Executive Privilege Abused Once More

[Skeptic Ginger]

....

Skeptigirl, please don't post these articles in full; it's a violation of copyright. I will edit your below posts to address the rest, but going forward, please - just post an excerpt and provide a link.

Thanks!

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: jmercer

I try not to. Sorry. I may have been tired. I'll be more careful in the future.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...

That is the main difference that I see, most people just don't give a poop (new rule eight) and many just say moo-moo and baa-baa. And then they fight over whether they should moo or baa.

I have mixed feelings about whether there aren't many outspoken people who care, or whether the media is just not yet running with the story.

 

[RandFan]

This is incorrect, RandFan. It is tradition that when a new President is elected, all the AGs resign so the new President can install his own team. It happened with Bush II, Clinton, Bush I, etc.

That action is far different from firing AGs 6 years into a Presidential term, which I believe you have acknowledged.

I'm confused, if they resigned why were they there to be fired 6 years later? I'm clearly missing something. Please excuse my naiveté.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'm confused, if they resigned why were they there to be fired 6 years later? I'm clearly missing something. Please excuse my naiveté.

The AGs who were fired were all appointed by Bush when he took office. The resignations refer to the END of a term. These guys were the replacements and the end of the term had not yet come.

So here you are claiming I've posted a data dump of superfluous stuff and you don't even know the most basic facts about the case. That is about what I suspected. You claim the evidence I posted was just meaningless reading, much easier than bothering to even look at it.