Tell It to George Washington

[Adam's Apple]

The Consolations of History
By Paul Greenberg, Arkansas Democrat-Gazette
August 6, 2007

A number of presidents have invoked executive privilege over the years. Not just George Washington in 1796 but Presidents Jefferson, Monroe, Jackson, Tyler, Polk, Fillmore, Buchanan, Lincoln, Grant, Hayes, Cleveland, both Roosevelts, Coolidge. Hoover, and Truman. And, in more recent times, Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton.

They all understood that the power to subpoena is the power to destroy, and that they owed a duty not just to their own presidency but to future ones to fight such intrusions.

Speaking of Messrs. Nixon and Clinton, both Congress and the courts have every right to use subpoenas in order to obtain evidence of a possible crime - like Richard Nixon's White House tapes or Bill Clinton's grand jury testimony. Hence the current attempt to manufacture a crime, or at least a scandal, out of this president's decision to replace eight federal prosecutors, all political appointees who were serving at the president's pleasure.

If the Democratic majorities in Congress think they've got the goods on this president, or on his hapless attorney general, then let them begin impeachment proceedings and prove that high crimes and misdemeanors have been committed. But as Richard Nixon infamously said on tape, and Bill Clinton demonstrated at excruciating length, "Perjury is an awful hard rap to prove."

In place of impeachment proceedings, what Congress is producing is a lot of overheated rhetoric. Exhibit No. 1 may be the letter to the White House from John Conyers and Patrick Leahy, chairmen of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees. Its most questionable assertion: "The veil of secrecy you have attempted to pull over the White House by withholding documents and witnesses is unprecedented."

Unprecedented? Tell it to George Washington.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20070806/COMMENTARY/108060022/1012/commentary

 

[Truthmatters]

The president does not have the right to obstruct justice and wrongly prosicute political opponents.

If you think this is much ado about nothing then you have nothing to do about much that makes this country great!

 

[CSM]

The president does not have the right to obstruct justice and wrongly prosicute political opponents.

You are correct. Now please show us where the current President has been indicted foe criminal activity. Also, could you please show us where he violated the right of the President to replace federal prosecutors.
If you think this is much ado about nothing then you have nothing to do about much that makes this country great! Your opinion of this poster is worthless.

Those who attempt to fabricate a scandal where there is none do a disservice to this country. They are the ones that have nothing to do with anything that makes this country great.

 

[Mr.Conley]

You are correct. Now please show us where the current President has been indicted foe criminal activity.

Isn't the point of this investigation to determine whether a criminal act has occurred? I'd say you've created an impossible standard: Congress can't indict unless they can investigate, and now you say they can't investigate unless they indict.

 

[Truthmatters]

now go tell that to the woman who was wrongly convicted by this partisan DOJ because she worked for a Dem.

The appeals court who looked at her case said that there was not one shred of evidence she did anything wrong then they aquited her.

Tell that to the Lawyer who was a R working for the canpaign who overheard a conversation in which Rove was tied to illegal fixing of these types of cases.
She reported it to athourities and has since had her house burned to the ground and had her car run off the road a wrecked.

The president does not have the right to do this and the investigation is being done for good reason.

 

[Mr.Conley]

now go tell that to the woman who was wrongly convicted by this partisan DOJ because she worked for a Dem.

The appeals court who looked at her case said that there was not one shred of evidence she did anything wrong then they aquited her.

Tell that to the Lawyer who was a R working for the canpaign who overheard a conversation in which Rove was tied to illegal fixing of these types of cases.
She reported it to athourities and has since had her house burned to the ground and had her car run off the road a wrecked.

The president does not have the right to do this and the investigation is being done for good reason.

Links?

 

[Truthmatters]

Ill go get the thread

 

[Truthmatters]

http://usmessageboard.com/showthread.php?t=50086

here you go ,they are stories in the record with documents to prove they exisist.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You are aware cases get overturned all the time in courts all across this country? that they do not in and of themselves prove anything other than the cae was found lacking by the appeals process?

Now provide us a link that actually provides any evidence that the president had anything to do with this persons original conviction.

As to Rove, provide a link that shows he has been charged with a crime. Any link will do. Maybe one that shows where Bush or Cheney have been charged with a crime? Again any link will do.

Last I checked the COURTS not the Congress , are the Judiciary. When and IF the Demmocrats take any of this to a COURT and a Judge and all the appeals end with them being JUDGED to be correct, get back to me and us.

What your advocating is that because YOU and the Liberals THINK something happened they can go on a fishing expedition to found out if there is no grounds or evidence to proceed. It doesn't work like that. We have 3 Individual DISTINCT branches of Government. Each has a set number of powers and the other 2 branches can not simply ignore them because they feel like it.

The Executive HAS Executive Privalege. Proven by a LONG history starting with the Very first President. Tell your Liberal buddies to go to Court. Thats the process. If they have enough evidence to convince a court and any appeals brought out then they can do as they are then allowed to do under OUR rules, laws and regulations for this type of Government, since the passage of the Constitution.

Ohh and from now on, when you claim anyone is violating any rights , I will be sure to remind you, you have no problem with violating our very form of Government and the powers, privaleges and rights of any branch of Government you happen to disagree with.

Remind me again how wire taps that can NOT ever be used in a court of law are bad but ignoring the very cornerstones of our form of Government cause you do not like our President is just fine.

 

[Truthmatters]

In a stunning reversal, a federal court of appeals struck down a state worker's fraud conviction that Wisconsin Republicans used in efforts to paint Gov. Jim Doyle's administration as corrupt.

Attorneys on both sides of the case said the three-judge panel likely overruled the trial jury's conviction of former state purchasing officer Georgia Thompson within hours of oral arguments due to a simple lack of evidence.

The decision by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago, which will explain the judges' reasoning, was not immediately available.

During oral arguments Thursday, one of the members the three-judge panel said the charges against Thompson were unfounded.

"I have to say it strikes me that your evidence is beyond thin," federal Appeals Judge Diane Wood told prosecutors. "I'm not sure what your actual theory in this case is."

The court heard arguments in the case Thursday morning and then ordered a trial judge to free Thompson from a federal prison in Illinois, which she entered in November.

Thompson was a civil service employee last year when she was convicted of fraud after being accused of steering a state travel contract to a firm whose top officials were major campaign contributors to Doyle.

Her attorney, Stephen Hurley of Madison, argued that prosecutors never proved Thompson had been pressured by her superiors to deliver the contract to a company run by a major contributor to Doyle.

Hurley noted that the appeals court acquitted Thompson rather than sending her case back to a trial court.

Federal prosecutors could appeal the decision -- the acquittal was stayed for 14 days to allow them to ask for a rehearing -- but said they probably would not do so.

"It's extraordinary for a U.S. Court of Appeals to issue a decision on the day of oral arguments without a written opinion," Hurley said. "What they're saying is, There's no evidence, she's acquitted.'"


http://truthinjustice.org/thompson-georgia.htm

 

[Diuretic]

The primacy of the rule of law is under threat due to partisan politics. For shame if you support that.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

In a stunning reversal, a federal court of appeals struck down a state worker's fraud conviction that Wisconsin Republicans used in efforts to paint Gov. Jim Doyle's administration as corrupt.

Attorneys on both sides of the case said the three-judge panel likely overruled the trial jury's conviction of former state purchasing officer Georgia Thompson within hours of oral arguments due to a simple lack of evidence.

The decision by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago, which will explain the judges' reasoning, was not immediately available.

During oral arguments Thursday, one of the members the three-judge panel said the charges against Thompson were unfounded.

"I have to say it strikes me that your evidence is beyond thin," federal Appeals Judge Diane Wood told prosecutors. "I'm not sure what your actual theory in this case is."

The court heard arguments in the case Thursday morning and then ordered a trial judge to free Thompson from a federal prison in Illinois, which she entered in November.

Thompson was a civil service employee last year when she was convicted of fraud after being accused of steering a state travel contract to a firm whose top officials were major campaign contributors to Doyle.

Her attorney, Stephen Hurley of Madison, argued that prosecutors never proved Thompson had been pressured by her superiors to deliver the contract to a company run by a major contributor to Doyle.

Hurley noted that the appeals court acquitted Thompson rather than sending her case back to a trial court.

Federal prosecutors could appeal the decision -- the acquittal was stayed for 14 days to allow them to ask for a rehearing -- but said they probably would not do so.

"It's extraordinary for a U.S. Court of Appeals to issue a decision on the day of oral arguments without a written opinion," Hurley said. "What they're saying is, There's no evidence, she's acquitted.'"


http://truthinjustice.org/thompson-georgia.htm

Provide some evidence Bush had anything to do with this case. LINKING to it over and over proves nothing other than prosecutors can be stupid. I can provide a well know Democratic Prosecutor that spent a year ruining 3 mens lives for political purposes. Of course you won't find me claiming he did it at the orders of some higher up Democrat.

 

[Truthmatters]

I would say what the judges who presided over the appeal have to say is pretty important.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The primacy of the rule of law is under threat due to partisan politics. For shame if you support that.

I agree, for shame that you would support illegal unathorized violations of established doctrines that have ruled this country for over 200 years. All for cheap political witch hunts. The Courts exist for a reason. When the Legislative and Executive Branches can not agree on what powers they have or the legal use of said powers, guess what? The Courts get to decide. Not the Legislative nor the Executive. IF Congress actually believes they have a case TAKE it to COURT, THAT is the correct process. The refusal to take it court only shows they do NOT believe their own claims.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I would say what the judges who presided over the appeal have to say is pretty important.

Only about a single case that you have not provided one shred of a link to Bush.

 

[Truthmatters]

http://tinyurl.com/2jald5



This a a small part of this DOJ case my friend.

You see it is a very complicated and BIG case.

Your problem is you will forgive anything this admin does to keep your loyalty ot them.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

http://tinyurl.com/2jald5



This a a small part of this DOJ case my friend.

You see it is a very complicated and BIG case.

Your problem is you will forgive anything this admin does to keep your loyalty ot them.

I am waiting, it really shouldn't be all that hard, you have made a claim that Bush was involved in this case, Provide some evidence.

 

[Truthmatters]

http://tinyurl.com/2l9qb5

here is a link to the Lawyer who was a R working for the canpaign who overheard a conversation in which Rove was tied to illegal fixing of these types of cases.
She reported it to athourities and has since had her house burned to the ground and had her car run off the road a wrecked.

 

[Truthmatters]

I am waiting, it really shouldn't be all that hard, you have made a claim that Bush was involved in this case, Provide some evidence.

That is under investigation as we speak.

I wonder why Bush wont let any of his staff testify?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

That is under investigation as we speak.

I wonder why Bush wont let any of his staff testify?

Because he doesn't have to. Unless Congress can convince a Court and any appeals courts to make him. After what happened to Libby my personal advice to ANYONE questioned by liberals would to be use the term " I do not recall" repeatedly, over and over.

And as to this claim this other person was attacked by secret operatives of Bush and the Government, provide some evidence. Man Bush is so good at this, I wonder why anyone even knows to wonder? He can not take a pee without someone knowing BUT we are to believe he secretly has assassins murdering soldiers and anyone that might disagree with him. AND he has kept them secret for YEARS.

The "evidence" of Gore taking bribes from Communist China are more solid then this and I bet you think those were made up, don't you? The evidence of over 900 FBI files in the Clinton Private Quarters is a matter of public record. Records belonging to political adversaries. But that was just a mistake, right?

You have no facts, no evidence, ONCE again, it is a VERY simple process. Congress takes their accusations and any evidence they have , any precedent they have to violate Presidential power to A COURT. That is how it works.