Obama's Brownshirts are at it again.....

[JMU DJ]

Damn Liberals and their reading "comprehension".

Says the man who didn't even read his article before he decided to attack. Typical.

[Baldy]

Where is your proof that Holder "rubber stamped" it, as opposed to simply having it hidden from him by Morrison?

Jeezus Christ....

Jizz, clean the wax out of your ears...

I will quote for the third time...

"no subpoena may be issued to any member of the news media" without "the express authorization of the attorney general"

"Express Authorization" means that the only way this subpoena gets served is if the AG or the acting AG signs off on it...

Even IF Morrison hid it from his superiors for 10 months (how?), it is a clear sign that the AG's office is in complete disarray...no accountability, no leadership, no follow-up.

Sad.

[Baldy]

Damn Liberals and their reading "comprehension".

Says the man who didn't even read his article before he decided to attack. Typical.

Then my argument should be really easy to refute.

Then again, that's probably why you haven't even tried.
Please, be my guest and give it a shot. The other sheep in your flock need your help.

[JMU DJ]

Says the man who didn't even read his article before he decided to attack. Typical.

Then my argument should be really easy to refute.

Then again, that's probably why you haven't even tried.
Please, be my guest and give it a shot. The other sheep in your flock need your help.

Dude, you haven't even tried to defend your stance, you just keep spouting the same claims and half truths like they actually carry some weight. Here are some real facts for you chuckles:


1. Republican files subpoena, during a time there is no AG in office to sign off on subpoena.
2. Filed January 23rd. Three days after Obama took the oath of office (which he flubbed and therefor shouldn't be pres). So that means he must have taken the oath, and gone over to the AG office and demand they subpoena those records from that specific date.
3. Served January 30th. Four days before the AG took office, so unless you have some proof he signed off during his time before assuming the office, then again... you are just making a claim.
4. Senate Republicans are messing up the process of filling offices by using stall tactics. The AG office is way behind in "seats" that need to be filled due to Repubs stalling on nominations. This is nothing new, Dems have done this also. But as of this date, 5 of 11 offices of AG are unfilled, as of last month 6 of 11 offices were unfilled. Thus your "in shambles," due to republican stalling tactics. Working well in other offices that need to be filled too. If you can't run the government, might as well stop it from running right?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 02836.html
5. And to your reading comprehension level. "Hasn't quashed the subpoena after 10 months." The Subpoena was withdrawn a long time ago.

[Chizzang]

Seriously,
They don't like being compared to Rush Limbaugh - yet continue to act just like Rush

Obama Brown shirts stifle free speech..!!!
Oops.. Turns out: conservative US Attorney appointed during the Alberto Gonzales debacle attacks Liberal News agency...

We can still blame this on Obama..!!! when does it get embarrassing..?

Really?

A "rogue" ( ) Conservative Assistant US Attorney is wreaking havoc at the AG's office by circumventing the Constitution.

Why does Eric Holder still have this man on the payroll? Where is the accountability? Where does the buck stop?

Liberal hypocrisy at its finest. Bush got blamed for the weather, but Obama gets a free pass to let "rogue" ( ) out of control Conservative US Attorneys run the Liberal Attorney General's office.

Oh the humanity.....

You're just wrong on this one Baldy...
1) He's on the payroll because Alberto Gonzales fired his predecessor in the most corrupt and scandalous Legal department debauchery of all time...
2) He's a Conservative Republican US Attorney in Indiana
3) He did NOT seek approval for his subpoena




This has NOTHING to do with Obama
or
Brown shirt NAZI's

it's about a Conservative US Attorney attempting to halt free speech (period)

[native]

...
1) He's on the payroll because Alberto Gonzales fired his predecessor in a routine housecleaning performed in a similar manner by the Clinton administration...

FIFY!

[Baldy]

Dude, you haven't even tried to defend your stance, you just keep spouting the same claims and half truths like they actually carry some weight. Here are some real facts for you chuckles:


1. Republican files subpoena, during a time there is no AG in office to sign off on subpoena.

Again and again...I'll type it one more time, just for you. What part of, "Express Authorization" means that the only way this subpoena gets served is if the AG or the acting AG signs off on it...", do you not understand?

2. Filed January 23rd. Three days after Obama took the oath of office (which he flubbed and therefor shouldn't be pres). So that means he must have taken the oath, and gone over to the AG office and demand they subpoena those records from that specific date.

You can do better than that.

3. Served January 30th. Four days before the AG took office, so unless you have some proof he signed off during his time before assuming the office, then again... you are just making a claim.

Please reread point #1.

4. Senate Republicans are messing up the process of filling offices by using stall tactics. The AG office is way behind in "seats" that need to be filled due to Repubs stalling on nominations. This is nothing new, Dems have done this also. But as of this date, 5 of 11 offices of AG are unfilled, as of last month 6 of 11 offices were unfilled. Thus your "in shambles," due to republican stalling tactics. Working well in other offices that need to be filled too. If you can't run the government, might as well stop it from running right?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 02836.html

From your article:
"And, ultimately, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has the power to force a vote on a pending nomination -- if he wants to take the time to do it."

Translation: Harry Reid is the only one standing in the way of the nomination and confirmation process.

Enough said...

You might want to start taking your own advice of not "blasting off" before reading the article you attach to a post.

5. And to your reading comprehension level. "Hasn't quashed the subpoena after 10 months." The Subpoena was withdrawn a long time ago.

Quantify "a long time ago", please.
Since you obviously didn't read the article, Morrison withdrew the subpoena himself.

[Chizzang]

...
1) He's on the payroll because Alberto Gonzales fired his predecessor in a routine housecleaning performed in a similar manner by the Clinton administration...

FIFY!

Wrong...
routine would have been jacking a few with equally qualified replacements...Clinton replaced 2 in 8 years and one of the replacements was a Conservative...

However: What happened in 2006 & 2007 was quite different and unprecedented - The Bush hit man Gonzales fired 11 and replaced them with lower qualified (and in several cases completely unqualified) attorneys... The use of U.S. Attorneys for political gain is highly improper and reflects poorly on Gonzales and Bush

The only people claiming what Gonzales did as "standard practices" are either poorly informed or completely bipartisan and typically both

[Chizzang]

[JMU DJ]

Dude, you haven't even tried to defend your stance, you just keep spouting the same claims and half truths like they actually carry some weight. Here are some real facts for you chuckles:


1. Republican files subpoena, during a time there is no AG in office to sign off on subpoena.

Again and again...I'll type it one more time, just for you. What part of, "Express Authorization" means that the only way this subpoena gets served is if the AG or the acting AG signs off on it...", do you not understand?

2. Filed January 23rd. Three days after Obama took the oath of office (which he flubbed and therefor shouldn't be pres). So that means he must have taken the oath, and gone over to the AG office and demand they subpoena those records from that specific date.

You can do better than that.

3. Served January 30th. Four days before the AG took office, so unless you have some proof he signed off during his time before assuming the office, then again... you are just making a claim.

Please reread point #1.

4. Senate Republicans are messing up the process of filling offices by using stall tactics. The AG office is way behind in "seats" that need to be filled due to Repubs stalling on nominations. This is nothing new, Dems have done this also. But as of this date, 5 of 11 offices of AG are unfilled, as of last month 6 of 11 offices were unfilled. Thus your "in shambles," due to republican stalling tactics. Working well in other offices that need to be filled too. If you can't run the government, might as well stop it from running right?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 02836.html

From your article:
"And, ultimately, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has the power to force a vote on a pending nomination -- if he wants to take the time to do it."

Translation: Harry Reid is the only one standing in the way of the nomination and confirmation process.

Enough said...

You might want to start taking your own advice of not "blasting off" before reading the article you attach to a post.

5. And to your reading comprehension level. "Hasn't quashed the subpoena after 10 months." The Subpoena was withdrawn a long time ago.

Quantify "a long time ago", please.
Since you obviously didn't read the article, Morrison withdrew the subpoena himself.

Still using the same baseless claim again. Who signed off on it, who was the Acting AG?

Morrison withdrew the subpoena because he realized he wasn't going to get the information he wanted as the company didn't keep those records and that he had filed an unconstitutional subpoena. Show me where one of Obama's people signed off on it and I'll believe you, until then you are blowing smoke.

Perhaps you should re-read your article:

A Justice Department official familiar with this subpoena just told me that the attorney general's office never saw it and that it had not been submitted to the department's headquarters in Washington, D.C. for review. If that's correct, it suggests that U.S. Attorney Tim Morrison and Assistant U.S. Attorney Doris Pryor did not follow department regulations requiring the "express authorization of the attorney general" for media subpoenas -- and it means that neither Attorney General Eric Holder nor Acting Attorney General Mark Filip were involved. I wouldn't be surprised to see an internal investigation by the Office of Professional Responsibility; my source would not confirm or deny that.

Check Mate

[Baldy]

FIFY!

Wrong...
routine would have been jacking a few with equally qualified replacements...Clinton replaced 2 in 8 years and one of the replacements was a Conservative...

However: What happened in 2006 & 2007 was quite different and unprecedented - The Bush hit man Gonzales fired 11 and replaced them with lower qualified (and in several cases completely unqualified) attorneys... The use of U.S. Attorneys for political gain is highly improper and reflects poorly on Gonzales and Bush

The only people claiming what Gonzales did as "standard practices" are either poorly informed or completely bipartisan and typically both

Actually, Clinton fired 93 US Attorneys when he took office in 1993. Was it because of all the investigations into the endless list of FOB's or was it because of the investigations into the Clintons themselves? We don't know, but I will say that the new US Attorney for Little Rock, Paula Casey, who Clinton appointed in 1993 subsequently dropped all investigations involving the Clintons.

The only thing unusual about the firings is that it occurred during Bush's midterm...

[Baldy]

Still using the same baseless claim again. Who signed off on it, who was the Acting AG?

Morrison withdrew the subpoena because he realized he wasn't going to get the information he wanted as the company didn't keep those records and that he had filed an unconstitutional subpoena. Show me where one of Obama's people signed off on it and I'll believe you, until then you are blowing smoke.

Perhaps you should re-read your article:

A Justice Department official familiar with this subpoena just told me that the attorney general's office never saw it and that it had not been submitted to the department's headquarters in Washington, D.C. for review. If that's correct, it suggests that U.S. Attorney Tim Morrison and Assistant U.S. Attorney Doris Pryor did not follow department regulations requiring the "express authorization of the attorney general" for media subpoenas -- and it means that neither Attorney General Eric Holder nor Acting Attorney General Mark Filip were involved. I wouldn't be surprised to see an internal investigation by the Office of Professional Responsibility; my source would not confirm or deny that.

Check Mate

Using the infamous "unnamed" source inside the AG's office.

Dude, they are in job saving mode. Of course they are going to claim that they aren't responsible, didn't know about this, and are blaming the other guy. Are you kidding me? Are you so naive that I need to explain this to you?

It's also nice to see you ignored part two of my arguement...
If Morrison is indeed "rogue" ( Cleets, the gift that keeps giving). Why does this guy still have a job? Where is the accountability? Where does the buck stop? Are Holder and his minions that incompetent? If Morrison is guilty of not following operational procedure of this magnitude, wouldn't it is grounds for immediate dismissal and I imagine it would meet the threshold for disbarment on grounds of gross misconduct.

[Chizzang]

Wrong...
routine would have been jacking a few with equally qualified replacements...Clinton replaced 2 in 8 years and one of the replacements was a Conservative...

However: What happened in 2006 & 2007 was quite different and unprecedented - The Bush hit man Gonzales fired 11 and replaced them with lower qualified (and in several cases completely unqualified) attorneys... The use of U.S. Attorneys for political gain is highly improper and reflects poorly on Gonzales and Bush

The only people claiming what Gonzales did as "standard practices" are either poorly informed or completely bipartisan and typically both

Actually, Clinton fired 93 US Attorneys when he took office in 1993. Was it because of all the investigations into the endless list of FOB's or was it because of the investigations into the Clintons themselves? We don't know, but I will say that the new US Attorney for Little Rock, Paula Casey, who Clinton appointed in 1993 subsequently dropped all investigations involving the Clintons.

The only thing unusual about the firings is that it occurred during Bush's midterm...

No no no..!!!
There are only 94 U.S. Attorneys...
Since the Reagan era (Reagan dismissed 89) they have been routinely dismissed at mid-term after the election, in other words- here's your notice you will be replace in two years ...NOT FIRED..!!!

Bush after submitting notice to most of them (I honestly don't know how many) later fire several who were conducting corruption probes involving Republicans... these we're US attorneys who were already passed on the review...

Quite a bit different... Clinton fired 2 after this process
Baldy I have way too many Attorney friends to do what you're trying to do
Everybodsy's been nice to you about your gaff...

"Obama's Brown shirts at it again" implies a hostile dismissal of citizens rights...
All you've shown us is that
1) You can't read
2) You followed this one straight from the Rush play book
3) You can't admit when you're wrong


There is a difference

[JMU DJ]

Using the infamous "unnamed" source inside the AG's office.

Dude, they are in job saving mode. Of course they are going to claim that they aren't responsible, didn't know about this, and are blaming the other guy. Are you kidding me? Are you so naive that I need to explain this to you?

It's also nice to see you ignored part two of my arguement...
If Morrison is indeed "rogue" ( Cleets, the gift that keeps giving). Why does this guy still have a job? Where is the accountability? Where does the buck stop? Are Holder and his minions that incompetent? If Morrison is guilty of not following operational procedure of this magnitude, wouldn't it is grounds for immediate dismissal and I imagine it would meet the threshold for disbarment on grounds of gross misconduct.

Haven't seen you provide any evidence to show that "Chairman Obama's" organization had anything to do with this. But nice job on trying to spin this and make it appear Morrison isn't at fault. Talk about tin foil on your head.

In regards to the second part of your argument, this is information that just came to the news as of yesterday (if I'm not mistaken) and apparently the AG office was unaware of the subpoena at all. We'll see where Morrison ends up after all of this.


Nice try though.

[D1B]

From L to R: Chizzage, Baldy

[Chizzang]

Maybe Ivy or one of the other lawyers can explain the US attorney dismissal thing Reagan started...

[Chizzang]

From L to R: Chizzage, Baldy

Dude,
He will never admit he's just wrong... NEVER
Even though I've conceded that he was correct (or more correct) than me several times...

His inability to admit he's wrong stems from feelings of inadequacy and fear...
Note that he also shows his insecurities by constantly making sarcastic references to Harvard in an attempt to validate his own intellectual significance

I don;t know what school he went to and I don't care, it makes no difference - I'm sure he's had a fine education and is perfectly suitable to have a debate with

at some point we just have to be comfortable with who we are - right or wrong on an issue - and let things play themselves out without inserting our fears and insecurities into the equation

[D1B]

From L to R: Chizzage, Baldy

Dude,
He will never admit he's just wrong... NEVER
Even though I've conceded that he was correct (or more correct) than me several times...

His inability to admit he's wrong stems from feelings of inadequacy and fear...
Note that he also shows his insecurities by constantly making sarcastic references to Harvard in an attempt to validate his own intellectual significance

I don;t know what school he went to and I don't care, it makes no difference - I'm sure he's had a fine education and is perfectly suitable to have a debate with

at some point we just have to be comfortable with who we are - right or wrong on an issue - and let things play themselves out without inserting our fears and insecurities into the equation

Baldy is top notch. Like me, he fights to the death, right or wrong. Seems on this issue, he's a victim of the Chizzag-omatic Conk Juicer:

[native]

From L to R: Chizzage, Baldy

[Ivytalk]

Prime Minister Benito Mussobama strikes again!

[Baldy]

Actually, Clinton fired 93 US Attorneys when he took office in 1993. Was it because of all the investigations into the endless list of FOB's or was it because of the investigations into the Clintons themselves? We don't know, but I will say that the new US Attorney for Little Rock, Paula Casey, who Clinton appointed in 1993 subsequently dropped all investigations involving the Clintons.

The only thing unusual about the firings is that it occurred during Bush's midterm...

No no no..!!!
There are only 94 U.S. Attorneys...
Since the Reagan era (Reagan dismissed 89) they have been routinely dismissed at mid-term after the election, in other words- here's your notice you will be replace in two years ...NOT FIRED..!!!

Bush after submitting notice to most of them (I honestly don't know how many) later fire several who were conducting corruption probes involving Republicans... these we're US attorneys who were already passed on the review...

Quite a bit different... Clinton fired 2 after this process
Baldy I have way too many Attorney friends to do what you're trying to do
Everybodsy's been nice to you about your gaff...

"Obama's Brown shirts at it again" implies a hostile dismissal of citizens rights...
All you've shown us is that
1) You can't read
2) You followed this one straight from the Rush play book
3) You can't admit when you're wrong


There is a difference

You seem to have it bassackwards. Clinton dismissed those 93 US Attorneys in 1993 which is at the beginning of his presidency (sorry, according to the only reliable sources available at the time, he did it). Soon after being confirmed, James Reno and Web Hubble told 93 US Attorneys that they were being dismissed and had 10 days to clear out their offices.

The Hubbell Standard

Congressional Democrats are in full cry over the news this week that the Administration's decision to fire eight U.S. Attorneys originated from--gasp--the White House. Senator Hillary Clinton joined the fun yesterday, blaming President Bush for "the politicization of our prosecutorial system." Oh, my.

As it happens, Mrs. Clinton is just the Senator to walk point on this issue of dismissing U.S. attorneys because she has direct personal experience. In any Congressional probe of the matter, we'd suggest she call herself as the first witness--and bring along Webster Hubbell as her chief counsel.

As everyone once knew but has tried to forget, Mr. Hubbell was a former partner of Mrs. Clinton at the Rose Law Firm in Little Rock who later went to jail for mail fraud and tax evasion. He was also Bill and Hillary Clinton's choice as Associate Attorney General in the Justice Department when Janet Reno, his nominal superior, simultaneously fired all 93 U.S. Attorneys in March 1993. Ms. Reno--or Mr. Hubbell--gave them 10 days to move out of their offices.

At the time, President Clinton presented the move as something perfectly ordinary: "All those people are routinely replaced," he told reporters, "and I have not done anything differently." In fact, the dismissals were unprecedented: Previous Presidents, including Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter, had both retained holdovers from the previous Administration and only replaced them gradually as their tenures expired. This allowed continuity of leadership within the U.S. Attorney offices during the transition.

Equally extraordinary were the politics at play in the firings. At the time, Jay Stephens, then U.S. Attorney in the District of Columbia, was investigating then Ways and Means Chairman Dan Rostenkowski, and was "within 30 days" of making a decision on an indictment. Mr. Rostenkowski, who was shepherding the Clinton's economic program through Congress, eventually went to jail on mail fraud charges and was later pardoned by Mr. Clinton.

Also at the time, allegations concerning some of the Clintons' Whitewater dealings were coming to a head. By dismissing all 93 U.S. Attorneys at once, the Clintons conveniently cleared the decks to appoint "Friend of Bill" Paula Casey as the U.S. Attorney for Little Rock. Ms. Casey never did bring any big Whitewater indictments, and she rejected information from another FOB, David Hale, on the business practices of the Arkansas elite including Mr. Clinton. When it comes to "politicizing" Justice, in short, the Bush White House is full of amateurs compared to the Clintons.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial ... =110009784

Please, prove this wrong, and I will gladly fall on my sword and shout your praise from the closest mountaintop.

[travelinman67]

No no no..!!!
There are only 94 U.S. Attorneys...
Since the Reagan era (Reagan dismissed 89) they have been routinely dismissed at mid-term after the election, in other words- here's your notice you will be replace in two years ...NOT FIRED..!!!

Bush after submitting notice to most of them (I honestly don't know how many) later fire several who were conducting corruption probes involving Republicans... these we're US attorneys who were already passed on the review...

Quite a bit different... Clinton fired 2 after this process
Baldy I have way too many Attorney friends to do what you're trying to do
Everybodsy's been nice to you about your gaff...

"Obama's Brown shirts at it again" implies a hostile dismissal of citizens rights...
All you've shown us is that
1) You can't read
2) You followed this one straight from the Rush play book
3) You can't admit when you're wrong


There is a difference

You seem to have it bassackwards. Clinton dismissed those 93 US Attorneys in 1993 which is at the beginning of his presidency (sorry, according to the only reliable sources available at the time, he did it). Soon after being confirmed, James Reno and Web Hubble told 93 US Attorneys that they were being dismissed and had 10 days to clear out their offices.

The Hubbell Standard

Congressional Democrats are in full cry over the news this week that the Administration's decision to fire eight U.S. Attorneys originated from--gasp--the White House. Senator Hillary Clinton joined the fun yesterday, blaming President Bush for "the politicization of our prosecutorial system." Oh, my.

As it happens, Mrs. Clinton is just the Senator to walk point on this issue of dismissing U.S. attorneys because she has direct personal experience. In any Congressional probe of the matter, we'd suggest she call herself as the first witness--and bring along Webster Hubbell as her chief counsel.

As everyone once knew but has tried to forget, Mr. Hubbell was a former partner of Mrs. Clinton at the Rose Law Firm in Little Rock who later went to jail for mail fraud and tax evasion. He was also Bill and Hillary Clinton's choice as Associate Attorney General in the Justice Department when Janet Reno, his nominal superior, simultaneously fired all 93 U.S. Attorneys in March 1993. Ms. Reno--or Mr. Hubbell--gave them 10 days to move out of their offices.

At the time, President Clinton presented the move as something perfectly ordinary: "All those people are routinely replaced," he told reporters, "and I have not done anything differently." In fact, the dismissals were unprecedented: Previous Presidents, including Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter, had both retained holdovers from the previous Administration and only replaced them gradually as their tenures expired. This allowed continuity of leadership within the U.S. Attorney offices during the transition.

Equally extraordinary were the politics at play in the firings. At the time, Jay Stephens, then U.S. Attorney in the District of Columbia, was investigating then Ways and Means Chairman Dan Rostenkowski, and was "within 30 days" of making a decision on an indictment. Mr. Rostenkowski, who was shepherding the Clinton's economic program through Congress, eventually went to jail on mail fraud charges and was later pardoned by Mr. Clinton.

Also at the time, allegations concerning some of the Clintons' Whitewater dealings were coming to a head. By dismissing all 93 U.S. Attorneys at once, the Clintons conveniently cleared the decks to appoint "Friend of Bill" Paula Casey as the U.S. Attorney for Little Rock. Ms. Casey never did bring any big Whitewater indictments, and she rejected information from another FOB, David Hale, on the business practices of the Arkansas elite including Mr. Clinton. When it comes to "politicizing" Justice, in short, the Bush White House is full of amateurs compared to the Clintons.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial ... =110009784

Please, prove this wrong, and I will gladly fall on my sword and shout your praise from the closest mountaintop.

He'll get back to you as soon as he stops spinning in the blender.

[Baldy]

Haven't seen you provide any evidence to show that "Chairman Obama's" organization had anything to do with this. But nice job on trying to spin this and make it appear Morrison isn't at fault. Talk about tin foil on your head.

In regards to the second part of your argument, this is information that just came to the news as of yesterday (if I'm not mistaken) and apparently the AG office was unaware of the subpoena at all. We'll see where Morrison ends up after all of this.


Nice try though.

The only proof needed to substantiate the evidence that Obama's organization had anything to do with it is that he took the oath of office on January 20, 2009. Like it or not, it happened on his watch. But please, provide proof that he didn't take the oath until after Jan. 23 and I will gladly admit the error.

If you honestly believe I have tried to make it appear that Morrison isn't or wasn't at fault, you don't have the intellectual capacity to comprehend the subject at hand and you're just wasting everyone's time. Did I or did I not say, IF Morrison is at fault, why does he still have a job?

[JMU DJ]

Haven't seen you provide any evidence to show that "Chairman Obama's" organization had anything to do with this. But nice job on trying to spin this and make it appear Morrison isn't at fault. Talk about tin foil on your head.

In regards to the second part of your argument, this is information that just came to the news as of yesterday (if I'm not mistaken) and apparently the AG office was unaware of the subpoena at all. We'll see where Morrison ends up after all of this.


Nice try though.

The only proof needed to substantiate the evidence that Obama's organization had anything to do with it is that he took the oath of office on January 20, 2009. Like it or not, it happened on his watch. But please, provide proof that he didn't take the oath until after Jan. 23 and I will gladly admit the error.

If you honestly believe I have tried to make it appear that Morrison isn't or wasn't at fault, you don't have the intellectual capacity to comprehend the subject at hand and you're just wasting everyone's time. Did I or did I not say, IF Morrison is at fault, why does he still have a job?

You did not read the second part of my statement apparently, when did this revelation of the subpoena come to light to the AG and President? Yesterday? Pretty rash to fire someone overnight without an investigation don't you think? Or is simple speculation enough for you? Remember, I was not the one who said Morrison was a rouge agent who should have been canned long ago (if cleets even stated that).

If the only proof you need is what you've stated, then you my friend are the sheep being led by the blind.

So please, provide me the evidence where someone didn't try to undermine the presidency and I will gladly concede to your arcane point of view. I have presented you with a statement (whether "unnamed" or not) from the article you are using to crucify this government that negates everything you have attempted to argue. You have presented me speculation.


Good day sir

[Chizzang]

You seem to have it bassackwards. Clinton dismissed those 93 US Attorneys in 1993 which is at the beginning of his presidency (sorry, according to the only reliable sources available at the time, he did it). Soon after being confirmed, James Reno and Web Hubble told 93 US Attorneys that they were being dismissed and had 10 days to clear out their offices.

Please, prove this wrong, and I will gladly fall on my sword and shout your praise from the closest mountaintop.

Nope, you're right...
I just got off the phone with a buddy of mine who's an attorney in Los Angeles and he explained it very clearly - historical data compiled by the Senate shows the mass firings starting with President Reagan.

Reagan replaced 89 of the 93 U.S. attorneys in his first two years in office (I thought he gave them 2 years and then fired them but that is not correct) within 2 years ha had replaced 89 positions...

President Clinton had 89 new U.S. attorneys in his first two years, and President Bush had 88 new U.S. attorneys in his first two years...

In a similar vein, the Justice Department recently supplied Congress with a district-by-district listing of U.S. attorneys who served prior to the Bush administration. The list shows that in 1981, Reagan's first year in office, 71 of 93 districts had new U.S. attorneys. In 1993, Clinton's first year, 80 of 93 districts had new U.S. attorneys....

So you're right on that point...

You're completely wrong that OBAMA BROWN SHIRTS are at it again..
becasue a conservative US attorney is breaking protocol and interfering with a liberal news agency
and he will be fired shortly (I assure you) as he should be... he's a rouge Attorney against free speech