Conyers, Sanchez to seek subpoenas of five White House, Justice chiefs

danarhea · Mar 20, 2007

Here it comes - Another mother of a battle not seen since the Clinton impeachment. At the heart of the matter is perjury by Bush administration officials, along with Democrats pumping it for all the political capital they can get. While the perjury flies in the face of the law, and those who committed it should have their a$$es handed to them, don't forget that Democrats are political animals too, who care about political careers more than they do about the well-being of America.

One three ring circus, made to order by our leaders on both sides of the aisle, coming up.

Article is here.

aps · Mar 20, 2007

danarhea said:
Here it comes - Another mother of a battle not seen since the Clinton impeachment. At the heart of the matter is perjury by Bush administration officials, along with Democrats pumping it for all the political capital they can get. While the perjury flies in the face of the law, and those who committed it should have their a$$es handed to them, don't forget that Democrats are political animals too, who care about political careers more than they do about the well-being of America.

One three ring circus, made to order by our leaders on both sides of the aisle, coming up.

Article is here.

I love how Rove and Miers aren't required to testify "under oath." :roll:

______________

Bush accuses Democrats of 'partisan fishing'

Bush rejects Dems' subpoena threat - Politics - MSNBC.com

There, there, Georgie boy. You're just used to having Congress rubber stamp everything you do and having unlimited power.

Ikari · Mar 20, 2007

Yay another round of political corruption which will ultimately end in no form of punishment due to the fact that both sides are equally corrupt and don't actually want to punish the other because the tables could be turned. In the end, We the People are left holding the bag, and government keeps chugging along...expanding, usurping the liberties of the people, and becoming more and more out of reach of We the People.

danarhea · Mar 20, 2007

aps said:
I love how Rove and Miers aren't required to testify "under oath." :roll:

______________

Bush accuses Democrats of 'partisan fishing'

Bush rejects Dems' subpoena threat - Politics - MSNBC.com

There, there, Georgie boy. You're just used to having Congress rubber stamp everything you do and having unlimited power.

Wrong. The subpoenas will be issued, and if Rove and Miers don't show up, they can be found guilty of contempt. If push comes to shove, Bush will let it go to the Supreme Court, then when they rule against him, Rove and Miers will testify. However, the longer this issue is at the front, the worse it is going to look for Bush, so he may relent long before then. Since national security is not at stake, executive privilege does not apply here.

Trajan Octavian Titus · Mar 20, 2007

danarhea said:
Here it comes - Another mother of a battle not seen since the Clinton impeachment. At the heart of the matter is perjury by Bush administration officials, along with Democrats pumping it for all the political capital they can get. While the perjury flies in the face of the law, and those who committed it should have their a$$es handed to them, don't forget that Democrats are political animals too, who care about political careers more than they do about the well-being of America.

One three ring circus, made to order by our leaders on both sides of the aisle, coming up.

Article is here.

WTF are you smoking? The President basically told Congress to GFT's, and with good reason it's none of their god damn bussiness, he can fire any attorney, at any time, for any reason. And what perjury? You got Gonzalez under oath and some other guy's emails and by the by there skippy the U.S. attorney's are supposed to follow the policies of the President, that's our system, that's why they're appointed not elected.

Trajan Octavian Titus · Mar 20, 2007

danarhea said:
Wrong. The subpoenas will be issued, and if Rove and Miers don't show up, they can be found guilty of contempt.

No they can't read your Constitution sometime, the Congress is way overstepping their bounds on this one. These are Bush appointees we're talking about, it's called executive privlege, GWB can tell Congress to GFT's which is basically what he did today, and koodos to him he's finally showing some ****ing back bone.

danarhea · Mar 21, 2007

Trajan Octavian Titus said:
WTF are you smoking? The President basically told Congress to GFT's, and with good reason it's none of their god damn bussiness, he can fire any attorney, at any time, for any reason. And what perjury? You got Gonzalez under oath and some other guy's emails and by the by there skippy the U.S. attorney's are supposed to follow the policies of the President, that's our system, that's why they're appointed not elected.

Actually, it was not a problem until Sampson and Gonzalez committed perjury. Remember Clinton? Same thing. Also, Congress does have the power of subpoena, and will force Rove and Miers to testify. There is no executive privilege. This power Congress holds. Once again, remember Clinton?

aps · Mar 21, 2007

danarhea said:
Wrong. The subpoenas will be issued, and if Rove and Miers don't show up, they can be found guilty of contempt. If push comes to shove, Bush will let it go to the Supreme Court, then when they rule against him, Rove and Miers will testify. However, the longer this issue is at the front, the worse it is going to look for Bush, so he may relent long before then. Since national security is not at stake, executive privilege does not apply here.

I don't know about that, danarhea. I see Bush standing tough on this. I think he likes this issue on the forefront since it takes people's eyes off of Iraq and what a mess we're in there.

Trajan Octavian Titus · Mar 21, 2007

danarhea said:
Actually, it was not a problem until Sampson and Gonzalez committed perjury.

Where's the perjury?

Remember Clinton? Same thing.

lmfao exercising the Constitutional Powers of the executive is nothing like obstructing justice in a criminal investigation.

Also, Congress does have the power of subpoena, and will force Rove and Miers to testify.

They can not force members of the executive branch to testify under oath when on a political witch hunt when all the President did was excercise his Constitutional authority, Rove and Miers will not testify under oath or on transcript, just you watch.

There is no executive privilege. This power Congress holds.

Once again, remember Clinton?

Click to expand...

Ya umm obstruction of justice in a sexual harrassment law suit is not covered by executive privilege.

danarhea · Mar 21, 2007

Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Where's the perjury?

lmfao exercising the Constitutional Powers of the executive is nothing like obstructing justice in a criminal investigation.

They can not force members of the executive branch to testify under oath when on a political witch hunt when all the President did was excercise his Constitutional authority, Rove and Miers will not testify under oath or on transcript, just you watch.

There is no executive privilege. This power Congress holds.

Ya umm obstruction of justice in a sexual harrassment law suit is not covered by executive privilege.

Click to expand...

Wrong again. During the Clinton administration, 31 of his aides were subpoenaed.

Conyers, Sanchez to seek subpoenas of five White House, Justice chiefs

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot

aps

Passionate

Ikari

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot

Trajan Octavian Titus

Trajan Octavian Titus

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot

aps

Passionate

Trajan Octavian Titus

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot

Conyers, Sanchez to seek subpoenas of five White House, Justice chiefs

Slayer of the DP Newsbot

Passionate

Slayer of the DP Newsbot

Slayer of the DP Newsbot

Passionate

Slayer of the DP Newsbot

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency