Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by zimv20, Jul 12, 2007.
i really like these comments on the matter:
Good. Nail her a** to the wall.
So GWB is ordering someone to break the law. What further incentive must there be for impeachment proceedings?
What she should do is attend the stupid hearings and then just repeat over and over again "not to her recollection". If the Dems want their time wasted I don't see why she shouldn't accommodate them. At least if they are in a hearing, it keeps them from working on legislation.
Heaven forbid that justice is served, huh?
Heaven forbid that someone isn't just another blabbermouth.
The Dems are completely pissing me off. Bush has blatantly lied, said he has lied, and orders people to lie, but Congress is still doing absolutely nothing about it.
I don't know what else Nancy "Off the Table" Pelosi needs.
Blabbermouth? That is your argument? That's all you have left to justify the actions of this administration?
Is Harriet Meirs the entire administration? Puleeezzz.
No, but is Bush forbidding Miers from testifying? Yes. Is something wrong with that? Yes. Does it lead people to believe that Bush has something to hide? Yes.
How does your "blabbermouth" defense fit in to this situation?
He didn't forbid her. She was advised that she didn't have to comply. Big difference. Given the witchhunt status these hearings have achieved, I wouldn't appear at one of these hearings to testify whether I showed up to work on a given day or not.
Right, it's a witch-hunt. The mean liberals are attacking the innocent Republicans who can do no wrong. And if they do (magically) do something wrong, those mean liberals shouldn't hold anybody accountable for their actions.
Ah, so obeying the laws of the country brands one as a blabbermouth? Personally, I consider those who put themselves above the law to be traitors. Obviously party loyalty means more than the law to you.
This one could be interesting. The legal analysis leans heavily towards the White House making an extraordinary claim of executive privilege, which they are likely to lose if the issue is litigated. Is Miers really prepared to take another hit for the team, especially if that team has already left the building by the time the litigation grinds to a conclusion?
That's what I find interesting about her decision. She's going to do better now than later. Whether it's feared that she would be but the first to open Pandora's Box or not, I don't know, but she's either extremely loyal or being coerced. I honestly don't know which.
In her position, I would definitely rent my own attorney. The WH has probably told her, "We are providing you with a specialist attorney. He/She really knows this stuff. Don't worry, we are all in this together and we will protect you". Then their mouthpiece will council her to believe, "We are stronger when we all stick together". Then one day it will be, "You know Harriet, pleading innocent is making you look guilty. Maybe we should just plead "no contest". No harm, no foul right? Then the President will pardon you and it works out for everyone. You see that, don't you, Harriet? Of course, The President may not be able to give you the exact deal he gave Spider. It just might not look right. You might have to spend a little time in Dansberry, but it will be brief. Afterall, this is what you signed-up for....to be part of the team. Sometimes we have to take one for the team, Harriet.
Why am I not surprised.
Another act of defiance against any accountability or oversight of their actions.
As more pillars fall, so will they all eventually.
They disgrace the highest office in the land and thumb their noses at the
What's the worst that can happen to her? Jail? Fine? Probation? W. will take care of all of that.
That seems to work for most social programs (education, welfare, etc.)...
Clinton did it?
They've had nothing for awhile now. But yeah, it's getting ridiculous. I've recently discovered the ignore feature, and it does wonders. Much better than wasting your time arguing with people who are completely oblivious to reality.
I've heard he's just biding his time. Like with Tilman, this could go on until long after Bush is gone. I don't see how that makes it any better for them though.
So, in other words, you still have nothing.
How's abstinence ed or that war in Iraq going?
Clearly Bush is stalling, trying to run the clock down. But that's just my point about Miers -- if Bush does succeed in running the clock down, that doesn't mean that litigation over the matter stops. This potentially leaves Ms. Miers holding the bag, post-Bush administration, unless he pardons her in advance of any charges being filed, as Ford did for Nixon. That possibility just gave me a bad case of acid reflux.
An interesting question but recent history suggests that the actual risk to Miers is not very great. Should Congress continute to pursue the matter then she'll clearly have opportunities to resolve the issue without the risk of jail time!
There's a list of recent examples at the link below and as you'll see, these things are generally resolved politically
Generally, yes -- but generally the White House negotiates a solution with Congress which obviates the need for litigation. The unusual circumstance here is the administration's adamant refusal to negotiate, apparently safe in the knowledge that any court battle over the subpoenas won't be resolved before the Bush administration leaves Washington, by which time the issues Congress is investigating become moot. This leads some of us to wonder whether Harriet Miers isn't being exposed to a contempt citation that her former boss can't fix -- unless he fixes it in advance.
I just found this analysis. It is well constructed and worth reading:
Link to Text
interesting analysis. thanks for posting.
I would just love to see the Sergent at Arms duck walking all of them before Congress forcing them to testify under oath.
Not sure if Congress has the guts to do what they should be doing.