You appear to be a right-wing American. If you're not, no need, if you are, no point.
White Evangelicals, This is Why People Are Through With You; So STFU
- Thread starter Bourbon
- Start date
Then you shouldn't care who the president is as it has no effect on you in Wales! In short your opinion means squat.
Do go away and drop dead, racist bore!
English.....not your first language? I said nothing about self.....and you addressed the context perfectly by retorting WITH THE STICK UP YOUR OWN ASS. Thanks for the demonstration.The LEFT EYEBALL GANG.
English was one of my first languages. What is the above?
Eagle_Eye
Well-known member
The last time I wrist-wrestled my opponent cheated and pushed with his arm straight out and his weight behind it. I broke his arm, fatso.I am devastated a limp wrist Brit called me a racist.
evince
Truthmatters
that is the same kinda thing that got Bush a DOJ scandal huh
evince
Truthmatters
Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy
On December 7, 2006, the George W. Bush administration's Department of Justice ordered the unprecedented[1] midterm dismissal of seven United States Attorneys. Congressional investigations focused on whether the Department of Justice and the White House were using the U.S. Attorney positions for political advantage. Allegations were that some of the attorneys were targeted for dismissal to impede investigations of Republican politicians or that some were targeted for their failure to initiate investigations that would damage Democratic politicians or hamper Democratic-leaning voters.[2][3] The U.S. attorneys were replaced with interim appointees, under provisions in the 2005 USA PATRIOT Act reauthorization.[4][5][6][7][8]
A subsequent report by the Justice Department Inspector General in October 2008 found that the process used to fire the first seven attorneys and two others dismissed around the same time was "arbitrary", "fundamentally flawed", and "raised doubts about the integrity of Department prosecution decisions".[9] In July 2010, the Department of Justice prosecutors closed the two-year investigation without filing charges after determining that the firing was inappropriately political, but not criminal, saying "Evidence did not demonstrate that any prosecutable criminal offense was committed with regard to the removal of David Iglesias. The investigative team also determined that the evidence did not warrant expanding the scope of the investigation beyond the removal of Iglesias."[10]
On December 7, 2006, the George W. Bush administration's Department of Justice ordered the unprecedented[1] midterm dismissal of seven United States Attorneys. Congressional investigations focused on whether the Department of Justice and the White House were using the U.S. Attorney positions for political advantage. Allegations were that some of the attorneys were targeted for dismissal to impede investigations of Republican politicians or that some were targeted for their failure to initiate investigations that would damage Democratic politicians or hamper Democratic-leaning voters.[2][3] The U.S. attorneys were replaced with interim appointees, under provisions in the 2005 USA PATRIOT Act reauthorization.[4][5][6][7][8]
A subsequent report by the Justice Department Inspector General in October 2008 found that the process used to fire the first seven attorneys and two others dismissed around the same time was "arbitrary", "fundamentally flawed", and "raised doubts about the integrity of Department prosecution decisions".[9] In July 2010, the Department of Justice prosecutors closed the two-year investigation without filing charges after determining that the firing was inappropriately political, but not criminal, saying "Evidence did not demonstrate that any prosecutable criminal offense was committed with regard to the removal of David Iglesias. The investigative team also determined that the evidence did not warrant expanding the scope of the investigation beyond the removal of Iglesias."[10]
evince
Truthmatters
Further investigation and resignations[edit]
Battle resignation[edit]
On March 5, 2007 effective March 16, Michael A. Battle resigned his position of Director of the Executive Office for United States Attorneys (EOUSA).[58][90] On March 6, 2007, Gonzales responded to the controversy in an op-ed in USA Today in which he wrote:
"To be clear, [the firing] was for reasons related to policy, priorities and management — what have been referred to broadly as "performance-related" reasons — that seven U.S. attorneys were asked to resign last December... We have never asked a U.S. attorney to resign in an effort to retaliate against him or her or to inappropriately interfere with a public corruption case (or any other type of case, for that matter). Like me, U.S. attorneys are political appointees, and we all serve at the pleasure of the president. If U.S. attorneys are not executing their responsibilities in a manner that furthers the management and policy goals of departmental leadership, it is appropriate that they be replaced... While I am grateful for the public service of these seven U.S. attorneys, they simply lost my confidence. I hope that this episode ultimately will be recognized for what it is: an overblown personnel matter."[20]
Sampson resignation[edit]
On March 12, 2007, Sampson resigned from the Department of Justice.[57]
On March 13, Gonzales stated in a news conference that he accepted responsibility for mistakes made in the dismissal and rejected calls for his resignation that Democratic members of Congress had been making. He also stood by his decision to dismiss the attorneys, saying "I stand by the decision and I think it was the right decision".[57] Gonzales admitted that "incomplete information was communicated or may have been communicated to Congress" by Justice Department officials,[91][92] and said that "I never saw documents. We never had a discussion about where things stood."
Gonzales lost more support when records subsequently challenged some of these statements. Although the Department of Justice released 3,000 pages of its internal communications related to this issue, none of those documents discussed anything related to a performance review process for these attorneys before they were fired.[93] Records released on March 23 showed that on his November 27 schedule "he attended an hour-long meeting at which, aides said, he approved a detailed plan for executing the purge".[94]
Executive Privilege claims[edit]
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy stated that Congress has the authority to subpoena Justice Department and White House officials including chief political advisor to the president Karl Rove and former White House counsel Harriet Miers.[95] On March 20, President Bush declared in a press conference that his aides would not testify under oath on the matter if subpoenaed by Congress.[96] Bush explained his position saying,
"The President relies upon his staff to provide him candid advice. The framers of the Constitution understood this vital role when developing the separate branches of government. And if the staff of a President operated in constant fear of being hauled before various committees to discuss internal deliberations, the President would not receive candid advice, and the American people would be ill-served.... I will oppose any attempts to subpoena White House officials.... My choice is to make sure that I safeguard the ability for Presidents to get good decisions."[97]
Despite the President's position against aides testifying, on March 21 the House Judiciary Committee authorized the subpoena of five Justice Department officials,[98] and on March 22, the Senate Judiciary Committee authorized subpoenas as well.[99]
Goodling resignation[edit]
Main article: Monica Goodling
Sampson's replacement as the Attorney General's temporary chief of staff was U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, Chuck Rosenberg. Rosenberg initiated a DOJ inquiry into possibly inappropriate political considerations in Monica Goodling's hiring practices for civil service staff. Civil service positions are not political appointments and must be made on a nonpartisan basis. In one example, Jeffrey A. Taylor, former interim U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, tried to hire a new career prosecutor, Seth Adam Meinero, in the fall of 2006. Goodling judged Meinero too "liberal" and declined to approve the hire.[100] Meinero, a Howard University law school graduate who had worked on civil rights cases at the Environmental Protection Agency, was serving as a special assistant prosecutor in Taylor's office. Taylor went around Goodling, and demanded Sampson's approval to make the hire. In another example, Goodling removed an attorney from her job at the Department of Justice because she was rumored to be a lesbian, and, further, blocked the attorney from getting other Justice Department jobs she was qualified for.[101] Rules concerning hiring at the Justice department forbid discrimination based on sexual orientation.
On March 26, 2007, Goodling, who had helped coordinate the dismissal of the attorneys with the White House, took leave from her job as counsel to the attorney general and as the Justice Department's liaison to the White House.[102][103] Goodling was set to testify before Congress, but on March 26, 2007, she cancelled her appearance at the Congressional hearing, citing her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.[104] On April 6, 2007, Goodling resigned from the Department of Justice.[102]
On April 25, 2007, the House Judiciary Committee passed a resolution, by a 32–6 vote, authorizing lawyers for the House to apply for a court order granting Goodling immunity in exchange for her testimony and authorizing a subpoena for her.[105] On May 11, 2007, U.S. District Court Chief Judge Thomas Hogan signed an order granting Goodling immunity in exchange for her truthful testimony in the U.S. Attorney firings investigation, stating that "Goodling may not refuse to testify, and may not refuse to provide other information, when compelled to do so" before the Committee.[106]
Gonzales resignation[edit]
A number of members of both houses of Congress publicly said Gonzales should resign, or be fired by Bush. On March 14, 2007, Senator John E. Sununu (R, New Hampshire) became the first Republican lawmaker to call for Gonzales' resignation. Sununu cited not only the controversial firings but growing concern over the use of the USA PATRIOT Act and misuse of national security letters by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.[107] Calls for his ousting intensified after his testimony on April 19, 2007. By May 16, at least twenty-two Senators and seven Members of the House of Representatives — including Senators Hillary Clinton (D, New York) and Mark Pryor (D, Arkansas)— had called for Gonzales' resignation.[108]
Gonzales submitted his resignation as Attorney General effective September 17, 2007,[109] by a letter addressed to President Bush on August 26, 2007. In a statement on August 27, Gonzales thanked the President for the opportunity to be of service to his country, giving no indication of either the reasons for his resignation or his future plans. Later that day, President Bush praised Gonzales for his service, reciting the numerous positions in Texas government, and later, the government of the United States, to which Bush had appointed Gonzales.[109]
On September 17, 2007, President Bush announced the nomination of ex-Judge Michael Mukasey to serve as Gonzales' successor.[39]
Testimony of Sara Taylor: Claims of executive privilege[edit]
On July 11, 2007, Sara Taylor, former top aide to Karl Rove, testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Throughout Taylor's testimony, she refused to answer many questions, saying "I have a very clear letter from [White House counsel] Mr. [Fred] Fielding. That letter says and has asked me to follow the president's assertion of executive privilege."[110] Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) dismissed the claims and warned Taylor she was "in danger of drawing a criminal contempt of Congress citation".[110] Senator Ben Cardin (D-MD) took issue with the claim as well, telling Taylor
"You seem to be selective in the use of the presidential privilege. It seems like you're saying that, 'Yes, I'm giving you all the information I can,' when it's self-serving to the White House, but not allowing us to have the information to make independent judgment."[110] Leahy added "I do note your answer that you did not discuss these matters with the president and, to the best of your knowledge, he was not involved is going to make some nervous at the White House because it seriously undercuts his claim of executive privilege if he was not involved."[110] He also said "It's apparent that this White House is contemptuous of the Congress and feels it does not have to explain itself to anyone, not to the people's representatives in Congress nor to the American people."[111]
In summary, Taylor told the Senate that she
"did not talk to or meet with President Bush about removing federal prosecutors before eight of them were fired", she had no knowledge on whether Bush was involved in any way in the firings, her resignation had nothing to do with the controversy, "she did not recall ordering the addition or deletion of names to the list of prosecutors to be fired", and she refuted the testimony of Kyle Sampson, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' chief of staff, that she sought "to avoid submitting a new prosecutor, Tim Griffin, through Senate confirmation."[110][112]
Battle resignation[edit]
On March 5, 2007 effective March 16, Michael A. Battle resigned his position of Director of the Executive Office for United States Attorneys (EOUSA).[58][90] On March 6, 2007, Gonzales responded to the controversy in an op-ed in USA Today in which he wrote:
"To be clear, [the firing] was for reasons related to policy, priorities and management — what have been referred to broadly as "performance-related" reasons — that seven U.S. attorneys were asked to resign last December... We have never asked a U.S. attorney to resign in an effort to retaliate against him or her or to inappropriately interfere with a public corruption case (or any other type of case, for that matter). Like me, U.S. attorneys are political appointees, and we all serve at the pleasure of the president. If U.S. attorneys are not executing their responsibilities in a manner that furthers the management and policy goals of departmental leadership, it is appropriate that they be replaced... While I am grateful for the public service of these seven U.S. attorneys, they simply lost my confidence. I hope that this episode ultimately will be recognized for what it is: an overblown personnel matter."[20]
Sampson resignation[edit]
On March 12, 2007, Sampson resigned from the Department of Justice.[57]
On March 13, Gonzales stated in a news conference that he accepted responsibility for mistakes made in the dismissal and rejected calls for his resignation that Democratic members of Congress had been making. He also stood by his decision to dismiss the attorneys, saying "I stand by the decision and I think it was the right decision".[57] Gonzales admitted that "incomplete information was communicated or may have been communicated to Congress" by Justice Department officials,[91][92] and said that "I never saw documents. We never had a discussion about where things stood."
Gonzales lost more support when records subsequently challenged some of these statements. Although the Department of Justice released 3,000 pages of its internal communications related to this issue, none of those documents discussed anything related to a performance review process for these attorneys before they were fired.[93] Records released on March 23 showed that on his November 27 schedule "he attended an hour-long meeting at which, aides said, he approved a detailed plan for executing the purge".[94]
Executive Privilege claims[edit]
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy stated that Congress has the authority to subpoena Justice Department and White House officials including chief political advisor to the president Karl Rove and former White House counsel Harriet Miers.[95] On March 20, President Bush declared in a press conference that his aides would not testify under oath on the matter if subpoenaed by Congress.[96] Bush explained his position saying,
"The President relies upon his staff to provide him candid advice. The framers of the Constitution understood this vital role when developing the separate branches of government. And if the staff of a President operated in constant fear of being hauled before various committees to discuss internal deliberations, the President would not receive candid advice, and the American people would be ill-served.... I will oppose any attempts to subpoena White House officials.... My choice is to make sure that I safeguard the ability for Presidents to get good decisions."[97]
Despite the President's position against aides testifying, on March 21 the House Judiciary Committee authorized the subpoena of five Justice Department officials,[98] and on March 22, the Senate Judiciary Committee authorized subpoenas as well.[99]
Goodling resignation[edit]
Main article: Monica Goodling
Sampson's replacement as the Attorney General's temporary chief of staff was U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, Chuck Rosenberg. Rosenberg initiated a DOJ inquiry into possibly inappropriate political considerations in Monica Goodling's hiring practices for civil service staff. Civil service positions are not political appointments and must be made on a nonpartisan basis. In one example, Jeffrey A. Taylor, former interim U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, tried to hire a new career prosecutor, Seth Adam Meinero, in the fall of 2006. Goodling judged Meinero too "liberal" and declined to approve the hire.[100] Meinero, a Howard University law school graduate who had worked on civil rights cases at the Environmental Protection Agency, was serving as a special assistant prosecutor in Taylor's office. Taylor went around Goodling, and demanded Sampson's approval to make the hire. In another example, Goodling removed an attorney from her job at the Department of Justice because she was rumored to be a lesbian, and, further, blocked the attorney from getting other Justice Department jobs she was qualified for.[101] Rules concerning hiring at the Justice department forbid discrimination based on sexual orientation.
On March 26, 2007, Goodling, who had helped coordinate the dismissal of the attorneys with the White House, took leave from her job as counsel to the attorney general and as the Justice Department's liaison to the White House.[102][103] Goodling was set to testify before Congress, but on March 26, 2007, she cancelled her appearance at the Congressional hearing, citing her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.[104] On April 6, 2007, Goodling resigned from the Department of Justice.[102]
On April 25, 2007, the House Judiciary Committee passed a resolution, by a 32–6 vote, authorizing lawyers for the House to apply for a court order granting Goodling immunity in exchange for her testimony and authorizing a subpoena for her.[105] On May 11, 2007, U.S. District Court Chief Judge Thomas Hogan signed an order granting Goodling immunity in exchange for her truthful testimony in the U.S. Attorney firings investigation, stating that "Goodling may not refuse to testify, and may not refuse to provide other information, when compelled to do so" before the Committee.[106]
Gonzales resignation[edit]
A number of members of both houses of Congress publicly said Gonzales should resign, or be fired by Bush. On March 14, 2007, Senator John E. Sununu (R, New Hampshire) became the first Republican lawmaker to call for Gonzales' resignation. Sununu cited not only the controversial firings but growing concern over the use of the USA PATRIOT Act and misuse of national security letters by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.[107] Calls for his ousting intensified after his testimony on April 19, 2007. By May 16, at least twenty-two Senators and seven Members of the House of Representatives — including Senators Hillary Clinton (D, New York) and Mark Pryor (D, Arkansas)— had called for Gonzales' resignation.[108]
Gonzales submitted his resignation as Attorney General effective September 17, 2007,[109] by a letter addressed to President Bush on August 26, 2007. In a statement on August 27, Gonzales thanked the President for the opportunity to be of service to his country, giving no indication of either the reasons for his resignation or his future plans. Later that day, President Bush praised Gonzales for his service, reciting the numerous positions in Texas government, and later, the government of the United States, to which Bush had appointed Gonzales.[109]
On September 17, 2007, President Bush announced the nomination of ex-Judge Michael Mukasey to serve as Gonzales' successor.[39]
Testimony of Sara Taylor: Claims of executive privilege[edit]
On July 11, 2007, Sara Taylor, former top aide to Karl Rove, testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Throughout Taylor's testimony, she refused to answer many questions, saying "I have a very clear letter from [White House counsel] Mr. [Fred] Fielding. That letter says and has asked me to follow the president's assertion of executive privilege."[110] Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) dismissed the claims and warned Taylor she was "in danger of drawing a criminal contempt of Congress citation".[110] Senator Ben Cardin (D-MD) took issue with the claim as well, telling Taylor
"You seem to be selective in the use of the presidential privilege. It seems like you're saying that, 'Yes, I'm giving you all the information I can,' when it's self-serving to the White House, but not allowing us to have the information to make independent judgment."[110] Leahy added "I do note your answer that you did not discuss these matters with the president and, to the best of your knowledge, he was not involved is going to make some nervous at the White House because it seriously undercuts his claim of executive privilege if he was not involved."[110] He also said "It's apparent that this White House is contemptuous of the Congress and feels it does not have to explain itself to anyone, not to the people's representatives in Congress nor to the American people."[111]
In summary, Taylor told the Senate that she
"did not talk to or meet with President Bush about removing federal prosecutors before eight of them were fired", she had no knowledge on whether Bush was involved in any way in the firings, her resignation had nothing to do with the controversy, "she did not recall ordering the addition or deletion of names to the list of prosecutors to be fired", and she refuted the testimony of Kyle Sampson, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' chief of staff, that she sought "to avoid submitting a new prosecutor, Tim Griffin, through Senate confirmation."[110][112]
Eagle_Eye
Well-known member
Ooooooooooh we have an internet bad ass among us. Now I'm really worried that he will hit me with his purse.
A description of a card carrying loony leftist with a stick up his/her ASS(can't be to careful today as all liberal males have had their nads removed)
maybe on ROIDS?Question? When was it you awoke to realize that the entire world had taken a piss in your soup....and found out that you were a perpetual VICTIM? Conclusion: You live in your own little imagined world..between your ears, just as do all leftists....... How do I know this? The conclusion is based upon the prima facie evidence provided via your own words which demonstrates you to be disconnected from reality.
What? Watch to many of these? www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzcVvTHZlQo
Last edited:
Ooooooooooh we have an internet bad ass among us. Now I'm really worried that he will hit me with his purse.
It was a long time ago, kid. I'll just kick your fat arse, and risk the loss of my foot in in its many folds!
A description of a card carrying loony leftist with a stick up his/her ASS(can't be to careful today as all liberal males have had their nads removed)
Question? When was it you awoke to realize that the entire world had taken a piss in your soup....and found out that you were a perpetual VICTIM? Conclusion: You live in your own little imagined world..between your ears, just as do all leftists....... How do I know this? The conclusion is based upon the prima facie evidence provided via your own words which demonstrates you to be disconnected from reality.
What? Watch to many of these? www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzcVvTHZlQo
Kiddiewinkie, it is three generations since any of my family were liberals. We don't all live up shit Creek with the Elders.
YOU ARE....what your actions define you to be. As I stated previously "your own words" reveal a prima facie conclusion....regardless of the lies you express or claim, you are a card carrying liberal that "might be" promoting the false premise that he/she is somewhat of a libertarian. If you look like a duck, swim like a duck and talk like a duck you certainly are no eagle....you are a duck. As "pap" said, If you want to know where someone is going simply look at the signs he has left behind....much is gained when one looks back, it reveals exactly where one is or where one is going. If you want to find game.....you first find a game trail. What? You don't think that archives exist on this site?
In other words, "Don't piss down my back and then attempt to tell me to RELAX ITS ONLY RAIN......." The trouble with lying is having to remember everything you have lied about...its much easier to simply apply the great equalizer......TRUTH. Truth is the only thing makes all men equal. I am attempting to be polite....but to be blunt, you can lie to yourself but that does not constitute truth as comprehended by others who use their own deductive reasoning....its what separates us from the animals.
Last edited:
TrippyHippy
free mind and open heart
Damn. Obama definitely had his flaws, during his presidency I was largely disappointed with him and didn't vote for him in 2012 despite supporting him in '08. He broke alot of promises, and him renewing the Patriot Act especially pissed me off. But looking back, especially listening to comments like that again, I do think he genuinely cared. I think he understood how the bad conditions some people have to live in can make people hateful, dogmatic, divisive and violent. He was tactful in his speech, and didn't jump to quick knee-jerk conclusions about people. Especially ethnic groups. More than we can say of politicians, on either side, these days. President Trump, who has little to no empathy for anyone, zero tact, and is happy to fuel both the bad conditions and the hate that arises from that, being the worst of them.
As someone who didn't much like Obama as a President, I fucking miss him.
ThatOwlWoman
Not Nice
Amazing how much better some Presidents get in retrospect, isn't it? I almost miss W too. Well, not really, but he turned out to be better than Twittler.
Eagle_Eye
Well-known member
It was a long time ago, kid. I'll just kick your fat arse, and risk the loss of my foot in in its many folds!
Some of them. Many Italians and Irish got into criminal enterprises. Did Capone cost us anything? What was the police cost of the FBI against the mafia?
It was a long time ago, kid. I'll just kick your fat arse, and risk the loss of my foot in in its many folds!
You internet tuffies are a laugh.
I wish I would receive $1 for every time I read of someone kicking someone else's ass on the internet.
I would be eating lunch with an architect discussing the design of my custom heated and fully equipped
maintenance garage because I developed an appetite just after returning from ordering a Koenigsegg CCX
built to my personal specifications. And, I'd have enough left over to pay for both our lunches!