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 1657
    More: News  
•       •       •

32711 clicks; posted to Main » on 22 Mar 2007 at 12:16 PM (7 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



1657 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | » | Last
 
2007-03-22 02:21:09 PM
I don't think that's the case here, where the conversations between staffs are the issue.

That's exactly why we have exective privilege. Otherwise, no President ever can have personal advisors without fear that they'll be pulled in by Congress for a fishing expedition.
 
2007-03-22 02:21:09 PM
TheConvincingSavant: So he should not have envoked Exec. Privilege.?

Executive privilege seems to be a canard in most cases. So you are correct, he should not have.

But what eventually happened there?
 
2007-03-22 02:21:11 PM
FlashLV

Honestly, it's just dousing you and others with their own doses of medicine I've seen you all dish out over the last 3 or so years.

You and them are the types that like to dish it out but can't take it when it's thrown back in your face.

It's a bitter pill for you to swallow, I understand, but everyone needs to take their medicine every once and a while.
 
2007-03-22 02:21:12 PM
Mmmmmm, Karl's flesh is so pasty white and pure, just like rising bread dough before the first punch. I want to eat it now, all of it.
/raped
 
2007-03-22 02:21:48 PM
Yes, we DO want a Constitutional confrontation, Senator Specter.

Bush claims to be a "Strict Constructionist" regarding the Constitution, except when things don't go his way. Whiny little shiat. There is no Constitutional authority for anyone in his administration, INCLUDING HIM, to resist a Congressional subpoena.

It's high time we ENFORCE some dignity and truth on these scumbags in the Bush administration.

Dear Congress,
It's subpoena time, and quite frankly, while you're on the topic, get those records from Dick Cheney's energy policy meetings, mm'kay?
Signed,
Everyone who wants truth and an open and honest government.
 
2007-03-22 02:22:04 PM
Skleenar

Anyone else move from the "Hoping For" to the "Expecting" impeachment camps.

Because this thing is really snowballing.


Oh my god! It's SNOWBALLING?!? Why didn't somebody say so?!? That's like one step dirtier than MONICA (and maybe a little ghey TOO!). NOW I can be outraged and not have Jesus be mad at me for dissing President Chosen One!
Disgusting! ;P

img.photobucket.com
 
2007-03-22 02:22:06 PM
phillyguy1547: It's not the blow job attorney firings ... it's the LYING about the blow job attorney firings that's the real issue.

Sound familiar to anyone????


Nice try, but I'm afraid the real problem is the subversion of the legal system. The lies are the tip of the iceberg. Gonzalez was manipulating the system inappropriately.

More so, I couldn't care less what Bush wants at this point. As far as anybody knows, he isn't involved. There's no need to involve him unless his name gets thrown around during the investigation.
 
2007-03-22 02:22:12 PM
This is not about the right to fire the prosecutors at will but about obstruction of justice. Just like with Clinton it wasn't about the blow job but about perjury.
 
2007-03-22 02:23:00 PM
baby_hewey: So, no I am not a freeper in any shape form or fashion as I am banned from there forums.

Well, it's become a catch-all term for all manner of extreme right-wingers.

/I don't remember personally calling you a freeper
 
2007-03-22 02:23:39 PM
baby_hewey: but how does that justify this case of a witchhunt?

No kidding... after all the shenanigans that this admin has pulled off, for which there is clear evidence of wrongdoing, the senate & congress decide to finally grow a backbone over THIS?

Think maybe its a trojan horse? The Bush admin finally gets a wristslap (or more likely dodges one) for this little piddly cronyism mess, & THAT becomes their dark stain, instead of election fraud, 911, the failed war on terror, the misguided war on iraq, election fraud (again), enron, halliburton, etc etc etc.
 
2007-03-22 02:23:53 PM
beaters

The thing is, the way it looks right now is that the Bush team committed a number of political sins-- revenge hits, more or less-- without anything that could be construed as a felony. That is probably what makes this different from Watergate. Unethical and immoral, probably not illegal per se. The illegality is coming in the cover-up, which we are seeing unravel right now. That's where the Watergate comparisons come in- not the crime, the cover-up, etc. The Senate is pressing this because they don't want to lose it in the haze. Harry Reid is absolutely right, Bush has proven himself to not deserve the BoD, and his hissy fit the other night can tell anyone who's familiar with children or criminals or anyone who's trying to cover something up he's hiding something.
 
2007-03-22 02:24:00 PM
FlashLV
Okay, what am I looking for?

That's a bit existential... Have you tried Sartre?
 
2007-03-22 02:24:13 PM
So no, they have proper oversight and with bipartisan consent.

Weaver95: "If you really believe that, then further discussion is pointless."

Then I ask you again, where is the outcry from the Pelosi Dems to right this wrong, that according to you is still here? Where is the new House legislation introduced by our more enlightened Dems to rid us of this scourge to our Constitution?
 
2007-03-22 02:24:16 PM
elchip

I did. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and is named baby_hewey, it must be a duck ;)

/ducks
 
2007-03-22 02:24:39 PM
Before I go away, I'd like to say, not that many of you care, that I do believe in some degree of executive privilege. The question of EP is largely a balancing test between the public interest served via transparency and accountability, and via policy confidentiality, which is occasionally necessary.

But I do not believe any public interest will be served by keeping the real reason behind the firing of federal prosecutors secret. If the stated reason is in fact the real reason, great, but there should at least be an investigation to ensure that is in fact the case.
 
2007-03-22 02:24:52 PM
dbaggins: oh, yes, the Lewinsky witch hunt.

that certainly was an important matter for Congress to pursue and issue subpoenas over.



Yeah, it's not like they had direct evidence showing the President of the United States, an officer of the court by virtue of him passing the bar, personally committed perjury that would have affected the outcome of a trial.

Remember, in today's idiocracy america we can only remember that Clinton's impeachment was about him getting a suck-off.

I mean shiat, that's what all the late night talk show jokes were about. When Johnny Stewart tilts his head like a terrier and smirks into the camera when refrencing this scandal as his producer hits the applause sign, he is talking about suck-offs. Clearly it was all about suck-offs.
 
2007-03-22 02:24:58 PM
At the end of the day, you're still a wage slave. This story does make a nice distraction, though.

/sex isn't involved, so the public and the media will soon lose interest...
 
2007-03-22 02:25:26 PM
The saddest thing is that Cheney is next in command if GWB is ousted..
 
2007-03-22 02:25:43 PM
SunOfSam

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.


Unsubstantiated evidence you mean.
 
2007-03-22 02:26:23 PM
Then I ask you again, where is the outcry from the Pelosi Dems to right this wrong, that according to you is still here? Where is the new House legislation introduced by our more enlightened Dems to rid us of this scourge to our Constitution?

They tried to investigate, but people like you told them to stop embiggening the terrorists.
 
2007-03-22 02:26:54 PM
For the people saying, "You can't have obstruction of justice without a crime."

I refer you to Martha Stewart.

Obstruction of justice is a crime in and of itself, and it doesn't require any preceeding crime for a conviction.
 
2007-03-22 02:26:54 PM
elchip
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.


Wrong, they can file a civil suit for wrongful termination and sue the government for lost wages and defimation of char. which if they had proof that they were asked to do something illegal they could win easily and be paid very well for it, but the truth is that there is no proof and as you yourself just said the serve at the pleasure of Bush and if they don't please they find another job. Sad thing is that anyone that takes one of the jobs knows that going in and it is the price of getting the work. Don't tell me you really belive that no president hasn't set priorities on cases that were of a political nature? I think that if it was asked of every person who has ever held one of these post that at least one from every administration since FDR would found that was asked to pursue something that was political and anyone who says differntly is delusional. I don't say it is right, but it is Washington.
 
2007-03-22 02:27:21 PM
How does anyone expect them to substantiate the evidence without an investigation?
 
2007-03-22 02:27:29 PM
FlashLV

Unsubstantiated evidence you mean.

That's what the investigations are for, sillwy wabbit. To determine whether the appearance of inpropriety is only that.
 
2007-03-22 02:27:32 PM
By the way, the Supreme Court ruled that Clinton couldn't use "executive privilege" to weasel out of testifying in a civil suit.

Unless they're more partisan than I think, and Kennedy goes to the dark side on this one, I suspect that Bush's aides will eventually have to testify.

Bush is the one being difficult here... "Sure, I'll cooperate. You can talk to them, but it has to be behind closed doors, it can't be under oath, and you can't take notes!"

Riiiiiiiiight. That doesn't look suspicious.
 
2007-03-22 02:27:37 PM
FriarTuck, not that it matters, but neither the daily show nor the colbert report had applause signs when I was in the audience.
 
2007-03-22 02:27:43 PM
FlashLV: Unsubstantiated evidence you mean.

Be careful there, you were saying the exact same thing in the Libby case, mon frere. Look what happened. With this gang, you can more or less assume guilty until proven innocent.
 
2007-03-22 02:28:03 PM
I dare any of you to name 12 people (tht are known by the general public) that are an obvious pick to run our country. Otherwise... just shut the hell up. Our government sucks (and I won't share my opinion of the president only), but we do still have the best one out there.

I just wish they would go back in time around 20 years so I couldn't as easily find so many things wrong with them.

Casper
 
2007-03-22 02:28:44 PM
2007-03-22 02:21:09 PM elchip

Executive privilege seems to be a canard in most cases. So you are correct, he should not have.


My stance is that he did the right thing in envoking it. Please don't spin my comments.

And I'm not sure where you're going with your questions, so if you get near a point, please feel free to share.
 
2007-03-22 02:28:56 PM
How does anyone expect them to substantiate the evidence without an investigation?

I'm waiting for Bush to slap a 'Top Secret' security clearance on all the evidence, then start tossing people into jail when they talk about it.
 
2007-03-22 02:29:02 PM
i106.photobucket.com

Whateva, I do what I want!
 
2007-03-22 02:29:17 PM
TheConvincingSavant: That's exactly why we have exective privilege.

Doesn't transparency and a government that is beholden to the will of the populace (the cornerstones upon which the nation was founded) trump hiding behind the skirts of one's office, in hopes that malfeasance can be hidden?

Are you OK with any administration claiming Executive Priv. when being investigated for possible crimes? The government's responsibility to the public far outweighs its need to conspire with its funders.

Otherwise, no President ever can have personal advisors without fear that they'll be pulled in by Congress for a fishing expedition.

You are, of course, right. We have no business knowing what our government is up to, or where or money goes. Thank you, comrade.
 
2007-03-22 02:29:21 PM
baby_hewey: Don't tell me you really belive that no president hasn't set priorities on cases that were of a political nature?

I'm pretty sure that Carter did basically the exact same thing that Bush is being criticized for now.

He had a Democratic Congress at the time, though... so, much like the Republican Congress we had until recently, they weren't very eager to call him out on it.
 
2007-03-22 02:29:36 PM
This is directed in general to everyone reading this..

If you actually buy the 'asked to resign' spin then you have no place discussing politics. They were not 'asked' to resign, they were told to resign. If they had refused, they would have been fired. It's the same thing, but when you're high enough on the totem pole you don't get fired, you get "asked to resign".

If you don't understand something as simple as that, then you do not likely have the experience or knowledge necesarry to form an opinion on these types of situations without sounding like a complete idiot. Your best bet is to stay quiet and listen to people on both sides of the issue, learn about it, and then think for yourself.
 
2007-03-22 02:29:39 PM
Bewbies
Just because someone doesn't want to be questioned, doesn't mean they did anything wrong -- it means they want their privacy, and to do their facking job.


Are you from America? Just wondering, because here we have a form of government called a democracy. Bush is not KING. He works for me, for you and all other tax payers. If he does not like the job and wants to work in secret I'm sure we can find someone to take his place.
 
2007-03-22 02:30:29 PM
TheConvincingSavant: My stance is that he did the right thing in envoking it. Please don't spin my comments.

It wasn't "spin," it was "misunderstanding."
 
2007-03-22 02:30:37 PM
Weaver95

What's to stop them from continuing their song, even from a jail cell? At that point, they've got nothing to lose whatsoever.

You know what I say to that?

BRING IT ON ;)
 
2007-03-22 02:32:40 PM
spelunking_defenestrator: That's where the Watergate comparisons come in- not the crime, the cover-up, etc.

The Senate was offering the the Bush administration an easy out, too, all they had to do was offer up Gonzales.

I'm not sure how the executive branch using the DOJ to go after political opponents during an election, while shielding political allies, could be construed as anything but an abuse of power.

Now, as far as any crimes committed, we shall see. I don't see how dragging this on benefits the White House. He doesn't have the huge "9/11 Support the President 9/11" crowd he used to.
 
2007-03-22 02:33:41 PM
Philip J. Fry: neither the daily show nor the colbert report had applause signs when I was in the audience.

It's OK...it helps his case to lie. Always does.
As long as it's a big liberal j00 media conspiracy.
Please load your gun and shoot the messenger now...it's the American way.
 
2007-03-22 02:34:16 PM
Skleenar
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.


That much should have been clear to a 4th grader after the midterm elections.

The problem is that they have to tow the party line to stay in the party.

Rock and a hard place really.
 
2007-03-22 02:34:25 PM
It wasn't "spin," it was "misunderstanding."

I did see where I had a period and a question mark right next to each other. My typo could have been misleading.
 
2007-03-22 02:34:40 PM
2007-03-22 02:28:03 PM CasperImproved

We do not have the best government out there. That is basically an arrogance that you have been indoctrinated into. Our country has been around for only a very short time. Of course your statement depends on what factors you are using to qualify "best". But it is wrong.
 
2007-03-22 02:34:46 PM
george bush, a uniter and not a divider.
 
2007-03-22 02:34:49 PM
www.campaignsitebuilder.com -Your poop is stinky. Mine is flowery!) www.uruknet.de (Your poop is stinky. Mine is flowery!-politicalsignsamerica.com
 
2007-03-22 02:35:20 PM
FlashLV: Unsubstantiated evidence you mean.

Glad you admit there is some evidence.

And how do you commonly verify unsubstantiated evidence?
 
2007-03-22 02:35:27 PM
DROxINxTHExWIND: Oh, no you don't...etc., etc...

Yeah, that pretty much sums up how I feel about all this, too.
 
2007-03-22 02:36:14 PM
suebhoney


Honestly, it's just dousing you and others with their own doses of medicine I've seen you all dish out over the last 3 or so years.

You and them are the types that like to dish it out but can't take it when it's thrown back in your face.

It's a bitter pill for you to swallow, I understand, but everyone needs to take their medicine every once and a while.


I've been on fark a little over a year.

Sure, but I'm attacked when I do what you are doing, and I try to do better.

Look the people that you think ignore your "facts", aren't ignoring the "facts". We think your facts are just biased junk that only points fingers, but yet you say it's fact that there was something wrong.

We have no memos saying fire them before they investigate X, Y or Z. There is nothing pointing to that.

If someone is an independent they have a right to say Bush is being to secretive towards this, but if you are a republican or a democrat you don't unless you are a hypocrite. Clinton didn't always allow his top aides to testify under oath either. Sure it's a but Clinton, but it shows precedent.

Most people aren't sent to trial with circumstantial evidence, and this is all this is.
 
2007-03-22 02:36:31 PM
Bacontastesgood

1. Oil industry profits
2. Halliburton/KBR
3. World cup soccer
4. Thailand
5. String theory
6. Being a role model for other jackasses
*. My NCAA Basketball Bracket
 
2007-03-22 02:36:44 PM
TheConvincingSavant: My typo could have been misleading.

Or written by your wife.
 
2007-03-22 02:37:12 PM
equusdc

That's a bit existential... Have you tried Sartre?


Ha Ha Ha, nice..
 
Displayed 50 of 1657 comments

First | « | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | » | Last



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report