WASHINGTON -- The Senate Judiciary Committee followed the House's lead and voted today to authorize subpoenas in the case of the eight fired U.S. attorneys, setting up a potential constitutional showdown with the White House.
Republicans on the committee urged Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) to continue negotiating with the administration to avoid a Supreme Court fight over executive privilege. But Democrats insisted that White House aides be required to testify in public and under oath.
So both the House and the Senate judiciary committees have authorization to issue subpoenas if the chairs decide to.
8 US attorney's getting fired for political reasons instead of just cause-gate is heating up.
I guess one of them is now saying they were directly pressured to weaken their case in the prosecution of a tobacco company.
WASHINGTON -- The Senate Judiciary Committee followed the House's lead and voted today to authorize subpoenas in the case of the eight fired U.S. attorneys, setting up a potential constitutional showdown with the White House.
Republicans on the committee urged Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) to continue negotiating with the administration to avoid a Supreme Court fight over executive privilege. But Democrats insisted that White House aides be required to testify in public and under oath.
So both the House and the Senate judiciary committees have authorization to issue subpoenas if the chairs decide to.
8 US attorney's getting fired for political reasons instead of just cause-gate is heating up.
I guess one of them is now saying they were directly pressured to weaken their case in the prosecution of a tobacco company.
Uncool.
The words were not "pressured" the words were "ordered"
I will say both. As compromising to the office of the Presidency as it was, no matter how much some folks wish to think it - getting sucked off in the Oval-Office isnt illegal; nor is firing your employees. Is it politically motivated - quite possibly yes. But this is well within the right of the admin to do so, to have working for it men/women that YOU trust - not that the "public" trusts.
The admin has every right to surround itself with individuals who conform to the Presidents (and his office) direction.
The problem is that these lawyers have a case for being unjustly discriminated against for their political beliefs, which would fall under that whole "no matter what nation, race, or creed" thing (or whatever it is).
Basically it's illegal to fire someone for their political beliefs.
Well, not necessarily. I'm not sure if it's illegal to tell a prosecutor to prosecute Democrats extra-fast to influence the election. It's certainly shitty, but it might not be illegal. If the attorneys were told to this, and they refused (which is what it sounds like happened), then they could probably be legally fired not for their beliefs, but for failing to follow orders.
I think Ken Starr completely destroyed any chance of anyone taking the view of "independent" counsel seriously.
WASHINGTON -- New documents sent by the Justice Department to Congress on Friday night cast doubt on earlier assertions by Atty. Gen. Alberto Gonzales that he was not deeply involved in plans to fire U.S. attorneys.
The records show that Gonzales approved plans to fire the prosecutors at an hourlong meeting Nov. 27, less than two weeks before the dismissal of seven of the prosecutors.
Gonzales told reporters on March 13 that "what I knew about the process was not involved in seeing any memos, was not involved in any discussions about what was going on."
It's chinese water torture, getting the truth out there, but so long as the lies stay plain as day and don't get technical/nuanced this is going to be an interesting and funny scandal.
WASHINGTON -- New documents sent by the Justice Department to Congress on Friday night cast doubt on earlier assertions by Atty. Gen. Alberto Gonzales that he was not deeply involved in plans to fire U.S. attorneys.
The records show that Gonzales approved plans to fire the prosecutors at an hourlong meeting Nov. 27, less than two weeks before the dismissal of seven of the prosecutors.
Gonzales told reporters on March 13 that "what I knew about the process was not involved in seeing any memos, was not involved in any discussions about what was going on."
It's chinese water torture, getting the truth out there, but so long as the lies stay plain as day and don't get technical/nuanced this is going to be an interesting and funny scandal.
You can't blame the administration for sucking at this so bad... I mean, they spent six years not having to give a crap about it. That being said, I've never gotten so much joy out of the news before.
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
WASHINGTON -- New documents sent by the Justice Department to Congress on Friday night cast doubt on earlier assertions by Atty. Gen. Alberto Gonzales that he was not deeply involved in plans to fire U.S. attorneys.
The records show that Gonzales approved plans to fire the prosecutors at an hourlong meeting Nov. 27, less than two weeks before the dismissal of seven of the prosecutors.
Gonzales told reporters on March 13 that "what I knew about the process was not involved in seeing any memos, was not involved in any discussions about what was going on."
It's chinese water torture, getting the truth out there, but so long as the lies stay plain as day and don't get technical/nuanced this is going to be an interesting and funny scandal.
You can't blame the administration for sucking at this so bad... I mean, they spent six years not having to give a crap about it. That being said, I've never gotten so much joy out of the news before.
I wonder why they don't want to testify under oath, in public, or with any transcripts.
Makes it much easier to lie.
I'll only be happy when something actually comes of this. I won't be surprised if Gonzalez ends up resigning.
Bush does realize that "I want this done in secret with limited questions and no oath" will be interpreted as "I'm going to let my staff lie their asses off because they're guilty", right?
Bush does realize that "I want this done in secret with limited questions and no oath" will be interpreted as "I'm going to let my staff lie their asses off because they're guilty", right?
That's the perplexing thing about it. It's hard to interpret it any other way, and they are not even offering any other justification that I am aware of.
TroubledTom on
Wii friend code: 8704 3489 1049 8917
Mario Kart DS: 3320 6595 7026 5000
Bush does realize that "I want this done in secret with limited questions and no oath" will be interpreted as "I'm going to let my staff lie their asses off because they're guilty", right?
That's the perplexing thing about it. It's hard to interpret it any other way, and they are not even offering any other justification that I am aware of.
Bush does realize that "I want this done in secret with limited questions and no oath" will be interpreted as "I'm going to let my staff lie their asses off because they're guilty", right?
That's the perplexing thing about it. It's hard to interpret it any other way, and they are not even offering any other justification that I am aware of.
He doesn't need reasoning. He's the President!
That's what Executive Priveledge means. In whatever dictionary it is that Gonzales uses, anyway.
Bush does realize that "I want this done in secret with limited questions and no oath" will be interpreted as "I'm going to let my staff lie their asses off because they're guilty", right?
That's the perplexing thing about it. It's hard to interpret it any other way, and they are not even offering any other justification that I am aware of.
He doesn't need reasoning. He's the President!
That's what Executive Priveledge means. In whatever dictionary it is that Gonzales uses, anyway.
It would be so sweet if they water boarded Gonzales to get the truth.
And yeah, I hope this does go to court because I think Executive Privilege is getting thrown around a little loosely and it would be cool to have a precedent to nail it back within limits.
It would be so sweet if they water boarded Gonzales to get the truth.
And yeah, I hope this does go to court because I think Executive Privilege is getting thrown around a little loosely and it would be cool to have a precedent to nail it back within limits.
I hope the SC does knock it back into place, instead of deciding to expand it to "whatever the President thinks it should be."
I'm not sure how likely that is, given the presence of Scalia, Roberts, Thomas, and Alito.
Any president who says, I don't care, or I will not respond to what the people of this country are saying about Iraq or anything else, or I don't care what the Congress does, I am going to proceed — if a president really believes that, then there are — what I was pointing out, there are ways to deal with that
Oh snap, Chuck Hagel just shot up the awesome scale. It's about damn time a Republican decided to stop looking like a chump and stood against the administration's shenanigans.
Any president who says, I don't care, or I will not respond to what the people of this country are saying about Iraq or anything else, or I don't care what the Congress does, I am going to proceed — if a president really believes that, then there are — what I was pointing out, there are ways to deal with that
Oh snap, Chuck Hagel just shot up the awesome scale. It's about damn time a Republican decided to stop looking like a chump and stood against the administration's shenanigans.
Or maybe he doesn't want to go down with him when the entire GOP gets impeached from existence.
Any president who says, I don't care, or I will not respond to what the people of this country are saying about Iraq or anything else, or I don't care what the Congress does, I am going to proceed — if a president really believes that, then there are — what I was pointing out, there are ways to deal with that
Oh snap, Chuck Hagel just shot up the awesome scale. It's about damn time a Republican decided to stop looking like a chump and stood against the administration's shenanigans.
Any president who says, I don't care, or I will not respond to what the people of this country are saying about Iraq or anything else, or I don't care what the Congress does, I am going to proceed — if a president really believes that, then there are — what I was pointing out, there are ways to deal with that
Oh snap, Chuck Hagel just shot up the awesome scale. It's about damn time a Republican decided to stop looking like a chump and stood against the administration's shenanigans.
He'll probably get ostracized for it.
Not a chance. He votes party line 95% of the time. The ACU consistently rates him as one of the most conservative members of congress. He's criticised the handling of the war and other illegal shit the administration's been doing for a long time, but he's not about to leave the party over it.
SiliconStew on
Just remember that half the people you meet are below average intelligence.
Any president who says, I don't care, or I will not respond to what the people of this country are saying about Iraq or anything else, or I don't care what the Congress does, I am going to proceed — if a president really believes that, then there are — what I was pointing out, there are ways to deal with that
Oh snap, Chuck Hagel just shot up the awesome scale. It's about damn time a Republican decided to stop looking like a chump and stood against the administration's shenanigans.
Will it make you feel better if you know that Chuck Hagel was CEO of the company that sold the voting machines to the districts that he then ran for Congress in[machines were sold when he was CEO]?
ed; That being said, if republicans in Congress did impeach GWB it would be a stunning political move. The problem is the leverge all the previous "great leader" propaganda has imposed.
Any president who says, I don't care, or I will not respond to what the people of this country are saying about Iraq or anything else, or I don't care what the Congress does, I am going to proceed — if a president really believes that, then there are — what I was pointing out, there are ways to deal with that
Oh snap, Chuck Hagel just shot up the awesome scale. It's about damn time a Republican decided to stop looking like a chump and stood against the administration's shenanigans.
Will it make you feel better if you know that Chuck Hagel was CEO of the company that sold the voting machines to the districts that he then ran for Congress in[machines were sold when he was CEO]?
ed; That being said, if republicans in Congress did impeach GWB it would be a stunning political move. The problem is the leverge all the previous "great leader" propaganda has imposed.
Any president who says, I don't care, or I will not respond to what the people of this country are saying about Iraq or anything else, or I don't care what the Congress does, I am going to proceed — if a president really believes that, then there are — what I was pointing out, there are ways to deal with that
Oh snap, Chuck Hagel just shot up the awesome scale. It's about damn time a Republican decided to stop looking like a chump and stood against the administration's shenanigans.
Will it make you feel better if you know that Chuck Hagel was CEO of the company that sold the voting machines to the districts that he then ran for Congress in[machines were sold when he was CEO]?
ed; That being said, if republicans in Congress did impeach GWB it would be a stunning political move. The problem is the leverge all the previous "great leader" propaganda has imposed.
Also, Dick Cheney.
I like to think that any scandal that could get this president impeached would take Cheney out with him. Though I'm not sure about President Nancy Pelosi. I suppose she couldn't possibly be worse.
If there is an impeachment, and it's initiated by the pubs, I think even I would reconsider my undying hatred for the party.
So anyway, there's an interview with Gonzales on tonight's NBC evening news. Should be interesting despite assuredly softball questions.
Any president who says, I don't care, or I will not respond to what the people of this country are saying about Iraq or anything else, or I don't care what the Congress does, I am going to proceed — if a president really believes that, then there are — what I was pointing out, there are ways to deal with that
Oh snap, Chuck Hagel just shot up the awesome scale. It's about damn time a Republican decided to stop looking like a chump and stood against the administration's shenanigans.
He'll probably get ostracized for it.
Not a chance. He votes party line 95% of the time. The ACU consistently rates him as one of the most conservative members of congress. He's criticised the handling of the war and other illegal shit the administration's been doing for a long time, but he's not about to leave the party over it.
Oh, he won't leave the party; he'll just stop getting invitations to the fundraising dinners and photo ops and such.
I like to think that any scandal that could get this president impeached would take Cheney out with him. Though I'm not sure about President Nancy Pelosi. I suppose she couldn't possibly be worse.
It wouldn't have to. If Bush was taken out, the effect would be to lame duckerize the rest of the administration's term. Cheney wouldn't be able to do shit, because nobody would listen to him. That said, I think we're already getting to that point, so impeaching Bush wouldn't serve much purpose now, anyway.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
This is interesting. So far it's been Gonzales firing people for possible political implications and lying under oath (or not remembering correctly, according to conservative pundits). Why his aide would need to plead the fifth no one seems to have a good guess at. Maybe she's the one that leaked the e-mail and that's unlawful or something. I have no clue really.
This is interesting. So far it's been Gonzales firing people for possible political implications and lying under oath (or not remembering correctly, according to conservative pundits). Why his aide would need to plead the fifth no one seems to have a good guess at. Maybe she's the one that leaked the e-mail and that's unlawful or something. I have no clue really.
Lying to Congress is a crime. From the sounds of it, she lied to them while not under oath earlier, when she was interviewed. That would be Obstruction of Congress. So, now, the "perjury trap" is that if she admits she lied then, she's admitting to a crime, but if she lies now, she's committing perjury.
Of course, she wouldn't have this problem if she'd simply told the truth in the first place.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
I like to think that any scandal that could get this president impeached would take Cheney out with him. Though I'm not sure about President Nancy Pelosi. I suppose she couldn't possibly be worse.
It wouldn't have to. If Bush was taken out, the effect would be to lame duckerize the rest of the administration's term. Cheney wouldn't be able to do shit, because nobody would listen to him. That said, I think we're already getting to that point, so impeaching Bush wouldn't serve much purpose now, anyway.
Outside of the 30% true believers, who here (in America) wouldn't be in favor of another Andrew Johnson presidency?
I'm all for Bush 'till 08. He's helping the Democratic party right now. Big leaps aren't needed by the Democratic congress, just investigation and appropriate responses to what's found.
I'm all for Bush 'till 08. He's helping the Democratic party right now. Big leaps aren't needed by the Democratic congress, just investigation and appropriate responses to what's found.
Yeah, I agree, despite what my earlier posts may imply. While I'm certainly no fan of this administration, I'd much rather see them squirm for another year and a half while their fortress of bullshit falls in on them. Plus, it's so fun watching him complain when he doesn't get his way.
"The potential for legal jeopardy for Ms. Goodling from even her most truthful and accurate testimony under these circumstances is very real," said her lawyer, John Dowd.
Isn't that basically the same thing as admitting that she's already lied about this? Or would have to admit to some sort ot crime? Isn't that basically admitting that there's something to this story that's way shady, at the very least.
"The potential for legal jeopardy for Ms. Goodling from even her most truthful and accurate testimony under these circumstances is very real," said her lawyer, John Dowd.
Isn't that basically the same thing as admitting that she's already lied about this? Or would have to admit to some sort ot crime? Isn't that basically admitting that there's something to this story that's way shady, at the very least.
It's more like saying I'll tell the truth, but it might not be the AG office's truth.
"The potential for legal jeopardy for Ms. Goodling from even her most truthful and accurate testimony under these circumstances is very real," said her lawyer, John Dowd.
Isn't that basically the same thing as admitting that she's already lied about this? Or would have to admit to some sort ot crime? Isn't that basically admitting that there's something to this story that's way shady, at the very least.
It's basically saying "you guys are unfairly prosecuting people, and just hunting for any lameass excuse to prosecute someone; just look at Scooter Libby!"
It's a retarded argument, whereby they're trying to imply that Scooter Libby never really did anything wrong. Because, y'know, obviously when someone asks you "did you tell Tim Russert about Joe Wilson's wife?" it just doesn't occur to you that, wait a minute, yes, you did.
I mean, really, if they're willing to prosecute for perjury over niggling little details like that, they'll prosecute for it over anything. :roll:
WASHINGTON -- The attorney general's former chief of staff testified today that the Atty. Gen. Alberto Gonzales, despite his earlier denials, was involved in discussions that led to the firing of eight U.S. attorneys.
...
In testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sampson said he had talked to the attorney general "at least five times" about the possibility of firing some or all of the U.S. attorneys when their four-year terms expired during President Bush's second term. He said Gonzales attended a meeting on the issue on Nov. 27, 10 days before seven prosecutors were fired.
"He approved both the list, and going forward," Sampson said.
WASHINGTON -- The attorney general's former chief of staff testified today that the Atty. Gen. Alberto Gonzales, despite his earlier denials, was involved in discussions that led to the firing of eight U.S. attorneys.
...
In testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sampson said he had talked to the attorney general "at least five times" about the possibility of firing some or all of the U.S. attorneys when their four-year terms expired during President Bush's second term. He said Gonzales attended a meeting on the issue on Nov. 27, 10 days before seven prosecutors were fired.
"He approved both the list, and going forward," Sampson said.
This is nonsense. Once again the administration is brought down, not by guilt in the ACTUAL charge (see Libby), but their conduct during the accusation of the charge. Its gone from "We're pissed off because these firings were politically motivated" to "We're pissed off because the AG misrepresented his role in these lawful dismissals!" -
BushCo needs to man the hell up and tell the Dem's to shove their bullshit.
Posts
I guess one of them is now saying they were directly pressured to weaken their case in the prosecution of a tobacco company.
Uncool.
Almost makes you think there's justice in the universe.
The words were not "pressured" the words were "ordered"
I think Ken Starr completely destroyed any chance of anyone taking the view of "independent" counsel seriously.
It's chinese water torture, getting the truth out there, but so long as the lies stay plain as day and don't get technical/nuanced this is going to be an interesting and funny scandal.
You can't blame the administration for sucking at this so bad... I mean, they spent six years not having to give a crap about it. That being said, I've never gotten so much joy out of the news before.
Makes it much easier to lie.
I'll only be happy when something actually comes of this. I won't be surprised if Gonzalez ends up resigning.
That's the perplexing thing about it. It's hard to interpret it any other way, and they are not even offering any other justification that I am aware of.
Mario Kart DS: 3320 6595 7026 5000
That's what Executive Priveledge means. In whatever dictionary it is that Gonzales uses, anyway.
The Nixon dictionary.
And yeah, I hope this does go to court because I think Executive Privilege is getting thrown around a little loosely and it would be cool to have a precedent to nail it back within limits.
I'm not sure how likely that is, given the presence of Scalia, Roberts, Thomas, and Alito.
Or maybe he doesn't want to go down with him when the entire GOP gets impeached from existence.
Will it make you feel better if you know that Chuck Hagel was CEO of the company that sold the voting machines to the districts that he then ran for Congress in[machines were sold when he was CEO]?
ed; That being said, if republicans in Congress did impeach GWB it would be a stunning political move. The problem is the leverge all the previous "great leader" propaganda has imposed.
Also, Dick Cheney.
If there is an impeachment, and it's initiated by the pubs, I think even I would reconsider my undying hatred for the party.
So anyway, there's an interview with Gonzales on tonight's NBC evening news. Should be interesting despite assuredly softball questions.
It wouldn't have to. If Bush was taken out, the effect would be to lame duckerize the rest of the administration's term. Cheney wouldn't be able to do shit, because nobody would listen to him. That said, I think we're already getting to that point, so impeaching Bush wouldn't serve much purpose now, anyway.
Of course, she wouldn't have this problem if she'd simply told the truth in the first place.
Congress is not a criminal court
ed: I am sure it applies, but stull.
Outside of the 30% true believers, who here (in America) wouldn't be in favor of another Andrew Johnson presidency?
Isn't that basically the same thing as admitting that she's already lied about this? Or would have to admit to some sort ot crime? Isn't that basically admitting that there's something to this story that's way shady, at the very least.
It's more like saying I'll tell the truth, but it might not be the AG office's truth.
It's a retarded argument, whereby they're trying to imply that Scooter Libby never really did anything wrong. Because, y'know, obviously when someone asks you "did you tell Tim Russert about Joe Wilson's wife?" it just doesn't occur to you that, wait a minute, yes, you did.
I mean, really, if they're willing to prosecute for perjury over niggling little details like that, they'll prosecute for it over anything. :roll:
Call the moving company. He's done.
BushCo needs to man the hell up and tell the Dem's to shove their bullshit.