Subpoenas target Justice; White House could be next

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

Page 9 of 12
  1. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    There is to me. Morals are personal. Ethics are professional.
     
    red55, Mar 27, 2007
    #81
  2. USMTiger

    USMTiger Founding Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2003
    Messages:
    1,668
    Likes Received:
    167


    The Patriot Act was a revision of several laws and policies. One of the provisions changed the previous law on appointing US Attorneys. They will still need confirmation eventually. This provision has since been repealed.

    That's like saying he took advantage of the current law to get around the old law.

    If the dickheads in Congress don't like what the result was, they should have addressed that before they voted for it. This is the result of laziness in Congress allowing a President to overstep his authority. Maybe they should actually read the bills they vote for, instead of whining about it after the fact.


    "A 2006 revision of the USA PATRIOT Act amended the United States Code to permit the term of an interim U.S. Attorney to last until a nominated replacement is approved by the Senate, in effect giving the United States Attorney General, the officer authorized to appoint interim U.S. Attorneys, the power to appoint U.S. Attorneys without Senate approval.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S._attorneys_controversy
     
    USMTiger, Mar 27, 2007
    #82
  3. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    Approval was standard procedure until the Patriot Act came along. This gave the President vast authorities to do things that were essential to fight the war on terrorism. There was much objection that there was potential for abuse by giving this unchecked authority to the Executive, but it was done. Congress retained the right to maintain normal checks and balances, including making investigations of suspected abuse.

    These poitical firings constitute an abuse of the Patriot Act. It was not done to defend America or for incompetence of the prosecutors. it was done for political reasons exposed in the memos. Gonzales abused the Patriot Act to make a political appointment without Congressional oversight.

    Congress has every right to question this and Gonzales was a fool to lie about it. It may prove to be technically legal, but it was really stupid because now people are ging to go to jail for lying about it. Moreover, the Patriot Act is probably about to be amended by Congress to prevent this and other abuses like last months FBI Patriot Act abuse scandal.

    This administration promised not to abuse the Act to get it passed, but now it has been abused at least twice. Congress will not take this lying down or it will forfeit a great deal of its power. This is why some top republicans are upset and callig for Gonzales head. Others are beginning to see that if Bush prevails with these "Imperial" executive privileges and broad Patriot Act authority, they may be being exercised by a Democratic President in two years. That's when the payback begins.
     
    red55, Mar 27, 2007
    #83
  4. USMTiger

    USMTiger Founding Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2003
    Messages:
    1,668
    Likes Received:
    167
    Who is going to jail for lying?
     
    USMTiger, Mar 27, 2007
    #84
  5. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    Anybody that gets caught perjuring themselves. The documents are going to come out, many already are out. The subpoenas are going to make White House and Justice Department officials testify under oath and with transcripts. If their stories don't match or the documents prove them liars, then they will be sentenced to jail like Libby.
     
    red55, Mar 27, 2007
    #85
  6. USMTiger

    USMTiger Founding Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2003
    Messages:
    1,668
    Likes Received:
    167
    Possible, but unlikely. If the President refuses permission to testify under oath, then a likely court battle would ensure that would take years to resolve. Way after Bush is out of office. Plus, the perjury only applies when the contradicting testimony is also taken under oath, so comparing them to transcripts of emails or public statements does not qualify.
     
    USMTiger, Mar 27, 2007
    #86
  7. TigerWins

    TigerWins Founding Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2003
    Messages:
    4,666
    Likes Received:
    157
    Didn't the dems appove the patriot act? Did any of them object to this specific change about u.s. attorneys? Can you find one quote to this objection? You know what's going on ... payback for the Clinton years. Nothing will get done in Congress except hearings and investigations.

    You know it was legal for this President to fire any and all U.S. attorneys. It may be bad law, but it is the law.
     
    TigerWins, Mar 27, 2007
    #87
  8. USMTiger

    USMTiger Founding Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2003
    Messages:
    1,668
    Likes Received:
    167
    It was the law, but as of March 20 it is back to what it was: 180 days to get confirmed before having to step down. What he did was legal, whether people like the spirit and manner of how he did it or not.
     
    USMTiger, Mar 27, 2007
    #88
  9. macatak911

    macatak911 CRAIG STELTZ = BEAST

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2003
    Messages:
    3,806
    Likes Received:
    207


    Why all the hush hush, 5th amendment issues, contradicting statements?
     
    macatak911, Mar 27, 2007
    #89
  10. Sourdoughman

    Sourdoughman TigerFan of LSU and the Tigerman

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2003
    Messages:
    12,326
    Likes Received:
    575
    I hope I'm understanding you correctly here.
    Did anyone approve of the Clinton Administration firing 92 US attorneys long before the Patriot Act?
    I can't wait til a democrat is president so I can see just how partison some of
    you are on here and I'm not talking only about Red here!
     
    Sourdoughman, Mar 27, 2007
    #90
Page 9 of 12

Share This Page