From: Rich Gauszka 

or it's used to coerce and 'sicken' Federal prosecutors as per the Senate testimony

Mark wrote:
> Look, as I've already said, I have no problem with the loophole being
> closed, but it's still just not that big a deal  self-serving speeches littered with faux questions by Levin, Specter et.al.
> just before they can't find any reason not to confirm> 
>
> "Rich Gauszka"  wrote in message
> news:45ee2a35$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>> It's not the hiring and firing that is the problem. It's the bypassing of
>> Senate confirmation in the process due to the Bush sponsored change to the
>> Patriot Act that is the problem - Going from 120 days to indefinite. It
>> should not be a partisan issue. I wouldn't give the Dems that power either
>>
>> Mark wrote:
>>> I'm still nonplussed about this whole thing. The president is empowered
>>> to fire and hire them at will, he doesn't need any well-vetted reasons
>>> for it. You're saying he should have not fired them because some Dems
>>> would complain about it? Why?
>>>
>>> Look, don't get me wrong, it's fine with me if that loophole is closed,
>>> but it's just not a big deal -- it's not like the appointees don't have
>>> to follow the law. If Bush wants, for instance, his attorneys to
>>> prosecute Union pension fund corruption as a higher priority than CEO
>>> corruption, that's his perrogative -- they're all going to get theirs in
>>> time anyway.
>>>
>>> In this example, union guys will be in jail between now and the Obama
>>> presidency, then starting in Feb '09 the CEOs will get theirs >> example actually, since Bush went after the CEO corruption that was
>>> hatched before he was elected>
>>>
>>> "Rich Gauszka" 
wrote in message
>>> news:45ee1cdc$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>>>> "Mark"  wrote in
message news:45ee0b2d{at}w3.nls.net...
>>>>> "Rich Gauszka"
 wrote in message
>>>>> news:45ee007a$1{at}w3.nls.net...

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5