Panel Holds Two Bush Aides in Contempt

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by zimv20, Jul 25, 2007.

  1. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #1
    nytimes

    i shall note that not only does cnn.com not have this story on their front page, story #7 in "Latest News" is supposedly about edwards' hair. or is it? though "hair" is mentioned in the link, it's actually about edwards sweating while bicycling. wtf?
     
  2. dswoodley macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    #2
    hmmm, how many republicans and democrats were on that committee during the Clinton evasions? I'm not trying to be divisive. But, it would be interesting to know.
     
  3. zimv20 thread starter macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #3
    clinton already, eh?

    i have an idea, let's stop looking at this as (R) vs (D). how about executive vs legislative? let's forget who's in control of what, and let's wonder if the executive's treatment of the legislative -- including ignoring subpoenas, declaring privilege to protect its own members, and ordering the dept of justice to not prosecute what hasn't even yet been issued from the legislative -- is our model of government. is this how our gov't should be run? is this executive behavior of which you're proud? do you think this is effective governance? do you think such moves indicate the executive considers itself above the law, and, if so, do you think it's congress' duty to rein in the executive branch via the powers vested to it in the constitution?

    or should the legislative branch sit back, do nothing, and wait for the executive to never consult it again?

    what's your opinion on that?
     
  4. dswoodley macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    #4
    whoah, whoah, Nelly! You misread me I'm afraid. I was just curious to see what congressionals were on the opposite side of the issue the last time highly placed members of the executive branch ignored subpoenas - which just happened to be Clinton. You did see in the first post I asked about Democrats AND Republicans, right?

    Bad day at work?
     
  5. zimv20 thread starter macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #5
    honestly, i don't care. and i don't care about D and R, i just care that this executive branch is acting so friggin' irresponsibly and extra-constitutionally. either congress ****ing fixes this, or this is what we can expect from now on from the executive branch, regardless of which party is in charge. that's why clinton and D/R don't ****ing matter anymore, and i sure as hell don't want to hear about it.

    am i the only one concerned about our constitution? please, someone, tell me i'm not.
     
  6. FFTT macrumors 68030

    FFTT

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2004
    Location:
    A Stoned Throw From Ground Zero
    #6
    Well we still have to get past Gonzo so this won't go anywhere unless
    the members of Congress who are actually performing their sworn duty
    figure out a way around him.

    Interesting chess game
     
  7. zimv20 thread starter macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #7
    the framers provided congress with inherent contempt, which is the next step. in this step, the sergeant-at-arms has vested the power to arrest those in violation of the subpoena, and congress tries them. i.e. no justice dept, no judicial branch.

    because of the congress-only nature of it, it seems to be a pretty drastic measure, and one the framers probably hoped would never be necessary. but: it is. i hope congress uses it.
     
  8. SMM macrumors 65816

    SMM

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2006
    Location:
    Tiger Mountain - WA State
    #8
    What happened with Clinton, happened with Clinton. His only crime was not telling the truth about a BJ. He never blatantly broke the law by forcing his staff not to honor a congressional subpoena. That is against the law. They have to appear. Once there they can claim EP, or whatever. But, they cannot thumb their nose at congress. Quit trying to side-rail the thread. I have been observing you do this quite a bit lately.
     
  9. dswoodley macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    #9
    i can appreciate your concern, but if you post a story about how a vote along party lines sides against a Republican president (inviting comparison to the obvious analog in the previous administration), then you have to expect a discussion within those boundaries.
     
  10. dswoodley macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    #10
    See my post in #9. It was an innocent question and legitimate.
     
  11. zimv20 thread starter macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #11
    fine, i deleted it. can we talk about the actual story now? or shall we discuss clinton some more?
     
  12. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #12
    Discussion about party lines is done. Now, how about if we focus on the issue at hand. That two aides are refusing to testify in front of Congress. Is that a legitimate issue to you or not?
     
  13. Maui macrumors 6502a

    Maui

    Joined:
    May 18, 2007
    #13
    Y'all just don't get it. If Bush can't keep secrets, Bin Laden will be marching into New York by Christmas. If you disagree with that, you want the US to lose the war in Iraq, and you want lots of our soldiers to die. Just ask Cheney.
     
  14. Swarmlord macrumors 6502a

    Swarmlord

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2006
    #14
    I guess we'll see the results when the full House votes on it. Until then, it's just the recommendation from one of the zillion or so committees.
     
  15. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #15
    Try again. It's one of the of most important of 24.
     
  16. SMM macrumors 65816

    SMM

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2006
    Location:
    Tiger Mountain - WA State
    #16
    You are joking, right?
     
  17. zimv20 thread starter macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #17
    i do believe he's joking.
     
  18. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #18
    That's the weird part. They don't have to do anything but show up. Once they do, they don't have to answer any questions. Well, they do, but they can just say they don't know and their under EP, and even "plead the fifth", so to speak. But they aren't even showing up, which is a completely contemptible offense. And yes, enforceable by the Congress. Maybe they're calling their bluff. Maybe they don't think they'll get in any trouble. Maybe they just aren't thinking.

    And I believe ds's comment was legitimate, though very poorly phrased. A lot of Dems actually had a problem with what Clinton did, even though it wasn't near as bad as what's going on here. I have to wonder though how many Republicans who had a problem with it then are perfectly fine with it now, because that seems far more hypocritical given the circumstances.

    For the record, I have a problem with both.

    Typical. You aren't coming out against it, because you know you can't defend it. So you belittle the investigation. The bipartisan investigation BTW (some Repubs actually have a problem with it). Doesn't really matter what they vote though, doesn't make it right. Not that anything will come of it.

    Even though nothing came of the Clinton thing, and you still bring it up, but this isn't even started and already you're saying it's nothing.
     
  19. FFTT macrumors 68030

    FFTT

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2004
    Location:
    A Stoned Throw From Ground Zero
    #19
    Well I'm enjoying the thought of them all squirming like the maggots they are.

    It's like watching someone take out the pillars one by one until there's no more support.
     

Share This Page