Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > The Academy > Tilted Politics


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 06-09-2008, 07:33 PM   #161 (permalink)
 
dc_dux's Avatar
 
Location: Washington DC
I think some may have forgotten how the Watergate investigation played out.

The Senate spent nearly a year (from May 73 to March 74) investigating Watergate and the WH involvement in a select oversight committee (the Ervin Committee). The House impeachment inquiry didnt start until the spring of 74 as the Senate select committee was completing its work.

The Dems in Congress today recognize how slowly and deliberately an impeachment process must proceed.

IMO, they started the right way...with oversight hearings...and they recognized the impracticality of moving to a House impeachment inquiry before Bush/Cheney leave office.

They could conceivably started a House impeachment inquiry this year (after spending 07 in oversight hearings investigating possible areas of inquiry), in which case the impeachment process would have occurred in the midst of this year's election campaign....a nightmare scenario that would only have politicized it and divided the country even more.

Which is why they should continue after Bush/Cheney leave office and, if appropriate, recommend to the Pres that he appoint a special prosecutor within the DoJ to explore criminal charges.
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Last edited by dc_dux; 06-09-2008 at 07:42 PM..
dc_dux is offline  
Old 06-09-2008, 07:38 PM   #162 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Kucinich brought articles against Cheney a year ago and is brining them for Bush as I type. Imagine if it took 10 months to impeach Cheney.... he'd be gone by now.
Willravel is offline  
Old 06-09-2008, 07:42 PM   #163 (permalink)
 
dc_dux's Avatar
 
Location: Washington DC
Kucinich's charges against Cheney were a reach WITHOUT having oversight hearings first.

You dont start an impeachment inquiry on speculation....you gather compelling evidence of potential wrong doing first through oversight investigations/hearings.....or as in the case of Watergate, with a special prosecutor and a Senate select oversight committee that took a year to investigate.

I understand why many wanted to fast track the process...but in the long run that would only set a precedent for similar actions by future Congresses.

Impeachment should be a deliberative process...and that takes time!
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Last edited by dc_dux; 06-09-2008 at 07:49 PM..
dc_dux is offline  
Old 06-09-2008, 07:52 PM   #164 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux
Impeachment should be a deliberative process...and that takes time!
...and had we begun impeachment proceedings when we should (January 2001), we would have avoided the Iraq war. We may have even prevented 9/11. Had we started it in 2004, we could have prevented multitudes of people from being kidnapped and tortured, we could have prevented FISA-bypassing wiretaps, we could have prevented disenfranchisement of (possibly) hundreds of thousands of voters, and we could have prevented all of the deaths connected with the Iraq War since late 2004. At this point, it would be strictly punishment because we failed to act when it would have actually made a difference, but I'm fine with punishment. Shit, I'd be happy with punishment. President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Dr. Rice, and other high ranking Bush Administration officials should be investigated without interference and prosecuted based on the crimes which they have committed if for no other reason but to make future Bush's think twice before leading the US down this dark road again.
Willravel is offline  
Old 06-09-2008, 07:52 PM   #165 (permalink)
 
dc_dux's Avatar
 
Location: Washington DC
Cirumstances would have been much different if the Dems won the majority in Congress in 04 instead of 06. That would have provided the time to do it thoroughly and judiciously.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel
....President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Dr. Rice, and other high ranking Bush Administration officials should be investigated without interference and prosecuted based on the crimes which they have committed if for no other reason but to make future Bush's think twice before leading the US down this dark road again.
On this, I agree

Which is why I want to see Obama, if elected, follow through on his comment on how he might proceed:
Quote:
What I would want to do is to have my Justice Department and my Attorney General immediately review the information that's already there and to find out are there inquiries that need to be pursued. I can't prejudge that because we don't have access to all the material right now. I think that you are right, if crimes have been committed, they should be investigated. You're also right that I would not want my first term consumed by what was perceived on the part of Republicans as a partisan witch hunt because I think we've got too many problems we've got to solve.

So this is an area where I would want to exercise judgment -- I would want to find out directly from my Attorney General -- having pursued, having looked at what's out there right now -- are there possibilities of genuine crimes as opposed to really bad policies. And I think it's important-- one of the things we've got to figure out in our political culture generally is distinguishing betyween really dumb policies and policies that rise to the level of criminal activity. You know, I often get questions about impeachment at town hall meetings and I've said that is not something I think would be fruitful to pursue because I think that impeachment is something that should be reserved for exceptional circumstances. Now, if I found out that there were high officials who knowingly, consciously broke existing laws, engaged in coverups of those crimes with knowledge forefront, then I think a basic principle of our Constitution is nobody above the law -- and I think that's roughly how I would look at it.

http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/a...n_torture.html
One of the most recent surveys on impeachment that I am aware of, from Nov 07, justifies further investigation and possible criminal charges after Bush/Cheney leave office, if appropriate.
Quote:
A total of 64% of American voters say that President George W. Bush has abused his powers as president....but only 34% say that Bush should be impeached.

A total of 70% of American voters say that Vice President Dick Cheney has abused his powers as vice president...but only 43% say that Cheney should be impeached.


http://americanresearchgroup.com/impeach/
I think we know who here are in that minority of 30-36% who believe Bush/Cheney have not abused the powers of their respective offices.

Obama can make a strong case that an overwhelming majority of Americans believe that Bush/Cheney should not be above the law if further investigations find that they may have engaged in illegal actions....and that it should proceed at a judicial level, without the politics of impeachment.
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Last edited by dc_dux; 06-09-2008 at 08:27 PM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
dc_dux is offline  
Old 06-09-2008, 09:40 PM   #166 (permalink)
All important elusive independent swing voter...
 
jorgelito's Avatar
 
Location: People's Republic of KKKalifornia
Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux
I think some may have forgotten how the Watergate investigation played out.

The Senate spent nearly a year (from May 73 to March 74) investigating Watergate and the WH involvement in a select oversight committee (the Ervin Committee). The House impeachment inquiry didnt start until the spring of 74 as the Senate select committee was completing its work.

The Dems in Congress today recognize how slowly and deliberately an impeachment process must proceed.

IMO, they started the right way...with oversight hearings...and they recognized the impracticality of moving to a House impeachment inquiry before Bush/Cheney leave office.

They could conceivably started a House impeachment inquiry this year (after spending 07 in oversight hearings investigating possible areas of inquiry), in which case the impeachment process would have occurred in the midst of this year's election campaign....a nightmare scenario that would only have politicized it and divided the country even more.

Which is why they should continue after Bush/Cheney leave office and, if appropriate, recommend to the Pres that he appoint a special prosecutor within the DoJ to explore criminal charges.
I agree with this. Good insight and analysis DC. I think it's much wiser to wait and gather the facts/evidence rather than hastily rush into things. Also, instead of making it a witch hunt and mockery of the system, show some class and dignity in handling the situation. Be above the fracas though I realize it will get ugly. The good thing about waiting is that once the Bush Administration is out, there will be less pressure for the current politicos to defend him as much in my opinion.

I also don't know if Obama or McCain should be the ones initiating it. I feel an "outside" party would be better, like an "independent" investigation.

Last edited by jorgelito; 06-09-2008 at 09:41 PM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
jorgelito is offline  
Old 06-10-2008, 04:30 AM   #167 (permalink)
Living in a Warmer Insanity
 
Tully Mars's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: Yucatan, Mexico
Quote:
Originally Posted by jorgelito
I agree with this. Good insight and analysis DC. I think it's much wiser to wait and gather the facts/evidence rather than hastily rush into things. Also, instead of making it a witch hunt and mockery of the system, show some class and dignity in handling the situation. Be above the fracas though I realize it will get ugly. The good thing about waiting is that once the Bush Administration is out, there will be less pressure for the current politicos to defend him as much in my opinion.

I also don't know if Obama or McCain should be the ones initiating it. I feel an "outside" party would be better, like an "independent" investigation.
Yeah, it turns out in politics everything is political. I think waiting then gathering facts is the way to here as well. It's really not politically possible right now. If Obama does win the election I think the best way to go is for him to appoint a special prosecutor, and attack dog. Then he can turn him lose and defer all question to him/her and stay (or at least appear to stay) above it. All this talk about if we did this at this point, or had we started back then- it's not going to get us any where and it doesn't make it anymore politically practical now. Reminds me of a clip Jon Stewart showed a while back. It was a bunch of pundits stating "well, if this happens" and "If that happens" etc... the last one was some guy saying "yeah, and if my aunt had an male appendage she'd be my uncle."
__________________
I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo

Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club
Tully Mars is offline  
Old 06-10-2008, 05:03 AM   #168 (permalink)
Tilted Cat Head
 
Cynthetiq's Avatar
 
Administrator
Location: Manhattan, NY
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:
* FISA reform to prevent any future wiretapping of Americans w/o a warrant. (proposed)
* New laws regarding torture and treatment of non-combatants (proposed/failed)
* FOIA reform legislation as a result of WH directive that denied most FOIA requests(enacted)
* Possible expansion of the Hatch Act as a result of "political acts" that violated administrative rules and procedures (proposed)
* New FBI procedures regarding use of national security letters as a result of WH ignoring intent of Congress by issuing signing statement (pending)
* Greater contracting oversight and control as a result of abuses in Iraq reconstruction contracts(proposed)
* Revisions to Presidential Records Act as a result of WH destruction of e-mails (pending)
I think its fair to say that none of these would likely have occurred if not for the change in leadership of Congress.

Some of these issues (and many others) are still under review pending responses from the WH and the Executive branch to provide documentation of actions by the administration. This is a proper role for Congress. Should they stop now, w/o those necessary WH docs? The Democratic Congress is making up for six years of the Republicans virtually abrogating this responsibility. I think they deserve more than 1-1/2 years to complete the job if necessary, particularly given the lack of cooperation by the WH and their Republican colleagues during that 1-1/2 years.

IMO, Congress's role as overseer of the Executive Branch (while not clearly delineated in the Constitution) is equally important as the role of enacting legislation and adopting a federal budget.

It is not to punish an administration....it is to make the Executive Branch more open and accountable to the American people.
thanks dc. very informative to show that Congress is in fact doing something regarding action towards checks and balances. It seems to me that the system is working as intended.

Should they forget about it since they can't get documents? No, of course not, in due time I believe, but couldn't they get the SCOTUS to compel the executive branch to comply?
__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.
Cynthetiq is offline  
Old 06-10-2008, 06:31 AM   #169 (permalink)
Junkie
 
aceventura3's Avatar
 
Location: Ventura County
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.
First, I don't think Bush did anything illegal. Second, the issues in question have already been investigated. Third, I don't think any new investigations will uncover new information. Fourth, I don't think the administration has been unreasonably stonewalling any investigations. Fifth, I don't think claims of executive privilege are bogus - it is a serious Constitutional issue requiring careful thought and diligence. And, I would hope Obama protects executive privilege as have many Presidents have in the past.

I don't give Bush or any President "carte blanche" to stonewall or to do whatever they want.
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

aceventura3 is offline  
Old 06-10-2008, 06:38 AM   #170 (permalink)
Darth Papa
 
ratbastid's Avatar
 
Location: Yonder
Denial: it ain't just a river in Egypt.
ratbastid is offline  
Old 06-10-2008, 06:41 AM   #171 (permalink)
Tilted Cat Head
 
Cynthetiq's Avatar
 
Administrator
Location: Manhattan, NY
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?

Do you think undercover operatives at the CIA have no curiousity, and no effect on their commitment to their jobs, concerning what McClellan wrote about Bush admitting to deliberately declassiying details of Plame's CIA employment, for political purposes?

Why....why do you want to "move forward" with nothing resolved? Should we "move forward", by dropping the long delayed NIST commitment to report on the reason for the collapse of the 47 stories tall, WTC 7 building?

Should Pat Tillman's mom be told to "GFH", in response to her demands that those who covered up the circumstances of here son's death, be held accountable? How about all of the families of US soldiers KIA in Iraq, should they pursue a determination as to the validity of Scott McClellan's "unnecessary war" statement....or do your views.....you with nothing lost, no empty seat at your dinner table..... your wish to "move on"....do you prevail?

dc_dux, isn't the list of "reforms" that you posted, a list of responses unique to the actions of an administration with no regard for the law? They've dreamed up all of these unprecedented acts and procedures that caused congress to respond with your list of remedies. Isn't the obvious solution, in response to a rogue administration that uses signing statements in place of vetoes, and twists FISA, FOIA, etc....etc.... to draw up articles of impeachment, and keep removing scoundrel executives from office until an executive is seated who will act as others have, before this list of reforms was found to be necessary to implement?

Or, could they simply refuse to appropriate funds for the continued operation of the law breaking branch, unless it agrees to conform, and then does?
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 reponses, 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 becuase 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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ratbastid
Denial: it ain't just a river in Egypt.
Okay, so you've shaken your fist at the TV, you've voted, you've contacted your representatives and told them you don't like what's happening and expect them to take action.

you've mailed letters...

other people have attended rallies, and protests...

things don't change...

now what?

I still have to pay my mortgages, go to work, enjoy life... and what rage against the machine?

sorry, I'm more interested in making a living, saving my money and investments, and taking my marbles to play somewhere that's of my comfort and choosing.

anything that detracts from that is a waste of my time.
__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Last edited by Cynthetiq; 06-10-2008 at 06:51 AM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
Cynthetiq is offline  
Old 06-10-2008, 07:02 AM   #172 (permalink)
 
roachboy's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
the bush administration in collusion with the american "free press" generated what amounts to a climate of hysteria in the wake of 9/11/2001 which they extended and used as a cover for putting into motion an invasion of iraq that followed point for point the rationale offered by the project for a new american century group in 1997. in this context, the administration selectively interpreted/distorted/fabricated infotainment that rationalized the action. in this context, congress approved the actions because, for whatever reason, at the assumption that the administration was acting in good faith apparently overruled better judgment. there is no question about the outline of this scenario, and it is what it is regardless of whether you might approve of the invasion of iraq for reasons that have nothing to do with the rationale that was floated for it.

at the very least, the war in iraq represents a breakdown in independent thinking, a breakdown of oversight, a breakdown of fact-checking--problems which i think would not have happened as they did outside the hysterical context generated in the early phases of the bush-war on ghosts. there is abundant documentation, readily available, which shows every step of the message-and-distort approach to infotainment, the building of a tendentious set of interpretations based on this massaged-to-distorted infotainment.

the problems are obvious: at one level, what the war in iraq opens onto is a breakdown of the dominant american political and ideological system as a whole, one for which the entirety of the dominant order is responsible in general--but within this, it is the administration which is responsible in particular.

was this illegal?
shouldn't that be determined by a process?
it hardly seems worth the effort to type this--but this is a messageboard without any standing of make determinations as to what is or is not illegal--so for the most part "illegal" means i dont like it and "legal" means i like it.

but i would think that anyone in their right mind would be disturbed by how the situations which resulted in the launching of the fiasco in iraq unfolded--that it would give you pause--that preventing something like this from happening again would be a priority--it is altogether too easy to generate a climate of hysteria in the states, given the primacy of television as an opinion co-ordinating mechanism. it is SO easy that i would think folk who claim to like the american system as a whole would be bothered by it.

there is obviously a symbolic dimension to calls for impeachment of george w bush for misleading the public and congress (and the international community)
--there is a criminal (metaphor) degree of irresponsibility in using the information that they used, a criminal (metaphor) level of incompetence in the assembly and evaluation of intelligence--and this if you assume the administration acted in good faith. seems to me that in ANY other situation, the right would be calling for the heads of whomever acted with this degree of incompetence and would be complaining about whatever structure protected them--but not here, but not now.

why is that?
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite
roachboy is offline  
Old 06-10-2008, 07:10 AM   #173 (permalink)
 
dc_dux's Avatar
 
Location: Washington DC
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
Should they forget about it since they can't get documents? No, of course not, in due time I believe, but couldn't they get the SCOTUS to compel the executive branch to comply?
Cynthetiq....if it were only that simple.

Here is the problem Congress faces...I will lay out the actions to date:
*Congress issues subpoenas to WH staff to testify.

* WH asserts a never before interpretation of executive priviliege to claim that documents and conversations between two EOP staff (or EOP staff and other Exec Dept officials) that does not involve the Pres, are covered.

* the full House adopts of Resolution of Contempt of Congress against WH officials and formally requests that the AG direct the US Attorney for DC to bring the matter before a grand jury as required by law.

* the AG refuses to act based on a legal argument presented to him by the WH counsel that...get this....enforcing the law requiring that the Contempt of Congress charges be presented to a Grand Jury would violate WH claims of executive privilege

* to make that clear...the AG wont let the courts decide if executive privilege in these case apply because doing so would violate executive privilege.

* so.....Congress is left with taking a civil complaint to the US District Court for DC...where it now rests.
Congress is exploring a request to fast track it to the SCOTUS but the WH and the District Court of DC have expressed opposition to such a move...and there we are.

It would be comical if it wasnt so serious.
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Last edited by dc_dux; 06-10-2008 at 07:16 AM..
dc_dux is offline  
Old 06-10-2008, 07:15 AM   #174 (permalink)
Tilted Cat Head
 
Cynthetiq's Avatar
 
Administrator
Location: Manhattan, NY
Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux
Cynthetiq....if it were only that simple.

It would be comical if it wasnt so serious.
thanks again for the breakdowns. The AG should be somehow outside of this in some way. I never did understand how the AG was part of the executive branch since it's an appointed and confirmed position.

Not really, it sounds like some sort of Private Practice/Boston Legal episode wherein there's wrangling, blocks, counters, etc. Of course I'm of the opinion that life is always more interesting and imaginative than fiction ever seems to be.
__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.
Cynthetiq is offline  
Old 06-10-2008, 07:23 AM   #175 (permalink)
 
dc_dux's Avatar
 
Location: Washington DC
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
....it sounds like some sort of Private Practice/Boston Legal episode wherein there's wrangling, blocks, counters, etc. Of course I'm of the opinion that life is always more interesting and imaginative than fiction ever seems to be.
all the more reason for Congress and the next President to not simply "let it rest" and "move on."

There is far too much at stake (with the exec privilege issue as well as other issues still under Congressional review - eg, destruction of millions of e-mails, just to name one "minor" issue) in terms of precedent of expanded powers of the Executive branch....and it will certainly be more interesting and imaginative than any fiction!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
The AG should be somehow outside of this in some way. I never did understand how the AG was part of the executive branch since it's an appointed and confirmed position.
IMO, the Dept of Justice (and the AG) is appropriately in the Executive Branch.

What is inappropriate is how under the Bush administration, the AGs (Ashcroft, Gonzales, Mukasey) have each acted (on more than one occasion) more as an attorney representing the interests of the WH rather than "enforcing the law and defending the interests of the United States according to the law..." as is its mandate.
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Last edited by dc_dux; 06-10-2008 at 07:42 AM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
dc_dux is offline  
Old 06-10-2008, 07:42 AM   #176 (permalink)
Tilted Cat Head
 
Cynthetiq's Avatar
 
Administrator
Location: Manhattan, NY
Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux
IMO, the Dept of Justice (and the AG) is appropriately in the Executive Branch.

What is inappropriate is how under the Bush administration, the AGs (Ashcroft, Gonzales, Mukasey) have each acted (on more than one occasion) more as an attorney representing the interests of the WH rather than "enforcing the law and defending the interests of the United States according to the law..." as is its mandate.
I guess that's why I'm confused as to the inappropriate portion. So the AG is the check and balance to the judicial?
But wasn't that the same with Clinton adminstration AG issues?
__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.
Cynthetiq is offline  
Old 06-10-2008, 07:45 AM   #177 (permalink)
 
dc_dux's Avatar
 
Location: Washington DC
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
I guess that's why I'm confused as to the inappropriate portion. So the AG is the check and balance to the judicial?
But wasn't that the same with Clinton administration AG issues?
There is a three way checks and balances...each have their role...Congress makes the law, the AG (Exec Branch) enforces the law, the Judiciary interprets the law.

Under Bush, there are numerous examples of the AG interpreting the law (warrentless wiretaps, use of torture, claims of executive privilege...based on legal arguments crafted by WH attorneys.)

As to Clinton, do you have specific examples of how the AG served the interest of Clinton as opposed to enforcing the law or acting in the interest of the county?
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Last edited by dc_dux; 06-10-2008 at 07:49 AM..
dc_dux is offline  
Old 06-10-2008, 07:48 AM   #178 (permalink)
Tilted Cat Head
 
Cynthetiq's Avatar
 
Administrator
Location: Manhattan, NY
Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux
There is a three way checks and balances...each have their role...Congress makes the law, the AG enforces the law, the Judiciary interprets the law.

As to Clinton, do you have specific examples of how the AG served the interest of Clinton as opposed to enforcing the law or acting in the interest of the county?
Got it, that's much more plain english. So the AG did not wish to enforce the law, but couldn't some other attorney do so as well? or is the AG above all attorneys like a commander and chief?

No I don't it was a question more than statement. I seem to recall the same politics during the Clinton impeachment where the AG didn't want to turn over documents or something along those lines.
__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.
Cynthetiq is offline  
Old 06-10-2008, 07:52 AM   #179 (permalink)
 
dc_dux's Avatar
 
Location: Washington DC
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
Got it, that's much more plain english. So the AG did not wish to enforce the law, but couldn't some other attorney do so as well? or is the AG above all attorneys like a commander and chief?
On some occasions (wiretaps, torture) as I noted above, the Bush AG has interpreted the law (not his role) and on other occasions, as chief law enforcement officer of the federal government, has directed attorneys in his department NOT to act or only to act in a manner that supported his (and the WH) interpretation of the law.
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire
dc_dux is offline  
Old 06-10-2008, 07:59 AM   #180 (permalink)
Junkie
 
aceventura3's Avatar
 
Location: Ventura County
The WH has attempted to cooperate with Congress, the issue of Executive Privilege is a real issue and may need resolution by the Supreme Court. If the intent is to truly get information, Congress should take advantage of the offers made by the WH, they always have their right reserved to take a more agressive approach in the future. The letter below illustrates how Congress has been unyielding in their alleged search for truth.

Quote:
Communication to Congress on President's Assertion of Executive Privilege

Dear Chairman Leahy and Chairman Conyers:

On June 13, 2007, the White House received two subpoenas from your Committees requesting documents relating to the replacement of United States Attorneys, calling for the documents to be produced by June 28, 2007. I write at the direction of the President to advise and inform you that the President has decided to assert Executive Privilege and therefore the White House will not be making any production in response to these subpoenas for documents. In addition, Chairman Leahy subpoenaed documents from former Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Political Affairs Sara M. Taylor, with the same return date of June 28, 2007. Chairman Conyers has subpoenaed documents from former Counsel to the President Harriet E. Miers, with a return date of July 12, 2007. Counsel for Ms. Taylor and Ms. Miers have been informed of the President’s decision to assert Executive Privilege and have been asked to relay to Ms. Taylor and Ms. Miers a direction from the President not to produce any documents.

With respect, it is with much regret that we are forced down this unfortunate path which we sought to avoid by finding grounds for mutual accommodation. We had hoped this matter could conclude with your Committees receiving information in lieu of having to invoke Executive Privilege. Instead, we are at this conclusion.

At the outset of this controversy, the President attempted to chart a course of cooperation. It was his intent that Congress receives information in a manner that accommodated Presidential prerogatives. The Department of Justice, for its part, has produced or made available for review more than 8,500 pages of documents, including scores of documents containing communications with White House personnel. In addition, the Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General, Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General, Attorney General’s former Chief of Staff, former White House Liaison, and other senior Department officials have testified in public hearings and, in some instances, submitted to interviews with Committee staff. As a result, your Committees have received an extraordinary amount of information regarding the U.S. Attorney replacement issue by way of accommodation.

In keeping with the established tradition of Congress and the Executive Branch working together to accommodate each others’ interests, the President was willing to go even further in response to your inquiries. At his direction, we proposed and offered to provide you with documents containing communications between the White House and Department of Justice regarding the request for the resignation of the U.S. Attorneys in question, as well as documents containing communications on the same subject between the White House staff and third parties, including Congress. We also offered to make available for interviews the President’s former Counsel; current Deputy Chief of Staff and Senior Advisor; Deputy Counsel; former Director of Political Affairs; and a Special Assistant to the President in the Office of Political Affairs.

The President’s offer reflected his desire to cooperate and accommodate. It was designed to provide your Committees with additional documents, and the rare opportunity to participate in interviews and question close advisors to the President about the matters under inquiry. With the benefit not only of the enormous amount of information you received from the Department of Justice, but also additional White House documents, you would have been able to further inquire about these matters.

To be sure, the President’s offer also took care to protect fundamental interests of the Presidency and the constitutional principle of separation of powers. Specifically, the President was not willing to provide your Committees with documents revealing internal White House communications or to accede to your desire for senior advisors to testify at public hearings. The reason for these distinctions rests upon a bedrock Presidential prerogative: for the President to perform his constitutional duties, it is imperative that he receive candid and unfettered advice and that free and open discussions and deliberations occur among his advisors and between those advisors and others within and outside the Executive Branch. Presidents would not be able to fulfill their responsibilities if their advisors––on fear of being commanded to Capitol Hill to testify or having their documents produced to Congress––were reluctant to communicate openly and honestly in the course of rendering advice and reaching decisions. These confidentiality interests are especially strong in situations like the present controversy, where the inquiry seeks information relating to the President’s powers to appoint and remove U.S. Attorneys -- authority granted exclusively to the President by the Constitution.

The principles at stake here are of the utmost importance and find meaningful parallels in any number of other settings. For example, Messrs. Chairmen, I am sure you would wish to protect the confidentiality of deliberations between Members of Congress and their staff. So, too, do I believe that most judges would be quick to stress the importance to their decision-making processes of maintaining the confidentiality of their deliberations with their colleagues and law clerks. So, too, here: for the Presidency to operate consistent with the Constitution’s design, Presidents must be able to depend upon their advisors and other Executive Branch officials speaking candidly and without inhibition while deliberating and working to advise the President. The doctrine of Executive Privilege exists, at least in part, to protect such communications from compelled disclosure to Congress, especially where, as here, the President’s interests in maintaining confidentiality far outweigh Congress’s interests in obtaining deliberative White House communications. I refer you to the attached opinion from the Acting Attorney General to the President, discussing this in further detail as well as informing him as to the appropriateness of an assertion of Executive Privilege in these circumstances.

Further, it remains unclear precisely how and why your Committees are unable to fulfill your legislative and oversight interests without the unfettered requests you have made in your subpoenas. Put differently, there is no demonstration that the documents and information you seek by subpoena are critically important to any legislative initiatives that you may be pursuing or intending to pursue.

By contrast, the President has frequently, plainly, and completely explained that his position, and now his decision, is rooted in a need to protect the institution of the Presidency. The President’s assertion of Executive Privilege is not designed to shield information in a particular situation, but to help protect the ability of Presidents to ensure that decisions reflect and benefit from the exchange of informed and diverse viewpoints and open and frank deliberations. Issuing subpoenas and seeking to compel the disclosure of information in lieu of accepting the President’s reasonable offer of accommodation has led to confrontation.

Consistent with the analysis of the Acting Attorney General, the President is satisfied that the testimony sought from Sara Taylor and Harriet Miers is subject to a valid claim of Executive Privilege and is prepared to assert the Privilege with respect to that testimony if the matter cannot be resolved. However, the President has further instructed me to confirm that while unwilling to submit to subpoenas compelling the production of documents and testimony, in the absence of any subpoenas he continues to be willing to provide you with information as previously offered. In short, the President requests that your inquiry proceed in a balanced manner, respectful of important constitutional principles of both institutions, rather than through confrontation. It is hoped you will reconsider your present position, accept the President’s offer, and bring closure to this controversy so we may all return to more productive activity on behalf of the Nation.

Respectfully yours,

Fred F. Fielding
Counsel to the President
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0070628-2.html
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

aceventura3 is offline  
Old 06-10-2008, 08:04 AM   #181 (permalink)
 
dc_dux's Avatar
 
Location: Washington DC
The offers made by the WH were to have these (and other) WH officials testify in closed session, without a transcript and not under oath.

Bullshit!

It is the role of the DoJ and the AG to enforce the law..and that includes filing charges of Contempt of Congress before a federal grand jury when those persons subpoenaed to testify do not comply.
Every person who having been summoned as a witness by the authority of either House of Congress to give testimony or to produce papers upon any matter under inquiry before either House, or any joint committee established by a joint or concurrent resolution of the two Houses of Congress, or any committee of either House of Congress, willfully makes default, or who, having appeared, refuses to answer any question pertinent to the question under inquiry, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000 nor less than $100 and imprisonment in a common jail for not less than one month nor more than twelve months.

US Code - Refusal of witness to testify or produce papers
and let the Judiciary determine if executive privilege applies.
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Last edited by dc_dux; 06-10-2008 at 08:16 AM.. Reason: link
dc_dux is offline  
Old 06-10-2008, 08:20 AM   #182 (permalink)
Junkie
 
aceventura3's Avatar
 
Location: Ventura County
Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux
The offers made by the WH were to have these (and other) WH officials testify in closed session, without a transcript and not under oath.

Bullshit!

It is the role of the DoJ and the AG to enforce the law..and that includes filing charges of Contempt of Congress before a federal grand jury when those persons subpoenaed to testify do not comply.
Every person who having been summoned as a witness by the authority of either House of Congress to give testimony or to produce papers upon any matter under inquiry before either House, or any joint committee established by a joint or concurrent resolution of the two Houses of Congress, or any committee of either House of Congress, willfully makes default, or who, having appeared, refuses to answer any question pertinent to the question under inquiry, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000 nor less than $100 and imprisonment in a common jail for not less than one month nor more than twelve months.

US Code - Refusal of witness to testify or produce papers
and let the Judiciary determine if executive privilege applies.
In the course of an investigation testimony under oath is not the normal initial request. Normally an investigation will start with simply talking to the parties or taking an informal statement from the people involved. Congress chose not to take that course, they instead made the choice of being confrontational. Not wise in my opinion.
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

aceventura3 is offline  
Old 06-10-2008, 08:22 AM   #183 (permalink)
 
dc_dux's Avatar
 
Location: Washington DC
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
In the course of an investigation testimony under oath is not the normal initial request. Normally an investigation will start with simply talking to the parties or taking an informal statement from the people involved. Congress chose not to take that course, they instead made the choice of being confrontational. Not wise in my opinion.
When Congress conducts legislative hearings to seek input on crafting new legislation, they generally do not require testifying under oath.

When Congress conducts oversight hearings to review the performance of the Exec Branch in carrying out existing legislation, they ALWAYS require testifying under oath, starting with the initial meetings with Congressional staff prior to the hearings.
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Last edited by dc_dux; 06-10-2008 at 08:25 AM..
dc_dux is offline  
Old 06-10-2008, 08:29 AM   #184 (permalink)
Junkie
 
aceventura3's Avatar
 
Location: Ventura County
Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux
When Congress conducts legislative hearings, they generally do not require testifying under oath.

When Congress conducts oversight hearings, they ALWAYS require testifying under oath.
Missed the point. Perhaps, they could have simply took the WH's offer got as much information as possible. Then they could...

When I am conducting an investigation, I start being as non-confrontational as possible. I get the easy information first and in a progressive manner ask more and more pointed questions. You don't give up your right to request testimony under oath, or your right to subpoena information.

The approach used by Congress kinda tells me that they were not really on a search for information and truth. Anyone who has ever been involved in investigations would agree that there is a logical and systematic approach to getting information on the record. The approach used by Congress has not been consistent with that.
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

aceventura3 is offline  
Old 06-10-2008, 08:32 AM   #185 (permalink)
 
dc_dux's Avatar
 
Location: Washington DC
ace, as I understand what you are suggestion....

Congress has been confrontational and the WH has been cooperative and not obstructionist.

Nope..that just wont fly in light of the facts....Congress has acted in the manner in which it nearly always has acted in the performance of its oversight function.

But hey, you have your opinion.
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Last edited by dc_dux; 06-10-2008 at 08:47 AM..
dc_dux is offline  
Old 06-10-2008, 09:07 AM   #186 (permalink)
Junkie
 
aceventura3's Avatar
 
Location: Ventura County
Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux
ace, as I understand what you are suggestion....

Congress has been confrontational and the WH has been cooperative and not obstructionist.

Nope..that just wont fly in light of the facts....Congress has acted in the manner in which it nearly always has acted in the performance of its oversight function.

But hey, you have your opinion.
How do you explain the fact that they did not take the WH's offer? They had nothing to loose.

I think the WH's position has been to protect executive privilege. As they protect executive privilege, they offered a compromise. So I see the WH as being more cooperative than Congress at this point.
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

aceventura3 is offline  
Old 06-10-2008, 09:16 AM   #187 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Executive privilege is about the separation of powers, or protecting the distinctness of the branches. I don't see how answering these questions would have done any harm to that (unless the answers to the questions would not reflect favorably on the president and vice president, in which case they would be using executive privilege as their own personal 5th Amendment).
Willravel is offline  
Old 06-10-2008, 09:43 AM   #188 (permalink)
Junkie
 
aceventura3's Avatar
 
Location: Ventura County
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel
Executive privilege is about the separation of powers, or protecting the distinctness of the branches. I don't see how answering these questions would have done any harm to that (unless the answers to the questions would not reflect favorably on the president and vice president, in which case they would be using executive privilege as their own personal 5th Amendment).
I think the WH offered to have their people answer questions. Congress wants to make a side show out of their alleged quest for truth. Using Constitutional power for that purpose is an abuse of power or a mockery of the true role of Congress, don't you agree?

I use hyperbole a bit, but it seems there are not many here who are willing to even consider the fact that Congress's quest for truth might be just a bit more for political purposes rather than for getting at the "truth".
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

aceventura3 is offline  
Old 06-10-2008, 09:49 AM   #189 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Don't downplay the importance of truth. Just because you liken it to a "side show" does not make this an abuse of power or a mockery of anything. The reality is that Bush had not been forthcoming about his failures at all as a president and many people, including members of congress, believed that an investigation would be able to uncover what the circumstantial facts suggested: truth.
Willravel is offline  
Old 06-10-2008, 09:56 AM   #190 (permalink)
 
roachboy's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
personally, i think that such reluctance as you might impute to congress follows from two main facts: the close split between parties and the fact that congress approved the bullshit case for war that the administration advanced, legitimated the action and so is entirely implicated in whatever the results of an investigation might be---as an institution. the first one is obvious; the second cuts both ways--you might think that congress would be VERY interested in investigating how and why it was duped as a way of exculpating itself--but this bizarre partisan thing on the part of the republicans and the closeness of the numbers between parties perhaps disables that as well.

what's amazing to me is that there is no particular legitimation problem that has followed from this for the system as a whole.

my cynical conclusion is that the bush administration has demonstrated that impunity will get you far in america, that almost nothing can happen that will create any real problems for the state itself, that legitimation is not an issue---these are indicators of the soft authoritarian system we live under, while we wander about imagining ourselves to be politically free.

compare even on the issue of fuel prices the total passive inaction in the states as over against what is happening in spain, france, south korea.
which system is more free?
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite
roachboy is offline  
Old 06-10-2008, 10:27 AM   #191 (permalink)
Addict
 
guyy's Avatar
 
Location: Cottage Grove, Wisconsin
Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy

what's amazing to me is that there is no particular legitimation problem that has followed from this for the system as a whole.

my cynical conclusion is that the bush administration has demonstrated that impunity will get you far in america, that almost nothing can happen that will create any real problems for the state itself, that legitimation is not an issue---these are indicators of the soft authoritarian system we live under, while we wander about imagining ourselves to be politically free.

compare even on the issue of fuel prices the total passive inaction in the states as over against what is happening in spain, france, south korea.
which system is more free?
Korea.

During NixOn's reign, we had crises with the Pentagon Papers and Watergate. These were genuine legitimation crises, which were resolved within the framework of the state. Compare this to the Iraq situation.

I think the differences come from the Clinton-Lewinsky-Starr farce. (I don't care if he lied, it was still a fucking farce.) This has created a legitimation problem for legitimation problems -- as it was probably intended to. Another difference would be the absence of alternative models of legitimation. Back in the '70s, there was discussion of more or less radical alternatives to the status quo. The system were under pressure to resolve the NixOn Problem within the parameters of the U.S. politi al system. There's the succession of Alfred E. Neuman prezidents to blame as well. but i have to get back to work.
guyy is offline  
Old 06-10-2008, 11:04 AM   #192 (permalink)
 
roachboy's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
this is partly a large-scale ideological matter--a function of the collapse of a viable alternative political project (the left) and a bizarre fossilization of history at the same time--the fossilization seems to me of a piece with the reduction of a sense of the present to an accumulation of things and the past as a collection of film footage, brought to you with a 50s police-show voice-over on the "history" channel--so there are no alternatives which we create as we move through the present, but only repetitions. we don't create anything, really: we find what already exists. and as the dominant order is coterminous with what exists, it is necessarily legitimate.

we have the illusion of immediacy from a vantagepoint of stuffed chairs and sofas.
we imagine that the fact we can purchase consumer goods as a political meaning.

we operate in a strange suspended present--i dont know why classic rock radio seems emblematic of all this to me, but it does--the eternal 1976, the year i graduated high school, late for the party, always and inevitably late for the party. the period that followed the american defeat in vietnam seems to have been one of wholesale repression--of the defeat, of the sense of crisis that surrounded watergate--and an immobilization of superficial images of both--repetition of footage of functionaries climbing aboard helicopters leaving phnom penh substituting for those of functionaries leaving saigon--the early-to-mid 1970s hang in the air like a swamp--they never left, we are all still there, it is juxtaposed with the present, an aspect of it--so the political crisis that vietnam entailed is simultaneously repressed and preserved as film stock, as an atmosphere---"rebellion" imputed to the movements in opposition to vietnam is channelled into a question of which sports utility vehicle enables you best to express your individuality, and which athletic shoe product will best enable you to purchase an entire way of life. so maybe there's a sense in which "we" have "already done" political crisis and a sense in which iraq is a rerun of vietnam except without the draft--the forbidden lightening rod around which neo-con "strategizing" has danced, the line they cannot cross, their explanation for everything that happened during the vietnam period--well that and allowing uncontrolled press access to battle areas.

this is what fading empires are like: trapped in an image of their own past, the present slides by them as if it were a giant repetition--nothing happens because they cannot see anything happening--people sit around waiting for something to happen, but it can't happen. at the system level, the configuration of power is changing, but we can't see it because the information we have access to is structured such that it is more important symmetry be maintain with the fossilized past than it is coherent accounts be generated of the present.

so we drift like some sad, bloated, fading king who mistakes himself for a courtier.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite
roachboy is offline  
Old 06-10-2008, 11:33 AM   #193 (permalink)
 
dc_dux's Avatar
 
Location: Washington DC
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
How do you explain the fact that they did not take the WH's offer? They had nothing to loose.

I think the WH's position has been to protect executive privilege. As they protect executive privilege, they offered a compromise. So I see the WH as being more cooperative than Congress at this point.
You ask what I think?

I think you have convinced yourself (but few others outside the Bush faithful) that the WH position (no transcripts, no oath) was reasonable and that Congress was motivated by partisan politics and showmanship rather than seeking the truth regarding questionable actions by the administration.

Congress even offered to keep the hearings closed (no "showmanship") as long as transcripts were permitted and the WH staff testified under oath....and the WH staff could invoke executive privilege on a question-by-question basis.

IMO, that was a reasonable compromise considering that this Congress has requested nothing more from the current WH than any recent Congress in responsible pursuit of its oversight responsibility of previous administrations.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
... it seems there are not many here who are willing to even consider the fact that Congress's quest for truth might be just a bit more for political purposes rather than for getting at the "truth".
Sure...I would consider that Congress's quest for the truth is "a bit" for political purposes (but far less, not more, of a motivator than for seeking the truth)...the same as I consider the fact that the previous Congress abrogated its oversight responsibilities for political purposes and the current WH has attempted to control the Congressional oversight process for political purposes.

Which one is also attempting to seek the truth in the interest of an open and accountable Executive Branch?
the current Congress asking hard questions about WH actions and policies in fulfillment of its oversight role

the previous Congress that did not take the time to conduct more than cursory superficial oversight hearings regarding WH actions and policies but instead gave the WH a blank check to do what it wanted...no questions asked

the current administration that will not permit its staff to testify under oath and answer any questions and not just those that might fall under claims of executive privilege
'nuf said.
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Last edited by dc_dux; 06-10-2008 at 12:36 PM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
dc_dux is offline  
Old 06-10-2008, 02:47 PM   #194 (permalink)
Addict
 
guyy's Avatar
 
Location: Cottage Grove, Wisconsin
Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
a sense in which iraq is a rerun of vietnam except without the draft--the forbidden lightening rod around which neo-con "strategizing" has danced, the line they cannot cross, their explanation for everything that happened during the vietnam period--well that and allowing uncontrolled press access to battle areas.
The problem is that they have no viable explanation for what happened in Vietnam.

As for the control of the press issue, this, too is part of the blindness of fading empires. The current restrictions on the press are an outgrowth of denial and disavowal of the military's failures in Vietnam. It's always someone else's fault: hippies, SDS, black panthers, Muhammed Ali but also the draft, tv, Walter Cronkite, the press in general... So many stabs in the back.

Even if the generals had had everything they wanted and nothing but showers of rose petals at home, they still would have lost. This is because they didn't understand what they were fighting against, which was basically the people of Vietnam. There was no military solution except killing everyone in the whole country -- something that Lt. Calley (a la Kurtz) tried on a small scale.
guyy is offline  
Old 06-10-2008, 07:32 PM   #195 (permalink)
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
host is offline  
Old 06-10-2008, 08:11 PM   #196 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
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.
1) The Legislative branch may investigate he executive branch
2) The Executive can pardon criminals
3) The Judicial can determine whether a law is or is not constitutional.

Each of these three instances describes a check and balance well after what was to be checked was established. Pardons can come decades after a conviction. Investigations can happen years after a supposed crime has been committed by a member of the Executive branch. The Supreme Court can rule centuries after laws are passed as to whether a law is constitutional or not.

Don't worry, I don't intend to lecture anyone about separation of powers. Just pointing out examples.
Willravel is offline  
Old 06-10-2008, 08:43 PM   #197 (permalink)
Tilted Cat Head
 
Cynthetiq's Avatar
 
Administrator
Location: Manhattan, NY
Quote:
Originally Posted by host
Post #140


Post #153


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


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


Post #158

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

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:


Isn't the opposite of what was advocated in the posts of ace and Cynthetiq, and thus, three precedents....these recent investigations?:
If it helps you sleep at night to believe that I want them to "move on" then so be it host. If that's what warms your cockles in your world, then by all means.

But remember in MY WORLD I have already stated that anything that detracts from adding value to my life, is a waste of my time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
Okay, so you've shaken your fist at the TV, you've voted, you've contacted your representatives and told them you don't like what's happening and expect them to take action.

you've mailed letters...

other people have attended rallies, and protests...

things don't change...

now what?

I still have to pay my mortgages, go to work, enjoy life... and what rage against the machine?

sorry, I'm more interested in making a living, saving my money and investments, and taking my marbles to play somewhere that's of my comfort and choosing.

anything that detracts from that is a waste of my time.
Since you prefer citations, here's a simple lithmus test for me:

Quote:
And acceptance is the answer to all my problems today. When I am disturbed, it is because I find some person, place, thing or situation -- some fact of my life -- unacceptable to me, and I can find no serenity until I accept that person, place, thing or situation as being exactly the way it is supposed to be at this moment.
Since you seem to read that as a pass, well let me continue more about it:

Quote:
For me, serenity began when I learned to distinguish between those things that I could change and those I could not. When I admitted that there were people, places, things, and situations over which I was totally powerless, those things began to lose their power over me. I learned that everyone has the right to make their own mistakes, and learn from them, without my interference, judgement, or assistance!

The key to my serenity is acceptance. But "acceptance" does not mean that I have to like it, condone it, or even ignore it. What it does mean is I am powerless to do anything about it... and I have to accept that fact.

Nor does it mean that I have to accept "unacceptable behavoir." Today I have choices. I no longer have to accept abuse in any form. I can choose to walk away, even if it means stepping out into the unknown. I no longer have to fear "change" or the unknown. I can merely accept it as part of the journey.

I spent years trying to change things in my life over which I was powerless, but did not know it. I threatened, scolded, manipulated, coerced, pleaded, begged, pouted, bribed and generally tried everything I could to make the situation better -- only watch as things always got progressively worse.

I spent so much time trying to change the things I could not change, it never once occurred to me to simply accept them as they were.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel
1) The Legislative branch may investigate he executive branch
2) The Executive can pardon criminals
3) The Judicial can determine whether a law is or is not constitutional.

Each of these three instances describes a check and balance well after what was to be checked was established. Pardons can come decades after a conviction. Investigations can happen years after a supposed crime has been committed by a member of the Executive branch. The Supreme Court can rule centuries after laws are passed as to whether a law is constitutional or not.

Don't worry, I don't intend to lecture anyone about separation of powers. Just pointing out examples.
Thanks will, there's something a bit more gracious when someone is trying to become more educated.

Yes, those are true, but here people are demanding that things be CHECKED NOW, or BALANCED NOW. So while the Patriot Act may be the worst thing to happen to civil rights, I'm confident that in the future the rights of the future Americans will be secured by the SCOTUS overturning that act. See, just like you said, checks and balances.

See what you've stated isn't that scary monster that host sees hiding in the White House closet on Jan 20, 2009 wherein POTUS Bush refuses to leave the White House. No, the checks and balances happen as they need to and I'm confident in the system that has been working for 232 years now.

Some of you seem to think that if it's not happening right now, it's no good.
__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Last edited by Cynthetiq; 06-10-2008 at 08:47 PM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
Cynthetiq is offline  
Old 06-10-2008, 09:06 PM   #198 (permalink)
 
dc_dux's Avatar
 
Location: Washington DC
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
... the checks and balances happen as they need to and I'm confident in the system that has been working for 232 years now.

Some of you seem to think that if it's not happening right now, it's no good.
IMO, the checks and balances through Congressional oversight that were absolutely necessary after six years of Republican neglect should continue now and into the future through its completion, regardless of the fact that the affected parties (the current president and senior staff) are leaving office in seven months. And if further checks by the Judicial branch are necessary as a result of findings from the Congressional oversight, that should proceed as well...after the change of administration.

Thats not to say that Congress and the country cant "move on" at the same time and also focus on the issues of greater concern (although not more important in the grand scheme of open and accountable government) to most citizens.
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Last edited by dc_dux; 06-10-2008 at 09:15 PM..
dc_dux is offline  
Old 06-10-2008, 09:14 PM   #199 (permalink)
Tilted Cat Head
 
Cynthetiq's Avatar
 
Administrator
Location: Manhattan, NY
Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux
IMO, the checks and balances through Congressional oversight that were absolutely necessary after six years of Republican neglect should continue now and into the future through its completion, regardless of the affected parties (the current president and senior staff) leaving office in seven months. And if further checks by the Judicial branch are necessary as a result of findings from the Congressional oversight, that should proceed as well...after the change of administration.

Thats not to say that Congress and the country cant "move on" at the same time and also focus on the issues of greater concern to most citizens.
I don't disagree with that. I just don't wish to see Congress mired down with doing nothing but that and no other work gets done.

Again, I've not stated free pass, but some of the "true believers" here seem to think that.

I've stated I've got my own things to be concerned about in my version of "pusuit of happiness" which directly impact me now and everyday.
__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.
Cynthetiq is offline  
Old 06-10-2008, 09:21 PM   #200 (permalink)
 
dc_dux's Avatar
 
Location: Washington DC
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
I've stated I've got my own things to be concerned about in my version of "pusuit of happiness" which directly impact me now and everyday.
Thats cool.

I would just humbly suggest that the "true believers" speaking out and fighting to prevent abuses of power and the restoration of a more open and accountable government deserve recognition for their commitment to the larger issues at stake.
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire
dc_dux is offline  
 

Tags
crimes, house, impeachable, key, offenses, press, secretary, war, white, witness

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:22 AM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360