Rove ignores subpoena, refuses to testify [Archive]

DarkReign

07-10-2008, 04:11 PM

Why? Because he didn't go before a kangaroo court to listen to a bunch of blowhards degrade him and Bush. Good for Rove.

I think Bush ought to hold hearings on Congress and their hearings. How bout that?

Please, ray, for chrissakes...

I understand what youre saying, and I may even agree with you to an extent...but the United States House of Representatives is not a "kangaroo court".

What would happen to you if you refused to show up for a subpeona? Care to guess?

They could prosecute Rove today and be well within their constitutional rights to do so.

Personally, I think they should prosecute him. I mean, theres arrogance, then theres Bush Administration arrogance. Refusing to even show up to a Congressional subpeona?! Are you fucking kidding me?!

You and I couldnt do that. Bill-fucking-Clinton couldnt do that. Nor could any number of previous staff members, politicians, etc thru the ages of this country....whether they worked for the President, the Speaker or a fucking janitors assitant. No one can do that.

But Rove can. I'd kick you off your cane. Not because I think Rove is a fucking crook (all of them are, some more overt and brave I guess, which passes for patriotism these days) but because no matter the grounds for a subpeona from Congress, if you are subpeonaed....YOU GO.

End of story.

peewee's lovechild

07-10-2008, 04:14 PM

Please, ray, for chrissakes...

I understand what youre saying, and I may even agree with you to an extent...but the United States House of Representatives is not a "kangaroo court".

What would happen to you if you refused to show up for a subpeona? Care to guess?

They could prosecute Rove today and be well within their constitutional rights to do so.

Personally, I think they should prosecute him. I mean, theres arrogance, then theres Bush Administration arrogance. Refusing to even show up to a Congressional subpeona?! Are you fucking kidding me?!

You and I couldnt do that. Bill-fucking-Clinton couldnt do that. Nor could any number of previous staff members, politicians, etc thru the ages of this country....whether they worked for the President, the Speaker or a fucking janitors assitant. No one can do that.

But Rove can. I'd kick you off your cane. Not because I think Rove is a fucking crook (all of them are, some more overt and brave I guess, which passes for patriotism these days) but because no matter the grounds for a subpeona from Congress, if you are subpeonaed....YOU GO.

End of story.

Agreed.

All those cocksucker, Republicans and Democrats alike, HAVE TO show up if subpoened.

THEY FUCKING HAVE TO!!!

ChumpDumper

07-10-2008, 04:21 PM

Why? Because he didn't go before a kangaroo court to listen to a bunch of blowhards degrade him and Bush.So you felt exactly the same way about the Whitewater and Lewinski investigations of course.

Wild Cobra

07-10-2008, 04:26 PM

This congress has already poven itself to be a joke. I loved how oil company repusentatives put them in their place. Not as bad as Howard Hughs did years back, but they stood their ground and told congress it was congress' fault!

This congress and their hearings just want one-sided media exposure.

They are worse than kangaroo's

They are rats.

Demonrats.

xrayzebra

07-10-2008, 04:26 PM

So, if top ranking Democrats ignore congressional subpoenas you'll have the same attitude?
Little bit of a difference. Congressmen are not part (or was a part) of the Executive branch of the government.

So the United States Congress is a kangaroo court? So I guess now we can ignore subpeonas if we don't like who is issuing them!! Woohoo!!!

:rolleyes

No we can't. See my reply above.

Please, ray, for chrissakes...

I understand what youre saying, and I may even agree with you to an extent...but the United States House of Representatives is not a "kangaroo court".

What would happen to you if you refused to show up for a subpeona? Care to guess?

They could prosecute Rove today and be well within their constitutional rights to do so.

Personally, I think they should prosecute him. I mean, theres arrogance, then theres Bush Administration arrogance. Refusing to even show up to a Congressional subpeona?! Are you fucking kidding me?!

You and I couldnt do that. Bill-fucking-Clinton couldnt do that. Nor could any number of previous staff members, politicians, etc thru the ages of this country....whether they worked for the President, the Speaker or a fucking janitors assitant. No one can do that.

But Rove can. I'd kick you off your cane. Not because I think Rove is a fucking crook (all of them are, some more overt and brave I guess, which passes for patriotism these days) but because no matter the grounds for a subpeona from Congress, if you are subpeonaed....YOU GO.

End of story.

Normally I would agree. But in this instance it is nothing but a fishing expedition.

And you are wrong as two left feet. The courts have ruled that there is such a thing as executive privilege and the Presidents political decisions on his appointments are none of the Congress business. Especially the HR. The Senate has some say only in so much as to give consent.

Like peewee said, the only reason anyone is making a fuss about this is that it is Rove. And part of the Bush administration.

By the way, when did Bill Clinton ever appear before a HR hearing?

FromWayDowntown

07-10-2008, 04:43 PM

Little bit of a difference. Congressmen are not part (or was a part) of the Executive branch of the government.

So if a Republican congress subpoenas aides to a Democratic President, you'll be just cool with those aides ignoring the subpoenas?

I really should bookmark this thread.

I can't believe that it should ever just be up to the subpoenaed party to decide for himself whether or not to comply with a subpoena issued by a co-equal branch of the government. I'm sure that such a belief would be something that xray would have balked at had it been undertaken by a non-Republican President.

This notion that the Executive is not ever answerable to the other branches of government has truly reached unseen levels of absurdity and arrogance.

Curiously, during his lengthy investigation into President Clinton, former Independent Prosecutor Kenneth Starr argued at some length to federal courts that there are significant limits on executive privilege and the right of the President to keep advisors from testifying -- in any venue, presumably -- about matters being investigated by other branches of government. I suppose that 10 years and a swing in the composition of Congress can change any ideologue's view of such privileges, though.

Normally I would agree. But in this instance it is nothing but a fishing expedition.

And you are wrong as two left feet. The courts have ruled that there is such a thing as executive privilege and the Presidents political decisions on his appointments are none of the Congress business. Especially the HR. The Senate has some say only in so much as to give consent.

Like peewee said, the only reason anyone is making a fuss about this is that it is Rove. And part of the Bush administration.

By the way, when did Bill Clinton ever appear before a HR hearing?

How many of Clinton's aides were made to appear before such a hearing? Oh yeah, 31 of Clinton's aides testified on 47 different occasions without ever refusing a subpoena. Bush has allowed only 1 of his aides to testify while resisting at least 3 other invitations to have aides testify before Congress -- he is, apparently, the only President since Nixon to claim such a right. Remarkably, it fits perfectly with the Imperial Presidency notion and Cheney's hellbent efforts to exalt the Executive (and its many unelected constitutents) above all other branches of the federal government.

In any event, your reference to Bill Clinton is way off the mark. This isn't Congress asking the President or even the Vice President to testify -- it's Congress commanding that an unelected bureaucrat show up, even if it's just to avoid questions or to invoke his Fifth Amendment rights.

xrayzebra

07-10-2008, 04:52 PM

So if a Republican congress subpoenas aides to a Democratic President, you'll be just cool with those aides ignoring the subpoenas?

I really should bookmark this thread.

I can't believe that it should ever just be up to the subpoenaed party to decide for himself whether or not to comply with a subpoena issued by a co-equal branch of the government. I'm sure that such a belief would be something that xray would have balked at had it been undertaken by a non-Republican President.

This notion that the Executive is not ever answerable to the other branches of government has truly reached unseen levels of absurdity and arrogance.

Curiously, during his lengthy investigation into President Clinton, former Independent Prosecutor Kenneth Starr argued at some length to federal courts that there are significant limits on executive privilege and the right of the President to keep advisors from testifying -- in any venue, presumably -- about matters being investigated by other branches of government. I suppose that 10 years and a swing in the composition of Congress can change any ideologue's view of such privileges, though.

How many of Clinton's aides were made to appear before such a hearing? Oh yeah, 31 of Clinton's aides testified on 47 different occasions without ever refusing a subpoena. Bush has allowed only 1 of his aides to testify while resisting at least 3 other invitations to have aides testify before Congress -- he is, apparently, the only President since Nixon to claim such a right. Remarkably, it fits perfectly with the Imperial Presidency notion and Cheney's hellbent efforts to exalt the Executive (and its many unelected constitutents) above all other branches of the federal government.

In any event, your reference to Bill Clinton is way off the mark. This isn't Congress asking the President or even the Vice President to testify -- it's Congress commanding that an unelected bureaucrat show up, even if it's just to avoid questions or to invoke his Fifth Amendment rights.

Hey you brought Bill Clinton up. Not me.

And you are saying that the President cannot consult with any political aide without his consultation being subject to scrutiny by the other branches of government. If I am not mistaken this is all about him firing four or five, maybe a couple of more, of his Assistant Attorney Generals. Who serve at his pleasure. Like Ambassadors and others.
Give me a break. Didn't Clinton fire all of them and make new appointments?

peewee's lovechild

07-10-2008, 04:54 PM

Little bit of a difference. Congressmen are not part (or was a part) of the Executive branch of the government.

You're full of shit.

NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW.

Not a fucking person is.

Not me, not you, not a Congressman, not even The President.

peewee's lovechild

07-10-2008, 04:57 PM

Hey you brought Bill Clinton up. Not me.

And you are saying that the President cannot consult with any political aide without his consultation being subject to scrutiny by the other branches of government. If I am not mistaken this is all about him firing four or five, maybe a couple of more, of his Assistant Attorney Generals. Who serve at his pleasure. Like Ambassadors and others.
Give me a break. Didn't Clinton fire all of them and make new appointments?

If that's the case, then he should go to Congress and tell them just that.

What's he afraid of?

And, why are you defending him?
I've heard of party loyalty, but this is bullshit and you know it.

It's people like you that are turning this country to shit.

Party before country, huh?

FromWayDowntown

07-10-2008, 04:57 PM

Hey you brought Bill Clinton up. Not me.

Horsefeathers. I responded to your post, which mentioned Clinton.

I'll admit, however, that the juxtaposition is fairly unavoidable at this point. Congress was, I hear, undoubtedly correct in investigating every possible complaint about Bill Clinton's personal life; Congress is, however, (I hear) acting inappropriately when it tries to investigate complaints about the use of executive power by the current President.

And you are saying that the President cannot consult with any political aide without his consultation being subject to scrutiny by the other branches of government. If I am not mistaken this is all about him firing four or five, maybe a couple of more, of his Assistant Attorney Generals. Who serve at his pleasure. Like Ambassadors and others.
Give me a break. Didn't Clinton fire all of them and make new appointments?

I'm saying that when Clinton consulted with his political aides, Republicans and their operatives (including General Starr) argued quite vociferously that invocation of executive privilege was improper. Now, executive privilege is so strong that it justifies wholesale ignorance of subpoenas? That's a curious turn of events -- one that seems purely political.

xrayzebra

07-10-2008, 05:01 PM

What ever. The courts will sort it out.

FromWayDowntown

07-10-2008, 05:04 PM

What ever. The courts will sort it out.

Good to see you giving up so easily.

For what it's worth, one court already has sorted out an issue like this one -- when Starr investigated Clinton -- and said that the aides could be made to testify.

Of course, what good is precedent any more?

Wild Cobra

07-10-2008, 05:05 PM

You're full of shit.

NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW.

Not a fucking person is.

Not me, not you, not a Congressman, not even The President.

And the legislative branch is not above the executive branch.

If they have sufficient reason, the Supreme Court will back them up. Until that happens, it's all smoke and mirrors. They are not the court. Shouldn't they now bring this matter to the Supreme Court if there is any merit?

They should take Rove's suggestion. But... That's not what they want... They want the world to see congress asking Rove pointed questions in a manner that gets no cross-examination. Such planned one-sided sessions make for good propaganda with properly asked questions.

You libtards should be ashamed of yourselves.

Oh but wait... You libtards don't believe in the Constitution, Bill of Rights, integrity, liberty, etc. except when it suits your agendas!

Even as unwarranted as such a supeana is, look what it did for them The demonrats demoncraps will now all talk about this issue in the media.

Mission Accomplished. Make Rove and the Bush administration look bad without relevant fact, because you libtards eat it up like candy.

peewee's lovechild

07-10-2008, 05:12 PM

And the legislative branch is not above the executive branch.

If they have sufficient reason, the Supreme Court will back them up. Until that happens, it's all smoke and mirrors. They are not the court. Shouldn't they now bring this matter to the Supreme Court if there is any merit?

They should take Rove's suggestion. But... That's not what they want... They want the world to see congress asking Rove pointed questions in a manner that gets no cross-examination. Such planned one-sided sessions make for good propaganda with properly asked questions.

You libtards should be ashamed of yourselves.

Oh but wait... You libtards don't believe in the Constitution, Bill of Rights, integrity, liberty, etc. except when it suits your agendas!

Even as unwarranted as such a supeana is, look what it did for them The demonrats demoncraps will now all talk about this issue in the media.

Mission Accomplished. Make Rove and the Bush administration look bad without relevant fact, because you libtards eat it up like candy.

So, you're saying that the Legislative Branch doesn't have the power to do this?

Fuck off.

You just want this shifted to the SC because it is a conservative court with ties to the current administration.

Try that on someone else.

FromWayDowntown

07-10-2008, 05:15 PM

And the legislative branch is not above the executive branch.

Well, but if the branches are equal that doesn't mean that one can just ignore the other when it damned well pleases. If you imbue either branch with that power, you're making it superior and the Constitution clearly does not contemplate that sort of heirarchy in the federal government.

If they have sufficient reason, the Supreme Court will back them up. Until that happens, it's all smoke and mirrors. They are not the court. Shouldn't they now bring this matter to the Supreme Court if there is any merit?

I'm sure we'll see some sort of legal action -- but it likely won't reach the Supreme Court before President Bush leaves office and will, accordingly, become moot.

They should take Rove's suggestion. But... That's not what they want... They want the world to see congress asking Rove pointed questions in a manner that gets no cross-examination. Such planned one-sided sessions make for good propaganda with properly asked questions.

There would be no Republicans on the committee to lob softballs at Rove and try to make him look better? Really?

You libtards should be ashamed of yourselves.

Liberals aren't the ones calling others by childish names. Besides, Liberals are simply playing by the rules that were established 10 years ago. Are you saying the rules applicable to Bill Clinton are not applicable to George W. Bush?

Oh but wait... You libtards don't believe in the Constitution, Bill of Rights, integrity, liberty, etc. except when it suits your agendas!

And, apparently, this White House doesn't believe in precedent. Or the notion that it is merely a co-equal branch of government. Such quaint ideas, I know. . . .

Even as unwarranted as such a supeana is, look what it did for them The demonrats demoncraps will now all talk about this issue in the media.

If Rove had simply complied with the subpoena and refused to answer questions, this would be a non-issue. By choosing to contend that this White House is above the law, it's Rove and the Administration who've made this a significant issue. It's Rove and the Administration who are begging for media attention. It's Rove and the Administration who are making themselves appear arrogant, defiant, and imperial.

Whatever happened to the notion of accepting responsiblity for the consequences of your actions?

Mission Accomplished. Make Rove and the Bush administration look bad without relevant fact, because you libtards eat it up like candy.

Hey, at least it's given you a chance to wax witty with your comical variations of the words "liberal" and "democrat."

Embrace the bright side of things, my friend.

clambake

07-10-2008, 05:21 PM

Oh but wait... You libtards don't believe in the Constitution, Bill of Rights, integrity, liberty, etc. except when it suits your agendas!
yeah, we hate that "of the people, by the people and for the people" shit.

Even as unwarranted as such a supeana is, look what it did for them The demonrats demoncraps will now all talk about this issue in the media.
you can't qualify that before the hearing. we'll all be able to decide whether it's warranted by his reponse to questions.

Mission Accomplished. Make Rove and the Bush administration look bad without relevant fact,
relevance will be revealed during and after questioning. why wouldn't you like to see rove shove their faces in it?

Wild Cobra

07-10-2008, 05:22 PM

So, you're saying that the Legislative Branch doesn't have the power to do this?

Fuck off.

You just want this shifted to the SC because it is a conservative court with ties to the current administration.

Try that on someone else.

They have some power to do it, but only with cooperation. The senate can deal with impeachment, but since Rove is no longer in the executive branch, if he could, he cannot be impeached now.

They are not above the Executive Branch. The executive in my opinion had just reason to refuse. Now it is a court matter. Congress is not the court. Especially the House of Representatives. The senate would have more a right to try such a thing the House.

Please tell me, where in the constitution does it allow the House of Representatives to subpoena a member of the Executive branch.

Watching too much TV?

FromWayDowntown

07-10-2008, 05:23 PM

This Congress couldn't possibly have any basis to investigate potential wrongdoing by this Administration or the bureaucrats who serve it. None.

[/conservarepublicanbushophile]

Wild Cobra

07-10-2008, 05:24 PM

you can't qualify that before the hearing. we'll all be able to decide whether it's warranted by his reponse to questions.

Oh, a witch hunt...

No evidence to make your case until you tie the witch up and burn her at the stake...

Wild Cobra

07-10-2008, 05:26 PM

This Congress couldn't possibly have any basis to investigate potential wrongdoing by this Administration or the bureaucrats who serve it. None.

[/conservarepublicanbushophile]
If there is evidence of something wrong in the Executive branch, it is the senates responsibility to bring it to light. The House of Representative has no power to do so, unless I read the constitution wrong.

Did I?

clambake

07-10-2008, 05:26 PM

Oh, a witch hunt...

No evidence to make your case until you tie the witch up and burn her at the stake...

you are freaking out.

why wouldn't you like to see rove mop the floor with them?

do you hate sports?

don't you want to watch your team play?

FromWayDowntown

07-10-2008, 05:29 PM

Please tell me, where in the constitution does it allow the House of Representatives to subpoena a member of the Executive branch.

Please remind me where the grant of executive privilege is found in the Constitution.

TIA!

Wild Cobra

07-10-2008, 05:33 PM

Please remind me where the grant of executive privilege is found in the Constitution.

TIA!
Executive Privilege is inherent to the office, acknowledged as such for the known history and time of the constitution. Many common law items of the time are not spelled out.

FromWayDowntown

07-10-2008, 05:34 PM

If there is evidence of something wrong in the Executive branch, it is the senates responsibility to bring it to light. The House of Representative has no power to do so, unless I read the constitution wrong.

Did I?

I certainly don't see any limitation in Article I upon the House's investigatory powers. Politics aside, when the Republicans sought to impeach Clinton, it was the House that impeached him and the Senate that tried him. Given the Senate's power to sit in trial of impeachments, it would certainly seem understandable that the House would serve as the primary investigatory body for legislative action of that sort -- otherwise, the investigator would be the tribunal as well.

If you're right, however, I'd argue that the impeachment of Bill Clinton was legally invalid. It clearly was not.

clambake

07-10-2008, 05:35 PM

Executive Privilege is inherent to the office, acknowledged as such for the known history and time of the constitution. Many common law items of the time are not spelled out.

:lol you just admitted you don't care about the constitution.

FromWayDowntown

07-10-2008, 05:35 PM

Executive Privilege is inherent to the office, acknowledged as such for the known history and time of the constitution. Many common law items of the time are not spelled out.

Oh, but the investigatory power of a congressional body is not either: (1) inherent in the office; or (2) a matter of agreed-upon common law? It's only valid if specifically spelled out in the Constitution?

That's an interesting contention on your part, given the long history of congressional investigation in this country of ours.

Wild Cobra

07-10-2008, 05:36 PM

:lol you just admitted you don't care about the constitution.

Thank-You.

I'm getting a little more insight as to how your twisted mind works.

peewee's lovechild

07-10-2008, 05:38 PM

They have some power to do it, but only with cooperation. The senate can deal with impeachment, but since Rove is no longer in the executive branch, if he could, he cannot be impeached now.

They are not above the Executive Branch. The executive in my opinion had just reason to refuse. Now it is a court matter. Congress is not the court. Especially the House of Representatives. The senate would have more a right to try such a thing the House.

Please tell me, where in the constitution does it allow the House of Representatives to subpoena a member of the Executive branch.

Watching too much TV?

Where in the Constitution does it say that the Executive Branch has the power to spy on it's fellow citizens.

I've never read anything about the Ex Branch having the power invade my privacy?

You seem to pick and choose things when it suits you well.

clambake

07-10-2008, 05:39 PM

Thank-You.

I'm getting a little more insight as to how your twisted mind works.

trust me, the foundation of your beliefs will fade away in january.

peewee's lovechild

07-10-2008, 05:40 PM

Executive Privilege is inherent to the office, acknowledged as such for the known history and time of the constitution. Many common law items of the time are not spelled out.

But, it's not in the Constitution.
Niether is Judicial Review, but you probably forgot about that one too.

peewee's lovechild

07-10-2008, 05:41 PM

Thank-You.

I'm getting a little more insight as to how your twisted mind works.

And, we're getting insight on how your twisted mind works.

smeagol

07-10-2008, 05:46 PM

You're full of shit.

NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW.

Not a fucking person is.

Not me, not you, not a Congressman, not even The President.

That guys from the Steven Segal (Nico) movie.

That guy was above the law . . .

FromWayDowntown

07-10-2008, 05:49 PM

Wild Cobra

07-10-2008, 05:55 PM

I recall the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee undertaking what was deemed to be a perfectly-valid investigation of firings in the White House Travel Office during the Clinton Administration -- no Republicans seemed concerned with the notion that such an investigation was beyond the constitutional power of the House.

In 2001, a similar House committee investigated President Clinton's use of the pardon power.
Travelgate did not involve executive staff, was investigated by the FBI, GAO, and judicoial department. It was Hillary's thing, not Bills.

Are any of them involved with this request to subpoena Carl Rove? Where is the Judicial department on this?

FromWayDowntown

07-10-2008, 06:00 PM

Travelgate did not involve executive staff, was investigated by the FBI, GAO, and judicoial department. It was Hillary's thing, not Bills.

Are any of them involved with this request to subpoena Carl Rove? Where is the Judicial department on this?

Are you really insisting that the House has no power to investigate the activities of the executive?

Again, would you care to explain the constitutionality of the House proceedings that resulted in the Articles of Impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton? I don't see any constitutional authority for that action to have ever taken place.

Travelgate most certainly did involve executive staff, since executive staff canned the individuals in the Travel Office. And the fact that it was investigated by other agencies does not change the fact that it was also investigated by a Republican-led House committee. I'd suggest that such an investigation is most certainly one that is similar in its scope and nature to an investigation concerning the firing of federal attorneys.

But even if Travelgate might somehow fit your ridiculously nuanced view of American history, it's clear that a House investigation into executive use of the pardon power would, most certainly, contemplate an investigation into the Article II activities of the President and his staff. Are you going to argue that such an investigation was beyond the power of the House?

Wild Cobra

07-10-2008, 06:22 PM

Are you really insisting that the House has no power to investigate the activities of the executive?

No, I'm telling you they have no right to subpoena someone in the executive branch if the chief executive sayd NO!

Again, would you care to explain the constitutionality of the House proceedings that resulted in the Articles of Impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton? I don't see any constitutional authority for that action to have ever taken place.

I'm rather fuzzy here, so correct me if I'm wrong.

The house did not subpoena anyone. They took evidence known and drafted a bill of impeachment. They voted and passed two articles of impeachment. The senate then aquitted him when the house forced a trial by the article of impeachment.

In the end, it was the senate's power.

The House can vote as they wish in the matter about Rove with or without him. In the end, they will look like fools, like the house in the 105th congress did.

Travelgate most certainly did involve executive staff, since executive staff canned the individuals in the Travel Office.

Executive support staff. Not executive staff.

Are you going to argue that such an investigation was beyond the power of the House?

The house can do as it pleases. They just cannot make the executive branch do what it doesn't want to in this regard. To go that far, the senate and judiciary must be involved. In the case of Bill Clinton's impeachment, when the senate was involved, so was Chief Justice William Rehnquist.

Am I wrong about any of this?

FromWayDowntown

07-10-2008, 06:54 PM

No, I'm telling you they have no right to subpoena someone in the executive branch if the chief executive sayd NO!

So the Executive branch is superior to the House of Representatives? Really?

I'm rather fuzzy here, so correct me if I'm wrong.

The house did not subpoena anyone. They took evidence known and drafted a bill of impeachment. They voted and passed two articles of impeachment.

Sure, factually that's correct. But nothing about that process would, seemingly, prohibit the House from subpoenaing witnesses to testify in advance of the passing of the Articles of Impeachment. Politically, it might be more expedient to allow other bodies to conduct such an investigation -- in that instance, an Independent Counsel -- but nothing about the House's power to pass the articles of impeachment suggests a limitation on that power that would preclude the subpoenaing of witnesses if appropriate or necessary.

In the impeachment context, the House serves as the analog of a grand jury and there's no doubt about the isubpoena power of any grand jury. The fact that witnesses might claim any number of exemptions from testifying doesn't: (1) empower them to disregard the subpoena; or (2) suggest that the inherent investigatory power of the body is limited.

In the end, it was the senate's power.

It certainly would appear that the Senate can conduct no trial in the absence of articles of impeachment, which must come from the House, giving the House a power in that process too -- one that has no specific constitutional underpinning.

The House can vote as they wish in the matter about Rove with or without him. In the end, they will look like fools, like the house in the 105th congress did.

Certainly, that's true whether Rove makes ridiculous claims of executive privilege or not. The point here is that the House most certainly has -- whether traditionally or otherwise -- power to investigate and nothing about the power suggests a limitation precluding investigation of the executive. And the investigatory power is meaningless if it doesn't also include the power to subpoena.

Frankly, though, this story is not about whether the House can conduct investigations or subpoena witnesses. The assertion of executive privilege suggests that the White House is fully acquiescing to the inherent power of the House to investigate executive activities -- otherwise, Rove's argument would be that the investigation itself was inappropriate or that the subpoena was void. The Administration's argument, however, is that officials from within the Executive Branch are protected from having to testify in the conduct of those investigations. As such, even the Administration wouldn't buy your structural argument as to the power of the House to investigate executive actions.

The house can do as it pleases. They just cannot make the executive branch do what it doesn't want to in this regard. To go that far, the senate and judiciary must be involved.

That's a rather expansive reading of Article I, section 3, clause 6. Are you really suggesting that any investigation of the executive rises to the level of an impeachment?

In the case of Bill Clinton's impeachment, when the senate was involved, so was Chief Justice William Rehnquist.

That's because President Clinton was actually impeached. There is no impeachment here.

Am I wrong about any of this?

I think you are.

ChumpDumper

07-10-2008, 08:01 PM

i might be able to buy the executive privilege gambit had Rove actually discussed these matters with the chief executive.

He says he didn't and the chief executive says he didn't.

Wild Cobra

07-10-2008, 08:10 PM

i might be able to buy the executive privilege gambit had Rove actually discussed these matters with the chief executive.

He says he didn't and the chief executive says he didn't.

Are you saying the article in the first posting is wrong?

The White House has cited executive privilege as a reason he and others who serve or served in the administration should not testify, arguing that internal administration communications are confidential and that Congress cannot compel officials to testify. Rove says he is bound to follow the White House's guidance

With all the bullshit lies by the media, I can buy that. What is the truth then?

ChumpDumper

07-10-2008, 08:14 PM

Are you saying the article in the first posting is wrong?It says nothing about Rove's speaking directly to the president about these issues.

With all the bullshit lies by the media, I can buy that. What is the truth then?You will take every opportunity to suck partisan cock as long and as hard as you can get it.

Wild Cobra

07-10-2008, 08:29 PM

It says nothing about Rove's speaking directly to the president about these issues.

OK, I was just asking. Who said he talked to the president about it? I see it as him refering to a standing statement by the president.

You will take every opportunity to suck partisan cock as long and as hard as you can get it.
I think you know better, but the ass in you just has to find fault in me. That's OK. I understand. everyone has seen I have my moods too. I get bipolar and manic if I don't get enough sun. (thank God for global warming)

Just the same. If you really believe that, you are an idiot. Just because I don't follow the dogmatic hate and show why attacks are unfounded does not make me a partisan. My conservative viewpoints are based on several thinks. Not partisanship. I support getting to the truth of these things. Not just being a lemming and being part of the "chorus of hate".

You know I have several things I dislike about the republicans in general. How many times have I stated something to the effect that I do not like RINO's? The republicans are getting more and more liberal all the time, and I hate them for that.

I am a conservative oriented libertarian. If you wish to attack that political position, then you truly are a loser. I attack the democrats rather than republicans because the are the party that is more and more authoritarian as time goes by. Opposite of liberty.

Rove has likely done some rather questionable things. Still, everything he is accused of that has proper evidence was legal! The left continues to make things up. As unfounded as their past allegations are, why should I give the demonrats the benefit of doubt over Rove? If there was anything with merit, would they actually take steps to find him guilty of something like they railroaded Libby?

There is nothing but hyperbole in my opinion. I have yet to see any evidence of value. Have you?

ChumpDumper

07-10-2008, 08:37 PM

OK, I was just asking. Who said he talked to the president about it? I see it as him refering to a standing statement by the president.No, you asked me if the article was wrong. I told you it didn't say what you think it did.

I think you know better, but the ass in you just has to find fault in me. That's OK. I understand. everyone has seen I have my moods too. I get bipolar and manic if I don't get enough sun. (thank God for global warming)

Just the same. If you really believe that, you are an idiot. Just because I don't follow the dogmatic hate and show why attacks are unfounded does not make me a partisan. My conservative viewpoints are based on several thinks. Not partisanship. I support getting to the truth of these things. Not just being a lemming and being part of the "chorus of hate".But you are a lemming and part of the chorus of hate. You're a partisan hack through and through.

You know I have several things I dislike about the republicans in general. How many times have I stated something to the effect that I do not like RINO's? The republicans are getting more and more liberal all the time, and I hate them for that.You have always taken Bush's side.

I am a conservative oriented libertarian. If you wish to attack that political position, then you truly are a loser. I attack the democrats rather than republicans because the are the party that is more and more authoritarian as time goes by. Opposite of liberty.I'm sure you like to think of yourself as one.

Rove has likely done some rather questionable things. Still, everything he is accused of that has proper evidence was legal! The left continues to make things up. As unfounded as their past allegations are, why should I give the demonrats the benefit of doubt over Rove? If there was anything with merit, would they actually take steps to find him guilty of something like they railroaded Libby?Libby lied and was convicted by a jury. Not railroaded at all. Thanks for the partisan labeling for the Democrats. Just proves my point more.

There is nothing but hyperbole in my opinion. I have yet to see any evidence of value. Have you?There is plenty of evidence of wrongdoing, especially in the Alabama case. If Rove has nothing to hide, why doesn't he testify?

FromWayDowntown

07-10-2008, 08:50 PM

It would, of course, take proof that Rove actually talked with the President about these matters to cloak those discussions with executive privilege. I'm working from the standpoint of an assumption that the underlying claim of privilege could be proven if properly asserted. Of course, that assumption would be unnecessary if there isn't anything privileged about what Rove knows or would testify about.

He's not cloaked with privilege merely because he works in the executive branch.

ChumpDumper

07-10-2008, 08:51 PM

MannyIsGod

07-10-2008, 11:33 PM

FWDT, If I was a woman I'd be so hot for you.

Nbadan

07-11-2008, 12:17 AM

If Rove was to testy under oath he would perjure himself because everything he says is a lie...he can't help not lying..

Nbadan

07-11-2008, 12:40 AM

Jonathan Turley was speaking on MSNBC about the logic of the claim that Rove and the White House have put forward. His arguement was that this claim of executive privledge was ridiculous because it would include everything, and make the job of oversight of the executive impossible.

However, turned on its head, it is an admission of wrongdoing as it specifically applies to areas in which the party claiming it (in this case pigface) advised the White House in his "official" capacity.. Accepting this logic, we have to assume that Rove advised the white house on matters which are the subject of the subpoena. In this case it was at the least ethically wrong for the white house to be involved in the matters which are the subject of the subpoena - more likely criminally wrongdoing was involved - Certainly they are not claiming that Rove was advising the White House on matters which it was improper for it to be involved in.....

So, is the Bush White House tacitly admitting that they were officially involved in the Seigleman affair? Should not this be added to Kucinich's articles of impeachment?

RobinsontoDuncan

07-11-2008, 08:55 AM

Executive Privilege is inherent to the office, acknowledged as such for the known history and time of the constitution. Many common law items of the time are not spelled out.

so a right to privacy is not part of the constitution but the doctrine of executive privileged is?

you republicans are funny, you dont even hide the internal wish for dictatorship

Extra Stout

07-11-2008, 09:09 AM

Oh, Gee!!

07-11-2008, 09:20 AM

I think the bolded part is the objective.

that's subjective

xrayzebra

07-11-2008, 09:31 AM

so a right to privacy is not part of the constitution but the doctrine of executive privileged is?

you republicans are funny, you dont even hide the internal wish for dictatorship

How do you twist things like you do. Good God.

By the way Rove, according to an article I read this morning, with coffee, has offered to appear before the committee and talk to them. He set some provisions that they don't like. He would not be under oath and no transcription of his remarks could be made.

Why don't they accept those terms? Then if they really think they have a case then they can proceed with their hearings.

Anyhow, a little off subject, but did any of you listen to the news last night. Old what-is-face has brought another impeachment article, only one, this time, and it looks like it might get some backing. Read the article below.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,379681,00.html

George Gervin's Afro

07-11-2008, 10:00 AM

How do you twist things like you do. Good God.

By the way Rove, according to an article I read this morning, with coffee, has offered to appear before the committee and talk to them. He set some provisions that they don't like. He would not be under oath and no transcription of his remarks could be made.

Why don't they accept those terms? Then if they really think they have a case then they can proceed with their hearings.

Anyhow, a little off subject, but did any of you listen to the news last night. Old what-is-face has brought another impeachment article, only one, this time, and it looks like it might get some backing. Read the article below.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,379681,00.html

Why no transcript?.... hmmm interesting... I wonder why Rove wouldn't want to record his statements?

Ray why do you think Rove would talk to the committe without a transcript? Serious question.

xrayzebra

07-11-2008, 10:21 AM

Why no transcript?.... hmmm interesting... I wonder why Rove wouldn't want to record his statements?

Ray why do you think Rove would talk to the committe without a transcript? Serious question.

Second question first. He said he would.

First question. I suspect that he (and the administration) have a real problem with the truthfulness of some Congressmen and the twisting of words. Without transcripts one word against another's word. Not the best of worlds but.............

Here is an excerpt of what Rove said he would do.

The panel is trying to determine whether Rove influenced the Justice Department's decision to bring a corruption case against former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman, a Democrat. Rove has rejected the claim and said he would speak with the committee only in private, not under oath and without a transcript. He also proposed answering questions in writing.

Sanchez noted that Rove's offer was limited to discussing the Siegelman case. The panel also wants to question him about other topics, including the 2006 firing of nine U.S. attorneys, she said.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=auHjm0Z_duhY&refer=us

Like I said in earlier post the Administration knows that the committee will not limit itself to one topic, but go on a fishing expedition.

clambake

07-11-2008, 10:26 AM

ray, a fishing expedition could only happen because rove's answers were driving the boat.

wouldn't you enjoy the prospect of watching rove mow them down?

xrayzebra

07-11-2008, 10:33 AM

ray, a fishing expedition could only happen because rove's answers were driving the boat.

wouldn't you enjoy the prospect of watching rove mow them down?

rove's answers were driving the boat.

If you actually believe that then I have a bridges in Brooklyn and Laredo, Tx. that I would love to sell you.

And

Do you actually think that the hearings would be televised? No transcripts but TV would be allowed. What part of private do you not understand?

George Gervin's Afro

07-11-2008, 10:34 AM

Second question first. He said he would.

First question. I suspect that he (and the administration) have a real problem with the truthfulness of some Congressmen and the twisting of words. Without transcripts one word against another's word. Not the best of worlds but.............

Here is an excerpt of what Rove said he would do.

The panel is trying to determine whether Rove influenced the Justice Department's decision to bring a corruption case against former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman, a Democrat. Rove has rejected the claim and said he would speak with the committee only in private, not under oath and without a transcript. He also proposed answering questions in writing.

Sanchez noted that Rove's offer was limited to discussing the Siegelman case. The panel also wants to question him about other topics, including the 2006 firing of nine U.S. attorneys, she said.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=auHjm0Z_duhY&refer=us

Like I said in earlier post the Administration knows that the committee will not limit itself to one topic, but go on a fishing expedition.

Ray a transcript would prove that some Congressmen were twisting his words if that were the case. Without a transcript they then could accuse Rove of saying things that he didn't say.

FromWayDowntown

07-11-2008, 10:36 AM

If Rove is worried about the twisting of words, he should specifically want a transcript -- a transcript is objective and can be read in full context. There is no he said/she said with a transcript. Suggesting that someone would avoid a transcript out of a fear of misrepresentation has to be among the most asinine things I've read in this forum.

Politics aside, my guess is that Rove doesn't want a transcript and to testify under oath because what he would have to say might be discovered to have been untruthful, which, of course, would mean that he broke the law and could be prosecuted.

clambake

07-11-2008, 10:42 AM

FromWayDowntown

07-11-2008, 10:46 AM

there are very few things in adult life more exciting than depositions.

Reading a deposition transcript might actually be worse than sitting through one.

But my point is that the transcript (of a deposition or any other form of testimony) tends to protect an honest witness. If one is specifically concerned with maintaining the integrity of his words and the import of his testimony, a choice to proceed without a transcript is incomprehensible.

clambake

07-11-2008, 10:55 AM

Reading a deposition transcript might actually be worse than sitting through one.
participating in one is the rush. reading one that you just completed can be quite fun when you hold the dagger of truth.

But my point is that the transcript (of a deposition or any other form of testimony) tends to protect an honest witness. If one is specifically concerned with maintaining the integrity of his words and the import of his testimony, a choice to proceed without a transcript is incomprehensible.
hense rove's concern.

Spurminator

07-11-2008, 11:32 AM

He set some provisions that they don't like. He would not be under oath and no transcription of his remarks could be made.

Why don't they accept those terms?

ROFLMAO

xrayzebra

07-11-2008, 11:44 AM

ROFLMAO

enjoy your laugh. We will see who laughs last.

xrayzebra

07-11-2008, 11:46 AM

clambake

07-11-2008, 11:50 AM

For those of you who wonder why no transcript. Not all transcripts are put out for public consumption. And some are "censored" for lack of a better word. And some are published way, way after the fact. After proper study, don't you see and some
tweaking.

so, whats the problem? i think you're afraid he'll say something, not that it would matter to you.

why do you care? you'd defend him anyway.

FromWayDowntown

07-11-2008, 11:50 AM

For those of you who wonder why no transcript. Not all transcripts are put out for public consumption. And some are "censored" for lack of a better word. And some are published way, way after the fact. After proper study, don't you see and some
tweaking.

Aside from the fact that such limitations wouldn't seem to apply to Rove's testimony -- it's not as if he'll be able to testify to Top Secret matters (he certainly shouldn't have ever had that kind of clearance) or to matters of national security at all -- the point stands. If Rove is worried about his words being distorted, his surest protection is a transcript. If he's fearful of a transcript, it suggests that he's concerned about having a record of his statements at all. You're being seriously misled by whatever bots are suggesting to you that the willingness to testify without a transcript is based on fear of having his words misrepresented -- again, a transcript would absolutely protect Rove, if he testifies truthfully.

xrayzebra

07-11-2008, 12:08 PM

Aside from the fact that such limitations wouldn't seem to apply to Rove's testimony -- it's not as if he'll be able to testify to Top Secret matters (he certainly shouldn't have ever had that kind of clearance) or to matters of national security at all --

Oh, I would imagine he has way higher than Top Secret. Top Secret isn't even close to being the top classification of classified matters. He was privy to most all the stuff that went on in the WH. Might not have been consulted, but he knew what was going on. He was after all the top political guy to go to on all matters and everything is political in Washington.

FromWayDowntown

07-11-2008, 12:19 PM

Even if Rove had the most significant security clearance in the history of the nation, the point is that his testimony isn't likely to involve questions involving those matters. As such, there would be no reason to keep the transcript of his testimony confidential or to make it publicly-available with significant redaction.

There is simply no rational reason for Rove to think that testimony in the absence of a transcript affords better protection for him, in a political sense, than testimony that is recorded. It's beyond asinine to believe that.

Spurminator

07-11-2008, 12:19 PM

enjoy your laugh. We will see who laughs last.

What does that even mean? It's not like I'm making predictions on anything, I'm laughing at the lengths you will go to for the sake of your "team."

FromWayDowntown

07-11-2008, 12:22 PM

What does that even mean? It's not like I'm making predictions on anything, I'm laughing at the lengths you will go to for the sake of your "team."

It means that xray and others will think it's really funny if this President succeeds in this Imperial Presidency idea and exalting the executive branch above all others. They'll really be laughing about that when President Obama refuses to kowtow to a Republican Congress. ROFLMAO kind of laughing.

George Gervin's Afro

07-11-2008, 01:19 PM

Bush's administration has set a new precedent for the Executive Branch. ZERO OVERSIGHT. With a new Democrat President and Congress ray and his bretheren have to keep their pie holes shut because of what Bush and Cheney have created. Nice job guys.... Come February of 2009 ray is going to be crying that President Obama has something to hide and that he, Obama, acts like he's above the law... Now that would make roll on the floor and laugh my ass off..

Wild Cobra

07-11-2008, 10:35 PM

No, you asked me if the article was wrong. I told you it didn't say what you think it did.

No, you thought you knew what I was thinking.

But you are a lemming and part of the chorus of hate. You're a partisan hack through and through.

I'll admit to being partisan for conservative ideals. Not for republican.

You have always taken Bush's side.

Absolutely wrong.

I'm sure you like to think of yourself as one.

That does not compute.

Libby lied and was convicted by a jury. Not railroaded at all. Thanks for the partisan labeling for the Democrats. Just proves my point more.

I disagree. He was targeted and prosecuted for a mixup of facts. Not intentional lies.

There is plenty of evidence of wrongdoing, especially in the Alabama case. If Rove has nothing to hide, why doesn't he testify?

I don't know of that case, at least I don't recall what it is about. If there is evidence there are non-partisan legal methods available.

Wild Cobra

07-11-2008, 10:38 PM

Wild Cobra

07-11-2008, 10:46 PM

so a right to privacy is not part of the constitution but the doctrine of executive privileged is?

Where is that right to privacy in the constitution? I don't recall that as an absolute. There is a qualifier "unreasonable" within the language, isn't there?

If privacy a common law right?

you republicans are funny, you dont even hide the internal wish for dictatorship

First of all I will accept the lable conservative, libertarian, or constitutionalist. I have never been, nor will I ever be a republican. They are simply the lesser of two evil parties.

As for dictatorship? Which party wished to keep the impoverished in their place by giving social programs rather than insiting they rise to support themselves? You can only be dictatorial over those who depend on you. I want a limited government that does not cater to individual intersets, but the general wealfare as spelled out in the preamble.

FromWayDowntown

07-11-2008, 11:56 PM

These details may be true. I still don't see how the House has such powers that are enforceable. I wouldn't question this so much if it came from the senate.

Again, are you saying that any congressional investigation of the executive amounts to the equivalent of a trial following impeachment?

MaNuMaNiAc

07-12-2008, 03:04 AM

:lol @ WC only answering FWDT's points that don't put him under the gun. Crafty SOB that one. Not that you can't see right through all his bullshit in this thread. Here, I'll post the ones you chose to ignore, just so that in the odd chance you might have missed them WC, you can address them this time.

Well, but if the branches are equal that doesn't mean that one can just ignore the other when it damned well pleases. If you imbue either branch with that power, you're making it superior and the Constitution clearly does not contemplate that sort of heirarchy in the federal government.
Oh, but the investigatory power of a congressional body is not either: (1) inherent in the office; or (2) a matter of agreed-upon common law? It's only valid if specifically spelled out in the Constitution?

That's an interesting contention on your part, given the long history of congressional investigation in this country of ours.
Post #42 in its entirety

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2656303&postcount=42
I don't even bother with xray anymore. That old fart is senile and stubborn in his ignorance. He'd vote republican even if it meant putting America under a dictator just so as he can say his "team" won... pfff. Same goes for a lot of democrats in here. The dude represents everything that's fucked up with present day politics. Its never about ideals and principles anymore, its about fucking sides. HEY XRAY!! NEWSFLASH! THIS ISN'T SPORTS!!

xrayzebra

07-12-2008, 09:21 AM

Nice job guys.... Come February of 2009 ray is going to be crying that President Obama has something to hide and that he, Obama, acts like he's above the law... Now that would make roll on the floor and laugh my ass off..

He already thinks he is a Messiah, in every sense of the word. No one may tell the Messiah he has no clothes on, speak his name, mention his ears, talk about he is (half) black, mention his religious leaders, speak of his bomber friends. Going to Germany to make a campaign speech, like JFK and Reagan (after they were President). Oh and don't forget his wife is off limits too. And do not forget his next door neighbor and friend, who is a criminal. Do real estate deals together. Yeah, he is a real jewel and a real dimm-o-crap in every sense of the word. But he is clean and well spoken according to dimm-o-crapic sources.

FromWayDowntown

07-12-2008, 09:34 AM

He already thinks he is a Messiah, in every sense of the word. No one may tell the Messiah he has no clothes on, speak his name, mention his ears, talk about he is (half) black, mention his religious leaders, speak of his bomber friends. Going to Germany to make a campaign speech, like JFK and Reagan (after they were President). Oh and don't forget his wife is off limits too. And do not forget his next door neighbor and friend, who is a criminal. Do real estate deals together. Yeah, he is a real jewel and a real dimm-o-crap in every sense of the word. But he is clean and well spoken according to dimm-o-crapic sources.

But when Republicans in Congress try to subpoena Obama's aides, you won't be complaining about any assertions of executive privilege, right?

xrayzebra

07-12-2008, 09:34 AM

so a right to privacy is not part of the constitution but the doctrine of executive privileged is?

you republicans are funny, you dont even hide the internal wish for dictatorship

Executive privilege was claimed by President George Washington. And you are right, it is not in the Constitution. But the Supreme Court has ruled that it exist.

Quote from Wikipedia:

In the United States government, executive privilege is the power (reserve power) claimed by the President of the United States and other members of the executive branch to resist certain search warrants and other interventions by the legislative and judicial branches of government. The concept of executive privilege is not mentioned explicitly in the United States Constitution, but the Supreme Court of the United States ruled it to be an element of the separation of powers doctrine, and/or derived from the supremacy of executive branch in its own area of Constitutional activity.[1]

The Supreme Court confirmed the legitimacy of this doctrine in United States v. Nixon, but only to the extent of confirming that there is a qualified privilege. Once invoked, a presumption of privilege is established, requiring the Prosecutor to make a "sufficient showing" that the "Presidential material" is "'essential to the justice of the case.'"(418 U.S. at 713-14). Chief Justice Burger further stated that executive privilege would most effectively apply when the oversight of the executive would impair that branch's national security concerns.

Historically, the uses of executive privilege underscore the untested nature of the doctrine, since Presidents have generally sidestepped open confrontations with the United States Congress and the courts over the issue by first asserting the privilege, then producing some of the documents requested on an assertedly voluntary basis."

If you want to look at an extensive essay on the executive privilege then
go to this link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_privilege#Early_precedents

It has many, many footnotes.

FromWayDowntown

07-12-2008, 09:38 AM

And you are right, it is not in the Constitution. But the Supreme Court has ruled that it exist.

Precisely the same statements are true of the right to privacy.

xrayzebra

07-12-2008, 09:55 AM

:lol @ WC only answering Fwd points that don't put him under the gun. Crafty SOB that one. Not that you can't see right through all his bullshit in this thread. Here, I'll post the ones you chose to ignore, just so that in the odd chance you might have missed them WC, you can address them this time.

I don't even bother with xray anymore. That old fart is senile and stubborn in his ignorance. He'd vote republican even if it meant putting America under a dictator just so as he can say his "team" won... pfff. Same goes for a lot of democrats in here. The dude represents everything that's fucked up with present day politics. Its never about ideals and principles anymore, its about fucking sides. HEY XRAY!! NEWSFLASH! THIS ISN'T SPORTS!!

Two points. Look at my post above, it answers the points you made.
Secondly, you are absolutely correct. This isn't sports. It is about YOUR future. Mine is for a short period only. And you damn well better think about what they (dimms) are offering or better still what they are wanting to take away from YOU. Government is not the solution to much of anything, it is the problem in most cases. Politicians are good at only one thing. Getting elected. All of them, Republicans or dimm-o-craps. I am like WC, I don't claim to be a Republican and I don't and didn't support George Bush or his administration in ALL things. Bush is really a lib at heart, just as his Daddy was. Part D of Medicare kinda give you that information. Almost the first bill out of his administration was written by a flaming Liberal. Teddy, the swimmer, Kennedy. Bush and his, Cant we just get Along philosophy.

Hasn't the present bunch in Washington taught you anything. Pork so fat that it would actually kill someone who ate it. Another form of government welfare. I don't know about you, but I am sick of it. From both sides of the aisle. And I have told my representatives that if they worked for me personally they would have already been fired. Have you? This crap of "no one works with anyone" gets a little old. Who normally caves, it aint the dimm-o-craps. Pelosi want even bring up energy or a bill to allow drilling. I guess you like the four bucks a gallon for gas. I damn sure don't. And friend-o, ethenol might sound wonderful and be YOUR salvation and all these bright ideas of conservation might ring your bell, but everytime I hear a politician say conservation I grap my billfold cause it is going to cost me and YOU. I could cite you many, many examples. Gasoline being just one of them.
So you make fun of an old man like me, but I have seen them all, from
Roosevelt right on down to the present. I have heard all the arguments and listen to all the BS but politicans are what they are. POLITICANS.
They want and crave only one thing: Power!. The scary thing is that the folks we used scoff at and make fun of are now taken seriously and are affecting YOURS and MY life. I happen to not like it. You keep promoting them, my boy, because you will have to live under their
RULE. And I do mean RULE. Enjoy your mercury filled CFL's and the little tin can you put on to go to work. Or maybe you prefer a bicycle.

xrayzebra

07-12-2008, 09:57 AM

Precisely the same statements are true of the right to privacy.

I don't recall I ever said that it didn't exist.

JoeChalupa

07-12-2008, 12:07 PM

xray..you know that if you are honest with yourself that Bush thinks he is above the law. One would say HE thinks he is the messiah. Or at least King.

ChumpDumper

07-12-2008, 12:07 PM

xrayzebra

07-12-2008, 12:17 PM

It's good to know x and WC believe that Obama and his administration should be allowed to operate unencumbered by congressional oversight. Surely they will defend his executive privilege as doggedly as they do for Bush. I expect them to suck Obama's cock too. Gotta be consistent.

In the first place I didn't say "unencumbered". I said "fishing expedition".
And yes if Obama is President, which I suspect he will be, then I would be opposed to Congress going on a fishing expedition. The have all the investigators in the world and many sources to obtain information from without all the showboating and speechifying with a committee.

I would also support Obama in a war should we become involved in one, even Iran.

Did you know that much speculation was made that Roosevelt pulled us into WWII, and it still exist. But funny thing. Everyone supported the country and Roosevelt. And we won, just like we are doing in Iraq, despite the party of surrender not supporting our troops or country.

ChumpDumper

07-12-2008, 12:18 PM

I would also support Obama in a war should we become involved in one, even Iran. He will already be invovled in two the second he steps into office.

I'm sure he thanks you in advance for your support.

xrayzebra

07-12-2008, 12:21 PM

He will already be invovled in two the second he steps into office.

I'm sure he thanks you in advance for your support.

At least he knows I would support him, hence, my country. Might try it, you may like it, Mikie!

ChumpDumper

07-12-2008, 12:24 PM

One does not equal the other, but I'll remember you said it come January.

xrayzebra

07-12-2008, 12:27 PM

One does not equal the other, but I'll remember you said it come January.\

Do that. But also remember I will not support him on domestic issues that I don't like. Whole different ballgame. And on foreign issues if comes to surrendering our victories like the dimms did with Viet Nam.

ChumpDumper

07-12-2008, 12:33 PM

So you just lied.

That's ok, I'm used to it.

Condemned 2 HelLA

07-12-2008, 03:41 PM

Executive privilege was claimed by President George Washington. And you are right, it is not in the Constitution. But the Supreme Court has ruled that it exist.

Quote from Wikipedia:

In the United States government, executive privilege is the power (reserve power) claimed by the President of the United States and other members of the executive branch to resist certain search warrants and other interventions by the legislative and judicial branches of government. The concept of executive privilege is not mentioned explicitly in the United States Constitution, but the Supreme Court of the United States ruled it to be an element of the separation of powers doctrine, and/or derived from the supremacy of executive branch in its own area of Constitutional activity.[1]

The Supreme Court confirmed the legitimacy of this doctrine in United States v. Nixon, but only to the extent of confirming that there is a qualified privilege. Once invoked, a presumption of privilege is established, requiring the Prosecutor to make a "sufficient showing" that the "Presidential material" is "'essential to the justice of the case.'"(418 U.S. at 713-14). Chief Justice Burger further stated that executive privilege would most effectively apply when the oversight of the executive would impair that branch's national security concerns.

Historically, the uses of executive privilege underscore the untested nature of the doctrine, since Presidents have generally sidestepped open confrontations with the United States Congress and the courts over the issue by first asserting the privilege, then producing some of the documents requested on an assertedly voluntary basis."

If you want to look at an extensive essay on the executive privilege then
go to this link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_privilege#Early_precedents

It has many, many footnotes.

Seeing as how Wikipedia has as much credibility as Fox news, it's no surprise you chose them as the source to back up your "argument".
Nice going, ray.

ggoose25

07-12-2008, 03:58 PM

I don't recall I ever said that it didn't exist.

I think what he was trying to get at is that it is inconsistent to claim you want a strict reading of the constitution for some issues but not for others.

When it comes to abortion, most Republicans disagree with the argument for a constitutional right to privacy under the 14th amendment, mostly because it is not an explicit right.

To then argue that executive privilege is implicitly granted under the constitution, similar to the right to privacy, just because it happens to serve your political agenda of the moment, reeks of hypocrisy.

Wild Cobra

07-12-2008, 11:28 PM

Again, are you saying that any congressional investigation of the executive amounts to the equivalent of a trial following impeachment?

I'm not saying that either. Just that the powers are divided differently by constitution.

FromWayDowntown

07-13-2008, 11:08 AM

I'm not saying that either. Just that the powers are divided differently by constitution.

So, again, tell me where the Constitution expressly vests the Senate with the exclusive power to investigate the actions of the executive -- outside of trials of impeachment.

And, once more, if the power of the House is in such question, why isn't Rove's contention with respect to this subpoena a claim that it is void (i.e., issued by a body with no power)? By asserting a claim of privilege, it sure looks as though Rove and the White House don't dispute the validity of an investigation by the House; they just think they can't be made to testify to the House because the information they have is somehow privileged. Those are two very different questions and reliance on the latter would seem to presume the invalidity of the former.

xrayzebra

07-13-2008, 11:11 AM

So you just lied.

That's ok, I'm used to it.

You must be part frog the way you jump to conclusions.

ChumpDumper

07-13-2008, 11:52 AM

You must be part frog the way you jump to conclusions.You must have set a new speed record for backpedaling.

You'll start hating the US next January. We get it.

xrayzebra

07-13-2008, 12:25 PM

You must have set a new speed record for backpedaling.

You'll start hating the US next January. We get it.

Talking to you is like talking to a two year old.

ChumpDumper

07-13-2008, 12:27 PM

I'm only using your logic. It's not my fault your logic sucks, future America hater. Why don't you just move out of the country now?

xrayzebra

07-13-2008, 12:42 PM

Shhhh.....Children are to be seen, not heard......

ChumpDumper

07-13-2008, 12:44 PM

You hate America. I won't be silenced.

xrayzebra

07-13-2008, 12:46 PM

You hate America. I won't be silenced.

Now don't throw a temper tantrum.

ChumpDumper

07-13-2008, 12:56 PM

I don't approve of America haters like you.

xrayzebra

07-13-2008, 04:17 PM

I don't approve of America haters like you.:madrun

:baby

Wild Cobra

07-14-2008, 07:10 PM

So, again, tell me where the Constitution expressly vests the Senate with the exclusive power to investigate the actions of the executive -- outside of trials of impeachment.

I never implied such a thing. Investigate they can all they want. They do have limits. Powers of subpoena is what I'm disagreeing with being outside their authority when it comes to an equal branch of government. Where does it say they have such powers?

And, once more, if the power of the House is in such question, why isn't Rove's contention with respect to this subpoena a claim that it is void (i.e., issued by a body with no power)? By asserting a claim of privilege, it sure looks as though Rove and the White House don't dispute the validity of an investigation by the House; they just think they can't be made to testify to the House because the information they have is somehow privileged. Those are two very different questions and reliance on the latter would seem to presume the invalidity of the former.
I don't know. Too many possibilities without first hand knowledge.

I would contend that the way they are pursuing this, it amounts to actions required by the judicial branch. Otherwise they have no right to demand the executive branch comply. This is in my view, optional by Rove to comply with.

FromWayDowntown

07-14-2008, 08:17 PM

I never implied such a thing. Investigate they can all they want. They do have limits. Powers of subpoena is what I'm disagreeing with being outside their authority when it comes to an equal branch of government. Where does it say they have such powers?

Perhaps, the same place that the right to claim executive privilege exists.

I don't know. Too many possibilities without first hand knowledge.

I would contend that the way they are pursuing this, it amounts to actions required by the judicial branch. Otherwise they have no right to demand the executive branch comply. This is in my view, optional by Rove to comply with.

You would contend that, but you're an avowed ideologue who fundamentally disagrees with the political persuasions of those undertaking the investigation. Your contention that this action is one required to be taken by the judicial branch is fundamentally absurd, given your concession that you'd basically have no quarrel with the issuance of the subpoena if it came from the Senate.

And, again, if subpoenas issued by the House are optional upon the executive, aren't you saying that the executive is somehow superior to the House?

In any event, such a contention, however, would be quite different than a claim of executive privilege. A contention that the House lacks subpoena power and cannot investigate the executive through executive officers would be a structural challenge to the investigation and would be manifested by a claim that the subpoena is void, not a claim that the subpoenaed party is exempted from testifying by a testimonial privilege like the one claimed here.

Wild Cobra

07-14-2008, 08:42 PM

And, again, if subpoenas issued by the House are optional upon the executive, aren't you saying that the executive is somehow superior to the House?

No. To imply a subpoena power exists that the house can subpoena the executive implies the house is superior. I'm saying they are equal. To change that stalemate, you must involve a third party. The judicial branch.

NASCARdad

07-14-2008, 08:43 PM

Bush rules!!

FromWayDowntown

07-14-2008, 08:52 PM

No. To imply a subpoena power exists that the house can subpoena the executive implies the house is superior. I'm saying they are equal. To change that stalemate, you must involve a third party. The judicial branch.

That argument is nonsensical, too, unless you're prepared to admit that the Senate, which you admit has subpoena power, is superior to the executive.

DarkReign

07-14-2008, 10:32 PM

No. To imply a subpoena power exists that the house can subpoena the executive implies the house is superior. I'm saying they are equal. To change that stalemate, you must involve a third party. The judicial branch.

Its simple WC. When Congress (be it the HoR or Senate) subpoenas you, you go.

Simple.

Wild Cobra

07-15-2008, 04:19 PM

Its simple WC. When Congress (be it the HoR or Senate) subpoenas you, you go.

Simple.

If only there was ever a reason for me to be.

I would have to. I have little choice but to. My point is that the house is not above the executive.

FromWayDowntown

07-16-2008, 11:16 AM

My point is that the house is not above the executive.

But the Senate, apparently, is.

Wild Cobra

07-16-2008, 06:28 PM

But the Senate, apparently, is.

Possibly in cases of a judicial nature. I only say that because it is the senate that the constitution gives the power of trying impeachments. The house only decides weather to impeach or not. It is the senate that finalizes the process. They are the ones who judge it as valid or not.

I say possibly because I believe supreme court justice is still required. This is now two branches over one. If impeachment is voted on by the house, then as it goes to the senate, I think more doors to discovery can be opened. As it is, I see it as a fishing expedition for incriminating evidence. If they don't have enough already, then it's just a witch hunt.

I'm not sure is the senate can ever be considered above the executive. I just know that the notion the legislative branch cannot dictate actions to the executive because they are suppose to be equal.

Now if the house went for a warrant from the supreme court, then Rove would have to comply. Short of that, why do people agree with violating what could be a person's fifth amendment rights.

FromWayDowntown

07-16-2008, 06:48 PM

Possibly in cases of a judicial nature. I only say that because it is the senate that the constitution gives the power of trying impeachments. The house only decides weather to impeach or not. It is the senate that finalizes the process. They are the ones who judge it as valid or not.

So any investigation of the executive is an impeachment? Again, your logic here is baffling to me. Would it be your argument that the Senate has no investigatory power over the executive absent impeachment proceedings?

I say possibly because I believe supreme court justice is still required. This is now two branches over one. If impeachment is voted on by the house, then as it goes to the senate, I think more doors to discovery can be opened.

Certainly that is true. But what, exactly, precludes either the House or the Senate from investigating the executive short of impeachment and subpoening witnesses in the course of that investigation? I don't dispute that in certain instances, those who work for the executive and are subpoenaed might have valid claims of executive privilege in the context of responding to those investigations. But that's an extremely far cry from saying that there is absolutely no congressional power of oversight short of impeachment and that no house of Congress may procure evidence directly from the executive short of impeachment.

Simplistically, your contentions would give the executive not only veto power over legislative actions, but veto power over any effort by the legislature to investigate the executive. It would, in essence, insulate the executive branch from any oversight short of impeachment. That would be absurd.

As it is, I see it as a fishing expedition for incriminating evidence. If they don't have enough already, then it's just a witch hunt.

Of course you do -- you're an ideologue who sees this with a political tint. I'm quite certain that if the roles were reversed, you'd be all in support of either house of Congress acting in an oversight capacity with regard to a Democratic administration with which you disagreed.

I'm not sure is the senate can ever be considered above the executive. I just know that the notion the legislative branch cannot dictate actions to the executive because they are suppose to be equal.

There's a very big difference between dictating a course of action and asking respect for the investigatory powers of a co-equal branch of the government. The acts of members of Congress can be investigated by the executive, as can the acts of members of the judiciary. But you're telling me that neither the legislative nor the judicial branch has the power to investigate the acts of the executive, save for impeachment?

Now if the house went for a warrant from the supreme court, then Rove would have to comply. Short of that, why do people agree with violating what could be a person's fifth amendment rights.

What Fifth Amendment rights are in jeopardy here? If Rove fears that his testimony will be incriminating, he's perfectly within his rights to assert the Fifth Amendment in response to questioning from the committee conducting the investigation. But that's a very, very different thing than simply disregarding a subpoena because you believe yourself exempt from having to give any testimony at all. Certainly that is true because in one case, the witness is asserting a right guaranteed to him by the Constitution while in the other, the witness is claiming exemption through the tangential application of a common law principle.

At that, I don't believe that the assertion of executive privilege creates a blanket exception to testifying at all -- if applicable at all, executive privilege in Rove's case would serve to allow him to avoid certain questions that might be asked of him. Certainly, Rove couldn't claim executive privilege if, for instance, IRS (another executive agency) investigated him for an issue related to his personal tax returns. The same would be true if a House committee subpoenaed Rove to testify on some matter that had nothing to do with his service to the executive branch.

Again, however, nothing about the Administration's contentions regarding these subpoenas suggests a dispute with the inherent power of the House to investigate. This strawman argument of yours would seem to be both constitutionally unique (and untenable) and wholly irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Anti.Hero

07-17-2008, 11:40 AM

Pelosi is killing this country.

Wild Cobra

07-17-2008, 01:09 PM

So any investigation of the executive is an impeachment? Again, your logic here is baffling to me.

Your logic is baffling me. I realed legal authority to impeachment. I was not saying they are the same. I'm done with this argument if you are going to keep trying to dismantle it with arguments against points I don't make. You are acting like Random. Please. I've had enough of him.

My primary argument is that the banches are equal. Either the judicial must get involved, or the legislative cannot effectively take the actions that we think of as a warrant. I don't know all the legalities behind this. I just have a strong enough understanding of the constitution to stand by that basis.

Consider this. Is there an instance you know of where the someone from the executive branch didn't want to testify before congress, and was legaly forced to without the judicial branch involvement?

I don't think there ever has been such an instance without judicial involvement.

Nbadan

07-18-2008, 01:26 PM

Looks like we've all misjudged Karl Rove...

M3zEvOaaslA

Such hard hitting questions from O'Really.......

Banzai

07-18-2008, 01:54 PM

Pelosi is killing this country.

true...she said Bush is a total failure..yet since the Democrats took over...Congress has a lower approval rating than the Bush.

George Gervin's Afro

07-18-2008, 02:57 PM

true...she said Bush is a total failure..yet since the Democrats took over...Congress has a lower approval rating than the Bush.

And to think the Dems will increase their majorities this fall..:lol

FromWayDowntown

07-18-2008, 05:04 PM

Looks like we've all misjudged Karl Rove...

M3zEvOaaslA

Such hard hitting questions from O'Really.......

BOR: Mr. Rove, let me just say that liberals are dumb poopyheads.

KR: Hahahahahaha! Bill, you are just so right! They are stupid peepeemouths.

FromWayDowntown

07-18-2008, 05:26 PM

Your logic is baffling me. I realed legal authority to impeachment. I was not saying they are the same. I'm done with this argument if you are going to keep trying to dismantle it with arguments against points I don't make. You are acting like Random. Please. I've had enough of him.

I'm just trying to understand where the limits are of your constitutional construction. It seems to me that your basis for believing that the Senate has investigatory (and subpoena) power over the executive grows out of the fact that the Senate sits in trial of impeachments and the fact that there is no such similar power constitutionally delegated to the House. If I'm wrong, feel free to correct me, but that comes through on these pages as the basis for your argument that the House is exceeding its authority while the same action from the Senate would be legally permissible.

My question, then, is how you deduce that the Senate (and not the House) has investigative authority with respect to the acts of the executive and quasi-judicial power to subpoena witnesses who serve in the executive branch when the investigation falls short of impeachment. Where is the constitutional authority for drawing that line, other than the grant of impeachment power? I don't see any constitutional basis (outside of impeachment power) to grant the Senate greater investigatory power than the House, so I honestly don't understand the logic that leads you to a conclusion that such is the constitutional structure.

More than that, I wonder just how far your belief in the lack of House investigatory power goes. Does the House lack authority to investigate acts of executive agencies, such as ATF, ICE, IRS, and others? If the House lacks investigatory power over anyone acting pursuant to Article II, how can it investigate those agencies? And if it has investigatory authority concerning some Article II offices, how do you draw a line between those offices and the White House?

My primary argument is that the banches are equal. Either the judicial must get involved, or the legislative cannot effectively take the actions that we think of as a warrant. I don't know all the legalities behind this. I just have a strong enough understanding of the constitution to stand by that basis.

I don't see that notion written anywhere in the Constitution and despite more than a decade studying law, I don't know of a single legal principle that would support such a conclusion. Article II concerns more than just the President, but only a trial for impeachment of the President compels judicial involvement in the legislative investigatory process. That is, if anyone in the executive branch other than the President is investigated, there is no constitutional basis to compel judicial involvement as a predicate to legislative action. Thus, if the Vice President is impeached, there is no judicial involvement at all. It seems to me that your argument basically falls apart at that point, particularly because Rove isn't the President and the investigation doesn't seem to contemplate the President in any way.

More than that, while it is certainly clear that courts can issue certain types of warrants, there is nothing in the Constitution to suggest that only courts can ever issue warrants or subpoenas.

Consider this. Is there an instance you know of where the someone from the executive branch didn't want to testify before congress, and was legaly forced to without the judicial branch involvement?

I'll apologize for not having an encyclopedia knowledge of congressional investigations. I'll also note, however, that executive branch officials don't often cite executive privilege as a basis to resist giving testimony to Congress.

I don't think there ever has been such an instance without judicial involvement.

Given the above, that would seem to be a bit like saying that Mars doesn't exist because we don't know of anyone who has ever set foot upon it.