Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Bush Orders Meirs To Defy Congressional Subpoena  
User currently offlineMdsh00 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 4124 posts, RR: 8
Posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 1514 times:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/11/fired.prosecutors.ap/index.html

Quote:
WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush ordered his former White House counsel, Harriet Miers, to defy a congressional subpoena and refuse to testify Thursday before a House panel investigating U.S. attorney firings.

"Ms. Miers has absolute immunity from compelled congressional testimony as to matters occurring while she was a senior adviser to the president," White House Counsel Fred Fielding wrote in a letter to Miers' lawyer, George T. Manning.

Manning, in turn, notified committee chairman John Conyers, D-Michigan, that Miers would not show up Thursday to answer questions about the White House role in the firings of eight federal prosecutors over the winter.

So Bush basically sends another "f**k you" to congress and the law. I'd like to hear the excuses from the Bush camp about this one. Calling on executive privelege is one thing, but openly defying subpoenas REALLY makes it look like you have something to hide.


"Look Lois, the two symbols of the Republican Party: an elephant, and a big fat white guy who is threatened by change."
53 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineFumanchewd From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 1507 times:

What a crackpot. He has no power to limit someone's freedom of speech. She doesn't even work for him anymore.

User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20497 posts, RR: 62
Reply 2, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 1485 times:

Christ, this isn't Burger King. The White House can't keep running around saying they want it their way all the time. How arrogant. I guess this isn't the nation of laws any longer.


International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineAirCop From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 1468 times:

I'm not a lawyer, but can the executive branch (i.e. President) order her not to testify, since this does not appear to involve any classified information. Perhaps Halls120 or someone else with knowledge of can enlighten us.

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 2):
The White House can't keep running around saying they want it their way all the time. How arrogant. I guess this isn't the nation of laws any longer.

Apparently they are going to try, which I got a hunch will continue to exhaust any good will left with the hard core loyalist in Congress, especially since this issue is a nothing issue, as these prosecutors served at the will of the president and he could have fired them for any reason.


User currently offlineKuna From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 279 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 1464 times:

Quoting Mdsh00 (Thread starter):

All the Bush supporters keep saying that he isn't doing anything wrong, not lying....

Well he keeps everyone from testifying so that they don't have to lie. Us Americans can only assume he has something to hide, and until he allows the laws of this country to do their job, we will always assume that he has something to hide from us.



Pinnacle Airlines
User currently offlineHalls120 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 1457 times:

Quoting AirCop (Reply 3):
I'm not a lawyer, but can the executive branch (i.e. President) order her not to testify, since this does not appear to involve any classified information. Perhaps Halls120 or someone else with knowledge of can enlighten us.

I'm not an expert on executive privilege by any means.

Legally speaking, we are on very murky ground when it comes to a Congressional attempt to overcome a claim by the President to invoke executive privilege.

The most instructive case we have is of course US v. Nixon. The problem with trying to draw parallels between Nixon and this case is that with Nixon, we had a Special Prosecutor appointed by the Attorney General to investigate allegation of criminal conduct in the White House.

Quote:
The Attorney General by regulation has conferred upon the Special Prosecutor unique tenure and authority to represent the United States and has given the Special Prosecutor explicit power to contest the invocation of executive privilege in seeking evidence deemed relevant to the performance of his specially delegated duties. While the regulation remains in effect, the Executive Branch is bound by it. United States ex rel. Accardi v. Shaughnessy, 347 U.S. 260

I'm not sure whether a Congressional subpoena will be afforded the same weight as a Special Prosecutor appointed to investigate a potential federal crime. Especially since we don't have a similar factual situation in the instant case.

If it were a criminal investigation, I believe the Bush claim would fail.

Quote:
Neither the doctrine of separation of powers nor the generalized need for confidentiality of high-level communications, without more, can sustain an absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances. See, e. g., Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177; Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 211 . Absent a claim of need to protect military, diplomatic, or sensitive national security secrets, the confidentiality of [418 U.S. 683, 685] Presidential communications is not significantly diminished by producing material for a criminal trial under the protected conditions of in camera inspection, and any absolute executive privilege under Art. II of the Constitution would plainly conflict with the function of the courts under the Constitution.

However, since what is currently being fought over are discussions about the possible involvement of the White House in the firing of the 8 US Attorneys, not a federal crime, I suspect that if this comes to a head in the Courts, based on what we know now, Congress would lose this fight.

Quote:
Since a President's communications encompass a vastly wider range of sensitive material than would be true of an ordinary individual, the public interest requires that Presidential confidentiality be afforded the greatest protection consistent with the fair administration of justice, and the District Court has a heavy responsibility to ensure that material involving Presidential conversations irrelevant to or inadmissible in the criminal prosecution be accorded the high degree of respect due a President and that such material be returned under seal to its lawful custodian.



Just my 2 cents. All quotes from the Supreme Court decision in U.S v. Nixon.


User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20497 posts, RR: 62
Reply 6, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 1447 times:

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 5):
However, since what is currently being fought over are discussions about the possible involvement of the White House in the firing of the 8 US Attorneys, not a federal crime, I suspect that if this comes to a head in the Courts, based on what we know now, Congress would lose this fight.

There is the greater issue of if Gonzales lied to Congress while White House counsel. We had a thread about this 3 months ago.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineRJdxer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 1438 times:

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 5):
However, since what is currently being fought over are discussions about the possible involvement of the White House in the firing of the 8 US Attorneys, not a federal crime, I suspect that if this comes to a head in the Courts, based on what we know now, Congress would lose this fight.

They will have to show how Congress has oversight over those that serve at the pleasure of the President. Sara Taylor basically told the Senate Judiciary comittee the same thing today and a little bit more.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8QAIVO80&show_article=1

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. Taylor said she had no knowledge that Bush was involved in the planning of whom to fire, an assertion that echoed previous statements by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, his former chief of staff Kyle Sampson and Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty.

What more Miers could add is beyond me. This is fishing with a long pole at best.


User currently offlineQueso From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 1431 times:

Let's turn this around a little bit. Is it not an abuse of Congressional powers to be able to subpoena the President or any of his staff without limits?

User currently offlineLonghornmaniac From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 3284 posts, RR: 44
Reply 9, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 1411 times:

Quoting Queso (Reply 8):
Let's turn this around a little bit. Is it not an abuse of Congressional powers to be able to subpoena the President or any of his staff without limits?

FLIP FLOPPER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  Smile Maybe if the Executive Branch would be honest the first time around, all these subpoenas wouldn't be necessary.

Cheers,
Cameron


User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29792 posts, RR: 58
Reply 10, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 1402 times:

Quoting Mdsh00 (Thread starter):
So Bush basically sends another "f**k you" to congress and the law

Your half right,

He said FU to the circus known as the Democratic run congress

But not the law, as others have alluded to he is probably going to win that fight.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 1396 times:

Quoting Mdsh00 (Thread starter):
So Bush basically sends another "f**k you" to congress and the law. I'd like to hear the excuses from the Bush camp about this one. Calling on executive privelege is one thing, but openly defying subpoenas REALLY makes it look like you have something to hide.

Oh, come off it. The Democratic leadership launched 300 official, congressional investigations of the White House in the first 100 days, and more are still coming. They are simply throwing everything possible at the President in order to 1) see if anything sticks, 2) paralyse the Bush administration from having the time to do anything, and 3) by convincing people like you that "Bush must be hiding something" when he balks at having to answer to literally hundreds of investigative committees. You are a fool to fall into the trap.

The fact is that virtually all of these investigations are pure PR. In this case about the attorney firings, even if all their accusations are true, Bush still would have done nothing illegal. This is just to embarass Bush - nothing else, and I hope Bush fights back.


User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20497 posts, RR: 62
Reply 12, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 1390 times:

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 11):
In this case about the attorney firings, even if all their accusations are true, Bush still would have done nothing illegal.

Gonzales might have--Rove's e-mails basically confirm that. Others might have complications as well.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineHalls120 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 1388 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 6):
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 5):However, since what is currently being fought over are discussions about the possible involvement of the White House in the firing of the 8 US Attorneys, not a federal crime, I suspect that if this comes to a head in the Courts, based on what we know now, Congress would lose this fight.
There is the greater issue of if Gonzales lied to Congress while White House counsel. We had a thread about this 3 months ago.

If Gonzales did lie while WH counsel, then that would indeed be more serious. Which makes one wonder why Congress isn't investigating that, instead of this much ado about nothing sideshow.


User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 1382 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 12):
Gonzales might have--Rove's e-mails basically confirm that. Others might have complications as well.

Confirm what - that the firings were politically motivated? Of course they were! Big deal - that's his right as President, just as Clinton and every other President fires US Attorneys for political reasons.

Congress' poll numbers are now far lower than even Bush's, and I think that this is mainly because the American public sees them as screwing around non-issues such as this rather than actually working on their agenda, whatever that is. Either that or it is the realization that Bush-baiting IS their only agenda.


User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20497 posts, RR: 62
Reply 15, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 1375 times:

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 14):
Confirm what - that the firings were politically motivated? Of course they were! Big deal - that's his right as President, just as Clinton and every other President fires US Attorneys for political reasons.

We had this in a thread three months ago. Gonzales lied to Congress about what had gone on. That was the crime. Go back and read it.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineLowrider From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 3220 posts, RR: 10
Reply 16, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 1370 times:

Quoting Queso (Reply 8):
Let's turn this around a little bit. Is it not an abuse of Congressional powers to be able to subpoena the President or any of his staff without limits?

I am not sure that it is an abuse or even a bad thing, so long as these subpoenas are recognized for the fishing expeditions that they are, and not given the same weight as those in criminal proceedings. If there is malfeasance or criminal activity in any branch of government, I would like the other branches to have the means to bring it to light. Congress should be able to ask for whatever testimony they want. They just may not always get it. Further, I would like for members of Congress to be held accountable for time spent in these "investigations". How much time did this take away from budget bills, border security bills, tax reform bill, and so on. How much money has been spent investigating something that is not a crime and within the power of the president. If it turns out that the president was justified in firing these prosecutors, I would like to see the wages of the Representatives involved garnished to repay the public.



Proud OOTSK member
User currently offlineFlyingTexan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1359 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 15):
Quoting Cfalk (Reply 14):
Confirm what - that the firings were politically motivated? Of course they were! Big deal - that's his right as President, just as Clinton and every other President fires US Attorneys for political reasons.

We had this in a thread three months ago. Gonzales lied to Congress about what had gone on. That was the crime. Go back and read it.

He doesn't recall.

 confused   Wink


User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1349 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 15):
We had this in a thread three months ago. Gonzales lied to Congress about what had gone on. That was the crime. Go back and read it.

If you post the link I will. otherwise, I don't have the time (hence my sparse contributions to this forum lately).

But what did he lie about? if he lied to cover up a crime, that's one thing, but if he said a white lie hoping to avoid bad press or simply to deny he farted in the elevator, that is another.

Remember when Clinton was exhonerated for his lies? I agreed with the decision back then because, yes, he lied, but a BJ is not a crime, and was not worth convicting him over. Same thing here. There was no underlying crime. That should have also been the case with Libby - he was sentenced harshly for no real crime, which shakes my opinion of the American justice system.


User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20497 posts, RR: 62
Reply 19, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1348 times:

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 18):
If you post the link I will.

If you're going to participate, do your own education. I'm not here to take the same real estate twice.

Quoting FlyingTexan (Reply 17):
He doesn't recall.

Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner. Big grin



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineSeb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11575 posts, RR: 15
Reply 20, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 1307 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 6):
There is the greater issue of if Gonzales lied to Congress while White House counsel.

How could he lie about something he did not recall? Do you remember his testimony was pretty much all "I don't recall, I don't remember." That is not lying. IMO, he should be removed from office if he has such a severe memory problem.

Quoting Longhornmaniac (Reply 9):
Quoting Queso (Reply 8):
Let's turn this around a little bit. Is it not an abuse of Congressional powers to be able to subpoena the President or any of his staff without limits?

FLIP FLOPPER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Maybe if the Executive Branch would be honest the first time around, all these subpoenas wouldn't be necessary.

Hear hear, Longhorn! If this administration has nothing to hide, they should answer all the subpoenas instead of invoking "executive privilege" and telling everyone to not testify.

GO CANUCKS!!



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineDrDeke From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 830 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 1301 times:

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 20):
IMO, he should be removed from office if he has such a severe memory problem.

 checkmark 

"Subpoenas... Now with immunity! Proven memory recovery for Republicans"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UwXWEil09b4


DrDeke



If you don't want it known, don't say it on a phone.
User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 1277 times:

So I take it that

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 20):
If this administration has nothing to hide, they should answer all the subpoenas instead of invoking "executive privilege" and telling everyone to not testify.

That's the whole point. There are hundreds of investigations going on, and if they answered them all, the White House would simply cease to function, and so would Congress.

Pelosi/Ried have gone completely off the deep end on this issue.


User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20497 posts, RR: 62
Reply 23, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 1273 times:

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 20):
How could he lie about something he did not recall?

Perhaps you forgot the testimony of Monica Goodling just this May, where she testified that Gonzales "reviewed" his testimony with her. Not all of his answers weren't "I don't recall".

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 22):
There are hundreds of investigations going on

I've looked for some confirmation of this. Done Google searches, etc. Can't find a single source that confirms there are "hundreds of investigations" going on, or that the White House is swamped with subpoenas.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineRJdxer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 1230 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 23):
Quoting Cfalk (Reply 22):
There are hundreds of investigations going on

I've looked for some confirmation of this. Done Google searches, etc. Can't find a single source that confirms there are "hundreds of investigations" going on, or that the White House is swamped with subpoenas.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/nation/4946194.html

The administration has not said when or if it will respond. Spokesman Scott Stanzel noted today that the White House has received a flurry of inquires since Democrats took control of Congress in January, and has turned over some 200,000 pages of documents.

"They've launched over 300 investigations, had over 350 requests for documents and interviews, and they have had over 600 oversight hearings in just about 100 days," Stanzel said. "So that's about six oversight hearings a day."


25 Seb146 : Maybe if the current administration had been honest and open from the start, none of the "hundreds of investigations" would be on right now. Maybe if
26 ConcordeBoy : ...and to think, this MyLittleCrony chick could've come close (if not been confirmed) as a friggin' justice of the Supreme Court. Methinks we dodged a
27 Cfalk : This administration has been no more or less dishonest than any other that I can recall, including Bill Clinton's who had more administration members
28 Arrow : The president has the authority to fire the attornies, but I doubt that the authority is carte blanche. It has to be done with cause. And if the "cau
29 Cfalk : It is, and no "cause" is necessary. He can fire US Attorneys for having his hair parted the wrong way, if he likes. They serve "at the pleasure" of t
30 Halls120 : Wrong. While a presidential appointee cannot be fired for an illegal reason, the President can ask for and recieve the resignation of every one of th
31 Arrow : I'll bow to your far superior knowledge of the legalities of how these folks serve, but surely Alberto Gonzales' ham-fisted attempts to make the firi
32 Cfalk : No question - Gonzales and the rest of the administration played this clumsily, and played right into the hands of their political opponents. I think
33 Tsaord : Can the Republicans possibly take back the house in the next elections? I am more dem than GOP but they are starting to irk my nerves. The dems seem t
34 Seb146 : So, if nothing was done wrong, why is the entire administration is dodging subpoena after subpoena? Why is the entire administration so secretive if
35 Duff44 : Am I the only one at the "who cares" point? It's the same garbage over and over again. People wonder why only half of Americans vote... you're seeing
36 Seb146 : Duff44: That is why the same people keep getting elected and everyone complains. No one votes because everyone is fed up with the system. The best thi
37 Cfalk : Look what happened with Scooter Libby. Libby committed no crime, but was dragged in under oath, said something wrong (which was absolutely meaningles
38 Dan-Air : Libby was questioned in the course of the investigation into who exposed a covert CIA agent - a case referred to the FBI by the CIA. Libby deliberate
39 Halls120 : Two reasons. One is the protection of executive privilege. And if you think this is just something the republicans do, you would be wrong. The other?
40 Post contains images Flynavy : And I suppose if a DEMOCRAT was in the White House and, say, had a in-house sex scandal, your moral majority would just sit back and not investigate
41 Cfalk : Wrongly, as the investigation found that Plame was not covert, as defined by the law. But the VP did not do anything wrong - he had nothing to do wit
42 RJdxer : And that's all it was, in house, right up until the President lied, under oath, in a court of law. Then it becomes the publics business just like Lib
43 Cfalk : Tough question. Insofar as screwing someone who is not your spouse is not illegal, I'd say no. But at the same time, if someone cannot be trusted to
44 Cfalk : But with no underlying crime. The whole story should have been an embarassment at worst, but not the subject of a trial. As I explained in another th
45 Dan-Air : Then why did Libby lie? Why did the president give him a full pardon, in which case he would not have been protected by the 5th amendment? This balon
46 Falcon84 : Once again, the Administration tries to hide behind a veil of secrecy and paranoia, which, more and more, looks like it will be one of it's major lega
47 Cfalk : He said he could not remember a certain detail about a particular conversation that happened a year or two before. The court decided that he was lyin
48 Seb146 : So, what I am reading from this thread is anyone in the administration who was issued a subpoena COULD show up and testify. During testimony, they cou
49 Post contains images Cfalk : Invoking the 5th is if you are charged with a crime. There are no criminal charges involved as far as I know. "I don't recall" if you actually DO rec
50 Flynavy : At least he went under Oath. You can't even get the Bushies to do that! If this were Rome, they would have all be poisoned by now. "Off with their he
51 RJdxer : Only because he was subpoenaed by a court of law in a civil case against him stemming from charges before he was President of the United States. Tota
52 Flynavy : If Bush is the best America has to offer for the leader of the "free" world, we're in BIG trouble. If you voted for Bush you should be in Iraq right n
53 RJdxer : He was elected in free and fair elections. Evidently people at the time thought he was the best person for the job based on those that were running f
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Chasing Bush, Webpage To Defy Security In London posted Thu Nov 20 2003 09:43:15 by Zak
George Tenet Accuses Bush Of Rush To War posted Sat Apr 28 2007 12:38:02 by Joni
Bush Ignores Pleas To Pardon Border Agents posted Thu Jan 18 2007 02:35:28 by AvObserver
Democrats To End Congressional Pork? posted Tue Dec 12 2006 04:19:29 by Halls120
Bush 35 Years To Late For Vietnam posted Mon Nov 20 2006 23:11:00 by Bushpilot
Brits Believe Bush Is A Danger To World Peace posted Fri Nov 3 2006 08:07:13 by Cosec59
Bush Missed Chance To Get Al-Zarqawi posted Fri May 19 2006 00:34:35 by Tbar220
Bush/Blair Wanted To Provoke War With Iraq posted Wed Mar 29 2006 00:58:41 by Falcon84
Bush Using Military To Quarantine posted Wed Oct 5 2005 00:26:18 by Dtwclipper
Why Does President Bush Not Speak To The Naacp? posted Fri Jul 15 2005 21:31:12 by FlyingTexan