skadistic
Caomhanach
So whats the crime here?
Bush Refuses To Let WH Officials Testify Under Oath
- Thread starter Pontiuth Pilate
- Start date
Pontiuth Pilate
Republican Jesus!
Obstruction of justice.
sonorakitch
Overseas hunter
While I despise the whole concept, please do truth and record a favor by including your Clinton in this list of unitary executive defenders.
~Chris
skadistic
Caomhanach
How exactly? In order for there to obstruction of justice there has to be a crime. What is the crime? All AGs work at the pleasure of POTUS he can fire them if he wants to for what ever reason.
There's no proven crime, because it's the investigators that are being fired.
Then there's no problem with some of Bush's people being subpoenaed. No crime, no problem with being subpoenaed. I'm glad you agree with me.
Pontiuth Pilate
Republican Jesus!
Bribery.
Are you reading any of the posts in this thread or just trolling?
skadistic
Caomhanach
Im asking what the crime is. And since there is no crime. I don't see the big deal. Ags were fired for what ever reason it doesn't mater. A dem. run congress wants to investigate. Investigate what? There is nothing to investigate since there was no crime. And since there was no crime in firing the AGs POTUS is in no way obligated to make avalible his staff. If there was a crime then it would be in a court and the dems could get their suppenas answered. So again whats the crime? Whats the deal?
I don't know what you mean "it doesn't matter what they were fired for". Most employees have employment contracts, and so we can only be fired for rather specific reasons (though they look kinda general on paper). You've dealt with problem firings, I'm sure, and know about the effort needed to ensure that a firing is done for proper reasons - if only to prevent some Board from issuing a fine to your business.
Regardless, even if the firings were done legally (in a technical sense), the reasons around the firings can still stink ... and in fact, be 'wrong'. If firings were done to hide corruption, to prevent investigations, to punish people for political beliefs, etc. then they should not be accepted by people as 'legit'.
Pontiuth Pilate
Republican Jesus!
Circular logic.
It's the same thing as a man charged with murder refusing to appear in court because "there's no reason to call me to the stand! I haven't been convicted of anything yet!"
The Dems are subpoena'ing the President's advisers to find out if any of them were involved in a conspiracy to obstruct justice in one of the investigations one of the fired attorneys was carrying out - an investigation into the bribery of a Congressman. If documents or testimony surface that the WH was involved in a coverup, believe you me, indictments WILL be filed.
Saying that the President should stonewall an investigation as meritless, because it hasn't uncovered anything, because he's been stonewalling it is truly transgressing the borders of sanity.
You are 100% wrong on constitutional law. The President DOES have an obligation to respond to Congressional subpoenas and these subpoenas NEED NOT be in the wake of a criminal indictment. Read up or embarrass yourself further, your choice.
skadistic
Caomhanach
POTUS can fire any AG at any time for any reason even for no reason. They serve at the pleasure of the president. It may 'stink' but its all fair and legit.
Its clearly a political wich hunt much like the Plame BS. There was no crime in outing Plame but they had to punish someone for some reason. Now the dems are looking for a reason to punish Bush for something thats not punishable. But since its Bush there has to be a crime there somewhere even if they have to fabricate one by getting a Bush lackey to misspeak so they can catch them in a lie.
This is a non story being blown out of porportion to smear Bush and CO.
I reserve the right to fire any person for any reason as long as they are given two weeks notice. That my Policy. The unions don't like it and tried to picket my offices (my house). They don't do that anymore.
Pontiuth Pilate
Republican Jesus!
Attys serve at the legal pleasure of the Preznit. He can fire them for any reason he wants. However, if it turns out that the firings were made as part of a conspiracy to commit a crime, then the people involved are in deep, deep shiznit and will face legal consequences
.
Pontiuth Pilate
Republican Jesus!
The DoJ already deliberately lied to Congress twice, that's why this is headline news instead of on the back page.
As long as the Preznit's men continue to decide lying to Congress has no consequences, the consequences will be severe in proportion. Teach them a lesson.
What were the DoJ's two lies?
I find this to be a strange attitude, your default position seems to be that even the seedier members of your government are probably not corrupt.
You think it's unlikely someone in your government was corrupt and that someone else used political influence to hide that corruption?
If history has taught us nothing, groups who've been in power for a long time tend to have some members who're up to their elbows in corruption. And it's not the group that's been in power that's going to 'out' them.
When people in power start making moves that could be (potentially) covering up a problem, it's a good indication to be extra cautious. Keep in mind that this incident continues to build up, with (potential) cover up being followed by further (potential) cover up.
Taking legal maneuvers to hide something certainly is NOT evidence that there's actually nothing there.
I find this to be a strange attitude, your default position seems to be that even the seedier members of your government are probably not corrupt.
You think it's unlikely someone in your government was corrupt and that someone else used political influence to hide that corruption?
If history has taught us nothing, groups who've been in power for a long time tend to have some members who're up to their elbows in corruption. And it's not the group that's been in power that's going to 'out' them.
When people in power start making moves that could be (potentially) covering up a problem, it's a good indication to be extra cautious. Keep in mind that this incident continues to build up, with (potential) cover up being followed by further (potential) cover up.
Taking legal maneuvers to hide something certainly is NOT evidence that there's actually nothing there.
Skadistic, can you read? I'll repeat what PP is saying, in case you have him on ignore or something.
Do AGs serve at the pleasure of the president? Yes. The President can technically fire them, even to make way for political cronies (like they already admited in one case, after they told everybody it was performance related, which was bullfeathers).
HOWEVER, we have reason to believe that there is a justice department cover up over certain investigations those lawyers were involved in, namely, that of disgraced congressman Duke Cunningham. We don't know if the AGs office covered anything up...because they wont answer any questions! (That doesn't sound fishy or anything)
Conservatives never had a problem with "If you aren't a criminal, you have nothing to fear about us snooping around your XYZ before". They need to answer the damn questions.
Do AGs serve at the pleasure of the president? Yes. The President can technically fire them, even to make way for political cronies (like they already admited in one case, after they told everybody it was performance related, which was bullfeathers).
HOWEVER, we have reason to believe that there is a justice department cover up over certain investigations those lawyers were involved in, namely, that of disgraced congressman Duke Cunningham. We don't know if the AGs office covered anything up...because they wont answer any questions! (That doesn't sound fishy or anything)
Conservatives never had a problem with "If you aren't a criminal, you have nothing to fear about us snooping around your XYZ before". They need to answer the damn questions.
CaptainF
The Professional Poster
The executive branch shouldn't be above the law.
skadistic
Caomhanach
So maybe if its posible that some how in some way some one may have done something to maybe posiblely migh have.................
If there is a crime take it to the courts and press charges. The fact this isn't being done just shows me that the dems realy don't have anything and are on a fishing trip.
How many AGs were fired? How many were working on Dukes case? Could there have been any other reason to fire them? This couldn't be a ploy by a jilted AG and his political friends making a big stink abuot nothing?
What exactly is the cause to suspect this AG was fired to cover a cover up? Because he was fired? I just don't see the substance in the alligations. And I find it strange that congress needs to question people to dig up some substance. Its just odd that there seams to be nothing there.
If there is a crime take it to the courts and press charges. The fact this isn't being done just shows me that the dems realy don't have anything and are on a fishing trip.
How many AGs were fired? How many were working on Dukes case? Could there have been any other reason to fire them? This couldn't be a ploy by a jilted AG and his political friends making a big stink abuot nothing?
What exactly is the cause to suspect this AG was fired to cover a cover up? Because he was fired? I just don't see the substance in the alligations. And I find it strange that congress needs to question people to dig up some substance. Its just odd that there seams to be nothing there.
There were what, 7 lawyers fired? What makes this really suspicious is that they were all
a) working on sensitive political cases
b) all had high performance reviews
c) the AG has already lied about why they were fired before (the offical response was that it was performance related. The lawyers cried bullfeathers, because they had good performance reviews, so the AG backed off, and admited at least one was for something completely different)
Before you go to the courts, you typically do something called gathering evidence. The courts can't go out handing out indictments everywhere, because the govt. keeps stonewalling everything. Its just like goddamn Nixon.
Pontiuth Pilate
Republican Jesus!
A note on executive privilege, from the late 90s:
Who said this? Tony Snow who is now in charge of defending to the public Bush's abuse of power on the exact same lines.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/03/20/executive_privilege/index.html
Too bad skaddy hasn't been posting since 1999... we could have some search-mining fun.
Who said this? Tony Snow who is now in charge of defending to the public Bush's abuse of power on the exact same lines.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/03/20/executive_privilege/index.html
Too bad skaddy hasn't been posting since 1999... we could have some search-mining fun.
skadistic
Caomhanach
A note on executive privilege, from the late 90s:
Who said this? Tony Snow who is now in charge of defending to the public Bush's abuse of power on the exact same lines.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/03/20/executive_privilege/index.html
Too bad skaddy hasn't been posting since 1999... we could have some search-mining fun.
You wouldn't find anything different as I would have deffended Slick Willy the same way. Considering I'm not a republican or a conservitive.
Similar threads
- Locked
