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 1657
    More: News  
•       •       •

32713 clicks; posted to Main » on 22 Mar 2007 at 12:16 PM (8 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



1657 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last
 
2007-03-22 12:49:52 PM  
What the problem? They have nothing to hide, right?
 
2007-03-22 12:49:52 PM  
alywa: /How's that?

Better....

I always start mine with 'Stop it!'


That seems to work.
 
2007-03-22 12:49:54 PM  
cthellis

ENJOY YOUR MEDIA MANUFACTURED CONTROVERSY THAT WAS ONLY MANUFACTURED BY THE DIRTY HIPPIES CONTROLLING ALL THE HUGE MEDIA CONGLOMERATES AND THEREFORE MANUFACTURED THIS MEDIA CONTROVERSY JUST TO STROKE OFF AND IT HAS NO BASIS IN REAL LIFE AND CLINTON DID IT TOO BUT HE DID IT WORSE AND BUSH DID IT BETTER SO STFU AND GBTW

LOUD NOISES!!!!!
 
2007-03-22 12:50:05 PM  
I wonder if Rove is in that DC madam's little black book?

/just sayin
//that story is way more intriguing
 
2007-03-22 12:50:10 PM  
REFUTING THE EVENTUAL CONSERVATIVE ARGUMENTS THAT WILL APPEAR IN THIS THREAD.

1. B... b... but Executive Privilege says Bush doesn't have to turn anything over!

In the case United States v. Nixon, the Supreme Court ruled that "Executive Privilege" did not shield the President from withholding information that is "demonstrably relevant in a criminal trial."

2. B... b... but Clinton fired all 93 US Attorneys!

This is totally customary when a President from a different party than his successor takes power. Nixon did it, Carter did it, Reagan did it, Clinton did it, Bush II did it. The only difference is that when Clinton came into power, a few US Attorneys didn't step aside voluntarily, as is the custom.

3. B... b... but Presidential aides don't don't usually testify in this manner!

31 of Clinton's advisers testified before Congress a total of 47 times in the various witch-hunts carried out against him. Clinton never prevented one of his aides from testifying; Bush has, so far, tried to prevent three of his aides from testifying (the first President to do so since Nixon). Clinton himself testified in the Paula Jones case, and Hillary testified in the Whitewater investigation.

4. B... b... but Clinton obstructed Whitewater!

Contrary to what some right-wingers have said, Clinton did not fire a US Attorney who was investigating his involvement in Whitewater. Charles Banks, the US Attorney based in Little Rock, was asked to investigate it by Bush I, but he refused because he didn't think there was enough evidence and he suspected that Bush I was playing politics before an election.

5. B... b... but they serve at the pleasure of the President!

First of all, that didn't stop the Republicans from hounding Clinton in Travelgate. Second of all, Nixon was within his rights to fire Archibald Cox and Elliot Richardson. However, because of the "obstruction of justice" issues it raised, he caught some serious hell for it. That might be the same situation here, but we don't know yet. That's what Congress is trying to find out.

/Courtesy of elchip from yesterday's subpoenowned thread
 
2007-03-22 12:50:11 PM  
I laugh at this.

Looks like the last desperate act of a desperate party.
 
2007-03-22 12:50:15 PM  
Damn, why are they going and getting rid of the Patriot Act now? I was just getting ready to watch the right start to squirm when they realized Hillary was going to have the House, the Senate, and the Patriot Act.
 
2007-03-22 12:50:15 PM  
SunOfSam: The U.S. has been operating like a banana republic, and the Administration must be held accountable. I am 100% for investigations with possible impeachment. A special prosecuter should be appointed ASAP.

This is absolutely true. While most libtards tend to accuse bush of being like Hitler, it is this libtard's contention that he was aming for Pinochet or Somoza.
 
2007-03-22 12:50:21 PM  
2007-03-22 12:44:10 PM Office Ninja

FACTS:
1. The US Attorneys are appointed by the President, and serve at the President's discretion.
2. The US Attorneys answer to the Attorney General, who in turn, answers to the President.
3. The Attorney General asked for resignations of the US Attorneys in question. They were fired.
4. White House advisers cannot fire US Attorneys.


5. A Federal Prosecutors job description is to uphold the law, not be a political lapdog.
 
2007-03-22 12:50:34 PM  
Hey I added this to yesterdays thread:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/03/was_valerie_covert.html

I think it is importiant here because it explains why Bush does not want to subject his people to this witch hunt just like the one with Plame. Read the artical by the guy who wrote the orignial about Plame and see if you still think that she was covert at the time of the artical.

Bush has been farked buy them once on a witch hunt and this time he doesn't want to lose another good person like he lost Libby.

I still say this is all just a plan to get Hilary elected in '08 as the Republicans still haven't offered a real canidate.
 
2007-03-22 12:50:39 PM  
soy_bomb: I guess Congress thinks they have solved all the other problems facing our country.

Actually, lots of polling in October and November showed that checking the Administration's power, both here and in Iraq, was the single biggest reason for the November election.
 
2007-03-22 12:50:40 PM  
mmm... pancake: So, what exactly did they do that was illegal?

Stole an election?
 
2007-03-22 12:51:38 PM  
I shoot friendlies

Hey, I'm not seeing the "executive privilege" in your list!
 
2007-03-22 12:51:53 PM  
i86.photobucket.com
 
2007-03-22 12:51:57 PM  
Weaver95 [TotalFark]
I just don't get it. Anyone with half a brain HAD to see this one coming from the Democrats. So why did he do this? His advisors had to have seen this series of events as most likely and taken steps to prevent it.

I've wondered this too. How does this crew honestly expect to get away with this? But I started saying that years ago, and I've been proven wrong every time since. I think many people misunderestimate this administration's ability to get away with things.

They bring a new meaning to the term Teflon Suit.
 
2007-03-22 12:52:01 PM  
I shoot friendlies

Please reread the first two lines and get back to me...

Legislative Branch

* Checks on the Executive
 
2007-03-22 12:52:05 PM  
Weaver95: then he really IS as stupid as all those people have been saying he is all these years.

I like the new Weaver95:. He makes much more sense now.
 
2007-03-22 12:52:08 PM  
soy_bomb: I guess Congress thinks they have solved all the other problems facing our country. ---ditto

Yes, because no other president has ever fired anyone ever, and lets focus all of our attention and find out the root of this injustice...nah, j/k, lets just hang Rove!! Burn him! lets see if he weighs as much as a duck.

/non-story
 
2007-03-22 12:52:14 PM  
Hobodeluxe:

The hole keeps getting bigger and bigger

Holy shiat! That's some explosive stuff right there. Heads are gonna start rolling.
 
2007-03-22 12:52:15 PM  
baz_rampant: Reasons for the fall of great empires I.E. rome

1.Political Corruption
2. ???
3. Profit!!


Fixed.
 
2007-03-22 12:52:24 PM  
Weaver95

It's almost as if Bush went out of his way to pick this fight with Congress. And it's a stupid fight too, since he's going to lose. He *has* to know that - if he dosen't, then he really IS as stupid as all those people have been saying he is all these years.

He is not going to lose. He picked this fight because he knows the SCOTUS will never allow his advisors to be forced to testify. The President has to be able to rely on confidentiality with his advisors, and the SCOTUS know that. I think he want to do it so he has one big win.
 
2007-03-22 12:52:42 PM  
According to the NPR article, the White House doesn't even what to allow anyone to take notes during the private interview. WTF? They could have easily downplayed all of this as much ado about nothing, but instead they've done all this stonewalling.

The really bad thing is, based on their actions in the past, I honestly can't decide if I think they really are trying to hide something or this is just their continued attitude that the Executive Branch has the right to deal with its own business however it pleases and Congress needs to just stay out of it. Probably a bit of both.
 
2007-03-22 12:53:09 PM  
baby_hewey

UH OH. Freeper Alert! Freeper Alert!!

Hobodeluxe

That article was a very interesting read, thx.
 
2007-03-22 12:53:16 PM  
RiverRat85: Rove: If you need me, Sir, I'll be on vacation. In Brazil.

Bush: I'll call you from Paraguay.
 
2007-03-22 12:53:39 PM  
I'm glad that they gutted that stupid provision from the PATRIOT act. The entire bill imo is a giant colossal freedom raping monstrosity that needs to be taken out back behind the rotunda and shot.

Oh and it's nice to see Congress finally pushing back against the President and his crazy mad power grabbing-fu skills. A lot of people don't seem to get it, but if they actually did fire these attorneys for political reasons, then that's tantamount to intimidation from the executive and one more reason why these offices should be elected instead of appointed.

/Seriously, the executive branch has too many appointments.
//Voting - it's democratic.
 
2007-03-22 12:53:41 PM  
I sick of this political shiat. Nothing of any substance gets accomplished and "scandals" such as this are the reason why.
 
2007-03-22 12:53:47 PM  
Weaver95: I just don't get it. Anyone with half a brain HAD to see this one coming from the Democrats.

I almost feel sorry for you, for once...

The problem is the administration's egos have grown unchecked and they think they are untouchable.
 
2007-03-22 12:54:17 PM  
Just so you know, your side is full of thieves and liars and everything they do is destroying America. My side is simply looking out for the best interests of America and the world and any wrong thing they do is done to counteract your side's badness and can be filed under hunky-dory.

There. Now 75% of you can go about your business. I've said it for you.

/Bush is a tard
//but the Democrats couldn't beat a tard twice, making them... slightly inferior tards?
 
2007-03-22 12:54:35 PM  
Weaver95: if he dosen't, then he really IS as stupid as all those people have been saying he is all these years.

I'm going to get you a nice fruit basket.
 
2007-03-22 12:54:54 PM  
baby_hewey: Hey I added this to yesterdays thread:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/03/was_valerie_covert.html

I think it is importiant here because it explains why Bush does not want to subject his people to this witch hunt just like the one with Plame. Read the artical by the guy who wrote the orignial about Plame and see if you still think that she was covert at the time of the artical.

Bush has been farked buy them once on a witch hunt and this time he doesn't want to lose another good person like he lost Libby.

I still say this is all just a plan to get Hilary elected in '08 as the Republicans still haven't offered a real canidate.


Are you still carrying on about Plame?
 
2007-03-22 12:55:05 PM  
This administration IS untouchable. And so will the next one, and the one after that, and the one after that etc. etc.
 
2007-03-22 12:55:06 PM  
Weaver95: It's almost as if Bush went out of his way to pick this fight with Congress. And it's a stupid fight too, since he's going to lose. He *has* to know that - if he dosen't, then he really IS as stupid as all those people have been saying he is all these years.

He's going on about how he is defending executive privilege for future presidents and shiat, and that's all shiny happy there, right? Except someone has very obviously caused a conflict between the branches by playing fast and loose (Gonzales) and no one is willing to give him up. Properly. So he can explain what he did.

Plus a big concern the House had was that Gonzales was feeding Bush bogus information. This is why they want Gonzales. No one sees Bush as being the asshole here, YET, as he has nothing (obvious) to do with this. However, he is making this worse by doing the whole 'don't fark with the executive branch' thing, and congress is annoyed (obviously) at that shiat. They have a good point. He did offer them a concession but it ain't doing it for.

Hey - if your Farky is broken do this:

Download Farky
Go to SoonerGrads (pops) profile
download the fix/patch

it works.
 
2007-03-22 12:55:21 PM  
He picked this fight because he knows the SCOTUS will never allow his advisors to be forced to testify.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. it's entirely possible that the supremes could rule the other way.

In any event, it's idiotic of the President to even start this fight. It should NEVER have gotten to this point in the first place.
 
2007-03-22 12:55:21 PM  
I shoot friendlies,

He picked this fight because he knows the SCOTUS will never allow his advisors to be forced to testify.

He hopes.

Nixon's advisors were, IIRC correctly, allowed to testify following a court's ruling that they didn't fall under executive privilege.

He may or may not win.

Either way, he comes off looking like a huge farking douche because all anyone is asking him and his people to do is to swear to tell the truth.

That's it: No handstands, no rocket science.

Just swear to tell the truth.
 
2007-03-22 12:56:00 PM  
To anyone who says non-story, ask yourself what if, what if Hillary is the next pres? Do you want her to have the power to use U.S. attorneys as her own private political hit squad?
 
2007-03-22 12:56:15 PM  
I shoot friendlies

He is not going to lose. He picked this fight because he knows the SCOTUS will never allow his advisors to be forced to testify.


Yeah, Good luck with that! You know what they say, the third times the charm!!

/At best is a stall tactic to give Spector a little more wiggle room.
 
2007-03-22 12:56:24 PM  
I cant wait til we turn into a 3rd world country and take the rest of the world with us, I am gonna start constructing The Thunderdome tommorow.
 
2007-03-22 12:56:29 PM  
SchlingFo In reference to the Executive Priviledge statement #1: Teel me what the criminal activity is. There are no charges and a subpoena is not a fishing expedition (which is what the Dems want... FACE TIME on the tube). Come up with a criminal activity that a grand jury can indite on and we can talk. Until then.. go home and cry me a river.
 
2007-03-22 12:57:07 PM  
sic (teel) tell... lol
 
2007-03-22 12:57:11 PM  
2007-03-22 12:55:21 PM SchlingFo [TotalFark]

Of course any thinking person is already aware the he is a huge farking douche, so it hasn't affected his credibility....
 
2007-03-22 12:57:32 PM  
baby_hewey: Bush has been farked buy them once on a witch hunt and this time he doesn't want to lose another good person like he lost Libby.

Hey what did you ask me yesterday? You wanted more evidence about why everyone is torques about this? The stuff from the House Judiciary site, and the stuff from the NPR site (the transcripts and emails the House used to try to figure out what was going on).

I don;t have the link to the NPR stuff.

Someone does?
 
2007-03-22 12:57:36 PM  
Do you know how you can positively identify a blindly partisan neoconservative who'd defend bush even if he ate a retarded human baby on live tv? Jam a sharp stick way up his ass so he can't run away and listen closely for the telltale words; "Non-story" That's what they say every time Bush is in trouble. It's genetically encoded as a defense mechanism.
 
2007-03-22 12:57:41 PM  
You're happy that a corrupt administration can protect itself by loading the Supreme Court with friendlies? What's wrong with you!?

Others have answered your question:

So, what exactly did they do that was illegal?

No one knows. That's point of the questioning. But of course Bush won't play nice and refuses to be held accountable, in other words, he is refusing to let his staff go on record or swear to tell the truth.

Why?? Who knows. But it sure looks like he is hiding something.


Congress thinks they can compel the executive branch to do their bidding. The issue at hand is firing people the executive branch has every right to fire. Can you say witch hunt? So "corrupt?" In your opinion.

But you're not the court.

Congress has decided to stick their nose in the business of the executive branch. Bush will slam the door on their nose. Then the SCOTUS will tell congress "don't stick your nose in the door if you don't like it sore."

Game over.

Have a nice day.
 
2007-03-22 12:57:44 PM  
drg8r

Talking point! Talking point!

/tired of the neo-con rhetoric
//doesn't feel so good when the shoe is on the other foot, now, does it?
 
2007-03-22 12:58:05 PM  
WayneKerr

Threads like this are not the same without Sunny Ray.

Now THERE was some fine, top-quality trolling. I mean, that was trolling as an artform. 5+ people would bite every thread, and they'd be hooked the entire time.
 
2007-03-22 12:58:08 PM  

I've wondered this too. How does this crew honestly expect to get away with this? But I started saying that years ago, and I've been proven wrong every time since.


Republicans are no longer in charge on Capitol Hill. You may be seeing less and less "getting away with it" for the next coupla years.
 
2007-03-22 12:58:36 PM  
ChairmanKaga

Please reread the first two lines and get back to me...

Legislative Branch

* Checks on the Executive


Huh? That is the first two lines in a list of powers. The fist line indicated the following list applies to the legislative branch, and the second line indicates the the following subpoints will apply to the executive branch. Sort of like a table of contents. I guess I am not getting your point. How does rereading a table of contents tell me anything new?
 
2007-03-22 12:58:41 PM  
Philip J. Fry

This is just the Democrats' revenge the Clinton Impeachment.

I think that is what you ment to say.
 
2007-03-22 12:58:47 PM  
Weaver95: He *has* to know that - if he dosen't, then he really IS as stupid as all those people have been saying he is all these years.

What do you think of the temper tantrum he threw at his press conference the other day?

...I may have been the only non-Bush-supporter on this site who was OK with Kerry losing. Two things made me feel this way.

1) If Kerry won, he would have borne shared burden for the outcome of Iraq. As it stands, Iraq is now solely the child of Bush and the Republicans.

2) Historically, the second term is where the chickens come home to roost. This isn't my observation; it's an old one. We saw it with Clinton, Reagan, Nixon, Ike...I don't think there's been a President since Washington that has had a successful second term. Even Lincoln caught a bullet.

So things are working out pretty much according to conjecture. I don't really have the chip on my shoulder I did as regards Republicans a few years ago. I just hope you-all learn some valuable lessons from this. :)
 
2007-03-22 12:58:47 PM  
Congress thinks they can compel the executive branch to do their bidding. The issue at hand is firing people the executive branch has every right to fire. Can you say witch hunt? So "corrupt?" In your opinion.

So you don't see any problem at all in what Gonzales did? Nothing was even the tiniest bit fishy?
 
Displayed 50 of 1657 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
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