Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Dos Equis on March 10, 2008, 09:02:32 AM
-
Isn't this horse dead? ::)
House Files Lawsuit to Force Bush Aides to Testify on Justice Firings
Monday, March 10, 2008
E-Mail Print Share:
DiggFacebookStumbleUpon
WASHINGTON — The House of Representatives' Judiciary Committee has filed suit to force former White House Counsel Harriet Miers and White House chief of staff Joshua Bolten to provide information about the firing of U.S. attorneys.
The lawsuit filed in federal court Monday says Miers is not immune from the obligation to testify and both she and Bolten must identify all documents that are being withheld from Congress.
In a statement announcing the lawsuit, House Judiciary Committee chairman John Conyers says "we will not allow the administration to steamroll Congress."
Conyers says he is confident the federal courts will agree that the Bush administration's claims to be immune from congressional oversight are at odds with U.S. constitutional principles.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,336393,00.html
-
Isn't this horse dead? ::)
laws were broken, "dog".
I know you are okay with forgiving based upon political party, but the justice system isn't set up that way.
go milk a neocon hog, you pathetic lapdog :)
-
BB. Hate to tell you this, but bush and his cronies are not above the Law,and cannot get away with hiding behind Fascist laws that they made up to protect themselves.
This telecomm spying on american phone conversations is one that they will answer for soon also.
The Fake Fear of terrorism acts do not allow them to twist and circumvent the constitution. Only reason why not much has been done is that congress and the president would put a lock on those matters.
An example of "bush justice" is the title of this very thread..
-
laws were broken, "dog".
I know you are okay with forgiving based upon political party, but the justice system isn't set up that way.
go milk a neocon hog, you pathetic lapdog :)
Go work on your moon conspiracy, you screwball. :) Do you still hear voices?
-
BB. Hate to tell you this, but bush and his cronies are not above the Law,and cannot get away with hiding behind Fascist laws that they made up to protect themselves.
This telecomm spying on american phone conversations is one that they will answer for soon also.
The Fake Fear of terrorism acts do not allow them to twist and circumvent the constitution. Only reason why not much has been done is that congress and the president would put a lock on those matters.
An example of "bush justice" is the title of this very thread..
And what specific law was broken with these U.S. Attorney firings?
-
And what specific law was broken with these U.S. Attorney firings?
Blowing off a Congressional subpoena is still a crime Beach Bum.
-
I'd like to hear Obama or Hilary comment on whether they will investigate the crimes of the Bush Administration or if they will be like Bill Clinton and just drop all investigations.
-
Blowing off a Congressional subpoena is still a crime Beach Bum.
Not unless they have an excuse, which they apparently believe they have.
But that doesn't answer my question: what specific law was broken? What the heck are they investigating? They should get back to investigating steroids in sports or something . . . .
-
Not unless they have an excuse, which they apparently believe they have.
"Your honor, I know it looks really bad for me, but apparently, i believe I have an excuse... so can we just drop the whole thing cause I'm a repub"?
hahahaha pathetic you fooking lapdog!
what specific law was broken?
Decker?
-
Not unless they have an excuse, which they apparently believe they have.
But that doesn't answer my question: what specific law was broken? What the heck are they investigating? They should get back to investigating steroids in sports or something . . . .
They have no excuse I'm aware of, you know, like car trouble or heart surgery. I believe the legal counsel of Bush told them they could sit this one out.
Talk about bad advice.
The underlying crime? That's what will be ascertained by Congressional Inquiry.
But there won't be Congressional Inquiry if we have people not showing up to testify when subpoenaed.
See, not showing up to testify when called by Congress is a crime itself. How can Congress do its job if people don't respect the law?
-
Decker - seriously.
Don't waste your time trying to explain it.
-
"Your honor, I know it looks really bad for me, but apparently, i believe I have an excuse... so can we just drop the whole thing cause I'm a repub"?
hahahaha pathetic you fooking lapdog!
Decker?
The Constitution vests all legislative authority in Congress. U.S. Const., art. I, § 1. Although the Constitution does not expressly authorize Congress to issue subpoenas, the Supreme Court has stated that the authority to subpoena is an "indispensable ingredient" of Congress' legislative power. Eastland v. United States Servicemen's Fund, 421 U.S. 491, 505 (1975). In McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135, 174 (1927), the Court declared that "the power of inquiry-with process to enforce it-is an essential and appropriate auxiliary to the legislative function." According to the Court:
A legislative body cannot legislate wisely or effectively in the absence of information respecting the conditions which the legislation is intended to affect or change; and where the legislative body does not itself possess the requisite information-which not infrequently is true-recourse must be had to others who do possess it. Experience has taught that mere requests for such information often are unavailing, and also that information which is volunteered is not always accurate or complete; so some means of compulsion are essential to obtain what is needed.
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/sine.htm
Here's the Code: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode02/usc_sec_02_00000192----000-.html
Every person who having been summoned as a witness by the authority of either House of Congress to give testimony or to produce papers upon any matter under inquiry before either House, or any joint committee established by a joint or concurrent resolution of the two Houses of Congress, or any committee of either House of Congress, willfully makes default, or who, having appeared, refuses to answer any question pertinent to the question under inquiry, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000 nor less than $100 and imprisonment in a common jail for not less than one month nor more than twelve months.
-
They have no excuse I'm aware of, you know, like car trouble or heart surgery. I believe the legal counsel of Bush told them they could sit this one out.
Talk about bad advice.
The underlying crime? That's what will be ascertained by Congressional Inquiry.
But there won't be Congressional Inquiry if we have people not showing up to testify when subpoenaed.
See, not showing up to testify when called by Congress is a crime itself. How can Congress do its job if people don't respect the law?
The AG disagrees with you:
Mukasey Refuses Probe of Bush Aides Found 9 days ago on apnews.myway.com
WASHINGTON (AP) - Attorney General Michael Mukasey refused Friday to refer the House's contempt citations against two of President Bush's top aides to a federal grand jury. Mukasey said White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten and former presidential counsel Harriet Miers committed no crime. . . . http://tailrank.com/5302442/Mukasey-Refuses-Probe-of-Bush-Aides
And the underlying crime is "to be determined"?? Sounds Lawrence Walsh and Ken Starr-esque to me.
-
To be clear - he's saying that not showing up to testify was not a crime due to his interpretation of executive priviledge.
He said nothing about the firings of the attornies or whether any crimes had been committed and that's what Congress is trying to find out.
-
The AG disagrees with you:
Mukasey Refuses Probe of Bush Aides Found 9 days ago on apnews.myway.com
WASHINGTON (AP) - Attorney General Michael Mukasey refused Friday to refer the House's contempt citations against two of President Bush's top aides to a federal grand jury. Mukasey said White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten and former presidential counsel Harriet Miers committed no crime. . . . http://tailrank.com/5302442/Mukasey-Refuses-Probe-of-Bush-Aides
And the underlying crime is "to be determined"?? Sounds Lawrence Walsh and Ken Starr-esque to me.
This AG doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground.
This pathetic example of a "man" couldn't even admit that waterboarding is torture. Mukasey's allegiances are completely divided between country and president.
He is unamerican.
The Subpoena power of Congress is extremely broad and something entirely different than that of a special independent investigator.
-
This AG doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground.
This pathetic example of a "man" couldn't even admit that waterboarding is torture. Mukasey's allegiances are completely divided between country and president.
He is unamerican.
The Subpoena power of Congress is extremely broad and something entirely different than that of a special independent investigator.
Let's assume he is not a real man and is "un-American." He is still the AG, a former federal judge, and still concluded they broke no law by not responding to the subpoenas. I'm sure there are others who agree with him. The courts will have the final say. It's a little presumptuous to say they have no valid excuse for not appearing, before the courts have ruled on this.
The subpoena power of Congress is no different than that of a special prosecutor if both are running down rabbit trails trying to prove some unknown crime. Another waste of my tax dollars.
-
Bum - how the fuck is Congress supposed to determine if a crime was committed if no one will talk. There is a mountain of evidence to warrant an investigation.
-
There is a "mountain of evidence" that a crime has been committed, but no one can say what the crime is. Works for me. ::)
-
Let's assume he is not a real man and is "un-American." He is still the AG, a former federal judge, and still concluded they broke no law by not responding to the subpoenas. I'm sure there are others who agree with him. The courts will have the final say. It's a little presumptuous to say they have no valid excuse for not appearing, before the courts have ruled on this.
The issue is not whether an underlying law was broken. The issue is that Bush's two cronies have asserted "executive privilege" in the matter claiming that they can now ignore Congress (sounds familiar).
If both Bush cronies wanted to honor the subpoena and state in response to a question that they cannot answer that question b/c executive privilege has been claimed, then that would be the proper procedure for doing that.
To ignore the subpoenas and Congressional inquiry is flat out illegal. Mukasey is not doing his job.
-
It's also likely that their testimony (if truthful) would show that others lied to Congress when testifying on this subject. I'm not clear if firing attornies for purely politcal reasons is in fact a crime but the Gonzo and other have stated that they were not fire for political reasons so......what was the reason.
I have no problem with Congress pursuing this as far as they'd like to go.
BTW - another possible motive was potential election fraud. I don't have the time right now and even if I did I think it would still be a waste of effort
-
The issue is not whether an underlying law was broken. The issue is that Bush's two cronies have asserted "executive privilege" in the matter claiming that they can now ignore Congress (sounds familiar).
If both Bush cronies wanted to honor the subpoena and state in response to a question that they cannot answer that question b/c executive privilege has been claimed, then that would be the proper procedure for doing that.
To ignore the subpoenas and Congressional inquiry is flat out illegal. Mukasey is not doing his job.
There are two issues: (1) whether they had a duty to respond to the subpoenas and (2) whether there is an underlying crime. Go back and look at my first response in this thread. I was focusing on what the alleged underlying crime is. What is it?
And is refusing to appear based on a claim of executive privilege "illegal"? We'll find out soon enough. I'll wait for the courts to weigh in on this.
-
BTW - another possible motive was potential election fraud. I don't have the time right now and even if I did I think it would still be a waste of effort
we could check, but didn't the white house accidentally delete all the email records from around 911 and the elections?
10 million of them right? deleted Dec 14 of 2007, the very date they were asked for them?
And somehow, the hard disk records in the safety deposit vault were all deleted too that date. By accident too.
By the way, you're an inbred, retarded donkey if you believe that explanation.
-
There are two issues: (1) whether they had a duty to respond to the subpoenas and (2) whether there is an underlying crime. Go back and look at my first response in this thread. I was focusing on what the alleged underlying crime is. What is it?
And is refusing to appear based on a claim of executive privilege "illegal"? We'll find out soon enough. I'll wait for the courts to weigh in on this.
If Congress issues a subpoena--there is a de facto duty to respond--it's a legally enforceable document. Now the Bush cronies could have responded at the investigative hearing with "the president has claimed executive privilege in the matter and I am not at liberty to respond to your question b/c of that..." The duty to show is pretty clear.
These cronies are just ignoring the Congress. I.e., the representative of the People.
I think you are missing the point of what a subpoena is. It's a legally enforceable order to furnish testimony, papers, videos etc. to the requesting body. The failure to comply is punishable by fines and jail time.
Doesn't the idea of "obstruction" enter your mind?
If Congress is investigating whether a crime took place and the players decide not to show, why even have an investigation in the first place? What's the point?
Why not just wait for the smoking gun?
Nixon would still be president from beyond the grave if that were the case.
-
If Congress issues a subpoena--there is a de facto duty to respond--it's a legally enforceable document. Now the Bush cronies could have responded at the investigative hearing with "the president has claimed executive privilege in the matter and I am not at liberty to respond to your question b/c of that..." The duty to show is pretty clear.
These cronies are just ignoring the Congress. I.e., the representative of the People.
I think you are missing the point of what a subpoena is. It's a legally enforceable order to furnish testimony, papers, videos etc. to the requesting body. The failure to comply is punishable by fines and jail time.
Doesn't the idea of "obstruction" enter your mind?
If Congress is investigating whether a crime took place and the players decide not to show, why even have an investigation in the first place? What's the point?
Why not just wait for the smoking gun?
Nixon would still be president from beyond the grave if that were the case.
I know what a subpoena is. Are you saying that once a subpoena is issued that the party who has been subpoenaed has no choice but to appear?
And there you go tap-dancing around the alleged crime. What's the alleged underlying crime here Decker?
It sounds like people don't really want to talk about the specific crime that was supposedly committed, because there doesn't appear to be one. Were U.S. Attorneys fired to interfere with a legitimate criminal prosecution? If so, where is the evidence of this alleged crime? Etc., etc. I don't even see smoke. Sounds like a partisan witch hunt.
-
I know what a subpoena is. Are you saying that once a subpoena is issued that the party who has been subpoenaed has no choice but to appear?
Absolutely. That's what a subpoena is.
And there you go tap-dancing around the alleged crime. What's the alleged underlying crime here Decker?
I don't care what the underlying crime is. When Congress says, "Jump" with a subpoena, you/and the president and his staff say, "how high".
It sounds like people don't really want to talk about the specific crime that was supposedly committed, because there doesn't appear to be one. Were U.S. Attorneys fired to interfere with a legitimate criminal prosecution? If so, where is the evidence of this alleged crime? Etc., etc. I don't even see smoke. Sounds like a partisan witch hunt.
Is it a witch hunt? I don't know.
But I do know that subpoenas were issued and ignored.
That's a crime.
-
Absolutely. That's what a subpoena is.
I don't care what the underlying crime is. When Congress says, "Jump" with a subpoena, you/and the president and his staff say, "how high".
Is it a witch hunt? I don't know.
But I do know that subpoenas were issued and ignored.
That's a crime.
Well I have to disagree with you. There is almost always some exception somewhere. There are ways around subpoenas. And it isn't clear to me that a Congressional subpoena trumps executive privilege.
I don't know if the subpoenas were "ignored." There may have been a response to the subpoenas by their lawyers, explaining why they didn't believe they needed to appear.
I'll be interested to see how the courts deal with this.
This entire "investigation" is dumb IMO. It's undeniably partisan. It's a garden variety partisan witch hunt. If both parties were involved in this, I'd pay more attention.
-
Not unless they have an excuse, which they apparently believe they have.
But that doesn't answer my question: what specific law was broken? What the heck are they investigating? They should get back to investigating steroids in sports or something . . . .
Christ, you're a bonehead, either that or you just play devils advocate for the fuck of it.
-
Christ, you're a bonehead, either that or you just play devils advocate for the fuck of it.
this is exactly the place that anyone who spends any time talking with BB eventually finds themself.
sometimes I think it's the latter
most of the time I think he might be semi-retarded
-
Well I have to disagree with you. There is almost always some exception somewhere. There are ways around subpoenas. And it isn't clear to me that a Congressional subpoena trumps executive privilege.
I don't know if the subpoenas were "ignored." There may have been a response to the subpoenas by their lawyers, explaining why they didn't believe they needed to appear.
I'll be interested to see how the courts deal with this.
This entire "investigation" is dumb IMO. It's undeniably partisan. It's a garden variety partisan witch hunt. If both parties were involved in this, I'd pay more attention.
House Files Suit Against Administration to Enforce Subpoenas
The Judiciary Committee, as plaintiff, is asking the Court to find the following:
(1) Ms. Miers is not “immune” from the obligation to appear before the Committee in response to a duly authorized, issued and served Committee subpoena;
(2) Ms. Miers and Mr. Bolten must produce privilege logs identifying all documents withheld on grounds of executive privilege;
(3) Executive privilege does not cover documents not involving the President or undertaken directly in preparation for advising the President or whose contents are widely-known, previously released or previously the subject of extensive, authorized testimony, and that Ms. Miers’s and Mr. Bolten’s claims of executive privilege are, in any event, overcome by the Committee’s compelling need for the subpoenaed testimony and documents.
(4) that Ms. Miers is required to appear before the Committee to respond to questions put to her pertinent to the Investigation and to invoke executive privilege only if and when appropriate;
(5) that Ms. Miers and Mr. Bolten are required to provide, as required by the subpoenas, a detailed privilege log, identifying by author, recipient, date and subject matter those documents responsive to the subpoena that have been withheld on executive privilege grounds;
(6) that Ms. Miers and Mr. Bolten are required to produce all non-privileged documents responsive to the subpoenas.
________________________ ________________________ ________________________ ____________________
Executive Privilege is not a tool of obstruction for use by all Bush administration people.
-
I wish I had more faith in our court system to produce justice. We've seen Dictator Bush get his way, time after time. Hes one of the greatest, fascist Presidents the world has ever known... :-[
-
Isn't this horse dead? ::)
House Files Lawsuit to Force Bush Aides to Testify on Justice Firings
Monday, March 10, 2008
E-Mail Print Share:
DiggFacebookStumbleUpon
WASHINGTON — The House of Representatives' Judiciary Committee has filed suit to force former White House Counsel Harriet Miers and White House chief of staff Joshua Bolten to provide information about the firing of U.S. attorneys.
The lawsuit filed in federal court Monday says Miers is not immune from the obligation to testify and both she and Bolten must identify all documents that are being withheld from Congress.
In a statement announcing the lawsuit, House Judiciary Committee chairman John Conyers says "we will not allow the administration to steamroll Congress."
Conyers says he is confident the federal courts will agree that the Bush administration's claims to be immune from congressional oversight are at odds with U.S. constitutional principles.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,336393,00.html
The horse is not only NOT dead, if they get the balls, they can hold them in contempt and actually jail them right there in congress. It's old, hasn't been done forever, but it's still valid. If they do that, it will launch this constitutional faceoff to a full out battle and they probably won't go there being the spineless twits they are.
-
House Files Suit Against Administration to Enforce Subpoenas
The Judiciary Committee, as plaintiff, is asking the Court to find the following:
(1) Ms. Miers is not “immune” from the obligation to appear before the Committee in response to a duly authorized, issued and served Committee subpoena;
(2) Ms. Miers and Mr. Bolten must produce privilege logs identifying all documents withheld on grounds of executive privilege;
(3) Executive privilege does not cover documents not involving the President or undertaken directly in preparation for advising the President or whose contents are widely-known, previously released or previously the subject of extensive, authorized testimony, and that Ms. Miers’s and Mr. Bolten’s claims of executive privilege are, in any event, overcome by the Committee’s compelling need for the subpoenaed testimony and documents.
(4) that Ms. Miers is required to appear before the Committee to respond to questions put to her pertinent to the Investigation and to invoke executive privilege only if and when appropriate;
(5) that Ms. Miers and Mr. Bolten are required to provide, as required by the subpoenas, a detailed privilege log, identifying by author, recipient, date and subject matter those documents responsive to the subpoena that have been withheld on executive privilege grounds;
(6) that Ms. Miers and Mr. Bolten are required to produce all non-privileged documents responsive to the subpoenas.
________________________ ________________________ ________________________ ____________________
Executive Privilege is not a tool of obstruction for use by all Bush administration people.
In other words, Miers and Bolten have claimed they are immune and can rely on executive privilege. Maybe the courts will agree with them, maybe not. We'll see.
But you still have not identified the alleged underlying crime.
-
The horse is not only NOT dead, if they get the balls, they can hold them in contempt and actually jail them right there in congress. It's old, hasn't been done forever, but it's still valid. If they do that, it will launch this constitutional faceoff to a full out battle and they probably won't go there being the spineless twits they are.
It is possible that this partisan witch hunt will uncover some (as yet unnamed) crime, but I doubt it. Meanwhile, the Congress is flushing more of my hard earned money down the toilet.
-
One underlying crime would be perjury from Gonzo and other who testified about the reason for the purpose of the firings.
There's nothing wrong with getting testimony for all parties involved and making sure all stories match.
Remember - according to Gonzo the firings were not political yet we have no coherent reason for why these individuals were in fact fired.
-
Where are all these attornys that claim they were wronged. Why are they silent now?? We're kickbacks paid to keep quiet. I understand no comments being made while under investigation but that rarely holds true.
Have they fallen under the protection of the Patriot Act, and been givin millions of dollars in a swiss bank account?
-
i can't wait until president hilary starts abusing her power.
seeing beach bum defend it on a daily basis will be hilarious.
seeing joelocal talk about how the bush admin had so much integrity... will be priceless.
ahh, this place will be so cute when a new party takes over.
-
May 10, 12:20 PM EDT
Invoking history, Bush wants court out of subpoena fight
By MATT APUZZO
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) -- If there's one thing Congress and the Bush administration can agree on, it's that they've got a fight of historic proportions on their hands.
The House Judiciary Committee is demanding documents and testimony from President Bush's closest advisers about the firing of federal prosecutors.
When the White House refused, the Democrat-led committee went to court. Lawyers called the president's actions the most expansive view of presidential authority since Watergate.
Late Friday night, the Bush administration responded with court documents of its own, similarly steeped in history. Lawyers called the lawsuit unprecedented. Citing George Washington and Grover Cleveland, Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton, they said these types of clashes get resolved without going to court.
"For over two hundred years, when disputes have arisen between the political branches concerning the testimony of executive branch witnesses before Congress, or the production of executive branch documents to Congress, the branches have engaged in negotiation and compromise," Justice Department lawyers wrote.
The idea the Congress can't order the president or his advisers to do something is a principle known as executive privilege. That privilege isn't spelled out in the Constitution and courts are rarely asked to decide exactly what it means. And when they have been asked, judges have tried to avoid getting too specific.
"Never in American history has a federal court ordered an executive branch official to testify before Congress," lawyers for the White House wrote.
That makes for a murky area of law and the Bush administration is urging U.S. District Judge John D. Bates not to tidy it up. The ambiguity fosters compromise, political solutions and the kind of give and take that the Founding Father envisioned, attorneys said.
Clearing it up "would forever alter the accommodation process that has served the Nation so well for over two centuries," attorneys wrote.
Congress wants to know whether the Bush administration fired several U.S. attorney for political reasons. That controversy contributed to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales resigning last year.
The Judiciary Committee subpoenaed former White House counsel Harriet Miers to testify and demanded documents from President Bush's chief of staff, Josh Bolten.
The White House argues that the hiring and firing of presidential appointees is strictly the business of the executive branch. The administration has offered to let White House officials discuss the matter privately with Congress but objects to formal testimony under a subpoena.
Congress says it has tried negotiating and is left with no other options but a court case. The Bush administration countered in court documents Friday that, if Congress really wants to put up a fight about this, the Constitution offers plenty of ways for lawmakers to dig in their heels.
Congress can block presidential appointments until its demands are met, attorneys said. And since Congress controls the government's purse strings, it can cut off funding for the Executive branch agencies.
The stakes are high in a court fight.
Bush, who has prided himself on taking strong views on presidential authority, risks a legacy as the president who forever diminished that power in disputes with Congress. Congress risks having its subpoena authority - one of its most powerful oversight tools - permanently curtailed.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CONGRESS_CONTEMPT?refresh=1
-
"Never in American history has a federal court ordered an executive branch official to testify before Congress," lawyers for the White House wrote.
Never has the White house fired judges solely upon their political beliefs and partisan actinos.
-
Never has the White house fired judges solely upon their political beliefs and partisan actinos.
lol. The White House cannot fire judges.
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51SPSJFK8DL._SL500_BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-dp-500-arrow,TopRight,45,-64_OU01_AA240_SH20_.jpg)
-
the reason is that the courts have traditionally tried to stay out of disputes between the other two branches of government. That does not mean there is not a precedent of members of the executive branch being "compelled" to testify before Congress (or obviously, doing so in a voluntary manner)
"Never in American history has a federal court ordered an executive branch official to testify before Congress," lawyers for the White House wrote.
http://judiciary.house.gov/media/pdfs/Nolan070329.pdf
As a general matter, I agree with the proposition that the President’s White House
advisers should not be called to testify before Congress—or even to provide
interviews—without careful congressional consideration of the needs justifying
such a request. To use one standard we have recently heard much repeated,
Congress should not use White House officials to engage in “fishing expeditions.”
But I can assure you that, despite the impression that some have recently sought to
create, the testimony of White House advisers is far from unprecedented. Close
advisers to the President have indeed been subpoenaed by congressional
committees, testified under oath, had their testimony transcribed and made part of
the public record—and been called back for subsequent testimony. As the
Congressional Research Service has reported, there have been at least 73 occasions
since 1944 when White House advisers have testified before Congress.
-
lol. The White House cannot fire judges.
they can by proxy, which is exactly what Alberto gonzalez did. Well, we'd know for sure, except he developed amnesia on the stand.
-
the reason is that the courts have traditionally tried to stay out of disputes between the other two branches of government. That does not mean there is not a precedent of members of the executive branch being "compelled" to testify before Congress (or obviously, doing so in a voluntary manner)
http://judiciary.house.gov/media/pdfs/Nolan070329.pdf
As a general matter, I agree with the proposition that the President’s White House
advisers should not be called to testify before Congress—or even to provide
interviews—without careful congressional consideration of the needs justifying
such a request. To use one standard we have recently heard much repeated,
Congress should not use White House officials to engage in “fishing expeditions.”
But I can assure you that, despite the impression that some have recently sought to
create, the testimony of White House advisers is far from unprecedented. Close
advisers to the President have indeed been subpoenaed by congressional
committees, testified under oath, had their testimony transcribed and made part of
the public record—and been called back for subsequent testimony. As the
Congressional Research Service has reported, there have been at least 73 occasions
since 1944 when White House advisers have testified before Congress.
LOL. Beachbum, your new name should be "Bubblegum".
-
the reason is that the courts have traditionally tried to stay out of disputes between the other two branches of government. That does not mean there is not a precedent of members of the executive branch being "compelled" to testify before Congress (or obviously, doing so in a voluntary manner)
http://judiciary.house.gov/media/pdfs/Nolan070329.pdf
As a general matter, I agree with the proposition that the President’s White House
advisers should not be called to testify before Congress—or even to provide
interviews—without careful congressional consideration of the needs justifying
such a request. To use one standard we have recently heard much repeated,
Congress should not use White House officials to engage in “fishing expeditions.”
But I can assure you that, despite the impression that some have recently sought to
create, the testimony of White House advisers is far from unprecedented. Close
advisers to the President have indeed been subpoenaed by congressional
committees, testified under oath, had their testimony transcribed and made part of
the public record—and been called back for subsequent testimony. As the
Congressional Research Service has reported, there have been at least 73 occasions
since 1944 when White House advisers have testified before Congress.
Off base. A subpoena is compelling someone to testify and the article doesn't say that Congress has never served a subpoena. It says the courts have never enforced a Congressional subpoena.
-
they can by proxy, which is exactly what Alberto gonzalez did. Well, we'd know for sure, except he developed amnesia on the stand.
Federal judges cannot be fired by the White House or by the AG. They have lifetime appointments and can only be impeached by the Senate, the same body that confirms them.
-
LOL. Beachbum, your new name should be "Bubblegum".
I would ask you what you're talking about, but about 90 percent of what you post is incoherent. :)
-
Off base. A subpoena is compelling someone to testify and the article doesn't say that Congress has never served a subpoena. It says the courts have never enforced a Congressional subpoena.
yes, and I addressed that in the first sentence of my post. I don't suppose you bothered to look at the link? The statement by the Bush administration is technically correct but essentially meaningless. Using that argument as an excuse to avoid testifying is just a smokescreen to avoid the issue
More from the link:
The presumptive privilege, however, must be balanced against
the competing interests of a coordinate branch of government. In Nixon, therefore,
the Court recognized the privilege but found that a generalized assertion of the
need for confidentiality did not outweigh the judiciary’s need for evidence in a
criminal proceeding.
The Supreme Court has not addressed how this balancing would be done in the
context of a congressional demand for information, although the D.C. Circuit
Court of Appeals had applied a balancing approach prior to Nixon.6 That court
subsequently affirmed that neither the executive nor legislative branch has an
absolute power in this sphere—either to withhold or demand information from the
other—and that both have a constitutional duty to respect and accommodate the
needs of the other.7 It also made clear that the court would be reluctant at best to
intervene in an executive privilege dispute between the two political branches,
finding instead that the Framers expected “that where conflicts in scope of
authority arose between the coordinate branches, a spirit of dynamic compromise
would promote resolution of the dispute in the manner most likely to result in
efficient and effective functioning of our government system.”8 This “spirit of
dynamic compromise” is an essential part of the constitutional accommodation
process that is at the heart of the resolution of executive privilege disputes:
“[E]ach branch should take cognizance of an implicit constitutional mandate to
seek optimal accommodation through a realistic evaluation of the needs of the
conflicting branches in the particular fact situation.”9
-
I addressed the first part of your post. You said "That does not mean there is not a precedent of members of the executive branch being "compelled" to testify before Congress (or obviously, doing so in a voluntary manner)."
A subpoena is compelling a person to testify and no one said subpoenas have never been issued. Did you miss that part?
I agree with the balancing test discussed in the link. That's likely what the court will do when it decides this thing.
-
No I didn't miss that part
My point was the statement by the White House laywers that the courts have never ordered an executive branch official to testify is, at best, a very weak argument in defense of their position.
That's the point I made (or was trying to make) in the first sentence of my post in response to the article you posted
more from my link:
What is clear from United States v. Nixon5 is that executive privilege is constitutionally rooted in the separation of powers. The public interest in a President receiving “candid, objective, and even blunt or harsh opinions” justifies a presumptive privilege for communication with the President or among those who advise and assist the President. The presumptive privilege, however, must be balanced against the competing interests of a coordinate branch of government. In Nixon, therefore, the Court recognized the privilege but found that a generalized assertion of the need for confidentiality did not outweigh the judiciary’s need for evidence in a criminal proceeding
-
"Bubblegum" = Lacking substance, seems like a food but isnt. In a sentance: " Can you walk and chew bubblegum at the same time"? ...............Simple, devoid of nutrition. = Beachbum.
-
No I didn't miss that part
My point was the statement by the White House laywers that the courts have never ordered an executive branch official to testify is, at best, a very weak argument in defense of their position.
That's the point I made (or was trying to make) in the first sentence of my post in response to the article you posted
more from my link:
What is clear from United States v. Nixon5 is that executive privilege is constitutionally rooted in the separation of powers. The public interest in a President receiving “candid, objective, and even blunt or harsh opinions” justifies a presumptive privilege for communication with the President or among those who advise and assist the President. The presumptive privilege, however, must be balanced against the competing interests of a coordinate branch of government. In Nixon, therefore, the Court recognized the privilege but found that a generalized assertion of the need for confidentiality did not outweigh the judiciary’s need for evidence in a criminal proceeding
That was one line from the article and one line from their argument to the court. If that is their only argument, then yes it's weak. I doubt that's their only argument.
-
"Bubblegum" = Lacking substance, seems like a food but isnt. In a sentance: " Can you walk and chew bubblegum at the same time"? ...............Simple, devoid of nutrition. = Beachbum.
lol . . . What? lol . . . Whenever I read your posts this is what I think of:
(http://images.art.com/images/-/Looney-Tunes---Porky-Pig--C11754811.jpeg)
-
That was one line from the article and one line from their argument to the court. If that is their only argument, then yes it's weak. I doubt that's their only argument.
It's also the only line you highlighted when you posted the article. It seemed as though you were suggesting it was a significant point.
-
It is a significant point.
-
It is a significant point.
no it's not - I thought we were in agreement on that
-
no it's not - I thought we were in agreement on that
No, we agree that if the only argument they have is that a court has never enforced a Congressional subpoena against the executive branch, then that's a weak argument.
On the other hand, I believe the fact no court has ever done this is significant, particularly for this case. They're not even investigating a crime. And as the next two sentences in the article say: "That makes for a murky area of law and the Bush administration is urging U.S. District Judge John D. Bates not to tidy it up. The ambiguity fosters compromise, political solutions and the kind of give and take that the Founding Father envisioned, attorneys said."
In other words, the fact that no court has ever done this makes it less likely the court will want to do it now.
-
No, we agree that if the only argument they have is that a court has never enforced a Congressional subpoena against the executive branch, then that's a weak argument.
On the other hand, I believe the fact no court has ever done this is significant, particularly for this case. They're not even investigating a crime. And as the next two sentences in the article say: "That makes for a murky area of law and the Bush administration is urging U.S. District Judge John D. Bates not to tidy it up. The ambiguity fosters compromise, political solutions and the kind of give and take that the Founding Father envisioned, attorneys said."
In other words, the fact that no court has ever done this makes it less likely the court will want to do it now.
how many times has "the court" (which one are we talking about again) been asked to do so and refused or rendered a decision in favor of the executive branch?
any info on that??
-
how many times has "the court" (which one are we talking about again) been asked to do so and refused or rendered a decision in favor of the executive branch?
any info on that??
No idea. We're talking about any federal court.
-
No idea. We're talking about any federal court.
my point is that if there has never been a case presented and judged then it's a BULLSHIT argument to say that "the courts have never ordered an executive branch official to testify"
have they ever been presented with such a case and ruled that they don't have to testify or cannot testify?
If not, then it has no meaning
it's Bullshit
and I'm sure they know it
-
my point is that if there has never been a case presented and judged then it's a BULLSHIT argument to say that "the courts have never ordered an executive branch official to testify"
have they ever been presented with such a case and ruled that they don't have to testify or cannot testify?
If not, then it has no meaning
it's Bullshit
and I'm sure they know it
No it isn't. It's a fact, whether a court has been presented with the issue or not. The fact a court has never been presented with the issue could mean it's something Congress never pursued because they knew it was a loser. Or that, like the article discusses, this is something the executive and legislative branches should work through on their own.
-
Not unless they have an excuse, which they apparently believe they have.
But that doesn't answer my question: what specific law was broken? What the heck are they investigating? They should get back to investigating steroids in sports or something . . . .
If you get a subpoena, what will exempt you from showing up to court?
Death?
I think that's about it... Either you or a lawyer must show up in your behalf to ask for a continuance so can eventually show up to court to answer whatever questions they may have.
-
If you get a subpoena, what will exempt you from showing up to court?
Death?
I think that's about it... Either you or a lawyer must show up in your behalf to ask for a continuance so can eventually show up to court to answer whatever questions they may have.
I think there are more reasons than death. What if they give you a subpoena with only one day's notice to appear?
-
I think there are more reasons than death. What if they give you a subpoena with only one day's notice to appear?
You still have to show up... There is no excuse for not going to court. You must at least have counsel there to represent you and file a continuance on your behalf. You can't just say "Fuck it".
They will put a bench warrant out for you if you do.
-
You still have to show up... There is no excuse for not going to court. You must at least have counsel there to represent you and file a continuance on your behalf. You can't just say "Fuck it".
They will put a bench warrant out for you if you do.
True, if a person simply doesn't show up there will be a warrant, contempt, etc.
Ever heard the term "quash"?
-
True, if a person simply doesn't show up there will be a warrant, contempt, etc.
Ever heard the term "quash"?
I'm sure we can both agree that David Addington is a person
yes/no?
-
I'm sure we can both agree that David Addington is a person
yes/no?
I'd say yes..
-
I'm sure we can both agree that David Addington is a person
yes/no?
O.K. And?