Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CBS News)   So Bush is all like, "nuh uh" and the House was like, "subpoenowed" and now the Senate is all like "what they said, biatch"   (cbsnews.com ) divider line
    More: News  
•       •       •

32722 clicks; posted to Main » on 22 Mar 2007 at 12:16 PM (9 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



1657 Comments     (+0 »)
 


Oldest | « | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | » | Newest

 
2007-03-22 02:11:45 PM  
mmm...pancake: You need to catch up. I already explained why I was asking questions. It was to confirm my suspicions that no one could actually come up with any wrongdoing that had been committed and the evidence to back it up.

If I were privvy to wrongdoing, I'd be working on the case, yes? As it is, as a member of the general public, I'm as in thrall as anyone else out there. I can point to what I think the issue is, but I can't say with any certainty. Innocent until proven guilty, and all that. You're pretty obviously trying to do what someone else referred to as "muddying the waters".

If I had hard, fast evidence of wrong-doing, you know what I would do? I wouldn't be here. I'd hit Logan Airport for the next commuter to D.C., head to Congress and I'd say "Hey guys, guess what-- no need to put anybody on the stand, I've got the hard copy right here, all the evidence."

Then everybody would say "OK! Case closed!", we'd move onto final jeopardy, squash the issue, send a couple of people upriver and grab a beer on lower H street.

But it doesn't work like that, babe. Nobody's going to know if any wrongdoing was done for quite a while now. So all your cute little questions are basically at the same level as those of Bush's partisans during the Plame/Wilson/Libby affair: "What crime has been committed? Nothing has been proven, this is all a show trial," they said, before Libby was, I guess, found guilty of absolutely nothing and sent to jail for absolutely nothing.
 
2007-03-22 02:11:53 PM  
Weaver95: scary scary stuff dude. Not that we really had much of a 4th amendment left after the war on drugs anyway but it's just sad to see what's left of our rights die so quickly and without fanfare.

I'm sure they're just doing it to catch all that high quality russian phonesex
 
2007-03-22 02:12:14 PM  
SunOfSam


There is evidence suggesting Gonzales had Bush stymie the investigations of that particular issue when it became apparent that Gonzales was a target of the investigation.


What evidence?
 
2007-03-22 02:12:19 PM  
What a collossal waste of time and money. If the federal prosecutors who were fired feel that it was unjust, let them sue in court for wrongful termination. But if they are going to sue, they would first need to PROVE that there is some evidence to substantiate such a claim before proceeding. Has this happened? Or has this ball been started by complaints alone? Either way, I would hope that the Justice Dpt. followed Human Resources policy before firing them for performance. Let's face it, people get fired every day for all kinds of reasons but we do not interview every person that the firing party spoke to. This is a witch hunt...pure and simple. If it weren't, the Democrats would not insist on public hearings. We all know through experience that most of their allotted time is spent speaking AT the interviewee and not looking for real answers to relevant questions.
 
2007-03-22 02:12:21 PM  
2007-03-22 02:11:11 PM Weaver95

And all this time I was told it was to the 'sound of thunderous applause' ;)
 
2007-03-22 02:12:43 PM  
2007-03-22 01:39:38 PM Mr.Churka


Hibno

Mr.Churka

People get too wrapped up in seeing their team win. Americans need to distance themselves from their political parties. They cheer candidates on like contestants in American Idol instead of using scrutiny and intellect to make well-informed decisions. Both sides are capable of corruption, not just the side you don't like, and it is too important to just let it slide so your team doesn't look bad.

The unity after the 9/11 attacks just weren't enough. I had this tremendous hope a few days afterwards (Inspired largely by Ani Difranco's poem) that people would look at this senseless tragedy and drop the surrealist pursuit of party's and realize how real life is and how much impact their actions have on everyone else. Shock can really be turned to great positive use. Seems it's not to be. I guess no lasting good could be pulled out of disaster this time. Too bad. Generations past managed it.

Mass media mountain wins again.

===============================================


Oh, no you don't blame this on 'the media'. George Bush had a damn 90% approval rating in the months right after 9/11 (I admittedly was in the other 10%). He abused trust and he squandered the 'goodwill' that he had acquired by using the deaths of 3,000+ as momentum to lie us into a war. He used those deaths so silence opposition. He used those deaths to silence journalism and true investigative reporting. He used those deaths to side-step Congressional oversight and FINALLY people woke up to it. People, myself included, called Dems like Hillary and Kerry 'weak' for their support of the war and it STILL disgust me that they compromised their integrity for the purpose of staying politically relevant. However, it is an example of the way that the Dems tried to play the game. They were foolish and they got duped with all of the talk about bi-partisanship and unity. They attempted to do things differently (partly out of fear because of the president's popularity) and they got their asses handed to them. THAT is why things are as they currently are. Even during the time when we were all supposedly united, there was always the insinuation by Conservatives that Democrats would allow the country to be nuked if they had their way. Instead of hope, they used the 'shock' of 9/11 to create fear which they used to control the masses. The partisanship on the part of Conservatives is what destroyed the unity and goodwill that had been created.
 
2007-03-22 02:12:44 PM  
SunOfSam
So your position is that since the dirt might not exist, it should not be investigated? Or that the DOJ should investigate its own scandal? Exactly what the hell are you saying?

What I am saying is that if any of the fired AG's have a valid case for wrongful termination they need to file a chargers as such or file for a civil case and none of them have done that yet. The problem remains that there is no evidence, there is conjecture and accusations which are not even concering criminal activity. Even with everything that has been said so far there are no crimes listed.

When a Democrat can get up their and say Crime X was commited when Whoever was terminated, then I will be willing to say we need to have some investigations, but it hasn't happened because it didn't happen.

Name me a crime that was committed and who is claiming it with some sort of proof that it was really alleged and I will stop posting.
 
2007-03-22 02:13:18 PM  
TheConvincingSavant: Not always.

Interesting. What eventually became of that?
 
2007-03-22 02:13:23 PM  
And all this time I was told it was to the 'sound of thunderous applause' ;)

No, that's just a cliche. we're slowly and quietly dismantling the bill of rights.
 
2007-03-22 02:13:26 PM  
FlashLV

Oh for godssakes, PAGE UP.
 
2007-03-22 02:14:04 PM  
FriarTuck

Did you guys really think that the DOJ was nonpolitical or are you pulling out the good ole fark thread 'play dumb' tactic?

They are appointed via partisan loyalty. But their duties lie with the American Public, not their party, and they are expected to act in a non-partisan member.

Most federal prosecutors have fulfilled their duties in a non-partisan manner.
 
2007-03-22 02:14:07 PM  
Weaver95

you should create an account over there. I suspect you'll like it.


If everyone agrees, how would it be fun? You'll learn nothing new.
 
2007-03-22 02:14:17 PM  
FlashLV

Read the stuff Faethe provided. It's all there for you to read and hopefully comprehend.

/I'm not putting any faith in you though to comprehend it
 
2007-03-22 02:14:36 PM  
Whatever happened to those first 100 hours? So, far I've seen dozens of investigations launched and one non-binding resolution passed...
 
2007-03-22 02:14:50 PM  
equusdc

FlashLV

Oh for godssakes, PAGE UP.


Okay, what am I looking for?
 
2007-03-22 02:14:55 PM  
Anyone else move from the "Hoping For" to the "Expecting" impeachment camps.

Because this thing is really snowballing. I really do expect the GOP senators to realize that their future as a party depends upon them standing up for the constitution and Justice--no matter how much they don't want to.

Just like they did during Watergate.
 
2007-03-22 02:15:01 PM  
baby_hewey: What I am saying is that if any of the fired AG's have a valid case for wrongful termination they need to file a chargers as such or file for a civil case and none of them have done that yet.

But they can't sue for wrongful termination because they can be fired for whatever reason they please.

If obstruction of justice was committed in firing them, then it's not their place to bring it up, especially in a civil suit.

Same goes for the perjury, intimidation, and blackmail possibilities I raised earlier.
 
2007-03-22 02:15:02 PM  
FlashLV

There is evidence suggesting Gonzales had Bush stymie the investigations of that particular issue when it became apparent that Gonzales was a target of the investigation.

This evidence

Circumstancial, but rather provacative none the less. Seeing as I'd trust this adminstration as much as Heroin addict, this needs to be investigated as well.
 
2007-03-22 02:15:19 PM  
2 words: Extraordinary Rendition
 
2007-03-22 02:15:21 PM  

Not always.


oh, yes, the Lewinsky witch hunt.


that certainly was an important matter for Congress to pursue and issue subpoenas over.
 
2007-03-22 02:15:21 PM  
hillbillypharmacist
Bud Cummins was canned in order to place a crony, J. Timothy Griffin, who used to be Rove's aide, in his spot.

Ok that would be "cronyism" at work, but is it illegal?

Because of the status of these people the answer is no it is not illegal, it is however distastfull and impropper, but how does that justify this case of a witchhunt?
 
2007-03-22 02:15:31 PM  
I guess I might also expect a resignation.
 
2007-03-22 02:15:43 PM  
Blood for cream! Blood for cream! Blood for cream!
 
2007-03-22 02:16:19 PM  
baby_hewey: hobnail
What makes it okay for the Senate and House Judiciary Committees to investigate this matter is that the whole thing reeks of cronyism, abuse of power, and general stupidity.

You keep using that word, but I do not think it means what you think it means.

Cronyism is partiality to long-standing friends, especially by appointing them to public office without regard for their qualifications. In political terms, the word "cronyism" is almost always used derogatorily

Well you used it derogatorily, but it would be used in referance to a positive action toward a buddy, these guys were canned which would not be an act of "cronyism", however their hirering might have been.


That's funny. The post you quote is actually the fist time I have ever used that word on this or any other web forum. I'm not even sure how to spell it.

Let me lay this out in words you can understand. Eight US Attorneys were let go. WHO THE fark DO YOU THINK REPLACED THEM?

Cronies.
 
2007-03-22 02:16:39 PM  
After contempt of congress is filed, this will never get past the DC US Attorney anyway.

What's the point?
 
2007-03-22 02:16:40 PM  
equusdc: Oh for godssakes, PAGE UP.

Dude, I'm telling you - save your time and effort for someone that isn't trying to get you to play Whack a Mole with talking points, misdirection, and obfuscation.
 
2007-03-22 02:16:44 PM  
suebhoney


Read the stuff Faethe provided. It's all there for you to read and hopefully comprehend.

/I'm not putting any faith in you though to comprehend it


Ahh, the daily attack from suebhoney. I have noticed that almost all your responses to conservatives or republicans in this thread, you are attack them?

Why is that? Anger issues? Seriously, it's a trend with you.
 
2007-03-22 02:16:46 PM  
baby_hewey

"Name me a crime that was committed and who is claiming it with some sort of proof that it was really alleged and I will stop posting."

Why don't you just go away anyway. If it was smeared on a glass dildo and inserted in your ass you would still deny it existed so howsabout you quit wasting everyone's time?
 
2007-03-22 02:16:48 PM  
Here's an interesting article by way of background, BTW:

U.S. Attorney Patrick J. Fitzgerald was ranked among prosecutors who had "not distinguished themselves" on a Justice Department chart sent to the White House in March 2005, when he was in the midst of leading the CIA leak investigation that resulted in the perjury conviction of a vice presidential aide, administration officials said yesterday.

The ranking placed Fitzgerald below "strong U.S. Attorneys . . . who exhibited loyalty" to the administration but above "weak U.S. Attorneys who . . . chafed against Administration initiatives, etc.," according to Justice documents.

The chart was the first step in an effort to identify U.S. attorneys who should be removed. Two prosecutors who received the same ranking as Fitzgerald were later fired, documents show.
(WaPo)

no pop
 
2007-03-22 02:16:53 PM  
baby_hewey

The problem remains that there is no evidence, there is conjecture and accusations which are not even concering criminal activity.

Seeing as there is plenty of evidence that has been presented in this thread, you've been officially added to the list of willfully ignorant of hopelessly partisan.
 
2007-03-22 02:17:06 PM  
Just_Another_Drug_Overdose_Survivor: Whatever happened to those first 100 hours? So, far I've seen dozens of investigations launched and one non-binding resolution passed...

They promised investigations, also.

/and yes, you are mistaken about either what was promised for the 100 hours, what was accomplished during them, or both.
 
2007-03-22 02:17:12 PM  
Well, when this is all said and done, we can expect both sides to have blood and shiat on their hands.

The first move by the do nothing congress, is to create a constitutional crisis. Well played retards! Are we going to issue subpoenas every time there is a personnel issue with any executive branch employee. This will end right where it started, and all to just score some worthless political points.
 
2007-03-22 02:17:15 PM  
It's merely an attack to discredit, it's very childish.

Republitard?
 
2007-03-22 02:17:20 PM  
"But since the wiretaping is only on international calls WITH KNOWN OR SUSPECTED TERRORIST AFFILIATIONS, that provides the probable cause to justify the listening."

Weaver95: "So basically all the NSA has to say (say - not prove) that they believe someone is suspected to have terrorist ties, and they can wiretap away to their hearts' content?"

From Wiki - "The (2006) Specter-Feinstein bill would extend the peacetime period for obtaining retroactive warrants to seven days and implement other changes to facilitate eavesdropping while maintaining FISA court oversight."

So no, they have proper oversight and with bipartisan consent. It's a legally sound program, although is needed some fixing, which it has recieved.
 
2007-03-22 02:17:28 PM  
TheConvincingSavant

2007-03-22 01:58:31 PM Manfred Richthofen

I seem to remember Clinton's staff complying with the subpoenas.

Not always.


From the article you posted:

The briefs assert that aides cannot be compelled to testify about their private, strategic conversations with the president.

That doesn't seem to be the case here, does it?

As I stated earlier, I'm not sure if Congress can compel the president himself to testify, which would cover his statements (much like attorney-client privilege). I don't think that's the case here, where the conversations between staffs are the issue.
 
2007-03-22 02:17:32 PM  
2007-03-22 02:13:18 PM elchip

Interesting. What eventually became of that?


So he should not have envoked Exec. Privilege.?
 
2007-03-22 02:17:48 PM  
Because this thing is really snowballing. I really do expect the GOP senators to realize that their future as a party depends upon them standing up for the constitution and Justice--no matter how much they don't want to.

I would be very surprised if the Republicans in Congress put country before party. To be fair, neither would the Democrats. It's just that in this rare instance the interests of the country have aligned with the short term interests of the Democrat party, so almost by accident we might see justice done for once.

Just my .02 cents tho.
 
2007-03-22 02:18:17 PM  
I just hope that if they nail Rove he gets thrown in a medium security joint instead of club fed. Same for all of the potential indictees in this mess. Those b@stards all need to eat some prison chow for a while. Maybe Sheriff Joe can send them some pink undies.

Then they need to get put on that new list the feds are handing out to the border cops worldwide so they'll be stuck in the US. Welsome to the age of the Interstate Identification Index mo fos.

Twas all a dream, though. Get out of jail free -- the judge has been paid off!
 
2007-03-22 02:18:32 PM  

Not always.


Well there you have it. Clinton did it once. Bush is completely justified in doing so.

/rolls eyes, stabs forehead with fork
 
2007-03-22 02:18:55 PM  
FriarTuck: Did you guys really think that the DOJ was nonpolitical or are you pulling out the good ole fark thread 'play dumb' tactic?

Well, if that is so obvious, why are you:
1. talking about DA's, for crissakes

and

2. not providing any evidence for your contention?
 
2007-03-22 02:19:03 PM  
2007-03-22 02:15:02 PM SunOfSam

He won't take the time to click those links and read all the evidence.

In his feeble mind, this is a manufactured media shiatstorm and vengeful actions on the part of the Democrats.

He can do nothing other than parrot the neo-con talking points now, because his faithful (R) servants are now part of a bipartisan effort to get these people to testify under oath.

It says a whole lot when even the most loyal of (R)'s on the Hill are calling for testimony under oath.
 
2007-03-22 02:19:10 PM  
So no, they have proper oversight and with bipartisan consent.

If you really believe that, then further discussion is pointless.
 
2007-03-22 02:19:12 PM  
TheConvincingSavant: 2007-03-22 01:58:31 PM Manfred Richthofen

I seem to remember Clinton's staff complying with the subpoenas.

Not always.


From the link you posted:

"Administration sources have acknowledged the risk of invoking privilege: It could be compared with tactics used by the Nixon White House in trying to cover up the Watergate scandal."

Gee, that sounds familiar. Clinton looked like lying scum for doing it then, and Bush looks like lying scum for doing now. Whether they should be legally allowed to cite executive privilege, I'm not going to judge, as I'm no lawyer. But I know how it looks to me, in any case -- like taking the fifth by proxy.
 
2007-03-22 02:19:31 PM  
Basically, government only works when there is significant transparency. The trend over the past few administrations has been to limit information. The current administration has been far and away the greatest offender. Everything they do seems to be on a "need to know" basis. The people quickly lose faith in an opaque system.
 
2007-03-22 02:19:49 PM  
End of story: Although not specifically outlined in the Constitution, the right of the Congress to be the "inquisitor" (the framers' words, not mine) has been upheld in numerous cases, including several which have gone to the Supreme Court. Most notably, the Teapot Dome scandal, which coincidentally involved (wait for it) corruption in the DOJ. If this goes to the Supreme Court, which it shouldn't, based on precedent, they will uphold the ability of the Congress to investigate. "Executive Privelege" has very little basis in precedent, in fact it's largely made-up. During the Whitewater scandal, Clinton's reluctance to submit communications was based on Attorney-Client privelege, which was eventually determined to be irrelevant because there were gov't lawyers present during the discussions in question. He eventually sent everything the Congress asked for, with the stipulation that the Congress state that it did not represent a break down of the President's ability to have a priveleged discussion with a private attorney, which they did. At the end of the day, the Congress DOES have oversight powers over ALL executive branch agencies and the SCOTUS has upheld their right to subpoena just about anyone and everyone in the pursuit of "corruption, maladministration, or malfeasance" in said agencies. At the very least, there is a whiff of two of the above, maybe three, in this case.
 
2007-03-22 02:19:58 PM  
I know the president/DOK can fire US attorneys, however, the matter at hand is did these selected firings obstruct justice?

I believe there was a crime committed (Obstruction of justice, or impeding a federal investigation), but we'll never find out the truth.
 
2007-03-22 02:20:21 PM  
elchip
No, you have it wrong. The term refers to a visitor of freerepublic.com, an ultra-right wing news aggregator and message board.

Ah, well to be honest I have visited freerepublic.com and I even posted in one of their forums. I was also banned for life and since I deal with web filtering at my current job I have several people who are mad that they will not allow anyone from our public IP to post on their site. I think it has to do with the information I had posted concering the NSA wiretaps and the help Verizon gave out to an unnammed 3 letter government dept. concering monitoring CanTV( the Telco of Hugoland). So, no I am not a freeper in any shape form or fashion as I am banned from there forums.
 
2007-03-22 02:20:38 PM  
FlashLV: Why is that? Anger issues? Seriously, it's a trend with you.

You'd better hope she doesn't have a knife, or I fear for your subpoenas. :D
 
2007-03-22 02:20:39 PM  
suebhoney

He won't take the time to click those links and read all the evidence.

Dude, he's a highly skilled troll (you do know that, right?) and he made a reasonable request. I wish he wouldn't fark shiat up so much, but he was being very normal in that post.
 
2007-03-22 02:21:08 PM  
Just_Another_Drug_Overdose_Survivor

"So, far I've seen dozens of investigations launched"

Oh really? Dozens? So that would be at least 24 but your tone suggests more like 36 or 48. I can think of two, maybe three off the top of my head. Can you fill me in on the other 33 or so investigations?
 
Displayed 50 of 1657 comments


Oldest | « | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | » | Newest



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report