i can't tell you how appalling it is that Blinky's 'reasonable' proposal re purgegate is restricted to non-oath-y, non-recorded, non-public, non-transcripted 'testimony'
can you imagine something so outrageous???? as everyone has acknowledged, there's only one reason why they'd demand those 'conditions' - they are lying, and are planning to lie.
it's difficult to imagine a more egregious abuse of 'presidential power' - and particularly on a matter as important as the politicization of the DoJ.
IT"S OUTRAGEOUS!
oh - btw - did anyone notice that the same constraints were imposed on Blinky/Cheney's 'meet with' re 911 Commission?
apparently not.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Bush called his subordinates honorable. Ha ha.
1) They trashed the reputations of the fired US attorneys.
2) They probably obstructed justice by firing Lam.
3) They did it to protect corrupt republicans from accountability.
Honorable? Ha ha. I think not.
can you imagine something so outrageous????
ummm...yeah and w/my vivid imagination, partly why i quit reading most politics.
did anyone notice that the same constraints were imposed on Blinky/Cheney's 'meet with' re 911 Commission?
yup; i remembered that as well, when forcing myself to read. now i'll go puke, thank you verra much.
if you remember, the bush administration took the following stance right before the november elections... we can't say we weren't warned...
-----
In fact, when it comes to deploying its Executive power, which is dear to Bush's understanding of the presidency, the President's team has been planning for what one strategist describes as "a cataclysmic fight to the death" over the balance between Congress and the White House if confronted with congressional subpoenas it deems inappropriate. The strategist says the Bush team is "going to assert that power, and they're going to fight it all the way to the Supreme Court on every issue, every time, no compromise, no discussion, no negotiation."
Now, both the House and Senate judiciary committees have voted to issue subpoenas; the House yesterday and the Senate just a little bit ago this morning.
And for those of you too young to have noticed (or who missed it in the [disdain mode]extensive coverage of the mainstream media [/disdain mode], the White House counsel advising bu$h on refusing to allow aides to publicly testify before the committees under oath is the same White House counsel who so advised Richard Nixon. The SCOTUS, back in 1974, informed the Nixon White House that, yes, they DID have to comply with the Grand Jury subpoeanas to turn over the tapes.
P.S. This morning on the Stephanie Miller Show, she quoted Tony Snow from 1998 on whether or not President Clinton could be forced to testify wherein Foxy, the Snowman opined that of course he could be forced to comply with a subpoena ~ otherwise the WH would be totally unaccountable to the people . . . don't have the exact quote but it's gotta be somewhere. Try the Googles . . . and . . lay in a goodly supply of popcorn, boys and girls. This fight ain't over. ;-)
Yes, it's outrageous, and Conyers and Waxman didn't buy it. And of course, Bush says he's dead set on fighting it all the way. Can we really believe he means it, considering how much the guy lies? What worries me most about Bush is he stated the disposition of the Iraq war will be left to a future administration, which I translate to mean, "I plan to appoint myself Imperial King and Dictator, and rule in perpetuity with an iron claw."
lukery : did anyone notice that the same constraints were imposed on Blinky/Cheney's 'meet with' re 911 Commission?
Yes, one of the most telling scenes in 911pressfortruth is Bush being questioned as to why he needed Duck Cheney to hold his hand and not be under oath when helping the 911 commission with their enquiries. I wouldn't want to spoil it for anyone who hasn't seen it.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3865048042993700360
It is distressing that Conyers and Leahy have not issued the subpoenas. The Republicans do not act in good faith. Pretending that they will in this case is absurd.
Bush can't have it both ways...either he wasn't involved and thus executive privilege is not relevant or he was involved and should follow Sampson's example and resign in disgrace.
Of course, Fielding was a 9/11 Commissioner. Maybe he came up with the [disdain mode]brilliant[/disdain mode] conditions of Bush and Cheney's meeting with the commission.
"Of course, Fielding was a 9/11 Commissioner. "
jeebus! i didnt know that, 'of course'
thnx pttp - yeah, P4T did that scene really well.
Post a Comment