Let's start with the story: Story ABC News





Recently President Bush has come out and thrown the gauntlet and has said he will attempt to block any under oath questioning of his White House officials.

I have to be consistent with my beliefs here and say this does not pass the smell test with me. I have always said if you don't have anything to be guilty about, then what are you trying to hide.



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

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

1. By threatening to block subpoenas, does Bush look like he is trying to hide something?Not in the current “witch hunt” climate. The Dems have all the email and documents and have yet been able to come up with squat. IMO the purpose of televised testimony under oath is just partisan badgering and the hope that they can get anyone (like Rove) to make an error and then try to hang perjury on him when all else fails. IMO the American people see this for the disgusting show it is and it WILL hurt the Dems.

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

Yes. If not they could spend half their time on the hill testifying. Imagine if the Republicans did this when Bill fired 92 attorneys – some of whom were investigating Dems and one of whom was investigating his wife.

If Bush and his officials have nothing to hide then why not just testify under oath? If their hands are clean then the democrats will really have egg on their face.

I don't have a problem with the firings. I just have a problem when somebody refuses to testify under oath, it makes it look like they are trying to hide something.

Sleeper, let me ask you a question:

If I asked you to testify under oath about your tax returns for the last seven years, would you do it if you could avoid it? Let's assume that you have nothing to hide and genuinely believe that you have done nothing shady on your tax reporting.

Seperation of powers is a real issue. The Congress is a co-equal branch to the Executive and has no power to command it to testify. It can withhold funding. It can investigate wrong doing. It cannot compel testimony from the Executive.

Tell me, where is the law saying that firing a US attorney is illegal? What law sets the ground rules where such people can be dismissed? What, exactly, is the Congress investigating?

Setting precedents is a real issue. If the White House caves on this, then the power of the Excutive vis-a-vis the Legislative is reduced. Some may think this a good thing. In fact, many might. That does not make it a good idea.

Ted is right: the current climate is being to smell like Salem circa 1692.

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

No. Defending one's rights does not imply guilt. Invoking the fifth amendment does not imply guilt, as judges are required to instruct juries when a witness invokes his right to remain silent.

2. Should a president have this kind of ability to block subpoenas from congress?
Imagine a Congress with more malice than the current one. They could subpoena official after official making it impossible to run the government. They could repeatedly subpoena an offical hoping for contradictory testimony. The Executive is equal to the Legislative. The Executive is limited in investigating the Legislative branch and vice versa.

1. By threatening to block subpoenas, does Bush look like he is trying to hide something?
Check out the definition of "block":
12. an obstacle, obstruction, or hindrance: His stubbornness is a block to all my efforts.
13. the state or condition of being obstructed; blockage: The traffic block lasted several hours.
15. Sports. a hindering of an opponent's actions.
24. Slang. a person's head.
Well, it appears Bush is trying to place obstacles in the way of the law. He's hindering the prosecution. He's blocking the investigation. He's hindering of an opponent's actions. So yes he's clearly trying to hide something. Who could find a tarp that large?
2. Should a president have this kind of ability to block subpoenas from congress?
Should a criminal be able to stop himself from getting arrested? Should a child be able to give detention to his teachers?

What appears to be false statements made to Congress by the Attorney General. I think that's a crime, isn't it? And if he has lied to Congress about the firings, certainly Congress might want to know what he was lying about and why. If the other players involved can shed light on that, they should. But they should do it under oath so that Congress can then actually do something with their statements... such as impeaching Gonzales.

And just how can Congress investigate wrongdoing if it can't get people to testify under oath? The Justice Department can't be trusted to investigate... they are the ones being investigated.

Attorney Gonzales has sworn to get to the bottom of what Mr. Gonzales has been up to. If Mr. Gonzales finds that Mr. Gonzales has been up to no good. Mr. Gonzales will hold Mr. Gonzales accountable.

I don't think that's going to happen.

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

Of course- I mean, duh? He OF COURSE is hiding something- otherwise- he would spill it out to make others look bad- bottom line is- they got caught on this one- just like a pedophile eventually get's caught from his/her long strings of victims. Those attorneys, according to the memos- were expected to "roll over" and they didn't.

I have to laugh at the "witch hunt" comment though- just holdin' GW to the same standard as they demanded of Clinton seems to be too harsh now

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

I said this before- we need to remove this "right" completely- executive privilege has been abused by every president since LBJ. It is time to take away thier ability to cover up thier crimes.

Total transparency in the executive branch elected officials is what we need- NOTHING should be sacred or be allowed to be withheld- they need to be held to a higher standard- they should consitutionally have NO fifth amendment rights, NO client-attorney privilege- except ONE personal lawyer- paid out of thier own pocket.

In fact- we should record every word they say from the time they come into office to the time they get out- like a presidential version of "Big Brother"- that is the only group that NEEDs and we should DEMAND of our highest office holders- we need someone to check thier power, and check it HARD.

And since this president, and several conservative posters, have said that we don't "torture" but "treat harshly" our kidnapping victims- I think the same standard should be used on the VP and Prez- I think it is entirely appropriate that we "waterboard" them until we get a confession.

After all- it isn't torture- right? -

We seriously need to get a hand on the corruption of the white house we have had going on since LBJ took offce, and the lobbyiests took over. The only way to do that is to deny them constitutional rights like the fifth amendment,and executive privilege- it is just a way for evil poeple to get away with foul deeds.

Thanks guys. I needed a good laugh. I mean really, what did you think would happen, after the fiasco in the 90s??? I'm not saying this to justify "witch hunts." I would be hypocritical to only oppose open-ended witch hunt investigations against Republicans, and not against Democrats. In that sense, I tend to side with Amlord when it comes to the principles involved. But having said what you two just said, I'd think long and hard about criticisms of Clinton - and his perjury - in future threads. Because myself and others will surely use your own words against you.

At the same time, the more transparency our government has, the better. I disagree strongly with Cruisingram when he says "Total transparency in the executive branch elected officials is what we need- NOTHING should be sacred or be allowed to be withheld- they need to be held to a higher standard- they should consitutionally have NO fifth amendment rights, NO client-attorney privilege- except ONE personal lawyer- paid out of thier own pocket." All people should be allowed to avail themselves of the Constitutional protections. Presidents included.

But presidents simply cannot be immune from Congressional investigation for wrongdoing. They have the same protections as any citizen, but they must also be subject to the same laws concerning criminal investigation.



Would you say the same thing, Amlord, if a Democratic president were issuing signing statements, say, declaring that he does not have to abide by laws enacted by a Republican Congress? This goes right back to my very first paragraph. What did you think would happen? In the 90s, a mean-spirited witch hunt was conducted by a Republican Congress on vague grounds - mostly on the grounds, as it turns out, that they just really didn't like the president. They paved the way for whatever happens in the next two years, and they have no one to blame but themselves.

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

Not entirely. My belief in justice and in the Constitutional protections we are afforded trumps the more base instinct you refer to, Sleeper - even though I do share that same initial reaction. I don't think that Bush should have the power to simply block subpoena's, but we cannot say that he should not be allowed to avail himself of the protections in the Constitution against self-incrimination.



While I agree with you that it seems obvious - as an aside from legal principle - Bush is hiding the many wrongdoings of his administration, I take exception to your analogy. I'm with you on many things, CR - I think Bush is possibly the worst president in history, and I think the level of arrogant flouting of the law and the Constitution is unprecedented. But using a pedophile as an analogy? I'm sure you don't appreciate such an analogy in a thread about gay rights; why should this be any different? Bush's above-the-law attitude and his egregious attacks on the Constitution speak for themselves. There's no need to squirt lighter fluid on a raging bonfire.

This is exactly the point. The man was stupid enough to make statements before checking the minuets of every meeting he was in or memo he read. In his job you can bet it was a lot. So NO he should not be on trial for “false statements” – unless they lead to wrongdoing in the firings – which so far they have not. If you think they have please post something. He could have had 50 meetings about the firings – is there something wrong with that?

uhhhh duuuhh the us attorney in san diego was fired ONE DAY aftr notifying JUSTICE DEPT in washington cocerning warrants that would have provided SMOKING GUN concerning criminal bribery of DUKe CUNNINGHAM by DICK CHENEY!!!!
the white house was told the day after she notified JUstice hq that Lam is a problem!!!!!!!!!!!

how dumb and or facetiopus can you defenders of the right be!!!!

So this is a good enough reason to appoint a special prosecutor- just like Ken Starr- correct? Try not to cut and run now Ted- shouldn't it be reasonable to ask you if congress should hold GW to the same standards as Clinton, in every case?

No, this is exactly the point. This is why they need to interview these other people, isn't it? To find out if there was wrongdoing in the firings. How do you do that? You interview all the parties involved.

The question is how can there possibly be wrongdoing in the firing of political appointees?

I doubt anyone would be investigating if Bush had fired Karl Rove after the Democrats landslide in '06. I doubt if anyone would be investigating if Bush replaced Rumsfeld in '05.

The pertinent questions are:

Q. Can the President, throught the AG, dismiss U.S. attorneys?
A. Yes.

Q. Are there rules or procedures governing who can be fired, for what reason, or when that limit this Presidential authority?
A. No, unless you take into consideration civil rights violations, which (so far) has not been given as the reason for the dismissals.

These people are political appointees. If they aren't doing the job the President wants them to do, they're gone. End of story. For these attorneys, Carlitoswhey did a nice job explaining how there was cause for some of the dismissals.

Seamus' statement is also right on point:

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

I think what Bush Admin officials should do is send in affadavits that basically stated that, "We don't recall." It worked for the Clintons during Travelgate, and all the other -gate scandals. The Dems were perfectly happy with that testimony then.

Anyway, Bush may look like he's hiding something because that's what the Dems' subpoenas are suppose to do. They know exactly what the SOP of the Executive Branch is, and that is to assert the separation of powers doctrine. You never readily hand over anything, even if you have nothing to hide because it sets a precedent.

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

I think the Constitution is the arbitor of that issue.

Prosecute for what? Laws broken? Investigations stopped? Seems the Dems can’t find squat and all we have is innuendo. How about Bill C. One of the attorneys he canned was looking into White Water – you remember – Hillary gets off and the rest go to jail. Certainly was a crime there.

The US Attorneys serve at the will of the President... they do not serve the President's will. They serve to represent the US Federal Government - not just the Executive Branch. If they were fired for refusing to unethically serve the President's will or the will of his cronies, then, yes, there was wrongdoing. That's what is being claimed and that is what is being investigated.

*edited for puncuation.

Yes and this has what has not been shown to be true to date – not one shred. And you can bet the Dems are combing every word to do just that.

And naturally as a last resort, as with Libby, the idiots want to get some “testimony” to see if they can, failing all else, get someone for perjury. Thus the subpoenas - Lots of Luck!

Yes. It's called an investigation. You see, they seek out information in order to determine what is true. So, the fact that it hasn't been shown to be true to date doesn't mean that they shouldn't investigate. And one of the ways to investigate is to ask questions... under oath.



And here I was thinking that Libby lied in Grand Jury testimony... did these idiots that you speak of have something to do with it? Or are you saying that the Grand Jury were idiots? Or was it the prosecutor who works for the Executive Branch that was an idiot? Can you clarify the idiocy, please?

They have had the data for some time and the witch is still out there. The documents (and the attorneys) tell it all. They want the testimony to try to trip people up and for the “show” value. A complete waste of our money.

Now I will change my stance as soon as they find some evidence there was wrongdoing – which by the way the fired attorneys were REQUIRED to report in writing. So tell me what are they looking for again??

So here we are with fired attorneys who themselves are not saying they were “pressured” to do anything and hunting for ??????................

So, Ted- what you are saying, because we haven't been able to subpoena them, there is no evidence, so we cant subpoena them- -

you are against even FINDING OUT if crimes have been done-

that is what you are most afraid of - that some bad truths have been found out about a guy you have "ra-ra'd" about, probably voted for twice - but you don't even want the poeple involved QUESTIONED under oath.

That is the double standard you hold- there was no proof of ANYTHING Clinton did UNTIL there was an investigation-

in other words- a special prosecutor appointed to INVESTIGATE the claims, that on thier face seem to be true, same with the Libby conviction, same with funeralgate, same with the yellowcake memo etc etc-


It isn't that you are worried that they are guilty- you don't even want a prosecutor to investigate.

You know, if I call the cops on my nieghbor- EVEN IF IT IS A GROUNDLESS ACCUSATION- the cops still INVESTIGATE them- okay, after some careful police work- nothing found.

But you want the cops barred from even asking the question

what are you afraid of Ted? You are afraid of a special prosecutor questioning GW apointees under oath?

Every president since LBJ has grossly misused the executive privilege cause- it is flaw in the constitution

Quarkhead- I must disagree- with special powers come special rights that should be given up. Just like a celebrity gives up some rights to privacy by the mere fact that they are a public figure. The president simply doesn't have enough limitations on his power regarding hiding and covering up wrongdoing.

Look at how many years it took us to get the Nixon tapes. Ridiculous and unneccesary/ The president's oath should include a clause "the only time I have privacy is when I am in bed with my wife, and that is about it, and maybe even not that"

You can lambast Clinton's use of it- and I would agree. As well as Reagan, Ford,GH Bush and Nixon. I think LBJ was more crooked then all of them- my family had personal dealings with him.

But, they were able to hide behind this executive privilage thing, or, if not that, some other legal mumbo-jumbo that prevents the truth from coming out.

Time to end that, and we have had the worst example of presidential excess and incompetance for over 100 years. This example should spur us to limit presidential power even further.

But Ted- you have really sidestepped the real question- you keep saying "oh ,they have nothing on them"- okay, fine- why not the full congressional grand jury decide if there needs to be charges brought forward? That is the way it would go for you or I!!

Perhaps you aren't aware that some of these fired attorneys testified (under oath and involuntarily via subpoena) that they did feel pressured or threatened.

Prosecutors Say They Felt Pressured, Threatened

So... what on earth are you talking about?

There must be something indicating wrongdoing before someone can be subpoenaed to testify about it. IMO you cannot subpoena anyone to discuss a legal firing – which is all we have now. In other words subpoenas’ are not for witch hunts and fishing expeditions.




That is what the documents are about. Provided to clear people from GROUNDLESS accusations. Now would the cops subpoena the neighbors before they found anything??? Of course NOT.




Then they should be jailed because they failed to report it as REQUIRED BY LAW. There is a specific form and very clear directions on how to deal with this. Odd that they failed to do this as required and now, after being fired, suddenly remember this.

Ted, what the heck are you smokin’? That statement is blatantly, baldly untrue. And it doesn’t take a lot of heavy lifting to prove that.



“Pressured”, “leaned on”, “threatened”, “sickened”, “heavy-handed interference”; pick your term, the attorneys used them to say they were pressured; in many ways, to many people, and most importantly, to the Congressional committee.

Did you bother to read what I said above girl? If they were “Pressured”, “leaned on”, “threatened”, they were required BY LAW to report same. A commentator on NPR made this point VERY clear – the form needed to be FILED immediately after EACH event – so as a minimum they are lying(perjury) or they are negligent and should have been fired fo being idiots at best.

So no I am am not smoking anything at the moment – you?

This doesn't mean that they weren't threatened or pressured. Many things occur in this world that aren't reported right away, if at all. This doesn't mean they didn't occur. And they have admitted to not reporting it. If they should be jailed for it, then set up those trials and complain about it then, but that has nothing to do with whether or not subpoenas should be issued to others.

Pretty big hoops you are jumping through here Ted- "oh my, they didn't file the right form, so there is no wrongdoing"- how slick willie of you - what's next ted- we goingto go over what "is" is?

This is pretty darn funny- you will go to any lengths to not even hold an investigation, wow, how far the right have fallen.

You have several attorneys saying they been pressured, etc, and then fired after they did the right thing. Pretty hard core evidence of a crime! But hey- why debate it- why not just hire a special prosecutor and let the chips fall were they may!

Why are you so afraid of an investigation Ted?

At this point- those attorneys testimoney is far, far, far more evidence of wrongdoing in this specific incident than anything Clinton had before the special prosecutor- heck, EVEN WITH the special prosecutor- THEY NEVER had anything on him on whitewater or anything else- zip, nada, zilch. Not until he lied about a sex act-

totally far afield of the original investigation.

So, if your guy is so squeeky clean- why won't you hold him to the same standards?

Seriously Ted- you are crossing into laughable here with your double standard

Well, boy, you got a link for that comment, or am I supposed to just trust you? I haven't seen or heard anything about attorneys being required to fill out some amorphous "form".

You miss the point entirely. They are required BY LAW to report any sand all of these events immediately – not weeks or months later OR as now after they are fired. So how do you believe anyone who come in after the fact and makes these accusations?/ I don’t. They clearly must know there is no penalty for their negligence in not reporting the incidents (they clainm occured) and they clearly have no proof they ever happened. We KNOW this because if they did it would be on the front page of the NYT and every other liberal paper in the country.


So yes to me – it means it didn’t occur.

I guess ol' Clinton would have just been okay, no investigation, if we stuck by the "they didn't fill out the right form" standard eh DG?

Hey- if someone murders another, but the cop didn't dot an "i" on a form- are we allowed to investigate the posibility of murder anymore?

You come up with poor analogies to push you opinions. This is not “dot the I” there is no “murder” no “body”, no crime, NO PROOF – just some fired attorneys trying to tell us they were all “pressured” “threatened” etc. and they ALL “forgot” they they were required by law to report it. Ya Riiiiight!!!!!!

(Oops, my bad -wrong poster.)

Excuse me, but I don't recall asking anything about Clinton. I want to see Ted provide documentation of any shred of evidence that there is some sort of "form" a US Attorney has to fill out when he is being inappropriately contacted by Senators or other government officials. I am reading through the US Attorney Manual (boring reading at best) and have so far seen NOTHING.

And your attempt at diversion ain't working. Ted alleges there was a form the attorneys were supposed to fill out and they supposedly didn't, so they should just shut up.

Actually I heard it on NPR but check the link below. And if you expect me to believe that all the fired attorneys were illegally coerced none of them reported it , none of them has the slightest shred of proof it happened – I don’t buy it.



http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_readi...itle1/4mdoj.htm

So, you are saying, that the statute of limitations for GWs wrongdoing ran out, because they didn't fill out the correct form? When you have 8 attorneys, all republicans, all appointed BY this administrations because of thier conservative reputations, all of them saying they were coerced by this admin to go after dems in an election year, and avoid repubs- oh, but your not buying this?

Your burden of proof is so incredibly high for GW, what, does he need to shoot a baby on TV to convince you?

I think, Ted, you have just provided the best example of why the republicans lost the last election so badly- because of that kind of cross eyed craziness that we heard for nearly 20 years now, all kinds of conspiracy theories against Clinton, for years, 99.999999999999999999999999% of them false, no evidence of, etc. However- you have eight TOP LEVEL ATTORNEYS- all contradicting what you seem to think is "nothing" , and, on top of that, you have memo's basicaly saying one thing, and Gonzales saying another

But all of this ISN'T enough for you Ted.

Boy, talk about double standard- I think you just provided the literal definition of that

Well, you are doing some serious backpedalling here, Ted.

You stated this:



Clearly they are saying that.

Now, you're stating that they did say it, but they're either lying or they should've been fired for not reporting it.

If they're lying, they should get their due for that, I agree - and they would be lying under oath so we can get them for perjury, too (bonus!) But how, Ted, how do we get to the bottom of that? Do we not investigate the matter? Call people to testify, perhaps? Perhaps under subpoena?

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

No, he looks like he fails to understand the word. This President's words have reached such a low point of credibility that I was watching the television the other day and they announced:

"Coming up at 1:45, President Bush will be speaking live. At 2 O'clock, we plan to have a veterinarian answer your phone calls about the pet food recall." Clearly CNN was certain that President Bush would have nothing to say which required interpretation.

As to this developing crisis, I expect that George Bush will soon find the words to say that Alberto Gonzalez has his full Faith and Confidence. Within a day or two, Mr. Gonzalez will then decide to spend time with his family, or accept a position with a private law firm in Texas.

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

I've heard a lot of arguments pro and con, and I think that it might be something the Supreme Court will eventually look at. Is there time for the Supreme Court to act before Bush is replaced? I don't know, but I'm willing to bet that Karl Rove will have no standing to fight a subpoena. Still, will anyone believe what he has to say under oath?

I am saying if there was wrongdoing – and not politics, then the attorneys had the duty to report it – they didn’t and if you expect me to believe them now you have to be kidding. They are political appointees and there firing was political. Wrongdoing is a different standard – show me proof there was any – beside statements from fired employees.




Certainly in a political position they can be fired for political reasons. We can get to the bottom of it by having written proof from one or more of the fired attorneys. This could be the report they should have filed detailing illegal pressure or it can be notes of same in their offices that can be retrieved by a court official. All we have a are words – from fired employees. If they have proof in writing I would like to see it.

So if attorney A has a phone log or written notes saying that Congressman X called and told him to drop an investigation of the Congressman’s buddy – THAT would be proof that we are on to something. The fact that the Dems have all the emails and notes and have found squat should tells us something.

It’s funny that when I asked you for some proof that there was a mysterious “form” USA’s had to fill out to complain about political pressure, you provide a link to the very manual that I had provided in another thread. Funny!

The only requirement in the manual for reporting is for lower level employees who must report any requests and/or improprieties TO the US Attorney! (And Section 1-8.010 reiterates that requirements)

So you believe that everyone except the US Attorney would have to duty to report wrongdoing? This make a lot of sense.

Here try this:

Iglesias acknowledged that he had no proof that the pressure from the members of Congress prompted his forced resignation. But he said the contact violated one of the most important tenets of a U.S. attorney's office: Don't mix politics with prosecutions.

Congressional questions about ongoing cases are supposed to go through the Justice Department's Office of Legislative Affairs to avoid the appearance of impropriety.

Iglesias said he refused to tell the lawmakers when any indictment would be issued, although he'd decided that the investigation needed more time.

He said he now regrets that he didn't report the calls to the Justice Department, as required by policy. http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/16802797.htm


So this is all the Dems have - no proof and the required reports mysteriously never completed. Ya that is a real case all right!!!

OK, Ted, there obviously is some sort of "reporting policy" out there. I'll grant you that, and I can even agree that Iglesias should have brought up the inappropriate contact with his superior.

But, think about that for a minute. Iglesias, a good Republican, is going to go to his boss, a good Republican and Bush crony, and complain because two Republicans were pressuring him to reveal details of a sealed indictment against some Democrats?? He kept quiet out of party loyalty (and said so during his Senate hearing). He probably thought he was covering his behind and protecting his party by staying quiet. So, now you excoriate the guy for protecting the party and not filing a complaint? Funny.

You’re constantly harping on the fact that USA’s can be fired at will, but you ignore that that is not the basis for the investigation. This investigation is about the AG and Bush's attorney replacing ethical attorneys with others more easily manipulated by the party in power to get the results they wanted; thereby bastardizing the whole justice system.

So, you say there’s no “evidence” or “proof”. Obviously, you don’t believe a Republican US Attorney’s word about a verbal conversation, you don’t believe any of the DOJ emails, and you don’t believe a reasonable person can connect the dots and see the impropriety.

The latest testimony from Kyle Sampson is that he suggested firing Patrick Fitzgerald while Fitzgerald was involved in the Libby investigation and Domenici sent a thank you note to Karl Rove in response to an email about Iglesias’ termination and possible candidates for replacing him. Testimony by his own aide has proven Gonzales was in it up to his eyeballs, though he denies it. It’s a FACT that Bush and Gonzales were going to use the Patriot Act to circumvent Congress and put their cronies into the newly available attorney slots.

If your impossible standard was applied to homicide cases, murderes would never be convicted. Seldom does the murderer hang around with a smoking gun or a bloody knife waiting for someone to come get him, confess the crime, and show the police a video of the act.

Yes. The comparisons to the Clinton scandal are eerily accurate. The Administration does something that is not illegal and then lies about it. Is this an overly important issue? No, but the fact is that if the Administration came out on day one and said, "Yes, these POLITICAL appointees were fired for POLITICAL reasons" investigations would be completely off the table.
Well, he isn't explicity given the authority to do so in the Constitution, so I'm going to go ahead and say no.

CP

No I simple believe he is lying. He was FIRED and He is angry and would like to take a shot at his ex employers. Happens every day. Not funny – typical.




Come on there are political appointees – get the word “political”. Did someone investigate Bill when he replaced the AK USA with his buddy?? Of course not because he had the right to do it and he did it. If bush wants an attorney to peruse more obscenity cases or whatever he can replace him if he doesn’t do this. The only way the firing was wrong is if there is evidence of illegal contact, demands to conceal evidence etc. (sorry the BC incident is SO to the point).

I have yet to see proof of the least bit of illegal activity. There is no “murder” here or evidence of a crime as much as Dems would love there to be.


Call me when the BEEF arrives.

I have to say Ted- I am really diggin' watchin' you squirm LOL- this is hilarious- I mean- there is NO evidence that could be presented to you, obviously, that would make you consider an investigation against this admin- the double standard is so clear, like I said- your comments here could actually be used in quotation marks for "partisan" and "double standard" LOL

It is not ONE disgruntled employee- but rather, 8 poeple of upstanding character- enough for YOUR party to appoint them- now, of course, despite even internal memo's saying otherwise- the attorneys are lying.

Okay- so what is the problem ith subpoena-ing them and getting to the bottom of this?

You afraid o what may come out of that testimoney Ted?

REmember- Clinton did NOTHING illegal, not one thing, prior to the investigation, and has been found not guilty by a vote of congress - even for the perjury charge- so, at this point, in the eyes of the law- Clinton is 100% innocent,

so Ted- are you going to apply this standard to Clinton as well as GW?

Ted,

I’m disappointed. I thought you had linked us to a couple of sources to bolster your opinion, but you merely underlined a few words to emphasize said opinion.

The Senior Senator from your state, Ted[dy] Kennedy, released a statement, March 22, on the matter. It’s a government document, but I’ll not post the whole thing, just the first two and concluding paragraphs.



http://kennedy.senate.gov/newsroom/press_r...6B-9605BA16FF0D

I challenge you to refute Senator Kennedy's statement without resorting to calling him an idiot, a moron, a liar, a murder, a drunk or something similar. Good luck!

There's no point. I could hand you a Kobe beef steak grilled to perfection and you'd call it chicken.

There is no source, no evidence, no pictures, no documents, no nothing that will convince you of anything that is outside your own opinion of the way things are. There is no point providing these things if you don't bother to read or consider them. It's like debating with a brick wall.

What double standard is that – this is why I keep pointing to Bill. Was he investigated, or supoenad because he dumped a USA and put his buddy into AK – looks bad but is legal. How about Monica. Did we have an “investigation” before the “dress??? Get it – have proof get investigation. No proof (no dress) no investigation. Get us the dress or give up please.


And what pray tell are they going to “investigate” anyway??? They HAVE all the documents and all the emails and all the files. No one took them. If they cannot find the “dress” in all that then – give up.

No official should be dragged before Congress without some proof. Stupid shows like that need more justification - The BEEF

Hey I am done - let the courts decide.

So they can babble all day – no proof no subpoenas.


Bof – I will not discuss the drunken killer from Mass. I have to live here and I hate the man. Lets “investigate” how Teddy got away with murder – shall we.

Discussing Senator Kennedy's statement on the subponeas would not have been off topic. This is. If you want to discuss the "drunken killer," perhaps you should start a separate thread on this. Again, good luck.

BTW: Your "hate" gets the better of your debating skills.

What about simply if nothing more an investigation from an ethics point of view. Such as the use or role of a position in government. I mean if the AG has already lied in relation to what occurred, why would someone make that choice to do such, or was it purely a mistake on behalf of the AG to say something that’s not in line with the truth of something that occurred, such as the firings. Also if nothing bad per say occurred what is the harm of openly talking about it on paper versus the desired wants of such people to have secret off the air or recorded talks on the issue? There is more then enough to warrant a desire to understand why, and if this administration wants to talk about such in a fashion that is not honest then what other avenues do you have to take save for an investigation?

He is either a dope or has no clue. Maybe to him the USAs not going after the kinds of cases (like obscenity) that the boss wanted IS job performance? So I have no problem with this man being questioned. But a fishing expedition is not warranted. And they have all the documents. If wrong was done it should be apparent.

Certainly we would not ( and did not) bring Bill to the hill to testify about (Monica) with no proof she was telling the truth. – lots of “ethics” there too.

News flash, bill was investigated and impeached.

This is nothing more then a misdirection and of course an easy way to not answer a question, so I basically just wait for you to do such, why would he lie if nothing was wrong?