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 | « | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | » | Last
 
2007-03-22 05:10:55 PM
IXI Jim IXI I never said a blowjob was an impeachable offense, Lying under oath in a civil or criminal case is.

And derslickmeister was impeached but didn't have the votes to kick him out of office.
 
2007-03-22 05:11:58 PM
We should have this confrontation, if the American public wants the Attorney General to be a tool of the Republican or Democratic party, then fine. But let's have the facts about it. Let's be transparent about it.
Bush will cave. It'll take a while. The political firestorm on this has only begun and in the end Bush will look like he has something to hide.
His staff will testify, with a transcript. The oath doesn't matter, lying to congress is a crime, even if not under oath.
 
2007-03-22 05:12:55 PM
quickdraw

So how would you go about collecting the evidence you needed?

Perhaps you would subpoena witnesses? After all if no crime was committed then the innocent have nothing to hide and will only benefit from their willingness to testify under oath.


As long as it doesn't violate a right given to the President when he took office. Executive privilege is what all presidents have, if you don't like it and if Democrats don't like it (heck even Republicans) they can try and get a law passed where they can no longer use it.
 
2007-03-22 05:13:22 PM
Sorry to do a but but clinton, but Clinton did the same with the investigation of Whitewater and they were still able to investigate with what they had, right?

So appointing a independent procecuter with an unlimited budjet and the ability to investigate things other than what it was formed to investigate is OKay?
 
2007-03-22 05:13:25 PM
Sadida: IXI Jim IXI I never said a blowjob was an impeachable offense, Lying under oath in a civil or criminal case is.

And lying to congress? Or directing others to lie to congress?

And derslickmeister was impeached but didn't have the votes to kick him out of office.

And damn those republicans who voted Not Guilty!
 
2007-03-22 05:13:47 PM
FlashLV: BTW what does SIC stand for? Always wondered, to lazy to look it up.

Hell if I know. Latin for something.

Sure, they can do all the investigations they want, if Bush chooses to stonewall, then it's his right.

That's where we disagree. If I were at least post-pubescent, I probably (hopefully) would've said the same thing about Whitewater.

The "but Clinton" is understood in this context. I don't agree with the precedent though, and wish it never was applied.
 
2007-03-22 05:13:51 PM
So you just want to call me crazy, yet you offer nothing to show me to be wrong? Can't you at least call me a name or something? Please find somewhere that I said that Bush was the greatest or anything beyond that I find this to be nothing more than a political hatchet job. Oh, I did say this was nothing more than revenge for the political hatchet job that Clinton recived from the Republicans, but that is as far as I have gone to defend anyone.

Well, for one, I'm just giving you a hard time. I'm not trying to piss you off.
You have said multiple times that there is no crime, yet there has not even been an investigation, Bush has refused to have his staff to take the oath. Yet you already know there is no crime. Sound awfully kool-aid-nutty to me.
 
2007-03-22 05:14:02 PM
ChairmanKaga

Skilled trolling? Not so much.

Less is more man.


'twasn't the moment for skilled application. I was in the mood to vent and remind certain people just what manner of twit they are before they post. ;-)
 
2007-03-22 05:14:16 PM
Lessons learned from Vietnam: No draft and no taxes makes the people apathetic to your crusades.

Lessons learned from Monica-gate: Lie, but never under oath.
 
2007-03-22 05:14:26 PM
The Dynamite Monkey

But do you think it would be worthy of an investigation? Because if you think it is OK to fire for plitical reasons, I amsure you know the AG said in fron of congress he would NEVER ALLOW THAT. And so if there is some evidence indicating that maybe he did allow that, do you think that should be investigated by congress?

Doesn't he have a boss? So saying "he would never allow it" wouldn't be lying if someone told him to do it.
 
2007-03-22 05:14:32 PM
unexplained bacon: If I'm wrong I'd like to know.

all the info I'm finding says he was appointed US attorney in New Jersey by Bush I.

can you find me anything that disagrees?


I'd like to know, too. Certainly Chertoff was an US Atrorney. But was he acting in that capacity while investigating Whitewater?

/Not that it changes anything about the current situation.
 
2007-03-22 05:14:35 PM
baby_hewey

Please refer to the Wikipedia entry on Chertoff. He was appointed as a USA in 1990 by Bush and then in late 1992 he took the role of special counsel, which is not a USA and is under the power of the Senate via the Special Counsel Law that was allowed to expire. In 1993 he was special counsel for the Senate committee studying allegations against the Clintons and was asked to stay by Democratic Senator Bill Bradley, not Clinton. It really is not hard to understand if you have atleast the same reading comprehinsion as a 6th grader.

a 6th grader?

no need to be a dick.

what am I missing. do me a solid and fetch the part of the wiki-bio you're talking about.

...In 1992 Chertoff put 2nd term Jersey City Mayor Gerald McCann in federal prison for over two years on charges of defrauding money from a savings and loan scam. McCann, an Irish born Jersey native, inflamed and insulted the leading prosecutor: "It will become obvious that they were insane to bring this case in the first place. And we are going to send Mr. Chertoff back to preparing wills. Maybe I can find him a job driving a sanitation truck in Jersey City." McCann never was able to run for office again being a convicted felon. Five-Finger Discount: "A Crooked Family History", Helene Stapinski, (c)2002, page 203Jersey City Reporter, "McCann - no holds barred", Ricardo Kaulessar 01/21/2005

Chertoff was asked to stay in his position when the Clinton administration took office in 1993, at the request of Democratic Senator Bill Bradley; he was the only U.S. attorney not replaced. Chertoff stayed with the U.S. Attorney's office until 1994, when he entered private practice, returning to Latham & Watkins as a partner...
 
2007-03-22 05:15:18 PM
Aldon: So appointing a independent procecuter with an unlimited budjet and the ability to investigate things other than what it was formed to investigate is OKay?

They're not against a fishing expedition...they're just worried everyone will get their lines tangled up. ;)



kuhns_m: We should have this confrontation, if the American public wants the Attorney General to be a tool of the Republican or Democratic party, then fine.

Well, I think many agree that he is, in fact, a tool...
 
2007-03-22 05:15:43 PM
Aldon


So appointing a independent procecuter with an unlimited budjet and the ability to investigate things other than what it was formed to investigate is OKay?


If he thought it was relevant, then yes.
 
2007-03-22 05:16:05 PM
baby_hewey

Wikipedia clearly says Chertoff was a USA. So stop saying he wasn't.

If you don't agree with Wikipedia, here's the DHS bio on him that clearly says he was a USA.

Chertoff Bio

Chertoff stayed as a USA until 1994 at which point he joined the Senate Whitewater committee.
 
2007-03-22 05:16:12 PM
Dangerous precedent my patootie, I can't be the only one who thinks that every single vote, and every single word said in congress should be truthful. And it should ALL be documented, if not televised (except for classified stuff).

I'm not talking left or right on this one, Politicians almost by definition are untrustworthy.

I know I'm delusional... a completely truthful congress... Hahahahahahaha.... *sigh*
 
2007-03-22 05:16:31 PM
The demographic spectrum of the GOP is thinning from the center outward, leaving only two groups under their tent...


$$$$$$$................................................Retards
 
2007-03-22 05:16:41 PM
FlashLV: As long as it doesn't violate a right given to the President when he took office.

The president has no rights beyond what you or I have.

He does, however, have a few privledges that we so graciously bestow upon him.

they can try and get a law passed where they can no longer use it.

I would love to see that. Unfortunately, the Senate is full of schmucks who want to be president, so they keep the office as powerful as it is.
 
2007-03-22 05:17:28 PM
FlashLV: if Bush chooses to stonewall, then it's his right.
So can you. If an employer has questions about your job performance they can ask you and you can stonewall them. That doesn't mean you get to keep your job.

Bush works for you and me. He was not anointed President by God in spite of his delusions to the contrary. he is answerable to to every US citizen as long as he works for us.
 
2007-03-22 05:17:38 PM
DrJesusPhD


The "but Clinton" is understood in this context. I don't agree with the precedent though, and wish it never was applied.


I agree with you on that!

I said something similiar in this thread, witch hunts are stupid.
 
2007-03-22 05:18:40 PM
ellurido: I know I'm delusional... a completely truthful congress... Hahahahahahaha.... *sigh*

That's not delusional...that's psychotic.
 
2007-03-22 05:18:55 PM
ellurido

I remember someone of Fark had an idea that all government officials speaking on behalf of their agency must be put under oath. Including press conferences. I thought it was a fantastic idea.

Then again, they just wouldn't hold that many press conferences and speak "personally, not officially".
 
2007-03-22 05:19:17 PM
ellurido

There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.
John Adams (1735 - 1826), Journal, 1772
 
2007-03-22 05:19:18 PM
IXI Jim IXI
Wow I would love to see your intel reports that instructed them to lie to Congress. Wheteher or not they were told to lie to anyone, this is a non issue. President Bush has the right to fire anyone he feels needs to be fired.

Didnt the Clintons fire numerous Federal Prosecutors.... and no one said anything about them.
 
2007-03-22 05:19:22 PM
FlashLV: I said something similiar in this thread, witch hunts are stupid.

Not my fault. If they'd have the common courtesy to stand still, they'd be much easier to burn ;)
 
2007-03-22 05:20:18 PM
FlashLV: Executive privilege is what all presidents have

Executive Privilege does not mean "Whatevah, I do what I want"

Being POTUS is not the same as being King. You seem confused about that and so does Bush.
 
2007-03-22 05:20:42 PM
FlashLV: I said something similiar in this thread, witch hunts are stupid.

Damnit. You just had to go and do it, didn't you?

I was talking about Clinton stonewalling. That it what set a bad precedent. Not the investigation itself.
 
2007-03-22 05:21:03 PM
Vosh

You could be right, I'd like to think we are enlightened enough to put a woman or a minority in the white house, but it could very well be untrue.


I noticed that's a mistake that "the smart kids" make, the activists, people like Ralph Nader - they treat people as if they're better than they are... and end up getting monkey poo flung at them. All you have to do is look at how people have behaved EVERY TIME. They vote for the guy who is tall, seems middle o' the road "sensible" and has the nicest smile. They vote for the guy who seems like he won the debate, not for the guy who actually did win the debate. In the last election, the voters saw two things; a droopy lurch and a smiling Alfred E. Neuman. Guess who won. Look at the most popular tv programming. As a species, we are not, in the main, conspicuously cerebral.

Read about Clotaire Rappaille. Most people just do not think about why they do what they do. They just *feel*.
 
2007-03-22 05:21:23 PM
WahWahWeWah OK can Farkers hit 1000 on this thread?


Oh, ye of little faith. 1,175 as of this posting? How high is the sky?
 
2007-03-22 05:21:46 PM
FlashLV

Glad to see you are consistant on this. Tell me you want to see the independent prosecuter statute back (during Bush's term) and believe that perjury and obstruction of justice (even when no other crime may have been committed) are serious crimes and you will surprise me.
 
2007-03-22 05:22:27 PM
Sadida: Didnt the Clintons fire numerous Federal Prosecutors.... and no one said anything about them.

Oh fer crying out loud read the farking thread. You'll find the answer to that silly red herring several dozen times. Just do a find/search for "Clinton".
 
2007-03-22 05:22:29 PM
Sadida: President Bush has the right to fire anyone he feels needs to be fired.

Didnt the Clintons fire numerous Federal Prosecutors.... and no one said anything about them.


Son of a biatch! I give up.
 
2007-03-22 05:23:43 PM
Sadida
President Bush has the right to fire anyone he feels needs to be fired.

Didnt the Clintons fire numerous Federal Prosecutors.... and no one said anything about them.


Are you a boyscout that's been lost in the woods for the last 2 weeks or something? Clinton, Bush 1, Carter, and Reagan did. But that's not the issue here.
 
2007-03-22 05:23:58 PM
I think before any President can serve, they must take and pass a remedial high-school civics class. I realize it won't be needed for most presidents, but for the occasional W it could make a world of difference. Let's not forget that W he has two daughters following in his footsteps.
 
2007-03-22 05:24:26 PM
quickdraw


Executive Privilege does not mean "Whatevah, I do what I want"

Being POTUS is not the same as being King. You seem confused about that and so does Bush.


Who is saying it means "whatevah, I do what I want, I roll with 12 gangs"?

No I'm not confused, nice attack though. We disagree on this 100%, because I see that he is doing nothing different than any other president relating to this.
 
2007-03-22 05:25:14 PM
Hey, guys, do you know that Clinton fired all 93 prosecutors and no one said anything.
Has anyone mentioned that in this thread?
 
2007-03-22 05:25:19 PM
2007-03-22 05:08:45 PM George Walker Bush
"Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.

So the online version is smarter?

"There's an old saying in Tennessee - I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee - that says, fool me once, shame on - shame on you. Fool me - you can't get fooled again."


http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/bushvideos/youtube/bushfoolme.htm
 
2007-03-22 05:25:36 PM
Lord_Baull: farking brilliant.

Hey, thanks!

Respect to you, too.
 
2007-03-22 05:25:42 PM
Sadida: Wow I would love to see your intel reports that instructed them to lie to Congress.

Well, if Congress isn't allowed to look into these things when they think they have due cause, how do you find out? It looks like there's enough suspicion on both sides of the aisle that something happened.


Wheteher or not they were told to lie to anyone, this is a non issue.

Bzzt. Wrong.


President Bush has the right to fire anyone he feels needs to be fired.

And if this impedes an investigation, that is called?

Didnt the Clintons fire numerous Federal Prosecutors.... and no one said anything about them.

Now we can see you just haven't been paying attention...asked and answered numerous times.
 
2007-03-22 05:25:51 PM
DrJesusPhD

Damnit. You just had to go and do it, didn't you?

I was talking about Clinton stonewalling. That it what set a bad precedent. Not the investigation itself.


D'OH, sorry :(
 
2007-03-22 05:26:17 PM
It's only subpoenas envy!
 
2007-03-22 05:26:27 PM
I haven't seen any memos or talking points, but the "Clinton fired all the federal prosecutors" must be front and center on the latest batch from the administration. You think you've explained the difference to everybody, yet they just keep coming.
 
2007-03-22 05:26:45 PM
Aldon

I'll post with in your post so that you can understand a little better and stop trying to twist what is being said.

baby_hewey
Well the problem is with how you worded the statment.

Ummm, those are your words, not mine, I copy and pasted them from your post.

Charles Banks refused the request of George HW Bush to speed the investigation before the election, he would not release info that he felt would cause problems later in the case.

Here we see that yes my statments are not clear in the first, but then I clarified for you. Again look at the post where I tried to clear up your misunderstanding due to my poor wording.

So you no longer believe what you posted previously? So you take this back? baby_hewey: "Charles Banks, the US Attorney based in Little Rock refused to pursue Whitewater when asked by Bush because he was friends with Clinton."

First you really are trying to put words in my mouth here. I still stand by that statement and you can verify it from Banks own writings on the issue.

It also sounds like you are accusing George Bush Sr. of (attempted)tampering with a federal investigation....serious accusation. The justice department should not be used as a political arm of the President, don't you agree?

All I can say to your statement here is "Like Father, Like Son." I never said that I liked Bush 41.

After the November elections Charles Banks then did release some of the infomation under a freedom of information act request and at that time he said that he would continue the investigation under Clinton. Prior to Charles Banks being fired by Clinton along with the other 92 USA's he turned over all documents to Michael Chertoff who was the special prosicutor and was not serving at the pleasure of the President.

So actually Clinton decided to fire Banks to increase the chances of him being investigated? Since you said Banks was a Clinton friend who Clinton had the power to fire at any time right? So by Clinton 'firing' Banks he decided to make sure the investigation would go to someone who wasn't a friend and who he would not have the power to fire.


How do you come to this conclusion? Clinton fired all of the USA's so that it would look legit, and it was. He just jumped the gun or removing them. It didn't take a lot of smarts to see what was comming down for Charly Banks after he released the info due to a freedom of info act request. He had no choice on releasing the info, but that didn't matter to Clinton, so Banks knew he would be fired and he sought revenge in the best way he knew.

Sounds like Clinton didn't fire Banks because of whitewater... unless he was very, very stupid.

The only part in which Clinton miscalculated was that Banks would not risk his law license over his friendship with the Clintons. He had a choice between the law and his buddy and he stood with the law.
 
2007-03-22 05:27:19 PM
2007-03-22 03:38:44 PM Mr.Churka
Your profile says everything I need to know about you

-------

And your profile says everything I need to know about you. "Ass kicking Farkers"? lol, get a life man!
 
2007-03-22 05:27:44 PM
Sadida: Just to let you know this isn't an impeachable offense and no matter how hard you try, and how much you pray to your secular progressive gawds, nothing will come of this.

Absolutely correct.

President Bush has lied to bring the USA into an unwinnable war, has lied about the far reach of the Patriot Act, has lied about torture, and has lied about CIA extraditions (torture flights).

Those are impeachable, and reprehensible. Thanks for the perspective.

/reprehensible only if you know you're being lied to, though
 
2007-03-22 05:27:48 PM
DROxINxTHExWIND [TotalFark]

Despairagus: In two words: show trial.

I'll bet any of you Mo'Farkers a month's salary that this is the new 'Catch Phrase' of the neo-conservative movement. Tony Snow put it out there yesterday and look at Despairagus running with it already as if it was an original thought.


Because "cut and run" is soooo last week.
 
2007-03-22 05:27:52 PM
FlashLV: because I see that he is doing nothing different than any other president relating to this.

Now I don't have the time or the energy to do a case by case analysis on how every president has ever responded to a judicial inquiry but I can tell you that Clinton always testified under oath as did all of his minions.

Bush? Not so much.
 
2007-03-22 05:27:53 PM
worldbeater "Now, elchip, you know that to suggest there must be criticism of the president, or that we ought not to stand by him, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic, but is morally treasonous to the American public."

Holy crap, I laughed. Had to read it twice, too. Not enough farkers will catch this one, though, so here's the original quote:

To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else. - Theodore Roosevelt, 1918 (from Wikiquote)
 
2007-03-22 05:29:05 PM
Aldon

Glad to see you are consistant on this. Tell me you want to see the independent prosecuter statute back (during Bush's term) and believe that perjury and obstruction of justice (even when no other crime may have been committed) are serious crimes and you will surprise me.


I think obstruction of justice is serious. Honestly I didn't know that the independant presecutor statute was taken away, I vaguely remember something now that you said it.

Perjury is is also bad, it shows contempt for our legal system.
 
2007-03-22 05:30:00 PM
1200.

Good show, chaps.
 
Displayed 50 of 1657 comments

First | « | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | » | Last



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report