Quote:
|
Originally Posted by tecoyah
I would most likely cooperate, as it is the right thing to do in my opinion. Now...lets say you are the mayor of Springfield, KY and have decided to fire a couple people because they are looking into the dealings of your buddy who ownes a golf course. Though you ended the problem for your friend the governor finds out you may have broken the law by firing these guys,and sends the DA to look into you.
Rather than admit you fired the guys to protect your pal, you tell the DA they were incompetent and justly fired for one thing or another. Unfortunatley for you, the state legislature decides to hold hearings to find out who is telling the truth, and you decide to "forget" what happened, as it was last year some time.
Are you in any way credible? and do you deserve to be mayor?
|
I think you understand one of the points I made. If I were guilty of the crime as you outlined, I would not incriminate myself, I would plead the 5th, lie (since I was dishonest to begin with), but I would not gift wrap and hand the case to the Governor. If they wanted a conviction against me, they would need to investigate and present hard and convincing evidence of my crime. To expect a criminal to cooperate...well that is just not going to happen, unless they give the criminal some incentive or reason to do so. So, again I say Congress is asking the wrong questions and barking up the wrong tree. The expectation that the Administration is going to hand over a case proving illegal activity is simply silly. If the Administration is guilty of a crime Congress needs to prove it, if they can not they need to move on.
So, first I don't think the Administration did anything illegal. Second, if they did, they won't admit it. A long time ago I concluded that this was a waste of time. At this point there is no legitimate point to trying to prove the firings were illegal, other than to score a few political points because of the embarrassing manner in which Gonzales handled this from the beginning. Perhaps Congress can have hearings on this regularly until the '08 elections, so members of Congress can look concerned as they ask the "tough questions" and come across as being deeply offended by the very thought of political appointments.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dc_dux
ace....the Intelligence Oversight Board has the responsibility to: (a) Inform the President of intelligence activities that any
member of the Board believes are in violation of the Constitution
or laws of the United States, Executive orders, or Presidential
directives;
(b) Forward to the Attorney General reports received concerning
intelligence activities that the Board believes may be unlawful; "and the IOB reported both illegal and procedural violations.
That should be enough for Gonzales not to have lied and said... "There has not been one verified case of civil liberties abuse." |
Like I said, I looked at a few of the reports and they said violations of AG "guidelines". That is a significant difference than saying there was a violation of the Constitution or illegal activity. I did not read them all, if one stands out from the others, let me know.
I assume wherever you work, audit reports are prepared. They may conclude there were procedural errors, or they may conclude there was illegal activity. I think most people in your office or department understand the difference. If you testified to Congress, would you admit there was illegal activity, until it was proved? Would you call procedural errors illegal activity?