BS: Bush draws a line in the quick sand

Subject: BS: Bush draws a line in the quick sand
From: Donuel
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 08:07 AM

"It will be regrettsble if Congress tries to hold show trials and supeona my staff..."

Yesterday Bush read his response to the Federal prosecuters being fired by Gonzales and Rove with attitude and his usual difficulty reading the script.
He declared executive priviledge to prevent Harriet Myers and Rove from being questioned under oath.

My wife pointed out that both Karl and Harriet ARE NOT EVEN CIVIL SERVANTS. They are political appointees and are not subject to goverment guarantees and protections. In fact Harriet isn't even employed as an appointee any more.

W is stretching executive priviledge beyond its inteneded use although I am not sure if this is unprecedented.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush draws a line in the quick sand
From: Amos
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 09:32 AM

See the Times editorial excerpted in the "Popular Views of the Bush Administration" thread; the Times essentially agrees with you.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush draws a line in the quick sand
From: Sorcha
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 09:39 AM

The man is a fool and doesn't know when to stop digging.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush draws a line in the quick sand
From: Donuel
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 10:48 AM

Thanks I should trace the Bush thread to conserve and condense bush topics.

I will look for the unlikely scenarios that could play out.

1: Rove refuses to be interviewed under oath and is held in contempt of Congress and pays his $1,000 fine after a court procedure that is overseen by Gonzales.

2: All hell breaks loose as the administration seeks revenge against Congress and visa versa.

3: Republicans with more money than god bribes/kills a Democrat to switch parties giving Congressional control back to Bush.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush draws a line in the quick sand
From: Rapparee
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 11:10 AM

Yeah, Nixon said the same sort of thing....

Subject: RE: BS: Bush draws a line in the quick sand
From: Amos
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 11:36 AM

The parallels are interesting. Power corrupts, and the difference seems to be that Republicans like it that way.

I can sympathize with Bush, that it is getting hard to get anything done anymore. He used to be more efficacious when he had Congress AND the media wrapped up. And if he hadn't abused his authority he might still. The problem is when he could get things done, the things he got done were all the wrong things, and he got 'em done rather badly, too! :D

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush draws a line in the quick sand
From: Amos
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 01:54 PM

WASHINGTON, March 21 — A House Judiciary subcommittee today authorized subpoenas for Karl Rove, President Bush's political adviser, and other senior White House officials in the investigation into the firing of eight United States attorneys.

Democrats said the subpoenas, approved on a voice vote of the panel, would not be issued immediately but could provide leverage for Congress in trying to win the testimony of the aides being sought.

"We have worked toward voluntary cooperation on this investigation, but we must prepare for the possibility that the Justice Department and White House will continue to hide the truth," said Representative Linda Sanchez of California, chairwoman of the subcommittee on commercial and administrative law.

Republicans on the subcommittee said they did not dispute the power of Congress to call the officials, but said the action was premature and smacked of politics.

"The only purpose of the subpoenas is to the fan the flames and photo ops of partisan controversy," said Representative Chris Cannon of Utah, the senior Republican on the subcommittee.

President Bush and Congress appear to be headed toward a constitutional showdown over the demands for testimony and for internal White House documents.

Under growing political pressure, the White House had offered to allow private interviews with Mr. Rove, Harriet E. Miers, the former White House counsel; and two other officials. It also offered to provide access to e-mail messages and other communications about the dismissals, but not those between White House officials.

Democrats promptly rejected the offer, which specified that the officials would not testify under oath, that there would be no transcript and that Congress would not subsequently subpoena them.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush draws a line in the quick sand
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 03:24 PM

The whole concept of executive privilege should be tossed out on its ear. It's Congress, not the Presidency, which most closely represents the voice of the people, and when Congress, on behalf of you and me says, "We want to know the truth!" then anyone, from the President on down, should be compelled to give sworn testimony.

A privilege is not a right. A privilege is something that has to be earned. To retain a privilege, one must follow a set of rules, and Mr. Bush has trampled upon the rulebook at every opportunity.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush draws a line in the quick sand
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 07:34 PM

You miss the whole point - george;s mates want to have an elected Dictatorship. - Just like in the first Roamin' Empire - those idiots are still Roamin the Globe, you see...

Subject: RE: BS: Bush draws a line in the quick sand
From: DougR
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 07:59 PM

As I understand it, Executive Priviledge does not apply in cases where there is a felony and that is why both Nixon and Clinton could not claim it.

If the Democrats issue subpeonas as they have threatened to do, it will probably be settled in court.

Bush is simply doing what any other president would do to protect the rights of the Executive branch of govenment.

He has made a reasonable offer to compromise with the Democrats but they have turned him down. If I didn't know how righteous the Democrats are, I might suspect that this whole affair is based on politics.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush draws a line in the quick sand
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 08:06 PM

"a reasonable offer to compromise" - "the officials would not testify under oath, that there would be no transcript and that Congress would not subsequently subpoena them. "


Jeez - I'd rob banks too if I could get that sort of immunity!

Subject: RE: BS: Bush draws a line in the quick sand
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 08:08 PM

Yes, Doug, these things usually are based on politics, but sometimes they are also part of the means to a greater end.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush draws a line in the quick sand
From: Donuel
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 09:05 PM

Please don't say corruption.

The PC word for corruption is loyalty.
Those who practice it are called patriots or inside the beltway "Bushies".
If you lie or commit a crime for the administration you are said to have distinguished yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush draws a line in the quick sand
From: Amos
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 09:08 PM

Why was freedom to lie or deceive with no responsibility a "reasonable offer", Doug?

Maybe they were worried someone would have to lie under oath, legally known as perjury.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush draws a line in the quick sand
From: Donuel
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 09:23 PM

Free Duke Cunningham!   Free Duke Cunningham!

It was one of those fired attorneys who began the whole unfair investigation against the Duke.

By the time she was fired, the case had too much momentum to stop.

If anything these "prosecutors" were fired too late.

There is one thing I cna't stand and that is a person who is paid to be loyal and then goes and betrays the hand that feeds them.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush draws a line in the quick sand
From: Rapparee
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 09:31 PM

The Senate has for a couple of decades now been confirming federal prosecutors...it started with Reagan, I think. Last Fall, when the Patriot Act was renewed, a clause was slipped in at the last moment that permitted the President and/or Justice Department to remove federal prosecutors without reason.

For example, Carol Lam (San Diego) was fired. She had investigated Randall "Duke" Cunningham and may have found more evidence of more corruption:

Referring to the Bush administration's purge of former San Diego-based U.S. attorney Carol Lam, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) questioned recently on the Senate floor whether she was let go because she was "about to investigate other people who were politically powerful."

The media reports this morning that among Lam's politically powerful targets were former CIA official Kyle "Dusty" Foggo and then-House Appropriations Committee Chairman Jerry Lewis (R-CA). But there is evidence to believe that the White House may also have been on Lam's target list. Here are the connections:

    – Washington D.C. defense contractor Mitchell Wade pled guilty last February to paying then-California Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham more than $1 million in bribes.

    – Wade's company MZM Inc. received its first federal contract from the White House. The contract, which ran from July 15 to August 15, 2002, stipulated that Wade be paid $140,000 to "provide office furniture and computers for Vice President Dick Cheney."

    – Two weeks later, on August 30, 2002, Wade purchased a yacht for $140,000 for Duke Cunningham. The boat's name was later changed to the "Duke-Stir." Said one party to the sale: "I knew then that somebody was going to go to jail for that…Duke looked at the boat, and Wade bought it — all in one day. Then they got on the boat and floated away."

    – According to Cunningham's sentencing memorandum, the purchase price of the boat had been negotiated through a third-party earlier that summer, around the same time the White House contract was signed.

To recap, the White House awarded a one-month, $140,000 contract to an individual who never held a federal contract. Two weeks after he got paid, that same contractor used a cashier's check for exactly that amount to buy a boat for a now-imprisoned congressman at a price that the congressman had pre-negotiated. (Netscape News)

At the very least the timing was extraordinarily bad!

Let's also remember that federal prosecutors, like Rove, Snow, Meiers and others, are not civil service employees and hence do not have the protections such employment might give.

Let's not forget that according to internal White House memos and emails there was mention made of firing ALL 93 Federal prosecutors. What this would have done to ongoing investigations into crimes of all sorts staggers the imagination.

I think it's necessary to get to the bottom of this, in public and on the record. To do less will be to hoodwink the American people.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush draws a line in the quick sand
From: Barry Finn
Date: 22 Mar 07 - 12:59 AM

Waterboard them!

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Bush draws a line in the quick sand
From: kendall
Date: 22 Mar 07 - 07:38 AM

On the surface it looks like politics at its worst. However, upon closer examination, I have to wonder this: If Bush is willing to allow Rove to "talk" to the Judiciary committee, that looks good, but when he adds "Not under oath" it begins to smell. He says he has nothing to hide. Ok, does that mean he has already hidden it?

Someone said recently that Washington is a city whose main business is destroying people. Sure looks like that's true, to me, Washington is the world's most beautiful cesspool. A pox on the whole damned gang of them.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush draws a line in the quick sand
From: DougR
Date: 22 Mar 07 - 01:19 PM

Amos: you have proof Carl Rove would lie? If you believe that, what leads you to believe he wouldn't lie under oath?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush draws a line in the quick sand
From: jeffp
Date: 22 Mar 07 - 01:30 PM

Fear of a perjury conviction?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush draws a line in the quick sand
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Mar 07 - 02:19 PM

The only reason I can imagine someone might object to giving testimony under oath (or the equivalent - ie affirming) would be if they were intending to lie, and wished to avoid laying themselves open to perjury charges if the truth emerges.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush draws a line in the quick sand
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 23 Mar 07 - 02:24 AM

As the old joke joes about 2 guys looking at the stuffed dingo

"He looks so real! Is he stuffed mate?"

"I don't think he looks too good mate!"

Subject: RE: BS: Bush draws a line in the quick sand
From: Rapparee
Date: 23 Mar 07 - 08:41 AM

Doug, if Clinton lied under oath (as has been repeatedly pointed out), why wouldn't Rove or anyone else lie to Congress? Even under oath?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush draws a line in the quick sand
From: Amos
Date: 23 Mar 07 - 10:15 AM

DougR:

Well, to start with, we're talking politicians. For another, we're talking Bush whackers. So I think, by extrapolation, there is a high probability approaching certainty that if it would serve his interests Mister Rove would lie through his teeth.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush draws a line in the quick sand
From: DougR
Date: 23 Mar 07 - 02:13 PM

So what's the point, then, of insisting he be questioned under oath?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush draws a line in the quick sand
From: dianavan
Date: 23 Mar 07 - 04:08 PM

... he could then be tried for perjury.

It would be a good day for America.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush draws a line in the quick sand
From: Amos
Date: 23 Mar 07 - 06:53 PM

Oh, my. At leeast, an interesting day!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush draws a line in the quick sand
From: GUEST,282RA
Date: 23 Mar 07 - 07:26 PM

With misleading the country into war with lies, mistreatment of prisoners/detainees, severe contractor waste, fraud & abuse, warrantless wiretapping, lack of adequate medical care for the wounded--why is it then that the only things that seem to hurt the GOP are bs like the Mark Foley thing and this firing 8 US attorneys? Does the phrase "sweat the bullshit" come to mind? It does for me. Bush should be getting his ass impeached right now and they're having a big how-to-do in Washington over a handful of US attorney firings. Like WHO CARES??????

Some pee-pees need to start getting whacked here!! I don't care about these US attorneys--all republican appointees anyway. There's some REAL crimes here that need to be investigated, charges filed, hearings and trials held, convictions made, sentences handed down. Why aren't we seeing that????

Subject: RE: BS: Bush draws a line in the quick sand
From: Bev and Jerry
Date: 23 Mar 07 - 08:39 PM

From the Associated Press:

Former Deputy Interior Secretary J. Steven Griles on Friday became the highest-ranking Bush administration official convicted in the Jack Abramoff influence-peddling scandal, pleading guilty to obstructing justice by lying to a Senate committee. more

Does anyone else see the irony in this?

Bev and Jerry

Subject: RE: BS: Bush draws a line in the quick sand
From: Bobert
Date: 23 Mar 07 - 09:03 PM

Hey, like what's the big diff if someone lies ***under oath*** or ***not under oath***???

Bush lied and used the memeories of 9/11 to get our country into Iraqmire and, hey, had he done it under oath it wouldn't make any difference to the families of the 3500 plus Americans (contract and enlisted) who have died or the families of upwards of 650,000 Iraqi families who have lost family members...

This is just silly politics... The Repubs beat up Clinton because he lied ***under oath*** because of the friggin' "rule of law" yet now want their guys to continue liein' thry their theethe with no reprecussions???

This, my friends, is the hypocritcal of the highest order... Make Slick Willie look like Jesus compared to the these liein' sacks of manure...

Bobert...

Subject: RE: BS: Bush draws a line in the quick sand
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 23 Mar 07 - 11:23 PM

282RA, you're correct that the fired attorneys issue is relatively insignificant when compared with the major blunders of the Bush administration. But let us not forget that Al Capone was put away for income tax evasion, not murder. If it takes the relatively minor issue of a few fired attorneys to convince a few thousand wheat farmers in Iowa that Bush is an arrogant SOB who thinks he's above the law, so be it. The Emperor's new clothes are becoming easier to see through and this issue is adding to their transparency.

Also, most executive actions can be defended as policy decisions. If a President has a choice to respond to a given situation by doing either A or B, and he chooses to do A which proves, a couple of years later, to have been a poor choice, he's guilty of a bad policy decision. But the firing of those eight US Attorneys cannot be seen as simply a bad policy decision. They were fired for the specific purpose of stifling ongoing or pending criminal investigations. That's not policymaking, it's obstruction of justice.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush draws a line in the quick sand
From: Donuel
Date: 24 Mar 07 - 11:30 AM

Re read the Rapaire post.

The Duke Cunningham case had evidence that included the involvment of Dick Cheney's office.

The attorney got too close for comfort. She had to go halfway into the Duke Cunningham case. Sad for the adminiastration the case had already gone too far to make it go away.

Overall the attorneys were loyal to the administration in that they investigated roughly 300 democrats and only 40 Republicans.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush draws a line in the quick sand
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 24 Mar 07 - 09:27 PM

It seems ok to ride the tiger's back for a while - until he gets hungry, or even just pissed off...

Subject: RE: BS: Bush draws a line in the quick sand
From: Peace
Date: 24 Mar 07 - 09:34 PM

"Their e-mail exchange on Nov. 17, 2006, offered little hint of the firestorm that's now fueling talk of Gonzales' resignation and threatens a legal showdown between Congress and the White House.

Congressional Democrats suspect that at least some of the prosecutors were fired because they resisted pressure to go after Democrats or to go easy on Republicans. The House and Senate Judiciary Committees have prepared subpoenas to force public testimony on the matter from current and former White House officials if President Bush refuses to make them available.

Congressional investigators are particularly interested in talking to Rove, Bush's chief political operative. Previously released e-mails show that Rove took an early interest in the plan to fire U.S. attorneys, but the extent of his involvement remains unclear."

Full story here.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush draws a line in the quick sand
From: GUEST,282RA
Date: 25 Mar 07 - 12:48 PM

>>282RA, you're correct that the fired attorneys issue is relatively insignificant when compared with the major blunders of the Bush administration. But let us not forget that Al Capone was put away for income tax evasion, not murder.<<

Bush is not going to be put away. We don't send presidents to prison. If he gets out of office without being impeached, he got away with it. No one will bother with him after that and it seems that's exactly what the democrats want--for Bush to make it through his term and leave and I say that it is UNACCEPTABLE!! Even if Cheney becomes president, so what? Talk about a lame duck. And with his health he'll sit one day as president. Bush needs to be impeached and cheney with him to send a message to future presidents that they are on a short leash.

>>If it takes the relatively minor issue of a few fired attorneys to convince a few thousand wheat farmers in Iowa that Bush is an arrogant SOB who thinks he's above the law, so be it.<<

It won't convince them. They'll support no matter what he does. In their eyes it's just a liberal commie plot to destroy the greatest president we evwer had--one appointed by god. Consequently, I don't care what these people think and don't care to try and convince them of anything. They can go sulk in a corner and go join the Klan for all I care. We need to take care of some very unfinished business.

We can throw the rest of right wing agitators/true believers into the fire after we get rid of the head sonofabitch. We do need to purge this country but let's start at the top and work our way down.

>>The Emperor's new clothes are becoming easier to see through and this issue is adding to their transparency.<<

If you haven't seen that since at least 2004 then you're not going to start seeing it now. The very fact that bush is offering to let them testify in closed sessions without being under oath should outrage the public--he wants them to be able to lie without consequence--and yet, where's the outrage?

>>Also, most executive actions can be defended as policy decisions. If a President has a choice to respond to a given situation by doing either A or B, and he chooses to do A which proves, a couple of years later, to have been a poor choice, he's guilty of a bad policy decision. But the firing of those eight US Attorneys cannot be seen as simply a bad policy decision. They were fired for the specific purpose of stifling ongoing or pending criminal investigations. That's not policymaking, it's obstruction of justice.<<

Obstructing justice has been this adminstration's policy from day one and they're still in power. It's a waste of time. I hate Gonzalez but he's just a sad, stupid, pathetic Bush ass-kisser and I don't consider him worth the waste of energy it will take to oust him. We need to ousting someone else right now.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush draws a line in the quick sand
From: Rapparee
Date: 25 Mar 07 - 02:42 PM

If brains were dynamite Bush couldn't blow his nose. Look to those who pull the marionette's strings: Rove, Cheney, et al.