Judge says Bush aides must answer subpoenas

The 2006 removal of nine federal prosecutors is the biggest "scandal" the Dems can cook up? It's a wonder anyone can keep a straight face in pursuing this non-event, knowing that Bill Clinton removed ALL of those lawyers on his watch. This really speaks to the integrity of President Bush, that nothing of any substance shows up even with the most motivated of dirt mongers working night and day, for several years now. History will show that President George W. Bush was one of this nation's finest Chief Executives, while the Dem-controlled Congress will be remembered as empty handed pathetic losers that opposed him all the way.

Kind of hard to get outraged at this triviality when President Clinton fired every single U.S. attorney for political reasons. Of course that was totally different. That is, Clinton is a Democrat and Bush a Republican. And don't forget the firing of the entire White House travel office employees. They were civil, not politically appointed employees and were fired in order for the Clintons to put their cronies in the office for nothing other than to channel money to them. I would give this Congress the same amount of cooperation the Clintons gave when they were before a grand jury. "I don't recall" hundreds of times. Outright lies the rest of the time. Where are those subpoened records? Nowhere to be found but years later show up in the upstairs private residence. How did they get there given the tightest security one can imagine? "I don't know". Where are the security videos? "Priviliged". And when they did not fail to recall? Simply lied to everyone involved including federal investigators. And of course Clinton got away with lying to a federal grand jury and obstructing justice. Where were the Democrats then? Perhaps if these same Democrats that are so outraged now (both in and out of Congress) were outraged then things would be different.

Why is Congress even investigating this? They have absolutely no say over the hiring and "removal" of any federal prosecutor. Are they now going to insist that the President must now seek the consent of Congress for appointing and removing federal prosecutors like they do for Judges? This is more of a case of Congress overstepping their power than one of the President. This is yet another witch hunt by the Democrats in Congress. I wish they'd stop wasting the tax payer's money with these highly political and entirely worthless "investigations" of the Bush administration that they have been doing since Bush first took office. Bush won the 2000 election, get over it already!

I thought our US constitution provided for "separation of powers" - in order to prevent any one branch of government from assuming dictatorial powers. This is NOT to include the hundreds of agencies which create laws on their own, without voter approval, without presidential, judicial or legislative oversight. For example, the recent orders by the EEO creating more classifications of discrimination. The EEO decided to grant themselves more power by creating more laws, with real penalties, and the people had no say. Trial lawyers alone benfit from these out-of-control agencies and departments, having another class of companies and individual to loot. Congress, the legislative branch, has decided (now that Dimocrats rule) that they are the Judiciary (investigating and holding endless hearings about trivialities) and also the Executive branch (mircromanaging the Pentagon and the president's foreign policy vis-a-vis the war against Islamic-Facism). How is Congress, a legislative body, able to hold someone in contempt of court? Hello? Congress is not a court. If Congress had even a single shred of self-respect or decency, let alone honor, they would expel Rangel for his unethical use of tax-supported housing to use as his campaign headquarters and to personally enrich himself. But they don't...