Reply With Quote
Please remind me where the grant of executive privilege is found in the Cons ution.
TIA!
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?
Please remind me where the grant of executive privilege is found in the Cons ution.
TIA!
Executive Privilege is inherent to the office, acknowledged as such for the known history and time of the cons ution. Many common law items of the time are not spelled out.
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.
you just admitted you don't care about the cons ution.
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 Cons ution?
That's an interesting contention on your part, given the long history of congressional investigation in this country of ours.
Thank-You.
I'm getting a little more insight as to how your twisted mind works.
Where in the Cons ution 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.
trust me, the foundation of your beliefs will fade away in january.
But, it's not in the Cons ution.
Niether is Judicial Review, but you probably forgot about that one too.
And, we're getting insight on how your twisted mind works.
That guys from the Steven Segal (Nico) movie.
That guy was above the law . . .
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 cons utional 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?
Are you really insisting that the House has no power to investigate the activities of the executive?
Again, would you care to explain the cons utionality of the House proceedings that resulted in the Articles of Impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton? I don't see any cons utional 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?
No, I'm telling you they have no right to subpoena someone in the executive branch if the chief executive sayd NO!
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.
Executive support staff. Not executive staff.
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?
So the Executive branch is superior to the House of Representatives? Really?
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.
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 cons utional underpinning.
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.
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?
That's because President Clinton was actually impeached. There is no impeachment here.
I think you are.
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?
With all the bull lies by the media, I can buy that. What is the truth then?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
It says nothing about Rove's speaking directly to the president about these issues.
You will take every opportunity to suck partisan as long and as hard as you can get it.With all the bull lies by the media, I can buy that. What is the truth then?
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.
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?
No, you asked me if the article was wrong. I told you it didn't say what you think it did.
But you are a lemming and part of the chorus of hate. You're a partisan hack through and through.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 have always taken Bush's side.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'm sure you like to think of yourself as one.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.
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.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 plenty of evidence of wrongdoing, especially in the Alabama case. If Rove has nothing to hide, why doesn't he testify?There is nothing but hyperbole in my opinion. I have yet to see any evidence of value. Have you?
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.
I would hope it goes to court, because from what I have seen that is exactly the White House's argument.
FWDT, If I was a woman I'd be so hot for you.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions