SubpoenOWNED

[CrimsonWhite]

Impeachment is a two part process. Johnson and Clinton only jumped through the first hoop. The second hoop is what gets you removed from office. And, regardless, I highly doubt Bush is trying to add an impeachment trial to his legacy right now.

Your semantics are skewed. Impeachment is simply the first hoop. The second hoop is a trial, not impeachment. The second hoop that you refer to is "Removal by Impeachment." Your "hoops' are two completely different concepts.

 

[red states rule]

What A Difference A Decade Makes on White House Scandals
Posted by Tim Graham on March 25, 2007 - 14:56.
One of the nice things about having a television and newsletter archive at MRC is being able to bring up the old newscasts and recall how very different the tone and approach of the news was when a Democrat was in the White House. The U.S. Attorney-firing scandal is a strong example of how the network news can on one hand, sell a scandal as incredibly damaging for a political party it does not support, but downplays scandal as damaging to democracy and the people when it affects the political party it favors. Our latest Media Reality Check reminds readers of how different the news sounded ten years ago, when a Republican Congress investigated illegal foreign donations, mostly to national Democratic Party accounts. Take NBC:

NBC theorized that the media were too Clinton-scandal obsessed in 1997. On June 17, 1997, Today co-host Katie Couric asked reporter Bob Woodward: “But are members of the media, do you think, Bob, too scandal-obsessed, looking for something at every corner?”

On August 1, even as the Senate moved to subpoena the White House, co-host Matt Lauer professed: “But there aren't any major storm clouds on the horizon for Bill Clinton, other than maybe Medicare reform.” Newsweek's Jonathan Alter replied: “Yeah, but of course there are these possible scandals, but when the economy is doing well, the public really doesn't seem to care much about anything else.”

On October 8, Today co-host Katie Couric framed the hearings for Sen. Arlen Specter: “Perhaps this is an intentional effort to embarrass the Democratic Party?” On the November 7 Today, NBC's Lisa Myers pressed Senator Fred Thompson: “Your hearings clearly reinforced the public's already low opinion of politicians and politics. Beyond that, what did it accomplish?”

It's a little humorous to recall that the liberal media forecasted no "major storm clouds" for Bill Clinton just a few months before the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke wide open. In the Clinton years, liberal media critics (including those given hours on PBS to unspool their theories) indicted the media for producing "scandal and conflict over substance." But when the Republicans are in power, scandal is the substance that matters most. In most cases, no matter who's in power, scandal is a substantive story. But it can definitely be overblown (or undercooked) depending on who's manufacturing the "news."

http://newsbusters.org/node/11630

 

[glockmail]

So, let's skip the childish insults and stay on topic here. Care to have a crack at the questions posed in <a href=http://www.usmessageboard.com/showpost.php?p=540874&postcount=47>#47</a> and <a href=http://www.usmessageboard.com/showpost.php?p=540875&postcount=48>#48</a>?

You'll need to demostrate to me first that you'll hold the football. "Chimpy this, chimpy that".

 

[red states rule]

You'll need to demostrate to me first that you'll hold the football. "Chimpy this, chimpy that".

I would like him to explain why the liberal media did not care about the 96 Clinton fired

 

[red states rule]

Dems Seek Maximum Political Gain in Attorneys Uproar

By: Mike Allen
March 19, 2007 11:53 AM EST
Congressional Democrats are planning a new, two-track strategy for maximizing the political windfall -- and the disclosure of potentially embarrassing information -- from the Bush administration's firings of eight federal prosecutors, according to top party officials.

House and Senate Democrats plan to delve deep into the details of the corruption cases that might have been disrupted by the high-level purge, the officials said. At the same time, top Democrats will escalate the fight for testimony from top White House officials, including Karl Rove.

"I want testimony under oath," Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) said on ABC's "This Week" on Sunday. "I am sick and tired getting half truths on this." Some Republicans close to the White House expect the strategy to result in the resignation of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

Several Democratic officials were unabashed in discussing the potential political benefits for their party if they can convince voters that President Bush ousted U.S. attorneys for political reasons. Democratic strategists said the controversy is already helping them recruit House and Senate challengers for '08 races. "We know from last cycle that Democrats can win in Republican districts where corruption is an issue," one of the officials said.

Democratic officials told The Politico that one of the major questions Congress would like to pose to Rove, a deputy chief of staff to Bush, and other administration officials is the extent of Bush's
knowledge of the impending changes. One of the officials said the questions would concern whether the president "was aware of the changes, gave his okay, or was briefed on them and didn't raise objections."

Democratic pollsters have been asked to research in greater detail the theory of some party strategists that while many swing voters think the mess in Iraq is at least partly beyond the president's control, they can be convinced that the clumsy handling of the prosecutors can be blamed on him directly.

The controversy is expected to intensify this week. On Monday, the Justice Department is scheduled to send Capitol Hill a massive batch of e-mail covering such sensitive matters as communications between Justice and the prosecutors after they were fired and communications between Justice and members of Congress before the decisions were made.

"Every time you get more memos, or more communications between the White House and the Justice Department, you get more facts that don't look good," said Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.), chairman of the House Democratic Caucus. "The White House either hired a bunch of incompetent U.S. attorneys to start with, or hired a bunch of competent U.S attorneys that were incompetently fired."

On Tuesday, White House counsel Fred Fielding is scheduled to meet with congressional staff members about their demand for testimony from Rove and other presidential advisers. One possible compromise would be to find a way for the officials to give statements on the record without appearing for sworn testimony. A senior administration official said: "Fred's trying to figure out a way to accommodate the Congress and provide them the information they need while also preserving the president's right to get candid advice from his advisers."

Key figures in both parties believe Gonzales, who first went to work for George W. Bush as his general counsel in the Texas governor's office in 1995, will wind up resigning over the imbroglio. "I think he's gone," said a Republican official close to Bush. Gonzales would not be fired, key officials said, and the White House continued to say over the weekend that he has Bush's "full confidence." Republicans point out that Bush may not want to undergo the bloodletting that would be involved in trying to win confirmation of a Gonzales successor. And Democrats admit that even if Gonzales departed, that would not sate their insistence on hearing from Rove and other White House officials who were involved.

Emanuel said his party would continue to focus on the corruption cases that several of the prosecutors had under way when they were fired. "One operative theory, and that doesn't mean that it's right," Emanuel said, "is that if you believe corruption was at the root of the election results, one way to handle that is to get rid of the U.S. attorneys who were pursuing corruption cases."

Another act in the drama opened this weekend with the release of a statement by D. Kyle Sampson, who was chief of staff to Gonzales and resigned effective March 12. Sampson briefly continued to go into his office as part of a transition but left for good on March 14, according to officials familiar with his status.

The statement was issued by his lawyer, Bradford A. Berenson, who had worked for Gonzales in the White House counsel's office for the first two years of Bush's presidency. The statement makes it clear that Sampson does not want to be blamed for the fiasco, and particularly for any incomplete briefing of Deputy Attorney General Paul J. McNulty and Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General William E. Moschella before they testified to Congress about a lack of political influence on the decision to dismiss the prosecutors. Here is the statement in full:

"Kyle did not resign because he had misled anyone at the Justice Department or withheld information concerning the replacement of the U.S. attorneys. He resigned because, as chief of staff, he felt he had let the attorney general down in failing to appreciate the need for and organize a more effective response to the unfounded accusations that the replacements were improper. The fact that the White House and Justice Department had been discussing this subject since the election was well-known to a number of other senior officials at the department, including others who were involved in preparing the department's testimony to Congress. If this background was not called to Mr. McNulty or Mr. Moschella's attention, it was not because any of these individuals deliberately withheld it from them but rather because no one focused on it at the time. The focus of preparation efforts was on why the U.S. attorneys had been replaced, not how."


http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0307/3175.html

 

[CSM]

For me, dear lady, it is a given. Taking responsibility for one's actions is neither Republican nor Democrat, Liberal or Conservative. As human beings, it is possible for any of us, through ignorance or intent, to cause harm to others. To pretend otherwise is is pollyanish at best, delusional at worst, regardless of one's political affiliation or philosophy.

For those unwilling to accept responsibility for the consequences of their actions, we have laws and the courts to enforce that responsibility. Those laws and courts, and officers of the courts, must function as impartially as humanly possible.

If any attempt was made by this Administration, or members of this Administration, to interfere with or subvert those functions, it must be rooted out, wherever the evidence may lead. And if found complicit in these efforts to undermine the justice system, they should step aside for those for whom loyalty to party and President is secondary to their oaths to support and defend the Constitution. If it turns out to be a "witch-hunt on the part of the Democrats, then shame on them. They should hand over their positions to those who will put loyalty to the Constitution and its institutions above partisan politics.

Dangit!!! Quit posting crap I can agree with!

 

[Bullypulpit]

Dangit!!! Quit posting crap I can agree with!

Sorry, I'll try to restrain myself in the future.

 

[Bullypulpit]

You'll need to demostrate to me first that you'll hold the football. "Chimpy this, chimpy that".

I have been. You, however, have simply been standing about holding your privates. Care to address those questions? Didn't think so...

 

[Bullypulpit]

Dems Seek Maximum Political Gain in Attorneys Uproar

By: Mike Allen
March 19, 2007 11:53 AM EST
Congressional Democrats are planning a new, two-track strategy for maximizing the political windfall -- and the disclosure of potentially embarrassing information -- from the Bush administration's firings of eight federal prosecutors, according to top party officials.

House and Senate Democrats plan to delve deep into the details of the corruption cases that might have been disrupted by the high-level purge, the officials said. At the same time, top Democrats will escalate the fight for testimony from top White House officials, including Karl Rove.

"I want testimony under oath," Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) said on ABC's "This Week" on Sunday. "I am sick and tired getting half truths on this." Some Republicans close to the White House expect the strategy to result in the resignation of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

Several Democratic officials were unabashed in discussing the potential political benefits for their party if they can convince voters that President Bush ousted U.S. attorneys for political reasons. Democratic strategists said the controversy is already helping them recruit House and Senate challengers for '08 races. "We know from last cycle that Democrats can win in Republican districts where corruption is an issue," one of the officials said.

Democratic officials told The Politico that one of the major questions Congress would like to pose to Rove, a deputy chief of staff to Bush, and other administration officials is the extent of Bush's
knowledge of the impending changes. One of the officials said the questions would concern whether the president "was aware of the changes, gave his okay, or was briefed on them and didn't raise objections."

Democratic pollsters have been asked to research in greater detail the theory of some party strategists that while many swing voters think the mess in Iraq is at least partly beyond the president's control, they can be convinced that the clumsy handling of the prosecutors can be blamed on him directly.

The controversy is expected to intensify this week. On Monday, the Justice Department is scheduled to send Capitol Hill a massive batch of e-mail covering such sensitive matters as communications between Justice and the prosecutors after they were fired and communications between Justice and members of Congress before the decisions were made.

"Every time you get more memos, or more communications between the White House and the Justice Department, you get more facts that don't look good," said Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.), chairman of the House Democratic Caucus. "The White House either hired a bunch of incompetent U.S. attorneys to start with, or hired a bunch of competent U.S attorneys that were incompetently fired."

On Tuesday, White House counsel Fred Fielding is scheduled to meet with congressional staff members about their demand for testimony from Rove and other presidential advisers. One possible compromise would be to find a way for the officials to give statements on the record without appearing for sworn testimony. A senior administration official said: "Fred's trying to figure out a way to accommodate the Congress and provide them the information they need while also preserving the president's right to get candid advice from his advisers."

Key figures in both parties believe Gonzales, who first went to work for George W. Bush as his general counsel in the Texas governor's office in 1995, will wind up resigning over the imbroglio. "I think he's gone," said a Republican official close to Bush. Gonzales would not be fired, key officials said, and the White House continued to say over the weekend that he has Bush's "full confidence." Republicans point out that Bush may not want to undergo the bloodletting that would be involved in trying to win confirmation of a Gonzales successor. And Democrats admit that even if Gonzales departed, that would not sate their insistence on hearing from Rove and other White House officials who were involved.

Emanuel said his party would continue to focus on the corruption cases that several of the prosecutors had under way when they were fired. "One operative theory, and that doesn't mean that it's right," Emanuel said, "is that if you believe corruption was at the root of the election results, one way to handle that is to get rid of the U.S. attorneys who were pursuing corruption cases."

Another act in the drama opened this weekend with the release of a statement by D. Kyle Sampson, who was chief of staff to Gonzales and resigned effective March 12. Sampson briefly continued to go into his office as part of a transition but left for good on March 14, according to officials familiar with his status.

The statement was issued by his lawyer, Bradford A. Berenson, who had worked for Gonzales in the White House counsel's office for the first two years of Bush's presidency. The statement makes it clear that Sampson does not want to be blamed for the fiasco, and particularly for any incomplete briefing of Deputy Attorney General Paul J. McNulty and Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General William E. Moschella before they testified to Congress about a lack of political influence on the decision to dismiss the prosecutors. Here is the statement in full:

"Kyle did not resign because he had misled anyone at the Justice Department or withheld information concerning the replacement of the U.S. attorneys. He resigned because, as chief of staff, he felt he had let the attorney general down in failing to appreciate the need for and organize a more effective response to the unfounded accusations that the replacements were improper. The fact that the White House and Justice Department had been discussing this subject since the election was well-known to a number of other senior officials at the department, including others who were involved in preparing the department's testimony to Congress. If this background was not called to Mr. McNulty or Mr. Moschella's attention, it was not because any of these individuals deliberately withheld it from them but rather because no one focused on it at the time. The focus of preparation efforts was on why the U.S. attorneys had been replaced, not how."


http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0307/3175.html

Care to address those questions...? In your own words...? Didn't think so...

 

[maineman]

Care to address those questions...? In your own words...? Didn't think so...

has he EVER?

 

[glockmail]

I have been. ......

Not that I've seen, Chimpy.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Not that I've seen, Chimpy.

Ooohhh! Snappy riposte that. Ya gonna address those questions? Didn't think so...Ya just don't have it in you. Poor boy, come back when you've hit puberty and your testicles have descended.

 

[glockmail]

Ooohhh! Snappy riposte that. Ya gonna address those questions? Didn't think so...Ya just don't have it in you. Poor boy, come back when you've hit puberty and your testicles have descended.

Thanks for proving my point, Chimpy.

 

[Rosotar]

I would like him to explain why the liberal media did not care about the 96 Clinton fired

That's a good question.

At the beginning of this thing I was thinking it was just cheap, partisan sniping but the plot has really thickened in the past few days.

E-mails that were released to Congress last week provide a smoking gun that Gonzales perjured himself in previous sworn testimony.

That's a serious offense. What's at stake here that could have caused him to fall on his sword so quickly?


I was going to post a link to FOX News also. They've had basically the same story on their website all morning. This afternoon however, they've replaced it with "White House stands behind Gonzales."

Ahh. I guess I'm not allowed to post URLs yet. I had a link to a CNN story here.

Oh well.

Anyway, it's really looking more and more like there might be something to the charges that the firings were done to obstruct investigations.

Congress is well within its rights investigating this and demanding sworn testimony.

 

[pegwinn]

If any attempt was made by this Administration, or members of this Administration, to interfere with or subvert those functions, it must be rooted out, wherever the evidence may lead. And if found complicit in these efforts to undermine the justice system, they should step aside for those for whom loyalty to party and President is secondary to their oaths to support and defend the Constitution. If it turns out to be a "witch-hunt on the part of the Democrats, then shame on them. They should hand over their positions to those who will put loyalty to the Constitution and its institutions above partisan politics.

I totally agree. However, since I don't watch the tv news very much, I don't see the If's you are specifying. I see that an aide or aides and the AG lied. The bottom line is that appointment of USA's and firing of same for any or no reason is purely the prerogative of the executive branch. For congress to attempt to interfere is simply diluting the power of one of the "co-equal" branches of the .gov at another's expense.

Here's an analogy: you don't have to work. The only reason most people take any sort of job isn't for love of the work, but to pay the mortgage. Sure, you can quit your job at anytime. The bottom line is you DON'T have to be there, but, if you quit, then you're in for a whole lotta shit. Remember the bills have to be paid, the house note meet, the kids need stuff for school, not to mention you've gotta eat. Sure, you could quit you're job and never take another one again for the rest of your life, but the consequences of that action prohibit just about everyone who hasn't won the lottery from actually taking this course of action. You aren't constrained by your own inability; the situation in which you exist simply necessitates the course of action your taking. You don't HAVE to work, but no rational person wants to life with the consequences of not working. They are, in effect, constrained to one possible path, which is work. Our President finds himself in a similar situation. He has the power to prohibit Rove from testifying, but the circumstances of the situation effectively limit him to only one course of action because all other possible scenarios create too much havic to justify any other response. He isn't the one in control of the situation here, Congress, the media and, possibly the courts are. He is, for now, beholden to them.

Now you are getting it. You make the call and take the fall or you make a different call. It's called being in charge of your life. The President has the authority to tell everyone to shut the hell up and go home. There is no power in the USA than can or will coerce him.

I choose to pay my taxes, but only because the IRS will arrest me if I don't.

Impeachment is a two part process. Johnson and Clinton only jumped through the first hoop. The second hoop is what gets you removed from office. And, regardless, I highly doubt Bush is trying to add an impeachment trial to his legacy right now.

IRT Taxes. It's your choice. You weigh risk and reward and then take action. That has been the whole point all along. Everyone is running around congress swearing up and down that they are going to "force" the administration to bow to them and yield to thier authority. It aint gonna happen.

As I previously said IRT impeachment, So what? It isn't like he will be removed from office. Hell as I pointed out before he won't even be the first. The correct semantics are that two past presidents have been impeached and no past president has been removed from office via trial by the senate.

It's been fun, but I must go now and choose to file my taxes.

 

[Bullypulpit]

The plot thickens...

Apparently, an aide of Alberto Gonzalez is refusing to testify in front of the Senate panel heading up the investigation into the US attorney sackings. The aide, <a href=http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/26/ap/politics/main2610102.shtml>Monica Goodling</a>, on the advice of her attorney is refusing to testify on the grounds of the Fifth amendment.

Now, what does she have to say that could be so incriminating, so legally perilous, given that both Alberto Gonzalez and the White House say that nothing really happened in this whole sordid affair beyond miscommunication, poor judgment and mis-handling of how these firings were revealed?

 

[Bullypulpit]

Thanks for proving my point, Chimpy.

Hey, I give as good as I get. And the only thing proven is that you got nothin'.

 

[Bullypulpit]

I would like him to explain why the liberal media did not care about the 96 Clinton fired

Turns out that "the librul media" didn't much give a shit about the 93 US attorneys Bush fired at the beginning of his first term either...Or the 80 some US attorneys Reagan fired in his first term. If this is the best you can do, you should just pack your bags and go home.

Now, how's about those questions? You know, the ones from <a href=http://www.usmessageboard.com/showpost.php?p=540874&postcount=47>#47</a> and <a href=http://www.usmessageboard.com/showpost.php?p=540875&postcount=48>#48</a>.

 

[glockmail]

Hey, I give as good as I get. And the only thing proven is that you got nothin'.

I've got plenty, Chimpy.

 

[maineman]

it is really quite funny....I have the pathetic sexuallly perverted loser glockshemale on my IGNORE LIST and he keeps trying to give me negative reputation points...but they never take, because I am ignoring him.... but he keeps trying...to no effect. Literally, he has tried to post fifteen negative reputation posts on me in the past week...

what a loser!