Tony Snow Flip-Flops On Executive Privilege
Tony Snow Flip-Flops On Executive Privilege
President Bush said yesterday he would “absolutely” fight to prevent Karl Rove and other senior officials from testifying under oath about the U.S. Attorney purge. Tony Snow explained the position to National Review’s Byron York:
I asked whether the president was perhaps overly confrontational at this stage of the game. “I don’t think it’s confrontational,” Snow said. “We feel pretty comfortable with the constitutional argument.” …
The White House, Snow said, is determined to avoid “hearings or the trappings of hearings” when White House officials talk to Congress. “They’re looking for hands up, cameras on,” Snow said of Democrats. “They’re talking about a show trial.”
How times have changed. As Glenn Greenwald first noted, Snow had a much different view of executive privilege in 1998, when President Clinton was using it to resist having his aides testify in the midst of the Monica Lewinsky saga. On 3/29/98, Snow published an op-ed titled, “Executive Privilege is a Dodge”:
Evidently, Mr. Clinton wants to shield virtually any communications that take place within the White House compound on the theory that all such talk contributes in some way, shape or form to the continuing success and harmony of an administration. Taken to its logical extreme, that position would make it impossible for citizens to hold a chief executive accountable for anything. He would have a constitutional right to cover up.
Chances are that the courts will hurl such a claim out, but it will take time.
One gets the impression that Team Clinton values its survival more than most people want justice and thus will delay without qualm. But as the clock ticks, the public’s faith in Mr. Clinton will ebb away for a simple reason: Most of us want no part of a president who is cynical enough to use the majesty of his office to evade the one thing he is sworn to uphold — the rule of law.
Snow shouldn’t feel “pretty comfortable with the constitutional argument” because it’s pretty clear there isn’t one. The leading case on executive privilege is United States v. Nixon, where the Supreme Court found that executive privilege is sharply limited:
The President’s need for complete candor and objectivity from advisers calls for great deference from the courts. However, when the privilege depends solely on the broad, undifferentiated claim of public interest in the confidentiality of such conversations, a confrontation with other values arises. Absent a claim of need to protect military, diplomatic, or sensitive national security secrets, we find it difficult to accept the argument that even the very important interest in confidentiality of Presidential communications is significantly diminished by production of such material for in camera inspection with all the protection that a district court will be obliged to provide.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
HEAD ON!!! HEAD ON!!! HEAD ON!!!
March 21st, 2007 at 10:09 amExecutive Privilege, just like the legality of breaking the wiretapping laws, as okayed by Dingaling Gonzo would be difficult for Tony Snow to articulate….because it is the height of hypocrisy and they’re hanging Snowjob Tony out to dry just like his predecessor, Scottie.
March 21st, 2007 at 10:11 amShow me the clause in the Constitution that deals with “executive privilege” and then I’ll start listening to the White House arguments.
Where’s the “Clinton did it chorus” now? Clinton testified, under oath. Shouldn’t Bush be willing to do the same?
March 21st, 2007 at 10:11 amthe people will finally put an abrupt end to Bush’s Monarchy now that he’s become confrontation with the people who pay his salary! Bush’s Watergate has arrived….add to Lawyergate the new kid on the scandal block, HookerGate and it’s clear that this house of cards is tumbling down….and fast.
March 21st, 2007 at 10:12 amOh you poor thinkprogress.org…..
the Clinton administration used the Executive Privilage argument to refuse subpoenas from Congress when it came to Janet Reno and other staff members of the Clinton administration.
I am wondering if the creators of thinkprogress.org are such ill-informed babies or such a bunch of liars by ommissions.
During the Clinton administration it was the left that went all out, along with the media to protect Janet Reno from testifying under oath infront of Congress.
If you are going to put a flip-flop from Tony Snow when he was a commentator, make sure you also put the flip-flop from the Democrats when they defended Clinton using Executive Privilage to fight subpeonas from a Republican controlled congress.
March 21st, 2007 at 10:13 amoh my goodness you liberals….no Democrat or liberal was calling on Clinton to show them the clause were it says, “Excutive Privilage” when he used it.
amazing the hypocrisy from the left. it is never ending.
March 21st, 2007 at 10:14 am“U.S. v. Nixon” — perfect. That is the same case I cited on TP on Monday when I pointed out (to howsad, who never found a case to refute it) that separation of powers is not absolute.
In that case, the U.S. Supreme Court held that, where the ground for asserting privilege is based only on the generalized interest in confidentiality, it cannot prevail over fundamental demands of due process of law in the fair administration of criminal justice. Going on to say, “the Constitution enjoins upon its branches separateness but interdependence, autonomy but reciprocity.â€
Let’s see how these “honorable public servants” respond under oath. Of course, by “honorable,” Bush means loyal and lying.
March 21st, 2007 at 10:16 amExecutive Privilege 101, For Lefties
Town Hall ^ | Hugh Hewitt
Executive Privilege 101, For Lefties Posted by: Hugh Hewitt at 9:20 AM
Some lefties are e-mailing me quotes about “executive privilege” from the years of the Clinton investigations, quotes from leading conservative voices like Tony Snow.
What the lefties don’t seem to realize is that U.S. v. Nixon concerned claims of executive privilege made against demands for evidence in a criminal proceeding, and that Clinton’s many executive privilege claims –including novel ones such as the claim that Secret Service agents could not be questioned– were also made and defeated in the context of a criminal investigation.
The decision by the president to refuse any subpoena directed by House or Senate Democrats to his former counsel Harriet Miers or his current aide Karl Rove will be made against a co-equal branch not authorized to conduct criminal investigations. It will be a case of first impression if it reaches the Supreme Court, and if the Court does answer the question of whether the Congress can subpoena White House aides –it could invoke the political question doctrine and punt– it will be fundamentally unbalancing the branches if it sides with the right of Congress to summon the president’s most senior aides because the president fired eight officials who serve at his pleasure.
I will have Professors Chemerinsky and Eastman on today to discuss the matter. In the meantime, lefties bearing quotes should know they are indicting themselves, not the people they quote. To get started on their education, they might want to read In re Lindsey, a D.C. Circuit opinion from the heyday of the Clinton scandals, which notes that executive privilege exists and has been defeated to date only in the context of criminal investigation:
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com …
March 21st, 2007 at 10:17 amTPMmuckraker rightly points out that, if the us attorneys were fired for performance reasons, there would and should be an extensive paper trail documenting the performance issues… but, guess what…? there isn’t one, at least among the already-released documents…
i have spent numbers of years supervising others and i know from vast experience that, when an employee is being let go - and it makes no difference whether it’s an exempt or non-exempt employee and whether or not they’re serving under an employment contract or simply employment-at-will - you ALWAYS document, document, document… ALWAYS… it’s called covering your ass against the possibility of a wrongful discharge suit…
And, yes, I DO take it personally
March 21st, 2007 at 10:17 amMost of us want no part of a president who is cynical enough to use the majesty of his office to evade the one thing he is sworn to uphold — the rule of law.
Comment by Tony Snow-
By gosh;all of a sudden I’m agreeing with Tony.
March 21st, 2007 at 10:17 amBad boys, bad boys, whatchagonna do when they come for you?
March 21st, 2007 at 10:18 amThrey feel comfortable because they’ve stacked the courts.
March 21st, 2007 at 10:19 amveritas,
get a clue and an education. this is once again a none issue and you can be sure that the Democrats are going to lose on this one.
yesterday you claim that Bush had been “unofficially impeached” only an ill-educated person would make such absurd comment and today you claim that Bush’s watergate has arrived?
you are obviously not too knowledgeble when it comes to history, politics or anything else.
this is not Watergate kid. but you are too brainwashed by the left and you hate Bush and conservatives too much to even realize it.
March 21st, 2007 at 10:19 amthe people will finally put an abrupt end to Bush’s Monarchy now that he’s become confrontation with the people who pay his salary!
Comment by veritas #4
It would seem that way veritas…
…YES precedent has been set in this matter…
…but THIS SCOTUS is in the hands of Bushites…
…Roberts, Scumlia, Scumlito, and Thomas definitely would side with Bushiva…
…in a showdown…
…Kennedy is the key…
…personally, (in the words of Chuck D) “I can’t trust it”…
…and WHY haven’t “REPORTERS” (in the WH press corp)…
…confronted Snowjob on HIS HYPOCRISY?
…surely if TP found Snowjob’s statements about Clinton’s claims to executive privilege…
…the WH press corps could’ve…
March 21st, 2007 at 10:19 amhow sad it is that the right is always ready to overlook and/or give a pass to this criminal government just because it is their party. they seem to be ecstatic over the centralization of power in a few figures, as long as it is in the hands of members of their own party. they don’t care about democracy, the American way, or moral character. they only care about power, the ability to impose their own warped view on the majority, and the ability to make a profit and not have to care or even know who suffers as a result of their greed.
March 21st, 2007 at 10:23 amPatrickc1,
stop educating the left, you are wasting valuable time. All you are going to get is rants and raves about how wrong you are.
Anyway, amazing that the left defended whole heartly Executive Privilages under Clinton, yet now they attack it.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!! you lefties are good for one thing, a good old laugh.
read and educate yourselves….”In re Lindsey, a D.C. Circuit opinion from the heyday of the Clinton scandals…”
once again the left wing hypocrisy in full display.
March 21st, 2007 at 10:23 amComment by howsad — March 21, 2007 @ 10:13 am
WHEN we have a Democratic president we’ll do that. But that’s not the issue right now is it?
March 21st, 2007 at 10:23 amIt’s always nice to see Nixon’s name come up again. Yet another criminal put into the White House by the immoral Republicans. Need we even talk about Reagan, who illegally sold arms to Iran?
March 21st, 2007 at 10:23 am#5 “If you are going to put a flip-flop from Tony Snow when he was a commentator, make sure you also put the flip-flop from the Democrats when they defended Clinton using Executive Privilage to fight subpeonas from a Republican controlled congress.”
Fair enough. I hold no loyalty to either Democrat nor Republican, so it’s not surprising that Democrats also flip-flopped on this issue. Either way, Bush and Gonzo are going down. Truth prevails.
March 21st, 2007 at 10:24 amThe ruling that “Absent a claim of need to protect military, diplomatic, or sensitive national security secrets we find it difficult to accept the argument…” is exactly why this administration cites “the war on terra” every time oversight is attempted. And again I say that the supreme court will absolutely rubber stamp the brownshirt policies of this administration. The supreme court is a different court than the fascists of Nixons time faced.
March 21st, 2007 at 10:24 amComment by howsad — March 21, 2007 @ 10:14 am
Well Clinton testified in front of Congress why don’t we just skip the middle men and go directly to Bush and let him testify. Would that seem more even handed to you?
March 21st, 2007 at 10:25 amThis is pretty sad politics as usual. At least we all can now agree this is a poltical show trial. Snow was for these show trials when it benefited his party and are now against show trials when the other side wants to use them for political gain.
If I was the administration, I would demand investigations and public hearing of Schumer before I would cooperate. Schumer is on record interfering with ongoing investigations. He is also on record demanding investigations get done on his timetable and he even applied political pressure to US attorney’s during an investigation. If the Dems are serious about this matter, then they certainly should have no problem investigating Schumer as what he did is identical to what they are claiming the administration did. The only difference is we have written proof from Schumer himself that these charges are real. The charges against the administration are a bunch of here say currently. Anyways, once they publicly investgate Schumer’s horrid actions, then I would grant them the ability to publicly interview administration officials for their show trial.
March 21st, 2007 at 10:26 amComment by Patrick1 — March 21, 2007 @ 10:17 am
You can really trust the legal opinion of somebody who calls people lefties if they want justice. Very enlightened. Let’s just see what happens the next couple of days and then we’ll pull this article out and see if it hold true.
March 21st, 2007 at 10:28 amTony Snow should be forced to testify under oath before Congressional committees too. He hangs out with Bush privately in the Oval Office, so he might know something of value to the Congress. As for executive privilege: a bogus claim by Bush to try to avoid accountability. It’s time for the Congress to either force Bush to resign or to impeach him for high crimes against our nation and war crimes in Iraq.
March 21st, 2007 at 10:30 amhowsad, I am sure that there were some dems who were not happy with Clinton’s use of executive privilege. Back when Clinton was in office I was pretty apathetic about his actions, though I did not vote for him his second term.
So howsad, I’m guessing that you disagreed with Clinton’s use of executive privilege then and you disagree with Bush’s use of it now. Right?
When do I get to see it in writing on this thread?
Anytime? Never? or is it perhaps your hypocrisy that is preventing you from saying it?
March 21st, 2007 at 10:30 amAbsent a claim of need to protect military, diplomatic, or sensitive national security secrets, ..
I been tellin’ ya, y’all are either with us or yur against us. Y’all should know that our secret plans for a permanent neoconservative majority are just that..secrets…in…the…na…tion…al…IN…trist. It’s sensitive. It’s secret. I can’t tell you why it’s secret because that’s secret, too. If y’all try to force this secret to be ex…posed y’all are helping the terrists. And I say, bring it on! As long as I’m President, I am the Decider and my…MISSION is to pro…tect this country from terrists who want to change our freedom to be the permanent…ma…jor..ity party.
/sarc off
March 21st, 2007 at 10:31 amWho’s surprised? Tell me, really, WHO IS SURPRISED that he is changing his stance?
March 21st, 2007 at 10:31 amshane,
why is it that Democrats as yourself are so willing to give a pass to the hypocrisy from the left? honestly.
I mean fair enough, Tony Snow fliped-floped, but he was not in goverenment when he made the comment that TP is using.
Democrats in Congress, Democrat pundigs and Liberals in the 1990s quoted and used Executive Privilage to protect the Clinton administration and you are fooling yourslef if you think that they wouldn’t use it if they win in 2008.
I am looking for a serious and non-insulting exchange with you.
March 21st, 2007 at 10:32 amRoger_Roger,
“The charges against the administration are a bunch of here say currently” yeah and so were the charges against Nixon, ya see thats why investigations and hearings are necessary, it’s how our system works, it’s called checks and balances.
March 21st, 2007 at 10:33 amj swift,
Actually, I agree with Executive Privilage whole heartly. I mean think about if, if Congress can investigate the Executive Branch, couldn’t the Executive Branch turn around and investigate Congress?
This is a huge power struggle, this is crossing beyond just politics. This is a show down between the Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch to see who has more power in our government. This goes way, i mean way beyond politics. At the end neither side should win since our branches are suppose to be equal.
March 21st, 2007 at 10:34 amSnow appears to be channeling Karnak.
Answer is: Perjury.
What’s the question?
March 21st, 2007 at 10:34 amWhy are administration officials afraid to testify unless there’s no transcript?
Comment by Patrick1 — March 21, 2007 @ 10:17 am
First you neocons complain that investigations take too much time and money and then you want to investigate the investgators first. Are you telling us that the Republican majority knew Schumer had committed this offense and did nothing about it until they were the minority and now they want Democrats to investigate.
March 21st, 2007 at 10:35 amSpin, spin, spin little top.
All this BS about what Clinton is alleged to have done illegally, immorally, or just plain wrong so Bush should get a pass is asinine. First, if Clinton DID anything similar is there ANY doubt that the thugs in the Republican party would have pounced all over it AT THE TIME? Of course, but instead they had to jump on trumped up issues. Second, if Clinton DID anything similar, SO WHAT as it being wrong then means it is wrong NOW. It does not matter who was or is confronting that wrongness - at least someone was or is. So, trolls, you’re NOW either with us on protecting our political system of fair elections (which is the underlying issue) or you aren’t. Which is it?
March 21st, 2007 at 10:37 amhowsad,
“I mean fair enough, Tony Snow fliped-floped, but he was not in goverenment…” oh and now that he is “in government” his convictions should of course be expected to change?
Your handle is apt.
March 21st, 2007 at 10:37 amBush’s speech was, how would you sayit? So Nixonesque.
March 21st, 2007 at 10:37 amis there, or is there not any reason for this to escalate? The right continues to state the Attorney’s serve at the pleasure of the president and the left states that any firing can’t be for political reasons. We can all banter about talking points and spins but this seems to be the subject matter.
If the facts are already clear then the left is fishing and does this country a disservice. But if the facts aren’t clear then they are doing exactly what I would expect either party to move forward with.
I want the law to prevail, not either side. The republicans spent millions hunting Clinton and settled for lying about a blow job. With the cases these attorneys were looking into at the time, this has the appearance of unethical force from the white house. Much more damaging to the country than a blow job.
So I’d like to see the facts and I’m going to hunt for them. If they are discussed here, great. If the chest thumping for our side against the other continues then you deserve each other.
March 21st, 2007 at 10:37 amj swift,
I very much agreed when Clinton used it and I agree now that Bush will use it when Leahy and his cohorts go on a witch hunt.
what I see is hypocrisy from the left, the same people that agreed and defended Clinton’s use of the Executive Privilage are now the ones crying about Bush using it.
March 21st, 2007 at 10:38 amSSDD from the Bush administration and from the trolls here at Think Progress. Pathetic. Both can try and “catapult the propaganda” all they like but it changes nothing.
March 21st, 2007 at 10:38 amI see the Repuke trolls are in here bright and early. Karla Rove must pay howsad and the others by the hour.
There’s not going to be a non-insulting exchange with you, howsad. You support a criminal regime that okayed torture and treason. You are not worthy of serious and polite discussion. You SHOULD be insulted.
Several Clinton people had to testify under oath, now it is Karla Rove’s turn. So your arguments are specious. Look it up, dumbass.
You Repukes are too stupid to have a serious discussion with. All you know how to say is Repuke talking point lies, and who wants to talk to liars?
March 21st, 2007 at 10:39 amHowsad - Honestly, I’m not a Democrat. I hated Clinton, and I thought he should have been kicked out of office, because I believe that the President should be a role model. However, I also hate Bush. I find Tony Snow’s old comment to be funny, but I’m not going to sit and defend what Liberals were saying when they tried to protect Clinton. It’s not surprising that both Liberals and Conservatives are flip-flopping right now. I don’t hold this particular quote against Tony Snow, but I’ve heard the guy speak and spin so many things, that I already have enough ammo to dislike the guy without this quote. Like I said in my first post - either way, it looks like Bush and Gonzo are going down. Which is why I’m happy. And I would have been happy if Clinton went down as well. Oh well - you can’t ALWAYS get what you want :-P.
March 21st, 2007 at 10:39 am“I’m not going to have some reporters pawing through our papers We are the president.”
“Heavens, no! It could get subpoenaed. I can’t write anything.”
March 21st, 2007 at 10:39 amhowsad @ 6
From reading your post I take it that you believe the boy king should have kkkarl and little hariette testify under oath.
March 21st, 2007 at 10:39 amCaption Contest:
“Mork calling Orsen, come in Orsen”
March 21st, 2007 at 10:42 amComment by howsad — March 21, 2007 @ 10:32 am
I tell you right after you tell me how the Republican congress let 6 years of corruption go unchecked. If we’re hypocrites we learned it from Republicans. Iran Contra no big deal. Clinton blow job, impeachment worthy. Six years of abuse of power, its all good.
March 21st, 2007 at 10:42 amIf your Congress had not rubber stamped everything this administration asked for we wouldn’t be undergoing this Constitutional Crisis now would we. And I believe if Republicans had enforced the usual checks and balances and worked for the people instead of blindly adhering to the wishes of the President it would be better for this country.
So now tell me which is more important to you, the United States or the Republican Party?
And they are paying a political price as the American people long for the 1994 election to be done again in 2008.
Where has the love gone? Support for Democratic Congress plunges
It was the shortest of honeymoons. After less than three months, the new Democratic congressional majority has sunk to the same depths as its Republican counterpart did last year.
A new Gallup polls finds 28 percent of Americans approve, and 64 percent of Americans disapprove, of the job Congress has done. It’s deja vu all over again, just with different leaders at the helm. President Bush should but probably won’t remind Congress as often as possible that it is more unpopular than he.
From Gallup:
PRINCETON, NJ — The modest uptick in approval of the job being done by Congress has dissipated for the most part after only two months. Congress job approval had risen over the last two months after the Democrats took over control of Congress in early January — fueled in large part by a jump in approval among rank and file Democrats. This month, however, Congress job approval is back down to levels quite similar to where it was in 2006. Democrats have lost a good deal of the positivity exhibited in the first two months of the year after their party took over.
According to Gallup’s monthly update on job approval of Congress — in a March 11-14, 2007, national poll — 28% of Americans approve of the job being done by Congress and 64% disapprove. This marks a substantial change from January and February, with approval down nine points and disapproval up nine points.
The current reading suggests that Americans are reverting back to their pessimistic attitudes of last year, when Congress approval ratings were in the 20s for much of the year.
The explanation for the increase in job approval ratings for Congress in January and February lies in the fact that Democrats, and to a degree independents, became much more positive. This more than offset a drop in approval among Republicans.
This month, however, Congress job approval among Democrats has fallen back, and to a lesser degree among independents. Republicans — already much less positive in January and February after their party lost control of Congress — became only slightly more negative this month.
http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=26914
March 21st, 2007 at 10:42 am“Show Trial” is a strawman argument. This is a hearing, not a trial. Congress has a right to get information from the executive branch. Where is it written that the Executive has a right to withhold information, especially information relating to obstruction of justice?
If the administration will not obey a subpoena, the next step should be to appoint a special prosecutor and empanel a grand jury.
That, and begin impeachment proceedings, of course.
March 21st, 2007 at 10:43 amPatrioticLiberalChristian,
nope, you can’t just dismiss it so easily. the same Democrats in government today, the same Senators and Congressmen that are now crying about the use of the Execuitive Privilages that a President can use were the ones that defended Clinton’s use of Executive Privilage.
So, by using your post, Democrats in Congress during the 1990s were completly against what you supposedly stand for, according to the post you wrote, right?
March 21st, 2007 at 10:44 amHere’s something really scary I heard on the radio this morning.
We know that 8 US Attorneys were fired by Gonzo, under orders from the White House, for not being partisan enough. They were too slow to prosecute Democrats and prosecuted too many Repukes. They were fired for not being “loyal Bushies”.
What does this say about the other 80-odd US Attorneys? They were NOT fired because they were partisan enough to keep their jobs. They were good at prosecuting Dems and not prosecuting Repukes.
That’s what’s scary. How many Repukes are getting away with crimes because those US ATtorneys are “loyal Bushies”.
I know of one case that is not being prosecuted, MarianasGate. The US Attorney who WAS prosecuting it was replaced, after Abramoff complained to Rove, with a Chimpy crony and the investigation was dropped.
Chimpy, Rove and Gonzales are wrecking this nation’s legal system. Anybody can see that. Anybody but stupid inbred Repukes.
March 21st, 2007 at 10:44 amRoger_Roger
March 21st, 2007 at 10:44 am#32 was actually to your #22.
Sorry P1
The title of this thread has been shown to be a another TP lie, when will it be corrected?
March 21st, 2007 at 10:44 amDon’t feed the trolls. They are a waste of time.
March 21st, 2007 at 10:45 amU.S. vs. Nixon (418 US 693) is not a “slam dunk” for Congressional Democrats, but they should be able to frame their search requests wtihin its parameters. Excerpts:
U.S. vs. Nixon explicitly did NOT deal with the conflict between the President’s “generalized interest in confidentiality†of his communications and general “congressional demands for informationâ€. [Footnote 19.] It also explicitly did not deal with civil (as opposed to criminal) actions or claims regarding “state secretsâ€.
The case dealt with the President’s claim that he had an absolute privilege that would prevent disclosure of information in his possession, in a criminal action, in which a grand jury had already indicted several of the President’s advisers (and in which the President was an unindicted co-conspirator). The Supreme Court rejected the President’s claim and compelled disclosure under subpoena of specifically identified tape recordings containing statements by the indicted conspirators.
Regarding privilege, the Court said that the Constitution implicitly affords the President a “presumptive privilege†of confidentiality regarding his communications. This privilege is considerable, especially with regard to military, diplomatic and national security issues - to which courts must give “the utmost deferenceâ€. It extends even to, “idle conversations with associates in which casual reference might be made concerning political leaders within the country or foreign statesmen.†But it is a privilege subject to “our historic commitment to the rule of law.â€
President Nixon asserted a “generalized privilege of confidentiality†as a bar to disclosure of “relevant evidence†in a criminal trial. The Supreme Court rejected that claim:
“To read the Art. II powers of the President as providing an absolute privilege as against a subpoena essential to enforcement of criminal statutes on no more than a generalized claim of the public interest in confidentiality of nonmilitary and nondiplomatic discussions would upset the constitutional balance of ‘a workable government’ and gravely impair the role of the courts under Art. III.â€
“[T]o ensure that justice is done,†and that the courts could function, the Court deemed it imperative that “compulsory process be available for the production of evidence needed either by the prosecution or by the defense.â€
Under U.S. vs. Nixon, Congress will have an uphill battle to compel disclosure, unless it can frame their demands for information in the context of investigating possible criminal wrongdoing.
March 21st, 2007 at 10:46 amIts tough being a US president.
http://www.tekno-world.blogspot.com
March 21st, 2007 at 10:46 amI have a question about the excerpt from United States vs. Nixon, specifically the phrase “production of such material for in camera inspection”. “In camera” means “in chamber” or “in secret”. Does this mean that the hearings with White House staff could be closed to the public?
March 21st, 2007 at 10:47 amWell then howsad why are pointing out the hypocrisy of the left in such general terms? You are stating the obvious and it has no relevance to this discussion.
Does the left’s hypocrisy 6 or 10 years ago have anything to do with whether the Bush administration is dodging accountability now? No.
Or are you really going to tell me that the left’s hypocrisy, or whatever nature many years ago, should allow it.
March 21st, 2007 at 10:47 amyou do know Patrick1 is getting his posting points by cutting and pasting from a right wing blog, don’t you?
March 21st, 2007 at 10:47 amshane,
I am sorry, but Clinton’s blow job was but one thing, there were quite a few scandals, I mean pretty huge corrupt things that Clinton did that the left could careless for.
Remember Wacko and Janet Reno and how it was handle? How about Somolia? How about Chinese obtaining our nuclear secrets from Clinton administration people? How about our educational system going to crap under clinton? Or how about Clinton doing nothing to prevent 9/11?
furthermore, you are answering a question with a question. C’mon shane be honest and answer my post, you can’t expect a meaninful exchange if you aren’t willing ot answer my questions first. Aren’t you guys the ones that cry when you guys ask us questions and we don’t answer. I promise, if you answer my post, I’ll answer your questions.
March 21st, 2007 at 10:47 amClinton was fooling around and lied about it - far worse than any false allegations made against the hard working god fearing Bush. Dems are just upset that got caught.
March 21st, 2007 at 10:48 amwhat I see is hypocrisy from the left, the same people that agreed and defended Clinton’s use of the Executive Privilage are now the ones crying about Bush using it.
Comment by howsad — March 21, 2007 @ 10:38 am
Show us an example of the “same people.” Show us where somebody here defended Clinton’s use. You just throw out vague references like they’re fact. A tactic no doubt learned from all those hours watching Fox News.
March 21st, 2007 at 10:48 amIt figures Chimpy would call a Congressional HEARING a “show trial”.
Chimpy obviously knows absolutely nothing about our legal system.
Gonzo is not much better. He doesn’t even know Habeus Corpus is in the Constitution! He must have gotten through law school on Affirmative Action. 8^)
March 21st, 2007 at 10:49 amI see that Karl’s elves are click clacking for their AEI Fellowships still. Who says that welfare programs are only for the poor or illiterate and talentless. Well, strike that last one.
March 21st, 2007 at 10:50 amCaption contest: “My head is about to explode in a giantic blast of sh!t!”
March 21st, 2007 at 10:51 amSo, by using your post, Democrats in Congress during the 1990s were completly against what you supposedly stand for, according to the post you wrote, right?
Comment by howsad
Pretty broad and unsubstantiated premise so what I “supposedly” stand for cannot be applied. It would be like saying to you “If George W. Bush gave money to Osama Bin Laden three weeks before 9-11, that would be completely against what you supposedly stand for, right?”
March 21st, 2007 at 10:51 amComment by howsad — March 21, 2007 @ 10:38 am
So tell me was it a fishing expedition when they asked Bill Clinton if he had sex with Ms. Lewinski?
How was that relevant, sex with a consulting adult.
And perhaps he lied to Congress about it, granted, but maybe he was protecting his wife, daughter and Monica. Some gentlemen would say it was a noble cause and if he had said yes immediately he had thrown these three women to the wolves for his own career.
But you still haven’t answered my earlier question about Bush testifying like Clinton did and then the field is even. Well wouldn’t that be better for you?
March 21st, 2007 at 10:53 amCongress should draw a line in the sand and tell Bush: either cough up Karl Rove, Alberto Gonzales, Condi Rice, ext. to give testimony under oath before the Congress or be impeached. Your call Dubya Dunce Decider?
March 21st, 2007 at 10:53 am#55 j swift,
of course it has huge relevance today, why? Because the same Democrat Senators and Congressmen that defended Clinton, the same Democrat and Liberal pundits that defended are the ones that today are crying about Executive Privilage being used by Bush.
furthermore, if the hypocrisy from the left 6 to 10 years ago has no relevance for what is happening today, but this argument what Tony Snow said in 1998 has no relevance today, correct?
so are you going to tell TP to take this forum down because of it? are you going to ask them to apologize for bringing in a quote from Tony Snow that he said almost 10 years ago?
Left wingers, and TP can’t put up a quote from Tony Snow from 1998 and claim that it has relevance today when you guys are not saying that whatever Democrats and Clinton did about the subject about 10 years ago has no relevance today.
what is good for the gander, is good for the goose, or is it what is good for Democrats is not good for Republicans?
March 21st, 2007 at 10:54 am#36 The only thing clear is that the Dems want a Show trial (it is the only thing we have proof of right now). They even picked Schumer to lead the charge which is laughable since he is on record applying political pressure to ongoing investigations. He is also on record demanding ongoing investigations get done on his time and he has interfered with them. If the Dems are truly sincere about this issue and want to prove it isn’t a political show trial, they best investigate Schumer ASAP. If they fail to do that, the administration shouldn’t cooperate at all. Let the Dems have their show trial for the TV cameras without them. There is no reason for them to participate in something like this since both sides already know the conclusion. The president can fire these attorney’s anytime he wants for any reason he wants. I don’t agree that it should be right, but the law allows it. I wonder if the law allows a simple Sen. like Schumer to interfere with ongoing investigation though. Is that legal for him to demand the justice department hurry an investigation and demand they answer his questions even though they aren’t supposed to? This actually deserves an investigation since he certainly doesn’t have executive priviledge.
March 21st, 2007 at 10:55 amPatrickc1,
stop educating the left,
That’s rich. Patrick1… educating?
you are wasting valuable time.
That’s even richer. Since when it’s valuable the time of PatricK1?
All you are going to get is rants and raves about how wrong you are.
Rich, rich, rich to no end. So if Patrick1 earns to be insulted, is because he’s a smart pundit? Yeah, right. A one liner smart pundit, if anything. Frankly, the I Ching has more sense and instrospection than Pee1. And has a lot more credibility.
Well, I stop analyzing your pity post here, my sides are hurting really bad already.
Comment by howsad — March 21, 2007 @ 10:23 am
No wonder you did choose this nick. But probably you don’t understand what I mean really.
March 21st, 2007 at 10:58 amThe subcommittee voted to subpeona the boys, just sayin.
March 21st, 2007 at 10:58 amRoger is another stupid Repuke troll who pukes up talking points. His posts in here are not worth reading.
This is about the RULE OF LAW. Either you support the rule of law, or you support Chimpy.
A lot of Republicans are going to dump Chimpy on this one, he’s going beyond the pale. The Senate has already voted almost unanimously to cancel Gonzo’s appointment-without-confirmation power. That means a LOT or Repukes are crossing the aisle.
March 21st, 2007 at 10:58 amShane,
why would Bush testify like Clinton did? honestly, why? Clinton testified because he was the scandal, he was the one that lied under oath…
and protecting his family? Shane, c’mon the guy has been having affairs since he married his wife, it was well known when he was a governorn, it was well known when he was President and it iwell known today.
and Clinton has a funny way to protect his family, having affairs after affairs.
and as I said, this is a small, small scandal of his compared to the bigger things he did.
March 21st, 2007 at 10:59 amDeveloping Story right now on cnn.com
A House subcommittee voted today to authorize subpoenas for President Bush’s key adviser, Karl Rove, and other top White House aides, in the probe of ousted U.S. attorneys.
March 21st, 2007 at 10:59 amHey, it looks as if the talking point that has faxed today Karly Robber is “Show Trial = Baaad”.
March 21st, 2007 at 11:00 amI am sorry, you can’t bring a Tony Snow quote from 1998 and claim it has huge relevance today and then turn around and say that what Democrats did when Clinton invoked Executive Privilage has no relevance today.
Either both are fair game or neither one is fair game.
March 21st, 2007 at 11:02 amSnow shouldn’t feel “pretty comfortable with the constitutional argument†because it’s pretty clear there isn’t one.
GOOD! This way the SC will set a “precedent for our president”. (I made that up).
RN
March 21st, 2007 at 11:02 amFlaco, heh, heh, heh,
Patrick1 heh, heh, heh
Rogerdoger heh, heh, heh,
Jake heh, heh, heh
March 21st, 2007 at 11:02 amIt Wasn’t Just a Bad Idea. It May Have Been Against the Law.
exerpts below
it was not hard to spot that White House and Justice Department officials, and members of Congress, may have violated 18 U.S.C. §§ 1501-1520, the federal obstruction of justice statute.
1. Misrepresentations to Congress. The relevant provision, 18 U.S.C. § 1505, is very broad. It is illegal to lie to Congress, and also to “impede†it in getting information. Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty indicated to Congress that the White House’s involvement in firing the United States attorneys was minimal, something that Justice Department e-mail messages suggest to be untrue.
If Mr. Sampson withheld the information from Mr. McNulty, who then misled Congress, Mr. Sampson may have violated § 1505.
2. Calling the Prosecutors. As part of the Sarbanes-Oxley reforms, Congress passed an extremely broad obstruction of justice provision, 18 U.S.C. § 1512 (c), which applies to anyone who corruptly “obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so,†including U.S. attorney investigations.
3. Witness Tampering. 18 U.S.C. § 1512 (b) makes it illegal to intimidate Congressional witnesses. Michael Elston, Mr. McNulty’s chief of staff, contacted one of the fired attorneys, H. E. Cummins, and suggested, according to Mr. Cummins, that if he kept speaking out, there would be retaliation.
4. Firing the Attorneys. United States attorneys can be fired whenever a president wants, but not, as § 1512 (c) puts it, to corruptly obstruct, influence, or impede an official proceeding.
Let’s take the case of Carol Lam, United States attorney in San Diego. The day the news broke that Ms. Lam, who had already put one Republican congressman in jail, was investigating a second one, Mr. Sampson wrote an e-mail message referring to the “real problem we have right now with Carol Lam.†He said it made him think that it was time to start looking for a replacement.
http://www.nytimes.com/ 2007/ 03/ 19/ opinion/ 19mon4.html?ex=1331956800&en=ffab854496251b4b&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
A recent report by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service (released Feb. 22, 2007) revealed that since 1981, no more than three U.S. attorneys had ever been FORCED OUT UNDER SIMILAR CONDITIONS.
http://www.buzzflash.com/ archives/ 07/ US_attrny_rprt.pdf
BTW 18 days of DOJ Emails concerning the “Prosecutorgate” debacle appear to be missing.
March 21st, 2007 at 11:02 amSSDD.
Clinton, Conspiracism, and the Continuing Culture War
March 21st, 2007 at 11:02 amhowsad heh, heh, heh
March 21st, 2007 at 11:02 amIf the argument is about whether the Bush administration can hide the slimy things it’s done under the cloak of executive privilege, sorry, there is no way “liberals can lose.”
Bush has already lost plenty on this one, and every day it’s in the headlines he loses even more. Please, righties, keep arguing that he has executive privilege over this stuff. It’ll just give the story more legs.
March 21st, 2007 at 11:04 amConyers’ House committee has voted to SUBPOENA Harriet Miers and Karla Rove. I hope they don’t both wear the same dress to the hearing, that would be embarrassing.
March 21st, 2007 at 11:04 amBy voice vote and without objection, the House Judiciary subcommittee on commercial and administrative law decided to compel the president’s top aides to testify publicly and under oath about their roles in the firings.
March 21st, 2007 at 11:05 amTo the heart of the question at hand.
Would anyone try to make the case that it is a good thing to have politics and political influence inserted into our legal system?
Is it OK or not to have U.S. Attorneys making decisions to prosecute or not based on their legal training and ethics, but instead on the political machinations of the party in power?
Go ahead. Make the case.
March 21st, 2007 at 11:06 amTom3 :
thanks for the humour : I needed it!
March 21st, 2007 at 11:06 amYou know the Repuke trolls are on the ropes when they bring up Clinton.
“But Clinton Did It Too!”, they whine. Waaah!! Waah!! Waaah!!
Somebody call these Repuke trolls a WAAAAHmbulance.
March 21st, 2007 at 11:07 amSnow hasn’t flip-flopped. He knows full-well that the public has no faith in Mr. Bush whatsoever; thus nothing left to “ebb away” from further, cynical misuse of the “majesty of his office.”
March 21st, 2007 at 11:08 am#73- you’re totally right- Tony Snow contradicting something he said in 1998 is not news. He makes inconsistent statements like that three or so times before breakfast.
It also presumes that he bases the things he says on some sort of abiding principles. Like open government, due process, etc. Oh, damn, I just snorted coffee out my nose again.
March 21st, 2007 at 11:08 amIt figures the Repuke trolls are still seeing this as a political contest.
They want the Liberals to lose. They want to win.
This isn’t an election, you dumbass inbred morons.
This is about whether we are a nation of laws.
Obviously you Repukes do not support the rule of law.
March 21st, 2007 at 11:08 amHmm, looks like I missed a “not”…not not based on…
March 21st, 2007 at 11:08 amWell, hopefully all the trolls will get my meaning and take up the defense of their administration.
r2 that answers absolutely nothing. It shows your side but I already knew which side of the fence you are on. I am looking for the facts. We are a nation of laws and that’s what should prevail. You are pointing a finger saying “he’s not squeaky clean either”. Fine with me, we’ll get to Schumer. This is more pressing and for you to loudly profess that view point while ignoring that these attorneys may have been dissmissed under shady circumstances then you add nothing to the argument.
howsad says
Fantastic, if you feel as strongly about the wrong doings above, no matter how accurate they are, then surely you want this president investigated for sending soldiers to their deaths for no valid reason. The number one stated reason for this country to invade Iraq was WMD’s and there isn’t any. Thousands have died and tens of thousands more have been forever injured by this and he was flat out wrong. Sounds like at least on even par with a shady land deal.
March 21st, 2007 at 11:09 amConyers must force VP Cheney to testify under oath too. I do not care if Dicky goes ballistic and his heart gives out.
March 21st, 2007 at 11:09 amComment by Patrick1 — March 21, 2007 @ 10:42 am
If uou actually read the posts on this site you would realize that people are unhappy with Democrats for taking impeachment off the table, for not issuing supoenas already, for not immediately ending the war. You argue against Democrats doing any of these things and then you show the hit they are taking for not doing them.
There’s just no pleasing you people.
March 21st, 2007 at 11:09 am#66 howsad,
Neither the left’s hypocrisy nor Snow’s hypocrisy have anything to do with whether, today, the Bush administration is trying to dodge accountability by claiming executive privilege.
Honestly, I don’t know if Snow’s hypocrisy comes from his partisan political beliefs or the fact that he is doing his job.
One would expect better from Bush, the Christian man of faith, the conservative who holds morality above all else, the Republican whose party stands for honesty and accountability.
As opposed to us dirty hippie moral relativist liberals.
March 21st, 2007 at 11:09 amIt takes a lot of energy and concentration to do an abrupt, 180-degree shift on your brain. Sometimes, it’s enough to make your head rotate completely around and say something silly like: “F* him, Father Karas. F* him in the ass, you faggot!”
March 21st, 2007 at 11:09 amRove and Miers will testify, because there is nothing in the law to prevent such an action- not even the President’s wish to not have it so.
Don’t hold your breath waiting for a reply from the Repuke trolls, RUCerious.
They know there is no case for politicizing the legal system. None.
March 21st, 2007 at 11:10 amAnd, oh, Karl and Harriet… bring the missing 18 days worth of e-mails when you come…
March 21st, 2007 at 11:11 amThat was no flip-flop on Tony’s part!
Tony did exactlywhat his Pimp, Rupert Murdoch told him to do. He pulled down his pants and exposed his rear.
His new pimp, is no less demanding, and no less demented and corrupt.
Tony Snow is doing what all media whores do. And he does it so well.
Faux Noise in the White House. What’s new?
March 21st, 2007 at 11:11 am“I’m not going to have some reporters pawing through our papers We are the president.â€
“Heavens, no! It could get subpoenaed. I can’t write anything.â€
Comment by hacker bob — March 21, 2007 @ 10:39 am
So are you saying that Presidents won’t document anything if they’re afraid of investigations. Or are you saying that the president believes he is above repercussions. I’m missing your point.
March 21st, 2007 at 11:12 amhowsad,
I don’t carry water for the Democrats (I’m libertarian) and the use executive privilage excuse by Clinton and Bush for matters that are not of national interest is wrong. However, and this is a big HOWEVER, the Bush regime is criminal and shows complete contempt for the Constitution. That they should now hide behind the Executive Privilage excuse is most ironic.
They are also far far more radical and dangerous than Clinton ever was. I don’t much care what scandal brings them down so long as they are neutered before they cause any more damage to America and the rest of the world.
March 21st, 2007 at 11:14 amDemocrats in Congress during the 1990s were completly against what you supposedly stand for, according to the post you wrote, right?
Comment by howsad — March 21, 2007 @ 10:44
So show us which of those Democrats that were in office then are in office now.
March 21st, 2007 at 11:14 am#96- They’re gonna have to do some digging for those missing mails. There’s a good reason Karl’s ass is so freaking wide.
March 21st, 2007 at 11:14 amCaption:
“I can pick up AM talk radio all the way from Texas when I do this!”
March 21st, 2007 at 11:16 amTom3
They know there is no case for politicizing the legal system. None.
~ Shhhh!~
March 21st, 2007 at 11:16 amThe silence is deafening…
I don’t like it. We have hear people who are willing to depend criminal activities and blatant coverup attempts in order to defend their so-called party affiliation. I would think if party association was removed when thinking what is right or wrong, they would see activities of recent past is criminal and detrimental to US. And yet, they keep on defending. I don’t understand. Selfish egotistical behavior is more important than fellow countrymen and state of the country??? Rule of Law is not a law for a sake of law. It is designed to try to protect its citizens and the country. Please, instead of looking at things the same old way. Do not start by republicans against democrats. Help the country towards peace and justice for all individuals.
March 21st, 2007 at 11:17 amTom3
Turning………….purple……………….
March 21st, 2007 at 11:17 amRUCeriouos, you’ve asked the million dollar question. Very well put.
March 21st, 2007 at 11:18 amShane,
The problem is that you guys want impeachment for things that are not valid.
Bush has committed no crimes, you guys claim he did. We know and Democrats in Congress know he hasn’t done any crimes.
The issue at hand is that Democrats want Bush impeached because Clinton was impeached. Revenge is the name of the game in politics.
Bush has done nothing wrong.
and I am sorry, if you guys were truly disconted about Democrats you guys will stay home and not vote for any democrats in 2008, right?
which we know that won’t happen.
March 21st, 2007 at 11:20 amComment by howsad — March 21, 2007 @ 10:47 am
You post false assertions and then want me to respond to them.
You didn’t answer my question, why doesn’t Bush testify like Clinton did?
Otherwise I don’t agree with your OPINION on these issues and you’re not going to change that.
March 21st, 2007 at 11:21 amAnd I’m not wasting time with you or other trolls today.
Tom3 foams a lot from the mouth. I think he pops a couple of veins when he comes in here.
March 21st, 2007 at 11:21 am#52
Under U.S. vs. Nixon, Congress will have an uphill battle to compel disclosure, unless it can frame their demands for information in the context of investigating possible criminal wrongdoing.
As mrJJ reminds us in #76, item 4, there is strong evidence to pursue a case of obstruction. There is also strong evidence tying Rove and Miers to the firings and Lam’s in particular. This may not get as far as the Supreme Court, but if it goes before any court, those judges are going to look at the timeline for Lam’s investigations and firing, along with Sampson’s mention of her being a “real problem”, and they’re likely to see a case for obstruction. The Judiciary committees can go to work on putting that case together, and any others they might have, while Fielding is trying to figure out how to defuse this thing before it blows up in Bush’s face. The clock is ticking and the White House is only going to look worse as more of the story gets out.
The ties to Rove are already clear. Somebody’s disappointed because their USA isn’t prosecuting cases the way they want, they call Rove, the USA goes on the firing list. Just like that.
March 21st, 2007 at 11:21 amShane, are you serious?
Kennedy, Byrd, Pelosi, Durbin, Murtha, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc….
wow….
March 21st, 2007 at 11:22 am#106 Helena
March 21st, 2007 at 11:23 amThanks. See, I do contribute more than just my goofball humor. Once in a while I R Cerious.
Shane, was I simply pointing out that this is proof the Dems are putting on a Show Trial. If they were truly honest about this situation and truly believed this “problem” was important, they would certainly be investigating anyone who is on record interfering and demanding ongoing investigations get done faster. Come now, you have to agree with me on this. We either
A) Accept these hearings are nothing more then something designed for political gain and not investigate Schumer.
or
B) The Dems step up and show the American people these are show trials and they truly are looking out for our best interests. Since we already have proof shoing Schumer interfered with ongoing investigations, they would set up a parrelel trial and investigation against Schumer. They would also continue to demand Gonzo be removed and any other administration official involved. They would also ask Schumer to leave the Senate. Doing this would prove they are sincere about the problem and aren’t simply looking for TV time for political gain.
I personally think all this stuff is nasty and wrong. I believe they should change the law so the president can’t do this stuff because he currently has the complete right. Furthermore, if folks like Schumer can legally force the justice department to speed up investigations and he is currently legally allowed to interfere, we need to change that law as well. What I want to see is the Dems be honest with the American public and actually spend their time working for change. They could be working to change these laws. Instead they are wasting their time with show trials that they already know will net them nothing since the President is allowed by law to fire attorney’s for any reason he wants at any time he wants.
March 21st, 2007 at 11:24 amThe freak show being put on display here by howsad is a pretty good indicator of the convulsions that are starting to tear the Bush dead enders apart.
March 21st, 2007 at 11:25 amShane,
what were my false assertions? You tell me, why would Bush have to testify? what impeachment article has Congress charged him with? what Crimes has Congress levied against him? when did Congress call him to testify?
I could easily say the same thing about your arguments. All you are saying here are YOUR OPINIONS and most of them are false assertions against Bush and Republicans.
March 21st, 2007 at 11:25 amIt figures Chimpy would call a Congressional HEARING a “show trialâ€.
Comment by Tom3 — March 21, 2007 @ 10:49 am
Well he and his constituents believe professional wrestling is real so it’s not too surprising.
Hey and don’t be dissing the deciderator, he knows what beagles are!
March 21st, 2007 at 11:25 am#67 Roger_Roger
The only thing clear is that the Dems want a Show trial
Well, you call it a show trial. We call it a hearing where questions need to be asked of the people involved and they need to be answered under oath. Why do you think Rove and Miers don’t need to be under oath and why do you think the public doesn’t have a right to know that the White House is replacing unbiased U.S. attorneys with political operatives? Shouldn’t the public be aware of the fact that law enforcement is being turned into a political operation where Democrats get prosecuted and Republicans don’t? I would think that’s something the American people would feel they have a right to know.
March 21st, 2007 at 11:26 amverbalkint,
The freak show being put on display here by liberals is a pretty good indicator of the convulsions that are starting to tear the Democrats and Liberals dead enders apart.
March 21st, 2007 at 11:29 am#82. Exactly. Having an affair with an intern is NOT THE SAME as INTERFERING WITH THE LAWS OF THE COUNTRY. And, besides that, my mamma always says, “2 wrongs don’t make a right” - if you want to justify the actions of the WH by claiming “Clinton did it……”
March 21st, 2007 at 11:30 amhowsad is now on my permanent whack-only list, meaning that I will not attempt to engage him in a serious discussion because he is either incapable or unwilling to use logic or reason, and I will only comment to him two times per thread (OK, maybe more if I’m entertained) in a bash-only manner.
March 21st, 2007 at 11:31 am#107
Bush has committed no crimes, you guys claim he did. We know and Democrats in Congress know he hasn’t done any crimes.
The issue at hand is that Democrats want Bush impeached because Clinton was impeached. Revenge is the name of the game in politics.
Bush has done nothing wrong.
March 21st, 2007 at 11:32 amHow brainwashed can one get? Wake the fuck up!!!
#118 howsad
verbalkint,
The freak show being put on display here by liberals is a pretty good indicator of the convulsions that are starting to tear the Democrats and Liberals dead enders apart.
He got you there, VerbalKint. It’s the old “I know you are but what am I?” gambit.
Quick! Say “I’m rubber, you’re glue…” Quick!
March 21st, 2007 at 11:33 am#90 I do want in investigation into the Iraq war. Currently, all the evidence points to the fact our Congress and our President made an honest error simply because they both believed evidence that proved incorrect. They made this decision because they were trying to protect America and it’s allies. I don’t fault any of them for that. The investigation I want is to figure out how all these world intelligence agencies got it wrong and what we can do it improve the intelligence provided to congress and our President so this mistakes don’t ever happen again. Now #90, I certainly wouldn’t jump to conclusions like you have without an investigation proving these things. Like I said, we currently have only evidence showing that our elected officials made an honest error trying to protect me and my family. If, within the investigation, hard evidence turns up that Bush or Congress knew ALL the intel was falty before the war, then we need to prosecute and lock away whoever that was as they would have committed one of the worst crimes in USA history. From what I have seen so far, not even the CIA or other countries intelligence agencies new the intel was faulty before the invasion so I highly doubt the president or Congress new it as they would be the only people in the world that new it. Either way, I would focus more on the facts and evidence then on assumptions, opinions, and your emotions. None of that stuff stands up anywhere except poltical show trials which are a waste of time and provide this country a disservice.
March 21st, 2007 at 11:34 amFunny: typical republican hypocracy from the snowman.
I keep wondering who would make the best poster child for republican hypocracy. Is it Snow, Limbaugh, Hanity, Bush, Cheney, Rice, Feith, Wolfowitz, Gonzo, Newt, wow the list goes on and on.
Hypocrits one and all!
March 21st, 2007 at 11:37 am#120PatrioticLiberalchristian…
oh what happened, logic and education shut you up? I am sorry that you are such a partisan hack that you can’t see without the partisan glasses.
Liberals like you, when they lose the debate usually post an idiotic comment like yours.
you are nothing, but the typical run of the mill liberal that can’t think on their own, and is as intolerant and closed minded as they come.
don’t worry, I laugh my head off and you entertain me a lot with yoru silly, ill-informed posts.
so post way kid and amuse me.
March 21st, 2007 at 11:38 amWell now that subpoenas have been issued it seems that our trolls should pack up their placards and stage a protest for congress.
March 21st, 2007 at 11:40 amHow many of us have been to protests agains the war.
Trolls want to sit here and flap their gums but you can tell by their continual presence that they don’t DO anything but complain HERE.
Yesterday many THOUSANDS took to the streets in Chicago to protest the war.
Well trolls - heading for Washington?
#121chimpboy…
so are you crying because you don’t like it when your own insults are used against you, or because you just like to cry and whine?
just remember, if anyone calls me hateful and full of venom, all I did is throw back the insults that liberals on here used against me.
March 21st, 2007 at 11:40 am#177 I completely agree we should now these facts. I agree that they should testify under oath publicly. I AGREE WITH YOU!! What I am trying to say is that currently, the “reason” the Dems are doing it isn’t for our interests, its for their poltical gain, thus it is a Show trial or a Show Hearing if you will. With that said, the Dems need to investigate Schumer and have a Show Trial where he testifies under oath publicly to his crimes. I want the Dems to grill him just like they will grill Rove etc. Unless the Dems are prepared to go all the way and actually investigate and hold hearings on ALL public officials that interfered with investigations, the administration should continue to not take part in this circus. It is a waste of time because the Dems motives are suspect. If they can’t be impartial and investigate Schumer, it is a waste of time for the administration to cooperate. It provides we the people with nothing positive.
You either investigate and hold hearings on all the potenital crooked officials or you investigate and hold hearings on none of them.
March 21st, 2007 at 11:42 amThey’re gonna have to do some digging for those missing mails. There’s a good reason Karl’s ass is so freaking wide.
Comment by R — March 21, 2007 @ 11:14 am
Oh that’s what Jeff Gannon was doing at the WH, filing?
March 21st, 2007 at 11:45 amMaybe Ed Henry or David Gregory can ask Snow about this flip flop at the next briefing.
March 21st, 2007 at 11:50 amI’d like to see Snow tap dance.
shane,
Maybe Karl Rove took his lessons from Sandy Burgler, you know ex-National security advisor who stole classified documents and stuffed them down his pants.
Do you think it is a big crime that a form National Security Advisor steals and destroys classified documents so that the 9/11 commission wouldn’t learn the truth about what Clinton didn’t do to prevent 9/11?
March 21st, 2007 at 11:50 amTom3
Turning………….purple……………….
Comment by RUCerious — March 21, 2007 @ 11:17 am
Tom3 - howsad used the phrase “foaming at the mouth” about 20 time yesterday. He gets so excited when he learns how to spell a new word.
RUCerious - please breathe - honest answers to legitimate questions never come from trolls.
Hope you’re okay.
March 21st, 2007 at 11:51 amShane, are you serious?
Kennedy, Byrd, Pelosi, Durbin, Murtha, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc….
Comment by howsad — March 21, 2007 @ 11:22 am
Nice try but Durbin is my senator and he wasn’t in office then. So you’re down to 4 if those are accurate. So 4 is all you got.
March 21st, 2007 at 11:53 amBack to troll-free…3..2..1
A devastating display by Karl’s Elves today. Some even name themselves after characters in films that elevate deception, payback and murder to biblical proportions.
Mr. Bush resurrects the language of Stalinesque critiques such as “show trials” to suggest that he is a patriot, a victim defending himself from leftist propaganda. The perp calling those who expose him names. Like Keyser Soze accusing the FBI of acting out of revenge.
Mr. Bush’s slurred rant yesterday was the usual Rovian attempt to tar his critics with his clients’ worst traits. Mr. Bush is in a pickle of his own devising. He should take his medicine now; it will taste worse later.
March 21st, 2007 at 11:54 amComment by Roger_Roger — March 21, 2007 @ 11:24 am
YAWN
Asserting my troll-free privilege.
March 21st, 2007 at 11:56 amshane,
Durbin was not a Senator in 1998? He is my Senator too kid….you are busted, he is the Majority Whip, you know what that means, right? and you do know how long it takes to become the Majority Whip, right?
sorry, you are wrong, busted.
Senator Dick Durbin was elected on November 5, 1996.
http://www.vote-smart.org/ issue_rating_category.php?can_id=H1201103
and I am not going to sit here and list all the Democrats that were in office back then….you are being quite silly
now will you admit you are wrong about Senator Durbin not being in power when the whole Executive Privilage was used by Clinton?
March 21st, 2007 at 11:57 amComment by howsad — March 21, 2007 @ 11:25 am
Double YAWN
March 21st, 2007 at 11:58 amshane,
why don’t you list all the Democrat Congressmen and Senators that were not in power during the 1990s, ok?
man, what silly game are you playing.
and still waiting for you to admit how wrong you are about Durbing….are you truly from Chicago, IL.
everyone knows that Durbin has been in power since 1996. wow!
March 21st, 2007 at 11:59 amWhat a FRAUD the current GOP is. Rule of Law? Not when it isn’t good to us. Being Honest with the American People? No a chance? “It’s your government” - not unless we want to hide it from you. Conservative? Bwa Haa Haa.
March 21st, 2007 at 12:00 pm118. verbalkint,
Look at howsad, the human(?) parrot!
March 21st, 2007 at 12:00 pmshane