House committee subpoenas Gonzales documents

Jarod said:
There are plenty of laws that are ignored.
Click to expand...
Yup. That's often what I find interesting. It doesn't make it less prosecutable though.

I wonder if Bush might have sent her there, behind the scenes, knowing that they would be less likely to listen if it had been touted as a Bush attempt at diplomacy.
 
Damocles said:
This I agree with, hence the need for "investigation"...

To me, it is all really an excercise in interest. Which laws do we choose to prosecute over those we do not.
Click to expand...

There isn't going to be any investigation, because bush can't afford another investigation that shows him to be a liar and a hypocrite. It's the hypocrisy that really gets to me.

Back when Clinton was President and Gingrich was speaker, Gringrich went to China to express an opposite opinion then the Clinton policy. (something Pelosi did NOT do) Nobody squeaked. But the Republicans always get awfully squeaky, and suffer mass amnesia when a dem is in the office in question.

Just like, they can call people against the Iraq war traitors and say they don't support the troops, but when Clinton was President it was ok to saythings like:

"This is President Clinton's war, and when he falls flat on his face, that's his problem."
-Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN)

"You can support the troops but not the president"

-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

It's the hypocrisy that makes me want to choke.
 
Damocles said:
I know. That's what I find fascinating. We constantly allow the degradation of the constitution for political manuevering...
Click to expand...

Absolutely all those repubican congresspeople that went to Iraq....
But it takes a female demoncrat to bring up the subject of the Logan Act.
 
Darla said:
There isn't going to be any investigation, because bush can't afford another investigation that shows him to be a liar and a hypocrite. It's the hypocrisy that really gets to me.

Back when Clinton was President and Gingrich was speaker, Gringrich went to China to express an opposite opinion then the Clinton policy. (something Pelosi did NOT do) Nobody squeaked. But the Republicans always get awfully squeaky, and suffer mass amnesia when a dem is in the office in question.

Just like, they can call people against the Iraq war traitors and say they don't support the troops, but when Clinton was President it was ok to saythings like:

"This is President Clinton's war, and when he falls flat on his face, that's his problem."
-Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN)

"You can support the troops but not the president"

-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

It's the hypocrisy that makes me want to choke.
Click to expand...
I have no amnesia. Even before I stated that Arlen could be prosecuted under this law if he had no authority from the Executive branch.

You are only getting upset because it is clearly a law violated if Pelosi went without that authority. Would Bush attempt to prosecute? I seriously doubt it. Never fear, we can let Newt and Pelosi degrade the Constitution pretty freely, most people don't even know that Foreign Relations are strictly given to the Executive Branch in the Constitution.
 
uscitizen said:
Absolutely all those repubican congresspeople that went to Iraq....
But it takes a female demoncrat to bring up the subject of the Logan Act.
Click to expand...
Those went with clear approval from the President, even Mrs. Clinton, hence it would not be a violation of this Act. You are grasping at straws now.

Also, we are not at odds with the government of Iraq.
 
Damocles said:
I have no amnesia. Even before I stated that Arlen could be prosecuted under this law if he had no authority from the Executive branch.

You are only getting upset because it is clearly a law violated if Pelosi went without that authority. Would Bush attempt to prosecute? I seriously doubt it. Never fear, we can let Newt and Pelosi degrade the Constitution pretty freely, most people don't even know that Foreign Relations are strictly given to the Executive Branch in the Constitution.
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about you! I'm talking about bush and the right wingers opining about this on right-wing editorial pages.

And I'm not upset because I have no reason to believe that Pelosi violated any law.
 
Darla said:
I'm not talking about you! I'm talking about bush and the right wingers opining about this on right-wing editorial pages.

And I'm not upset because I have no reason to believe that Pelosi violated any law.
Click to expand...
Bush has made no statement, nor anybody in his administration on this. The only mention I found was the article by the Law Professor in the WSJ.
 
IHateGovernment said:
I'm impressed with the way Damo so skillfully changed the thread into a totally different topic.
Click to expand...

Well he had a liberal chic squeaking in his ear, what do you expect? Sure they're good in bed and they don't want jewels afterwards, but boy do they sure make up for it with their yapping. One time I had sex with this liberal chic and I had to pay for it with an entire hour of listening to her about the oppression of women over dinner. Oppression my ass. I had to pay 22 bucks at the HoJo for that dinner and she didn't even leave the tip. I should be oppressed so good.
 
On ignored laws.
The prescription drug not in its origional container law if fully enforced would solve the SS problem. virtually all persons of SS age would be in prison as drug felons.
 
I hope Gonzo fries :D
Just for supporting torture and not supporting the Geneva convention and due process of "detainees".
Of course a lot more will come out I expect before he gets his pardons.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top