Subpoenas target Justice; White House could be next

Discussion in 'Free Speech Alley' started by macatak911, Mar 15, 2007.

Page 8 of 12
  1. macatak911

    macatak911 CRAIG STELTZ = BEAST

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2003
    Messages:
    3,806
    Likes Received:
    207
    The law allows for Congress to subpoena too.
     
    macatak911, Mar 27, 2007
    #71
    1 person likes this.
  2. TigerWins

    TigerWins Founding Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2003
    Messages:
    4,666
    Likes Received:
    157
    Why do we need to investigate something that is completely legal?

    You'd be lying to call this anything other than a political witchhunt. It's payback time for the 90s.
     
    TigerWins, Mar 27, 2007
    #72
  3. USMTiger

    USMTiger Founding Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2003
    Messages:
    1,668
    Likes Received:
    167
    How is this subverting checks and balances? The power to appoint US Attorneys without Congressional approval is in the Patriot Act, and it passed 98-1-1. Congress (Democrats and Republicans) gave the President the authority to do what he is doing. Now they don't like it all of a sudden and want to cry foul? These are the lawmakers whining about their own law and trying to blame the Pres for it. It doesn't get more partisan than that.

    So please, let me know what was illegal or innapropriate here?
     
    USMTiger, Mar 27, 2007
    #73
  4. LSUsupaFan

    LSUsupaFan Founding Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2003
    Messages:
    8,787
    Likes Received:
    1,207

    Yes, this is allowed through some Patriot Act rider. That should heighten your suspicions even more. Presidential appointees are subject to Congressional oversight. Why was the Justice Department trying to avoid this?
     
    LSUsupaFan, Mar 27, 2007
    #74
  5. macatak911

    macatak911 CRAIG STELTZ = BEAST

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2003
    Messages:
    3,806
    Likes Received:
    207
    The abuse of the provisions under the Patriot Act raised some eyebrows....

    http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2985182

    "The House voted 329-78 Monday to strip the attorney general of his power to indefinitely appoint federal prosecutors without Senate confirmation. The Senate already approved similar legislation. "

    There's not 329 Democrats in the House.
     
    macatak911, Mar 27, 2007
    #75
  6. USMTiger

    USMTiger Founding Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2003
    Messages:
    1,668
    Likes Received:
    167
    Why were they trying to avoid Congressional oversight? Have you seen the circus on display that is "Congressional Oversight"? I'd avoid it too. Although I agree that I would prefer all appointees get it. The govt sucks enough without an added layer of cronyism.

    In the end, no law was broken. The law was since repealed on the March 20. Gonzalez is an *******. Bush's advisors suck. This is all an exercise in whining at this point.
     
    USMTiger, Mar 27, 2007
    #76
  7. USMTiger

    USMTiger Founding Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2003
    Messages:
    1,668
    Likes Received:
    167
    Haha good catch.
     
    USMTiger, Mar 27, 2007
    #77
  8. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    I already explained this to you in Post 43 in detail. You are starting to repeat your old objections.

    Here is the summary of it. The hiring and firing are legal only if they are approved by Congress. But Gonzales, at the behest of the WHITE HOUSE, took advantage of the Patriot Act to get around Congressional approval. Then he mislead congress by suggesting they were fired for incomptence even though all prosecutors had good service reports. Then documents surfaced that showed they were fired for political reasons.

    1. Gonzales tried to abuse the Patriot Act to make an legal end-run on Congress.
    2. Gonzales then mislead congress in their investigation of the matter.
    3. Now White House staff are trying to evade testimony and transcripts to avoid perjury.
    4. Now Justice Department staff are pleading the fifth to avoid incrimination.

    This is a snowballing clusterfugg, boys and you just can't whitewash it.
     
    red55, Mar 27, 2007
    #78
  9. Bengal Buddy

    Bengal Buddy Founding Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2004
    Messages:
    12,599
    Likes Received:
    520
    There's a difference?
     
    Bengal Buddy, Mar 27, 2007
    #79
  10. TigerWins

    TigerWins Founding Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2003
    Messages:
    4,666
    Likes Received:
    157
    That is your personal interpretation, not a fact. I have yet to see any credible expert say these firings required congressional approval.
     
    TigerWins, Mar 27, 2007
    #80
Page 8 of 12

Share This Page