Bush Refuses To Let WH Officials Testify Under Oath

[Phlegmak]

And this is from the same administration that likes to torture people until they talk

The verb they use is "coerce." Therefore, they never "torture."

 

[MobBoss]

If you don't care about the reason for the firings, aren't you offended that the reasons given turned out to be lies?

Legitimate question. Perhaps I am just too calloused from my job to render a completely neutral opinion, in that I take such complaints all the time. The usual view is this: They are stupid for not giving the real reason, but regardless of reason, they still had the right to fire them. That just makes them look like idiots sure, but since when is that a punishable offense?

As for an employer giving a different reason for why an employee was fired - it does happen all the time in the real world. This just has more visibility is all.

 

[bathsheba666]

Remind me, exactly when did honour go out the window in this country?

 

[IglooDame]

As for an employer giving a different reason for why an employee was fired - it does happen all the time in the real world. This just has more visibility is all.

Sure, but ordinarily the different reason is "employee-friendly" - i.e., it preserves the employee's employment prospects elsewhere. In this case, the employees were initially faulted where they shouldn't have, apparently for the sake of appearances on the employer's part. The former seems forgiveable in most circumstances, the latter not so much.

But I suppose one would disagree if "maintaining the administration's appearance of propriety" is a goal worth trashing individual reputations for.

 

[MobBoss]

Remind me, exactly when did honour go out the window in this country?

In my opinion, it was when Gore had phoned GWB and conceded the 2000 presidential election .....and then reneged on it later.

 

[El_Machinae]

Remind me, exactly when did honour go out the window in this country?

When comments like these were not condemned by partisan allies.

Even IF the GOP stole the 2000 election it was for the good of the country, think of what you would have had! Gore King of the morons.

 

[bathsheba666]

In my opinion, it was when Gore had phoned GWB and conceded the 2000 presidential election .....and then reneged on it later.

That at least serves to highlight the quality of your opinion.

 

[MobBoss]

That at least serves to highlight the quality of your opinion.

Huh? Is not not dishonorable to concede to your opponent and then reneg on it later? I dont see how anyone could say otherwise.

 

[El_Machinae]

I think that after espousing that this is non-story, we should our best to side-line the debate. That way, even if people don't believe our obfuscation, they will be discouraged from discussing the issue more fully.

 

[JollyRoger]

And this is from the same administration that likes to torture people until they talk

Forget getting Bush's minions under oath. Let's just waterboard them.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

Second the motion!

After all, isn't this "time sensitive information"? His administration could be over before we get answers.

I think less sissifed interrogation techniques are definitely called for

 

[JollyRoger]

Second the motion!

After all, isn't this "time sensitive information"? His administration could be over before we get answers.

I think less sissifed interrogation techniques are definitely called for

If questioning under oath is some sort of sissified interrogation technique, what does that say about the pansies not only afraid to go under oath, but afraid to even have a transcript of their questioning made? We may be witnessing the biggest bunch of softies to ever run the White House.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

More lies.

This memo is from the 18-day "gap" they didn't want to show Congress. Turns out there's a reason for that. This is, what, the third direct contradiction of statements Gonzales has made in public?

How many times do you get to lie to Congress before you're fired? Is there some sort of Mark McGuire standard here?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6504345,00.html

 

[JollyRoger]

More lies.

This memo is from the 18-day "gap" they didn't want to show Congress. Turns out there's a reason for that. This is, what, the third direct contradiction of statements Gonzales has made in public?

How many times do you get to lie to Congress before you're fired? Is there some sort of Mark McGuire standard here?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6504345,00.html

If Gonzo has lied so much and he supposedly isn't the White House counsel anymore, imagine how many lies those currently in the White House would have to tell for their boss. No wonder they are afraid to take the oath. Who would have imagined that Karl Rove is such a sissy that he can't take on a few hours of questions from Congress. Maybe Jeff Gannon shouldn't have been so gentle with Karl-a when he spent so many nights at the White House.

 

[Phlegmak]

More fuel for the fire. I don't know if this has been mentioned yet. This is from Crooks and Liars. I bolded the part that seemed most relevant.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/03/24/a-decision-the-president-alone-must-justify/

President Bush is in a real bind. The circumstances surrounding the firing of eight United States Attorneys reek so badly of crass partisan politics that the President's advisers are trying very hard to distance him as much as possible from the decision-making process. Hence, this from Tony Snow:


MR. SNOW: The President has no recollection of this ever being raised with him. . . .

Q Just to follow, did you say, again for the record, that the President has no recollection of ever being asked about any of this?

MR. SNOW: Yes, the removal — yes, that is correct.

Indeed, Snow went as far as to assert that this was "a decision that was made at the U.S. Department of Justice."

Here's the problem, though. As Marty Lederman points out, the relevant statute–28 U.S.C. 541(c)–vests the power to remove U.S. Attorneys with the president ("Each United States attorney is subject to removal by the President.") As we've repeatedly been told, U.S. Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President–not the pleasure of the Attorney General (and certainly not the pleasure of the Attorney General's chief of staff). The decision to fire a U.S. Attorney–much less eight of them–is unquestionably one for the president to make, so if President Bush was truly out of the loop on this, that's a problem in and of itself.

 

[El_Machinae]

MR. SNOW: The President has no recollection of this ever being raised with him. . . .

Q Just to follow, did you say, again for the record, that the President has no recollection of ever being asked about any of this?

MR. SNOW: Yes, the removal — yes, that is correct.

Oh, that's funny.

Of course, there's a system by which these people should be hired and fired, and I'm sure that the president doesn't take a 'hands on' approach; that's too much micromanagement.

This means, then, that the firings should only be allowed if they were done for legitimate reasons. If you want to invoke extreme technicality, then if the POTUS is going to be involved ... then you'd think he should be involved.

 

[JollyRoger]

If Bush wasn't involved, then the whole "they serve at the pleasure of the King . . . uh President" talking point is kind of lame. How can they be fired if the President doesn't pull the trigger? And if he wasn't paying attention, why not? These are the federal government's leading prosecutors and any President serious about law enforcement is going to be in the loop on a decision like this. Of course, we are talking about Bush, so . . .

 

[Sims2789]

With Congress investigating Bush's aides do how are they supposed to do the things supposed to do what they're being investigated for?

That was on either the Colbert Report or The Daily Show.

 

[JollyRoger]

With Karl Rove doing 95% of his emails on non-government servers, any claim of executive privilege is very questionable. It also poses questions regarding the security risks he was taking, assuming that since Karl is on the taxpayer dime, 95% of his emails shouldn't be purely political and many would likely contain sensitive information that should have stayed within government channels.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

Bush is trying to pull a Reagan - "I don't recall" is just a euphemistic way of pleading the fifth.

The problem is that either he directly signed off on the firings, or the attorneys weren't actually legally fired.