under shady circumstances in enough to raise a few questions. If it really nothing to worry about, why be so secretive and deny the requests for information?

But under this administration asking questions they don't like is almost considered unpatriotic.

Yes, we know that, but the fact that The Confederate South fought the Civil War against having to give up their slave ownership, and to this day, however accurately, the Confederate South and related continues to be the GOPs only mainstay of support from voters...

btw, what was it really that made y'all put Lincoln facing the opposite direction to every other face on the coinage? Cause I always thought it was precisely because he was against slavery.