Bush Refuses To Let WH Officials Testify Under Oath

[MobBoss]

If Bush is seriously going to try going down this road, he deserves to be impeached as much as Nixon did.

Well, I guess its nice to have hopes and dreams no matter how outlandish. Again, my standing offer of a paycheck bet that Bush will never be impeached stands for you. If you are ever brave enough (or dumb enough) to take me up on it just PM me.

 

[FriendlyFire]

So what if he fired them for political reasons - it was still well within his right to do so. And I dont think you are going to find some type of 'cover-up' by the vast right wing conspiracy either. The white house exercised its right, just like many others have before. Its merely seen to be a political point ATM thus the only real reason its an issue at all.

I assume you've seen the email by KARL ROVE saying they should fire the those whom are not "loyal bushies" ?

And Iam sure the memory of such cronies like the dumbest [censored] on the face of the earth, most qualified person, heck of a job, best sec of defence the us has ever had. Should alert you to the type of Administration run by Bush ?

We learn that, in deciding which attorneys to retain and which to release, one factor that weighed prominently in Justice Department deliberations was whether they "exhibited loyalty" to President Bush. The quote is from an e-mail sent by D. Kyle Sampson, then one of Gonzales' top aides. Sampson was also author of another note in which he suggested that the "vast majority of U.S. Attorneys, 80-85 percent, I would guess, are doing a great job, are loyal Bushies, etc., etc.

Every president has the right to seek subordinates who support his policies. But not at the expense of competence. Nor integrity. Nor loss of life and destruction of property.

 

[MobBoss]

I assume you've seen the email by KARL ROVE saying they should fire the those whom are not "loyal bushies" ?

Link it up for us. But again, so what if he did? Again, they serve at the whim of the president - he doenst need a reason to fire them and put someone else in their place. If they are being perceived as not emphasizing what the 'bushies' want emphasized, then does not the WH have the perogative to fire them?

Again, I am not here to say them being fired was fair or unfair, but merely to put forth the point that yes indeed, the WH has the perogative to fire such people that it hires.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

Well, I guess its nice to have hopes and dreams no matter how outlandish. Again, my standing offer of a paycheck bet that Bush will never be impeached stands for you. If you are ever brave enough (or dumb enough) to take me up on it just PM me.

Start thinking about the Constitution and the country instead of your stupid little political games. Everyone loses if Presidential abuses of power are enshrined as precedent.

This isn't about parties anymore. That was Nixon's mistake too - he thought that when he drew a line in the sand, the Republican Senators would line up behind it. They lined up in front of it.

 

[MobBoss]

Start thinking about the Constitution and the country instead of your stupid little political games.

This? From the PP who gave us 'republicans are behind the hillary video'? Talk about pots calling kettles!

This isn't about parties anymore. That was Nixon's mistake too - he thought that when he drew a line in the sand, the Republican Senators would line up behind it. They lined up in front of it.

Are you trying to tell me President Cheney will pardon Bush?

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

Still waiting for a reply with substance. Or facts. Or links. You know, like what everyone else in this thread has been doing.

I guess I shouldn't really be that surprised that you would side with those who want Nixonian precedent overturned...

 

[MobBoss]

Still waiting for a reply with substance. Or facts. Or links. You know, like what everyone else in this thread has been doing.

I guess I shouldn't really be that surprised that you would side with those who want Nixonian precedent overturned...

Not what I am saying at all. Havent you been listening? Again, the WH has the right to fire these folks....regardless.

And that will be the final deciding issue in the whole thing. Just wait and see.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

Yep, that's why it's frantically covering up.

Please, if anyone else reading this thread besides MobBoss buys a word of this, raise your hands high...

 

[MobBoss]

Yep, that's why it's frantically covering up.

Please, if anyone else reading this thread besides MobBoss buys a word of this, raise your hands high...

Fine. You seem to think this will end up with Bush impeached like Nixon. I dont. Care to bet on it?

 

[Pasi Nurminen]

Are you trying to tell me President Cheney will pardon Bush?

That's actually a frightening enough reason to not impeach President Bush, because then you'd get President Cheney,

I don't think anyone's ever stood that close to evil.

 

[El_Machinae]

Both parties do this ROUTINELY. Trying to make it appear they were 'sending a message' is going to be full of reasonable doubt, and easily rebutted.

Emphasis on routine, like these firings are routine?

Someone mentioned that the Patriot Act was being invoked with this exercise ... what's that about?

 

[El_Machinae]

Again, they serve at the whim of the president - he doenst need a reason to fire them and put someone else in their place. If they are being perceived as not emphasizing what the 'bushies' want emphasized, then does not the WH have the perogative to fire them?

It really doesn't bother you that the reasons given for their firings turned out to be lies?

Really, what's wrong with suspecting corruption in an established government? It's happened before, and it will happen again. And you know that Bush is not surrounded by saints.

Do you have any evidence that disconnects the dots? You seemed to think on page one that there were good reasons for all the firings ... what were they? You keep yelling 'non-story', but then, why the trail of lies?

 

[Phlegmak]

By the way:

http://www.amazon.com/Impeachment-G...rned/dp/156025940X/crooksandliar-20/ref=nosim

 

[JollyRoger]

Hell, if people had more respect for our duly elected leaders this country wouldnt be so polarized today.

Hell, if our duly elected leaders had more respect for we the people they serve, this country wouldn't be so polarized today. Uniter, not divider?

 

[JollyRoger]

Clinton let 31 of his top advisers go under oath before Congress 47 times and never refused Congress' request. Bush has only allowed one White House official go under oath before Congress.

Just for those of you who like to play the "Clinton did it too" game . . . here is W's cahnce to live up to the legend.

 

[JollyRoger]

If the White House has nothing to hide, then going under oath should be no problem.

 

[JollyRoger]

Not what I am saying at all. Havent you been listening? Again, the WH has the right to fire these folks....regardless.

And that will be the final deciding issue in the whole thing. Just wait and see.

The PRESIDENT, not the WH or the AG has the right to fire U.S. attorneys. Bush has acted like he didn't even know the inside scoop of why they were fired. Neither the President, the WH, nor the AG has the right to obstruct justice and if these firings appear to have been done for that purpose, then it is, at the very least, a matter that can be investigated by Congress.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

Someone mentioned that the Patriot Act was being invoked with this exercise ... what's that about?

Somebody (I forget who, but conveniently, it was actually "their staffer" who did it) inserted a clause into the Patriot Act saying that the executive could appoint interim attorneys without

The practice for, um, all of American history is that the President can fire attys at will, but their replacements must go through the Senate confirmation process just like most federal appointments.

Since Congress is in the habit of passing laws it doesn't read mad: don't get me started), it came as a shock to the Senate as much as the public when the President did an end run around the Hill to appoint the new attys. In the portfolio of Bush abuses, this one can be filed "Legal But Scummy."

Outraged, the Senate just this week passed a repeal of the clause with a 94-2 vote iirc, so that all future appointments have to go through the Senate just like for the past 200-odd years. That plus a near-unanimous vote in favor of subpoena'ing Rove and Miers probably indicates that even the Republicans in Congress are tired of the President usurping and abusing powers he doesn't have.

Fine. You seem to think this will end up with Bush impeached like Nixon. I dont. Care to bet on it?

I don't know if Bush will be impeached.

My point is that Nixon was impeached for less. If Bush continues down this road, he will be making the same arguments as Nixon did to protect his abuses of power and obstruction of justice. What's more, he's directly setting up a constitutional crisis in the hope that Nixonian precedent on obstruction and executive privilege will be overturned by the Supreme Court he packed with appointees, i.e. that he will be able to get away with what Nixon couldn't.

That this is seen as a legitimate strategy just proves the way this country has lurched in the direction of fellating power instead of criticizing it over the past 30 years.

Why do you want to bet on whether or not Bush gets away with abuses of power? You lose either way.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

Clinton let 31 of his top advisers go under oath before Congress 47 times and never refused Congress' request. Bush has only allowed one White House official go under oath before Congress.

Just for those of you who like to play the "Clinton did it too" game . . . here is W's cahnce to live up to the legend.

Clinton Did It Too part II... Bush claimed in his press conference that his "offer" of 3,000 pages of internal Justice Department memos & emails, which conveniently doesn't include any documents from the weeks leading up to the firing, was "unprecedented."

Clinton provided approximately 2 million pages to the Congress in his presidency, an average of 4,000 a day.

The Congress issued more than 1000 subpoenas during the Clinton presidency aimed at the WH or the Democratic party, an average of 2 per day.

141 Clinton Administration officials spent 568 hours in depositions before congressional staff.

Congress took 140 hours of testimony just on whether the Clinton White House had "abused" their Christmas card list.

Bush is refusing to allow his Presidency to be examined, ever, as much as Clinton's was each and every day.

Republicans are talking about the subpoena like it's a dirty word. What's the matter - has their 8-year infatuation with Congressional power worn off? Hmm, just as the Democrats become the majority again - how convenient!

 

[MobBoss]

Really, what's wrong with suspecting corruption in an established government? It's happened before, and it will happen again. And you know that Bush is not surrounded by saints.

Whats wrong with it? It promotes paranoia and instability. Isnt it false logic to assume since its happened before it will happen again?

Do you have any evidence that disconnects the dots? You seemed to think on page one that there were good reasons for all the firings ... what were they? You keep yelling 'non-story', but then, why the trail of lies?

I dont necessarily think the reasons for the firings were good or bad. But, do they really need a reason? No. And personally, I dont see a trail of lies like you do, largely because I am not a paranoid conspiracy believer.