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

[sox4lifeinPA]

I saw a homemade sign on the way to work this morning that said "Democratic Picnic in the Park" August 4th, 2pm-5pm, Greensboro Park.

 

I couldn't decide if this was a political sign letting local democrats know they were welcome to a picnic gathering of fellow democrats or if indeed on August 4th between 2pm and 5pm people would gather to vote on which table would go first in the buffet line, etc.

 

 

I'd like to think a little of both.

 

 

The answer would be the Rich people go first, btw. (they have to make sure they're well fed to help the "people" can make the right decisions for themselves.)

[Rex Kickass]

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

 

If that was the case, the energy behind it Congressionally would be much greater.

 

Successful impeachment comes from the local level actually, and that's where the momentum for anything like that is.

[kapkomet]

If that was the case, the energy behind it Congressionally would be much greater.

 

Successful impeachment comes from the local level actually, and that's where the momentum for anything like that is.

Exactly, which is backing up my point even more. At the local levels it will never fly. But do not think for a second if these asswipes in DC could do it, that they wouldn't.

 

[Rex Kickass]

So the reverse of your point being true bolsters your original point?

 

Are you Tony Snow?

[kapkomet]

Rex, the bottom line is this. Most people at the local levels just want the government to govern and not play this stupid ass political game. So yes, my point is they do NOT have enough to go on to impeachment at the local levels because of what I just said, but the stupid s***s that are in Washington are led by their fishlines attached to their heads by national level poltical hack organizations (see moveon.org) ... they want Bush impeached so bad they can taste it, so they have their "mock trials" like they did last fall just to appease these idiots. And again, don't think for a minute they wouldn't execute these "mock trials" if they coudln't. They want it bad, but there's not quite enough to go on, which is why the witchhunts continue on and on and on and on and on and on because eventually, they think they can get SOMEONE to trip up on some trivial thing and throw the book at them (see Scooter Libby).

 

Therefore, so do the Dems in Washington because they see that as their ticket to more and more power. I argue that MOST (not all) these blowhards in Washington(in BOTH parties) don't give two micros***s about their local level politics except the 6 months before an election by and large because they get swept up in the disease and cesspool mentality that is Washington DC.

 

 

[Gregory Pratt]

House members + Senators = lovers of their districts and state, first and foremost. And sure, they're polygamist creatures, but they eat breakfast with the same people they have sex with and wake up with and very often have lunch with, too. You're as wrong as can be if you think they don't "give a s***" about their districts/states except for six months before an election.

Edited July 23, 2007 by Gregory Pratt

[Rex Kickass]

Rex, the bottom line is this. Most people at the local levels just want the government to govern and not play this stupid ass political game. So yes, my point is they do NOT have enough to go on to impeachment at the local levels because of what I just said, but the stupid s***s that are in Washington are led by their fishlines attached to their heads by national level poltical hack organizations (see moveon.org) ... they want Bush impeached so bad they can taste it, so they have their "mock trials" like they did last fall just to appease these idiots. And again, don't think for a minute they wouldn't execute these "mock trials" if they coudln't. They want it bad, but there's not quite enough to go on, which is why the witchhunts continue on and on and on and on and on and on because eventually, they think they can get SOMEONE to trip up on some trivial thing and throw the book at them (see Scooter Libby).

 

Therefore, so do the Dems in Washington because they see that as their ticket to more and more power. I argue that MOST (not all) these blowhards in Washington(in BOTH parties) don't give two micros***s about their local level politics except the 6 months before an election by and large because they get swept up in the disease and cesspool mentality that is Washington DC.

 

Moveon.org does not control the Democratic party. Moveon doesn't even raise a significant amount of money for the party. They provide some manpower, but the truth is - moveon is a much more powerful organization in the eyes of the GOP and Fox News than it is for any Democratic organization. Same with DFA.

 

I will go so far as to say that the Democratic party has changed significantly in the two years since Howard Dean took it over, particularly in the way that it raises money. It raises more money from small donors than it ever has before. As such, it may happen to be more responsive to its members. At least right now, anyway.

[kapkomet]

Moveon.org does not control the Democratic party. Moveon doesn't even raise a significant amount of money for the party. They provide some manpower, but the truth is - moveon is a much more powerful organization in the eyes of the GOP and Fox News than it is for any Democratic organization. Same with DFA.

 

I will go so far as to say that the Democratic party has changed significantly in the two years since Howard Dean took it over, particularly in the way that it raises money. It raises more money from small donors than it ever has before. As such, it may happen to be more responsive to its members. At least right now, anyway.

Like I said, I somewhat buy the "local" thing - but when the Democrat Leaders of Congress basically parrot every stinking talking point of moveon.org (and some other hard left organizations), then right there the disconnect happens.

 

And GP, I'm sorry, but it's just plain naive to think that most of these people are not enamored by the power of Washington. That's why the local stuff is important, but it's not "king" like it used to be - not anymore, unfortunately. I wish it were more like it used to be.,, and again it's both parties. That's part of the problem right now is a lot of these people are NOT accountable at the local levels... not enough anyway.

[Gregory Pratt]

Who said they weren't enamored with Washington? All I'm saying is, people in Congress

[kapkomet]

Who said they weren't enamored with Washington? All I'm saying is, people in Congress

I would argue if these people would care more about their constituency then their own power complexes... a lot more positive things would happen.

 

[EvilMonkey]

Who said they weren't enamored with Washington? All I'm saying is, people in Congress

Only when it comes to bringing dollars back to their state/district.

[Rex Kickass]

Like I said, I somewhat buy the "local" thing - but when the Democrat Leaders of Congress basically parrot every stinking talking point of moveon.org (and some other hard left organizations), then right there the disconnect happens.

 

And GP, I'm sorry, but it's just plain naive to think that most of these people are not enamored by the power of Washington. That's why the local stuff is important, but it's not "king" like it used to be - not anymore, unfortunately. I wish it were more like it used to be.,, and again it's both parties. That's part of the problem right now is a lot of these people are NOT accountable at the local levels... not enough anyway.

 

Please tell me how, when people like Pelosi and Reid are saying things like "impeachment is off the table", Democrats are parroting move on and the hard left. Because they aren't. How is it then that impeachment proceedings of the Attorney General haven't started yet given the ample evidence that he perjured himself in front of Congress, and further that he's stressed that he will pretty much not comply with any request Congress makes unless he sees fit?

[Balta1701]

How is it then that impeachment proceedings of the Attorney General haven't started yet given the ample evidence that he perjured himself in front of Congress, and further that he's stressed that he will pretty much not comply with any request Congress makes unless he sees fit?

Well, I'll give you a possible answer to that:

 

As loyal as the Congress was to the President during the last 4 years where his party controlled the Senate, do you really think you could get 16 Republicans to break off from the President to vote to convict in the Senate? The AG could send an army to destroy the Jedi Council and I think you might only get 5 or 6.

[Balta1701]

The House Judiciary Committee voted contempt of Congress citations Wednesday against White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten and President Bush's former legal counselor, Harriet Miers.

 

The 22-17 vote — which would sanction for pair for failure to comply with subpoenas on the firings of several federal prosecutors — advanced the citation to the full House.

 

A senior Democratic official who spoke on condition of anonymity said the House itself likely would take up the citations after Congress' August recess. The official declined to speak on the record because no date had been set for the House vote.

AP.

[mr_genius]

This whole investigation is just political bs. Put on some dog and pony show for the furthest reaches of the left base, get political revenge for the Bill Clinton impeachment proceedings, blah, blah, blah.

 

 

Edited July 25, 2007 by mr_genius

[StrangeSox]

This whole investigation is just political bs. Put on some dog and pony show for the furthest reaches of the left base, get political revenge for the Bill Clinton impeachment proceedings, blah, blah, blah.

 

Acutally, that's what they're trying to determine -- if the Justice Department was completely politicized.

[mr_genius]

Acutally, that's what they're trying to determine -- if the Justice Department was completely politicized.

 

 

It has been for a long time. Was completely politicized under B.Clinton too. Dems know this, they just really want a trophy conviction of a member of the Bush team to make all these expensive and seemingly endless investigations 'worthy'. This whole thing has nothing to do about justice, and everything to do about political revenge.

Edited July 25, 2007 by mr_genius

[Balta1701]

It has been for a long time. Was completely politicized under B.Clinton too.

Well, the question of course is whether or not the letter of the law was actually violated. I think it's expected to be politicized to some extent (which is an unfortunate circumstance that based on the abuse of the DOJ in this case I think we should try to correct by increasing the independence of U.S. Attorneys from the White House by making their terms a fixed length and not having them serve at the President's discretion), but there are legit questions here about whether things crossed a line which had not been crossed before.

 

Of course, when people refuse to testify, it's hard to find out whether or not that line was crossed.

[StrangeSox]

It has been for a long time. Was completely politicized under B.Clinton too. Dems know this, they just really want a trophy conviction of a member of the Bush team of to make all these expensive and seemingly endless investigations 'worthy'. This whole thing has nothing to do about justice, and everything to do about political revenge.

 

 

Lets clean the mess in government up instead of just letting it get worse. I'm sick of the shoulder-shrugging and the "well, they did it too!" I don't care -- firing good people simply because they wouldn't blatantly pursue only your political opponents is completely wrong and goes against the very foundations of this country. It needs to be investigated and fixed.

 

Now, if Gonzalez gets in trouble for anything, it'll be the same thing Libby did -- play CYA too much and get caught up in your own lies. If, on the other hand, Gonzalez' testimony is 100% true, he's not capable of running a 7/11. Either way, he needs to go.

[StrangeSox]

Now that contempt citations have been issued, Bush will tell prosecutors not to persue them. This basically puts his administration above the law.

[Balta1701]

Now that contempt citations have been issued, Bush will tell prosecutors not to persue them. This basically puts his administration above the law.

It has to pass the full house first, and the indications are that this vote won't happen until after the August recess.

[mr_genius]

Well, the question of course is whether or not the letter of the law was actually violated. I think it's expected to be politicized to some extent (which is an unfortunate circumstance that based on the abuse of the DOJ in this case I think we should try to correct by increasing the independence of U.S. Attorneys from the White House by making their terms a fixed length and not having them serve at the President's discretion), but there are legit questions here about whether things crossed a line which had not been crossed before.

 

Of course, when people refuse to testify, it's hard to find out whether or not that line was crossed.

 

I guess Bush's main mistake was not firing all the Attorney's at the start and hire people he knew would be a type of political activist in the judiciary, because that's what Clinton and other presidents did. I think you might be right, what the Bush admin did may be technically illegal. However, I don't think it was ethically any worse than what the Clinton Admin did.

Edited July 25, 2007 by mr_genius

[mr_genius]

Lets clean the mess in government up instead of just letting it get worse. I'm sick of the shoulder-shrugging and the "well, they did it too!" I don't care -- firing good people simply because they wouldn't blatantly pursue only your political opponents is completely wrong and goes against the very foundations of this country. It needs to be investigated and fixed.

 

Thats fine, and probably a good idea. However, this "outrage" over these US Attorney's being fired is completely manufactured. This has been going on for a long time. Is it really fair to make an example out of Gonzales? Wouldn't it be better to change the how the process works rather than just go after this guy for doing (albeit later than most) what many of his Predecessors had done?

[Balta1701]

Thats fine, and probably a good idea. However, this "outrage" over these US Attorney's being fired is completely manufactured. This has been going on for a long time. Is it really fair to make an example out of Gonzales? Wouldn't it be better to change the how the process works rather than just go after this guy for doing (albeit later than most) what many of his Predecessors had done?

Let's make a couple other things clear.

 

1. There is no crime in the firing of the U.S. attorneys. The way the law was written at the time, the Bush administration was fully within their rights to replace them for whatever reason they wanted without Congressional approval. In addition, Congress was fully justified in dragging members of the Justice Dept., including those involved in making the firing decisions, up to Congress to have them testify about how the law was being used, since the law was just changed by the Patriot Act. Congress is further justified in obtaining documents and similar information about that case for that reason alone, given that it is the body which created, funds, and oversees the Justice Department.

 

2. During this investigation, several potential crimes actually have cropped up. First of all, the Attorney General and others on his team felt that whether illegal or not, firing U.S. attorneys during the middle of an administration for political and not performance reasons reasons, which really is unprecedented despite what you claim (the Bush admin fired attorneys both at the beginning of its term, a-la Clinton, and then removed their own replacements mid-term for not being partisan enough), and then using newly and secretly acquired powers to appoint replacements without Senate approval, was embarrassing enough that he had to lie about it under oath. Repeatedly.

 

3. Furthermore, during this investigation, it has come out that the administration appears to have completely defied the Presidential Records act, by having a huge portion of its emails sent out through RNC servers, when that Act requires that all presidential records are the property of the public and must be treated and preserved as such.

 

4. And beyond that, there is yet another more serious issue which has been covered up for the most part by the debate over the hearings; the voter suppression issue. The attempts to force attorneys to prosecute bogus Voter Fraud charges in the hopes of suppressing the vote in key districts, and the refusal of several attorneys to do so before the 2006 election is, based on the documents we already have, directly linked to the firings. While the White House would break no law in firing these folks for refusing to file trumped up charges, the attempts to influence the vote themselves may well have broken the line. Furthermore, other evidence has been uncovered of potential "caging lists", essentially lists of voters who the Republicans were planning to challenge if they went to the polls because the postal service could not deliver mail to them, due to the fact that they were forwarded to a George W. Bush parody site (the files were actually called "Caging list 1 and 2"). Both parties are prohibited from using these techniques under most circumstances.

 

5. And even beyond that, there is one other potential law broken; violations of the Hatch Act, which requires employees of the Executive Branch to perform their jobs in a non-partisan manner. Thanks to documents released by the DOJ, we've learned that over a dozen different parts of the executive branch, over the past few years, have received briefings about how they could help the Republicans to win elections through their positions, which appears to be a direct violation of that Act.

 

The U.S. attorney firings were only the issue that got the investigation going and gave the Congress cause to start asking questions. When those questions were asked, possible violations of a variety of laws came to light, and Congress is fully within its rights to investigate those actions. If no charges come of it, then it really doesn't matter; Congress has the authority, as established by judicial precedent back in teh 80's, to break through Executive Priveledge on most issues if they are investigating even potential violations of the law.

[mr_genius]

Let's make a couple other things clear.

 

1. There is no crime in the firing of the U.S. attorneys. The way the law was written at the time, the Bush administration was fully within their rights to replace them for whatever reason they wanted without Congressional approval. In addition, Congress was fully justified in dragging members of the Justice Dept., including those involved in making the firing decisions, up to Congress to have them testify about how the law was being used, since the law was just changed by the Patriot Act. Congress is further justified in obtaining documents and similar information about that case for that reason alone, given that it is the body which created, funds, and oversees the Justice Department.

 

 

2. During this investigation, several potential crimes actually have cropped up. First of all, the Attorney General and others on his team felt that whether illegal or not, firing U.S. attorneys during the middle of an administration for political and not performance reasons reasons, which really is unprecedented despite what you claim (the Bush admin fired attorneys both at the beginning of its term, a-la Clinton, and then removed their own replacements mid-term for not being partisan enough), and then using newly and secretly acquired powers to appoint replacements without Senate approval, was embarrassing enough that he had to lie about it under oath. Repeatedly.

 

3. Furthermore, during this investigation, it has come out that the administration appears to have completely defied the Presidential Records act, by having a huge portion of its emails sent out through RNC servers, when that Act requires that all presidential records are the property of the public and must be treated and preserved as such.

 

4. And beyond that, there is yet another more serious issue which has been covered up for the most part by the debate over the hearings; the voter suppression issue. The attempts to force attorneys to prosecute bogus Voter Fraud charges in the hopes of suppressing the vote in key districts, and the refusal of several attorneys to do so before the 2006 election is, based on the documents we already have, directly linked to the firings. While the White House would break no law in firing these folks for refusing to file trumped up charges, the attempts to influence the vote themselves may well have broken the line. Furthermore, other evidence has been uncovered of potential "caging lists", essentially lists of voters who the Republicans were planning to challenge if they went to the polls because the postal service could not deliver mail to them, due to the fact that they were forwarded to a George W. Bush parody site (the files were actually called "Caging list 1 and 2"). Both parties are prohibited from using these techniques under most circumstances.

 

5. And even beyond that, there is one other potential law broken; violations of the Hatch Act, which requires employees of the Executive Branch to perform their jobs in a non-partisan manner. Thanks to documents released by the DOJ, we've learned that over a dozen different parts of the executive branch, over the past few years, have received briefings about how they could help the Republicans to win elections through their positions, which appears to be a direct violation of that Act.

 

The U.S. attorney firings were only the issue that got the investigation going and gave the Congress cause to start asking questions. When those questions were asked, possible violations of a variety of laws came to light, and Congress is fully within its rights to investigate those actions. If no charges come of it, then it really doesn't matter; Congress has the authority, as established by judicial precedent back in teh 80's, to break through Executive Priveledge on most issues if they are investigating even potential violations of the law.

 

I don't think what happened with Gonzales is this HUGE deal that needs this much attention. What happened is standard... firing of attorney's for politcal reasons. The other stuff? I don't think any of it has been proven, not sure though because I'm really tired of this level of political bickering and have pretty much been ignoring political news lately. Oh, I'm sure the Dems will eventually get their "trophy kill", but I don't think it'll be Gonzales. I'm also sure they'll keep at it until they can get someone.