Headline from the Drudge Report: BUSH VOWS TO BLOCK SUBPOENAS; WARNS DEMS, NO ‘SHOW TRIALS’
WASHINGTON (AP) – A defiant President Bush warned Democrats Tuesday to accept his offer to have top aides testify about the firings of federal prose…

Waterboard Berger!!!

You know I have better stuff to do than listen to all this BS.

Our reasoning is BS, but Tommy’s is gospel truth.

Why is it that when a lib is presented with the facts they just run and hide?

Talk to youse later as in much.

Honestly tho, you all have run off so many libs, logically, that I am surprised that any show up anymore. Well you know what P.T. Barnum said….. – Lorica

Let’s not forget Clinton illegally stealing FBI files of his opponents, and using the IRS to go after conservative leaders and organizations. He even used the IRS to go after Billy Dale and the White House Travel Office personnel, and all they ever did was happen to be in the way when he wanted to give payoffs and patronage to a crony.

While the federal investigation into Pendergast was still ongoing, Truman, who was elected to the U.S. Senate in 1934, tried to get Milligan dismissed. In 1938, he attempted to block Milligan’s reappointment as U.S. Attorney even though he was a Roosevelt appointee with the support of Missouri’s other Democratic senator, Bennett “Champ” Clark.

On February 15, 1938, Truman personally filibustered Milligan’s reconfirmation by the Senate, calling him incompetent, immoral and guilty of using “Hitler-Stalin tactics.” Time magazine called Truman’s speech “one of the bitterest…ever heard on the Senate floor.”

Despite Truman’s efforts, Milligan was endorsed by the Senate and went on to bring down his close friend and mentor, Pendergast. But Truman never forgot what he had done. Within days of becoming president in 1945, after the death of Roosevelt, one of Truman’s first acts was to fire Milligan. When Attorney General Francis Biddle protested Truman’s action, he fired Biddle, too.

In other ways as well, Democratic presidents have long used federal law enforcement agencies for political purposes. Roosevelt often had his political enemies audited by the Internal Revenue Service. He also used the Federal Bureau of Investigation to investigate and tap the phones of journalists and newspaper publishers who opposed his policies.

In the 1960s, President John F. Kennedy, Attorney General Robert Kennedy, and President Lyndon Johnson also used the FBI and IRS to investigate and harass their political opponents. As is well known, they bugged Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s phones and hotel rooms just to gain political intelligence—falsely justifying their actions on the grounds that King was in league with the Communists.

The point of this history lesson is not to excuse or justify anything Bush and Gonzales may have done, which seems mainly stupid rather than malicious, but to suggest that Democrats would be wise not to push their protests too far. Their own presidents have done far worse with less justification. That’s a fact.

You know I have better stuff to do than listen to all this BS.

Yeah, like rushing back to the bong room.

Reagan fired all of Carter’s USA’s when he took office in 81 and there is nothing wrong with what Reagan or Clinton did.

That’s an outright lie, tommy. Reagan didn’t fire any of the US Attorneys when he took office. He let them complete their terms. And lest you think there’s anything partisan here, Jimmy Carter did exactly the same thing. Then again, neither Reagan nor Carter had any illegal activities hounding them that they wished to cover up.

Clinton, on the other hand, fired all the US Attorneys. He definitely wanted to get rid of two – the one in Little Rock who was looking into his illegal land deals and the one in DC who was less than a month away from indicting Clinton’s crony Rostenkowski.

Did Clinton have the right to do this? Yes, although it’s highly unethical. But the words “Clinton” and “unethical” are basically synonyms.

Here’s the rationale Clinton used for his firings:

Last Tuesday, after being on the job only 11 days, Attorney General Janet Reno had the Justice Department moving and shaking. She requested the prompt resignation of all 93 U.S. Attorneys around the country “to build a team” that represents “my views” and those of the President..

Time Magazine, 4/5/93

OK, so each administration wants US Attorneys to focus on certain criminal areas. The Clintons, for example, wanted the DOJ to concentrate on things like harrassing Microsoft. If I were in the Oval Office, I’d be wanting them to give priority to things like vote fraud and illegal immigration. It’s the right of the President to remove any US Attorneys who don’t get with the program. And there’s nothing illegal about any of that.

In this case, the AG did an evaluation of all the US Attorneys to see who was doing their job well and meeting their objectives. Much like a lot of businesses do every year. Based on that, eight of them were fired. Big deal.

So here’s the question, tommy. Do you have any link to anything that shows the fired US Attorneys were removed because they were looking into any criminal activity of the President or any of his associates? If you do, produce it. If not, then you have nothing.

It’s put up or shut up time, tommy. Let’s see if you have anything at all except partisan hackery. Based on your past track record, I doubt it.