Bush administration is looking more like the Nixon admin every day.
- Thread starter uscitizen
- Start date
It's very Watergate-ish.
Well, first of all no crime was committed. Why an oath? This seems to be a partisan setup for a SCOTUS case that will, in the end, go the President's way as there wasn't a crime. The SCOTUS Ruled during Nixon that the President's cabinet had broad, but not endless, powers to avoid such things. In this case, where there was absolutely no crime committed, I can't see them changing their mind this time.
United States attorneys can be fired whenever a president wants, but not, as § 1512 (c) puts it, to corruptly obstruct, influence, or impede an official proceeding.
We don't know if there was a crime committed. There is no doubt, that one could have been, and the insistence on not being under oath is very telling.
I think that the SCOTUS will decide this one, and as I predict will decide in favor of the President.
I would even bet that Bill Clinton would agree that the President's Cabinet need be free of such fears...
I fully believe that this is pre-election partisan baiting. Effective, but expensive to the taxpayer. This is how people use their office to run for election.
Oh so you think that people like Roberts, Alito, Thomas, et el, might rule in favor of executive privilege and relegate congress to a powerless entity? Gosh what makes you think that? Remember when bush wanted to put his lackey, harriet miers, now considered so inept that they tried to pin the entire current judicial debacle on her alone? Why did he want to do that? Why did he want to put someone on the court whose loyality to HIM was unquestioned, but whose opinions on roe v wade were murky, thus infuriating his base? Guess what Damo? People who have been watching this, have been predicting for years that bush was loading the court with lackeys who pledge allegience to the made-up "unitary executive" theory.
We speak here, not of politics, but of the rule of the law. I posted the law. To claim that there is "no suggestion" it has been broken, is clearly false.
The reason is, to lie with impunity.
Well, first of all no crime was committed. Why an oath?
If you've been to any open government hearing, including city council meetings, County board meetings, or state agency meetings, you'll find that giving testimony under oath is standard practice. For everyone who provides testimony.
Well, we'll see if my prediction is correct or not. Either way, it really doesn't matter all that much to me.
Do you have a cite for that Case, Id like to read it.
Lying to congress is a crime, if you are under oath or not.
uscitizen
Villified User
I think the whole point in these subpoenas are to determine if a crime was permitted. Is this not a pretty normal procedure when reasonable doubt exists that a crime was committed ?
Or do we just say that no one want to testify so we have to drop the whole thing when there is a reasonable possiblity that a crime was committed ?
Or do we just say that no one want to testify so we have to drop the whole thing when there is a reasonable possiblity that a crime was committed ?
uscitizen
Villified User
Gap in Justice, White House e-mails raises questions
POSTED: 10:14 p.m. EDT, March 21, 2007
Story Highlights
• No e-mails released on firing of U.S. attorneys during a 16-day period
• Investigators interested in period between November 15 and December 2, 2006
• Last e-mail before gap asks whether issue should be raised with the president
From Kevin Bohn
CNN Washington Bureau
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/21/attorneys.email.gap/index.html
16 days of email silence. Hmm more like tricky dick all the time....
POSTED: 10:14 p.m. EDT, March 21, 2007
Story Highlights
• No e-mails released on firing of U.S. attorneys during a 16-day period
• Investigators interested in period between November 15 and December 2, 2006
• Last e-mail before gap asks whether issue should be raised with the president
From Kevin Bohn
CNN Washington Bureau
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/21/attorneys.email.gap/index.html
16 days of email silence. Hmm more like tricky dick all the time....
It was 16 minutes on the Nixon tapes, right?
They're claiming that there were no emails during this 16 days right before the firings took place. I figure they'll be "discovering, that to our great surprise, there are a few" soon enough. Just like Rove "discovered" an email that he had "forgetten all about' in the Plame case.
LOL.
I thought it was 22 minutes.