Immunity Sought for Cheney, Top Officials

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by zimv20, May 17, 2007.

  1. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #1
    wash post

    got that? the president and VP are above the law, cheney's attorney argues. sweet deal, i gotta get me one of them. 'cuz there's a whole bunch of SUVs i need to set fire to.
     
  2. MACDRIVE macrumors 68000

    MACDRIVE

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2006
    Location:
    Clovis, California
    #2
    They may be outside the law but the can't out run a bullet.
     
  3. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    OBJECTIVE reality
    #3
    Um...MACDRIVE, while I definitely side with you, I'd watch the comments. This is the second or third such remark you've made lately.

    You do know the government can intercept damn near any communication nowadays, don't you?

    (And that fact that I can even say that with complete credibility tells you how bad things are in the U.S.)

    As to the topic: I hope the judge throws that argument right out the window, and gives Cheney and his lawyers the proper scolding they deserve. Their sheer arrogance is appalling.
     
  4. yagran macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2007
    Location:
    Brighton, East Sussex, UK
    #4
    and what? the land of the free my *rse
     
  5. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #5
    Even the president has no immunity in this case. Presidential immunity only applies to official acts. I'm pretty sure that illegally outing CIA agents is not one of the vice presidents official duties.
     
  6. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #6
    Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Checks and balances my arse.
     
  7. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #7
    Exactly. How soon we forget Bill Clinton defending himself from a lawsuit while he was president, and how it was his testimony in that case which led to the impeachment trial. Cheney's legal council is making a desperate motion for dismissal, which the judge will almost certainly deny.
     
  8. obeygiant macrumors 68040

    obeygiant

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    totally cool
    #8
    *cough* bullsh*t *cough*

    Macdrive, let us know when the feds knock at your door, mmm-kay?
     
  9. FFTT macrumors 68030

    FFTT

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2004
    Location:
    A Stoned Throw From Ground Zero
    #9
    Cheney and Rove will make every effort possible to avoid ANY testimony
    under oath.

    They know damn well that they are incapable of telling the truth under oath
    and that poses a serious legal risk to both of them.

    One false statement under oath and one conveniently leaked document countering that testimony and they are subject to criminal charges.
     
  10. MACDRIVE macrumors 68000

    MACDRIVE

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2006
    Location:
    Clovis, California
    #10
    Okay forget about the bullet then since I don't own a gun. How 'bout I throw him in that tree trimming shredder machine that the utility workers use when they're trimming the trees away from the power lines?
     
  11. latergator116 macrumors 68000

    latergator116

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2003
    Location:
    Providence, RI
    #11
    How about you throw him the power line?
     
  12. SMM macrumors 65816

    SMM

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2006
    Location:
    Tiger Mountain - WA State
    #12
    I actually studied this at great length during, and after Watergate. I was a poli-sci major, with intentions of going to law school (like many of my friends).

    Executive privilege is not granted if it involves criminal activity. Nixon found that out the hard way, when he was forced to surrender all tapes relating to the conspiracy to obstruct justice (the cover-up). The Supreme Court was very clear in its rulings.

    The right-wing has been 'stacking' the Federal, and Supreme, courts with their 'fellow Nazis'. Yet, there is a small chance that some sense of morality, and ethical credibility, still exists in our justice system. If there is enough, GeeDub's "Hole In the Wall Gang" will not be innocent simply because they are 'untouchable'.
     
  13. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #13
    That's the first thing I thought of when I read this.

    And wouldn't it just be poetic justice if the ruling the Clinton-hating right sought so hard to get -- that a sitting president was indeed subject to discovery in the course of a civil lawsuit against him -- was the legal precedent a judge cited in disallowing Cheney's motion?
     
  14. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #14
    Where's Swarmlord saying he would be hard against anyone doing this type of thing like he said in the thread about that former Clinton official? That's what I thought. In both cases, I want them prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law because they're both guilty. Same with Rove, Delay, and William Jefferson. But I'm just a partisan hack, so what do I know. :rolleyes:

    BTW, even if he wins, Cheney's rep has been destroyed forever in the reality based community... er, even worse than before.
     
  15. FFTT macrumors 68030

    FFTT

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2004
    Location:
    A Stoned Throw From Ground Zero
    #15
    Someone needs to remind Bush, Cheney and Rove that they are public servants.

    If we get Rove up there on that stand under oath and he sings to avoid prison,
    we can pretty much count on impeachment procedings.
     
  16. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #16
    Yeah I'm waiting for Swarm to provide his avowed balance to this issue. Back in 1998 I would have to assume he was on Clinton's side.

    Or he's a hypocrite who'll say anything for political gain. :shrug:
     
  17. Swarmlord macrumors 6502a

    Swarmlord

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2006
    #17
    Arrived late to the thread...

    I thought the executive branch was immune from lawsuits for actions having to do with the conduct of the job. It has to be that way or the President can't make life and death decisions involving the American public.

    I never suggested that this protection didn't apply to Clinton while he was in office. He was impeached and that is the proper legal recourse for the executive branch. If this Plame thing is an impeachable offense, then draw up the articles of impeachment and go forward with it.
     
  18. gauchogolfer macrumors 603

    gauchogolfer

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2005
    Location:
    American Riviera
    #18
    Exactly what part of his job was outing a CIA operative to score points against a political opponent?
     
  19. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #19
    This is the least of their impeachable offenses.
     
  20. FFTT macrumors 68030

    FFTT

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2004
    Location:
    A Stoned Throw From Ground Zero
    #20
    They have to work their way up the ladder because Cheney is there as Bush's
    insurance policy.

    They have to go after Rove in order to expose Cheney's wrong doing
    and then that leaves Bush wide open.
     
  21. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #21
    Whoa there pardner. The entire justification for the Clinton impeachment was testimony he provided in a civil trial, which was held while he was in office. The fact that the testimony was stricken by the judge in the case, and then the case itself dismissed, and that the entire trial was a political hit, made no difference to anybody on the Republican side. They weren't worried at all about the ability of a president to do his job.
     
  22. Swarmlord macrumors 6502a

    Swarmlord

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2006
    #22
    That's what I'm saying. It was his testimony, not his actions that did him in. He should have just spoke the truth and told everyone to deal with it. Not like it would have changed either side's perception of him. Nor his wife's for that matter.
     
  23. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #23
    Yes, but what you are also saying is that Bush administration officials should be immune from civil suits. Bill Clinton was not, and certainly Bill Clinton would not have been hauled into the impeachment trial if this had been the operative principle at the time. He also would not have been impeached had the GOP been even remotely interested in the ability of a president to do his job. Not only would the impeachment not have happened, but the civil trial which got him there would not have happened. What I and others are saying here is that the shoe doesn't seem to fit when it's put on the other foot. Now, it seems, short of impeachment, we've got no right to hold administration officials to any standards of behavior. Oh, the irony.
     
  24. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #24
    Which is exactly why Cheney is fighting so hard not to have to testify, right?

    And his testimony was compelled by a court challenge by conservative activists who claimed (at the time) that a sitting president was NOT immune to civil lawsuits. A great deal of time and money was spent arguing that very point, and in the end they were successful in persuading a judge. Clinton was deposed, and the rest is history.

    Now Cheney and company's testimony is being demanded as part of a civil lawsuit brought by Valerie Plame, and Cheney and the entire right-wing wurlitzer noise machine are saying the exact opposite of what they argued only a few years ago.

    And surprise surprise, you're going along with them.
     
  25. johnee macrumors 6502a

    johnee

    #25
    NO! that is just wrong! How can you say that?



    He's an oil man. He likes oil, so give him oil! give him all the oil in the world! right up his corn hole! haha :D
     

Share This Page