:) They will subpeona Rove and Others

mammasan

Abuskedti wrote:

Help me understaind.. We are not calling for some great investigation - merely asking that the parties speak under oath and with transcripts.. Not really too much to ask - and not expensive at all. In fact - far cheaper than the presidents option that instead congress should spend its time reading thousands of already doctored e-mails.

duh... what a travesty to ask that people who speak to congress be held accountable for what they say.

It is a waste because Presidents have the authority to fire prosecutors at will. Clinton did it but no one seemed to think it was a problem back then. Was the timing a bit strange yes. Usually a President will fire prosecutors who are hold-overs from the previous administration. They usually don't fire prosecutors who where appointed during their administration.

This is a pathetic attempt by the Dems to try to pin something on this administration. Why don't they grow a true set of balls and go after them for something serious like the Plame leak or the faulty intell that led us into Iraq or even the horrid mismanagement of the war.

WMA

mammasan wrote:

It is a waste because Presidents have the authority to fire prosecutors at will. Clinton did it but no one seemed to think it was a problem back then. Was the timing a bit strange yes. Usually a President will fire prosecutors who are hold-overs from the previous administration. They usually don't fire prosecutors who where appointed during their administration.

This is a pathetic attempt by the Dems to try to pin something on this administration. Why don't they grow a true set of balls and go after them for something serious like the Plame leak or the faulty intell that led us into Iraq or even the horrid mismanagement of the war.

There are a couple differences though.

They were replaced at the start of the term (which G.W.B. did also btw with no trouble at all) and the Senate had a vote on the replacements, which is a good system to keep the crazies out. It has always kept all of them more or less moderate, as law and politics aren't really a good mix.

Because of a provision snuck into the patriot act the AG could just appoint the new ones until a couple days ago when they repealed it.

There is also the question of certain investigations that were halted because of the moves.

blackredyellow

WMA wrote:

There are a couple differences though.

They were replaced at the start of the term (which G.W.B. did also btw with no trouble at all) and the Senate had a vote on the replacements, which is a good system to keep the crazies out. It has always kept all of them more or less moderate, as law and politics aren't really a good mix.

Because of a provision snuck into the patriot act the AG could just appoint the new ones until a couple days ago when they repealed it.

There is also the question of certain investigations that were halted because of the moves.

And the allegations that they removed the ones who were prosecuting republicans or not pursuing cases against democrats that the administration wanted them to.

The justice department should pursue the cases that make the most sense in terms of stopping crime, not because of a political agenda.

It just makes me want to through a brick through the TV when I hear Bush or Snow on TV talking about congress just playing politics. No shit they are playing politics, but they are playing it against an administration who has played politics with every single issue since coming in to office.

Abuskedti

mammasan wrote:

It is a waste because Presidents have the authority to fire prosecutors at will. Clinton did it but no one seemed to think it was a problem back then. Was the timing a bit strange yes. Usually a President will fire prosecutors who are hold-overs from the previous administration. They usually don't fire prosecutors who where appointed during their administration.

This is a pathetic attempt by the Dems to try to pin something on this administration. Why don't they grow a true set of balls and go after them for something serious like the Plame leak or the faulty intell that led us into Iraq or even the horrid mismanagement of the war.

I agree about the other things you say they should do. However, this appears to be potentially serious. The implication is that the Executive Branch fired US Attorneys because they were pursuing charges against Republicans. That seems like obstruction of justice. The interviews, under oath, may yield nothing - depending upon how well the accused have coordinated their story. But a simple hearing is not excessive.

JaneNY

Abuskedti wrote:

But a simple hearing is not excessive.

Agreed, and besides, following along with the type of logic of the current administration, why should they mind testifying under oath if they've done nothing wrong?

Abuskedti

PJ_Saluki wrote:

But how can they guarantee that Rove would give honest testimony if he's not under oath? I just don't see the guy as incredibly honest. He could still lie under oath but I think it's less likely than if it's him, three of his lawyers and a bunch of Dem suits and lawyers all in a room.

He wont tell the truth just because he is under oath. Under oath - with transcripts allows the opportunity to compare testimony of all parties. When people lie - inconsistancies are inevitable. Because they were under oath, they will be compelled to explain the inconsistencies.

Of course they always have the "I can't remember" option.

But it will still lead to a better understanding of what happened - and will show these behind the scenes ass holes that they have to play a little more fair in the future.

inmytree

what happened to the "well, if you've got nothing to hide" crowd...

it's funny, bushy and is supporters were all for warrantless wiretaps, yet, when it comes there turn to monitored and scrutinized, they fight like trapped animal...

Drew263

mammasan wrote:

This is a gigantic waste of time and money but I think every damn Republican should shut the fuck up because I'm sure most where in full support of the Clinton investigation.

I wasn't. That was just another example of politics not being about real issues. It's all bullshit. Our government is run by a bunch of greedy, power hungry douchbags. Every politician.

Which is exactly I don't trust them and want them to leave me the fuck alone.

mammasan

Abuskedti wrote:

I agree about the other things you say they should do. However, this appears to be potentially serious. The implication is that the Executive Branch fired US Attorneys because they were pursuing charges against Republicans. That seems like obstruction of justice. The interviews, under oath, may yield nothing - depending upon how well the accused have coordinated their story. But a simple hearing is not excessive.

It's not just a simple hearing though. Now we are probably headed into a legal battle between Congress and the White House. Look I, like many others, would love to see this administration nailed for all the shit they have done. I just think this is a fishing expedition to try to find something minor to get them on. If the Dems really want to go after this White House then go for the gold. We still haven't seen anyone brought to justice for leaking Plame's identity. We still don't have any accountability for Iraq. Don't waste time and my tax dollars going after someone just because they may have fired some prosecuters for political reasons. Yes it's wrong but compared to everything else it's small beans.

mammasan

Drew263 wrote:

I wasn't. That was just another example of politics not being about real issues. It's all bullshit. Our government is run by a bunch of greedy, power hungry douchbags. Every politician.

Which is exactly I don't trust them and want them to leave me the fuck alone.

Sorry if you thought I meant Republicans on this board. I was referring to the republicans in Congress.

I feel the same way you do. I detest them. Most of them have done everything in their power to serve their own interest at the expense of the this country and the people. Our government is broken and the only ones that can do anything about it, us, are to busy eating the shit they feed us.

Thomas Jefferson said it best. The moment that our government fails to serve the people it is time to over throw it.

Abuskedti

mammasan wrote:

It's not just a simple hearing though. Now we are probably headed into a legal battle between Congress and the White House. Look I, like many others, would love to see this administration nailed for all the shit they have done. I just think this is a fishing expedition to try to find something minor to get them on. If the Dems really want to go after this White House then go for the gold. We still haven't seen anyone brought to justice for leaking Plame's identity. We still don't have any accountability for Iraq. Don't waste time and my tax dollars going after someone just because they may have fired some prosecuters for political reasons. Yes it's wrong but compared to everything else it's small beans.

I will be with you soon - if this goes too far. .which is exactly the strategy Bush will use. He will refuse, asking for a "executive privlege" ruling from the courts. This is already not really about the US attorney issue. It does threaten to be some silly political exercise.. but so far, I approve of asking for them to speak under oath.

its like the OJ trial - the Dems should be smart enough not to refute every stupid claim the other side makes. I guess that is too much to hope for.

mammasan

Abuskedti wrote:

I will be with you soon - if this goes too far. .which is exactly the strategy Bush will use. He will refuse, asking for a "executive privlege" ruling from the courts. This is already not really about the US attorney issue. It does threaten to be some silly political exercise.. but so far, I approve of asking for them to speak under oath.

its like the OJ trial - the Dems should be smart enough not to refute every stupid claim the other side makes. I guess that is too much to hope for.

I agree that asking them to speak under oath is not abig thing, in general. It is a big thing when you have something to hide and it's my opinion that this administration, like many others, has a lot of skeletons in it's closet. Bush will take the fight to the Dems and all we will hear about for the next year or so is about this. Everything else will fall to the way side and in the end nothing will come of it. Much like the Clinton investigations all we got for it was a big bill the tax payers had to pay.

Kat

There may be so much more going on than we even have a hint about. So much is kept hidden...but people are looking into things. So...what's true and what isn't true? I'd like to know for sure and if it's nothing, then we'll know that too.

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2007/03/more-on-dick-cheneys-connections-to.html


http://thinkprogress.org/2007/03/21/barr-attorney-purge/

Love and Peace,
Kat

inmytree

Kat wrote:

There may be so much more going on than we even have a hint about. So much is kept hidden...but people are looking into things. So...what's true and what isn't true? I'd like to know for sure and if it's nothing, then we'll know that too.

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2007/03/more-on-dick-cheneys-connections-to.html

Love and Peace,
Kat

oh my...:eek:

thanks for that info...I wonder if the "liberal" media will pick this up....

El_Kabong

inmytree wrote:

oh my...:eek:

thanks for that info...I wonder if the "liberal" media will pick this up....

i doubt it...take the oil for food scandal, all you heard about was kofi annon, nothing about dick cheney and halliburton's involvement or how they violated US law to do business w/ Iraq, Iran, Syria....up until 2000