Bush orders Rove not to testify
Hitch-Hiker
Posts: 2,873
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6927206.stm
What the hell is going on in your country, that allows the president to basically come out and say, "I'm not gonna tell you what we did"? No attempt at even lying about it.
Seriously fucked up.
US President George W Bush has ordered close adviser Karl Rove not to testify before a Senate hearing on the sacking of eight federal prosecutors.
Mr Bush used the executive privilege he has as president to exempt Mr Rove from having to appear.
The US Senate committee is investigating whether the White House arranged the sackings for improper political reasons.
The Bush administration maintains that the dismissals were justified.
"Mr Rove, as an immediate presidential adviser, is immune from compelled congressional testimony about matters that arose during his tenure and that relate to his official duties in that capacity," White House lawyer Fred Fielding wrote in a letter to Democrat Senator Patrick Leahy, and made available to the Reuters news agency.
Mr Rove had been due to testify at a hearing on Thursday morning, along with another White House aide, deputy political director Scott Jennings.
Mr Jennings is still expected to appear but he is not expected testify about the fired prosecutors.
Contempt accusation
The row began after Attorney General Alberto Gonzales fired eight federal prosecutors in 2006 - an unusual move, but not illegal.
However, the controversy over the firings has grown into a larger dispute between Congress and the White House.
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales
Mr Gonzales has resisted repeated calls to resign
Democrats, who control Congress, say the sackings were politically motivated and that Mr Rove knew of discussions about firing the attorneys nearly two years before the axe fell on them.
The president has previously offered to let Mr Rove and other aides speak privately to some members of Congress, but he has firmly rejected the demand for public testimony under oath.
Mr Rove and Mr Jennings were subpoenaed a day after the House judiciary committee issued contempt of Congress citations against White House chief of staff Joshua Bolten and ex-legal counsel Harriet Miers in the row.
The Democrats have also announced they will seek a perjury investigation to be carried out into Mr Gonzales in connection with the same case.
Opponents say he fired the attorneys for political reasons and later lied about the reason for their dismissal.
Mr Gonzales, who retains Mr Bush's support, says he did nothing wrong and has resisted calls for his dismissal.
What the hell is going on in your country, that allows the president to basically come out and say, "I'm not gonna tell you what we did"? No attempt at even lying about it.
Seriously fucked up.
I'll Ride The Wave Where It Takes Me
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
So ... to avoid the consequences, they just avoid even having to deal with the truth.
It's pretty genius, in a sick sinister fashion.
The pathetic part is that the American people are the ones who are really asleep at the wheel.
To busy worrying about what is for dinner tonight, and how to pay the tax man tomorrow to every even consider what is being done to them or how to stop it.
:(
I suggest a massive RE-Awakining of the American consciensnous. Unfortuantely most would seemingly prefer their brainwashing.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Executive privilege exists for a reason. Like most rules, it can be abused. But the different branches of government need to be able to give each other the finger. Sometimes they need to cooperate. Sometimes they need to ignore each other.
If people, terrorists, or whatever, want to blow things up and fly planes into buildings on western soil there is to be an immense and never ending consequence. I think this message is not too far out of reality.
All the 9/11 stuff aside, how should this situation be looked at? What should we be doing (forget about 9/11 conspiracy...just for a minute)
Just going on face value. Or, say for example 9/11 was an open and shut case of terrorism. Should this not be the way to handle it? The old addage you can never give in to a hostage situation because it will be the standard method for crazy people to commit crimes and get away with it.
So all things aside there is a certain amount of logic to the current approach.
*lights the fuse...and runs away*
Seriously though how far down the rabbit hole does one go with the anti gov't sentiment.
Just a thought.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Some countries still execute their elected officials for corruptions and crimes of magnitude far less than what is already provable against these buffoons.
just a thought.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Which ones? I'm not trying to say everything is peachy, but at some point one has to consider the two forces at work and look at the lesser of the two evils.
Should the message be if you attack the US, they will always succumb? There's a lot of levels that could be exploited on.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
I can defend it. Not because I'm defending the current administration, but the executive branch doesn't report to the legislative branch. They are independent and serve different functions. Would you also want supreme court justices brought before congress to explain/justify their rulings? Of course not.
We have not given the president a line item veto because it would give him power to shape legislation after the legislative branch is done with it. I don't want the President running congress, and I don't want congress running the executive branch.
Firstly: The war on terrorism is not the "war" in Iraq. These are two separate things. If the war on terrorism, that was born on 9/11, were truly a war on terrorism, the US would've followed Osama bin Ladin and his ilk into the mountains of Afghanistan and Pakistan, and killed them. THAT would've been a war on terrorism. And the US could've proudly proclaimed it won.
Secondly: This post is about the Bush administration's obstruction of justice that is going on every day under your nose: a) Bush's signing statements b) the politicizing of every office in and OUTSIDE of the executive branch....there are too many other points to mention, but I will if need be.
We ARE a bunch of sissy Americans. The lot of us! However, I'm the exception. And I know of a lot of other people who are exceptions too.
Wake up, Roland.
I'm one of the most awake people on this board. Trust me.
I'm working on a new chaos theory and what Bush is doing now may be the ultimate solution regardless of the way it started.
The power of resources has to go somewhere and to someone. It's inevitably going to fall somewhere.
Would would you like it to be?
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Pardon? Come come again?
edit: I must have been tired last night. I was saying... where would you like the power and control in the world to be? Which country should be the world leader? I think we have a pretty good society in comparison given all the problems.
I mean purely from an evolutionary standpoint we (i.e the west) are the wave that migrated out of Africa into Europe then traveled great seas to conquer North America. The leading edge of evolution so to speak. Whoosh...
The US is building bases and snapping up as much oil and natural gas resources in the middle east (and the world) that it can right now.
If they don't, somebody else will, and rise up substantially as a result. It's the law of the jungle.
Would you be ok with the US being second rate to someone else?
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
orders? who the hell does bush think he is? don't tell me he actually thinks he's running the country. clearly the man has delusions of grandeur.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Presidents since Washington and Jefferson have used executive privilege. And it can be overridden. Clinton tried to envoke it during the Lewinski scandals and a judge ruled that his staffers were compelled to answer subpoenas and testify. I would be happy if this happened in this case, too, if it is warranted. But I don't believe congress should have the ability to compell testimony without also involving the judicial branch.
It almost seems as if some of you think that executive privilege is a new concept.
Hail, Hail!!!
Excuse me?
"I find it ironic that our president champions intelligent design, given that his own existence is a living negation of any such principle."