Umm Is this Man crazy ?

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: dyna

I think the problem with the sapoenas is that your asking people to go under oath, have their privacy violated when there wasn't even a crime committed. They may have fired people for the wrong reasons but it was not illegal. Whats wrong with attempting to solve this in a civil way before issuing a sapoena? You talk about Slow and Steady wins. There is nothing slow and steady about this.

Bush has adamantly refused to allow testimony except under his crazy moon-rules. Congress has no other power to compel testimony but this... what other option do you suggest?

Subpoenas aren't just for criminal matters, even though they are most often used for that. They are for any time a court or congress needs information about something in which the person who has it will not willingly give it.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: dyna

Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed
Bush is playing right into the Congress hands with his desperate, childish rage. Congressional Republicans want absolutely no part of this scandal. By digging in his heels, Bush will force Congressional Republicans to make a choice: either defend the president's position or side with the congressional hearings. The middle ground won't last long. And conservatives sure aren't fired up to defend the president.

While delivering his remarks lost his place at least once, and sounded like an exhausted lame duck lamely reading his unconvincing statement. There are two years left in this administration and the president had better exude some confidence. And be confident about his people. And get rid of them if he's not.

There is NO conservative appetite for defending the president on this one. The more he digs in, the less excuses Republicans will make for him. Eventually, if he persists, they will turn on him. And then the gates of hell will really open up for this Administration...

The White House appears determined to block the testimony of Rove and Miers at all costs. They also, it appears, are preventing the release of any intra-White house emails.

White House officials were using outside domain names for many of their emails, and that this in fact seemed to be a pattern within Rove's office.

The domains in question were owned by the Republican Party.

Or to put it more bluntly, the domains were NOT owned by the White House, the Executive Office of the President, or any part of the federal government. As such, the legal grounds for withholding them based on claims of Executive Privilege would seem to be MUCH more suspect. Given the requirements of the Presidential Records Act, they may even be entirely illegitimate.

This a potentially enormous opening for through which the oversight commitee could drive their investigative truck.

Another good reason for the Administration not to play chicken here is that once an impeachment is voted on by the House it continues in the Senate even if the person who was impeached resigns.

If Gonzalez is impeached he would be only the second Cabinet member to have been impeached and if convicted he would be the first ever person convicted who was not a judge.

A conviction would mean that there were 18 Republican Senators who were willing to oppose Bush on this. Since the only thing that Gonzalez is accused of is carrying out Bush's orders to the letter the conviction of one leads to the logical conclusion that the other should be impeached.

This is why I do not expect the situation to get that far. Gonzalez will resign before the Democrats pull the impeachment trigger, probably as soon as it is clear that the House is going to consider articles of impeachment.

Slow and steady wins here. The point is not to get rid of Gonzalez as soon as possible, that is what the Republican objective should be.

If Gonzalez had resigned yesterday the matter would be over today. After Bush's statement today the matter will not be over until the Bush administration is over.

I think the problem with the sapoenas is that your asking people to go under oath, have their privacy violated when there wasn't even a crime committed. They may have fired people for the wrong reasons but it was not illegal. Whats wrong with attempting to solve this in a civil way before issuing a sapoena? You talk about Slow and Steady wins. There is nothing slow and steady about this.

The problem is that their story has changed several times, AGAG lied to Congress about getting their picks approved, and that the prosecutors were fired for not playing ball the way Rove wanted them to.

This introduces a dangerous precedent, that prosecutors involved in politically sensitive cases will be fired if they try to uphold the rule of law instead of doing whatever the current Administration wishes.

If this were an isolated incident, I don't think most people would be making a big deal about it, but this is just another example of the Administration abusing it's power.

One of the most surprising things about this is that last year when all the hub-bub about renewing the Patriot Act was going on, they still left this provision in, i.e. these interim appointments that bypass Congress that was outlawed yesterday. This convinces me that our Congressmen still haven't read the Patriot Act and don't really know what it contains.

What other little tidbits are left to be discovered?

 

[dyna]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: dyna

I think the problem with the sapoenas is that your asking people to go under oath, have their privacy violated when there wasn't even a crime committed. They may have fired people for the wrong reasons but it was not illegal. Whats wrong with attempting to solve this in a civil way before issuing a sapoena? You talk about Slow and Steady wins. There is nothing slow and steady about this.

Bush has adamantly refused to allow testimony except under his crazy moon-rules. Congress has no other power to compel testimony but this... what other option do you suggest?

Subpoenas aren't just for criminal matters, even though they are most often used for that. They are for any time a court or congress needs information about something in which the person who has it will not willingly give it.

The option I would offer is the option they have provided.

The committee rejected Bush's offer a day earlier to have his aides talk privately to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, but not under oath and not on the record.

"It will be regrettable if they choose to head down the partisan road of issuing subpoenas and demanding show trials when I have agreed to make key White House officials and documents available," the president said.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: dyna

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: dyna

I think the problem with the sapoenas is that your asking people to go under oath, have their privacy violated when there wasn't even a crime committed. They may have fired people for the wrong reasons but it was not illegal. Whats wrong with attempting to solve this in a civil way before issuing a sapoena? You talk about Slow and Steady wins. There is nothing slow and steady about this.

Bush has adamantly refused to allow testimony except under his crazy moon-rules. Congress has no other power to compel testimony but this... what other option do you suggest?

Subpoenas aren't just for criminal matters, even though they are most often used for that. They are for any time a court or congress needs information about something in which the person who has it will not willingly give it.

The option I would offer is the option they have provided.

The committee rejected Bush's offer a day earlier to have his aides talk privately to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, but not under oath and not on the record.

"It will be regrettable if they choose to head down the partisan road of issuing subpoenas and demanding show trials when I have agreed to make key White House officials and documents available," the president said.

Why can't the aids talk on the record and under oath. What do they have to hide?

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Ummm There is this thing called the separation of powers? our entire government is based on it. According to this principle the job of enforcing laws is left to the President. Which means he chooses who works for him as prosecutors and who does not.

When congress gets involved in a situation like this and tries to tell the President who he can and can?t have working for him they are over stepping their grounds. Which is why their could be a court fight over this, but that is highly unlikely. The Democrats will most likely realize that they will not win a fight like this and take what he offers. But you never know?

Think of it this way? how would congress react if Bush started calling them to the White House to explain how they voted on certain bills. Or congress called members of the Supreme Court to testify on how they decided certain cases?

Congress does have the power to approve, or disapprove of many Presidential appointments, but once they are approved they have no say in how they do their job.

Political or not, this story goes beyond the pale and at the heart of our judicial system. How can we accuse other nations of what we ourselves are doing? Forget human rights, this is about American citizens and our judicial process. The President is not King, therefore the interests of the people should override any legal cover he has here. This is simply too important.

I find it soo funny and almost sad that Narmer would even insert the words "Human rights" into this iissue....rofl

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: MaxisOne
Prof John .. no need for the lecture I already have degrees in poli Sci and Law... But thanks anyways for the attempt

Im quite aware that these people serve at the pleasure of the president (with customary senate confirmation). As a matter of fact ... it is expected that resignations are offered when a new administration takes office.

You bringing up Clinton really does nothing to help your rebuttal of the issue. .. Let me remind you of the issue ... The Man is willing to go to court over this. I find this quite interesting as it seems to me that obviously this administration thinks its still operating pre mid term election days.

Previous administrations have served up their advisors ... and this issue can go away if the deeds in question were clear and transparent ... so whats the problem.. Why the resistance? Does he forget he has to go back to these very people for money at some later stage ?

why change the subject MixisOne??

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: dyna

The option I would offer is the option they have provided.

The committee rejected Bush's offer a day earlier to have his aides talk privately to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, but not under oath and not on the record.

"It will be regrettable if they choose to head down the partisan road of issuing subpoenas and demanding show trials when I have agreed to make key White House officials and documents available," the president said.

So... seriously.... you would prefer Congress to take on faith the accuracy of testimony from people who have already repeatedly lied/misrepresented facts on this case to them?

.... seriously?

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Can you ever quit being a forum troll non Prof John---the white house talking point you mention---namely--As was mentioned before, Bill Clinton got rid of EVERY Federal DA when he took over, the only "mistake Bush" seems to have made is in the timing of his decision.

Its usual for incoming Presidents to appoint a new team of attorneys when they come in---and its something that Republican and Democratic often do---and your trollih slip is showing when you implied only Clinton did that. The fact is that firing US attorneys mid-term is almost unprecedented---and now released documents almost totally prove its politically motivated.

But on the bright side you acknowledge that the firings were a GWB mistake---and not due to Gonzales or some other sleezy lesser character. There may be hope for you yet non Prof John. I shall quote you in future for noting where the buck and the blame should squarely rest.

Lets see Prof John`s troll slip is showing you say...if that be the case then can we say your troll diapers are showing....

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: Shivetya
It should all be under oath and behind CLOSED doors.

If Congress is truly after the facts and not FACETIME then why not do it behind closed doors.

Have you ever seen one of their open door investigations that was anything more than a circus for the pompous asses of Congress to strut?

I bet the D's would go for that, but Bush will have none of it.

I seriously doubt it...the "d`s" just want some time to bask in the sun before we have our next Republican president!!

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Narmer
Political or not, this story goes beyond the pale and at the heart of our judicial system. How can we accuse other nations of what we ourselves are doing? Forget human rights, this is about American citizens and our judicial process. The President is not King, therefore the interests of the people should override any legal cover he has here. This is simply too important.

The firing of 8? Federal DAs is now a human rights issue?

As was mentioned before, Bill Clinton got rid of EVERY Federal DA when he took over, the only mistake Bush seems to have made is in the timing of his decision.

You're a moron, clinton got rid of every federal DA *AND* had them re-confirmed by congress *AND* this was at the beginning of his term. This is WAY different than what bush was doing.

 

[catnap1972]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: Shivetya
It should all be under oath and behind CLOSED doors.

If Congress is truly after the facts and not FACETIME then why not do it behind closed doors.

Have you ever seen one of their open door investigations that was anything more than a circus for the pompous asses of Congress to strut?

I bet the D's would go for that, but Bush will have none of it.

I seriously doubt it...the "d`s" just want some time to bask in the sun before we have our next Republican president!!

You forget to take your meds again?

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: Shivetya
It should all be under oath and behind CLOSED doors.

If Congress is truly after the facts and not FACETIME then why not do it behind closed doors.

Have you ever seen one of their open door investigations that was anything more than a circus for the pompous asses of Congress to strut?

I bet the D's would go for that, but Bush will have none of it.

I seriously doubt it...the "d`s" just want some time to bask in the sun before we have our next Republican president!!

Well then Bush should give them the opportunity, if they turned down a behind closed doors, under oath deal with Rove and Miers then he would have grounds to declare that the D's are pulling a political stunt.

I'm no political genius like Karl Rove and I know that would be his best move, but he won't, because he knows Rove will perjure himself and/or air some very dirty laundry which will cause even more damage.

Makes sense doesn't it?

 

[CaptnKirk]

There is no caveat in the Constitution that refers to 'Executive Privilege' - back under Nixon the Supreme Court already established that no man, including the President is above the law.

But 'FalsifierJohn' doesn't care for facts, just keep on 'shilling on'.

 

[Bird222]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Ummm There is this thing called the separation of powers? our entire government is based on it. According to this principle the job of enforcing laws is left to the President. Which means he chooses who works for him as prosecutors and who does not.

When congress gets involved in a situation like this and tries to tell the President who he can and can?t have working for him they are over stepping their grounds. Which is why their could be a court fight over this, but that is highly unlikely. The Democrats will most likely realize that they will not win a fight like this and take what he offers. But you never know?

Think of it this way? how would congress react if Bush started calling them to the White House to explain how they voted on certain bills. Or congress called members of the Supreme Court to testify on how they decided certain cases?

Congress does have the power to approve, or disapprove of many Presidential appointments, but once they are approved they have no say in how they do their job.

I don't think the issue is about who the president can have working for him, but why he can stand in the way of get to the true.

 

[Bird222]

I don't understand why Bush doesn't want them to be under oath. I could possibly see it being private/behind closed doors, but not under oath and no transcript??? It just sounds to me (and I am convinced of it) that he just wants to keep folks out of legal jeopardy because he knows they are going to lie. I know there are some smart legal minds out there, can we not come up with a Constitutional amendment that has provisions for getting rid of an entire administration (or at least the Pres. and VP in one shot) without making it too easy to do? These people are just sickening!

 

[Moonbeam]

Bush is already the worst President in history. He has nothing to lose. He may as well declare marshal law and take over.

 

[catnap1972]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Bush is already the worst President in history. He has nothing to lose. He may as well declare marshal law and take over.

He can't. The gold crown isn't back from the jewelers yet....can't have a coronation without it.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

The firing of 8? Federal DAs is now a human rights issue?

As was mentioned before, Bill Clinton got rid of EVERY Federal DA when he took over, the only mistake Bush seems to have made is in the timing of his decision.

Every President, more or less, has fired the USAs appointed by his predecessor, so your raising Clinton as an example is misleading. The issue here is that President Bush fired 8 USAs, for political reasons, during his term, and installed politically-selected interim appointments. This is not the norm.

Yes but its perfectly legal.

It's not legal if you have a political agenda to take down the President at all costs.

As far as they care him being President isn't legal and they're searching for ANY excuse to make good on their desires to subvert his authority.

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

The firing of 8? Federal DAs is now a human rights issue?

As was mentioned before, Bill Clinton got rid of EVERY Federal DA when he took over, the only mistake Bush seems to have made is in the timing of his decision.

Every President, more or less, has fired the USAs appointed by his predecessor, so your raising Clinton as an example is misleading. The issue here is that President Bush fired 8 USAs, for political reasons, during his term, and installed politically-selected interim appointments. This is not the norm.

Yes but its perfectly legal.

It's not legal if you have a political agenda to take down the President at all costs.

As far as they care him being President isn't legal and they're searching for ANY excuse to make good on their desires to subvert his authority.

Sounds like you are describing The Clinton Blowjob :laugh:

 

[PELarson]

Originally posted by: dyna
Why I Was Fired

By DAVID C. IGLESIAS


What exactly was the politically motivated reason he got fired?

"What?s more, their narrative has largely ignored that I was one of just two United States attorneys in the country to create a voter-fraud task force in 2004. Mine was bipartisan, and it included state and local law enforcement and election officials. "

Must have scared the BLEEEP out of the administration!

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
As far as they care him being President isn't legal and they're searching for ANY excuse to make good on their desires to subvert his authority.

in fairness, Al Gore did win Florida in 2000

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
As far as they care him being President isn't legal and they're searching for ANY excuse to make good on their desires to subvert his authority.

in fairness, Al Gore did win Florida in 2000

Which is fascinating because those who believe that also believe what he has done now is illegal.

 

[piasabird]

He should let them testify and they should all go up and say "I dont recall that", "I Dont Remember", Like Hillary did about the Rose Law Firm!

Then there are no lies and no purjery.

 

[dyna]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: dyna

The option I would offer is the option they have provided.

The committee rejected Bush's offer a day earlier to have his aides talk privately to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, but not under oath and not on the record.

"It will be regrettable if they choose to head down the partisan road of issuing subpoenas and demanding show trials when I have agreed to make key White House officials and documents available," the president said.

So... seriously.... you would prefer Congress to take on faith the accuracy of testimony from people who have already repeatedly lied/misrepresented facts on this case to them?

.... seriously?

As a first step, I think congress should have faith in their testimony. Its possible they may misrepresent the facts but the committees should be able to determine that and decide if a sapoena is necessary and then really drop the hammer on them. If they are guilty I think they should be put through the judicial system but give them a chance to give their side of the story first.

 

[dahunan]

^^ oh my god.. a politician wouldn't tell the truth even if it would save his life.. it just isn't in their genes