View Full Version : Did you know

06-29-2007, 07:59 AM
..that President George W. Bush used executive privilege to deny disclosure of former President Bill Clinton's administration in December 2001.

The president's oh-so-noble reliance on "executive privilege"

(updated below - Update II - Update III)

There are several important facts to note about the President's vow at this afternoon's Press Conference to resist attempts to compel Karl Rove and Harriet Miers to testify to Congress, under oath, with regard to the firing of the U.S. attorneys. The President intends to invoke "executive privilege," the same doctrine used by Presidents Nixon and Clinton in their respective (unsuccessful) attempts to resist subpoenas:

First, the President began his Press Conference by admitting that the administration's explanations as to what happened here have been -- to use his own words -- "confusing" and "incomplete." Why, then, would Congress possibly trust Bush officials to provide more explanations in an off-the-record, no-transcript setting where there are no legal consequences from failing to tell the truth?

Once a party demonstrates a propensity to issue false explanations and refuses to tell the truth voluntarily, no rational person would trust that party to make voluntary disclosures. One could trust (if at all) only on-the-record testimony, under oath, where there are criminal penalties for lying (if they have questions about that motivational dynamic, they can ask Lewis Libby). <hr /></blockquote>

if they are innocent then they should have nothing to hide, right guys?

Q /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

06-29-2007, 08:34 AM
Nope, I did not know that. So what?

if they are innocent then they should have nothing to hide, right guys? <hr /></blockquote> It was perfectly legal to fire these attorneys, Clinton did it also. They should not even be questioned let alone prove their innocence. Also, it is common knowledge that anything one might say, the left will turn it around on them so why give them ammo?


Gayle in MD
06-29-2007, 10:12 AM
Bush is disgusting. The firing of these AG's was an unprecedented act, and in fact, I think I read that only two AG's have ever been fired mid term, and both were cases of corrupt behavior. the right like to muddy up the water, by suggesting that all presidents fire AG's. that's just another lie. President's don't fire their own appointees because they won't play ball with illegal activities, and they don't fire their own appointees, mid term, and replace them with AG's that will do their dirty work. That's called obstruction of justice, and Gonzales was right in the middle of it, along with Rove and Meyers. The E-mails tell the story, eventhough many from the most critical time period of the fiasco, have been deleted, another illegal activity.

Cumming'sm and other of the fired AG's testimony proved that Gonzales lied, and White House, and DOJ e-mails, comfirmed his lies. While the President can fire AG's at will, doing so in an attempt to use the DOJ as a political tool, against the opposing party, or to protect law breakers in the President's party, which evidence so far suggests is precisely what happened, is actually obstruction of Justice, Political manipulation of the DOJ, abuse of Power, and a number of other broken Federal Laws are involved.

Karl Rove cannot be involved in such an activity, since he is a political advisor, and there is proof, that he was involved, along with Harriet Meyers.

Too bad we have to put up with misinformation from people who have never watched a single live committee hearing on anything, and post only RNC talking points.

Goodling got right up on the stand and admitted that she broke the law. She also proved that Gonzales lied to the Senate Investigation Committee. The Ag's testified that they were being pressured to push voter fraud cases against Democrats, where none existed, and that Republicans, were inappripriately calling and pressuring AG's in the Districts where there had been accusations against Democrats, to pressure them to go forward before the election, in spite of the fact that the AG's had already determined that no voter fraud existed.

The facts already disclosed give a very likely scenario of Rove, preparing for the next election, by pushing out one AG, in order to install one of his aides, in order to create questionable accusations against future Democratic contenders, and that this overall plan, was conceived as a pre-election, political maneuver, for the next election, as an attempt to secure certain threatened Republican districts.

For anyone to pass this off as just a standard appointment of AG's, is an absolute joke. I hardly think that former AG's would take the oath and lie to the Senate Investigation Committee. However, another lie, or group of lies, from the White House is the only thing about this scandal that would be standard practice.

Gayle in Md.