Getting Feisty

Gabby

Petty Officer 2nd Class
Joined
Mar 12, 2007
Messages
189
Re: Getting Feisty

treedancer said:
Quote Gabby

But your comparison likened him to Bill, who would have sold the White House and Hillary's privates to the highest bidder. If you truly believe that than your letting politics cloud your judgement.


This coming from someone that is trying to take the morol high ground? Are you accusing the President of the United States of being capable pimping his wife?I hope that isn’t so, but that’s the way I took it.

Gabby you say that you were in, I believe the Army? Well I was in the Marine Corps, at a different time, and a different war. Spent a lot of quality time, and a lot of not so quality time with people that in civilian life I would not like to associate with. I’ll try to shorten this up a bit, I wouldn’t be here typing this to you if it wasn’t for the biggest drunk, in the 11th Marine Regiment saving my life .He was my gunny, and if you had seen him in the recruitment office you would most likely have run and joined the Navy, but in a combat situation he is who you would want at your back .I,m sure you are familiar with, what I guess you would in the Army call them “field solders”, we called them “field Marines”, in the barracks they were sxxtbirds, weren’t meant to be in the barracks meant for combat. In other words the commander in chief can be a Sxxtbird and still be a better leader that an incompetent.




Omer this time I hope you get your wish and the republicans take the suggestion of **** Morris, of course it would be for entirely different reasons r.

Welcome home Marine.

As far as a field Marine, we have similar troops in the Army, I would daresay ALL the services have a "Gunny Highway" somewhere in a glass case that says break in case of war. However, as far as the comment the President could be a S&&tbird and still be a leader I am assuming you are defending President Clinton.

I am not on board with that logic. Sorry. I truly think the man would sell anything to profit himself. His integrity, his honor, his very soul if it had a price. I think hs is evil incarnate.

Thanks for your service at a time when the country was in great turmoil.
 

i386

Captain
Joined
Aug 24, 2004
Messages
3,548
Re: Getting Feisty

oddjob said:
Quote:
Sorry, clueless on this one. Both sides sound full of it if you ask me.


Hey, thanks for being honest. Now its your job ( the American citizen) to find the truth in the matter. Come back here and post what you come up with.

I'm still stuck to one fact....a president has the right to fire any or all of his attorneys at ANY point of time in his admin.

Can ANYONE dispute this? Will anyone!????


lets leave slick willy out of it ....fine by me..

Now you're talkin'

All I'm saying is one sets the bar pretty low if one wants to justify something by what the Clintons or (anyone else for that matter) got away with.

I'm not disagreeing with you, like I said, I really don't know. But before burdening me, why not source the fact you're sticking to. Maybe you could have ended this argument a long time ago.
 

Gabby

Petty Officer 2nd Class
Joined
Mar 12, 2007
Messages
189
Re: Getting Feisty

Treedancer, you did have one thing right. Any past president's wrongs don't make them right by a current sitting president or for a future preident. I agree with that. I just don't think most on this web site agree, and we are all therefore exercising our fingers as we type. I'll never believe the garbage that liberals spew. I've seen socialism and communism up close and personal. Don't like it. Don't want it here.
 

JB

Honorary Moderator Emeritus
Joined
Mar 25, 2001
Messages
45,907
Re: Getting Feisty

"they do not believe in God, or any higher power."

That's inflammatory nonsense, Xtra, and you know it. Just the sort of troll statement that starts fights in DC. Not like you at all.

First, neither you nor anybody else knows what someone believes. Second, agreeing with Thomas Jefferson that the government has no business promoting any religion says nothing about the religion of Jefferson or anyone who agrees with him.
 

POINTER94

Vice Admiral
Joined
Oct 12, 2003
Messages
5,031
Re: Getting Feisty

Can someone please tell me what crime anyone is charged with or alledged to have committed that requires testimony?
 

BoatBuoy

Rear Admiral
Joined
May 29, 2004
Messages
4,856
Re: Getting Feisty

oddjob said:
I'm still stuck to one fact....a president has the right to fire any or all of his attorneys at ANY point of time in his admin.

Can ANYONE dispute this? Will anyone!????

The ranking Republican member of the Senate judiciary committee disputed this today. And unlike opinions on this forum, his counts.
 

WillyBWright

Fleet Admiral
Joined
Dec 29, 2003
Messages
8,200
Re: Getting Feisty

This isn't a court proceeding, Pointer. There have been no arrests (yet). It's a call to Congress and Senate to address some concerns they have. It's an investigatory procedure. But I can understand why you have forgotten about such things. I mean it's not like we've actually seen any for the past six years.
 

Plainsman

Rear Admiral
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
4,062
Re: Getting Feisty

JB said:
"they do not believe in God, or any higher power."

That's inflammatory nonsense, Xtra, and you know it. Just the sort of troll statement that starts fights in DC. Not like you at all.

First, neither you nor anybody else knows what someone believes. Second, agreeing with Thomas Jefferson that the government has no business promoting any religion says nothing about the religion of Jefferson or anyone who agrees with him.

I disagree JB. Who is it that want's God removed from everything? It's not the republicans for sure.
And as for what someone believes, you can get an excellent idea from their posts. We have ALL done that here in DC. As OMR calls it Mind Reading.
 

12Footer

Fleet Admiral
Joined
Mar 25, 2001
Messages
8,217
Re: Getting Feisty

The admin is not "fiesty" enough. They got a majority vote for reasons they have abandoned for the most part.
They have themselves to blame for the current barrage of political persecution they are receiving right now, and if ya axe me, they deserve it for being such wimps from day one. The time is waaaaay overdue for them to get offensive, but they will never get their base behind them like they had in 2004. They blew it big time by going against their proffessed principles shared by me and other neocons. They blew it by trying to pacify the nutjobs who are now trying to take them out by any means.... and we know the moral/ethical "means" they limit themselves to... "New tone"? Yup. Anybody got another length of rope?
 

POINTER94

Vice Admiral
Joined
Oct 12, 2003
Messages
5,031
Re: Getting Feisty

Willy, I understand how you have forgotten what due process is. I understand why you might have forgotten what executive priveldge is. I understand how you might have forgotten what the 5th ammendment is.

Ah a liberal inquisition, just like the old days. Political hate machine tactics. Not even a charge. Getting feisty, what an understatement.
 

mrbscott19

Chief Petty Officer
Joined
May 18, 2004
Messages
603
Re: Getting Feisty

Was Clinton charged before the investigations started? Just wondering since you all like to bring him up so often. Police investigations happen ALL the time without anyone being charged. Thats what the investigation is for.....

And didn't you all hear what your hero Tony Snow had to say about "executive privilege" back in 1998? He called it "executive dodging". And I believe that is true....it was then, it is now.
 

POINTER94

Vice Admiral
Joined
Oct 12, 2003
Messages
5,031
Re: Getting Feisty

At the very least he was alledged to have committed a crime. What crime exactly would President Bush be charged with after any (regardless how politically valuable the democrats would find it)? Clinton was in a business deal full of theives and liars of which 30 of them recieved indictments. It included illegal billing practices, breaking numerous lending laws, intimidation, abuse of power, etc.

THE PRESIDENT CAN FIRE ANY AG WHENEVER HE WANTS.
 

oddjob

Commander
Joined
Jun 19, 2002
Messages
2,723
Re: Getting Feisty

mrbscott19 said:
Was Clinton charged before the investigations started? Just wondering since you all like to bring him up so often. Police investigations happen ALL the time without anyone being charged. Thats what the investigation is for.....

And didn't you all hear what your hero Tony Snow had to say about "executive privilege" back in 1998? He called it "executive dodging". And I believe that is true....it was then, it is now.

Dont remember, but was He (clinton) under oath when he addressed me and the nation on TV, WAGGED HIS MOTHER EARTH DAMN FINGER AT ME!...and said " now you listen to me!...I did NOT have sexual relations with that women...Monica Lewinski..!

for the record..scott brought willy back into the topic...and I had a flash back....
 

BoatBuoy

Rear Admiral
Joined
May 29, 2004
Messages
4,856
Re: Getting Feisty

POINTER94 said:
THE PRESIDENT CAN FIRE ANY AG WHENEVER HE WANTS.

THAT'S YOUR OPINION AND AGAIN, IT WAS CONTRADICTED BY THE RANKING REPUBLICAN OF THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. AND UNLIKE YOUR'S, HIS OPINION COUNTS.
 

RubberFrog

Rear Admiral
Joined
Apr 9, 2005
Messages
4,268
Re: Getting Feisty

BoatBuoy said:
POINTER94 said:
THE PRESIDENT CAN FIRE ANY AG WHENEVER HE WANTS.

THAT'S YOUR OPINION AND AGAIN, IT WAS CONTRADICTED BY THE RANKING REPUBLICAN OF THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. AND UNLIKE YOUR'S, HIS OPINION COUNTS.

Stop shouting.... feel like you're losing here?
 

Vlad D Impeller

Commander
Joined
Mar 30, 2005
Messages
2,644
Re: Getting Feisty

"2. Make lying under oath a criminal act. "

I thought that lying under oath is a criminal act, is that not the reason for Scooter Libby's problems?
 

treedancer

Commander
Joined
Apr 10, 2005
Messages
2,216
Re: Getting Feisty



Gonzo claimed that the eight Attorneys were dismissed for reasons of poor performance

. This is what he testified to on (1/18/07) to the Senate Judiciary Committee,<< What we do is we make an evaluation about the performance of individuals, and I have a responsibility to the people in your district that we have the best possible people in these positions. And that's the reason why changes sometimes have to be made, although there are a number of reasons why changes get made and why people leave on their own>>

Gonzos Deputy Paul McNulty also made the same claim under oath to the same committee on (2/6/07)here are his words<< As the attorney general said at his oversight hearing last month, the phone calls that were made back in December were performance related


All but one of the U.S. attorneys recently fired by the Justice Department had positive job reviews before they were dismissed, but many ran into political trouble with Washington over issues over issues ranging from immigration to the death penalty,

<<Daniel Bodgen US Attorney for Nevada was one that received a very positive evaluation but was fired on 2/12/07 despite having what was descried in his last job performance evaluation as being a capable leader who was high y regarded by the federal judiciary and investigators.
:

Deputy AG McNulty admitted in a Email to Kyle Sampson Chief of staff to Gonzo on 12/5/06<< I'm still a little skittish about Bogden ... I'll admit have not looked at his district's performance. Sorry to be raising this again/now; it was just on my mind last night and evening.">>

To me that sure sounds rather suspicious.>>

<<John McKay the US Attorney of Seattle; was an effective, will regarded and capable leader that was his review on May 2006.So what happened? He got a phone call in December from a Justice Department official who ordered him to resign?

He Attorney had a 65 page evaluation describing his relationship with most of the federal judges in his area as excellent and praised the quality of his work. In a letter dated April 7, 2006,from his director, Michael Battle, that said 'I understand that the recent evaluation of your office went well. Yet he was still fired.>>

Even the Justice Department now admits performance wasn't the issue. "Since the mass firings were carried out three months ago, Justice Department officials have consistently portrayed them as personnel decisions based on the prosecutors' 'performance-related' problems. But, yesterday, officials acknowledged that the ousters were based primarily on the administration's unhappiness with the prosecutors' policy decisions and revealed the White House's role in the matter." (WashingtonPost, 3/3/07

Here is the reason Karl Rove gave for firing Carol Lam a US attorney for San Diego

<<, was dismissed because she did not focus on immigration cases. "Another United States attorney was doing an otherwise excellent job in the San Diego district. Refused to file immigration cases ... at the direction of the Attorney General, she was asked to file, and she said I don't want to make that a priority in my office." (Karl Rove Remarks at the Statehouse Convention Center in Little rock, AK, 3/8/07>>

<<The Justice Department wrote to Senator Dianne Feinstein three months before the firing, vouching for Lam's handling of immigration cases. "Please know that immigration enforcement is critically important to the Department and to the United States Attorney's Office in the Southern District of California. That office is presently committing fully half of its Assistant United States Attorneys to prosecute criminal immigration cases. The immigration prosecution philosophy of the Southern District focuses on deterrence by directing its resources and efforts against the worst immigration offenders and by bringing felony cases against such defendant that will result in longer sentences." (Letter from William E. Moschella, Asst. Attorney General, to the Honorable Senator Dianne Feinstein, 8/23/06

Kyle Sampson, former Chief of Staff to Attorney General Gonzales, looked to immigration as an excuse to fire Carol Lam. "Has ODAG ever called Carol Lam and woodshedded her re: immigration enforcement? Has anyone? If the AG ordered 20 more prosecutors to the S.D. Cal. To do immigration enforcement only where would we get them from (remember the premise: AG has ordered it)? Please advise?" (Email from Kyle Sampson, Chief of Staff to AG Gonzales, to Bill Mercer, Office of the Deputy Attorney General, 5/31/06

: Disgraced former Congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham signed a letter expressing frustration with Carol Lam four months after she began prosecuting him - and one month before he pled guilty. "Again, we would like to meet to discuss the disparity between crimes committed and prosecutions conducted at your earliest convenience ... Sincerely ... Randy 'Duke' Cunningham." Letter to Attorney General Gonzales, 10/20/05)>>

<<The Bush Administration told Sen. John Ensign (R-NV) that Daniel Bogden was fired because he did not prosecute enough "adult obscenity" cases. "One is that I was trying to get the specifics of why he was let go. And to be honest with you, this is what I was told. I was told that there were two areas that they didn't feel that Dan was being aggressive enough. One was on obscenity cases -- adult obscenity cases." Press Conference by Senator John Ensign (R-NV., 3/13/07

Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General William Moschella said that Daniel Bogden actually had no significant deficiencies. "The general sense in the department about Mr. Bogden is that given the importance of the district in Las Vegas, there was no particular deficiency. There was an interest in seeing new energy and renewed vigor in that office, really taking it to the next level." Testimony of William Moschella, Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General, to the House Judiciary Committee, 3/6/07)

Daniel Bogden moved forward on adult obscenity cases - even when the Justice Department gave him little to work with. "A former senior law enforcement official knowledgeable about the work of the Nevada U.S. attorney's office said he was shocked to see the criticism of Bogden ... The case in question, involving adult obscenity on the Internet, was 'woefully deficient' of details according to the official, who confirmed that Ward had gone to Nevada in early September 2006 to present it. 'All they had was a Web site,' he said. 'They didn't have a target fully identified, they had no assets -- they didn't even know where the guy was managing his server.' Nevertheless ... Bogden's office agreed to put together a proposal for pursuing the case, outlining the additional work and resources needed to build it, the official said. The implication that Bogden was refusing to take on a 'good case' in that instance, the official said, 'is totally absurd.'" (Salon.com, 3/19/07>>

: Senator Ensign may have been "intentionally mislead." "I said it before: I was either intentionally misled or somebody was misinformed and unaware of the complete process." (Press Conference by Senator John Ensign (R-NV.), 3/13/07

<<White House Advisor Dan Bartlett claimed that David Iglesias was fired because of complaints on his handling of voter-fraud cases. "That is not limited to U.S. attorneys. And over the course of several years we have received complaints about U.S. attorneys, particularly when it comes to election fraud cases -- not just New Mexico, but also Wisconsin and Pennsylvania ... "(Press Conference with White House Counselor Dan Bartlett, 3/13/07

David Iglesias was asked by the Department of Justice to lead a voter fraud seminar for more than 100 prosecutors across the country. "David C. Iglesias, who was dismissed as U.S. attorney for New Mexico in December, was one of two chief federal prosecutors invited to teach at a 'voting integrity symposium' in October 2005. The symposium was sponsored by Justice's public integrity and civil rights sections and was attended by more than 100 prosecutors from around the country, according to an account by Iglesias that a department spokesman confirmed." (WashingtonPost, 3/19/07>>

<<Republican lawmakers pressured U.S.Attorneys to bring indictments against Democrats - and then fired them when they refused.

In New Mexico: "Sen. Pete Domenici and Rep. Heather Wilson of New Mexico pressured the U.S. attorney in their state to speed up indictments in a federal corruption investigation that involved at least one former Democratic state senator, according to two people familiar with the contacts. The alleged involvement of the two Republican lawmakers raises questions about possible violations of House of Representatives and Senate ethics rules and could taint the criminal investigation into the award of an $82 million courthouse contract." (McClatchy, 3/1/07)>>

<<And in Seattle: "Another fired prosecutor, John McKay, of Seattle, tells NEWSWEEK that local Republicans pressured him to launch a criminal probe of voting fraud that would tilt a deadlocked Washington governor's race. 'They wanted me to go out and start arresting people,' he says, adding that he refused to do so because there was 'no evidence.' After McKay was fired in December, he says he also got a phone call from a 'clearly nervous' Elston asking if he intended to go public: 'He was offering me a deal: you stay silent and the attorney general won't say anything bad about you.'" (Newsweek, 3/19/07)>>

<<Attorney General Alberto Gonzales claimed that no United States Attorney would be replaced for political reasons - or to stop a growing corruption probe. "I would never, ever make a change in a United States attorney for political reasons or if it would in any way jeopardize an ongoing serious investigation. I just would not do it." (Testimony of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to the Senate Judiciary Committee, 1/18/07)

The Justice Department graded prosecutors on whether they were "loyal bushies". "As an operational matter, we would like to replace 15-20 percent of the current US Attorneys ... The vast majority of US Attorneys, 80-85 percent, I would guess, are doing a great job, are loyal bushies, etc." (Email from Kyl Sampson, Dept. of Justice, to Deputy White House Counsel David Leitch, as reported by ABC News, 3/15/07)>>

Rove was asked to fire one of the U.S. Attorneys by the New Mexico Republican Party Chairman. "Presidential advisor Karl Rove and at least one other member of the White House political team were urged by the New Mexico Republican party chairman to fire the state's U.S. attorney because of dissatisfaction in part with his failure to indict Democrats in a voter fraud investigation in the battleground election state. 'Is anything ever going to happen to that guy?' Weh said he asked Rove at a White House holiday event that month. 'He's gone,' Rove said, according to Weh. 'I probably said something close to Hallelujah,' said Weh." (McClatchy, 3/10/07)


Carol Lam served a search warrant on Kyle "Dusty" Foggo, fmr. Executive Director of the CIA, and then became targeted for firing. "The U.S. attorney in San Diego notified the Justice Department of search warrants in a Republican bribery scandal last May 10, one day before the attorney general's chief of staff warned the White House of a 'real problem' with her, a Democratic senator said yesterday. The prosecutor, Carol S. Lam, was dismissed seven months later as part of an effort by the Justice Department and the White House to fire eight U.S. attorneys. " (WashingtonPost, 3/19/07)


Kyle Sampson, Chief of Staff to Attorney General Gonzales, wanted a nominee to replace Lam immediately upon the expiration of her term. "Sensitivity: Confidential ... Please call me at your convenience to discuss the following: ... The real problem we have right now with Carol Lam that leads me to conclude that we should have someone ready to be nominated on 11/18, the day her 4-year term expires." (Email from Kyle Sampson, Chief of Staff to AG Gonzales, to William Kelley, 5/11/06)

Attorney General Gonzales claimed the White House had no intention of subverting the Senate's constitutional "advice and consent" role. "Third, I believe fundamentally in the constitutional role of the Senate in advice and consent with respect to U.S. attorneys, and would in no way support an effort to circumvent that constitutional role." (Press Conference by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, 3/13/07)

Kyle Sampson, Attorney General Gonzales's Chief of Staff, and Chris Oprison, of the Office of White House Counsel, openly talked about using their new authority to go around the Senate on the nomination of J. Timothy Griffin in Arkansas.

) 'Interim may be a source of confusion or, worse, a term that Pryor's and Lincoln's office can springboard from to press for their own nominee rather than rallying behind Tim. What are your thoughts? If this is a Section 546 AG appointment for unlimited duration, Tim can call himself 'US Attorney' rather than 'interim' or 'acting' and our talkers should avoid referring to him as 'interim.'" (Email from Chris Oprison, Office of White House Counsel, to Kyle Sampson, Chief of Staff to AG Gonzales, 12/19/06)

I think we should gum this to death ... There is some risk that we'll lose the authority, but if we don't ever exercise it then what's the point of having it?" (Email from Kyle Sampson, Chief of Staff to AG Gonzales, to Chris Oprison, Office of White House Counsel, 12/19/06)

The Attorney General was unaware of the plan to fire U.S. Attorneys for political reasons. "As we can all imagine, in an organization of 110,000 people, I am not aware of every bit of information that passes through the halls of the Department of Justice, nor am I aware of all decisions. As a general matter, some two years ago, I was made aware that there was a request from the White House as to the possibility of replacing all the United States attorneys. I immediately rejected that. I felt that that was a bad idea and it was disruptive." (Press Conference by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, 3/13/07)

Karl Rove and then-White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales decided that the U.S. Attorneys should go. "David - Karl Rove stopped by to ask you (roughly quoting) 'how we planned to proceed regarding US Attorneys, whether we were going to allow all to stay, request resignations from all and accept only some of them, or selectively replace them, etc.' I told him that you would be on the hill all day for the Judge's hearings, and he said the matter was not urgent." (Email from Colin Newman, Office of White House Counsel, to David Leitch, Office of White House Counsel, as reported by ABC News, 3/15/07)

ON KARL ROVE'S INVOLVEMENT

The White House claimed it had no involvement in the firing of these eight United States Attorneys. "'The White House did not play a role in the list of the seven U.S. attorneys,' said Dan Bartlett, Mr. Bush's counselor, referring to a roster of those who were fired[/b]." New York Times, 3/13/07)

Emails show the White House came up with the plan to dismiss the U.S. Attorneys. "The White House suggested two years ago that the Justice Department fire all 93 U.S. attorneys, a proposal that eventually resulted in the dismissals of eight prosecutors last year, according to e-mails and internal documents that the administration will provide to Congress today." (WashingtonPost, 3/13/07)

The idea to fire US Attorneys started in Karl Rove's office. "New unreleased e-mails from top administration officials show that the idea of firing all 93 U.S. attorneys was raised by White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove in early January 2005, indicating Rove was more involved in the plan than the White House previously acknowledged. The e-mails also show how Alberto Gonzales discussed the idea of firing the attorneys en masse while he was still White House counsel -- weeks before he was confirmed as attorney general. The e-mails put Rove at the epicenter of the imbroglio and raise questions about Gonzales' explanations of the matter." (ABC News, 3/15/07)

: Karl Rove served as a conduit to for political complaints about the U.S.Attorneys. "The White House acknowledged on Sunday that presidential adviser Karl Rove served as a conduit for complaints to the Justice Department about federal prosecutors who were later fired for what critics charge were partisan political reasons." (McClatchy, 3/11/07)

A capable United States Attorney was replaced with a former aide to Rove. "The Justice Department removed a prosecutor in Arkansas without cause to make room for a former aide to presidential adviser Karl Rove, a senior Justice official conceded in testimony Tuesday ... former U.S. attorney Ed Cummins of Little Rock, has said that he was asked to leave last year to give the job to Griffin, who previously worked for Rove and for the Republican National Committee." (The News-Observer, 2/7/07)

--- FICTION ON HARRIET MIERS'S INVOLVEMENT

White House Senior Advisor Dan Bartlett claimed that the idea to fire U.S. Attorneys originated in the office of former White House Counsel Harriet Miers. "And what Harriet floated was the idea of saying should we treat the fifth year as the first year -- give new blood -- an opportunity for new blood to come in. Kyle, to his credit, and others said, that would be highly disruptive to the process, there are a lot of good U.S. attorneys that are performing; some of them have not served full four-year terms because we hadn't removed them all in the first place. So it was appropriate for Harriet to raise the idea; it was quickly rejected." (Press Conference with White House Counselor Dan Bartlett, 3/13/07)

Kyle Sampson discussed the dismissals with Alberto Gonzales in 2004 - when Gonzales was still the White House Counsel. "Judge and I discussed briefly a couple of weeks ago ... As an operational matter, we would like to replace 15-20 percent of the current US Attorneys - the underperforming ones." (Email from Kyle Sampson, Chief of Staff to AG Gonzales, to David Leitch, Deputy White House Counsel, 1/9/05)

White House emails show idea was discussed by Karl Rove and then-White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales, neither dismissed it outright. "David - Karl Rove stopped by to ask you (roughly quoting) 'how we planned to proceed regarding US Attorneys, whether we were going to allow all to stay, request resignations from all and accept only some of them, or selectively replace them, etc.' I told him that you would be on the hill all day for the Judge's hearing, and he said the matter was not urgent." (Email from Colin Newman, Office of White House Counsel, to David Leitch, Deputy White House Counsel, 1/9/05)

Any other question I’ll try to help.
 

RubberFrog

Rear Admiral
Joined
Apr 9, 2005
Messages
4,268
Re: Getting Feisty

I got a response: uh, what?

Can I get the executive summary?
 

BoatBuoy

Rear Admiral
Joined
May 29, 2004
Messages
4,856
Re: Getting Feisty

RubberFrog said:
BoatBuoy said:
POINTER94 said:
THE PRESIDENT CAN FIRE ANY AG WHENEVER HE WANTS.

THAT'S YOUR OPINION AND AGAIN, IT WAS CONTRADICTED BY THE RANKING REPUBLICAN OF THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. AND UNLIKE YOUR'S, HIS OPINION COUNTS.

Stop shouting.... feel like you're losing here?

Quite right, Froggy, (edited out)
 
Top