Skip to main content

Senatorial Embarrassment Chuckie Schumer of NY should resign. This completely unnecessary and politically-motivated Constitutional showdown about issuing subpoenas only grates at the fabric of our nation.

quote:
"We're authorizing that ability but we're not issuing them," Sen. Charles Schumer D-N.Y., said of the subpoenas. "It'll only strengthen our hand in getting to the bottom of this."


Pres. Bill (insert angelic choir audio here) Clinton fired 92 of the 93 Federal Prosecutors and no one issued subpoenas. Why?

Because the Fed prosecutors work at the pleasure of the President. The Pres can fire them for any or no reason. Politics included.

Chuckie Schumer is undermining our Constitution and civil structure and should be ashamed enough to resign.

DF
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Do you want to find out what really happened? Are you looking for ratification of the firings?

There is a problem here, the question of why the Attorneys were fired has been raised. It really does need to be answered. Mr Bush Says they were fired for Incomptence. He appointed them and he has the obligation to fire them if they were in fact incomptetnt. But, at least two of them were doing a superior job. I know, because I have been made aware of their work through newspaper reports here in the South West.

I guess that if you want to remain ignorant of the reasons Your Government Fired 8 incompetent Attorneys at one time, it is your business. Personally, I want to know how so many incompetent people rose to such important positions in Government.
quote:
Originally posted by Brentenman:
Chukie Schumer is nothing but an anti-gun zealot who loves nothing but to bring attention to himself, and make it very painful for others to enjoy the 2nd Amendment. He is a leftist of the worst kind.

I can't stand him, or the other "junior senator from New York.."
Brentenman, What has Gun control got to do with firing the Federal Attorney for San Diego? The Federal Attorney who, despite partisan resistance, successfully prosecuted a Corrupt Congressman?
Would you be so kind as to make the connection a little more clear?
quote:
Originally posted by EdEKit:
quote:
Originally posted by Brentenman:
Chukie Schumer is nothing but an anti-gun zealot who loves nothing but to bring attention to himself, and make it very painful for others to enjoy the 2nd Amendment. He is a leftist of the worst kind.

I can't stand him, or the other "junior senator from New York.."
Brentenman, What has Gun control got to do with firing the Federal Attorney for San Diego? The Federal Attorney who, despite partisan resistance, successfully prosecuted a Corrupt Congressman?
Would you be so kind as to make the connection a little more clear?


Reread my post...then check out history of 1993-94 Congress, 1995-present Senate....Chuckie Schumer is generally considered #'s 1-3 antigun zealot.

excelman: Schumer does not "excel" in my book.
quote:
Originally posted by Brentenman:
quote:
Originally posted by EdEKit:
quote:
Originally posted by Brentenman:
Chukie Schumer is nothing but an anti-gun zealot who loves nothing but to bring attention to himself, and make it very painful for others to enjoy the 2nd Amendment. He is a leftist of the worst kind.

I can't stand him, or the other "junior senator from New York.."
Brentenman, What has Gun control got to do with firing the Federal Attorney for San Diego? The Federal Attorney who, despite partisan resistance, successfully prosecuted a Corrupt Congressman?
Would you be so kind as to make the connection a little more clear?


Reread my post...then check out history of 1993-94 Congress, 1995-present Senate....Chuckie Schumer is generally considered #'s 1-3 antigun zealot.

excelman: Schumer does not "excel" in my book.
That still does not connect Gun Control with investigation of the firing of 8 US attorneys for INCOMPETENCE. I will drop this, I know you are not feeling well, but seriously, Chuck Schumer's record on gun measures has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with investigation of the Fedearal Attoreny firiings. Would you be more supportive of the subpeoned testimony if Joe Lieberman had made it? Since his committee, investigating Katrina also considered subpeona. It happened one year ago this month. Lieberman said The white house had denied requests for interviews with virtually EVERY official involved. The Republicans were in charge still, and Maine Senator Susan Collins turned Lieberman down.
quote:
Originally posted by airborne92:
quote:
Originally posted by excelman:
Lets let the facts and truth come out. THEN, and only then should we be passing judgement on what was or was not done.


The exact same thing should also apply to the Clintons. What did they have to hide?


Exactly how is this relevant? The issue is not what either Clinton did or didn't do. It is about what is happening now.

There are questions about what happened in these cases. Why should they not be answered. If everything is legit, there should be no problem.

As a manager, I promoted people and fired people and for every action I had ample and demonstrable justifications that could be shown if there were any questions. Why is this different?
quote:
Originally posted by logical:
quote:
Originally posted by airborne92:
quote:
Originally posted by excelman:
Lets let the facts and truth come out. THEN, and only then should we be passing judgement on what was or was not done.


The exact same thing should also apply to the Clintons. What did they have to hide?


Exactly how is this relevant? The issue is not what either Clinton did or didn't do. It is about what is happening now.

There are questions about what happened in these cases. Why should they not be answered. If everything is legit, there should be no problem.

As a manager, I promoted people and fired people and for every action I had ample and demonstrable justifications that could be shown if there were any questions. Why is this different?


Unfortunately the people working for you were not politically appointed. That is the difference.

None of the people screaming for Bush and his administration to answer these questions were screaming for Clinton to do the same when he fired 92 Federal Attorneys. Funny how they think it is perfectly acceptable for Clinton to do it, but not Bush.
quote:
Exactly how is this relevant? The issue is not what either Clinton did or didn't do. It is about what is happening now.


It's relevent because it's the same action by two different presidents...one democrat and one Republican. It's called a precident...it happened before without sanction or investigation, so there is no reason there should be a sanction or investigation now.

You do understand about precidents, right????
Besides, every one of these individuals are employeed at the will of the President. If he decides he doesn't like the color of their hair he can fire them. If you do a little study on the US attorneys you will see that their purpose is to go after the things that the President wants them too. With Reagan it was pornography. With Clinton it was guns. Bush wants them to go after voter fraud. Several of them were, especially the one in Washington state, weren't doing this to his liking. Now they are gone. It's his perogative. Get over it.
You can tell who gets their talking points (news) from FOX.
All presidents turn over their appointed attorneys at the start of their presidency. What is causing alarm in this incident is these were selectively fired (alligedely) for either prosicuting Republicans, or not prosicuting Democrats. Allogations are even that certain members of Congress made calls to some of these people and "encouraged" them to prosicute their Democratic opponents right before the last election.
Lets just get on with the hearings, and if as some of you seem to think, nothing of substance is there, then nothing will happen.
The people that the White House is trying to keep off the record, are people who have a habbit of not telling the truth to anybody, so they should be on the record, sworn in.
quote:
Originally posted by excelman:
You can tell who gets their talking points (news) from FOX.
All presidents turn over their appointed attorneys at the start of their presidency. What is causing alarm in this incident is these were selectively fired (alligedely) for either prosicuting Republicans, or not prosicuting Democrats. Allogations are even that certain members of Congress made calls to some of these people and "encouraged" them to prosicute their Democratic opponents right before the last election.
Lets just get on with the hearings, and if as some of you seem to think, nothing of substance is there, then nothing will happen.
The people that the White House is trying to keep off the record, are people who have a habbit of not telling the truth to anybody, so they should be on the record, sworn in.


No. He is implementing Presidential privledge. If he backs down to them now, what will they try next? If he lets them set a precedence here, every president from this point on will have to deal with it.
quote:
Originally posted by Southern Patriot:
quote:
Originally posted by excelman:
You can tell who gets their talking points (news) from FOX.
All presidents turn over their appointed attorneys at the start of their presidency. What is causing alarm in this incident is these were selectively fired (alligedely) for either prosicuting Republicans, or not prosicuting Democrats. Allogations are even that certain members of Congress made calls to some of these people and "encouraged" them to prosicute their Democratic opponents right before the last election.
Lets just get on with the hearings, and if as some of you seem to think, nothing of substance is there, then nothing will happen.
The people that the White House is trying to keep off the record, are people who have a habbit of not telling the truth to anybody, so they should be on the record, sworn in.


No. He is implementing Presidential privledge. If he backs down to them now, what will they try next? If he lets them set a precedence here, every president from this point on will have to deal with it.


You obviously don't know (nor apparantelly does this White House) what presidental privledge is about. Eisenhower started it. It is to protect private communications between the president and his advisors. It was not intended to protect any body's conversation with whoever that whatever president may wish not to be told, just conversations between the president and his advisors. This is so he could get differing opinions (apparantelly no problem with this particular president since he dosn't listen to any)
This particular president has so overstepped the bounds of his office that he seems to consider himself more of a king or emperior. He has made himself too powerful, and should be contained into the duties given him by the Constitution.
I don't blame him for not wanting all this- and probably a lot more- to come out. I wouldn't either if I were in his position, but this country, which I love, has been so badly damaged by this man, that drastic measures need to be taken to restore the constitutional limits placed on him.
Any 'Ole country boy knows the way to get all the vermin out from under a log, is to turn it over and let the sun shine on it. We need to do the same to this administration.
Why do you seem to not have any problem prosicuting Clinton in word constantally for a sex scandel, but don't think that Bush should be held to some kind of accountability?
quote:
Originally posted by Southern Patriot:
Just what exactly are you going to hold him accountable for? He fired people who work for HIM at his will, just as the law allows. It doesn't matter if every one of them were fired strictly for political reasons. It is his decision ALONE if he decides to fire one of ALL of them.
Your comment is based on the Idea that Holding Accountable means PUNISHING. I don't think he needs to be punished, WE need to know what his plan is. HE is keeping his plan secret. The Plan needs to be known. Who Knows, maybe I want it to succeed, I suspect I want it to fail because YOU are defencing keeping it secret. A PLAN FOR GOOD IS PUBLICISED, a Secret Plan is secret because it is a PLAN FOR EVIL. Do you want to help or hinder EVIL?

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×