Professional Liars

C

Cancel7

Banned
Democrats promptly rejected the offer, which specified that the officials would not testify under oath, that there would be no transcript and that Congress would not subsequently subpoena them.

Does this not amaze people? First they insist that Rove and Miers not testify under oath. Which, we all know is BS, but at least they could retain some plausable deniability, for the true believers who want to be fooled. You know, "oh the evil dems are trying to lay a perjury trap, which Karl Rove might be stupid enough to walk into while telling the truth."

But then they one-up themselves by insisting there not even be a transcript of their answers. So now, when they're caught lying, not only could there be no perjury charges, but, you wouldn't even be able to show the American people that they lied at all! It would be a "he-said, she-said". To top that off, if they go and answer these questions, not under oath, and with no record of their answers, no matter what comes out later, or how damaging, or even criminal the information was, they could not be subpoenaed.

And these people are going to tell the truth, right???

Full story:http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/21/us/politics/21attorneys.html?hp=&pagewanted=print
 
No, it doesn't amaze me. There isn't even a suggestion of a crime committed here, or even of somebody breaking any rules. It is fully within the power of the executive to do this, even in such a case as partisan hackery.

The President will win this one in the SCOTUS, that is my prediction and expectation. Had there been a crime, had there been some case to put forward, I would predict otherwise, but this is just pre-election partisan baiting.
 
Damocles said:
No, it doesn't amaze me. There isn't even a suggestion of a crime committed here, or even of somebody breaking any rules. It is fully within the power of the executive to do this, even in such a case as partisan hackery.

The President will win this one in the SCOTUS, that is my prediction and expectation. Had there been a crime, had there been some case to put forward, I would predict otherwise, but this is just pre-election partisan baiting.
Click to expand...

Damo, what rock are you living under, in order to be able to claim that there "isn't even a suggestion of a crime committed here"?

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.

Further, it appears from the released emails, that lies were told to Congress. It is illegal to lie to congress.

And, the phone calls made by Senators and Congresspeople, may very well fall under this 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.

No suggestion? Don't think so.
 
Does there have to be evidence of a "crime" for congress to have the authority to subpeona people? I thought congress's constitutional duty was oversight of government operations - not limited to just crimes, but also to incompetence, unethical activities, and irregularities. Justice Dept. presumably falls under a government operation subject to congressional oversight.

I was also under the impression that many top Clinton aides testified before congress on many occasions.
 
Cypress said:
Does there have to be evidence of a "crime" for congress to have the authority to subpeona people? I thought congress's constitutional duty was oversight of government operations - not limited to just crimes, but also to incompetence, unethical activities, and irregularities. Justice Dept. presumably falls under a government operation subject to congressional oversight.

I was also under the impression that many top Clinton aides testified before congress on many occasions.
Click to expand...

Good point in the first paragraph, and yes, 30 or more of them, from what I've read.
 
Darla said:
Damo, what rock are you living under, in order to be able to claim that there "isn't even a suggestion of a crime committed here"?

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.

Further, it appears from the released emails, that lies were told to Congress. It is illegal to lie to congress.

And, the phone calls made by Senators and Congresspeople, may very well fall under this 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.

No suggestion? Don't think so.
Click to expand...
LOL. Do you think you might be able to impeach Bush for the same thing that Clinton was impeached for? That will be funny.

At least it makes more sense to me now. I haven't been following it as closely as I should.
 
Damocles said:
LOL. Do you think you might be able to impeach Bush for the same thing that Clinton was impeached for? That will be funny.

At least it makes more sense to me now. I haven't been following it as closely as I should.
Click to expand...

Let me tell you something Damo, I don't want to impeach bush for this. I want to impeach bush for what he should be impeached for. Depraved indifference to human life for this war. But I'm not in Congress, and there's no support for the truth in this country. If you tell the truth, they call you a left wing moonbat.
 
Darla said:
Let me tell you something Damo, I don't want to impeach bush for this. I want to impeach bush for what he should be impeached for. Depraved indifference to human life for this war. But I'm not in Congress, and there's no support for the truth in this country. If you tell the truth, they call you a left wing moonbat.
Click to expand...
What was it I was supposed to say here...

Oh yeah! I remember now....

"Why do you hate America?"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top