Reply With Quote
The Repugs hit Clinton with 1050 subpoenas for bull , for pure harassment, for crimes that were never proven, so the Dems have a quite ways to go before they even match that number.
"So why are the Democrats wasting everyone's time and money by initiating 300 investigations"
because they can, and because they should, to expose the Repug lies and incompetence that have ed up US govt, military, and security since Jan 2001.
The Repugs hit Clinton with 1050 subpoenas for bull , for pure harassment, for crimes that were never proven, so the Dems have a quite ways to go before they even match that number.
Wasn't Mcveigh caught within hours of the blast? Why would people with buzz cuts be worried if he was already captured? Do you mean the buzz-cut profiling lasted all of 3 or 4 hrs? That makes no sense whatsover..
No, it lasted for quite awhile...months, if I recall.
security guard at the local piggly-wiggly is not exactly working in law enforcement
You're right. What's your point?
That wouldn't be so bad if they were exposing lies. That's not what they're doing. Their looking for lies!
They have nothing of substance.
are you Xray's slightly less stupid child by any chance?
Actually, Congressional investigations -- not related to contemplated or pending legislation -- is believe, by many, to be extra-cons utional.
Calling hearings and subpoenaing administration officials under the threat of contempt of Congress charges, on matters not related to pending legislation, is a rather new phenomenon.
I suspect the White House is pressing the issue -- by directing Ms. Miers not to testify and claiming executive privilege -- so that this separation of powers squabble can finally be decided, once and for all, where it should be. In the courts.
I'm sure that's what the WH is doing.
Hey I agree with Yoni...
I wouldn't characterize the Gingrich led Congress of the mid to late 90's as "relatively new", but time does fly...
Agreed. Investigating things not related to their responsibility?
Are they trying to take over not only the executive, but the judicial too?
I call it harassment.
That might be true. Besides, you don't let someone strong-arm you into a position even if you have noting to hide. It's a matter of principle.
Besides, nobody is safe with the way perjury charges and obstruction of justice charges are being abused by the left. Just make one mistatement....
...so WC's courtship of Yoni continues.
Here is an interesting article, just over an hour old:
House panel rejects Bush privilege claim
I bring this one up because of some key insight near the end:
Seems like harassment to me!Republicans accused Democrats of proceeding in the absence of evidence of wrongdoing by Miers or any White House officials.
Rep. Chris Cannon of Utah, the ranking Republican on Sanchez' subcommittee on commercial and administrative law, warned Democrats that a contempt citation would fail evidentiary standards in court.
"You can't go to the courts essentially and say, 'We don't know what we don't know, therefore give us a subpoena so we can find out,'" Cannon said.
"There is no proof whatsoever that Harriet Miers likely holds some smoking gun with respect to the U.S. attorney situation," added Rep. Ric Keller, R-Fla.
Well Kum-bah-freakin'-yah!Hey I agree with Yoni...
shhhhhhhh, don't startle them. I want to see them mate, and observe their pillow talk. They are dancing around a very important conclusion. Bush says he knows nothing about these attorney decisions. Why would Bush try to prevent anyone from knowing what they don't know if he claims to not know what it is they don't know, you know?
In litigation, if a party seeks to depose a witness and is denied access to that witness despite a subpoena, that denial is punishable via contempt or other sanctions. Obviously, it's a different sort of subpoena power that exists with respect to separation of powers issues, but I would generally think that Courts would be inclined to acknowledge the need for congressional subpoenas to be respected.
If Miers wants to come to Congress and claim that executive privilege prohibits her from answering certain questions, that's one thing -- if the White House thinks she should be exempt from even having to appear because she's within the purview of the Executive Branch, then Congressional oversight of executive action will be a farce.
I'm sure that the Bushies aren't terribly concerned about that possibility coming to pass, but they'll be bent when a Republican Congress wants to ferret out the details of perceived wrongdoing by a Democratic President -- but, of course, that's never happened before.
Really? I think the courts are going to be inclined to tell Congress that without a legitimate legislative reason, the have no subpoena power. I think the courts will go even further and tell them that unless they are deliberating specific legislation, they have no reason to hold a hearing, demand appearances, or claim oversight.
But, that's just me.
Congressional oversight of executive action is a farce.
No, we're not.
Even when there is no crime that can be shown to have occured?
They are hunting for a crime that likely doesn't exist! They have insufficient probable cause!
"They are hunting for a crime that likely doesn't exist!"
you mean like Monica blowing Clinton?
LOL... Do you even know what you're talking about?
This had nothing to do with the BJ's BJ recieved. It started with the Paula Jones case when Monica Lewinsky was pressured to lie under oath about Jones. A real allegation of sexual harassment by Jones is what caused this. Note, Jones was paid off by president Clinton, almost $1,000,000 to settle.
This is where the perjury charges started from. A real investigation involving facts that can be substantiated! Remember Lind Tripp's tape recording?
Jones settles so her case is dropped, president Clinton really lies, and the initiating case was against him.
The Paula Jones case was a partisan attack on Clinton funded by Republican-operative and billionaire, Richard Mellon Scaiffe, that failed horribly....
WikipediaIn his deposition for the Jones lawsuit, Clinton denied having "sexual relations" with Monica Lewinsky. Based on the evidence provided by Tripp, a blue dress with Clinton's semen, Starr concluded that this sworn testimony was false and perjurious.
During the deposition in the Jones case, Clinton was asked "Have you ever had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky, as that term is defined in Deposition Exhibit 1, as modified by the Court." The judge ordered that Clinton be given an opportunity to review the agreed definition. Afterwards, based on the definition created by the Independent Counsel's Office, Clinton answered "I have never had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky." Clinton later stated that he believed the agreed-upon definition of sexual relations excluded his receiving oral sex[citation needed]. It was upon the basis of this statement that the perjury charges in his impeachment were drawn up. However, despite Republican control of the Senate, Clinton was found not guilty on both the perjury and the obstruction of justice charges
Juanita Brodderick? Gennifer Flowers? Kathleen Willey?
C'mon, Slick Willy was a hound dog that forced Hillary to form a "Bimbo Eruption Squad" to squelch the problem.
Failed yes, horrible no. Maybe he is the opposite of George Soros. Does that matter?
Back to the topic;
The Paula Jones case laid the grounds for a credible impeachment process. What this congress is doing against president Bush has no legal case what so ever.
Big difference.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
