White House Won’t Allow Rove, Miers To Testify
White House Won’t Allow Rove, Miers To Testify
MSNBC’s Mike Viquiera: “Fred Fielding, he’s the White House counsel, he was just here meeting with the House Judiciary Committee. He made the following offer to the Congress, both House and Senate. He said Rove and Harriet Miers would be offered to the committees for their testimony in the Alberto Gonzales prosecutors scandal. However, it would be unsworn testimony, not under oath, behind closed doors, and no transcript would be permitted. Now, that is not what Congress is looking for.”
UPDATE: During a press conference, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) also revealed that the White House is restricting the types of documents that it is willing to release voluntarily. Schumer said the White House is willing to turn over emails between the White House and the Justice Department, and between the White House and third parties, but not intra-White House emails. Schumer explained the problem:
So, if Karl Rove sent a communication to Harriet Miers and said, and this is purely hypothetical, “We have to get rid of US Attorney Lam. Come up with a good reason…” and the only communication we get is the good reason that Harriet Miers sent to the Justice Department.
Later, a reporter argued that Rove and Miers would still be legally compelled to tell the truth even if they weren’t technically under oath. Schumer pointed added by refusing to allow a transcript to be made, “it would be almost meaningless to say that they were under some kind of legal sanction.” Watch it:
UPDATE II: President Bush to speak on the U.S. Attorney purge at 5:30pm ET.
UPDATE III: Read the full White House letter laying out its offer.
Transcript:
SCHUMER: And I would say at best the offer is incomplete and that would be putting as kind a face on it as we could. We would be able to interview the four people we requested — Karl Rove, counsel Miers, and their two assistants — but only in private, not under oath, and with no transcript. And the last part of this is the most troubling of all. When there’s no transcript, what do we do when people’s recollections are different. Furthermore, when there’s no transcript, and what, say, Karl Rove says contradicts what somebody else has said, what do we do?
They did offer to turn over documents, but that too was extremely incomplete because the only documents they’d turn over to us are communications from the White House to the Justice Department, from the White House to other third parties, and back. But no intra-White House communications. So, if Karl Rove sent a communication to Harriet Miers and said, and this is purely hypothetical, “We have to get rid of US Attorney Lam. Come up with a good reason…” and the only communication we get is the good reason that Harriet Miers sent to the Justice department in terms of getting rid is.
So this is a — its sort of giving us the opportunity to talk to them, but not giving them the opportunity to get to the bottom of what really happened here. And in that way it is a pretty clever proposal, but it doesn’t doe the job of figuring out what happened as best we can tell. So the next step is to consult with one another; Chairman Conyers and chairman Leahy will take the lead in determining what our response will be. We obviously will present a counter offer to them that would be far more complete and far more extensive. But speaking from the Senate side because I spoke to Chairman Leahy earlier, we will move forward with the subpoenas on Thursday because this is not what Chairman Leahy had outlined on Sunday, which is coming before us, speaking under oath, there are many many problems with this agreement and any lawyer worth his or her salt would tell you that you’re not going to really find out what went on if you stick to the bounds of this agreement.
QUESTION: Just to confirm, you’re going to go ahead with the vote to authorize the chairman to issue the subpoenas, you’re not going to actually issue the subpoenas?
SCHUMER: You’ll have to talk to Sen. Leahy about the details, but that’s my understanding. That we will go ahead and give the chairman the right to subpoena.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) give you extra leverage in your negotiations with them to try to force them to testify?
SCHUMER: We’re not seeking leverage per se, we’re seeing to get the truth. And with no transcript, with no oath, with private conversations that can be contradicted, recollections can fail, you’re not going to get very far.
QUESTION: Why did the White House agree to this, why did they set this up?
SCHUMER: Well you’ll have to ask Counsel Fielding, but he said he wanted this to be a conversation rather than a hearing. Conversations fine, but lets have a conversation under oath with a transcript so we can see what has happened and weigh the testimony against these particular witnesses against the others.
QUESTION: Senator Schumer, there’s no oath, but the law is such that they don’t have to necessarily be under oath to be compelled to tell the truth to Congress.
SCHUMER: With out a transcript, it would be very — it would be almost meaningless to say that they were under some kind of legal sanction. But these are things we’re going to check out. This is sort of a unique offer.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
Rove the Untouchable, my hero!
March 20th, 2007 at 2:56 pmHuffington Post has the opposite headline
WTF?
March 20th, 2007 at 2:56 pmNow, we can start the impeachments.
March 20th, 2007 at 2:57 pmNot under oath, in secret, no transcript.
March 20th, 2007 at 2:57 pmHow bout during a boat ride, in the Atlantic, dangling from a line tied loosely to his/her leg.
Sorry we are not blinking
March 20th, 2007 at 2:58 pmOh, yes, you can’t have those two given sworn testimony. They’d be following Scooter to jail in a nanosecond!
Impeachment seems to be the only answer.
IMPEACH CHENEY FIRST!
March 20th, 2007 at 2:59 pmI hope the Judiciary Committees respond to that “offer” with a hearty Hell, no!
March 20th, 2007 at 2:59 pmShut it down and see who soils themselves first Mr 29%
March 20th, 2007 at 2:59 pmWill this trigger the constitutional crisis that will lead to IMPEACHMENT?
March 20th, 2007 at 3:01 pmImpeach away.
March 20th, 2007 at 3:01 pm#7 corinne ~ howza bouta hearty Cheneyism for them?
March 20th, 2007 at 3:01 pmGo F*ck Yourselves!
Rove my hero right after Chuck “don’t give a fuk” Norris
March 20th, 2007 at 3:02 pmlock them all up damn it!
March 20th, 2007 at 3:02 pmHuffingtonpost.com is reporting just the opposite. What gives?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ 2007/ 03/ 20/ rove-miers-to-testify_n_43878.html
March 20th, 2007 at 3:03 pm#9 Impeachment isn’t a constitutional crisis. We’re already in a constitutional crisis.
Impeachment is the remedy for such a crisis. Impeachment is the constitution working as it should.
March 20th, 2007 at 3:03 pmSupboena their filthy arsses and parade them before the people. They owe it to us.
March 20th, 2007 at 3:03 pm9
Will this trigger the constitutional crisis that will lead to IMPEACHMENT?
Typical moonbat - no crisis asshat!
March 20th, 2007 at 3:04 pmSenator Patrick Leahy
Call, or Visit
Washington office
——————————————————————————–
433 Russell Senate Office Bldg
(at Constitution and Delaware)
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510
(202) 224-4242
just called and demanded testimony, under oath, no exceptions.
March 20th, 2007 at 3:04 pmOh yeah!!! Now we can proceed with the indictments!! this obscene admisnistration is sagging under the weight of their evil neoconservatism! of course they dont want to be under oath! they would have to tell the truth or be prosecuted for lying!! either way it dont look good!! :)
March 20th, 2007 at 3:04 pmThe constitutional crisis is heating up.
March 20th, 2007 at 3:05 pmNO!.
OK, Congress, here it is - the battle over the equal powers of the three branches of government. You punched, the White House counterpunched. Now, get after it with subpoenas, court filings, contempt charges, whatever you can.
March 20th, 2007 at 3:05 pmGood….let them resist the law and they’ll all go - immediately! It will create a firestorm so large that soon people will be calling for the dismissal/impeachment of every member of Bush’s cabinet and administration - including Bush himself. The wave of patriotic emotion is gathering steam and it will roll over this administration and destroy it within the coming weeks. Resist all you want, BushCo - the people will unseat you as well.
March 20th, 2007 at 3:05 pmTWO WORDS FOR THE “NEW” WH COUNSEL…
“B I T E M E !!!”
No way….
March 20th, 2007 at 3:05 pm#14 Yes they will allow testimony but not under oath and not in public and not on record and no one may be present.
Big difference.
March 20th, 2007 at 3:06 pmAfter 911 and the bs testimonies of bush/cheney (also not sworn) what can we expect from this gang of thugs.
So their testimony is not guaranteed as to its veracity. Figures.
March 20th, 2007 at 3:06 pmI think this is a battle worth fighting with the white house in its weakened state. It is winnable, and we’ve not had this opportunity before.
March 20th, 2007 at 3:06 pmBen Dover,
TP should change their headline to:
White House won’t allow Rove, Miers sworn testimony.
March 20th, 2007 at 3:06 pmMOMENT OF TRUTH
Does Leahy have the balls to stand up to these clusterf*#ks or wil he cave like Pelosi did on the Supplemental Spending Bill?
If he caves the Dems will prove they are no better than the Repugs; and all that pre-November election talk of reform and accountability was just bullsh@t.
March 20th, 2007 at 3:07 pmWhat are they afraid of? Surely the questions could be limited, in advance, to questions directly and indirectly related to the firing of the attorneys. As a way to avoid any separation of powers issues.
If the Democrats knew what they were doing, they’d raise a stink and portray the White House as hiding something. Hopefully this is just an opening gambit from the White House, staking out initial positions.
March 20th, 2007 at 3:07 pmUn-sworn testimony? Would someone explain that one to me. What is the point? That is saying “we will testify, but we won’t promise to tell the truth.” That is a waste of time. This is Ted Stevens at the oil policy hearing when refused to have the oil executives testify under oat that they would tell the truth… which they had no intention of being truthful.
If you plan on telling the truth, what is the objection to being sworn to honesty? I really don’t get it.
March 20th, 2007 at 3:08 pmeff that!
March 20th, 2007 at 3:08 pm#22, what ARE you smoking? Sounds wonderful.
March 20th, 2007 at 3:09 pmI believe that Bush’s resistance with Gonzo and Rove illustrates the level of involvement and complicity he knows he has in all of this. This resistance against the will of the people illustrates another abuse of presidential power with the invocation of “executive privilege”. Bogus Boehner was full of crapola in stating that it is not customary ….blah…blah….Clinton’s people testified 47 times - so Boehner is another liar.
As for the impeachment proceedings, the Congress now will have unprecedented pressure to begin impeachment proceedings immediately. The people of this country will not tolerate an administration who tramples on our constitution.
March 20th, 2007 at 3:09 pmSo, Fielding was O.K. for you guys in the past, but not now?
March 20th, 2007 at 3:09 pmMan that Karl is a real hero, he has never saved a life, fought in a war, given a kidney, put out a housefire, told the truth and spent ten million of the evangelicals money on an ineffective smear campaign, and kisses \/\/ butt on a daily basis while tossing his friend Abramoff and Libby under the bus.
Flaco you can sure pick em.
March 20th, 2007 at 3:09 pmI hope he continues to resist because it will force the hand of the congress which will no longer make impeachment an arbitrary issue. This will mandate and make them obligated to pursue impeachment as a remedy for this new abuse of power.
March 20th, 2007 at 3:10 pm#14
Here’s what Huffington Post had from CNN:
President Bush’s chief counsel has said the White House will allow testimony from top aides including Karl Rove and Harriet Miers, CNN reports.
Fred F. Fielding met with the chairmen of the Senate and House Judiciary Committee this afternoon on Capitol Hill.
It looks like CNN isn’t giving the whole story.
March 20th, 2007 at 3:10 pmTheir testimony would be irrelevant because there is no law against the President of the United States firing employees of the Executive Branch. I don’t know why Rove and Meirs should hire themselves out as props for a moonbat masturbation party?
March 20th, 2007 at 3:11 pmPLC:
I’m all for “equal” — are you saying the Executive Branch can force Congressmen to testify under oath?!
March 20th, 2007 at 3:11 pm#29 They’re afraid of perjury - plain and simple. If they get idiot Myers up there, her make-up will fall off first before she crumbles completely. Rovereich will be smug up there and lie his ass off so it’s a foregone conclusion that he’ll be indicted for perjury and sit in the slammer alongside his bud, Scoots.
But let them resist, I say. It will bring about such demonstrations and emotion from the people like nothing else before it. The people will have “impeach bush” banners now in the streets and on their vehicles….the Impeach Bush t-shirt manufacturers willl have a heyday.
March 20th, 2007 at 3:12 pmI sincerely hope this will lead to impeachment. I’m partly happy, because I would love to see Bush and Cheney impeached. However, to be honest, I’m mostly fed up and just plain sick and tired of having such an incompetent and corrupt administration. I look forward to the days when I can once again be proud to be an American.
March 20th, 2007 at 3:12 pmGod dammed criminal bastards, Rove under oath, in public, now!
Schumer better be steadfast on this one.
March 20th, 2007 at 3:12 pmPerhaps…
…it is time to…
…storm the Bastille?
…(politically speaking of course)…
March 20th, 2007 at 3:13 pmwhen an unstoppable force meets an immovable object. This is going to be GREAT!!!!!! Keep in mind the leaks coming from just about every dept.
March 20th, 2007 at 3:13 pmThe White House can kick and scream and dig their heels in all they want. All it does is make it clear to everyone that they don’t want the truth to get out. And, in the end, after they’ve done all that damage to themselves, they’re still going to have to testify.
March 20th, 2007 at 3:13 pmAnd testimony “under oath” is the only meaningful testimony. Besides if they have nothing to hide, why worry about testifying honestly?? It’s safe to say that if they’re afraid of swearing in, they’ve got major problems to hide. I’ve never seen a bigger bunch of whimps and whoosies who don’t have the integrity to swear in in my entire life.
March 20th, 2007 at 3:13 pmIs this just like when Chimpy and Darth Cheney held hands and testified but not under oath re: 9/11
IMPEACH THE BASTARDS!
March 20th, 2007 at 3:13 pm#24. Thanks for the sad news. Based on what Pat Leahy said recently, someone somewhere on the Hill is preparing to vote on subpeonas or they are being drawn up.
Dont you just love how the arrogance of the Bush Abomination is almost a mirror image of the Nixon Abomination, and at about the same stage of strikingly similar controversies?
I still have the August 9, 1974 issue of the St. Paul (MN) Pioneer Press that contains the headline (in about 50 point font) “NIXON RESIGNS”. Maybe we are on a collision course with a similar headline 23 years later. We can hope.
March 20th, 2007 at 3:13 pmsubpoena these people - its pretty obvious they will lie
March 20th, 2007 at 3:14 pmIf the Dems agree to this, they might as well tell Joe Lieberman to go over to the GOP, give up their committee chairs, go back to their minority seats, sit down and shut up, because they’re finished.
March 20th, 2007 at 3:14 pmI thought you liberals loved the law….
how about not guilty until proven so in a court of law. Look it up it is in our laws, those that you guys to love so much. or do you guys prefer the Nazi, Communist ways, guilty without a day in court? sure sounds like the latter for many of you liberals.
another thing, Impeachment doesn’t mean removal from office, it just means that you have been indicted, accused of committing a crime.
March 20th, 2007 at 3:15 pmWhite House Offers Testimony of Miers and Rove Behind Closed Doors
MSNBC ^ | 3/20/2007 | n/a
MSNBC reporting the above. Senate Schumer responds, and says “he isn’t happy” with the proposal.
March 20th, 2007 at 3:15 pmTheir offer to testify in the middle of an empty forest should also be rejected.
And isn’t it another lovely sundress your wearing today Jake.
March 20th, 2007 at 3:16 pm33 years later. damn I hate accepting that i’m getting old
March 20th, 2007 at 3:16 pm#9 Jake
I’m all for “equal†— are you saying the Executive Branch can force Congressmen to testify under oath?!
Does the White House hold hearings and conduct investigations? Let’s not be silly, shall we?
March 20th, 2007 at 3:16 pmSubpoenas should issue immediately. I also agree with #15, we are already in a constitutional crisis and have been for the last four years. Congress must stand its ground. Rove must testify in open hearing. If not we are no better than the old SSR or Pakistan.
March 20th, 2007 at 3:16 pmRove will take the 5th on every question. Basically a stonewall without the words ‘GO F*CK YOURSELF’ ever said.
March 20th, 2007 at 3:17 pmHow long are we going to take this from our public servants? They owe us nothing less than the whole truth. I believe that all public servants should be considered to be under oath as long as they are cashing checks from We the People.
March 20th, 2007 at 3:17 pm#41 Sean: I couldn’t agree with you more. However, as St. Thomas Moore said: “It’s the dark night of the soul which brings about renewal”….and this is what we have to endure “The Dark Night of the Bush Administration” and face up to the high crimes and misdeeds in order to learn from each one of them (as with today’s amendment to the Patriot Act) in order to be able to move forward in a positive way. It will be like digging a mine….the lower we dig…the deeper we realize this administration has gone. Frankly, the past two years have been filled with daily efforts to hijack this democracy….ad nauseum….so I say it’s high time for these dogs to have their day. Let’s move through the detritus, learn from it, and move away from it all…..and quick….before we become contaminated from it’s fallout.
March 20th, 2007 at 3:17 pmTigris, you’ve been taking lessons from Bahgdad Bob. Remember him? He was the nut case talking about how US forces would be stopped while he was dodging bullets.
finished playing around with the asshats in the wh.
March 20th, 2007 at 3:18 pm#50, agreed, this is the Democrats moment of truth, and just watch Fox News and others call them unreasonable, and shrill for demanding public, under oath testimony.
And yea, that CNN headline is so misleading, Bush allowing Rove to testify!?!? Hardly!
More like: Bush trying to pull another fast one.
March 20th, 2007 at 3:18 pmImpeachment doesn’t mean removal from office, it just means that you have been indicted, accused of committing a crime.
Comment by howsad #51
…baby steps…
March 20th, 2007 at 3:18 pm#48 Bush IS Nixon’s mirror! He took notes from his rule book and embellished them, twisting them into the conspiratorial version…..
March 20th, 2007 at 3:19 pmOh yes, the title of this TP thread is yet another lie on here. It should be changed.
March 20th, 2007 at 3:19 pmRun and hide, Rove and Miers! You little weasels will only testify if you don’t have to actually tell the truth.
March 20th, 2007 at 3:20 pmThe Senate vote on subpoenas for Rove, Miers, and Kelley is still scheduled for Thursday. The White House failed to stop it. The House vote on those subpoenas is tomorrow.
March 20th, 2007 at 3:20 pmSenator Leahy, it’s your call now.
Let America see the man who stood outside the NBC building Sunday morning and declared he will not accept some WH staffers appear with a host of conditions attached to their responses.
Let us see these Neosluts in broad daylight with no backup.
Let America view integrity and truth through a lens uncluttered by politics, greed and corporate pimping.
Let us see how the shoe feels on the other foot.
This is your moment to shine, Senator. We’re behind you. We will support you.
You are the man who had these same people flood your opponent in the last election with money, yet you garnished 74% of the vote.
Have no fear. Fear is the mind-killer. They use fear like soldiers use guns. They cannot hurt you or us with words.
You have a chance to go down in history as the man who started the snowball of impeachment for the most corrupt administration in the history of this proud country.
We’re behind you, Senator.
March 20th, 2007 at 3:20 pmHow about some good news today…
BAGHDAD, Iraq - Saddam Hussein’s former deputy was hanged before dawn Tuesday, the fourth man to be executed in the killings of 148 Shiites following a 1982 assassination attempt against the former leader in the town of Dujail.
Taha Yassin Ramadan, who was Saddam’s vice president when the regime was ousted, went to the gallows on the fourth anniversary of the start of the war in Iraq.
Way Cool!
March 20th, 2007 at 3:20 pmIf the Dems agree to this they’re crazy, but then there’s always cell phone cameras, very high tech. I hear they can actually take movies these days.
March 20th, 2007 at 3:21 pmSelective amnesia on firing US Attorneys
Clarice Feldman
A common media trick to get editorial opinion into apparent news stories is the use of outside “scholars” to argue the writer’s point for him. So, I was not astonished to read this
about the Gonzales kerfuffle in the St Louis Post- Dispatch:
Several former U.S. attorneys and legal scholars say the timing of the Bush administration’s replacement of top federal prosecutors is not only atypical, but also a threat to the impartial exercise of justice.
“The sanctity of that position, in terms of that position being immune from any kind of pressure from the administration or Congress, has been the hallmark of the U.S. attorney process. It’s been the hallmark of the federal system of justice,” said W. Charles Grace, a former U.S. attorney for Illinois’ southern district.
The article doesn’t say which administration Mr. Grace served in .This is not surprising . When using this trick to squeeze opinion in a news story by using an outside “expert”, the writer rarely discloses the expert’s bias, usually Democratic. Googling his name, I see that he was a U.S. attorney in 1998 which suggests to me that President Clinton appointed him, and he appointed a lot of them, having fired every single US Attorney when he took office, and 30 more subsequently during his eight year term in office.
And while the number he replaced was astounding, his immediate Democratic predecessor, Jimmy Carter, replaced at least one during the middle of his term of office. Time Magazine reported:
“As Republicans rubbed their hands in glee, the Carter Administration last week found itself trying to explain away a skein of presidential lies. In a letter to Justice Department investigators looking into the firing two weeks ago of Philadelphia’s Republican U.S. Attorney, David Marston, Carter last week corrected a misstatement he had made during a nationally televised press conference on Jan. 12. Republican Congressmen saw an opportunity to duplicate last summer’s damaging controversy over Bert Lance’s financial peccadilloes, and to lay siege again to what was once the President’s pride: his credibility.”
It was Carter’s own fault. During his campaign he rashly declared,
“All federal judges and prosecutors should be appointed strictly on the basis of merit without any consideration of political aspects or influence.”
Such appointments are traditionally made on a frankly political basis, and once Carter was ensconced in the Oval Office, that tradition was fully honored. Of the first 65 U.S. Attorneys named by the new Administration, 64 were Democrats. As House Speaker Tip O’Neill put it, “That’s the way the System works.” And, he might have added, the way Congressmen and Governors want it to work, no matter who is President.
Carter’s problem was that he didn’t tell the truth - several times - about his role in removing Marston. And it came out that he had been asked to fire Marston by one of the targets of an investigation, Rep. Joshua Eilberg of Pennsylvania. Nevertheless Carter went ahead and fired Marston.
It got worse. Marston had notified a Justice Department official that Eilberg was a target.
For some reason or other, nobody among the Democrats or media seems to remember this incident. And the GOP has not raised it either. That’s just lame.
this is from http://www.americanthinker.com/ blog/ 2007/ 03/ selective_amnesia_on_firing_us.html
looks like Democrats have done this and defended Carter’s actions. whoops.
March 20th, 2007 at 3:22 pm#52 Patrick1
MSNBC reporting the above. Senate Schumer responds, and says “he isn’t happy†with the proposal.
You missed something:
“We’ll proceed with subpoenas on Thursday,” Schumer told MSNBC.
March 20th, 2007 at 3:22 pmIf the Dems don’t have the balls to demand “testimony under oath” they, too, will become complicit with this administration. Unsworn testimony from these defrauders is like getting a hosing. Give me a break! Just let them try to hide behind the ridulous veil of national security regarding some of the conversations about these attorneys this time! They’ve used this as a method of covering their ass for too long now. The people have had a belly full of their chicanery.
If the dems do not subpoena Rove and Miers, then it’s true that a third party is waiting in the wings. From what I saw today regarding this new coalition of Bruce Fein’s, I’d say that the Rethugs already have a schism brewing in their party and are coming closer to center. Besides, I’d say that the american people are the “true conservatives” today who want to put an end to this corruption in the white house and those condoning it are the true “liberals”.
The monikers no longer have any meaning whatsoever….and a third party is looking mighty powerful right now.
March 20th, 2007 at 3:23 pmanother thing, Impeachment doesn’t mean removal from office, it just means that you have been indicted, accused of committing a crime.
Comment by howsad
Baby steps . . .
March 20th, 2007 at 3:23 pmTime to throw a wingnut talking point back at them. If they have nothing to hide then they shouldn’t mind surrendering their privacy – or executive privilege in this case.
March 20th, 2007 at 3:23 pmA question for the moonbats: Impeached for what?
March 20th, 2007 at 3:24 pmThe Nazis and Communists were enemies. In fact, after Hitler burnt the Reichstagg, he blamed it on Communists, which lead his country to attack Poland and start WWII.
March 20th, 2007 at 3:24 pm#70 howsad
Oh no, it’s a cut-and-paste filibuster from vinnie…er…I mean howsad.
Where have I seen that before? And I wonder how many other threads he’ll be pasting it on.
March 20th, 2007 at 3:24 pmHey trolls….get in tune with the “now” please - all you can possibly refer to is dead wood - Carter, Clinton, blah…blah….get a life! Get your head out of your butt and get real….if you even can.
March 20th, 2007 at 3:24 pm# 51 “…I thought you liberals loved the law….” - Comment by howsad — March 20, 2007 @ 3:15 pm
howsad Troll:
I do love the law, though I am a Progressive (you being a NeoCon-lover, you wouldn’t know the difference, because your terminal stupidity is HARD to overcome). Rove and Miers are innocent until they are found guilty of perjury, like Scotter (Rove told me to do it) Libby.
That’s what the testimony under oath is for, DUMMY, to let them prove themselves guilty!
UNDER THE BRIDGE, NASTY TROLL!
March 20th, 2007 at 3:24 pmhowsad: schooling us on “the law” again? I see you don’t learn from your mistakes.
March 20th, 2007 at 3:25 pmHowsad: You’ve certainly picked a very descriptive moniker for yourself. That’s one thing I have to hand to you.
You truly are “how sad” with your inane posts and sad references to ancient history. Get a grip, man!
March 20th, 2007 at 3:25 pmAnd how has that helped the situation in Iraq we have created?
March 20th, 2007 at 3:25 pmFor watching you play power bottom to Flaco’s power top.
March 20th, 2007 at 3:26 pmChucky can subpeona all he wants but the Consitution does not require members of the Executive Branch to appear. This is just more moonbat games.
March 20th, 2007 at 3:27 pmAnd to think, at one point Bush said he had a transparent administration.
March 20th, 2007 at 3:27 pmHowsad & Jake continue to litter these threads with detritus and garbage. How sad, indeed! But who really cares what they have to say. We all just scroll right past their drivel anyway….comic relief!
March 20th, 2007 at 3:27 pm#85 He does! They’re transparently corrupt!
March 20th, 2007 at 3:28 pmImpeached for what?
March 20th, 2007 at 3:28 pmA subpoena may not “require” them to testify under oath; however, if they have nothing to hide, why resist. Their mere resistance will be an indictment of their guilt.
March 20th, 2007 at 3:29 pm#83 Google “articles of impeachment” which Conyers already has drafted up on Bushie if you want to amuse yourself and finally learn something noteworthy.
March 20th, 2007 at 3:30 pmComment by howsad #70
housefool,
…a wise man (D-NY Nadler) said this morning…
…when ANY administration does something wrong…
…to say a previous administration did it too…
…is NO defense…
…if what you’ve posted is legit…
…it proves that Repulsivescum have been abdicating their oversight duties…
…and failing the American people for a LONG time…
…they should’ve IMPEACHED Jimmy Carter if that was the case…
…which brings us BACK to the present…
…we Democrats FULLY intend to push for:
IMPEACHMENT
INDICTMENT
INCARCERATION
IMPOVERISHMENT
…EVERYONE we can in the criminal Bushite junta
…and among their corporate co-conspirators as well…
March 20th, 2007 at 3:30 pm#75 Felony violation of FISA for starters, something that the President has already publicly confessed to. Obstruction of Justice, for firing prosecutors investigating petty graft linked to the Vice President’s office. Lying to Congress with regard to the Iraq War Resolution (specifically, certain certifications the resolution required). The list of known crimes by this President is legion. It’s just a matter of getting the proof in testimony under oath.
But lying about fellatio immaterial to a court case isn’t one of them, so I’m sure you don’t think these rise to “high crimes”.
March 20th, 2007 at 3:30 pmwhat is happening here is a fight for power control between Congress, controlled by Democrats and the White House controlled by Republicans.
Democrats want, crave are desperate for power and they want to do it by taking away power from the Executive Branch and taking it from them.
Just look how the Iraq War has taken a back seat for the Dems because…..why? the surge is working, violence is way down in Iraq. so Dems have to turn their attention to something else.
This is but a simple fight to see who has more power, Democrats in Congress or Republicans in the White House.
veitras….all I am doing is showing you different point of views that you will not see if you spend all day long being brainwashed by sites like this one and other liberal blogs. Dare to venture into the right blogs, only then will you truly become open minded.
March 20th, 2007 at 3:30 pm#57 Let him take the fifth. It’s better than the BS he’d give in a private session. Let him take the fifth and face public opinion. He takes the fifth; he’s done!
March 20th, 2007 at 3:30 pm#58 Dreary Urbanite — I completely agree.
#59 veritas — Indeed.
March 20th, 2007 at 3:30 pm#88 gets out of school at 3:00 PM - that’s apparent.
March 20th, 2007 at 3:31 pm# 75 - “A question for the moonbats: Impeached for what?”
Comment by Patrick1 — March 20, 2007 @ 3:24 pm
High Crimes and Misdemeanors, You NeoCon perverted Troll! Read the Constitution, troll, instead of trying to distract us on this thread!
UNDER THE BRIDGE, NASTY TROLL!
March 20th, 2007 at 3:31 pm#86 veritas ~ Yes, but they’re cutting into my gig! I paid good money for the comic concession on this site!
March 20th, 2007 at 3:31 pmveritas…
why is it garbage? because you disagree with it? because thinkprogress.org, huffingtonpost, dailykos, and the Democrats told you so?
wow, talk about wanting to shut down the oppossite point of view, talk about being super closed minded.
March 20th, 2007 at 3:31 pmThis rejection by Bush of allowing Miers and Rove to testify IS an indictment of his administration!
March 20th, 2007 at 3:32 pmDoes this mean that any stories written about their testimony would have to be credited to senior administration officials?
March 20th, 2007 at 3:32 pmtroll tears—sweet tasty clear nectar from Gaawd
March 20th, 2007 at 3:33 pmTheir mere resistance will be an indictment of their guilt.
You need to throw away your “little red book” and pick up a Constitution of the United States of America. You have heard of that?
March 20th, 2007 at 3:33 pmAnd how has that helped the situation in Iraq we have created?
Comment by Spudge_Boy
One more dead enemy Spudgie.
March 20th, 2007 at 3:33 pmYou are next Traitor and Enemy of the US Constitution.
This refusal is very telling, isn’t it? Now we know that Bush is directly involved, as is Rove, as is Miers. Otherwise, why would he not allow his people to testify under oath? We don’t even need to take the time involved now becuase this is something we now know, deep within our guts. Bush has just finally “outed” himself. This was a HUGE mistake for him. He’s essentially about to now give his own “swan song”.
March 20th, 2007 at 3:34 pmIT’S TIME FOR THE DEMOCRATS TO GROW A SET OF BALLS!
March 20th, 2007 at 3:34 pmGreat Point Dreary -
The shouldn’t have anything to hide, right Repugs? The right has quietly and covertly usurp our rights to privacy and when we on the Left cry foul, you react by telling us that we should not worry if we don’t have anything to hide. That we should play along with their assault on our privacy. Well, the shoe is on the other foot. If they have nothing to hide, why should they be afforded the privilege of privacy ESPECIALLY since they are serving at the behest of the American people. You guys have it all backwards. Citizens should be afforded great amounts of privacy versus their government while the citizens should be afforded the greatest amount of transparency in government affairs.
March 20th, 2007 at 3:34 pmHow about some good news today…
BAGHDAD, Iraq -Saddam Hussein’s former deputy was hanged before dawn Tuesday
Way Cool!
Comment by Flaco #68
Flaco AND Flaco’s mother…
…blew him…
…before he went…
Way Cooler!
March 20th, 2007 at 3:35 pmHowsad: If your point of view had at least one shred of credibility attached to it, your dialogue would be welcomed here? However, to date your posts indicate a definite need to hijack the conversation at hand by providing ancient history to support your views today. This is not what relevant discourse is all about. If you want to debate history, then take your drivel to historians and argue with them. This is about what is occurring right now, in this country, on this planet, in this frame and time. You don’t seem to be grounded in reality, that’s all>
March 20th, 2007 at 3:36 pmWhy should Rove and Meirs play a part in Schumer’s circus?
March 20th, 2007 at 3:36 pmPeterW @ 952! Excellent!
March 20th, 2007 at 3:36 pmMy gut tells me I gotta drop a few Jakes off at the pool before my statement of confidence for Alberto later today.
March 20th, 2007 at 3:36 pmThe sheer volume of trollocity today indicates a hightened sense of danger for them.
March 20th, 2007 at 3:37 pmBuy Clorox stock, the only thing that will get the piss stains off the undies, trousers, socks, sheets, couches and computer chairs.
Patrick1,
most of this liberlas still carry Mao Tsung little red book, they love it and worship over the Constitution.
their supposed love for the Constitution is but a rouse to get uneducated people on their side.
March 20th, 2007 at 3:38 pmBecause Bush’s circus is of the “three ring variety” and a bigger bang for the buck!
March 20th, 2007 at 3:38 pmIT’S TIME FOR THE DEMOCRATS TO GROW A SET OF BALLS!
Comment by Operation Northwoods III
That is funny!!!!!
Hehehehehehheheh
March 20th, 2007 at 3:39 pmchimpech:
You’ll be fine with the Attorney General issuing subpoenas for Patrick Lehey and any other Congressman suspected of leaking classified information then, right? BTW: which Army is Congress going to use to enforce their subpoenas?
March 20th, 2007 at 3:39 pm#105 I agree, if there is nothing to hide, you let anyone and everyone testify in front of the entire world. I don’t think Americans are ready for a Rove / Miers closed door tea and cookies session with congress. This entire scheme is typical “I’ll get you, you son of a bitch” action typical of Bush / Rove / Cheney. The last thing they want to do is lie under oath, but they’ll have to in order to protect bush / cheney.
March 20th, 2007 at 3:39 pmHowever, it would be unsworn testimony, not under oath, behind closed doors, and no transcript would be permitted.
This is pure bullsh!t…the same bullsh!t we saw when Chimpy and Deadeye testified after 9/11.
‘Unsworn testimony’ is fancy talk for ‘no repercussions for lying your head off’.
Congress should reject this outright…it’s a slap in the face to them and us.
March 20th, 2007 at 3:40 pmveritas…
you can’t debate politics without knowing history. the fact that you want to piss on history while debating history shows your lack of education and understanding of the real world. I would suggest that you take off the tin foil hat you are wearing and start living in reality kid.
March 20th, 2007 at 3:41 pmWouldn’t it be ironic if Rove uses the 5th? Invoking the very Constitution they’ve been trampling over for 6 years. (random comment :-P)
March 20th, 2007 at 3:41 pmFrom the White House via TPM:
*THE PRESIDENT WILL MAKE A STATEMENT ON THE U.S. ATTORNEY MATTER SHORTLY AFTER RETURNING FROM KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI AT 5:45 PM, EDT, TODAY, MARCH 20, 2007, IN THE DIPLOMATIC RECEPTION ROOM
March 20th, 2007 at 3:41 pmI’m excited to see that there are some repugs out there who have enough presence of mind to recognize this constitutional crisis (Conservative Coalition for Presidential Abuse) who will bring forth these articles of impeachment if this democratic congress drags it’s feet. Today Fein had a list on ten which he presented on CSpan. I know John Conyers has about 14 right now which have been researched and verified. I believe this is a positive thing to see Republicans ditching their party of corruption and creating another movement - or party - they’ve invited all presidential candidates to sign their mission statement and one did today. This will probably take root since the time is ripe for sweeping change.
March 20th, 2007 at 3:41 pm#103 - Funny you should bring up the constitution. Bush considers it “just a piece of paper†and had tried to subvert it whenever it was in the way of his goals. Failure to uphold the constitution as his oath of office requires could easily be one of myriad grounds for impeachment.
March 20th, 2007 at 3:41 pmThanks, “Watergate” Fred. But no thanks. Subpoena’s in the mail.
Cheers,
March 20th, 2007 at 3:41 pmanyways….
Valarie Plames testimony which she did under oath is under investigation by the Senate. hahahahahahaha!!!
oh this is going to be good when the Senate puts her in jail for lying to them under oath.
where is your outrage now Democrats, where? c’mon liberals.
March 20th, 2007 at 3:42 pmWhy should Rove and Meirs play a part in Schumer’s circus?
Comment by Patrick1
No 1 reason: Because Schumer the shmuck and media whore is wanting attention.
March 20th, 2007 at 3:42 pm#70 I believe Marston was a late appointment by Ford and his 4 years were up during the middle of Carter’s term. He was not fired before the end of his term. Go look it up it’s one of those reality based fact thingy’s you don’t get on faux news.
#93 the surge may appear to be working due to timing. You see every year January through March have been down times for the violence. Lets see how things go in April. Also has the surge led to more Iraqi troops actually standing up? I mean we were supposed to stand down as the stood up. When they had 200,000 troops trained (a talking point of republicans) none of our troops stood down. Now they are supposed to be taking more of the burden in Baghdad, yet we are sending more troops? I don’t get it, how will they ever take control of their own country if we keep adding to what we are doing for them? Was the president wrong when hhe said that was the strategy?
Getting these people under oath is not the problem. Lying to congress is against the law whether you are under oath or not. The problem is that they want no transcripts and to hold the hearings in secret. That way there is no official record to call them on should they choose to lie.
March 20th, 2007 at 3:42 pm#113 By George, I think you’re right! If this weren’t such a big deal we wouldn’t be inundated with this crap. Look at them squirm!
March 20th, 2007 at 3:42 pmWhat unit did you say you were with when you protected the Constitution?
I don’t remember you ever saying that.
Oh that’s right, because you are a chicken sh!t chicken hawk who still lives with his mommy.
Bring it on punk. I am ready for you. I will use my US Army training and you can…..use your Unreal Tournament 2007 training.
March 20th, 2007 at 3:43 pmOnce Rove and Meiers hopelessly tangle themselves up in their web of lies, then Cheney and Bush can come on down and entangle themselves as well.
March 20th, 2007 at 3:43 pmThis could be the start of something beautiful.
Do you all realize that Bush’s history connects him to Hitler? Prescott supplied all the money Hitler needed to “get things going” and now his grandson (are little Bush) is nearly at his 1st million dead in Iraq.
March 20th, 2007 at 3:43 pmThe sheer volume of trollocity today indicates a hightened sense of danger for them.
Comment by RUCerious
Panic has set in, but they’re still getting entirely too much attention here. When training a dog, for instance, it’s important to avert your attention when they misbehave and only acknowledge them when the behavior is good. Trolls probably just leave when they’re denied attention, but I’d sure like to test that theory. Hard to get everyone on board, though, because so many of the troll posts are infuriatingly stupid and repetitive. On some level, most of us think that we could get through to the tiny troll brain if only we phrased things in just the right way.
Can’t be done. It’s like stuffing a Hummer into a pebble.
March 20th, 2007 at 3:43 pm#113 You can probably tell the weather, too, by troll detritus on the threads. When the national discussion gets frenzied against this administration as it has today, they’re out like cockroaches. Maybe we should start seeing if we can differentiate the paid trolls from the pedestrian trolls. A good place to begin is in their ability to think logically and the grammar they use in presenting their opines.
March 20th, 2007 at 3:43 pmThe White House is beginning to find out that this Congress is not Republican controlled.
The ONLY reason for secret hearing, NOT under oath, with NO transcripts is for window dressing to save the administration’s butt.
It is absolutely meaningless.
Does the White House think that Meirs and Rove are going to go into those hearings and say the President did this to obstruct justice? They simply want a way to keep Meirs and Rove and the rest of the cabal out of prison.
Ah. Real oversight is SO wonderful.
March 20th, 2007 at 3:44 pm“Why should Rove and Meirs play a part in Schumer’s circus?”
Because they have played with Bush’s circus and it’s time to rip down the big top.
“most of this liberlas still carry Mao Tsung little red book, they love it and worship over the Constitution.”
What a sad human being to say shit like this.
March 20th, 2007 at 3:44 pmJust like the Libby Trial, the mere resistance of this president to allow Rove and Miers to testify is an “unofficial impeachment of his presidency” - in the minds of the american people, he cannot now be trusted.
March 20th, 2007 at 3:44 pm“I said to [President Washington] that if the equilibrium of the three great bodies, Legislative, Executive and Judiciary, could be preserved, if the Legislature could be kept independent, I should never fear the result of such a government; but that I could not but be uneasy when I saw that the Executive had swallowed up the Legislative branch.” –Thomas Jefferson: The Anas, 1792. ME 1:318
March 20th, 2007 at 3:45 pm# 110 - “Why should Rove and Meirs play a part in Schumer’s circus?”
Comment by Patrick1 — March 20, 2007 @ 3:36 pm
Because they are about to receive subpoenas, dumbnuts, under the Constitution, about which you you know nothing!
By the way, the Constitution give you the right to call the Judiciary Committee a “circus.” It also allows you to be a dead-wrong Troll.
UNDER THE BRIDGE, NASTY TROLL!
March 20th, 2007 at 3:46 pmHow apt is howsad’s moniker? Truly pathetic he is.
March 20th, 2007 at 3:46 pm[…] it would be unsworn testimony, not under oath, behind closed doors, and no transcript would be […]
March 20th, 2007 at 3:46 pmTHE PEOPLE will patently reject to hearings without official transcripts and in secret. This democracy is ours; not theirs and it’s time for the people to take their obligation to it seriously. If it takes marching on Washington, so be it. If it takes calling your representatives, do it. Whatever it takes….the people will win this constitutional crisis and will call for Bush’s ouster finally.
March 20th, 2007 at 3:46 pmPeterW #15 no one said it was… I said lead to not is. Read again:
Will this trigger the constitutional crisis that will lead to IMPEACHMENT?
Comment by Goehl
I really believe with all the crap coming down and coming down quite quickly,we will get our impeachment hearings.
March 20th, 2007 at 3:46 pm#126 how did she lie? Is it the sad talking point that she said she was classified as covert? If she lied so to did the director of the CIA.
Anyhow aren’t republicans the ones who seem willing to surrender civil rights under the guise of if you have nothing to hide, then these intrusions into your rights should not matter. So if Rove and Meirs have nothing to hide, why the stringent conditions on their testimony? Why the fight to keep them anonymous and off the record?
March 20th, 2007 at 3:47 pmBesides, getting enough public opinion for Bush’s impeachment can be do handily with his numbers barely breaking the 30% mark these days. After people see another illustration of his obstinacy and grab for absolute power today, those numbers will drop even more.
March 20th, 2007 at 3:47 pm“be done” handily
March 20th, 2007 at 3:47 pmThe ONLY reason for secret hearing, NOT under oath, with NO transcripts is for window dressing to save the administration’s butt.
It is absolutely meaningless.
Squawk! National security! Squawk!
I can’t imagine how they’ll spin 9/11 into this, but I trust in the imagination of Dick Cheney that they’ll come up with something.
Or, like Cheney and the Energy Task Force, they’ll just say no. It would take two years to sort it out in the courts, ending in the Alito SCOTUS, so what do they have to worry about? They’ll be out in Crawford cutting brush and shooting old guys.
March 20th, 2007 at 3:48 pmFlacos other hero’s;
Edison Misla Aldarondo: The Republican legislator was sentenced to 10 years in prison for raping his daughter between the ages of 9 and 17
Jim Bakker, televangelist: Involved in fraud related to time shares and adultery with Jessica Hahn.
Howard L. Brooks: The Republican staffer was charged with molesting a 12-year old boy and possession of child pornography
Andrew Buhr: The Republican politician was charged with two counts of first degree sodomy with a 13-year old boy
Ted Bundy: who did charity work and campaigned for the Republican Party in the USA and murdered 16 women
Nicholas Morency: The Republican anti-abortion activist pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography on his computer
Osama Bin Laden: “I love Osama”, says Flaco as he stuffed his little red book into his pants.
March 20th, 2007 at 3:48 pmUNDER THE BRIDGE, TROLLS is right. It’s time we put our foot down on these charlatans and freeze them out of our threads. Do not feed the trolls! If you don’t feed them, they’ll slink away into their blackness where they roost.
March 20th, 2007 at 3:49 pmmost of this liberlas still carry Mao Tsung little red book
Funny, I didn’t know he had one. Aren’t the conservative states referred to as “red”? Wasn’t it the neocon leader Bush who said, in effect, he would rather be a dictator so he could decide more efficiently?
March 20th, 2007 at 3:49 pm“Why should Rove and Meirs play a part in Schumer’s circus?â€
Why does the song “Bring in the clowns” come to mind>?
March 20th, 2007 at 3:49 pm133
gummitch
U r suppose to say that cute little thing together.
March 20th, 2007 at 3:50 pmUnder the Bridge Nasty Trolls
I thought u neoprogs worked this out?
“you can’t debate politics without knowing history. ” Comment by howsad — March 20, 2007 @ 3:41 pm
Funny. Coming from the person who tried to debate Constitutional law without knowing the law.
March 20th, 2007 at 3:51 pmImpeachment for what?
Uh, this list should get anyone multiple life sentences:
1. Walter Reed outpatient treatment
March 20th, 2007 at 3:51 pm2. Fired US attorneys
3. Scooter Libby/Plamegate
4. Iraq: lack of preparation for occupation, looting, including the National Museum, too few troops, lack of training, lack of equipment, lack of securing loose Iraqi munitions, disbanding the Iraqi army, banning the Baathists, the CPA, Paul Bremer, losing tons of money literally, lack of international inclusion in reconstruction and security, weak Constitution, formation of sectarian parties, weak government
5. Afghanistan and the resurgent Taliban and opium production
6. Iran and saber rattling
7. North Korea, ditching the 1994 agreement because of dubious uranium program, the plutonium program which led to a fizzled first nuclear test, and something like a return to the 1994 agreement
8. Osama bin Laden, where are you? Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and terrorism
9. Civilian contractors
10. The Military Commissions Act: torture, indefinite detention, the end of habeas corpus, and kangaroo courts
11. Hurricanes Rita and Katrina, the destruction of New Orleans, and the aftermath
12. NSA wiretapping
13. SWIFT surveillance of financial transactions
14. Black prisons and extraordinary rendition
15. Homeland Security: white elephant (organization), black hole (money)
16. K Street Lobbyists, Jack Abramoff, North Marianas
17. Kyle “Dusty†Foggo and the CIA follies
18. Duke Cunningham
19. Tom Delay
20. Mark Foley
21. Cheney and Energy Policy
22. Tax cuts for the wealthiest
23. Global warming: refusal to join Kyoto, denial of manmade origin, continued reliance on fossil and carbon based fuels, little movement on CAFE standards and conservation, political interference in scientific reports (Good guys: Hansen, Peltz; bad guys: Cooney, Deutsch), listening to Michael Crichton
24. Terri Schiavo
25. Big budget deficits and vastly increased national debt
26. The stacking of the federal judiciary
27. Medicare
28. Medicare Part D
29. Healthcare (in general)
30. Cooked intelligence and the Office of Strategic Plans/ Doug Feith
31. 2000 Presidential election
32. 2004 Presidential election
33. Attempts to torpedo the 911 Commission
34. Failure to implement 911 recommendations
35. Marginalization of the UN; John Bolton
36. Preventive war doctrine
37. Loss of US reputation internationally
38. No serious attempt to achieve peace between Israelis and Palestinians
39. Underfunding of basic research
40. Alberto Gonzales
41. FDA: drug testing
42. EPA: mercury levels for coal plants
43. Porter Goss and the gutting of the CIA
44. Militarization of intelligence
45. Rampant cronyism
46. Signing statements
47. Unilateral Executive doctrine
48. Overuse and abuse of the National Guard and Reserves; posse comitatus
49. Increasing unpreparedness of US ground forces (Army and Marines)
50. US balance of trade deficit
51. 2005 Grassley Bankruptcy bill
52. Mexican cross border trucking and safety concerns
53. Karl Rove’s security clearance and no firing of Libby co-conspirators
54. Detention of families for immigration violations; ICE raids
55. Dubai Ports deal
56. The Patriot Act; the Patriot Act extension
57. Attempts to privatize Social Security
58. The War on Science
59. David Safavian, former head of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy
60. Presidential adviser Claude Allen stealing from Target
61. Bush casually admits about lying about decision to fire Rumsfeld
62. Armstrong Williams and paid propagandists
63. Decimation of the Labor Department
64. Net neutrality and media policies
65. Backing Israel while it destroyed Lebanon
66. Presidential Daily Brief 8/01: Bin Laden determined to attack in US
67. EPA chief Christie Todd Whitman declares Ground Zero safe for cleanup
68. Sago mining disaster hearings and MHSA’s David Dye who walked out of the hearings
69. Harriet Miers nomination to the Supreme Court
70. Vetoing stem cell research
71. Attack on Plan B contraception, staffing Women’s Health positions with religious conservatives: Dr. Eric Keroack at Health and Human Services who thought birth control demeaning to women and Dr. David Hager at FDA who tried to keep Plan B prescription only. His wife contended in divorce proceedings that he had repeatedly sodomized her without her consent.
72. Clear Skies Act and Healthy Forest Restoration Act
73. Missile defense shield that doesn’t work; withdrawal from ABM Treaty
74. Leandro Aragoncillo naturalized Filipino-American in Cheney’s office (previously Gore’s) accused of spying for the Philippines and possibly France, pled guilty to unlawfully possessing secret US government documents
75. Defunding overseas AIDS programs that promoted condom use for prevention.
76. Call for a constitutional amendment declaring marriage to be between one man and one woman.
77. Opening up Bristol Bay, the last pristine large-scale salmon fishery in the world, to oil drilling
78. Accusation that Clintons trashed the White House before leaving, including stealing the Ws from keyboards
79. Gannon/Guckert a working male prostitute in the White House press corps
80. Native American trust funds and the Trust Responsibility to Indian Country
81. Selling creationist materials at the Grand Canyon gift shop claiming it was 6000 years old
82. Banning photographing return of coffins of slain American soldiers
83. False military reporting: Pat Tillman, Jessica Lynch
84. AIPAC espionage scandal; former DOD employee Lawrence Franklin pled guilty to passing information on Iran to Israel through two AIPAC employees
85. Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, Bagram
86. Asserted right to open US mail
Come on Democrats show some cajones! The time is NOW to show the “Decider” that he doesn’t get the final say anymore. Please Democrats show some F*CKING guts!!!
March 20th, 2007 at 3:51 pmSorry,RU….I know how lucrative it is to have a concession during a troll “dog & pony show” and I apologize. hahaha!
March 20th, 2007 at 3:51 pm“The people of this country will not tolerate an administration who tramples on our constitution.
Comment by veritas — March 20, 2007 @ 3:09 pm”
Apparently we will……
But only for a period of time, THANKD GOD!
March 20th, 2007 at 3:52 pmMark:
There is such a thing as Separation of Powers. Unless you’d be fine with the Attorney General issuing subpoenas for Patrick Lehey and any other Congressman suspected of leaking classified information then?
BTW: which Army is Congress going to use to enforce their subpoenas?
March 20th, 2007 at 3:52 pmValerie Plame obviously lied because she gave testimony to Congress under oath. Rove and Meirs will tell the truth because their testimony will not be under oath. OK, let me try to do those contortions and spins and logical leaps so I can wrap my head around this…..Nope, can’t do it. I can’t make it into Bizarro World.
March 20th, 2007 at 3:53 pmmost of this liberlas still carry Mao Tsung little red book, they love it and worship over the Constitution.â€
I have never heard of that Book. So why do so many Republicans love Sam Myung Moon?
So Flaco why did George call that Constitution that you claim to love a GD piece of paper? Do you understand that a Unitary Executive is?
March 20th, 2007 at 3:53 pmIsn’t it fascinating how “national security” (aka 911 and it’s Patriot Act) is the cloak or mantle of protection for every criminal action of this administration? Anyone beginning to get the picture of “truth” about it all yet? Anyone beginning to connect the dots. We’ve easily connected the dots from the Patriot Act forward to our woes and problems today; however, if we get to the genesis of the Patriot Act itself, we will be truly enlightened by the logical conclusions which we will find there….they’re not very pretty but absolutely predictable and statistically realistic.
March 20th, 2007 at 3:53 pmI thought you liberals loved the law….
how about not guilty until proven so in a court of law. Look it up it is in our laws, those that you guys to love so much. or do you guys prefer the Nazi, Communist ways, guilty without a day in court?
Comment by howsad #51
Valarie Plames testimony which she did under oath is under investigation by the Senate. hahahahahahaha!!!
oh this is going to be good when the Senate puts her in jail for lying to them under oath.
Comment by howsad #126
…according to my calculations…
…triangulating # of posts…
…vs time…
…27 minutes…
THAT didn’t take long at all…
…HYPOCRISY…
…a TREASONOUS right wing inbred Bushite RETARD…
…character trait since time began…
March 20th, 2007 at 3:54 pmwhack-a-doodle-doo, trolls
March 20th, 2007 at 3:54 pmI’m betting the Dems in Congress will fold to this, and it will go no where. Dems are no better than Repubs.
March 20th, 2007 at 3:54 pmTheFall of the House of Bush has finally now begun. Hallelujiah!