dont you mean michael 'weiner'? are you a member of THE WEINER NATION! this guy is about as fake and hypocritical as they come - he got a phd in botany from berkeley and writes books on horticulture and herbs. used to hang out at nude beaches with allen ginsburg and allegedly had an affair with him, yet he is the spokesperson for the extreme right. kind of like how limbaugh is a drug addict who says that drug addicts should be in prison and a 3 times divorcee who rallies on about the sanctity of 'traditional marriage'.
Now I can understand the exaggeration you were after but it's up for debate. It says what it says; your intention is uncertain.
Nope! That pretty much sums it up. You are willing to overlook crimes by the chief law enforcement officer in the country strictly for ideological reasons. it's pretty simple
Lord, child, don't you know we are a society driven by convenience? Yeah, that's all it is.... ridiculous!
btw speaking of gonzales http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4959126.html Ex-aide says she, Bush didn't discuss firings By LAURIE KELLMAN Associated Press TOOLS Email Get section feed Print Subscribe NOW Comments Recommend (1) RESOURCES Taylor refuses to testify about firings of prosecutors WASHINGTON — Former White House political director Sara M. Taylor told a congressional panel today that she did not discuss or meet with President Bush about removing federal prosecutors before eight of them were fired. "I did not speak to the president about removing U.S. attorneys," Taylor said under stern questioning by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy. "I did not attend any meetings with the president where that matter was discussed." When asked more broadly whether the president was involved in any way in the firings, Taylor said, "I don't have any knowledge that he was." Taylor, who left the White House eight weeks ago for reasons she said were unrelated to the firings, was treading a rough line between obeying Bush's order to not reveal internal White House deliberations about the firings and a congressional subpoena compelling her to do so. Loyal to Bush even outside the White House, Taylor at first refused to answer questions that might violate Bush's claim of executive privilege and at one point reminded the committee that as a commissioned officer, "I took an oath and I take that oath to the president very seriously." Seeing a chance to weaken Taylor's observance of Bush's executive privilege claim, Leahy corrected her: She took an oath to uphold the Constitution. "Your oath is not to uphold the president," Leahy lectured her. The exchange was part of proceedings that were as much about the ongoing dispute over what information the White House can keep secret as it was about the stated topic — the firings over the winter of eight U.S. attorneys. Taylor began by telling the committee she would observe Bush's directive to defy the subpoena and refuse to answer questions — unless a court ordered her to do so. Democrats insisted that the decision to cooperate — or not — with their subpoena was hers. "It is apparent that this White House is contemptuous of the Congress and feels that it does not have to explain itself to anybody," Leahy, D-Vt., said as he opened the hearing. "I urge Ms. Taylor not to follow that contemptuous position and not to follow the White House down this path." With that, Democrats and ranking Republican Arlen Specter began to try to unravel Taylor's adherence to Bush's directions. Democrats noted that Taylor, 32, she is a private citizen compelled by subpoena to testify, under threat of being held in contempt of Congress. During a first round of questioning, Leahy asked Taylor repeatedly whether she had met with or talked to Bush about the replacement of U.S. attorneys. Taylor repeatedly refused to answer, citing Bush's instructions. She got some backup from Specter. "I think your declining to answer the last series of questions by the chairman was correct under the direction from White House counsel," the committee's ranking Republican, Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., said. "Whether White House counsel is correct on the assertion of executive privilege is a matter which will be decided by the courts," Specter added. But, in the senator's view, "congressional oversight has the better of the argument." Nonetheless, Democrats pressed Taylor. Under questioning from Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., Taylor acknowledged that she did not recall agreeing to observe Bush's instructions after her White House employment ended. Apart from her comments about Bush, Taylor revealed a few other details: She said she did not recall ordering the addition or deletion of names to the list of prosecutors to be fired. And she disputed testimony by Kyle Sampson, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' chief of staff, that Taylor wanted to avoid submitting a new prosecutor, Tim Griffin, through Senate confirmation. "I expected him to go through Senate confirmation," Taylor said under questioning by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. Taylor also issued a stiff defense of her colleagues in the Bush administration. "I don't believe there was any wrongdoing by anybody," Taylor said. "I don't believe anybody in the White House did any wrongdoing." Some lawmakers said by picking and choosing what questions to answer, she weakened Bush's executive privilege claim. "I think sometimes you've stepped on one side of the line and then not wanted to step on the other," said Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. "This broad claim of privilege doesn't stand up." Leahy took the unusual step of allowing Taylor's lawyer, Neil Eggleston, to sit next to her at the witness table. There, he advised her on which questions she should or should not answer under the president's directive. Democrats said the same standard applied to a second former Bush aide, one-time White House counsel Harriet Miers. Miers, subpoenaed to appear before the House Judiciary Committee on Thursday, said through her lawyer that she "cannot provide the documents and testimony that the committee seeks." "Ms. Miers is thus subject to conflicting commands, with Congress demanding the production of information that the counsel to the president has informed her she is prohibited from disclosing," Miers' lawyer, George Manning, wrote to the House committee. A court fight could take years, dragging on even after Bush leaves office.
giddyup and donkeyboy are really showing their troll, I mean their true colors here. Even Senate Republicans wrote off Gonzo as an embarassing disgrace months and months ago, I could try to catalog all of his transgressions but it's basically been done to death, and the funny part is that none of them are really even disputed by Gonzo - his defense to being a liar or incompetent is, quite unabashedly, is that he is terminally (criminally?) incompetent and or negligent, or mentally incapable of being competent.. This is why even Republicans have jumped ship. This ship has sailed. Now I can predict an idiotic response about closed mindedness - but that belongs in the province of moon landing denialists and is not worthy.
At the risks of defending the current Admin. I think there are some Constitutional grey areas here regarding the assertion of Executive privelage. While there are checks and balances in the Constitution its unclear how far Congress' check goes on the Executive and as a separate branch the Executive likely does have some independence regarding its own internal deliberations. So Taylor upholding the President's instructions regarding Executive privelage may still be in line with the Constitution since it is respecting the separation of powers. At the sametime though as a private citizen she still is subject to Congressional subpoena and possible contempt charge. I am curious how the assertion of Executive privelage goes to private citizens who have left the Admin. but my guess is that it would work as something like a non-disclosure agreement. As a private citizen she may end up being stuck between the Constitutional perogatives of both branches be held in contempt of Congress if she doesn't reveal what she knows or suffer legal consequences if she does reveal what she knows but Executive Privelage holds up. In regard to the particular situation of firing the Federal Prosecutors. the Constitution grants Congress advice and consent along with impeachment powers regarding Federal appointees but its unclear whether they have any say on the firings of Federal appointees. I think both of these questions are going to have to be answered by the courts.
How can the president evoke EP if, by Taylor's own testimony yesterday, she never had a conversation with the president regarding the firings? So now he's evoking executive privilege on conversations that supposedly never took place?
No, not in this case. The argument presented by the WH is really no argument at all... no (as in zero) cites of previous court decisions, no novel interpretation of the Constitution. Just the notion that the President doesn't want Miers to testify. The assertion of privilege has to have a reason, but the WH says Bush had no involvement in the question at hand. As Josh says: The White House is effectively claiming that a former aide, who no longer works for the administration and is willing to testify, can't talk about conversations with the president she didn't have. The privilege claim cannot be used to cover up illegalities. The President is required to make the claim personally... not just through the WH Counsel. He has not done so. There are no specific reasons why the WH has refused to allow testimony or provide documents. This is simply a run-out-the-clock, burn time by getting it in to the courts strategy. If you know your Watergate, you know the decisions the WH will force from the courts have already been made. There is ample precedent, both in law and practice for Harriet to testify. The list of presidential advisors that have testified before Congress is long and deep. There is nothing about Miers or this President that is different regarding their duty to provide information to Congress. (And for the last time, this is not an issue that is concerned with the President's power to appoint or fire political appointees. It is about rigging the Department of Justice to represent the Bush wing of the Republican Party and favor them politically by using the mechanisms of the law at the expense of everyone else.)
giddy, I'm sorry, but what you are saying makes no sense, or as much sense as Hitler made in the 1930's, talking about the "threat" of the Jews, the Poles, the Slavs, the "threat" to ethnic Germans in other countries. You simply have no basis to toss out the Constitution of the United States based on rhetoric by Bush and his cronies, pushing their message of fear trumping all else. With all due respect, you are making no sense at all. I will add, however, that you are due an apology for that comment from pgabriel. That was entirely undeserved. D&D. We Have Lost Our Way.
i know. something is seriously wrong with that cat. I dont know what it is, but its scary to know people like him are out there. Oddly enough, its his type of mentality (unable to have a decent discussion, animosity towards others who differ on opinions, and mistating other people's ideas) that cause much of this worlds problems.
US v. Nixon http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=418&invol=683 MR. CHIEF JUSTICE BURGER delivered the opinion of the Court. "To read the Art. II powers of the President as providing an absolute privilege as against a subpoena essential to enforcement of criminal statutes on no more than a generalized claim of the public interest in confidentiality of nonmilitary and nondiplomatic discussions would upset the constitutional balance of "a workable government" and gravely impair the role of the courts under Art. III. " Carry on...
Yeah donkey I'm sure it scares the **** out of you to know that there are people in the world who hold their elected officials accountable for their actions.
If you're referring to Gonzales and Bush and others in his administration we're in complete agreement.
Good info Rashmon and Rimrocker and I find it convincing. Never the less I still suspect this will end up in the courts.
It will probably end up in the courts, but not because it belongs there. The administration will force the court hearings even though they know the precedents are completely against them. Any other administration would have at least been in negotiation with Congress by now. That this administration wants to waste time and money pursuing a judicial question that has already been decided tells you everything. Again, this is a stalling tactic that pushes real answers further down the road.
