Bush Refuses To Let WH Officials Testify Under Oath

[MobBoss]

Presumably, MobBoss, you would have been a Loyalist in 1776, with respect for the majesty of the king's office and whatnot. Is it fair to say you'd sympathise with Benedict Arnold?

Case in point. I can have respect for my opponent while opposing him. No, I wouldnt have been a loyalist, but I would have had respect for a king due to his office.

 

[Phlegmak]

Case in point. I can have respect for my opponent while opposing him. No, I wouldnt have been a loyalist, but I would have had respect for a king due to his office.

So that means you have nothing but respect for Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Robert Mugabe, and Kim Jong Il? Come on, be truthful now.

 

[MobBoss]

Someone is on record stating that [Godwin] should have been loyal to [Godwin]

Respect is different than loyalty. Didnt think I would have to point that out, but /oh well.

 

[MobBoss]

So that means you have nothing but respect for Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Robert Mugabe, and Kim Jong Il? Come on, be truthful now.

Couple of points. Being in the military, if I met any of these men, I would have to show them respect according to their office. Officially, I have no doubt that I would have to salute them. If I met them personally, I would show them respect as well. While I may directly disagree with them on many issues I can still respect them for their station.

And that is being utterly truthful.

 

[El_Machinae]

Respect is different than loyalty. Didnt think I would have to point that out, but /oh well.

Well someone conflates the two, horribly. Someone insists that the national leader should be respected and that [Godwin] should have been loyal to [Godwin]

 

[MobBoss]

Well someone conflates the two, horribly. Someone insists that the national leader should be respected and that [Godwin] should have been loyal to [Godwin]

Not 'conflating' the two at all. Both are entirely separate issues. If you still cant see that /oh well.

 

[Taliesin]

Case in point. I can have respect for my opponent while opposing him. No, I wouldnt have been a loyalist, but I would have had respect for a king due to his office.

Don't go mealy-mouthed. You can't respect the king's office while committing treason against it.

Remember what started this. I'm not sure what it would mean for Congress to 'respect the President' in this case. Does respecting the President involve not pointing out blatant corruption and abuse of office in the administration? Or maybe you're conflating the usual meaning of "respect for the office" with the kind of respect one has for significant enemies (presumably the kind you'd have had for King George III). In any case, it sounds like you're saying that Congress shouldn't investigate corruption of the executive branch because to do so would be disrespectful.

 

[El_Machinae]

Not 'conflating' the two at all. Both are entirely separate issues. If you still cant see that /oh well.

I think that my usage of the word 'conflate' implies that I understand that they are separate issues. Of course, people who conflate them might not be aware that they are separate issues. You mentioned a couple of posts above that you already think of them as separate. Of course, one would then have to decide when to mix and when to separate them.

Thinking that the [Godwin] should have supported [Godwin] and thinking that the office should be respected regardless is a sign that someone, at least sometimes, has trouble separating them.

 

[MobBoss]

Don't go mealy-mouthed. You can't respect the king's office while committing treason against it.

Not being 'mealy-mouthed' and yes, I directly disagree with you. Just like American and British officers fighting against one another in that conflict showed each other respect, one can indeed show respect for the kings office while stating, 'thanks, but no thanks' to the British Empire.

And personally, today, I think a lot of Americans do indeed have respect for the British royalty, even though they are a decidely odd bunch.

Remember what started this. I'm not sure what it would mean for Congress to 'respect the President' in this case. Does respecting the President involve not pointing out blatant corruption and abuse of office in the administration? Or maybe you're conflating the usual meaning of "respect for the office" with the kind of respect one has for significant enemies (presumably the kind you'd have had for King George III). In any case, it sounds like you're saying that Congress shouldn't investigate corruption of the executive branch because to do so would be disrespectful.

Not at all. You are apparently confusing things. The US Attorneys fired does not equal congress. When congress looks into possible corruption, especially by the white house, they have to use special appointed prosecutors. Of course congress should investigate alleged wrong doing, however, the ability of the president to hire or fire US Attorneys is unquestionable. 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.

 

[MobBoss]

I think that my usage of the word 'conflate' implies that I understand that they are separate issues. Of course, people who conflate them might not be aware that they are separate issues. You mentioned a couple of posts above that you already think of them as separate. Of course, one would then have to decide when to mix and when to separate them.

Thinking that the [Godwin] should have supported [Godwin] and thinking that the office should be respected regardless is a sign that someone, at least sometimes, has trouble separating them.

Lets make it clear. I respect someone like Bill Clinton because he was the president. As a soldier, I supported his decisions to do what he did in Bosnia for example, although I may not have agreed with the reason to go. I can still respect someone, disagree with them, but still support them. All of which are true. Sounds to me like the only person here truly confused is you since you cant seem to get past repeating [godwin] every chance you get.

 

[El_Machinae]

Lets make it clear. I respect someone like Bill Clinton because he was the president. As a soldier, I supported his decisions to do what he did in Bosnia for example, although I may not have agreed with the reason to go. I can still respect someone, disagree with them, but still support them. All of which are true. Sounds to me like the only person here truly confused is you since you cant seem to get past repeating [godwin] every chance you get.

You'll note that I successfully got 'conflate' out a few times, too!
Even got you and Tal in on the action.

Spoiler :

Godwin!

 

[IglooDame]

Not at all. You are apparently confusing things. The US Attorneys fired does not equal congress. When congress looks into possible corruption, especially by the white house, they have to use special appointed prosecutors. Of course congress should investigate alleged wrong doing, however, the ability of the president to hire or fire US Attorneys is unquestionable. 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.

Just so I'm clear on this - you think that firing a US Attorney because they are probably going to indict a political ally of the firer is A: Legal, B: Ethical, C: Worthy of further investigation?

The President of the US, and goodness knows the Attorney General of the US, both have a fundamental responsibility to uphold the laws of the United States. If one or the other of them fired a US Attorney with the intention of disrupting an investigation or derailing an indictment, then they have violated the spirit of the law if not the letter of the law and I think it worthy of Congress' attention.

 

[Taliesin]

Not being 'mealy-mouthed' and yes, I directly disagree with you. Just like American and British officers fighting against one another in that conflict showed each other respect, one can indeed show respect for the kings office while stating, 'thanks, but no thanks' to the British Empire.

OK, using this definition of respect, what exactly is Congress doing that is disrespectful to the President? It sounds as though you think members of Congress could stage a treasonous rebellion to overthrow the President while still 'respecting his office', so how is it disrespectful merely to insist that the executive branch do its job by upholding the law? (I'm still curious as to what you think a disrespectful illegal rebellion would have looked like.)

 

[MobBoss]

Just so I'm clear on this - you think that firing a US Attorney because they are probably going to indict a political ally of the firer is A: Legal, B: Ethical, C: Worthy of further investigation?

I think the operative word in your paragraph is 'probably'. Does firing the prosecutor erase the facts surrounding the political ally? No. If the evidence is there then I encourage the fired persons replacement to throughly investigate it, as they should. Firing someone doesnt magically make criminal activity disappear. Say the prosecutors in question had just keeled over dead instead of being fired, would that have change the evidence leading to an indictment? No.

You see, if your allegation were true then why didnt they fire the prosector (Fitzgerald) handling the Plame case? Do you think if they had fired him, would the case 'just gone away'? Hell no. The allegation just makes no sense.

So, in answer to your question, if such indictment had not happened and there is no guarentee that such even WOULD happen, A. legal is the answer.

The President of the US, and goodness knows the Attorney General of the US, both have a fundamental responsibility to uphold the laws of the United States. If one or the other of them fired a US Attorney with the intention of disrupting an investigation or derailing an indictment, then they have violated the spirit of the law if not the letter of the law and I think it worthy of Congress' attention.

I dont think this is the allegation however. I think the allegation is that these prosecutors were just fired for political reasons, not as part of some 'cover up'.

 

[MobBoss]

OK, using this definition of respect, what exactly is Congress doing that is disrespectful to the President?

Did I ever allege this? No. I was merely correcting a fellow poster who said the president shouldnt be respected.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

Sidenote, I heard someone say on the radio that 100% of the time when Executive Privilege has been invoked, later events have proven that it has been invoked to cover unethical or illegal activity.

Well knock me over with a feather! That news comes as an ABSOLUTE surprise to me!

wait hold on I think my snark unit is malfunctioning.

I think the allegation is that these prosecutors were just fired for political reasons, not as part of some 'cover up'.

The allegation is PRECISELY that there may be a conspiracy to obstruct justice. Read my posts.

I think the operative word in your paragraph is 'probably'. Does firing the prosecutor erase the facts surrounding the political ally? No. If the evidence is there then I encourage the fired persons replacement to throughly investigate it, as they should. Firing someone doesnt magically make criminal activity disappear. Say the prosecutors in question had just keeled over dead instead of being fired, would that have change the evidence leading to an indictment? No.

You see, if your allegation were true then why didnt they fire the prosector (Fitzgerald) handling the Plame case? Do you think if they had fired him, would the case 'just gone away'? Hell no. The allegation just makes no sense.

So, in answer to your question, if such indictment had not happened and there is no guarentee that such even WOULD happen, A. legal is the answer.

Lame. Aren't you a lawyer?

For there to be a conspiracy to obstruct justice, the attys only have to prove that the WH wanted them fired to send a message to their replacements.

Just because their replacements continued the investigations anyway doesn't mean no crime was committed here.

 

[MobBoss]

The allegation is PRECISELY that there may be a conspiracy to obstruct justice. Read my posts.

Then let congress put forth a special prosector and go forward with it. In what I have read there is not a shred of proof of this. Some people just see conspriacy everywhere.

Lame. Aren't you a lawyer?

Nope.

For there to be a conspiracy to obstruct justice, the attys only have to prove that the WH wanted them fired to send a message to their replacements.

Please. You make it sound like the Mafia put a horse in their bed. If the WH has employees that dont agree with them politically do they not have the right to replace those employees as they see fit? Sure they do. 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.

Just because their replacements continued the investigations anyway doesn't mean no crime was committed here.

Likewise, just because someone gets fired, its not some big conspriacy either. Question? Where is Duke Cunningham? IN PRISON. The WH isnt trying to protect its own interests, its merely exercising its right to fire employees that dont agree with its policy.

Like I said before, the only reason this is a hot item is because the dems want it to be. Its the biggest non-story of the year.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

The attys did not have a "political" disagreement with the Bush Administration. They were nominated by Bush. All of them are Republicans. All of them had high performance reviews and nearly all had above-average prosecutions in administration priority casetypes.

What links the prosecutors who were fired is that most of them were working on politically sensitive cases and the rest refused political pressure to start bogus prosecutions.

Some people do see "conspriacies" (sic) everywhere. On the other hand, it's easier to see a pattern when you're not in denial about it.

Like I said before, the only reason this is a hot item is because the dems want it to be. Its the biggest non-story of the year.

No, it's a hot item because DoJ officials lied to Congress, which is a felony, to cover up the fact that obstruction of justice may have been the motive for the firings - if so, that is also a felony.

Please stop trashing the thread with allegations that have been debunked pages ago. :\

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

Holy crap.

Not only has Tony Snowjob reversed his position 100% he now apparently denies that there is anything that ISN'T covered by executive privilege.

http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=49750&cl=2170257&ch=61492&src=news

The executive branch is under no compulsion to testify to Congress, because Congress in fact doesn't have oversight ability. So what we’ve said is we’re going to reach out to you – we’ll give you every communication between the White House, the Justice Department, the Congress, anybody on the outside, any kind of communication that would indicate any kind of activity outside, and at the same time, we’ll make available to you any of the officiels you want to talk to …knowing full well that anything they said is still subject to legal scrutiny, and the members of Congress know that.

See? He basically wants the courts to go back and redecide US v. Nixon. In that case, the Supreme Court ruled that Nixon (and Bush, basically) don't have a leg to stand on in their respective cases:

Absent a claim of need to protect military, diplomatic, or sensitive national security secrets, the confidentiality of [418 U.S. 683, 685] Presidential communications is not significantly diminished by producing material for a criminal trial under the protected conditions of in camera inspection, and any absolute executive privilege under Art. II of the Constitution would plainly conflict with the function of the courts under the Constitution.

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

 

[FriendlyFire]

Excerpts From the 3,000 Pp. of Documents

_Feb. 1, 2007 e-mail from U.S. Attorney Margaret Chiara to Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty:

Subject: WDMI

Paul: ... Michael Elston informed me that I must vacate my position by March 1. Therefore, I plan to announce my resignation on the afternoon of Feb. 14 or the morning of Feb. 15. I need all the time, salary and benefits available so my resignation will be effective on Feb. 28.

FYI: Everyone who knows about my required resignation, primarily our USA colleagues and people who are providing references, is astonished that I am being asked to leave. Now that it has been widely reported that departing USAs have either failed to meet performance expectations or that they acted independently ... the situation is so much worse. You know that I am in neither category. This makes me so sad. Why have I been asked to resign? The real reason, especially if true, would be a lot easier to live with. Margaret.






March 4, 2007 e-mail from Chiara to McNulty:

Subject: WDMI

Paul: As you know, I have assiduously avoided public comment by pursuing an informal version of the "witness protection program" in order to elude reporters! However, the legal community in Grand Rapids and organizations throughout Michigan are outraged that I am being labeled "a poor performer." Politics may not be a pleasant reason but the truth is compelling. Know that I am considered a personification of ethics and productivity.

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/03/20/ap3535310.html