Republicans don't have to worry about lying under oath...
20 Mar 2007, 5:50 pm
WASHINGTON Mar 20, 2007 (AP)— The White House offered Tuesday to make political strategist Karl Rove and former counsel Harriet Miers available for congressional interviews but not testimony under oath in the investigation of the firing of eight federal prosecutors.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2966979
this isn't the first instance of a republican giving their testimony but not being required to be under oath....the president was also interviewed in the past couple years...i believe for the 9-11 investigation, actually.
clinton gets prosecuted for a blowjob but the republi-can'ts get off clean not even having to worry about lying under oath...because they're never under oath....at least not the key players.
20 Mar 2007, 6:21 pm
Yeah did you see when Big Oil Co. showed up to the white house for a conference and refused to swear in to the senate hearing?
Big Oil is alot more powerful than the US government. Because of their wealth basically. And guess who envited them? Our oil rich hitlerite president Bush.
21 Mar 2007, 4:17 pm
The use of the term "hitlerite" in association with President Bush is inappropriate. Regardless of what you think of George W. Bush, to make a mocking use of the name of Adolf Hitler is wrong. It would also be wrong to call Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, or Lyndon Johnson (or any democrat in Congress, or realistically even somewhat like Fidel Castro a "Stalinist")
Context is important here. Historically, the President has something called "executive privilege." Basically, he is expected the ability to get canid counsel from his aids without them being expected to get called hauled in front of congressional committees to be interrogated. The Supreme Court (8-0, in Nixon v. United States) ruled that this privilege is not absolute.
Currently there is a major controversy over the firing of eight federal prosecutors, who serve at the discretion at the President. Republicans largely regard this as a non-issue, with the exception of inappropriate influence used may have been attempted by Senator Pete Dominici of New Mexico. The reason for this is that their is no evidence (this is my opinion, obviously the Democrats on the Judicial committee feel otherwise) that there the White House used any bad incorrect reasonings for the firing of these prosecutors. Prosecutors have been fired by previous presidents in the middle of their presidencies. Bill Clinton fired every single federal prosecutor (including those apparently actively investigating dealings relating to him in Arkansas).
The White House feels that this is, in essence, a witch hunt, that is designed to keep anti-Bush rhetoric in the news, bring down White House chief of staff Karl Rove, Attorney General Gonzalez, and hurt Bush's approval rating (even more) as he attempts to fight for his Iraq war policies. The more this scandal is in the news, the less the so far more successful then not surge in Iraq will be in the news.
Bush has the legal right to fight this out in the courts (I kinda doubt he will actually win, but there there are political reasons for him to try). He has offered to turn over all the documents relating to the firings, which prove the reasons were not political. The simple fact is even if Karl Rove* and the Attorney General were to testify the Democrats would still claim that were doing something horribly wrong because like the Valerie Plame issue for many of them this all comes down to politics. They may honestly feel that Bush, and his people are so bad that they must have done something wrong every time but that is not the case here.
*The press' hysteria over the fact that Karl Rove, the White House Chief of Staff, talked about, wrote memoes regarding these firings is absolutely ludicrous. He's the freakin' White House Chief of Staff! How dare he conduct the normal activities of his office?!
Really? Well, perhaps you can explain why big oil isn't aloud to drill in ANWAR or almost anywhere off the US coastline like it's wants to? Or perhaps why it's not aloud to explore for new oil? Do you know you votes for these policies? The U.S. government. Of course, the oil industry would probably love it if the U.S. was primarily powered by oil, but no politician in his right mind calls for that (clean coal maybe but not oil).
There is more evidence of the evidence of "Big Environmentalism" on the government then "Big Oil." No blood for Greenpeace! (not just Americans, how many innocent African children die unnecessarily every year because of the environmentalist movement)
Can you provide a source for this?
richardbenson
Xfractor Card #351
Joined: 30 Oct 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,553
Location: Leave only a footprint behind
21 Mar 2007, 9:00 pm
if they're going to tell the truth then it's no worries.
The issue is not that they would lie. The issue again in regards to bringing high level officials in to testify involves executive priviliage. Why, these papers prepared by Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy defending such claims for President Clinton explain:
Courts have recognized a “presumptive privilege” for presidential communications that is grounded in “a President’s generalized interest in confidentiality” and is viewed as important to preserving the candor of presidential advisors and protecting the freedom of the president and his advisors to “explore alternatives in the process of shaping policies and making decisions and to do so in a way many would be unwilling to express except privately.” U. S. v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 708, 711 (1974); In re Sealed Case, 121 F.3d 729, 743 (D.C. Cir. 1997). This privilege is “inextricably rooted in the separation of powers under the Constitution” and “flow[s] from the nature of enumerated powers” of the President. Id., 418 U.S. at 705; 121 F.3d at 743...
According to a recent D.C. Circuit case, “[t]he President can invoke the privilege when asked to produce documents or other materials that reflect Presidential decision making and deliberations and that the President believes should remain confidential.” Id., 121 F.3d at 744. As to the scope of this privilege, the court found, in the context of the criminal proceeding, it to cover “communications made by presidential advisers in the course of preparing advice for the President, . . . even when these communications are not made directly to the President.” Id. at 751-52.
I recognize that the presidential communications privilege is not absolute. For instance, in the context of a criminal case (one of the Watergate cases), the Supreme Court found that an assertion of executive privilege “based only on the generalized interest in confidentiality . . . must yield to the demonstrated, specific need for evidence in a pending criminal trial.” 418 U.S. at 713. In the context of a congressional investigation, the privilege would be more difficult to overcome and require a showing that the information sought to be obtained is “demonstrably critical to the responsible fulfillment of the Committee’s functions.”Senate Select Committee v. Nixon , 498 F.2d 725, 731 (D.C. Cir. 1974). This would be a difficult task in this matter given the peculiarly executive nature of the clemency process.
(Found on Patterico's Pontification's)
How are you sure? Is not some evidence required?
This is a lynch mob mentality. It is unethical to just "get" someone based on the idea that you disapprove of their political beliefs. In the American system, you must show they have committed criminal action, otherwise you must wait until you have the opportunity to vote them out.
Really?! On what basis?! I find this astonishing. How is he "the essence of evil?" What crime did he commit? What proof of criminal action do you have? Isn't advocating the deaths of your political opponents wrong?
21 Mar 2007, 11:17 pm
Here are the articles of impeachment against President Bill Clinton, you will note a lack of emphasis on sex. I believe that the Senate acted contrary to it's sworn duties by failing to remove President Clinton. The job of the Senate is to decide whether or not the impeached person is guilty or not guilty of the said charges. It was obvious that President Clinton was guilty. Regardless of the political popularity of the President, or the opinion of whether charges should have been brought the role of the Senate is clear. I personally believe that it is not constitutionally REQUIRED to impeach a President merely because he commits an offense (if the President had been more forthcoming of his actions I would have in fact opposed his removal), however once the articles of impeachment have been approved by committee and reach the floor (which is in effect a grand jury) they must act in accordance with their oaths as officeholders and judge the crimes as if a jury.
The articles of impeachment, approved by the House of Representatives, against President Clinton:
CLINTON
[H. Res. 611, 105th Cong., 2d Sess.]
[Exhibited to Senate on January 7, 1999]
RESOLUTION
Impeaching William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States,
for high crimes and misdemeanors.
Resolved, That William Jefferson Clinton, President of the
United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors,
and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to
the United States Senate:
Articles of impeachment exhibited by the House of
Representatives of the United States of America in the name of
itself and of the people of the United States of America,
against William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United
States of America, in maintenance and support of its
impeachment against him for high crimes and misdemeanors.
Article I
In his conduct while President of the United States,
William Jefferson Clinton, in violation of his constitutional
oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the
United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve,
protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and
in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the
laws be faithfully executed, has willfully corrupted and
manipulated the judicial process of the United States for his
personal gain and exoneration, impeding the administration of
justice, in that:
On August 17, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton swore to tell
the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth before a
Federal grand jury of the United States. Contrary to that oath,
William Jefferson Clinton willfully provided perjurious, false
and misleading testimony to the grand jury concerning one or
more of the following: (1) the nature and details of his
relationship with a subordinate Government employee; (2) prior
perjurious, false and misleading testimony he gave in a Federal
civil rights action brought against him; (3) prior false and
misleading statements he allowed his attorney to make to a
Federal judge in that civil rights action; and (4) his corrupt
efforts to influence the testimony of witnesses and to impede
the discovery of evidence in that civil rights action.
In doing this, William Jefferson Clinton has undermined the
integrity of his office, has brought disrepute on the
Presidency, has betrayed his trust as President, and has acted
in a manner subversive of the rule of law and justice, to the
manifest injury of the people of the United States.
Wherefore, William Jefferson Clinton, by such conduct,
warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office and
disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust,
or profit under the United States.
Article II
In his conduct while President of the United States,
William Jefferson Clinton, in violation of his constitutional
oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the
United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve,
protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and
in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the
laws be faithfully executed, has prevented, obstructed, and
impeded the administration of justice, and has to that end
engaged personally, and through his subordinates and agents, in
a course of conduct or scheme designed to delay, impede, cover
up, and conceal the existence of evidence and testimony related
to a Federal civil rights action brought against him in a duly
instituted judicial proceeding.
The means used to implement this course of conduct or
scheme included one or more of the following acts:
(1) On or about December 17, 1997, William Jefferson
Clinton corruptly encouraged a witness in a Federal
civil rights action brought against him to execute a
sworn affidavit in that proceeding that he knew to be
perjurious, false and misleading.
(2) On or about December 17, 1997, William Jefferson
Clinton corruptly encouraged a witness in a Federal
civil rights action brought against him to give
perjurious, false and misleading testimony if and when
called to testify personally in that proceeding.
(3) On or about December 28, 1997, William Jefferson
Clinton corruptly engaged in, encouraged, or supported
a scheme to conceal evidence that had been subpoenaed
in a Federal civil rights action brought against him.
(4) Beginning on or about December 7, 1997, and
continuing through and including January 14, 1998,
William Jefferson Clinton intensified and succeeded in
an effort to secure job assistance to a witness in a
Federal civil rights action brought against him in
order to corruptly prevent the truthful testimony of
that witness in that proceeding at a time when the
truthful testimony of that witness would have been
harmful to him.
(5) On January 17, 1998, at his deposition in a
Federal civil rights action brought against him,
William Jefferson Clinton corruptly allowed his
attorney to make false and misleading statements to a
Federal judge characterizing an affidavit, in order to
prevent questioning deemed relevant by the judge. Such
false and misleading statements were subsequently
acknowledged by his attorney in a communication to that
judge.
(6) On or about January 18 and January 20-21, 1998,
William Jefferson Clinton related a false and
misleading account of events relevant to a Federal
civil rights action brought against him to a potential
witness in that proceeding, in order to corruptly
influence the testimony of that witness.
(7) On or about January 21, 23, and 26, 1998, William
Jefferson Clinton made false and misleading statements
to potential witnesses in a Federal grand jury
proceeding in order to corruptly influence the
testimony of those witnesses. The false and misleading
statements made by William Jefferson Clinton were
repeated by the witnesses to the grand jury, causing
the grand jury to receive false and misleading
information.
In all of this, William Jefferson Clinton has undermined
the integrity of his office, has brought disrepute on the
Presidency, has betrayed his trust as President, and has acted
in a manner subversive of the rule of law and justice, to the
manifest injury of the people of the United States.
Wherefore, William Jefferson Clinton, by such conduct,
warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office and
disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust,
or profit under the United States.
Passed the House of Representatives December 19, 1998.
Newt Gingrich,
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Attest: Robin H. Carle,
Clerk.
22 Mar 2007, 4:08 am
he lied about a blowjob. there was no reason for concern with that whole thing anyways.
and you'll do well to note that he was acquitted of the charges.
again...it was mostly party-line BS. as opposed...to say.......the patriot act. which is an unconstitutional law that was written up in a time of emergency and should be now destroyed in the moments now of sobriety. bush lied about weapons of mass destruction being in iraq. specifically, he said that iraq was persuing a nuclear weapon....i know...it's the last time i watched the state of the union address...i nearly threw my remote through the tv when he said about that because i knew he was lying and he was trying to bring us into an unnecessary war.
bush has literally cost us billions, has constantly lied and defended the criminals in his immediate staff, and if anyone should ever be impeached, it should be him.
karl rove is the actual brain behind a majority of the acts done by the president with regards to pushing forward the worthless neo-conservative ideals that have since fallen flat when tried to put into action.
bush has been a failure of a president. he's done more to destroy the constitution and promote inequality, bigotry, and a theocratic state that the founding fathers would personally kick his ass if they knew what he was doing.
22 Mar 2007, 8:37 am
Well, in Italy former premier Silvio Berlusconi lied under oath, but his crime (among the many) was prescripted. It is worthy to note that he was asked whether or not he was part of P2, a right-wing masonic conspiracy to take control of Italy in a "democratic" way. He was, but lied.
22 Mar 2007, 11:23 am
Oh course not, and I did, and would not claim such a thing. What "evil" are you referring to in particular?
Does anybody else have a problem with snake321 calling for the death of Karl Rove? Is anyone willing to condemn it?
So perjury is OK depending on what the subject is? He lied about the fact he met Lewinsky, and urged members of his staff to lie as well. But, oh, who cares, it's the root of the issue was sexual so it is magically OK. BTW, he was being sued so that lying obstructed a seperate civil lawsuit that was under way (for the record, I don't have a ton of sympathy for Paula Jones).
Do you seriously believe he did not commit perjury or obstruct justice?
The Patriot Act was, and is not unconstitutional. As FDR famously said, repeating a lie does not make it true.
Bush said that, based on the intelligence information that was available at the time, that there were WMDs in Iraq. We did not find stockpiles of weapons, although clearly Saddam was violating the inspection agreement. However, just because we we did not find weapons does not mean Bush lied automatically. There are much more logically reasonings then that. First off, it is insane to assume that Bush would go in knowing that he would be exposed as a liar. It simply makes no sense. Second off, it has been theorized that Saddam was 1. Exaggerating his weapons capability (internal documents seem to indicate he did have weapons at some time a short time ago but this may have been a game for Western intelligence, certainly Saddam wasn't exactly the greatest strategic thinker), or that 2. he moved some WMDs out of the country into Syria.
I'm glad you knew since the it was the a virtual concession of the intelligence community of the time (both American and international) that Iraq actively desired to obtain nuclear weapons.
Point out some of the specific lies he has made (in addition to the highly questionable claim that he "lied about WMDs). It seems that claims you are making are nothing more then attempts to, in essence, criminalize politics. You seem to view the people who have hold political office and work towards separate goals then you as inherently bad and view everything they do as automatically part of some criminal conspiracy. Logic and doubt are meaningless under such an ideological fervor.
What evidence or sources do you have or this? Is it the book anti-Bush book Bush's Brain? Do you disagree with then with partisans who claim that Dick Cheney is behind everything the President does? Do you also disagree with the people who have actually sat down with the President and talked with him and found him to be an intelligent person, as well as the people (including those not necessarily so sympathetic with Bush, such as Bob Woodward) who would not endorse such a radical claim?
Is Karl Rove a neo-conservative (ie: a former liberal democrat turned conservative)?
The founding father's lived in a much different time then today. They created the constitution with the knowledge that times would change, and hence that document could be ammended....The idea that Bush has tried to promote bigotry is silly. Bush has emphasized again and again that it is not Islam that is responsible for 9/11 but terrorism. His administration (in my opinion, rightly) has been attacked by conservatives for not understanding the need to promote moderates inside of Islam. The idea that he is promoting a theocratic state is naive. Bush may be personally religious, and he may not cow tow to the ACLU, but (on the average) he uses religious language less in his speech then Bill Clinton did in fact, if you look back at the inaugural addresses of previous presidents, secular Americans would be astonished by the amounts of religious references.
Representative Paul seems to be a OK guy, but I would disagree with you his policies would work. Interestingly, looking at his record, he was slightly less libertarian then I thought he would be. He has no chance in the Republican primary since he really isn't a Republican at heart at all (he ran as Libertarian party candidate for Pres. some years back ad got less then 1% I think).
I'm not sure what you are referring to. I am aware that Berluscouni had his issue with corrupting, but the Masons (certainly today) and just a innocent sort of fraternity. They do good things for the community too.
The two parties, according to World Statesman.com, that were part of Berluscouni's alliance when was last Prime Minister:
22 Mar 2007, 8:54 pm
bush has cost us billions:
1. war in iraq. it was his policy to persue the war in iraq. he approached this in a rushed manner, did nohing resembling planning other than put forward the neoconservative ideal of nation building to spread democracy. he followed a failed ideology and the results have been failure. the intellgence being wrong is extremely questionable....colin powell actually gave an interview shortly after he quit saying that he was forced to give that speech to the UN without adequate information and he felt that there weren't strong enough reasons to go into iraq. he gave the speech because he was forced to by bush's cabinet and his voicing his opinion of opposition was ignored. point being bush willingly persued a war with information that he knew wasn't complete and was potentially wrong. he willingly lied about how much we knew at the time and continues to lie today claiming ignorance. i got a $40 dollar parking ticket the other day for parking on the wrong side of the street....i didn't know it was illegal to do that (it was a two way street and the parking spot was legit...i was just on the left side of the street instead of the right) should i not have to pay my $40 ticket because i was ignorant of the law at the time? there's no way i could have known that was illegal or had any indication it was illegal beforehand. similarly, bush can claim ignorance but the responsibility still lays on his shoulders and his eagerness to go to war has cost us billions in iraq and will cost us billions for other reasons....
2. no child left behind has been a failure and made the education program much worse. just where i'm from, there were numerous school closings due to a cut in funding. this left many kids without a school within reasonable distance from them. this is a direct result of the policies of no child left behind and the moronic idea that if you cut funding to underachieving schools, they will become better as they try to get more money. this is counter-intuitive to reality where cutting money only makes for a worse product and eventually results in the closure. how does this cost us billions? it costs us in crime and generally a less educated public that cannot perform even to a bare minimal standard in society. i saw this first hand in new orleans after bush enacted his no child left behind program. bush treats education as a privilege rather than as a basic human right. this is something that will cost us in the long term and something you will see develop in the next 5-10 years.
3. tax cuts while increasing government spending. bush has yet to veto a spending bill....in fact, bush has spent more money than pretty much any president before him in the modern time. his faith-based initiative programs dole out money (unconstitutionally favoring christian organizations, btw) to religious organizations that make tax-free money in unrecorded amounts! now if you're going to be spending more money, there needs to be a source of income for that money....he has not created any new taxes that could possibly handle the workload put on the american dollar. especially with the recent prescription bill he signed into law....a bill that we won't be able to afford when the baby boomers start retiring en masse. basically, he's been irresponsible with money...and this should be no surprise....he's always been irresponsible with money...even when he was owner of the texas rangers and his oil companies...his businesses went bankrupt. he's economic cancer. whether it's directly him or the people he surrounds himself with...it doesn't matter, it's his responsibility in the end to pick people who are qualified and responsible...and he needs to show responsibility and control with spending.
clinton getting his dick sucked:
he perjured about getting his dick sucked. this is not a matter of national security and the matter should have been resolved after his presidency and not during. anyone who payed attention at that time to politics knows that his actions and decision-making was very much effected by this case being brought against him. but in the end, the perjury case had more of an effect on his presidency than his lying about getting his dick sucked and his argument on semantics after the fact.
and yes, it makes a huge f*****g difference between libby lying about releasing an active CIA agent's real name to the press and lying about getting your penis fellated. valerie plame's name being released risked not only her life but also the lives of the people around her who were her cover at the time.
the patriot act is unconstitutional. it violates the amendment of a right to due process, it gives the government the right to basically abduct you and let you never be seen or heard from again (and this has been done already with a couple cases). i've read it before and it gave me a headache because i hate reading legalese...which should be illegal for laws...it should be written in a way that is legible for everyone who is paying for these laws to be upheld. it's boardering on taxation without representation if you really think about it considering that if you can't understand what the wording of a law means, it means you're paying for something you know nothing about and there is no guidance offered for reading and understanding what is written in law.
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| Oath Keeper's Son Enters Politics |
25 Mar 2024, 1:53 am |
| Autism and lying |
01 Apr 2024, 6:20 am |
| Republicans Lash Out At Marjorie Taylor-Greene Over Threat |
22 Mar 2024, 3:21 pm |
| Republicans Aim to Stop Noncitizen Voting in Federal Electio |
14 Apr 2024, 8:35 pm |
