Seahawks Posted March 26, 2007 Author Share Posted March 26, 2007 Given the President’s unquestioned constitutional and statutory authority to remove U.S. attorneys at his discretion, a Congressional attempt to force disclosure of communications involving senior White House staff on this issue is inappropriate. The President’s invocation of executive privilege for discussions or documents concerning the removal of U.S. attorneys is designed to meet the requirement of confidentiality. Any Congressional attempt to interfere with the President’s ability to obtain confidential advice about the desireability of removing certain employees from their positions would constitute an egregious intrusion into an area of responsibility allocated by the Constitution solely to the President, thereby violating the constitutionally mandated separation of powers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevenSeagal Posted March 26, 2007 Share Posted March 26, 2007 Quoting from Bush's ministers of propaganda- Rove, Snow, etc. as credible sources. How...predictable. You are a gullible, authority loving mother fucker. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks Posted March 26, 2007 Author Share Posted March 26, 2007 Quoting from Bush's ministers of propaganda- Rove, Snow, etc. as credible sources. How...predictable. You are a gullible, authority loving mother fucker. Its funny how when the Dems want something they are willing to break the constitution. Just like you, you scranny little ass wipe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucK Posted March 26, 2007 Share Posted March 26, 2007 Speaking of Clinton...remember when he was impeached by Congress (all sorts of hearings and stuff) for lying about not having sex? You were probably all over that. Well now it has become obvious that Alberto Gonzalez lied to congress (which is a crime) about not being involved in the discussions over which prosecutors to fire. Are the congressional inquiries into both of these matters justified? Unjustified? Or is there some reason one should go on and the other not? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevenSeagal Posted March 26, 2007 Share Posted March 26, 2007 Its funny how when the Dems want something they are willing to break the constitution. If you really believe it's this simple especially after 6 years of constitutional abuse, consolidation of executive power, and sidelining of congressional oversight, then you deserve the dictatorship you seem to desire. The rest of us don't want the same as bootlickers like you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks Posted March 26, 2007 Author Share Posted March 26, 2007 (edited) Its funny how when the Dems want something they are willing to break the constitution. If you really believe it's this simple especially after 6 years of constitutional abuse, consolidation of executive power, and sidelining of congressional oversight, then you deserve the dictatorship you seem to desire. The rest of us don't want the same as bootlickers like you. Same dem sreaming as always. Come up with something new. If they didn't want the same bootlickers why is it 6 years?? Oh wait it was stolen. LOL ignorant smuck. Edited March 26, 2007 by Seahawks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foraker Posted March 26, 2007 Share Posted March 26, 2007 Same dem sreaming as always. Come up with something new. same whinging neocon who can't think for himself, always complaining about Clinton, and rationalizing the behavior of the current administration. care to explain all the hundreds and thousands of hours of testimony by Clinton White House officials, at the president's behest I might add, before Congress, all with transcripts and in the open? Or is Bush just 'special' and shouldn't be held to the same standards? Why is open and transparent government only something you require of Democrats? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevenSeagal Posted March 26, 2007 Share Posted March 26, 2007 Its funny how when the Dems want something they are willing to break the constitution. If you really believe it's this simple especially after 6 years of constitutional abuse, consolidation of executive power, and sidelining of congressional oversight, then you deserve the dictatorship you seem to desire. The rest of us don't want the same as bootlickers like you. Same dem sreaming as always. Come up with something new. I'm not a democrat, dumbass. Just not someone willing to excuse illegal/unethical behavior because the "other guys did it too". "Something new?" You can't even address Bush's acts apart from invoking Clinton. Clever diversion but we aren't stupid. Can't blame you though. You and all the other Bush lemmings put so much into promoting him and now that he's being exposed for the criminal he is, you're forced to go down with the ship. Sayonara, mother fucker. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevenSeagal Posted March 26, 2007 Share Posted March 26, 2007 If they didn't want the same bootlickers why is it 6 years?? It does say a lot for the stupidity of Americans now doesn't it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks Posted March 26, 2007 Author Share Posted March 26, 2007 Same dem sreaming as always. Come up with something new. same whinging neocon who can't think for himself, always complaining about Clinton, and rationalizing the behavior of the current administration. care to explain all the hundreds and thousands of hours of testimony by Clinton White House officials, at the president's behest I might add, before Congress, all with transcripts and in the open? Or is Bush just 'special' and shouldn't be held to the same standards? Why is open and transparent government only something you require of Democrats? The President has sole authority to remove U.S. attorneys at his discretion. Article II Therefore nothing criminal done. Clinton I thought was sworn in but I may be wrong in that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_Puget Posted March 26, 2007 Share Posted March 26, 2007 "In wartime, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies." Winston Churchill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foraker Posted March 26, 2007 Share Posted March 26, 2007 so can you prove that clinton removed any prosecutor from office for investigating him? or is that you just blowing hot air again? the us attorneys are also supposed to be basically immune from political influence. it's clear that bush and gonzales have been trying to rig the game for political ends. should he or should he not have done that, regardless of what you 'believe' clinton did? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foraker Posted March 26, 2007 Share Posted March 26, 2007 as per the other thread, how about that quote that bush also said we shouldn't go into rwanda. is it then ok for bush to 'let rwandan's die' and not clinton? seems to me this is just another example of your glaring absence of historical knowledge as well as a prime example of your relative, rather than absolute, sense of ethics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevenSeagal Posted March 26, 2007 Share Posted March 26, 2007 "In wartime, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies." Winston Churchill Yup God forbid anyone in the general population of citizenry should find out what war actually entails. That might spoil it for everyone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks Posted March 26, 2007 Author Share Posted March 26, 2007 so can you prove that clinton removed any prosecutor from office for investigating him? or is that you just blowing hot air again? the us attorneys are also supposed to be basically immune from political influence. it's clear that bush and gonzales have been trying to rig the game for political ends. should he or should he not have done that, regardless of what you 'believe' clinton did? Doesn't matter if I could prove or not. He had the right to do it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris Posted March 26, 2007 Share Posted March 26, 2007 The President has sole authority to remove U.S. attorneys at his discretion. Article II Therefore nothing criminal done. Except it is illegal for member of the Legislative branch to interfere with investigations and court proceedings of the Department of Justice. It also violates the Senate's and the House's Code of Ethics. And it is a little suspicious that three of the eight US Attorneys report having conversations with at least one Congressman or Senator regarding an investigation or case. Its also a little suspicious that all eight reported having special meetings with senior administration staff members, all about investigations or cases that could influence or effect the mid-term election. It was stupid for Congress to sign away its rights in the Patriot Act. This is clearly another example why. Signed, Registered Independent Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_Puget Posted March 26, 2007 Share Posted March 26, 2007 Come on Steven - I know you've been on some secret missions before! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_Puget Posted March 26, 2007 Share Posted March 26, 2007 "One need look no further than the recent circumstances and proceedings involving Lewis Libby," he said, a reference to the recent conviction of Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff in the CIA leak case.” Monica Goodling's Lawyer - John Dowd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevenSeagal Posted March 26, 2007 Share Posted March 26, 2007 so can you prove that clinton removed any prosecutor from office for investigating him? or is that you just blowing hot air again? the us attorneys are also supposed to be basically immune from political influence. it's clear that bush and gonzales have been trying to rig the game for political ends. should he or should he not have done that, regardless of what you 'believe' clinton did? Doesn't matter if I could prove or not. He had the right to do it. So why did Gonzales lie to Congress then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foraker Posted March 26, 2007 Share Posted March 26, 2007 Doesn't matter if I could prove or not. He had the right to do it. apparently, you're massively confused about the nature of the us attorney's office. answer the questions about your situational ethics, noob. since it's obvious to everyone and their dog that gonzales lied to congress, he should be tossed out, right? or should he be given the medal of freedom and a promotion? how about all that illegal fbi activity? how do you feel about that? you're probably alright with that, herr seahawk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevenSeagal Posted March 26, 2007 Share Posted March 26, 2007 Come on Steven - I know you've been on some secret missions before! That's right, Peter. But the government sold me out. You ever see Hard to Kill? That's just one example. I've had it with these guys. They think they're Above the Law. Well, they aren't above mine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks Posted March 26, 2007 Author Share Posted March 26, 2007 The President has sole authority to remove U.S. attorneys at his discretion. Article II Therefore nothing criminal done. Except it is illegal for member of the Legislative branch to interfere with investigations and court proceedings of the Department of Justice. It also violates the Senate's and the House's Code of Ethics. And it is a little suspicious that three of the eight US Attorneys report having conversations with at least one Congressman or Senator regarding an investigation or case. Its also a little suspicious that all eight reported having special meetings with senior administration staff members, all about investigations or cases that could influence or effect the mid-term election. It was stupid for Congress to sign away its rights in the Patriot Act. This is clearly another example why. Signed, Registered Independent Kind of a dumb comment becuase the patriot act being signed has only to do with the putting into power of said people, with out consent of congress, It has nothing to do with the firings. And is no longer law as of March 2007. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks Posted March 26, 2007 Author Share Posted March 26, 2007 Doesn't matter if I could prove or not. He had the right to do it. apparently, you're massively confused about the nature of the us attorney's office. answer the questions about your situational ethics, noob. since it's obvious to everyone and their dog that gonzales lied to congress, he should be tossed out, right? or should he be given the medal of freedom and a promotion? how about all that illegal fbi activity? how do you feel about that? you're probably alright with that, herr seahawk. YOu know why the Dems lost last time??? Becuase of knobs like you guys. This conspiricay shit with nothing to back it off sends normal people running the other way. Your knobs, get some fricking brains. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucK Posted March 26, 2007 Share Posted March 26, 2007 "One need look no further than the recent circumstances and proceedings involving Lewis Libby," he said, a reference to the recent conviction of Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff in the CIA leak case.” Monica Goodling's Lawyer - John Dowd Monica Goodling's lawyer is basically making the case that she can't testify because she might incriminate herself for perjury! "I take the fifth because I might incriminate myself by committing a crime while testifying." That's a good one. I'll have to remember it (if it works) if I ever don't want to testify about something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foraker Posted March 26, 2007 Share Posted March 26, 2007 obviously you're so uncomfortable with your own ethical failings and simple minded sheep-thinking, you can't answer simple questions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.