Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Necrosis
That is a great answer, but unfortunately, it is not an answer to the question I asked. Sadly, such diversions are de rigeur among all politicians who don't want to answer the question that was presented to them. It also avoided the point that Clinton removed the experienced US attorney who was in the middle of investigating Dan Rostenkowski.
It is extremely likely that Hillary will present some variation of your answer at some point when someone asks her about the fabled exploits of her husband.
|
I thought I answered your question....I guess you didnt like the answer.
As to Clinton, he asked for the resignation of all the US attorneys at the start of his term....something every president has done. That included the US attorney whose office was conducting a preliminary investigation of Rostenkowski and the investigation continued with no political interference from the White House. That argument has been played out repeatedly.
Firing 8 or 9 US attorneys in mid-term is unprecedented, though not grounds for impeachment in and of itself. But I further explained why the Judiciary Committees were investigating the firings, including the role of Karl Rove...the subject of this thread.
It seems to me the references to the Clintons are the real diversion that is de rigeur among those who don't want to acknowledge the facts that are presented to them.
Feel free to find another thread where you can toss in the Clintons if you think it adds to your argument.
