Bush Won't Supply Subpoenaed Documents »
Posted By MyWayOnNow 1 year, 3 months ago in NewsThe White House, moving toward a constitutional showdown with Congress, asserted executive privilege Thursday and rejected lawmakers' demands for documents that could shed light on the firings of federal prosecutors.
Read Full Story at breitbart.com »
Submitted By:
MyWayOnNow
MyWayOnNow Buzz Approves » Popular News Stories Submitted by MyWayOnNow from Social News Websites.
Also submitted:
Related Articles:
Why not submit a story?
Join the Discussion 
+ Add Comment
Comments So Far: 757
-
-
0%
Aidenag1 year, 3 months ago
I had a feeling he would do this. He has constantly shown his belief that it is not the job of congress to keep tabs on the executive branch. Thankfully he is mistaken, and a couple centuries of legal presidence prove it.
Reply-
0%
UnusualSuspect1 year, 3 months ago
No feelings needed here...I knew he wouldn't comply. No surprises here at all. He's being consistent with his previous attitudes. How many days left until Jan 20, 2008?
Reply-
0%
not2needy1 year, 3 months ago
Appears to be a direct admission of guilt as far as i am concerned, otherwise why not supply the documents to clear his and Cheney's names in regards to this fiasco?
Reply-
-
100%
KingOfTruth1 year, 3 months ago
Actually this is amnother case of insane Democraps in Congress overstepping their bounds.....
Reply-
-
-
-
-
0%
capecoralM1 year, 3 months ago
The first article of the Constitution says "ALL legislative powers...shall be vested in a Congress." The second article vests "the executive power...in a President." The third article places the "judicial power of the United States in one Supreme Court" and "in such inferior Courts as the Congress...may establish."
Separation of powers serves several goals. Separation prevents concentration of power (seen as the root of tyranny) and provides each branch with weapons to fight off encroachment by the other two branches. As James Madison argued in the Federalist Papers (No. 51), "Ambition must be made to counteract ambition." Clearly, our system of separated powers is not designed to maximize efficiency; it is designed to maximize freedom.
Reply-
100%
capecoralM1 year, 3 months ago
Article II
Section 1. The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.
Section 2...He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.
Reply-
40%
capecoralM1 year, 3 months ago
TITLE 28 > PART II > CHAPTER 35 > § 541
§ 541. United States attorneys
(a) The President shall appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, a United States attorney for each judicial district.
(b) Each United States attorney shall be appointed for a term of four years. On the expiration of his term, a United States attorney shall continue to perform the duties of his office until his successor is appointed and qualifies.
(c) Each United States attorney is subject to removal by the President.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
100%
capecoralM1 year, 3 months ago
Leahy leaked a draft report on the Iran-Contra affair, leading to his resignation from the Intelligence Committee. Behavior like this earned for him the nickname" Leaky Leahy." Soâ;¦Leahy is just the perfect role model of what a committee chairman should be â;; devious and crooked. In the 80s, he was also charged with revealing classified information during the Achille Lauro (cruise ship) terrorist incident.
Speaker Pelosi announcing that "things were now different" â;; the Congress has mostly held hearings. Not so strangely, her House Ethics Committee has not held a hearing on Congressman Jefferson, who was recently charged with taking bribes of hundreds of thousands and even having $90,000 stashed in his deep-freeze. Over in the Senate, Leahy and his wolf-pack, including the likes of Kennedy, Biden, Feingold, Schumer, and Durbin, have tried mightily to nail Gonzales' hide to the wall, but to no avail.
Reply-
0%
donald511 year, 3 months ago
But, she did make ethics changes as a result of both the Foley and Abramoff scandals which Hastert refused to do. Also, Hastert condemned teh way Jefferson's places were ransacked... heaven forbid that such should happen to a Republican too! Oh, I forgot, Dubya told Gonzo to only go after Dems! Anyway, teh justice department will surely investigate Jefferson further and we'll see... no need for Pelosi to do anything other than make sure Justice is fair! Pelosi just rejecting Hastert's three day work week was a 100% improvement to start off with. Come on Cape and use some real facts and show some understanding of the truth out there - you haven't shown such yet!
I'd say the real wolf pack is the Repug Party... got seven years of Clinton investigation and only got an illicit affair. If a Dem did half what Dubya has, he'd have been impeached in his first term under the "do nothing" Repug Congress!
Reply
-
-
-
56%
LordyLordy1 year, 3 months ago
Remember that Clinton did not have sex with that woman, he merely found a place for a cigar? A team of lawyers had to define for him what "sex" and what "a deposer and a deposee" was? Ted Kennedy has no recollection of that bridge or that woman that was supposedly with him in that car? The car didn't make it over the bridge, that's all? Why did JFK Jr decide to fly that night? Uncle Teddy offered to drive?
Sometimes there is information that is a President's business, sometimes there is information that is only the CIA's business, DOD's busines, and so forth. Some of your congressmen and congresswomen could not pass a basic security clearance test. That doesn't mean you give them a list of the nukes Russia has, where they are, because if you did, they'd move them.
I doubt it is any deeper than that or there would be investigators pouring over stuff, who are privy and who do have access. Sorry, if Bush and Cheney were this dishonest...this is a witchhunt.
Reply-
100%
kedirian1 year, 3 months ago
When a president thru his henchmen (or Presidential Advisors, whatever you call them) appoints jurists in position to skew the voter-rolls, THAT directly affects the Legislature and hence, the latter has all the rights in the world to get to the bottom of these attempts...
Reply -
0%
dplinker1 year, 3 months ago
In what way is Clinton pertinent here? Are you suggesting that his behavior should be used as a reasonable yard stick against which Bush should be measured?
Reply
-
-
-
-
100%
not2needy1 year, 3 months ago
No, I have never thought this admin was innocent of anything, I guess i pointed that out moreso for the hard core Bush supporters on here than anything else.
Reply -
100%
capecoralM1 year, 3 months ago
Guilty of replacing Presidential Appointees. Why does "Leaky" insist on wasting the tax payers money on this non-issue? Why does the Democratic leadership insist on this dishonest political agenda of "gotcha: politics when there is nothing, nothing illegal about replacing presidential appointees. THis is not a witch hunt it is political posturing by partisan politicians with the support of the MSM. It is a total waste of "OUR" money. The business of the People is not being taken care of by the current Democratic "leadership" Reid and Polosi are total failures and it is beyonfd comprehension how these two people out of all the people in the U.S> have come into control of the peoples business. We should be ashamed at many levels that we have allowed these type of people to be in the position they are in. They are a disgrace and mere lice in the context of political history.
Reply-
0%
Lurch1 year, 3 months ago
No, the Iraq war is a waste of our money. Dick Cheney and George Bush salaries are a waste of our money. Halliburton is a waste of our money. Gonzalez is a waste of our money.
But, no, seeing justice done, enforcing the laws/constitution, and protecting our way of life will never be a waste of our money.
We need to get rid of the parasites, starting with Cheney.
Reply -
100%
mesodude1 year, 3 months ago
"Why does the Democratic leadership insist on this dishonest political agenda of "gotcha: politics when there is nothing, nothing illegal about replacing presidential appointees."
I guess that's why multiple staffers at Justice Department have quit their jobs over this--because "nothing, nothing illegal..." has occurred. Gotta love that neoclown logic. ROTFLMFAO
Reply -
89%
Rickfern1 year, 3 months ago
Interference for partisan political purposes with a federal prosecutor's discharge of his duties IS a crime. That's what is being investigated. That's what Dubya is trying to cover up.
As for the statement that "We should be ashamed at many levels that we have allowed these type of people to be in the position they are in." You should know that the only reason Dubya is still in office is that he was not up for re-ellection.
Get used to the idea that in 2008 Republican scum will be out of the White House, the Senate and the House of Representatives.
The only question is what to do about the Supreme Court.
Reply
-
-
-
100%
libsRfunny1 year, 3 months ago
"why not supply the documents to clear his and Cheney's names in regards to this fiasco?"
Because they do not need to have their names cleared of anything as they did absolutely nothing wrong. I can understand why demcorats think something is up after their darling Slick Willie fired every single U.S> prosecutor upon taking office, including several investigating his corruption as Arkansas Gov. But Bush was not under investigatoin for anythying, and he can fire any U.S. proecutor without giving reason.
The only ones overstepping boundaries are the idiot Democrats who continue to pretend firing a mere 8 prosecutors amounts to Clintonian corruption, but it doesn't.
What it does is prove the Democrats have nothing to offer America and prefer spinning their wheels doing absolutely nothing - such as they have since taking control of COngress earlier this year. No wonder their poll ratings are so much lower than Bush's.
Reply-
75%
funatwork1 year, 3 months ago
you dont find it odd that this happened mid term? I wont even begin on the comment about Clinton getting rid of them all at the start of his turn because if you think that is in any way unique you are pretty well beyong help on the issue. What Bush did is unprecedented and the issue is not that some U.S. attorney'S were dismissed it is why. If in fact they were fired becasue they refused to play political games that is an enormous problem. Suely you understand how important it is for the role of U.S. attorneys to be well clear of political agendas? Surely you can see what a dangerous path that is to tread? If in fact there was nothing amiss why not turn over the documents? Either there is something to hide or he simply wants to show he is above everyone and everything in this country, either way completely unacceptable.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
UnusualSuspect1 year, 3 months ago
david_
sigh...you're right. 2009! Now it's even a longer time to wait!! LOL...guess I was trying to rush things a bit...
Reply-
-
-
50%
LordyLordy1 year, 3 months ago
better start the process now on Hillary, before she takes office. There is enough dirt on the both of them that they should have both gone to jail. Didn't happen. It won't happen here either because comparatively speaking Bush makes the Clintons look like white trash. He is at least doing what he is doing for this country...
You'll only be wasting millions of dollars. They have done nothing to be impeached for or there would already be investigations, and I'm not even a die hard Bush fan. You need to use this on America, not filling the pockets of law firms on both sides.... Bush will be President until his term ends. Get over it. Grow up.
Reply-
100%
Searchbeam1 year, 3 months ago
Lordy,
It seems like you have a contextual problem. You seem to be bringing in the names not related to the story here.
If you stick to the issue, maybe people would listen to you. If, on the other hand, you want to obfuscate and try to confuse, that shows a lack of intelligence and smarts.
If you bring something of value to this discussion your comments are welcome.
If, on the other hand, you choose to continue to toss in your meaningless comments, we can block you.
Take your pick.
Reply-
100%
libsRfunny1 year, 3 months ago
"If, on the other hand, you want to obfuscate and try to confuse, that shows a lack of intelligence and smarts."
A lack of "Intelligence and smarts"? You mean like repeating yourself while pretending to be smart?
"If, on the other hand, you choose to continue to toss in your meaningless comments, we can block you."
"We" can block you? You speak for more than yourself? You like to suppress free speech? No wonder you are a democrat lol
Reply-
71%
Radiofreeeuropa1 year, 3 months ago
Blocking annoying nonsense is a fine alternative to suffering the fool dispensing it sometimes. If someone spouts lies and garbage continually on a thread I see an advantage to blocking them, it's like turning off fox news I do it all the time. If someone leaves bill o really? on I turn him off if some nitwit tries to connect The witch hunt propogated on Clinton to the Bush Cheney crimes on every thread over and over I say go ahead block the annoyance. Your free to block out science and ride jesus horsies if you want too.
Reply
-
-
0%
Searchbeam1 year, 3 months ago
libsR..
Intelligence and smarts are two different things. If you study English language, you may be able to discern the difference.
"We" definitely means a group of people who seem to be exasperated with this empty rhetoric.
This is not suppression of speech. Netscape has given me an option of blocking someone's comments if they are nonsensical and meaningless. It is a matter of filtering the spam. The writer can write whatever s/he wants. I have a choice of not reading what s/he writes. That is called the freedom of choice, in case you are confused about the meaning of free speech.
For your information, I am not a Democrat, and as far as I can recollect, none of the Democrats that I have known have tried to suppress free speech. If you know any Democrat that did it, kindly tell me about it.
Peace and Blessings!
Reply
-
-
0%
jjjsuck1 year, 3 months ago
No wrong were committed because if they had we'd already know? Seriously that's your logic. Ok if nothing wrong occurred then why not agree to full disclosure?
As for your other post:
"Sometimes there is information that is a President's business" you're right like who he sleeps with, when that stops being his business is if he used his position to coerce someone to sleep with him (see Clinton) as that would be against the law. So no if the president is accused (by anyone) of breaking the law its NOT his business anymore, its congress' duty to find out if he broke the law or not.
Reply -
100%
not2needy1 year, 3 months ago
Lordy, all you have done on several threads is harp about the Clintons being white trash, all the while Bill Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar, and Bush barely got through with a BS degree with less than a C average. Just because you have money doesn't mean you aren't white trash. The Bush Clan got their start with the help of Adolph Hitler, he helped grandpa Prescott Bush make his first one and a half million dollars, NOW there's your white trash!!!!
Reply -
100%
not2needy1 year, 3 months ago
You sure seem to be the authority on white trash though Lordy, maybe we should get the hint!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Reply -
100%
Raven81 year, 3 months ago
Lordy Please stop your crap it's starting to get deep and I don't have boots up to my neck. At least he did it for his country? What about stopping Osama for the country? Or going after crooked HMOs for the country? Or not embarrasing the COUNTRY for the country? Only thing he did for this country is make it worse! So much for COMPASSIONATE CONSERVATISM and ACCOUNTABILITY IN THE WHITE HOUSE! I thought that was the line of crap HE sold in 2000.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
100%
Lurch1 year, 3 months ago
Then, as soon as a Dem becomes president the SCOTUS will somehow suddenly get Faith and claim they were not in error but that this does not apply to anyone else nor does it set precedent.
Kind of like what the activist judges did during the 2000 election fiasco.
Reply -
100%
cosmogenium1 year, 3 months ago
After all, they were the ones who put him there in the first place.
Reply -
0%
Beau78901 year, 3 months ago
I like to think there's still a chance.
On the other hand, regardless of whether a recount would have made a difference in Florida in 2000, the Court's ruling that it would take too long to perform and therefore shouldn't be allowed to interfere with the electoral college--AFTER they deliberated the case for long enough to make the length of time required for a full recount an impossibility--was pure disenfranchisement of the voters in favor of political expedency.
And this was BEFORE Roberts and Alito joined the Court.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
67%
xpansion1 year, 3 months ago
I'm sure all of you are as shocked as I am.
And by shocked, I mean shocked that this buffoon isn't in a jail cell somehwere, preferably Abu Gharib.
Reply-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
splitrch1 year, 3 months ago
Please remember that Congress - a Democratic Congress - slapped him down HARD for trying to stack the court. That's the difference between FDR's Congress and the one KG1 enjoyed for 6 years. W's Congress was a spineless, ball-less, whimpering bowl of goo. Anything King George wanted he got. Most of it (if not all of it) was BAD for the country.
Reply
-
-
0%
Searchbeam1 year, 3 months ago
I think Scalia was nominated by Nixon.
I have a name for this group of Bush-Beholden-Bunch:
I call them "The DARK S.T.A.R.s of SCOTUS! (S(calia), T(homas), A(lito) and R(oberts))
Now, with Kennedy joining this cartel, it has become the S.T.A.R.K. SCOTUS!
Forget about getting a fair shake with these DARK S.T.A.R.K.s. There decisions have taken our country back to the Dark Ages.
This black hole of justice is going to suck every bit of our Constitution, and then our Hitler will be coronated!
Impeachment Now, Vigilance Forever!
Peace and Blessings!
Reply -
0%
Radiofreeeuropa1 year, 3 months ago
His next nominee will be the Creature from the Black lagoon.
and that is actually more palatable to reasonable people.
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%
ProudBlueTexan1 year, 3 months ago
But ya know, cheney has gotten away with everything else.... why not this, too? He literally writes the law ad lib.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
Radiofreeeuropa1 year, 3 months ago
Actually it was the idiots who thought that was worth impeaching who made it a household word.
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%
KeyserSooze1 year, 3 months ago
" And by shocked, I mean shocked that this buffoon isn't in a jail cell somehwere"
He hasn't been charged with, or convicted of a crime.
The dems don't have anything on him, if they did, they would act on it.
Instead they put propaganda out hoping that useful idiots like you will buy in to their BS, and use their talking points to foment unrest around the water cooler. All they have is manufactured discontent.
Reply-
0%
scott42611 year, 3 months ago
Manufactured? No, this administration has been p***ing all over the Constitution for over six years. we were LIED into an illegal war and that should be enough grounds for impeachment. But that is not the issue of this story. So aside from that, this DOJ scandal does have legs. The replacements for the fired prosecutors were not subject to senate confirmation due to an obscure provision in the USAPATRIOT Act (which has since been removed). And everything we know thus far points to a deliberate attempt by the Department of Justice to OBSTRUCT justice in an attempt to disenfranchise voters and thus to game elections.
I support H. Res. 333, articles of impeachment against Vice President Dick Cheney, and I look forward to articles of impeachment against President George W. Bush.
I am sick of them destroying my country and I WANT THEM OUT!
Now, if ONLY Congress will get off of their asses and make it happen!
Reply-
100%
KeyserSooze1 year, 3 months ago
"Manufactured?"
Yes manufactured. You are a walking encyclopedia of talking points crafted for useful idiots to spread in order to manufacture discontent.
You seem like a bright guy. Ask yourself, if these claims released by the dems to the court of public opinion are as open as shut as you make them out to be, then what is stopping them from acting on them?
The fact is, it's propaganda and it's aimed mostly at first time voters. Anyone who can remember at least one past administration ought to recognize a pattern.
Reply-
100%
scott42611 year, 3 months ago
First, I am not a Democrat. And even though I haven't for any Republican since 1984, it is also a false assumption that I always vote for Democrats....especially on the state and local level.
...and just so you know, you seem to be a walking encyclopedia of RIGHT-WING talking points.
Scott
Unrepentant, unapologetic liberal
And BTW, if I can reach any disaffected first-time voters, so much the better. I BELIEVE what I am saying, so there is absolutely NOTHING wrong with that, in my view...
Reply-
33%
KeyserSooze1 year, 3 months ago
"First, I am not a Democrat."
Didn't say you were.
" ...and just so you know, you seem to be a walking encyclopedia of RIGHT-WING talking points."
Such as? I pinned on both sides, the right did it to Clinton too.
The party not in power demonizes, and they do it with the hopes that something will grow legs. But it's political gamesmanship, nothing more.
Congress has a great deal of power, and the fact that they are not using it in favor of spouting platitudes and catch phrases hints that they don't have any real read meat to act on.
Reply -
0%
KeyserSooze1 year, 3 months ago
"I BELIEVE what I am saying"
Maybe I gave you too much credit.
You're a dupe, and in time you'll come to recognize that.
Reply
-
-
-
100%
scott42611 year, 3 months ago
And BTW, these are NOT talking points....they are the FACTS!
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
