|
Banned
|
Post #140
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
The special prosecutor had the support of the Supreme Court, and the Judicial Committee had the support of enough Republicans to approve the articles of impeachment. Most important they had a case. I don't know what the "case" is for impeaching Bush. Even if you think he "lied", which the latest Senate Intel Committee investigation did not conclude, he did not do it under oath. Bush is not in contempt of Congress, he has not obstructed justice, so what are his crimes?
Approval ratings are different than what people will perceive as partisan. Approval ratings also change based on events. Right now Democrats have Bush were they want him, if they make him out to be a victim or whatever, the mood of the nation could change fast. I think the rhetoric being used is better than Democrats actually doing something from a political point of view.
I am betting things won't change much under the next Democratic Party administration. Just my opinion. People can always find some "wrong" with any administration and write books about it. Heck, people can already write books about Obama's "wrongs" and he hasn't taken the oath of office yet. Hannity on Fox has already made a cottage industry on Obama's "wrongs", just wait until he J-walks - impeachment talk will follow shortly thereafter.
I just think it is time for both sides to give it a rest.
|
Post #153
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
actually i have host to remind me...
personally why dc may find it to be a slap in the face of the Constitution, I don't find it as such. Sure if you'd like to fish about, by all means, but I'm not interested in spinning wheels to appease the Constitution. If it was not supposed to happen, then one of the other branches should have stopped it.
I'd like more energy and time devoted to getting the economy back on track, settling the gas crisis, the mortgage crisis, and the rest.
|
Is it reasonable to consider the quotes in yellow, to be sentiments in favor of "moving on"....focusing on other things than the misconduct of the current administration?
Post #156
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
Agreed. The checks and balances are supposed to be in my opinion to check and balance DURING not post. There is sometimes where there is some after the fact, but at least be done during the term of the administration.
Now part of that is done after the fact via the Judicial branch, in finding law unconstitutional, but I don't see "finding lies" from the executive branch a worthwhile endeavor just so that it can be ruled that Bush was a moron, liar, etc. I think that is making the Judicial branch more "politicized" in doing so.
|
Is it reasonable to consider the quotes in yellow, an argument for "running out the clock", or justification for a "running out the clock" strategy of a group intending to avoid investigation leading to prosecution, via impeachment or in a criminal court?
In other words, doesn't it follow, if investigation of a president and his administration were to end, as a matter of protocol, and procedure, when the term in office of said president ended, that attempting to stonewall investigation by refusing to testify, respond to letters of inquiry or letters demanding documents, "running out the clock" would be the resulting defense
of the president and his administration?
Post #157
Quote:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
Agreed. The checks and balances are supposed to be in my opinion to check and balance DURING not post. There is sometimes where there is some after the fact, but at least be done during the term of the administration.....
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dc_dux
How can Congress complete the job during his administration if the (or any future) president cites some nebulous expansion of executive privileges and blocks every attempt to require WH (and other) staff to testify under oath? We're now in a holding patter while several Contempt of Congress charges await judicial action..that probably wont be resolve until after the election. What should Congress do if the federal judiciary rules in its favor?....abandon the hearings or proceed as necessary to take corrective action by proposing new legislation?
Congressional oversight is not concerned solely with "finding lies" but with finding areas in which the Executive branch may (or may not) have acted lawfully, but violated administrative procedures outside the intent of Congress and in which new laws may be needed OR where the issue of law is unsettled (ie , warrantless wiretaps, torture).
We have seen several actions by Congress as a result of these oversight hearings:....
|
|
Post #158
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by host
Cynthetiq and ace give carte blanche to the administration's strategy of simply stonewalling all investigation and attempted oversight with bogus, blanket claims of executive immunity, until they run out the clock.
In this way of responding to official misconduct, if a change in congressional control does not change to the opposition party sooner than before the congressional election immediately preceding the end of a president's tenure, the two year time limit will encourage all future executives to withhold cooperation with attempts at legislative branch oversight, and instead, refuse all cooperation, claim blanket executive immunity, and attempt to run out the clock.
It is all in the interest of "moving on".....moving on....to what? To the next Gulf of Tonkin, Iraq invasion, secret executive order, signing statement, blanket claim of presidential immunity, or deliberate destruction of inter-office white house message files?....
|
Making allowance for my own bias, to the extent that it is possible to do so, I do not understand how the opinions of ace and Cynthetiq could lead to anything other than a strategy by the executive branch, to "run out the clock", in response to congressional committee investigations begun when the opposition party had it's first opportunity to chair such committees and then authorize investigations that were blocked for the prior six year period.....
Post #171
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
Yes, host, that's what I want the POTUS to do, run out the clock. Please give me a fucking break.
Bait, after bait, after bait. It's tiresome. You ask one question that someone answers and you respond with 15 more and extra links. This by far is your one of your shortest responses, but still making assumptions that I'm giving someone a pass.
No host, it's not a pass. As I've said before my local community board and local politics affect my quality of life a bit more than the POTUS does. See the more I keep looking at the things that you post the more I tune it out becase you know what, it doesn't really change all that much. Read what you've posted in the above quotes. The names change, the time changes, the issues not so much. They still exist, history has shown that it's not the US that suffers such things, but it's in all countries and all times.
It doesn't mean that I give it a pass, it means I've got more to do with living life than sitting behind a keyboard being pissed off at the world and the sitting president.
again, you'll believe what you want to believe.....
|
Cynthetiq.... I just want to be sure that you think my impression of your opinion was "Bait, after bait, after bait.".... because, after reviewing your comments and my response, I think what I wrote were the conclusions, on the matter..... of a reasonable person, considering your comments, by this standard:
Quote:
|
...the reasonable person standard is an objective standard of perception based on a fictitious, reasonable person....
|
Isn't the opposite of what was advocated in the posts of ace and Cynthetiq, and thus, three precedents....these recent investigations?:
Quote:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...igation&st=nyt
February 28, 2001
Clinton Tells House Panel He Won't Block Aides' Testimony on Pardons
By MARC LACEY AND DAVID JOHNSTON
Former President Bill Clinton today informed the House panel investigating his last-minute pardons that he would not try to block the testimony of his top presidential aides by asserting executive privilege.
In a letter sent by David E. Kendall, his lawyer, Mr. Clinton told Representative Dan Burton, chairman of the House Government Reform Committee, that former White House aides may testify fully about the pardon of the fugitive financier Marc Rich or anyone else who received presidential clemency.
Mr. Burton's committee has scheduled a hearing for Thursday, and Mr. Clinton's decision will allow three important advisers to testify in detail then about their private conversations with him. Those witnesses are Beth Nolan, who was White House counsel; Bruce R. Lindsey, deputy White House counsel; and John D. Podesta, White House chief of staff. ....
|
Quote:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...+report&st=nyt
White House Vandalism Caper Was Overblown, a Report Finds
By CHRISTOPHER MARQUIS
Published: May 19, 2001
....At the time, President Clinton offered to pay the cost of any vandalism but requested a detailed account of what, if anything, was amiss.
No such records exist, said Mr. Ungar, who questioned members of Mr. Bush's staff as well as workers who refurbished about 400 offices in the West Wing, the East Wing and the Old Executive Office Building.
The General Services Administration responded to Mr. Ungar in February and issued a statement today, saying, ''The condition of the real property was consistent with what we would expect to encounter when tenants vacate office space after an extended occupancy.''
Speaking for the Bush administration in an April 18 letter, Phillip Larsen, the director of the White House Office of Administration, told the G.A.O. that it could not document any damage, saying, ''After investigating, we have located no such records and our repair records do not contain information that would allow someone to determine the cause of damage being repaired.''
The G.A.O. notified Mr. Barr last month that it had ended its inquiry, finding no grounds to continue.
Mr. Barr, an ardent critic of Mr. Clinton's, replied today that the failure to keep damage records in the Bush White House did not exonerate the former president's staff. Nor did the General Services Administration's conclusion, he said, since its responsibilities apply to office space, and not to the equipment within....
|
Quote:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...on+ends&st=nyt
Final Report By Prosecutor On Clintons Is Released
By NEIL A. LEWIS
Published: March 21, 2002
In a final report that ends the Whitewater investigation that sprawled across a range of subjects and vexed President Bill Clinton and Hillary Rodham Clinton for most of his two terms in the White House, the independent counsel's office said today that there was insufficient evidence to show that either committed any crimes.
Robert W. Ray, the last occupant of the office of independent counsel for Whitewater matters, said in the 2,090-page report that the Clintons' principal business partner in the Whitewater land development scheme in Arkansas, James B. McDougal, had committed several acts of fraud, but that there was no credible evidence that the Clintons either knew of or participated in those acts.
The report concluded the long legal melodrama that resulted in Mr. Clinton's impeachment and sharply split the nation about whether he was the victim of a politically motivated criminal investigation or had truly committed substantial offenses.
It also ended, at least for now, the era of the independent prosecutor. The turmoil of the Clinton investigations proved too much for Congress, which let the law lapse last June. ....
|
Last edited by host; 06-10-2008 at 08:33 PM..
Reason: Automerged Doublepost
|