[QUOTE=jayjay]
We need another independent prosecutor law enacted. The problem with a contempt of Congress charge is that the DoJ has to execute it…I don’t see that happening…
[/QUOTE]
My earlier sarcastic comment about being the US attorney to handle it aside, I have no doubt that there are sufficient professionals in the Department of Justice who would handle the request to enforce a subpoena duly and properly authorized by Congress. If the administration interfered with their functioning (think Nixon’s Saturday Night Massacre), I have no doubt that Congress would be quick to consider impeachment to protect their power of investigation, if nothing else.
Go into your corners and come out fighting!
[/QUOTE]
IANAL, but what exactly is the administration’s constitutional position? Executive Priviledge can’t cover… EVERYTHING they do or that they don’t want to tell you and if you don’t like it, eat doody.
[QUOTE=POTUS] The initial response by Democrats, unfortunately, shows some appear more interested in scoring political points than in learning the facts. 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. I have proposed a reasonable way to avoid an impasse. I hope they don’t choose confrontation. I will oppose any attempts to subpoena White House officials.
As we cut through all the partisan rhetoric, it’s important to maintain perspective on a couple of important points. First, it was natural and appropriate for members of the White House staff to consider and to discuss with the Justice Department whether to replace all 93 U.S. attorneys at the beginning of my second term. The start of a second term is a natural time to discuss the status of political appointees within the White House and with relevant agencies, including the Justice Department. In this case, the idea was rejected and was not pursued.
[/QUOTE]
'Cause we all know that demanding show trials is a bad thing. :dubious:
[QUOTE=Billdo]
My earlier sarcastic comment about being the US attorney to handle it aside, I have no doubt that there are sufficient professionals in the Department of Justice who would handle the request to enforce a subpoena duly and properly authorized by Congress. If the administration interfered with their functioning (think Nixon’s Saturday Night Massacre), I have no doubt that Congress would be quick to consider impeachment to protect their power of investigation, if nothing else.
[/QUOTE]
And I have no doubt that Gonzalez is being being kept on for the sole purpose of running interference if this happens.
[QUOTE=Frostillicus]
In Karl Rove’s defense, he cannot safely testify under oath, since he would immediately burst into flames upon laying his hand on a Bible.
[/QUOTE]
Flames maybe not. I’m betting that great clouds of sulfur would be released as he touched the Bible, setting off the smoke alarms and sprinklers. For the good of the Capitol Building, we can’t risk that!
This whole idea of being interviewed with no record, no transcript, no oath, and no penalty for lying is ridiculous and shows just how deranged Bush is for offering it up as if it was a reasonable compromise. I think Congress should employ all those “non-torture” techniques that Gonzalez approved for the Gitmo detainees.
Under the bill, any prosecutor with an interim appointment would have to be confirmed by the Senate within 120 days. If that didn’t happen, a federal judge would make a permanent appointment
[/QUOTE]
Which federal judges?
Link to information about judges and by whom the were appointed (sorry, Wiki)
[QUOTE=Maus Magill]
Funny - I started getting flashbacks as soon as AG channeled Tricky Dick by uttering the famous words, “Mistakes were made.”
[/QUOTE]
No, “Mistakes were made” was Reagan.
OTOH, this part from yesterday reminded me very much of Nixon’s claim that he wasn’t concerned about himself, but was concerned about how a weakened Executive privilege might hamper future Presidents:
When I read this, my first thought was, “Doesn’t that describe a lot of what the Republicans did to Clinton during his administration?” Oh, yes. Clinton committed adultery, therefore he isn’t honorable. Presumably, if we don’t give Rove and Meiers the chance to lie under oath they will be honorable until proven dishonorable.
[QUOTE=jayjay]
Which is ironic, because if he HAS been getting good advice at any point in the last six years, he sure wasn’t listening to it…
[/QUOTE]
Beat me to it. If he thinks he’s getting good advice now, I’d hate to see how much worse he could do without it.
Did anyone catch John Bolton on the Daily Show last night? He attempted reinforcing every one of the President’s talking points from yesterday and Jon Stewart neatly skewered him and served him up. Actually laughed in the man’s face when he started talking about “accountability for actions.”
When I read this, my first thought was, “Doesn’t that describe a lot of what the Republicans did to Clinton during his administration?” Oh, yes. Clinton committed adultery, therefore he isn’t honorable. Presumably, if we don’t give Rove and Meiers the chance to lie under oath they will be honorable until proven dishonorable.
[/QUOTE]
Ironically, isn’t that JUST what the admin did to the original USA’s in question? :dubious:
