Comment by Future troll #12

…thus neccessitating a constitutional showdown…

…where Congress cuts off all funding to…

…the White House,- especially Bush, Cheney and their staff’s/cabinet members’ security details, travel etc…

…Pentagon, DOJ…

…and wherever else they can shut this criminal cabal down…

Another interesting tidbit about Presidential pardons in general:

“To pardon himself, Clinton would need only to take out a blank sheet of White House stationery, write out his pardon (he’s signed 185 of them — so far the fewest of any of the modern president but enough to know what they say), and request that a couple of trusted White House aides witness his execution and delivery of his pardon deed. Is it really so simple? Yes; the courts have said there is no required form or procedure, nor need there be compliance with Justice Department clemency regulations.
————————

Invoking a privilege is one thing, but telling a person not to show up in response to a subpoena — if only to actually invoke the privilege — is quite another. It’s not just worse, it’s a felony under federal criminal law.

See for yourself.

18 U.S.C. Sec. 1505 : … Whoever corruptly … influences, obstructs, or impedes … the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress … shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than 5 years … or both.

18 U.S.C. Sec. 1515(b): As used in section 1505, the term “corruptly” means acting with an improper purpose, personally or by influencing another, including … withholding, or concealing … information.
———————–
Of a similar context: A mindtwister for John Dean

”Was Commuting Libby an Impeachable Offense?
By William Rivers Pitt

“.. By commuting the prison sentence, Bush left Libby’s 5th Amendment rights intact. Thus, any Congressional committee or prosecutor wishing to call him to testify will have to immunize him from any potential legal repercussions arising from his testimony. If Bush chooses to fully pardon Libby, those 5thAmendment protections will go right out the window.

Libby has repeatedly stated his intention to go on with the appeals process so he can clear his name. If he does this and an appeal is granted, Patrick Fitzgerald will suddenly be back in business, because a granted appeal opens the way for a whole new trial. Libby, if granted this appeal, may well be tried and convicted all over again.

…”
Bush has the constitutional power to offer commutations, of course. But if this commutation was granted to Libby in order to derail a criminal investigation,if it was granted to cover up prior or ongoing criminal activities, that is itself a crime meriting the impeachment of George W. Bush.

This,more than anything else,must be investigated.

Senator Leahy,Representative Waxman,Representative Conyers and any other Congressional chairmen must absolutely and actively work to get to the bottom of this. If doing so requires immunizing Libby to secure his testimony,so be it. Calling PatrickFitzgerald to testify on these matters is likewise required; the idea that he can safely continue to refuse comment must be dismissed. Fitzgerald cannot make statements about clouds over Cheney,in light of this new situation, and still be allowed to stand in silence. The lawyers assembling Joe Wilson’s civil suit should subpoena Libby into a deposition room and grill him,whether or not he stands on his 5thAmendment rights.

This isn’t over by a long chalk,unless our representatives and law-enforcement officials choose the safe path – public statements, toothless accusations, substanceless denunciations – in lieu of true and effective action. The rule of law itself is on the hook here. This cannot be allowed to stand…”

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/070307R.shtml

[from: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070712/ap_on_go_co/fired_prosecutors ]

WASHINGTON – House Democrats on Thursday took the first step toward holding former White House counsel Harriet Miers in contempt of Congress after she defied a subpoena — at President Bush’s order — and skipped a hearing on the firing of U.S. attorneys…

Legal scholars said the issue of Miers’ immunity is far from clear-cut. No president has gone as far as mounting a court fight to keep his aides from testifying on Capitol Hill.

Did someone just grow a pair? Let’s sure hope this is indeed the case.

That’s where I’d be if I didn’t show up after receiving a summons.

> The Reagan administration was so corrupt, they would sometimes rack up
> more convictions and forced resignations IN ONE DAY than the Clinton
> Administration managed in its entire eight years.

Ah yeah, I remember Ollie North and Poindexter. Those were the days! Saint Ronny Days! … unrelenting propaganda against various insurgents, against Iran and against various “socialist” regimes. Bombing of Lybia because of a false flag operation in a disco. The USS Vincennes offing an Iranian Airbus out of sheer incompetence. Closing of mental health institutions. The B1 and B2 bombers. Pershing and Cruise Missiles in Europe, Minuteman missiles in the USA. And Star Wars…

Pete Bogs:

> a paper placard and a plastic water cup out for her, and she doesn’t even
> show up to the party? that’s just wrong…

There were no “cookies on the table”. So no show.

The Reagan gang were the first in history to have over 100 of their members charged with crimes. They were the first to have a sitting cabinet member indicted, the first to have an Assistant Secretary of State indicted, the first to have an Assistant Secretary of Defense sent to prison, etc., etc.. More members of the Reagan Administration were charged with crimes than the cumulative total of all other presidents in the twentieth century. Now that’s corruption!

Compare this sorry record with the much-maligned Clinton Administration. Despite all the sliming, the Clinton people wound up with fewer convictions and forced resignations than any two-term administration since Teddy Roosevelt.

The Reagan administration was so corrupt, they would sometimes rack up more convictions and forced resignations IN ONE DAY than the Clinton Administration managed in its entire eight years.

A look at corruption in Congress reveals a similar profile. In September, the Center For Responsibility And Ethics In Washington released its second annual survey of the twenty most corrupt members of Congress:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/09/20/20-most-corrupt-members-o_n_29863.html

The results are clear. 17 of the 20 most corrupt congress people were Republicans—quite a significant differential. If Democrats were equally corrupt, the numbers would be roughly equal.

This all suggests that—despite the meme that they’ve all gone completely down the tubes—we still have one good party.

Comment by THE KING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! — July 12, 2007 @ 2:04 pm

Despite all evidence to the contrary, of course.

Ah, no matter. Mr. Pee and his minions are clearly losing their sh!t and it’s hardly worth even responding. I only do it because I care, and I hope to see him get the help he needs.

ROTFL

Comment by Happy Guy — July 12, 2007 @ 1:46 pm

——————————————————————————-

Exactly.

Democratic Party = Party of Corruption!

Comment by RUCerious

No, he cannot overide that if it is done solely in congress rather than a court trial.

Jail time for Harriet
Time to do the same favor for Gonzales

You need to lay off the drugs…….

Your getting so confused in your own post that you don’t really know what your typing…..

It is the Republicans that follow lock step and “don’t care about wrong or right, just winning.”

The Dems, CARE about upholding the law.

Pretel……. How many hearing were held by the Republicans regarding the CLEARLY ILLEGAL actions of the president????

To help you out….. You don’t need to use your fingers or toes…..

ROTFL

Such sarcasm as you employed is frequently used to either belittle the answer or to belittle the question. The tone of your post convinced me that you were belittling those who question, although either way, it still demostrates an arrogance that comes from feeling oneself above the law.

The self-satisfied nature of your confidence in a right-wing SCOTUS kind of confirms it.

If your sarcasm reaches beyond these boundaries, and you really are a parody troll, well done, man. I salute you.

[from: http://impeachforpeace.org/impeach_bush_blog/?p=2565 ]

Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-CA, … says she thinks Impeachment needs to be on the table for the Bush Administration.

Well duh!

Now just show us by actually putting impeachment back on the table.