DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post - Fired U.S. attorneys testify before Congress

**SmuffNuSMaxqh** · 07-04-2007, 01:53 AM

Yep, and the Times article states just as clearly that a whole lot more firings took place on March 24, 1993.

Does the passage of time diminish the import of the crime?

Are you interested in the unjust firings of U.S. Attorneys, some of whom were conducting ongoing investigations? Or aren't you?

Or are you merely interested in going after Republicans, using the firing of U.S. Attorneys as an excuse, and you don't actually care about the firing of U.S. Attorneys at all?

Could it be that this is another misnamed thread, designed to disguise your real agenda to destroy Republicans?

Prove me wrong. Please.

I really don't care one way or the other. But the case you're referring to is 14 years old. The one Sam is referring to is a year old.

While the passage of time doesn't make something "less wrong", the instance itself has no real bearing on the case currently under discussion.

I don't really go for the "well, they did it, so now we can" argument which, and I apologize if I'm wrong, you seem to be making.

Clearly, in '93, there were some serious problems. The seriousness of them, though, does not negate the seriousness of the one Sam is talking about, if the allegations are true.

That's all I'm sayin'...

07-04-2007, 01:53 AM	#13
SmuffNuSMaxqh Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 587 Senior Member	Yep, and the Times article states just as clearly that a whole lot more firings took place on March 24, 1993. Does the passage of time diminish the import of the crime? Are you interested in the unjust firings of U.S. Attorneys, some of whom were conducting ongoing investigations? Or aren't you? Or are you merely interested in going after Republicans, using the firing of U.S. Attorneys as an excuse, and you don't actually care about the firing of U.S. Attorneys at all? Could it be that this is another misnamed thread, designed to disguise your real agenda to destroy Republicans? Prove me wrong. Please. I really don't care one way or the other. But the case you're referring to is 14 years old. The one Sam is referring to is a year old. While the passage of time doesn't make something "less wrong", the instance itself has no real bearing on the case currently under discussion. I don't really go for the "well, they did it, so now we can" argument which, and I apologize if I'm wrong, you seem to be making. Clearly, in '93, there were some serious problems. The seriousness of them, though, does not negate the seriousness of the one Sam is talking about, if the allegations are true. That's all I'm sayin'...
	Quote