SubpoenOWNED

[jasendorf]

Now we are getting somewhere. I am more interested in how you come to the opinion he's abusing anything. I can read or listen to the talking heads all week. So, in your humble opinion, why is this an abuse of power and how would you personally fix it?

Americans overwhelmingly believe that those who do a good job deserve reward and those who do a bad job deserve firing. While not written into any specific laws, it's, verifiably, a tenet of the American psyche. We hate ass-kissers, especially those who reap rewards for nothing more than kissing ass. Why? Because we have a general affinity to work ethic and competency over nepotism.

When the President/Attorney General/the Attorney General's secretary/Karl Rove/Dick Cheney (who knows? the story changes daily and no one seems to have known anything about the firings) chose to fire these U.S. Attorneys, the American people didn't care... because they were under the impression that they were fired for not doing their jobs... as the Attorney General cited "performance reasons."

But, that turns out to not be the case. The Attorney General (at the behest of whom?) lied to us and lied about them. They were fired for doing their job. Unfortunately, doing their job meant doing things that sometimes hurt the political power of those above them. They were fired so that people who wouldn't do their job (and, possibly, would skip or gloss over the legal abuses of a Party in power).

That is an abuse of power in my eyes.

 

[pegwinn]

Americans overwhelmingly believe that those who do a good job deserve reward and those who do a bad job deserve firing. While not written into any specific laws, it's, verifiably, a tenet of the American psyche. We hate ass-kissers, especially those who reap rewards for nothing more than kissing ass. Why? Because we have a general affinity to work ethic and competency over nepotism.

When the President/Attorney General/the Attorney General's secretary/Karl Rove/Dick Cheney (who knows? the story changes daily and no one seems to have known anything about the firings) chose to fire these U.S. Attorneys, the American people didn't care... because they were under the impression that they were fired for not doing their jobs... as the Attorney General cited "performance reasons."

But, that turns out to not be the case. The Attorney General (at the behest of whom?) lied to us and lied about them. They were fired for doing their job. Unfortunately, doing their job meant doing things that sometimes hurt the political power of those above them. They were fired so that people who wouldn't do their job (and, possibly, would skip or gloss over the legal abuses of a Party in power).

That is an abuse of power in my eyes.

We disagree on the nature and degree of the issue. To me it is a 100% legal application of Presidential authority. And, it is a reprehensible ethical breach by the AG.

What the American people believe (overwhelmingly or not) isn't relevant without specific laws. As I said, Bush should simply have answered, "Because I can" and let it go at that.

Outcome due to lies is that provisions of the PAct are gone, the AG loses any credibility in or out of the DOJ he may've had. And, until he is gone, the DOJ will be suspect. All because they were apparently afraid to offend someone by honestly acknowledgeing thier own lawful authority.

 

[red states rule]

If only you were right...But you're not. This was about purging the DoJ of those were more interested in doing their jobs than kissing the Bush administration's and the GOP's collective ass. The replacements for these sacked attorneys were appointed under that now rescinded provision of the USA PATRIOT Act which allowed the DoJ to appoint US Attorneys indefinitely without being subject to Senate confirmation.

This was the beginning of a deliberate attempt to subvert the DoJ, and the rule of law, by replacing competent attorneys with political hacks. Were the Republicans still in charge of the House and Senate, it would have succeeded too.

The liberal media is doing their part to push yet another right wing conspiracy

This from the unbiased and impartial Clinton News Network


Missing Bush Documents: Another Jack Cafferty-Endorsed Conspiracy Theory
Posted by Matthew Balan on April 13, 2007 - 18:50.
After winning the Media Research Center’s Tin Foil Hat Award for Crazy Conspiracy Theories, Jack Cafferty has endorsed a new conspiracy theory, this time concocted by a contributor to left-wing Salon.com. On Friday’s "The Cafferty File," which is part of CNN’s "The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer," Cafferty cited some of the many quotes blogger Glenn Greenwald collected from a variety of liberal mainstream media sources, such as the New York Times, Newsweek, NPR, and the Associated Press. These quotes from news articles "tend to suggest a pattern," as Cafferty put it, of missing documents and e-mails with the Bush administration. Among the circumstances which Greenwald pulled up quotes for are the Abu Ghraib controversy, the case of suspected terrorist Jose Padilla (pronounced "Patilla" by Cafferty), the supposed gaps in President Bush’s service in the Texas Air National Guard record, and Hurricane Katrina. After presenting many of Greenwald’s collected quotes, Cafferty asked viewers if they think there’s a pattern, and compared it to a "compost heap... the more stuff you pile on it, the greater the odor that emanates from it."

While Greenwald and his spokesman-in-all-but-name Cafferty hint that there is a supposed pattern of documents that go missing in these various instances, there is a real common thread among them. Congressional Democrats have played all of them up, and called for a full disclosure of documents from the administration, as a possible precursor to hearings and investigations. The Democrats have framed this pursuit as part of their power of "oversight." These calls have only increased since they regained power in Congress.

By suggesting there might be a pattern, CNN’s Jack Cafferty is lending support to the congressional Democrats, and is encouraging them to continue their efforts. In comparison, when Rep. Dan Burton went after the Clinton White House for audiotapes as part of an investigation, CNN did its best to give a little covering fire for the Democratic adminstration by labeling Burton as a "partisan."

The only conclusion that can be drawn is that CNN thinks its all right for the liberal Democrats to pursue politically-motivated investigations against Republicans. Meanwhile, it’s quick to attack Republicans for "partisan hardball."

http://newsbusters.org/node/12033

 

[red states rule]

House OKs Subpoenas for Top Bush Aides

Mar 21, 11:12 AM (ET)

By LAURIE KELLMAN

WASHINGTON (AP) - A House panel on Wednesday approved subpoenas for President Bush's political adviser, Karl Rove and other top White House aides, setting up a constitutional showdown over the firings of eight federal prosecutors.

By voice vote, the House Judiciary subcommittee on commercial and administrative law decided to compel the president's top aides to testify publicly and under oath about their roles in the firings.

The White House has refused to budge in the controversy, standing by embattled Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and insisting that the firings were appropriate. White House spokesman Tony Snow said that in offering aides to talk to the committees privately, Bush had sought to avoid the "media spectacle" that would result from public hearings with Rove and others at the witness table.

"The question they've got to ask themselves is, are you more interested in a political spectacle than getting the truth?" Snow said of the overture Tuesday by the White House via its top lawyer, Fred Fielding.

"There must be accountability," countered subcommittee Chairwoman Linda Sanchez, D-Calif.

The panel approved, but has not issued, subpoenas for Rove, former White House Counsel Harriet Miers, their deputies and Kyle Sampson, Gonzales' chief of staff, who resigned over the uproar last week. The full Judiciary Committee would authorize the subpoenas if Chairman John Conyers of Michigan chose to do so.

The committee rejected Bush's offer a day earlier to have his aides talk privately to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, but not under oath and not on the record.

Authorizing the subopenas "does provide this body the leverage needed to negotiate from a position of strenghth," said Rep. William Delahunt, D-Mass.

Republicans called the authorization premature, though some GOP members said they would consider voting to approve the subpoenas if Conyers promises to issue them only if he has evidence of wrongdoing.

Conyers agreed. "This (authority) will not be used in a way that will make you regret your vote."

Several Republicans said, "No" during the voice vote, but no roll call was taken.

For his part, Bush remained resolute.

Would he fight Democrats in court to protect his aides against congressional subpoenas?

"Absolutely," Bush declared Tuesday.

Democrats promptly rejected the threat. The Senate Judiciary Committee planned to approve subpoenas for the same officials on Thursday.

"Testimony should be on the record and under oath. That's the formula for true ccountability," said Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy of Vermont.

Bush said he worried that allowing testimony under oath would set a precedent on the separation of powers that would harm the presidency as an institution.

If neither side blinks, the dispute could end in court - ultimately the Supreme Court - in a politically messy development that would prolong what Bush called the "public spectacle" of the Justice Department's firings, and public trashings, of the eight U.S. attorneys.

Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., the Senate panel's former chairman, appealed for pragmatism.

"It is more important to get the information promptly than to have months or years of litigation," Specter said.

Bush, in a late-afternoon statement at the White House, decried any attempts by Democrats to engage in "a partisan fishing expedition aimed at honorable public servants."

"It will be regrettable if they choose to head down the partisan road of issuing subpoenas and demanding show trials when I have agreed to make key White House officials and documents available," the president said.

Bush defended Gonzales against demands from congressional Democrats and a handful of Republicans that Gonzales resign over his handling of the U.S. attorneys' firings over the past year.

"He's got support with me," Bush said. "I support the attorney general."

Democrats say the prosecutors' dismissals were politically motivated. Gonzales initially had asserted the firings were performance-related, not based on political considerations.

But e-mails released earlier this month between the Justice Department and the White House contradicted that assertion and led to a public apology from Gonzales over the handling of the matter.

The e-mails showed that Rove, as early as Jan. 6, 2005, questioned whether the U.S. attorneys should all be replaced at the start of Bush's second term, and to some degree worked with former White House Counsel Harriet Miers and former Gonzales chief of staff Kyle Sampson to get some prosecutors dismissed.

In his remarks Tuesday, Bush emphasized that he appoints federal prosecutors and it is natural to consider replacing them. While saying he disapproved of how the decisions were explained to Congress, he insisted "there is no indication that anybody did anything improper."

Nonetheless, the Senate on Tuesday voted 94-2 to strip Gonzales of his authority to fill U.S. attorney vacancies without Senate confirmation. Democrats contend the Justice Department and White House purged the eight federal prosecutors, some of whom were leading political corruption investigations, after a change in the USA Patriot Act gave Gonzales the new authority.

"What happened in this case sends a signal really through intimidation by purge: 'Don't quarrel with us any longer,'" said Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., a former U.S. attorney.

The White House had signaled last week that it would not oppose the legislation if it also passed the House and reached Bush's desk.

In an op-ed in Wednesday's editions of The New York Times, one of the eight, David Iglesias of New Mexico, responded to the president: "I appreciate his gratitude for my service - this marks the first time I have been thanked. But only a written retraction by the Justice Department setting the record straight regarding my performance would settle the issue for me."

Should I change my nick to Myth Buster? There is no Federal law that makes the firing of Executive branch lawyers illegal or criminal.

I have looked and guess what I found.

Nothing. There is no Federal law that makes firing US executive branch lawyers illegal.

If you do find the law, can you please post it here?

I would have to say this myth that firing executive US branch attorneys is illegal.

 

[Rosotar]

The liberal media is doing their part to push yet another right wing conspiracy]

You Conservatives never get enough of your nutty, tin-foil hat conspiracy theories do you?

How much longer are you going to continue blaming Bush's screw ups on the people who tell us about them?

While Greenwald and his spokesman-in-all-but-name Cafferty hint that there is a supposed pattern of documents that go missing in these various instances, there is a real common thread among them. Congressional Democrats have played all of them up, and called for a full disclosure of documents from the administration, as a possible precursor to hearings and investigations. The Democrats have framed this pursuit as part of their power of "oversight." These calls have only increased since they regained power in Congress.

You should be happy to see Congress doing it's job. A REAL American would be.

You are a real American aren't you RSR?

By suggesting there might be a pattern, CNN’s Jack Cafferty is lending support to the congressional Democrats, and is encouraging them to continue their efforts. In comparison, when Rep. Dan Burton went after the Clinton White House for audiotapes as part of an investigation, CNN did its best to give a little covering fire for the Democratic adminstration by labeling Burton as a "partisan."

This is such a typical argument for desperate Cons.

When all else fails just attempt to compare this administration to slick Willies and try to play the victim because Bush is not getting the same treatment as Clinton.

Whatever happened during the Clinton years is history. Get over it!

The only conclusion that can be drawn is that CNN thinks its all right for the liberal Democrats to pursue politically-motivated investigations against Republicans. Meanwhile, it’s quick to attack Republicans for "partisan hardball."

http://newsbusters.org/node/12033

Do you mean politically motivated investigations like the Monica Lewinski debacle (as long as you're using Bubba as an example)?

Remember, you guys invented this game.

 

[red states rule]

You Conservatives never get enough of your nutty, tin-foil hat conspiracy theories do you?

How much longer are you going to continue blaming Bush's screw ups on the people who tell us about them?



You should be happy to see Congress doing it's job. A REAL American would be.

You are a real American aren't you RSR?




This is such a typical argument for desperate Cons.

When all else fails just attempt to compare this administration to slick Willies and try to play the victim because Bush is not getting the same treatment as Clinton.

Whatever happened during the Clinton years is history. Get over it!




Do you mean politically motivated investigations like the Monica Lewinski debacle (as long as you're using Bubba as an example)?

Remember, you guys invented this game.

and based on the current polls - we are winning the game

The Dem Congress has lower approval numbers then Pres Bush

 

[Rosotar]

and based on the current polls - we are winning the game

The Dem Congress has lower approval numbers then Pres Bush

Don't get too excited about the polls. They go up and down.

Congress has lost a bit of the public's approval because of the obstruction from the Bush administration.

Wait until our troops begin arriving home as a result of Dems forcing Bush to sign their war funding bill.

Then we'll see those popularity polls go sky high.

 

[jasendorf]

We disagree on the nature and degree of the issue. To me it is a 100% legal application of Presidential authority. And, it is a reprehensible ethical breach by the AG.

What the American people believe (overwhelmingly or not) isn't relevant without specific laws. As I said, Bush should simply have answered, "Because I can" and let it go at that.

Are you saying anti-abortionists should STFU?

Your notion that what the American people believe isn't relevant is naive at best or a plain lie at worst.

Outcome due to lies is that provisions of the PAct are gone, the AG loses any credibility in or out of the DOJ he may've had. And, until he is gone, the DOJ will be suspect. All because they were apparently afraid to offend someone by honestly acknowledgeing thier own lawful authority.

That's another interesting note. The PAct delegated the Congressional authority of consent to the AG. Not to his secretary. So, when the AG goes out and does his Sgt. Shultz routine (I know NUTTING!) during a press conference, it begs the question of whether these firings were even legal.

 

[pegwinn]

Are you saying anti-abortionists should STFU?

Your notion that what the American people believe isn't relevant is naive at best or a plain lie at worst.

Ya know I don't neg rep people regularly at all. Normally if they are stupid I simply move on. Now, when someone implies that I am lying, I take that personally. Obviously I cannot threaten you without a shitload of effort on my part. And frankly, nothing on a messageboard is going to piss me off enough to go after anyone in the real world. But if you wish to continue a polite discussion, knock off the fucking personal insults.

Since I am not lying I guess I am naive. But I am naive in a realistic way. Your opinion on any given topic simply is irrelevant to an elected official unless you are valuable to him/her/it. Remember, they - do - not - work - for - us. Now, if you are a lobbyist who is able to send millions into the war chest, your opinion is relevant.

OBTW, What exactly is your translator telling you that indicates I said the anti-abortionists should shut up?

That's another interesting note. The PAct delegated the Congressional authority of consent to the AG. Not to his secretary. So, when the AG goes out and does his Sgt. Shultz routine (I know NUTTING!) during a press conference, it begs the question of whether these firings were even legal.

That is a legitimate angle I hadn't thought of. The question is, Did Bush Know? If he knew, then any action was taken in his name. With or without the PAct, appointees serve at the Presidents pleasure.

Once the summons go out, TV news might get interesting again.

 

[red states rule]

Don't get too excited about the polls. They go up and down.

Congress has lost a bit of the public's approval because of the obstruction from the Bush administration.

Wait until our troops begin arriving home as a result of Dems forcing Bush to sign their war funding bill.

Then we'll see those popularity polls go sky high.

and Dems are going down

what obstruction? Pres Bush has told them what he will veto- yet they pass the bills anyway

Most of the bills are in conference, since the House and Senate cannot agree on the contents

Pres Bush will veto the "Surrender At All Costs" bill and Dems will have to cave

 

[pegwinn]

Devils advocate.

I'd pass the bill on to the President so he could veto it. In fact I'd send a bill cancelling "his" tax breaks, and actually raising taxes. Everytime he vetoed something, I would trumpet it and spin it like a top.

 

[red states rule]

Devils advocate.

I'd pass the bill on to the President so he could veto it. In fact I'd send a bill cancelling "his" tax breaks, and actually raising taxes. Everytime he vetoed something, I would trumpet it and spin it like a top.

Get ready for the veto pen to start coming out

 

[Rosotar]

Get ready for the veto pen to start coming out

The veto pen might not even work anymore.

After all, he never had to use it when Congress was staffed with loyal Republican lapdogs.

Now that he's got a "real" Congress to deal with he's finally got to blow the dust off of the veto pen to cut funding for our troops.

That's a shame!

 

[red states rule]

The veto pen might not even work anymore.

After all, he never had to use it when Congress was staffed with loyal Republican lapdogs.

Now that he's got a "real" Congress to deal with he's finally got to blow the dust off of the veto pen to cut funding for our troops.

That's a shame!

To bad for you, but good for America; Pres Bush and the voters do not agree millons for peanut storage is vital military spending.

The surrender date is not a good idea either

If you want America to win in Iraq

 

[Rosotar]

To bad for you, but good for America; Pres Bush and the voters do not agree millons for peanut storage is vital military spending.

The surrender date is not a good idea either

If you want America to win in Iraq

Whos'e talking about surrender?

Not Democrats.

They're just giving Bush a reasonable timeline in order to demonstrate that his latest plan has worked. Nothing wrong with that unless of course it scares the Bushies to think they actually might be held accountable for something on some specific date.

Of course they would rather have a blank check to continue their failures on into perpetuity with no one asking questions or expecting any measurable signs of success. Those days are over. Congressional Dems are shining the light of scrutiny and oversight on this whole mess and the Bush administration, like cockroaches, is scurrying for cover.

Hence these derogatory catchphrases like "surrender at all costs bill."

It's called accountability and it's something that cons should get used to from now on.

 

[Rosotar]

and based on the current polls - we are winning the game

The Dem Congress has lower approval numbers then Pres Bush

Well....not exactly!

Actually approval for Dems in Congress is still pretty high.

Newt Gingrich never got above 41%.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll_041607.html

 

[maineman]

Well....not exactly!

Actually approval for Dems in Congress is still pretty high.

Newt Gingrich never got above 41%.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll_041607.html

that poll shows congressional approval ratings climbing, not tanking. I wonder how RSR explains that?

 

[hjmick]

that poll shows congressional approval ratings climbing, not tanking. I wonder how RSR explains that?

He doesn't. LOL

 

[maineman]

He doesn't. LOL

ain't that the truth?

He makes outlandish statements, and then, when repeatedly asked to explain them, he claims that he already has expalined them and that we are just too stupid to have understood (or, apparently, even recognized) the explanation when he had given it to us earlier.

That is his M.O. replayed in thread after thread. He is good for a laugh, I'll give him that!

 

[Superlative]

ain't that the truth?

He makes outlandish statements, and then, when repeatedly asked to explain them, he claims that he already has expalined them and that we are just too stupid to have understood (or, apparently, even recognized) the explanation when he had given it to us earlier.

That is his M.O. replayed in thread after thread. He is good for a laugh, I'll give him that!

After you post anything, he doesnt read it, He calls you Dim, and then blames the 'liberals' for everything, only after he has posted a right wing 5,000,000 word post some how proving it.
You then prove him wrong and he repeats what he wrote in the first post. Its a vicious ignorant irritating cycle.