Bush takes one more step toward outright fascism.

To be very specific about the difference between the Attorney General squashing an investigation, and the President doing so... Janet Reno used the courts to defend her client, the White House. This is called "working within the system." A legal challenge came up, and Clinton used a lawyer to defend himself in the courts.George W. Bush abused the powers of the executive office to circumvent the court system entirely, and make legal action impossible. To suggest that they are the same thing is like saying that blocking a punch is the same as shooting your opponent.Edited by Dan Carroll, : remove bad link

---

"We had survived to turn on the History Channel
And ask our esteemed panel, Why are we alive? And here's how they replied:
You're what happens when two substances collide
And by all accounts you really should have died."
-Andrew Bird

Oh, for Christ's sake. I'm conversationally using "Clinton" as shorthand for "the Clinton White House," and you know it.Edited by Dan Carroll, : No reason given.

---

"We had survived to turn on the History Channel
And ask our esteemed panel, Why are we alive? And here's how they replied:
You're what happens when two substances collide
And by all accounts you really should have died."
-Andrew Bird

I have no idea what a "conciellerge" is, so I couldn't say if the Attorney General is supposed to be one or not. But I can tell you that the Attorney General's job duties include taking legal action on behalf of the White House, or even defending it in court if the need arises.Of course, you're still deflecting. If you have a specific case in which Clinton has misused the Attorney General, and made the position into his "conciellerge," please feel free tell us about it. But if you're just tossing out vague accusations of wrongdoing, then you don't seem to have much of a point. Especially when stacked up against the concrete examples of Bush-wrongdoing in this thread.(Speaking of which, if you do choose to tell us about something specific, it should probably be in a new thread. Jazzns is right, you're doging the subject of Bush, which is the subject of this thread.)Edited by Dan Carroll, : No reason given.

---

"We had survived to turn on the History Channel
And ask our esteemed panel, Why are we alive? And here's how they replied:
You're what happens when two substances collide
And by all accounts you really should have died."
-Andrew Bird

1) Read up.No, the Attorney General is not the White House's personal defense lawyer. They have many more duties than that. But they also, as I said earlier, take legal action on behalf of the White House, and when necessary, argue its defense in court.2) I still don't see a specific example of Clinton's misuse.3) You're still deflecting the main subject of the thread.

---

"We had survived to turn on the History Channel
And ask our esteemed panel, Why are we alive? And here's how they replied:
You're what happens when two substances collide
And by all accounts you really should have died."
-Andrew Bird

I'm sorry, are you talking about a case in which criminal charges were brought against the White House? Or any kind of case in which it actually went to court? Your accusations are so vague, I can't tell. That depends entirely on who's bringing the suit. Since you have completely failed to provide a specific example, it's impossible to say. Actually, I'm pointing out that when necessary, the Attorney General can do so. That's not Clinton's policy, that's US law. But since you've thus far been unable to even tell us what case you're talking about, I can't tell you whether or not it happened in that case.But heck, I'm a sport. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that whatever the hell case you may or may not be talking about actually happened. We'll assume that there are all sorts of facts and specifics that, for one reason or another, just can not be listed on this forum, let alone on a new, appropriate thread. And we'll assume that if we could list them, those facts tell us that Clinton abused his power horribly by having the Attorney General fulfill her duties.He's such a bad man.Glad we got that sorted out. Now, remember Bush? The topic of the thread? Got anything to say about that?

---

"We had survived to turn on the History Channel
And ask our esteemed panel, Why are we alive? And here's how they replied:
You're what happens when two substances collide
And by all accounts you really should have died."
-Andrew Bird

Enjoy.Now. Anything to say about the subject of this thread?

---

"We had survived to turn on the History Channel
And ask our esteemed panel, Why are we alive? And here's how they replied:
You're what happens when two substances collide
And by all accounts you really should have died."
-Andrew Bird

You do know that the Constitution is the law, whereas any patterns that Clinton may have established are not, right?Speaking of whom, I hope that Clinton thread gets promoted, so Randman can expand on this "stonewalling there, etc." I hear Gore visited a Buddhist temple... that alone should provide mountains of evidence.

---

"We had survived to turn on the History Channel
And ask our esteemed panel, Why are we alive? And here's how they replied:
You're what happens when two substances collide
And by all accounts you really should have died."
-Andrew Bird

The one where I ask for evidence and elaboration?What a surprise.

---

"We had survived to turn on the History Channel
And ask our esteemed panel, Why are we alive? And here's how they replied:
You're what happens when two substances collide
And by all accounts you really should have died."
-Andrew Bird

I like how asking you to actually give us specifics, backed up by evidence, about all the terrible things Clinton has done is somehow an attempt to divert.Oh, well. At least I have all this business about how there was apparently lots of sworn testimony. From whom? About what? Doesn't matter. There was sworn testimony.Edited by Dan Carroll, : to improve snarkiness

---

"We had survived to turn on the History Channel
And ask our esteemed panel, Why are we alive? And here's how they replied:
You're what happens when two substances collide
And by all accounts you really should have died."
-Andrew Bird

In post 38, you point out that Reno appointed independent counsels to some cases, and not others.In post 46, you quote a wikipedia article which states, quite explicitly, that there is no evidence to support the accusations made. Although there does seem to be some business about the CEO of a company doing something bad.Your source (one which, I might add, can be completely changed by any of us within the next twenty seconds if we feel like it,) then goes on to tell us that Clinton had coffee with a guy. The conclusion to this earth-shattering scandal? "The reasons for the meetings were never learned."Finally, in post 52, you point out that there is sworn testimony, multitudes of convictions, and videotapes of people conducting illegal fundraising.Who was convicted? Who was videotaped? What were they convicted of, or videotaped doing? Well, that remains a mystery.In other words, you have given vague accusations, with nothing to back them up. Reagan and Bush's Dad are also irrelevant to the subject of this thread. Which you continue to avoid.

---

"We had survived to turn on the History Channel
And ask our esteemed panel, Why are we alive? And here's how they replied:
You're what happens when two substances collide
And by all accounts you really should have died."
-Andrew Bird

Oh, okay. The facts about how you're wrong are in plain sight, too.Gosh, that's fun!

---

"We had survived to turn on the History Channel
And ask our esteemed panel, Why are we alive? And here's how they replied:
You're what happens when two substances collide
And by all accounts you really should have died."
-Andrew Bird