House Files Lawsuit to Force Bush Aides to Testify on Justice Firings

[Dos Equis]

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

[240 is Back]

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

[War-Horse]

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..

[Dos Equis]

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? 

[Dos Equis]

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? 

[Decker]

And what specific law was broken with these U.S. Attorney firings? 

Blowing off a Congressional subpoena is still a crime Beach Bum.

[Straw Man]

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.   

[Dos Equis]

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 . . . .

[240 is Back]

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?

[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?

[Straw Man]

Decker - seriously.

Don't waste your time trying to explain it. 

[Decker]

"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.

[Dos Equis]

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.  

[Straw Man]

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.

[Decker]

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.

[Dos Equis]

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.
 

[Straw Man]

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.

[Dos Equis]

There is a "mountain of evidence" that a crime has been committed, but no one can say what the crime is.  Works for me.   

[Decker]

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.

[Straw Man]

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

[Dos Equis]

 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.     

[240 is Back]

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.

[Decker]

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.

[Dos Equis]

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.       

[Decker]

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.