Bush White House to be subpoenaed by wiretap lawyers (1 Viewer)

[danarhea]

The subpoenas are being announced today at 4:30PM, EST. On the heels of one Federal judge calling the program unconstitutional, and another Federal judge throwing out Bush's claim of national security, we may be on the verge of Clinton redux - That is, President Bush being forced to testify in court UNDER OATH.

My feeling on this is, whatever is good for the Demagoose is good for the Republigander. Face it, they are ALL crooks, regardless of party.

Article is here.

 

[Deegan]

Typical posturing by these lawyers, they won't succeed in calling Bush, or anyone in this administration for that matter, but this is really no surprise.

 

[danarhea]

Typical posturing by these lawyers, they won't succeed in calling Bush, or anyone in this administration for that matter, but this is really no surprise.

The lawyers represent clients, who are American citizens, are not connected with any kind of terrorist activity, and yet were spied on. They file a lawsuit, and subpoena Bush, and you call it posturing??????

Like Clinton, you seem to be defining what the word "is" is.

 

[Deegan]

The lawyers represent clients, who are American citizens, are not connected with any kind of terrorist activity, and yet were spied on. They file a lawsuit, and subpoena Bush, and you call it posturing??????

Like Clinton, you seem to be defining what the word "is" is.

Claim they were "spied on" there is a big difference. You certainly don't get to drag the president to court everytime you make a "claim" now do you? I am not on anyone's side here, but yes, I think these lawyers are seriously over-reaching.

 

[danarhea]

Claim they were "spied on" there is a big difference. You certainly don't get to drag the president to court everytime you make a "claim" now do you? I am not on anyone's side here, but yes, I think these lawyers are seriously over-reaching.

Clinton got dragged into court on claims, and they turned out to be true. Could also be the situation here. Are you inferring that what applies to Clinton should not apply to Bush? Also, Bush has already been shot down by a Federal judge, and the Republican Supreme Court refused to intervene (Scalia wrote the majority decision). This suit is going forward, or would you have us believe that Scalia is an activist judge with a policial axe to grind?

 

[Deegan]

Clinton got dragged into court on claims, and they turned out to be true. Could also be the situation here. Are you inferring that what applies to Clinton should not apply to Bush? Also, Bush has already been shot down by a Federal judge, and the Republican Supreme Court refused to intervene (Scalia wrote the majority decision). This suit is going forward, or would you have us believe that Scalia is an activist judge with a policial axe to grind?

I'm just telling you it is not going to happen, there is a very big difference between a blow job, and the national security of the country. The only way that Bush would be forced to appear, is if a Grand Jury indicts him personally, and I don't see that going forward either.

Sorry, I know you're excited at the thought of this, but it ain't gonna happen buddy.

 

[danarhea]

I'm just telling you it is not going to happen, there is a very big difference between a blow job, and the national security of the country. The only way that Bush would be forced to appear, is if a Grand Jury indicts him personally, and I don't see that going forward either.

Sorry, I know you're excited at the thought of this, but it ain't gonna happen buddy.

The Supreme Court already denied national security claims, which is why the suit is going forward. Remember? Scalia wrote the majority opinion, when they refused to hear Bush's appeal.

Now instead of telling me how I am supposed to be excited over this, give some rational argument based on the case? And dont bring up national security again. It's moot, according to the Supremes.

 

[Captain America]

And dont bring up national security again. It's moot, according to the Supremes.

I love The Supremes....

Love child,
Never meant to be,
Love child,
Born in poverty,
Love child.....................................

 

[Deegan]

The Supreme Court already denied national security claims, which is why the suit is going forward. Remember? Scalia wrote the majority opinion, when they refused to hear Bush's appeal.

Now instead of telling me how I am supposed to be excited over this, give some rational argument based on the case? And dont bring up national security again. It's moot, according to the Supremes.

The case may well be going ahead, but Bush will not be forced to testify, further more, I don't believe this case will go anywhere. There is no way that the NSA is going to hand over secret documents or reveal tactics, no matter what the Supreme Court ruled. They only ruled that the case could continue, nothing more, the next step will surely fall flat on it's face.

Again, I know you want to see Bush on the stand, it's just not gonna happen, not in this case.

 

[danarhea]

The case may well be going ahead, but Bush will not be forced to testify, further more, I don't believe this case will go anywhere. There is no way that the NSA is going to hand over secret documents or reveal tactics, no matter what the Supreme Court ruled. They only ruled that the case could continue, nothing more, the next step will surely fall flat on it's face.

Again, I know you want to see Bush on the stand, it's just not gonna happen, not in this case.

If this is the position Bush takes, then he is going to be in a world of trouble.

"That's an invitation for presidents to write their own rules and we've had judges multiple times say that state secrets is not a defense," he explained, adding, "We hope the White House will realize the need to cooperate."

 

[aps]

This story is from Raw Story, the same website that said Karl Rove was going to be indicted.

I did a search with the lawyers' names, and nothing came up involving this case.

 

[danarhea]

This story is from Raw Story, the same website that said Karl Rove was going to be indicted.

I did a search with the lawyers' names, and nothing came up involving this case.

Here is a copy of the subpoena (in PDF format).

 

[aps]

Here is a copy of the subpoena (in PDF format).

LOL Well I'll be a horse's a$$! danarrhea, thank you for putting me in my place!

 

[danarhea]

LOL Well I'll be a horse's a$$! danarrhea, thank you for putting me in my place!

Didnt mean to. True, Raw Story doesnt always get it right, but they have scooped the mediawhores quite a few times on stories. The way I see it today, if you want to know who Madonna is having sex with these days, browse the mediawhores. If you want to know what is happening politically, browse the internet news sites. There are gems in every one of them, if you are willing to look at all of them, from all political perspectives. Hell, the Al Gore story I posted earlier today was from Newsmax. LOL.

 

[faithful_servant]

I guess that I'm a little bit confused here. What's the basis for this suit? How do the people filing the suit know that their phone calls were recorded? From what I understand of the law, if they can't prove that they have a legal interest in the case (as was the case with Michael Newdow), my understanding is that they can't bring the lawsuit. If this is a secret information gathering exercise, how do thye know their calls were recorded. Scanning through the subpeona and reading the article, I saw no evidence that they can prove that they meet the neccessary conditions to bring this case before a judge. Does anyone know more about this case?

 

[Gill]

Clinton got dragged into court on claims, and they turned out to be true. Could also be the situation here. Are you inferring that what applies to Clinton should not apply to Bush? Also, Bush has already been shot down by a Federal judge, and the Republican Supreme Court refused to intervene (Scalia wrote the majority decision). This suit is going forward, or would you have us believe that Scalia is an activist judge with a policial axe to grind?

Bush can't be forced into court in this case. No federal official can be sued for actions taken in his/her official duties.

The court ruled that Clinton had to testify because the cause of the lawsuit against him were outside his official duties.