Re: Alberto Gonzales
- From: Bets <betsyj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 05:38:38 -0700
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 22:25:07 GMT, cg <cgrams007@{removethis}yahoo.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 15:56:51 -0400, "Seancito" <nada@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Oh please!
Oh please! what? Are you saying the two actions are not actually the
same. If so, please provide your logic. They sound the same to me
but I've done no investigation so I don't know. Do you or are you
just knee jerking again?
Here are a few differences:
1) Clinton replaced the US atttorneys at the beginning of his first
term as did Bush 41 and Reagan.
2) Clinton was replacing US attorney appointed by a former
president, the DOJ was replacing some of Bush's own appointments.
3) Clinton got Senate approval for all of his replacements. Bush
got no Senate approval for any of these eight, using a provision of
the Patriot Act to skip this step even though none of the fired US
attorneys were a security threat. (The provision was slipped into the
Patriot Act at the last minute by a staffer of Arlen Specktor.)
4) The eight US attorneys were fired on trumped up charges.
Bets
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Alberto Gonzales
- From: fyis
- Re: Alberto Gonzales
- References:
- Re: Alberto Gonzales
- From: fyis
- Re: Alberto Gonzales
- From: Seancito
- Re: Alberto Gonzales
- Prev by Date: Re: Feel Free...
- Next by Date: Re: Feel Free...
- Previous by thread: Re: Alberto Gonzales
- Next by thread: Re: Alberto Gonzales
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|