George W. Bush is in Contempt of Congress. Should he be prosecuted?

[conner700]

According to an AP article, President Bush, "moving toward a constitutional showdown with Congress, asserted executive privilege Thursday and rejected lawmakers' demands for documents that could shed light on the firings of federal prosecutors."

I just wanted to say thank you to Georgie and his wife Laurie who hail from some town called Crawford in a state where I have never been for telling my representatives that he and his friends in the White House do not have to answer to members of Congress or to the people they represent. I am so grateful that he can make decisions without consulting Congress and then when Congress exercises its oversight authority he simply refuses to respond to their legally binding subpoenas based on some bogus claim of executive privelige. The reason I state that his claim is bogus is that the original intent of executive privelige was to allow the President the ability to refuse to produce documents that would result in harm to the American people. The documents requested by Congress do not fit this definition. The right of the American people to know what their government is doing trumps the right of the Bush administration to protect itself or the President from public scrutiny. The claim, made by White House counsel Fred Fielding, that "for the President to perform his constitutional duties, it is imperative that he receive candid and unfettered advice and that free and open discussions and deliberations occur among his advisors and between those advisors and others within and outside the Executive Branch" is simply ludicrous. This claim contradicts the fundamental right of the people to conduct the affairs of our government. Without knowledge, our representatives, cannot act in our behalf. Being required to produce documents to our representatives does not in any way inhibit honest, upright, moral people from having honest, upright and moral deliberations nor does it prevent the President from receiving candid and unfettered advice. They can talk all they want, discuss whatever and have nothing to fear from public scruitiny if they didn't do anything wrong.

It is clear to me that the Bush administration thinks it is above the law and does not have to respond to the legally binding subpoenas of Congress because in his words it's "my government" instead of ours. Congress not only can but must assert its right to look at these documents in behalf of those whom they represent. The Courts have ruled that Congress has this power of subpoena and can hold those who refuse to adhere to Congressional subpoenas in contempt of Congress. Refusing a subpoena is grounds for contempt of Congres, and if Bush continues to conduct himself in this manner he could be impeached and or prosecuted for his actions. Normally, Congress understands that the President would like to exercise some discretion in what he reveals to Congress but they do and can exercise their constitutional and statutory authority to subpoena documents from the Executive Branch and refusal to honor those subpoenas is considered "contempt of Congress" under the law and it is a crime. There is solution short of prosecuting George Bush for contempt of Congress and that is for the President to stop thinking of himself as above the law and turn over the documents to our representatives and if he didn't do anything wrong and neither did anyone else in his administration than he has nothing to fear and everyone will be happy but I suspect Bush is using "executive privelige" which was intended to protect the American people to protect himself and those around him from the public eye.

George Bush, his wife Laura, Dick Cheney, Rice, Romney, and Powell---will all be tried in a Humanitian court. I am thinking Spain. Obama would not prosecute. Yet who need Obama when The Bush Administration has Committed Crimes Against Humanity and War Crime.

I love it--At present Dick Cheney is wanted in Nigeria on bribery charges. Interpol, has not listed him on the international stage just yet. Bush can't travel outside the United States given the fact that he is a international wanted man!!

The walls are shrinking quickly around Bush and others. There days are numbered

 

[PredFan]

According to an AP article, President Bush, "moving toward a constitutional showdown with Congress, asserted executive privilege Thursday and rejected lawmakers' demands for documents that could shed light on the firings of federal prosecutors."

I just wanted to say thank you to Georgie and his wife Laurie who hail from some town called Crawford in a state where I have never been for telling my representatives that he and his friends in the White House do not have to answer to members of Congress or to the people they represent. I am so grateful that he can make decisions without consulting Congress and then when Congress exercises its oversight authority he simply refuses to respond to their legally binding subpoenas based on some bogus claim of executive privelige. The reason I state that his claim is bogus is that the original intent of executive privelige was to allow the President the ability to refuse to produce documents that would result in harm to the American people. The documents requested by Congress do not fit this definition. The right of the American people to know what their government is doing trumps the right of the Bush administration to protect itself or the President from public scrutiny. The claim, made by White House counsel Fred Fielding, that "for the President to perform his constitutional duties, it is imperative that he receive candid and unfettered advice and that free and open discussions and deliberations occur among his advisors and between those advisors and others within and outside the Executive Branch" is simply ludicrous. This claim contradicts the fundamental right of the people to conduct the affairs of our government. Without knowledge, our representatives, cannot act in our behalf. Being required to produce documents to our representatives does not in any way inhibit honest, upright, moral people from having honest, upright and moral deliberations nor does it prevent the President from receiving candid and unfettered advice. They can talk all they want, discuss whatever and have nothing to fear from public scruitiny if they didn't do anything wrong.

It is clear to me that the Bush administration thinks it is above the law and does not have to respond to the legally binding subpoenas of Congress because in his words it's "my government" instead of ours. Congress not only can but must assert its right to look at these documents in behalf of those whom they represent. The Courts have ruled that Congress has this power of subpoena and can hold those who refuse to adhere to Congressional subpoenas in contempt of Congress. Refusing a subpoena is grounds for contempt of Congres, and if Bush continues to conduct himself in this manner he could be impeached and or prosecuted for his actions. Normally, Congress understands that the President would like to exercise some discretion in what he reveals to Congress but they do and can exercise their constitutional and statutory authority to subpoena documents from the Executive Branch and refusal to honor those subpoenas is considered "contempt of Congress" under the law and it is a crime. There is solution short of prosecuting George Bush for contempt of Congress and that is for the President to stop thinking of himself as above the law and turn over the documents to our representatives and if he didn't do anything wrong and neither did anyone else in his administration than he has nothing to fear and everyone will be happy but I suspect Bush is using "executive privelige" which was intended to protect the American people to protect himself and those around him from the public eye.

George Bush, his wife Laura, Dick Cheney, Rice, Romney, and Powell---will all be tried in a Humanitian court. I am thinking Spain. Obama would not prosecute. Yet who need Obama when The Bush Administration has Committed Crimes Against Humanity and War Crime.

I love it--At present Dick Cheney is wanted in Nigeria on bribery charges. Interpol, has not listed him on the international stage just yet. Bush can't travel outside the United States given the fact that he is a international wanted man!!

The walls are shrinking quickly around Bush and others. There days are numbered

What's a humanitian court?

There days are numbered?

Ignorant in both grammar and politics! Bravo!

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Why the fuck do you bring up a thread that has not been touched in 4 years??

To demonstrate the hypocrisy of the right.

And in the meantime remind us of the hypocrisy of the left, who called for criminal prosecution of Bush but are perfectly fine with Obama doing it.

Bush was NOT criminally prosecuted. He SUCCESSFULLY claimed this power for the President. Now ANY President can use it, not just the ones you like.


Democrats are in favor of this President receiving the same legal punishment as the last one for ignoring Congressional subpoena - which is nothing. The Republicans obviously believe different standards should apply based on party affiliation.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

According to an AP article, President Bush, "moving toward a constitutional showdown with Congress, asserted executive privilege Thursday and rejected lawmakers' demands for documents that could shed light on the firings of federal prosecutors."

I just wanted to say thank you to Georgie and his wife Laurie who hail from some town called Crawford in a state where I have never been for telling my representatives that he and his friends in the White House do not have to answer to members of Congress or to the people they represent. I am so grateful that he can make decisions without consulting Congress and then when Congress exercises its oversight authority he simply refuses to respond to their legally binding subpoenas based on some bogus claim of executive privelige. The reason I state that his claim is bogus is that the original intent of executive privelige was to allow the President the ability to refuse to produce documents that would result in harm to the American people. The documents requested by Congress do not fit this definition. The right of the American people to know what their government is doing trumps the right of the Bush administration to protect itself or the President from public scrutiny. The claim, made by White House counsel Fred Fielding, that "for the President to perform his constitutional duties, it is imperative that he receive candid and unfettered advice and that free and open discussions and deliberations occur among his advisors and between those advisors and others within and outside the Executive Branch" is simply ludicrous. This claim contradicts the fundamental right of the people to conduct the affairs of our government. Without knowledge, our representatives, cannot act in our behalf. Being required to produce documents to our representatives does not in any way inhibit honest, upright, moral people from having honest, upright and moral deliberations nor does it prevent the President from receiving candid and unfettered advice. They can talk all they want, discuss whatever and have nothing to fear from public scruitiny if they didn't do anything wrong.

It is clear to me that the Bush administration thinks it is above the law and does not have to respond to the legally binding subpoenas of Congress because in his words it's "my government" instead of ours. Congress not only can but must assert its right to look at these documents in behalf of those whom they represent. The Courts have ruled that Congress has this power of subpoena and can hold those who refuse to adhere to Congressional subpoenas in contempt of Congress. Refusing a subpoena is grounds for contempt of Congres, and if Bush continues to conduct himself in this manner he could be impeached and or prosecuted for his actions. Normally, Congress understands that the President would like to exercise some discretion in what he reveals to Congress but they do and can exercise their constitutional and statutory authority to subpoena documents from the Executive Branch and refusal to honor those subpoenas is considered "contempt of Congress" under the law and it is a crime. There is solution short of prosecuting George Bush for contempt of Congress and that is for the President to stop thinking of himself as above the law and turn over the documents to our representatives and if he didn't do anything wrong and neither did anyone else in his administration than he has nothing to fear and everyone will be happy but I suspect Bush is using "executive privelige" which was intended to protect the American people to protect himself and those around him from the public eye.

George Bush, his wife Laura, Dick Cheney, Rice, Romney, and Powell---will all be tried in a Humanitian court. I am thinking Spain. Obama would not prosecute. Yet who need Obama when The Bush Administration has Committed Crimes Against Humanity and War Crime.

I love it--At present Dick Cheney is wanted in Nigeria on bribery charges. Interpol, has not listed him on the international stage just yet. Bush can't travel outside the United States given the fact that he is a international wanted man!!

The walls are shrinking quickly around Bush and others. There days are numbered

What's a humanitian court?

There days are numbered?

Ignorant in both grammar and politics! Bravo!

This phrase "There days are numbered?" should have been written as


"There (sic) days are numbered?"


with the quotations, since it is a direct quotation, GRAMMAR NAZI.

 

[BenNatuf]

I suppose it would be too much to ask for a,little intellectual honesty from liberals.

Bush's firings of US attorney's was copmpletely in his perview and at his sole discretion. He could fire them because he woke up and felt like it. They are political appointees who, once confirmmed, serve at the discretion of the President. Decissions made to fire any of them are not reveiewable.

Oversiting where the money congress approves to be spent goes and how its disburssed and the rationale of the administration in doing so is reviewable, it is what thier oversite authority exists for in the first place.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I absolutely agree, And stand by my stated assertion in this thread. No hypocrisy at all. What I have stated is that the Republicans should take executive actions they disagree with and can not resolve because of Democratic obstruction TO COURT.

Congress has no authority to "prosecute" the President, except the sole power to Impeach. They do have the authority and power to resort to the Courts when the President usurps or exceeds his authority but Congress does not wish to or can not impeach.

It is also what I said 4 years ago in regards democratic ire with Bush. They can avail themselves of the Courts.

We have three branches of Government. The Executive, the legislative and the Judicial. Each has separate powers, some that can and can not effect the other branches.

What I find hilarious is that in order to claim hypocrisy on the right the left has dredged up a thread that proves they are practicing it. They demanded supposed Congressional action for supposed illegal activity on President Bush, activity that they suddenly, 4 years later openly support Obama doing.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

I absolutely agree, And stand by my stated assertion in this thread. No hypocrisy at all. What I have stated is that the Republicans should take executive actions they disagree with and can not resolve because of Democratic obstruction TO COURT.

Congress has no authority to "prosecute" the President, except the sole power to Impeach. They do have the authority and power to resort to the Courts when the President usurps or exceeds his authority but Congress does not wish to or can not impeach.

It is also what I said 4 years ago in regards democratic ire with Bush. They can avail themselves of the Courts.

We have three branches of Government. The Executive, the legislative and the Judicial. Each has separate powers, some that can and can not effect the other branches.

What I find hilarious is that in order to claim hypocrisy on the right the left has dredged up a thread that proves they are practicing it. They demanded supposed Congressional action for supposed illegal activity on President Bush, activity that they suddenly, 4 years later openly support Obama doing.

Its not hypocrisy to use a power that a previous President successfully claimed.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I absolutely agree, And stand by my stated assertion in this thread. No hypocrisy at all. What I have stated is that the Republicans should take executive actions they disagree with and can not resolve because of Democratic obstruction TO COURT.

Congress has no authority to "prosecute" the President, except the sole power to Impeach. They do have the authority and power to resort to the Courts when the President usurps or exceeds his authority but Congress does not wish to or can not impeach.

It is also what I said 4 years ago in regards democratic ire with Bush. They can avail themselves of the Courts.

We have three branches of Government. The Executive, the legislative and the Judicial. Each has separate powers, some that can and can not effect the other branches.

What I find hilarious is that in order to claim hypocrisy on the right the left has dredged up a thread that proves they are practicing it. They demanded supposed Congressional action for supposed illegal activity on President Bush, activity that they suddenly, 4 years later openly support Obama doing.

Its not hypocrisy to use a power that a previous President successfully claimed.

I am NOT claiming Obama is the Hypocrite in this case. I am calling you and the foaming idiots on the left that railed for 8 years against Bush for doing it and now SUPPORT Obama for doing it. This thread proves it.

 

[BenNatuf]

Obama's claim of executive priveledge is in no way similar to Bush's (except for them both being claims of power). Bush claimed executive priveledge for the advice he recieved in a deccission he made that is not any of the congress' business. US atorneys, once confirmmed, serve at the will of the President and he doesn't need a reason to fire them. So fishing for a reason serves no purpose, since it is completely an executive function and not a congressional concern. (particularly not a house concern, since they have no roll in appointing them in the first place)

Obama is claiming executive priveledge to withhold from the congress information it is entitlted to to cinduct its legitimate oversite responsibilities... investigating how the money it approves gets spent.

 

[Intense]

Why the fuck do you bring up a thread that has not been touched in 4 years??

Because he is a Fucking Idiot that does not know how to Permalink.

 

[freedombecki]

I absolutely agree, And stand by my stated assertion in this thread. No hypocrisy at all. What I have stated is that the Republicans should take executive actions they disagree with and can not resolve because of Democratic obstruction TO COURT.

Congress has no authority to "prosecute" the President, except the sole power to Impeach. They do have the authority and power to resort to the Courts when the President usurps or exceeds his authority but Congress does not wish to or can not impeach.

It is also what I said 4 years ago in regards democratic ire with Bush. They can avail themselves of the Courts.

We have three branches of Government. The Executive, the legislative and the Judicial. Each has separate powers, some that can and can not effect the other branches.

What I find hilarious is that in order to claim hypocrisy on the right the left has dredged up a thread that proves they are practicing it. They demanded supposed Congressional action for supposed illegal activity on President Bush, activity that they suddenly, 4 years later openly support Obama doing.

Its not hypocrisy to use a power that a previous President successfully claimed.

It is if it hurts the American people in any way, shape, or form.

 

[freedombecki]

I absolutely agree, And stand by my stated assertion in this thread. No hypocrisy at all. What I have stated is that the Republicans should take executive actions they disagree with and can not resolve because of Democratic obstruction TO COURT.

Congress has no authority to "prosecute" the President, except the sole power to Impeach. They do have the authority and power to resort to the Courts when the President usurps or exceeds his authority but Congress does not wish to or can not impeach.

It is also what I said 4 years ago in regards democratic ire with Bush. They can avail themselves of the Courts.

We have three branches of Government. The Executive, the legislative and the Judicial. Each has separate powers, some that can and can not effect the other branches.

What I find hilarious is that in order to claim hypocrisy on the right the left has dredged up a thread that proves they are practicing it. They demanded supposed Congressional action for supposed illegal activity on President Bush, activity that they suddenly, 4 years later openly support Obama doing.

Its not hypocrisy to use a power that a previous President successfully claimed. [/quote]

I am NOT claiming Obama is the Hypocrite in this case. I am calling you and the foaming idiots on the left that railed for 8 years against Bush for doing it and now SUPPORT Obama for doing it. This thread proves it.

Outta the park, RetiredGySgt.

 

[MikeK]

Ours is a government of, for and by the People. The Congress is the People and the People can do what it wishes to do with the President or the Supreme Court. Any effort to supersede this clear and simple circumstance is just cause for a general strike and a violent revolution.

If anyone deserves to be prosecuted it is George W. Bush. I for one believe he should be arrested, turned over to the Hague and, hopefully, hanged for his crimes -- along with his conspirators.

My main complaint against Obama is his failure to appoint an Attorney General who would investigate and prosecute the Bush Administration. Because this failure to invoke a deterrent ensures repetition of the same criminal conduct in the future. I believe this deliberate failure makes Obama complicit in the Bush crimes.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

From the OP:

It is clear to me that the Bush administration thinks it is above the law and does not have to respond to the legally binding subpoenas of Congress because in his words it's "my government" instead of ours.

A conservative then responded:

Unless the Court rules against the President HE DOES have Executive Power in this matter.

Recently, however, we’ve heard conservatives accuse Obama of attempting to be ‘above the law’ with regard to House subpoenas issued to the WH in the Solyndra investigation.

Which is it? Is the Executive subject to congressional subpoenas or not? For conservatives that would depend on party affiliation of the Executive. Hence the hypocrisy.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

From the OP:

It is clear to me that the Bush administration thinks it is above the law and does not have to respond to the legally binding subpoenas of Congress because in his words it's "my government" instead of ours.

A conservative then responded:

Unless the Court rules against the President HE DOES have Executive Power in this matter.

Recently, however, we’ve heard conservatives accuse Obama of attempting to be ‘above the law’ with regard to House subpoenas issued to the WH in the Solyndra investigation.

Which is it? Is the Executive subject to congressional subpoenas or not? For conservatives that would depend on party affiliation of the Executive. Hence the hypocrisy.

The Executive is free to make the claim of Executive. And I have stated so ( it is me you quoted). Further as evidenced by your quote I stated that the Congress can and in some cases should go to the Courts when they disagree with the claim and can not act as a Unified legislative branch against it.

The hypocrisy you and the others keep displaying here and else where is that YOU made the claim against Bush no such privilege existed and that he should be tried for not responding to Congress. Now that Obama is President, you make the claim that the President CAN invoke Executive privilege and that any claim otherwise is wrong.

Once again for the slow, stupid and to partisan to comprehend. This is a matter for the Courts. As I clearly stated then and now. As for a claim that Congress try a President, might want to reread the Constitution. The ONLY power Congress has against a sitting President is to Impeach him.

You guys are so stupid you dredge up ancient posts that PROVE you are the HYPOCRITES.

 

[Charles_Main]

To demonstrate the hypocrisy of the right.

Funny thing is, this thread Demonstrates the hypocrisy of the Right every Bit as much as the Left. Same people Wanting Bush Punished, Defend Obama.

lol

Really? How the FUCK is it hypocritical for a President to follow the precedents set by those before him? Its hypocritical to SET the precedent and then later say "Hey, it doesn't apply anymore!"

It's not about what the President does FUCK NUT, its about the fact that the same liberal losers in here, who wanted Bushed Punished, Turn a Blind EYE to the Hero Obama doing the same god damn thing.

HYPOCRITES.

 

[francoHFW]

Let the courts decide. But Booosh WAS a TOTAL catastrophe- except to Moonies...

 

[Charles_Main]

I absolutely agree, And stand by my stated assertion in this thread. No hypocrisy at all. What I have stated is that the Republicans should take executive actions they disagree with and can not resolve because of Democratic obstruction TO COURT.

Congress has no authority to "prosecute" the President, except the sole power to Impeach. They do have the authority and power to resort to the Courts when the President usurps or exceeds his authority but Congress does not wish to or can not impeach.

It is also what I said 4 years ago in regards democratic ire with Bush. They can avail themselves of the Courts.

We have three branches of Government. The Executive, the legislative and the Judicial. Each has separate powers, some that can and can not effect the other branches.

What I find hilarious is that in order to claim hypocrisy on the right the left has dredged up a thread that proves they are practicing it. They demanded supposed Congressional action for supposed illegal activity on President Bush, activity that they suddenly, 4 years later openly support Obama doing.

Its not hypocrisy to use a power that a previous President successfully claimed.

You Ignorant fuck, Nobody is saying Obama is a Hypocrite for using it, Were saying Brainless Liberal Fucks such as yourself are Hippocrates for Remaining silent when Obama does exactly what you attacked Bush for.

 

[freedombecki]

Ours is a government of, for and by the People. The Congress is the People and the People can do what it wishes to do with the President or the Supreme Court. Any effort to supersede this clear and simple circumstance is just cause for a general strike and a violent revolution.

If anyone deserves to be prosecuted it is George W. Bush. I for one believe he should be arrested, turned over to the Hague and, hopefully, hanged for his crimes -- along with his conspirators.

My main complaint against Obama is his failure to appoint an Attorney General who would investigate and prosecute the Bush Administration. Because this failure to invoke a deterrent ensures repetition of the same criminal conduct in the future. I believe this deliberate failure makes Obama complicit in the Bush crimes.

Bush is not guilty of any crime, and it's ludicrous to suggest that he is.

You, on the other hand, are so eager for a conviction and consequences you failed to notice he is innocent of all your vapid charges.

 

[freedombecki]

Let the courts decide. But Booosh WAS a TOTAL catastrophe- except to Moonies...

you have zero proof. that's because he did nothing wrong.