Bush tells Miers screw a congressional order and keep quiet!!

[kapkomet]

Apples and oranges.

 

Executive order can't quite be used for what you're suggesting except in small insignificant areas.

[NorthSideSox72]

Apples and oranges.

 

Executive order can't quite be used for what you're suggesting except in small insignificant areas.

That's defintely an important limitation - executive orders can't be used to, say, pass a law making earmarks illegal (that was the "x" in my post by the way, not sure what happened there).

 

But, you CAN pass EO's to pick off some little pieces here and there. For example, you could order the OMB to devote significant resources to checking all earmarks against all business dealings (in the public record) of the signing congresspeople. And then if anything fishy crops up, the FBI can go get warrants and dig further. That might make them think twice about giving them out.

 

This won't happen of course for lots of political reasons, but, it would probably help Bush's image at this point.

[EvilMonkey]

But, you CAN pass EO's to pick off some little pieces here and there. For example, you could order the OMB to devote significant resources to checking all earmarks against all business dealings (in the public record) of the signing congresspeople. And then if anything fishy crops up, the FBI can go get warrants and dig further. That might make them think twice about giving them out.

 

This won't happen of course for lots of political reasons, but, it would probably help Bush's image at this point.

THAT would be a good one. And make sure to have it trigger automatically, regardless of what party the person belonged to so they can all sweat.

[NorthSideSox72]

THAT would be a good one. And make sure to have it trigger automatically, regardless of what party the person belonged to so they can all sweat.

Exactly. After all, he is a uniter, not a divider.

[kapkomet]

Exactly. After all, he is a uniter, not a divider.

He sure is. Especially on immigration.

[EvilMonkey]

He sure is. Especially on immigration.

you got that right! Kinda funny too how Bush's supposed lapdog, talk radio, didn't toe the 'party line' and fall into the President's position on that. Even Rush spoke against it. Wow.

[StrangeSox]

If that were true, we would have social security reform, new immigration laws, and I could go on and on... put the bulls*** rhetoric away.

 

 

They might not have passed all of the laws he wanted, but when was he ever investigated or questioned? When were any of his actions ever really given a second thought instead of just brushed aside?*

 

*This isn't an R or Dubya exclusive party. Politicians care more about their side "winning" than running an above-the-board, ethical government.

Edited July 13, 2007 by StrangeSox

[kapkomet]

They might not have passed all of the laws he wanted, but when was he ever investigated or questioned? When were any of his actions ever really given a second thought instead of just brushed aside?*

 

*This isn't an R or Dubya exclusive party. Politicians care more about their side "winning" than running an above-the-board, ethical government.

They weren't by the Democrats themselves, until now. And even then, they were running around voting to the polls, instead of their "conscious".

[BHAMBARONS]

People here seem to be in one of two camps: the hearings are good/necessary, or Congress hasn't done anything good since about their 2nd month.

 

Can I take option C - all of the above?

 

 

Yes I totally agree,

 

Everything is covered in partisan BS. And it is not just one side it is both. It seems like nothing can be accomplished these days because one party is favor of the bill so the other party has to be against it no matter how much good it would do for the country so the bill fails.

 

Like the show I watched tonight Man of the Year if someone comes along that is not afraid to stand up for what he believes in, he would win in a landslide.

 

Right now I have as much respect for Democratic leadership as I do for Bush which is none

[Gregory Pratt]

Like the show I watched tonight Man of the Year if someone comes along that is not afraid to stand up for what he believes in, he would win in a landslide.

 

You've got to be kidding me. The American Public doesn't want someone who is unequivocal about what he believes in because everyone has a stupid view. We all believe in something stupid or controversial. None of us are ever complete and absolute about what we believe and why. But let's say a guy steps forward talking about 90% of what he truly believes and stands up for it -- he'd be Barry Goldwater. He'd be Robert Bork. Michael Dukakis. George McGovern. Howard Dean.

 

It simply isn't good Presidential politics. That sort of thing is better suited for the House of Representatives.

 

The last time we had someone willing to stand up for what he believed in was Truman. He was about 100%. Before that, we might've had Hoover in the White House as an example, but he lost re-election when he refused to do anything about the Depression.

 

The point is, it doesn't work.

[Rex Kickass]

I wanna reset this topic because I'm not sure if everyone understands what's happening here.

 

The White House is claiming executive privilege on communications between White House staffers done on emails paid for by the Republican party. The White House used those emails so that the email communications between White House staffers for certain issues wouldn't actually be in the public record. Issues like political motivations for firing people in the Justice Department.

 

Now this is what I don't understand. If they aren't in the public record because they were conversations between administration officials on private email, and the conversations are between administration officials and not with the President, how can the administration rightly claim executive privilege? Doesn't that automatically admit that the President was specifically, if not initmately involved in these specific firings?

[NorthSideSox72]

I wanna reset this topic because I'm not sure if everyone understands what's happening here.

 

The White House is claiming executive privilege on communications between White House staffers done on emails paid for by the Republican party. The White House used those emails so that the email communications between White House staffers for certain issues wouldn't actually be in the public record. Issues like political motivations for firing people in the Justice Department.

 

Now this is what I don't understand. If they aren't in the public record because they were conversations between administration officials on private email, and the conversations are between administration officials and not with the President, how can the administration rightly claim executive privilege? Doesn't that automatically admit that the President was specifically, if not initmately involved in these specific firings?

This is the same administration that has claimed that Dick Cheney has both executive AND legislative privilege.

 

Like it or hate it, BushCo unabashedly flouts every ounce of power and privilege they can get their hands on, even if it seems improper or possibly unconstitutional. Other administrations have made similar attempts, but none have done it so brazenly, so ineptly or so far over the line.

 

[LowerCaseRepublican]

<!--quoteo(post=1471152:date=Jul 12, 2007 -> 08:49 AM:name=BigSqwert)-->

<!--quotec-->It's just another example of how secretive this administration is. This is by far the shadiest administration in my lifetime. If there is nothing to hide I would think they would try to look cooperative for once.

I hate this logic.

 

Were you one of the same liberals who said George W Bush violated the bill of rights when he spied on people which actually ccaught some of the terrorists? I vividly recall the right wing here responding with "If you have nothing to hide, why are you worried?"

Minors had the same logic when there was a discussion of Sheriff Joe wanted to set up illegal road blocks to check cars for drugs.

A winner is you. Stupid opportunists using anything to hit the Bushistas.

 

But then again, this from Rex:

I wanna reset this topic because I'm not sure if everyone understands what's happening here.

 

The White House is claiming executive privilege on communications between White House staffers done on emails paid for by the Republican party. The White House used those emails so that the email communications between White House staffers for certain issues wouldn't actually be in the public record. Issues like political motivations for firing people in the Justice Department.

 

Now this is what I don't understand. If they aren't in the public record because they were conversations between administration officials on private email, and the conversations are between administration officials and not with the President, how can the administration rightly claim executive privilege?

 

--

I understand the need for executive privilege at times for any administration but I am confused as to how they can claim it in this specific case.

[Balta1701]

I understand the need for executive privilege at times for any administration but I am confused as to how they can claim it in this specific case.

Legally, they can't. Either they can claim executive priveledge on the documents and therefore admit that they've directly violated the Presidential Records Act, or the documents should be available, and they probably violated that act anyway.

 

But, that's not the reason they're trying it. The reason they're trying it was made abundandly clear yesterday. The President's folks finally came out and said it; they control the Justice Department, and therefore, if Congress issues contempt citations, the Justice department will ignore them. Yes, you read that correctly; according to published reports today, the DOJ will ignore any contempt citation issued by Congress that it d*mn well wants to, and therefore, Congress has no enforcement ability whatsoever.

 

The only other option may well be to defund the DOJ, or to make use of the "Inherent contempt" ability of Congress to hold a trial on its own, something that hasn't been done since the 30's.

[kapkomet]

There's more to this then has come out, on both sides.

 

But of course, to die hard leftys, GWB is a boob that needs impeached, and to the die hard rightys, Congress is only doing this to attack attack attack.

 

As is always the case, the truth is somewhere in the middle.

 

I hate our political climate today. It's nothing but a bunch of crap extreme policy.

 

[Rex Kickass]

There's more to this then has come out, on both sides.

 

But of course, to die hard leftys, GWB is a boob that needs impeached, and to the die hard rightys, Congress is only doing this to attack attack attack.

 

As is always the case, the truth is somewhere in the middle.

 

I hate our political climate today. It's nothing but a bunch of crap extreme policy.

 

And our current President has left the only oversight option left to congress to be impeachment by the way with this latest executive order.

[Balta1701]

And our current President has left the only oversight option left to congress to be impeachment by the way with this latest executive order.

There's still the inherent contempt option and the option to start de-funding parts of the Administration.

[kapkomet]

And our current President has left the only oversight option left to congress to be impeachment by the way with this latest executive order.

That's what the Democrats want anyway. Which is what this is about.

[Balta1701]

That's what the Democrats want anyway. Which is what this is about.

I would be happy at this point by just establishing somehow that the President can not defy the law at any time and place he chooses, which is essentially the power he's arguing for right now.

[kapkomet]

No, it's not... but of course, it is to Democrats.

[Balta1701]

No, it's not... but of course, it is to Democrats.

How is arguing that the Congress has no ability to investigate potential violations of the Presidential Records Act, the Hatch Act, and the rules governing elections and saying the DOJ will not enforce contempt citations issued by Congress not saying exactly that? The courts have ruled explicitly that if Congress is investigating potential violations of the law, especially in cases not involving National Security issues, Congressional authority wins over executive priveledge. This situation is essentially ignoring that.

[Rex Kickass]

That's what the Democrats want anyway. Which is what this is about.

 

Actually, no. It is not what the Democrats want. Not the ones in Congress anyway. That's a fight they can't win right now and won't be able to until 2009. Call me naive here, but I think what the Democrats want to do is exercise some oversight and right the balance of power in Washington. Once that's done, then things can actually get accomplished.

[kapkomet]

Actually, no. It is not what the Democrats want. Not the ones in Congress anyway. That's a fight they can't win right now and won't be able to until 2009. Call me naive here, but I think what the Democrats want to do is exercise some oversight and right the balance of power in Washington. Once that's done, then things can actually get accomplished.

Oh, so they are the "noble" ... "just want to restore the civility thing in Washington DC" party.

 

Come on Rex. You're smarter then that. These people don't give a s*** about "oversight and the right balance of power". THEY want the power for THEMSELVES. It's not about governing, it's about themselves looking as good as they can. If the hard left wants impeachment, and it will get them re-elected, they will do it. Period.

 

If it means they will NOT get re-elected, they won't. It in NO WAY reflects "oversight and the right balance of power".

 

 

[Rex Kickass]

If you think the hard left is the one who runs the Democratic party, you're the one who's naive.

[kapkomet]

If you think the hard left is the one who runs the Democratic party, you're the one who's naive.

At the local level, sure, I'll buy it. At the national level? Hell yes it is.