|
Banned
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by reconmike
Host first of all you will take any smidge of a poll and try to use it to bash the Republician party, as in this threads topic.
And it seems in every thread you seem to threadjack it in some way to bash the Republican Party.
If you want to ramble on about how the Republicans stole this or rigged that please do it in a new thread or one of the 100 other threads you have started about it.
|
Do some "work" to back the opinion that you post, reconmike.... The recent reporting of McClatchey and the 2004 reporting of WaPo....I posted both articles...support the accusations that I've posted, and the ones I posted in March, 2006.
The congressional investigative committees have the "caging" emails from the 2004 election, and Tim Griffin is being investigated. Why do you think he .resigned, 4 weeks ago, as interim US Atty in Arkansas, after the bullshit "provision" that was secretly inserted in an already consolidated bill by one of Arlen Spector's "staffers"....that would have exempted Griffin from senate approval to keep his job....was found and overturned by the congress, making it necessary for Griffin to testify under oath before the senate judiciary committee, if he wanted to pursue senate confirmation for a permanent US Atty appointment?
Let's have an actual discussion, reconmike. I'm posting what I've learned....how this scandal is unfolding, and it's background.....and what are you and djestudo posting, in response???
on edit....reconmike, this is just out.....they've hidden their lawbreaking, encouraged by no attempt by congress to "check and balance".....for the first six years of their administration. That has changed....for the better:
Quote:
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003571.php
Conyers, Leahy to WH: Tell Us More
By Spencer Ackerman - June 29, 2007, 1:12 PM
July 9 is the new June 28 in the U.S. attorneys scandal, if House and Senate judiciary committee chairman John Conyers (D-MI) and Pat Leahy (D-VT) have anything to say about it. That is, it's the next phase of the White House-Judiciary Committee showdown.
In a just-released letter (posted in full below) to White House Counsel Fred Fielding, Conyers and Leahy signal their intent to hit back against the White House's claim yesterday that its internal discussions about the firings of nine U.S. attorneys are outside congressional scrutiny. The two chairman write that unless Fielding specifies the claim of privilege for each document being withheld by July 9, they'll "consider whether the White House is in contempt of Congress." A contempt vote in committee is the first step, to be followed by a vote in the full House or Senate. Experts say the process has never gotten further. But if the clash between Congress and the White House continued, the next step would be a referral to the District of Columbia’s U.S. attorney to enforce the subpoena by seeking an indictment from a grand jury.
From the letter:
June 29, 2007
Fred Fielding, Esq.
Counsel to the President
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Mr. Fielding:
The return date and time for the White House Chief of Staff, Joshua Bolten, to appear before our Committees on behalf of the White House and bring with him the documents compelled by the subpoenas we issued on June 13 was yesterday at 10 a.m. Mr. Bolten did not do so. Instead, you wrote us that, despite conceding that you have responsive documents in your possession, you refuse to produce even a single one based on a blanket executive privilege claim. We had hoped our Committees' subpoenas would be met with compliance and not a Nixonian stonewalling that reveals the White House's disdain for our system of checks and balances......
.......Our power to investigate has been described as essential to the legislative function by the Supreme Court and "as penetrating and far-reaching as the potential power to enact and appropriate under the Constitution." Eastland v. United States Serviceman's Fund, 421 U.S. 491, 504, n. 15 (1975). Indeed, the Court has specifically recognized that Congress' "broad" investigatory authority "encompasses inquiries concerning the administration of existing laws as well as proposed or possibly needed statutes," and includes the power to "inquire into and publicize corruption, maladministration, or inefficiencies" in the Executive Branch. Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178, 182, 200 n.33 (1957). Moreover, as we have said many times, your proposal would constrain not only our investigation, but also the ability of the American people to learn the truth about these firings.
In fact, the letter you enclosed from Acting Attorney General Clement makes clear that internal White House documents, which you have refused even to discuss making available, contain information directly responsive to our subpoenas......
.......Moreover, your blanket assertion of executive privilege belies any good faith attempt to determine where privilege truly does and does not apply. A serious assertion of privilege would include an effort to demonstrate to the Committees which documents, and which parts of those documents, are covered by any privilege that may apply.
Indeed, the subpoenas themselves specifically stated that for each document withheld, you should provide a description of the nature, source, subject matter, and date of the document; the name and address of each recipient of an original or copy of the document and the date received; the name and address of each additional person to whom any of the contents of the document were disclosed along with the date and manner of disclosure; and the specific legal basis for the assertion of privilege. Such privilege logs have been provided by the White House in previous Administrations, and this Justice Department has provided similar logs in this very matter, which have been used to help resolve disputes about the production of documents. Yet, you have failed to provide any such information.
In addition, at least since the Reagan Administration in 1982, there has been a specific determination and signed statement by the President when executive privilege has been asserted. In accord with this procedure, President Bush himself has issued such assertions during his Administration. See, e.g., Memorandum for the Attorney General re Congressional Subpoena for Executive Branch Documents (December 12, 2001). See also "Procedures Governing Responses to Congressional Requests for Information," issued on November 4, 1982, and 6 Op. OLC 31 (1982). Yet you have failed to include any such Presidential assertion or even state whether you have now decided to disregard this established procedure.
Please provide the documents compelled by the subpoenas without further delay. If you continue to decline to do so, you should immediately provide us with the specific factual and legal bases for your claims regarding each document withheld via a privilege log as described above and a copy of any explicit determination by the President with respect to the assertion of privilege. You have until July 9, 2007, at 10 a.m. to bring this and any other information you wish to submit to our attention before we move to proceedings to rule on your claims and consider whether the White House is in contempt of Congress.
We were disappointed that we had to turn to these subpoenas in order to obtain information needed by the Committees to learn the truth about these firings and the erosion of independence at the Justice Department. We are even more disappointed now with yet further stonewalling.
Whether or not we have the benefit of the information we have directed you to provide by July 9, we will take the necessary steps to rule on your privilege claims and appropriately enforce our subpoenas backed by the full force of law.
Sincerely,
PATRICK LEAHY JOHN CONYERS, JR.
Chairman Chairman
Senate Judiciary Committee House Judiciary Committee
cc: The Honorable Arlen Specter
The Honorable Lamar S. Smith
|
If you have not, you ought to get "up to speed" on this. Conyers and Leahy have copies of all of Palast's RNC "caging" emails. Tim Griffin and the firing of the 9 US Attorneys is all a piece of the vote suppression "op" of the republican party, run out of the white house and "muscled" by the DOJ.
Politically, these white house, DOJ, and RNC guys are "dead men walking"..... posting dismissively about me, in response to what I post, seems kind of a silly way to react. You might want to reconsider your responses......
Last edited by host; 06-29-2007 at 10:49 AM..
|