The sound bite every American should hear

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Maui, Aug 4, 2007.

  1. Maui macrumors 6502a

    Maui

    Joined:
    May 18, 2007
    #1
    I realize Democrats have asserted executive privilege in the past, but Bushcheney have pushed this to absurd extremes. Dear god, I can't wait until they are gone.

    http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/8/3/03454/28216

    Jennings, by the way, is White House deputy political director.
     
  2. it5five macrumors 65816

    it5five

    Joined:
    May 31, 2006
    Location:
    New York
    #2
    I wasn't aware that even the janitors at the white house were able to claim executive privilege.
     
  3. SMM macrumors 65816

    SMM

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2006
    Location:
    Tiger Mountain - WA State
    #3
    And so it goes.......:(

    You can often learn as much by what a person does not say, as by what which they do. Does this (or the testimony of the others) sound like someone who must realize they will probably be 'target practice' in a few months? These bastards act like someone with an 'ace up their sleeve'.
     
  4. obeygiant macrumors 68040

    obeygiant

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    totally cool
  5. SMM macrumors 65816

    SMM

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2006
    Location:
    Tiger Mountain - WA State
    #5
    Someone who will hang before the Political Advisor (Rove). The question is, why are taxpayers footing the bill for them? Somewhere I got the notion that the purpose of the Executive Branch was to be the Administrators of running the government. Why are these people still engaging in politics? Well, one reason is, they are all a bunch of political cronies, with no bona fides for running a government. After the second election, remember how the resignations began to pour in? Those WERE the administrative professionals. They had endured enough. The vacuum created sucked in the political trash. They lied through their teeth about upholding the laws of the land and protecting the constitution. I doubt if any of them have ever looked at it. Their loyalty is to Bush and the Neocon Party - not the Republican Party. That is why they will stand in front of the U.S. Congress and act like good soldiers, being interrogated by the KGB. These creeps remind me of the followers of Jim Jones. And, until I see them packing their Mercedes SUVs, and heading home to wherever, I will not relax. I still have a sick feeling, they do not think they are leaving.
     
  6. Swarmlord macrumors 6502a

    Swarmlord

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2006
    #6
    Given what committes do to people that answer questions I wouldn't answer anything with either yes or no myself and even then only questions that were innocuous.
     
  7. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #7
    Quit making excuses for these fools. Really, it's getting old. This person works for us, he should be able to describe his job for god's sake. If he can't, he needs to go.
     
  8. FFTT macrumors 68030

    FFTT

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2004
    Location:
    A Stoned Throw From Ground Zero
    #8
    I see a considerable amount of denial in people who supported this administration.

    It's very much like those finding out that their favorite TV evangelist
    is nothing more than an opportunist fleecing them for their donations.

    No one wants to admit they were so foolish or so easily mislead.

    The highest office in the land "should be" a position of trust and respect
    and the old guard, the older Americans still hang on to a memory of times
    when our country's leadership projected the Character of the people.

    Most people can't even comprehend the amount of money at stake here.
    They squander billions as if it's poker money, while needs at home, needs that help everyone are side tracked or under funded.

    This is publicly funded extortion at it's highest level.

    Every move this administration has made has consistantly benefitted
    industrial tycoons, while pandering to the emotions of the sheeple.

    They have lied their way into a massive diversion of public funds, fleecing
    the taxpayer to line the pockets of that 1% of the population
    that calls all the shots.

    A here these PUBLIC SERVANTS dare to defy accountability in any form.

    They shame all that good we once stood for.
     
  9. Maui thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Maui

    Joined:
    May 18, 2007
    #9
    The irony here is that Bush is seeking the most expansive possible meaning of "executive privilege" even though that term never appears in the Constitution. He says he wants judges "who would be strict constructionists" but his commitment to that seems to be situational -- he is now relying on a doctrine that was made up by judges. As CJ Berger described it in US v. Nixon:

    So here we have Bush relying on a doctrine that is absent explicitly from the Constitution, and instead only "derives" and "flows" from other parts of the Constitution. The irony is rich.

    But, even Berger I think would be a bit shocked at the claim that the executive privilege applies to the job duties of the deputy political director. From the same case:

    How ironic that you would then be guilty of the same thing Clinton was guilty of: not telling the truth under oath. Please don't do that -- if you went to the hoosegow who would we have to argue with? :)
     
  10. Swarmlord macrumors 6502a

    Swarmlord

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2006
    #10
    So does the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Director of the CIA for that matter. I don't expect either to freely answer questions for some committee of Senators - at least not publicly. If it wasn't for the way that testimony was twisted into perjury charges completely separate from the information that is being investigated, I'd be more interested in seeing people testify.

    I don't care who you are or what you've done, any good lawyer is going to advise you to keep your mouth shut.
     
  11. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #11
    That's what we'd like to know, but he doesn't want to answer that.

    How much more innocuous can you get than "what do you do"? And if he has nothing to hide, what's the problem? Isn't that what their excuse is for spying on people?

    That's exactly what he has to do, which is what he's there for. You can belittle them all you want, I know how people like you and the administration like to downplay Congress, but they do still have power. You think Bush and his cronies can all just claim executive privilege all they want and render Congress useless, but they rest of us want to know what they're hiding.

    Kinda of like we did with Clinton, for which (unlike with this) you seemed to be fine with.
     
  12. Maui thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Maui

    Joined:
    May 18, 2007
    #12
    Doubt that.

    2 USC 196:

    2 USC 194:

    18 USC 1621:

    The grounds for refusing to answer a question, or just answering every question "yes" or "no" as the witness sees fit, are narrow. The 5th Amendment (inapplicable here), the attorney client privilege (inapplicable here), spousal immunity in limited instances (inapplicable here), and the narrow doctrine called executive privilege.

    There is no such immunity because of what Congress "do[es] to people" or because the testimony might be "twisted into perjury charges." You get a subpoena, from Congress or from a court, you respond and tell the truth, unless your answer is subject to a recognized privilege. That's the way the system works, for everyone except people who work for Bush, apparently. It is ironic that the Bush Administration has prosecuted people for failing to respond to a subpoena.
     
  13. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #13
    Swarm, do you honestly think that Alberto Gonzalez and Libby have had their words twisted? How do these guys get a free pass for their testimony and Bill Clinton, who you've endlessly harped about, doesn't get the same allowances?

    I absolutely cannot follow your logic.

    Are you arguing that the Executive Branch should ignore Congress and refuse to testify? If so, how is the separation of powers supposed to operate, if at all?
     
  14. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #15
    There is no logic. We aren't going to get a response based on logic or fact. We'd be lucky to get more rhetoric and talking points with a refusal to follow rules and post link to back up his ridiculous (and incorrect) assertions. More likely he'll just post the same crap in another thread the same way, no matter how much we prove him wrong, leaving when he's got nothing.

    Maybe throwing in a "Clinton did it", as if that makes it any better, as if none of us have ever criticized Clinton or other Dems when he knows damn well we do.
     

Share This Page