News flash Bill was investigated after Monica gave the dress to the FBI – not before. He also lied in another matter and that was why he was impeached.
The impeachment of President Bill Clinton arose from a series of events following the filing of a lawsuit on May 6, 1994, by Paula Corbin Jones in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. In her complaint initiating the suit, Ms. Jones alleged violations of her federal civil rights in 1991 by President Clinton when he was governor of Arkansas and she was an Arkansas state employee. According to the allegations, Governor Clinton invited Ms. Jones to his hotel room where he made a crude sexual advance that she rejected.
http://www.eagleton.rutgers.edu/e-gov/e-po...ntonimpeach.htm


Any of the Bush folks do this.???

Try again.

Well yes, he was investigated and then impeached, but see he was investigated for possibly wrong doings. That’s all that we are working with at this point, that some people are asking questions about possibly wrong doings which requires most likely the need for an investigation. I mean how else would you know if Clinton did anything wrong, save for an investigation, so yes, lets have investigations to find out if something was done wrong. How do you know if any of the bush folks have done anything wrong, has there been an investigation yet?

I give up – go read the history. He was sued and as part of the testimony in the case he LIED. He was never “investigated” for what Monica said to her friend and this is similar.

Would it be too much to ask that you capitalize Bill, if you are talking about a person. Otherwise, this might be read as impeaching the contents of a bill (of Congress) ala Blackstone's jargon. This is a very simple and correct way of clarifying things - just press the shift key when you strike B.

So you would have it that bill Clinton was never investigated in any manner, that a person like ken star never actually asked him any questions under oath? Nothing like that occurred in any regard ever during the Clinton presidency? I mean I may be making the mistake that investigation requires CSI or the FBI, but overall to think that no effort was made to find out if Clinton did anything wrong ever occurred then I should be the one giving up.

All of that occurred. AFTER he Lied and was caught at it – Remember the dress?

The impeachment of President Bill Clinton arose from a series of events following the filing of a lawsuit on May 6, 1994, by Paula Corbin Jones in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. In her complaint initiating the suit, Ms. Jones alleged violations of her federal civil rights in 1991 by President Clinton when he was governor of Arkansas and she was an Arkansas state employee. According to the allegations, Governor Clinton invited Ms. Jones to his hotel room where he made a crude sexual advance that she rejected.
After Ms. Jones filed the lawsuit, the attorneys for President Clinton moved to delay any proceedings, contending that the Constitution required that any legal action be deferred until his term ended, an issue ultimately decided against the President by the Supreme Court of the United States in its decision of Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997). Following the Supreme Court decision allowing the Jones lawsuit to proceed, pre-trial discovery commenced in which various potential witnesses were subpoenaed for information related to the Jones incident and, over objections of the President's attorneys, Mr. Clinton's alleged sexual approaches to other women. On April 1, 1998, Judge Susan Webber Wright granted summary judgment in favor of President Clinton, dismissing the Jones suit in its entirety, finding that Ms. Jones had not offered any evidence to support a viable claim of sexual harassment or intentional infliction of emotion distress. Ms. Jones appealed Judge Wright's decision to the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, but before a decision on the appeal was rendered, Ms. Jones and the President settled the case on November 13, 1998.
The name of Monica Lewinsky, who had worked in the White House in 1995 as an intern, was first included on a list of potential witnesses prepared by the attorneys for Ms. Jones that was submitted to the President's legal team. Image source: CNN.com
Ms. Lewinsky's name had been provided to the attorneys for Ms. Jones by Linda Tripp, a former White House employee who had become a confidante of Ms. Lewinsky and had secretly tape recorded various conversations she had with Lewinsky relating to her contacts with the President. On January 12, 1998, Ms. Tripp also provided the tapes of her conversations with Ms. Lewinsky to Independent Counsel Kenneth W. Starr, who had been appointed to investigate charges relating to the Whitewater real estate venture in Arkansas of the President and Mrs. Clinton. On the same day, Ms. Lewinsky's sworn affidavit was sent by her lawyers to the Jones attorneys in which she asserted in part:
I have never had a sexual relationship with the President, he did not propose that we have a sexual relationship, he did not offer me employment or other benefits in exchange for a sexual relationship, he did not deny me employment or other benefits for rejecting a sexual relationship.
On January 15, Starr obtained approval from Attorney General Janet Reno, who in turn sought and received an order from the United States Court of Appeals, to expand the scope of the Whitewater probe into the new allegations. On the following day, a meeting between Ms. Lewinsky and Ms. Tripp at a hotel was secretly recorded pursuant to a court order, with federal agents then confronting Ms. Lewinsky at the end of the meeting with charges of her perjury and demanding that she cooperate in providing evidence against the President. Ms. Lewinsky initially declined to cooperate, and told the FBI and other investigators that much of what she had told Ms. Tripp was not true.
On January 17, President Clinton was deposed in the Jones lawsuit. He denied having "sexual relations" with Ms. Lewinsky under a definition provided to him in writing by her lawyers, and also said that he could not recall whether he was ever alone with her. On January 21, The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times and ABC News reported that Starr had expanded his investigation of the President to include the allegations related to Lewinsky. After repeated media inquiries, on January 26 President Clinton asserted in an appearance before the White House press corps: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky," and denied urging her to lie about an affair.
The President's attorneys failed in efforts to block Starr's expansion of his investigation, which also included whether the President himself had lied under oath in his own deposition taken in the Paula Jones litigation. In July 1998, after being granted sweeping immunity from prosecution by Special Prosecutor Starr, Ms. Lewinsky admitted that she in fact had had a sexual relationship with the President that did not include intercourse, but denied that she had ever been asked to lie about the relationship by the President or by those close to him.

On August 17, the President testified for over four hours before Starr's grand jury on closed-circuit television from the White House. In his testimony, he admitted the Lewinsky relationship, but denied that he perjured himself in the Paula Jones deposition because he did not interpret the conduct with Ms. Lewinsky as constituting sexual relations. On the same evening, he appeared on national television and admitted that he had an "inappropriate relationship" with Lewinsky and had misled the American people about it.
On September 9, Independent Counsel Starr submitted a detailed report to the Congress in which he contended that there was "substantial and credible information that President William Jefferson Clinton committed acts that may constitute grounds for an impeachment" by lying under oath in the Jones litigation and obstructing justice by urging Ms. Lewinsky "... to to file an affidavit that the President knew would be false". On September 11, the House of Representatives approved House Resolution 525 by a vote of 363 to 63 authorizing a review by the Committee on the Judiciary of the report of the Independent Counsel to determine whether sufficient grounds existed to recommend to the House that an impeachment inquiry be commenced and also approved the public release of the Starr report. On September 21, the Judiciary Committee released nearly 3,200 pages of material from the grand jury proceedings and the Starr investigation, including transcripts of the tesimony of President Clinton and Ms. Lewinsky.

None of this would have come to light if no one cared to press the issue, which on context of the firings is all that is occurring currently, and for some reason people like the AG need to lie and others don’t want to talk under oath on it. The desire to figure out why is being contested for some mysterious reasons, and you will claim in absence of the truth on the issue that nothing occurred.

http://www.eagleton.rutgers.edu/e-gov/e-po...ntonimpeach.htm

Clinton is not only off topic, but you plagarized (or offering benefit of the doubt, maybe you just forgot to include the link) this from the Eagleton Institute. Check the first paragraph of each- highlighted for your convenience. Notice any similarities?

I posted the link here : http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...mp;#entry211536

News flash Bill was investigated after Monica gave the dress to the FBI – not before. He also lied in another matter and that was why he was impeached.
The impeachment of President Bill Clinton arose from a series of events following the filing of a lawsuit on May 6, 1994, by Paula Corbin Jones in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. In her complaint initiating the suit, Ms. Jones alleged violations of her federal civil rights in 1991 by President Clinton when he was governor of Arkansas and she was an Arkansas state employee. According to the allegations, Governor Clinton invited Ms. Jones to his hotel room where he made a crude sexual advance that she rejected.
http://www.eagleton.rutgers.edu/e-gov/e-po...ntonimpeach.htm



But forgot to repost when trying to get gordo to understand my point. My error.

Yes, you did post the link earlier in the thread, but you got the link wrong. I had to look backwards through your posts on this thread until I found it.

Here's the correct link.

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...st&p=211519

Hope this helps.

Thanks Bof and the analogy is relevant. We did not drag Bill and all his close aids in when the Monica allegations came out. No subpoenas for him or his people. His lying under oath in a law suite was his problem – and the “dress” was his undoing with Monica – without witch she had squat.

Answering the 2nd question, first...

2. Should a president have this kind of ability to block subpoenas from congress?

The answer to the question is....

Given the tradition of executive privilege and the principle of separation of powers, I think Dubya has some legal ground to stand on here to fight the subpoenas. Yet, it is also true that the previous administration fought and lost the subpoena process. Could this presage a modus operandi of Congress when the President's party is not in the majority? I hope not. It does look like a pattern though.

Clearly, you cannot have Congress issuing subpoenas on the Executive branch at the drop of a hat (as lamented by Amlord). However, if there are serious allegations of wrong-doing, you cannot have the Executive branch be effectively immune from this legal process.

What to do? What to do? Hmm...

It seems to me that this case wouldn't have gotten to this point if Gonzales had been honest and forthright to begin with. If the Legislative and Executive branches are indeed equal in power, then it is incumbent upon both parties not to deceive each other (or even appear to deceive each other).

Here's something to keep in mind:

The Justice department was using some of these attorneys to investigate members of Congress. That is, Congress was being investigated by the Executive branch. So, if the Executive branch can investigate Congress, cannot Congress also investigate the Executive branch? Otherwise, wouldn't that make the Executive branch more powerful than the Legislative branch?

Oy Vay! All this rumination brings me to where I started.

The answer to the question is: no. The President cannot block subpoenas from Congress. Congress cannot block subpoenas from the Executive branch. Any other answer violates separation of powers.

1. By threatening to block subpoenas, does Bush look like he is trying to hide something?

Yes, it does look like it. However, he may not wish hide things due to malfeasance but rather due to privacy.