Good luck with that Nancy. You're going to need it...

Checks and balances? those are for TERRORISTS! You don't want the TERRORISTS to win, do you? Of course not!

So sit down, shut up and let all the President's men get back to protecting the country!

Weaver95: Checks and balances? those are for TERRORISTS! You don't want the TERRORISTS to win, do you? Of course not!

So sit down, shut up and let all the President's men get back to protecting the country!

It's Turrists. Get it right.

Weaver95: Checks and balances? those are for TERRORISTS! You don't want the TERRORISTS to win, do you? Of course not!

So sit down, shut LOCK up and let all the President's men get back to protecting the country!

_{better, really}

Really, the time to push this was a year ago. Now, with Bush 10 months from leaving, I'm not sure it's worth it to risk having the Supreme Court rule in favor of the President. As distasteful as it is to let Bush off the hook, it might be smarter in the long term to wait for the next President to take office and then discuss how to reestablish checks and balances, either through judicial clarification of selected issues (i.e. role of signing statements) or through constitutional amendments.

What are the odds that after the election, that whoever is next, (I'm rooting for Obama) doesn't block these, or that the congress will still be actively pursuing them?

Like it matters.

/damage already done farkfaces

"The contempt of Congress statute was not intended to apply...to an executive branch official who asserts the president's claim of executive privilege,"
-Mukasey 2008

"When the President does it, that means that it's not illegal."
-Nixon 1974


Republicans: Flaunting disregard for the laws of this country for 30+ years!

/Nixon had apologists too

This is not a Constitutional issue. In fact, the checks and balances assure the AG's discretion to prosecute and/or witch-hunt. Otherwise, there would not be a check and balance. Wtf is wrong with Americans not to realize this? Do they know the meaning of these words? I guess not.

Anyways, it's just a parade to drum up support for Democrats and give Congress even more power to boss around the other branches of government. Way to go, hero. I would LOVE a consolidation of power in the legislative branch. Really.

I wish I could talk my way out of traffic tickets like that.

"You were going 90 in a 40 mph zone"
"That's not important, what's important is The Terrorists that are going to kill us all if you don't show some support! Do you want The Terrorists to win?"
"But.. you.. broke the law..."
"Stop dwelling on the past with your defeatist witch hunt, we need to focus on what's really important, and that's destroying The Terrorists!"

It's a good thing there are checks and balances to keep the three branches equal. I guess some branches are just more equal than others though.

The Bush Administration has stated, on the record, that the president was not involved in the firing of the prosecutors. So where is the executive privilege?

xkillyourfacex: This is not a Constitutional issue. In fact, the checks and balances assure the AG's discretion to prosecute and/or witch-hunt. Otherwise, there would not be a check and balance. Wtf is wrong with Americans not to realize this? Do they know the meaning of these words? I guess not.

Anyways, it's just a parade to drum up support for Democrats and give Congress even more power to boss around the other branches of government. Way to go, hero. I would LOVE a consolidation of power in the legislative branch. Really.


The issue with your troll here is that the legislative branch is approx. 535 people all with differing opinions on issues and what not. Even if they had more power, it really wouldn't matter because they block themselves. The executive, while it has many people, really comes down to one man. So he consolidating power is much worse than the legislative.

/Nice try though.
//I'll give it a 5

You'll get your checks and balances when the courts decide the executive privilege issue. When the courts rule in favor of the President, that will be a check and balance against congressional abuse of power.

xkillyourfacex: This is not a Constitutional issue. In fact, the checks and balances assure the AG's discretion to prosecute and/or witch-hunt. Otherwise, there would not be a check and balance. Wtf is wrong with Americans not to realize this? Do they know the meaning of these words? I guess not.

Anyways, it's just a parade to drum up support for Democrats and give Congress even more power to boss around the other branches of government. Way to go, hero. I would LOVE a consolidation of power in the legislative branch. Really.

The legislative branch has been laboring tirelessly for over 50 years to give it's power away to the executive branch. Congress today is no where near as powerful as it was fifty years ago.

Partisan: The Bush Administration has stated, on the record, that the president was not involved in the firing of the prosecutors. So where is the executive privilege?

In the man-sized safe in Cheney's office.

xkillyourfacex: This is not a Constitutional issue. In fact, the checks and balances assure the AG's discretion to prosecute and/or witch-hunt. Otherwise, there would not be a check and balance. Wtf is wrong with Americans not to realize this? Do they know the meaning of these words? I guess not.

Do you really not have an issue with the huge loophole that is opened if, for example, the President were doing something illegal, and the AG were a party to it? The crux being that nobody, truly nobody, could do anything to stop it?

Well good. Finally. Took Pelosi and Reid long enough to get a backbone. Morons.

This Administration is full of crazy law breakers, and to paraphrase someone brilliant (Teresa Nielsen Hayden), I hate how Bush makes me feel like a nutbar conspiracy theorist.

Executive privilege, obstruction of justice... Tomayto, tomahto...

Just another brick in the magnificent edifice of corruption, cronyism and sleaze that is the enduring legacy of the Bush administration.

SkinnyHead: You'll get your checks and balances when the courts decide the executive privilege issue. When the courts rule in favor of the President, that will be a check and balance against congressional abuse of power.

How much is Bush paying you? It's too much for 'quality' like that...

This is the only, ONLY reason I would feel any sense of satisfaction if Hillary Clinton makes it into the White House - all these shiny new presidential powers the Republicans so carefully crafted to be unassailable would suddenly be in the hands of one of the most ruthless political thugs in the Democratic party. She would then use them to crush and subjugate the Republicans just as effectively as the Republicans crushed and subjugated opposition during the last administration.

Be wary when inventing weaponry, lest they fall into the hands of your adversaries.

/A new Clinton administration otherwise scares the crap out of me, because two consecutive presidents using those powers would set something of a precedent for their existence and that would be very tough to later remove.

Mentat: Really, the time to push this was a year ago. Now, with Bush 10 months from leaving, I'm not sure it's worth it to risk having the Supreme Court rule in favor of the President.

Good point, but I think that politically now is actually the perfect time to prosecute it.

If they win this prosecution, the Democrats can point fingers at the Republicans as being corrupt, criminals, liars, cronies, etc., and position themselves as the only option to uphold the constitution and the rule of law in the November election

If they lose they can say that they pursued the matter to a just conclusion as a matter of principle, instead of just sweeping it away, and will abide the lawful decision to keep these new Executive powers when (if?) they take the presidency in November.

There is no lose for Democrats in this.

Mentat: Really, the time to push this was a year ago. Now, with Bush 10 months from leaving, I'm not sure it's worth it to risk having the Supreme Court rule in favor of the President. As distasteful as it is to let Bush off the hook, it might be smarter in the long term to wait for the next President to take office and then discuss how to reestablish checks and balances, either through judicial clarification of selected issues (i.e. role of signing statements) or through constitutional amendments.

Obama needs the current system to remain in place so he will have the tools to crush is enemies!

c7hu1hu fh746n: Weaver95: Checks and balances? those are for TERRORISTS! You don't want the TERRORISTS to win, do you? Of course not!

So sit down, shut up and let all the President's men get back to protecting the country!

It's Turrists. Get it right.

You're both wrong. Bush has said MANY times that the greatest threat to national security is tourists. BOMB THEM!

So which one are farkers for? Congressional privilege ala Congressman Jefferson or Executive Privilege? Cause I've heard people railing for Jefferson and against Bush... Btw, I would want an independent branch set up to monitor the executive, not congress.

MyRandomName: Congressional privilege ala Congressman Jefferson or Executive Privilege?

How about neither? If it's not a definitive national security risk, the public should have total access. Transparency FTW.

MyRandomName: Btw, I would want an independent branch set up to monitor the executive, not congress.

A new, unaccountable branch with nearly unlimited power over the executive? That sound like it will work out well.

Wait. No it doesn't.

MyRandomName: So which one are farkers for? Congressional privilege ala Congressman Jefferson or Executive Privilege? Cause I've heard people railing for Jefferson and against Bush... Btw, I would want an independent branch set up to monitor the executive, not congress.

I don't know where, and I imagine people are just that pro-democrat anti-bush, but I've been lurking in these threads for years and I've never seen a single post defending Jefferson for "congressional privilege." If someone is corrupt and breaks the law, they should suffer the consequences. I don't care if they have a D or an R in front of their name.

/Should be investigating this administration...

SphericalTime: MyRandomName: Btw, I would want an independent branch set up to monitor the executive, not congress.

A new, unaccountable branch with nearly unlimited power over the executive? That sound like it will work out well.

Wait. No it doesn't.

When you allow partisan investigations, it's never pretty. It becomes petty. Set up a group with equal dems/repubs in it. Don't let party politics go into investigations.

It's too bad we no longer have an non-partisan, independent prosecutor like Ken Starr to get to the bottom of this. Someone who could be counted on to put aside his partisanship in order to find evidence of legitimate wrong-doing. Someone say, like Howard Dean.

It's a good thing republicans had the non-partisan Ken Starr to investigate every iota of the Clinton presidency. Otherwise, people might have thought that they were engaged in some sort of witch hunt.

AG says there was no crime committed so he's not serving the subpeonas.

What's not to understand?

/No, not for the courts to decide. He did that already.

Sleeping Monkey: It's a good thing republicans had the non-partisan Ken Starr to investigate every iota of the Clinton presidency.

Wow, that is impressive. What is the degree of difficulty in a reverse "B...b..but Clinton"

Mastervader: SkinnyHead: You'll get your checks and balances when the courts decide the executive privilege issue. When the courts rule in favor of the President, that will be a check and balance against congressional abuse of power.

How much is Bush paying you? It's too much for 'quality' like that...

Don't feed the Creationist.

Shaggy_C: How about neither? If it's not a definitive national security risk, the public should have total access. Transparency FTW.

That's pre 9/11 thinking there. Everything these days is national security. Cause our entire way of life is under attack or something.

The Executive Branch has decided that the Executive branch doesn't need to be investigated. How many more checks and balances do you people need?

There is a MASSIVE scandal underneath all of this, a scandal which would make Watergate look like a BJ. They turned the DOJ into a partisan vote suppression unit, fired US Attorneys who wouldn't play ball and are now setting a precedent that would have been unfathomable ten years ago.

If the Administration is so squeaky farking clean, what are they hiding?

Yes, Congress is looking toothless (although our government's system of checks and balances wasn't really designed for games of legal chicken the White House is playing), but I'm hoping they're ramping up for something on March 15.

I would get a ridiculous poetic boner if Congress made a major legislative move and also ordered the House/Senate Sergeant-At-Arms to arrest Miers and Bolten on the ides of March, to prevent the Senate (well, all Congress) from becoming a puppet power before Caesar (well, the president).

Alternate awesome scenario proposal:

The entire House of Representatives marches to the White House and dances on the lawn. Then Pelosi walks up to Mukasey and says "You just got SERVED."

Chewbacca defense?

Bloody William: Yes, Congress is looking toothless (although our government's system of checks and balances wasn't really designed for games of legal chicken the White House is playing), but I'm hoping they're ramping up for something on March 15.

I would get a ridiculous poetic boner if Congress made a major legislative move and also ordered the House/Senate Sergeant-At-Arms to arrest Miers and Bolten on the ides of March, to prevent the Senate (well, all Congress) from becoming a puppet power before Caesar (well, the president).

"Et tu, Pelose?"

This is no surprise.

Congress should refuse to vote on anyone bush might nominate for anything. It's the only way to keep his corrupt yes men out.

xkillyourfacex: This is not a Constitutional issue. In fact, the checks and balances assure the AG's discretion to prosecute and/or witch-hunt. Otherwise, there would not be a check and balance. Wtf is wrong with Americans not to realize this? Do they know the meaning of these words? I guess not.

Anyways, it's just a parade to drum up support for Democrats and give Congress even more power to boss around the other branches of government. Way to go, hero. I would LOVE a consolidation of power in the legislative branch. Really.

What country are you in, because you aren't in the US.

And-1: Good point, but I think that politically now is actually the perfect time to prosecute it.

The problem is perception. If the Democrats had punched Bush in the nose (figuratively speaking) early on, he might have been reluctant to keep pushing the envelope. As it is, the Republicans believe that all they have to do is growl at the Democratic leadership to get them to back down, and for good reason: every time they growl, the Democrats back down. They backed down on the war, they backed down on SCHIP, they're backing down on FISA - again, and they'll probably back down on this as well.

They should have begun impeachment hearings on Mulkasey the moment he made that announcement.

There is absolutely no excuse for the AG to quite literally refuse to do his duty in delivering a subpoena/citation to a grand jury.

And there is absolutely no excuse for the Democratic Congress not to put their foot down on these abuses of power once and for all with all of the legal might they can muster.

The fact that they're just going to sit back and let the Bush administration run out the clock without incurring consequences for these abuses shows you exactly why their approval rating has sunk so low. Even when the Bush administration backhands them across the face, they just cringe and make only threats they know to be empty.

Farking cowards...

yet again, the truly incompetent don't even know they are incompetent, and SkinnyHead managed to spew verbal diarrhea all over the fark forums.

You would think that someone with a GED in Law would have an even basic understanding of legal history, but yet again, what do you except from an Intelligent Designer c-design proponent-reationist.

The courts already decided on the executive privilege crap, and it was called US v. Nixon.

Pick up a book, you raging moron.

MyRandomName: So which one are farkers for? Congressional privilege ala Congressman Jefferson or Executive Privilege? Cause I've heard people railing for Jefferson and against Bush... Btw, I would want an independent branch set up to monitor the executive, not congress.

Congressional Privilege has an explicit Constitutional Basis (The Speech and Debate clause). The Executive has no such clause, indicating the executive does not have such protections, since the Framers thought of the issue and didn't put it in.

superstevo: ...and SkinnyHead managed to spew verbal diarrhea all over the fark forums.

Gee whiz, Steve, it was only two sentences in this thread. I wouldn't call that full blown verbal diarrhea. Maybe just a verbal skid mark or two.

The courts already decided on the executive privilege crap, and it was called US v. Nixon.

Pick up a book, you raging moron.

That's right, Steve. In US v. Nixon, Supreme Court held that Presidential communications are presumptively privileged, and that this presumptive executive privilege stems from the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers.

If the President instructs subordinates to assert executive privilege, the assertion of the privilege is presumed valid unless and until the party seeking to overcome the privilege proves in court that the interest in obtaining the information outweighs the President's interest in maintaining confidentiality.

Because the assertion of executive privilege is presumed valid, Bolten and Miers have committed no crime.

Prospero424 Thanks, but I'm not a troll. I'm a devil's advocate.

It is a matter of public law and tradition that the AG has near absolute discretion in prosecutions and investigations. You don't have to like this for it to be true. It is a matter of history that their discretion was established to secure checks and balances. THAT is why this is not a Constitutional matter.

Go to school. You might learn something.

SkinnyHead: superstevo: ...and SkinnyHead managed to spew verbal diarrhea all over the fark forums.

Gee whiz, Steve, it was only two sentences in this thread. I wouldn't call that full blown verbal diarrhea. Maybe just a verbal skid mark or two.

The courts already decided on the executive privilege crap, and it was called US v. Nixon.

Pick up a book, you raging moron.

That's right, Steve. In US v. Nixon, Supreme Court held that Presidential communications are presumptively privileged, and that this presumptive executive privilege stems from the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers.

If the President instructs subordinates to assert executive privilege, the assertion of the privilege is presumed valid unless and until the party seeking to overcome the privilege proves in court that the interest in obtaining the information outweighs the President's interest in maintaining confidentiality.

Because the assertion of executive privilege is presumed valid, Bolten and Miers have committed no crime.

There's no worship like Bush worship.