Why not under oath?
 

Doink!

for all their bravado, the Re-bub's are just plain "chicken".


again, I say, they never stand up for the mistakes they make, they only hide behind some excuse that somebody else did it, or look what Clinton did--years ago.

Zero responsibility for their actions, zero oversight until now.


reminds me of the kid next door, an 18 yr old with the IQ of a 10 yr old w/ ADHD, never taking responsibility for shooting out the neighbor's window with an pellet gun----even though there were three witnesses that saw him pull the trigger.http://www.pelicanparts.com/support/smileys/nono.gif

Iraq war, firing of AG's for political gain, abuse of the Patriot Act.......it goes on, and on.http://www.pelicanparts.com/support/smileys/shake.gif

20 months and counting......


OH *****!!!! SOMEONE'S AT THE DOOR!!!!!! THEY'RE HERE!!!!!http://www.pelicanparts.com/support/smileys/uzi.gif


regards---rhjameshttp://www.pelicanparts.com/support/smileys/pc2.gifhttp://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1174451533.jpg

Re: Why not under oath?
 

What are the shenanegans?

Re: Re: Why not under oath?
 

They are not sure but they need to bring everyone in to try to find something that was done wrong. Wait for it...

Does not matter whether they are under oath or not.

The penalty for lying to Congress is the same whether you are sworn or not. 5 years per lie.

I suppose the administration is being resistant to doing what Congress wants just to be a PITA, same reason Congress is being so insistent the be sworn, when they know it does not make a difference whether or not they are under oath.

Whew, that was close.....got to be careful when you sign one of those "I can't talk about what I've seen" disclosure papers.

Truth is, the White House is just scared to let Rove testify under oath/on the record.

The country couldn't handle the idea of Rove being the reincarnation of Hitler's propaganda chief.

(History repeats itself,----again)


Ask Condi Rice, she tell you it's a fact----

Only trouble is, she compared Hilter's regime to Saddam Hussein's, except that there was nothing to compare (aside from the US being an "occupier" in both instances).


Pretty bad for someone with a Master's and Doctorate in Political goings--on.....

regards---rhjameshttp://www.pelicanparts.com/support/smileys/pc2.gif

The truth is, the white house does not need to respond at all, so they will set the terms.
An explanation for something that needs no explanation is just a huge waist of time and resources.

Sound bites and veiled accusations masquerading as as oversight.
Gotcha politics.

The country has huge problems that need attention. Fix the problems not the blame.

Well, depending upon to whom you speak, yes, shenanigans have gone on -- or presumed shenanigans.

The question is when, WHEN, will Congress act on these allegations (shenanigans), and do so with teeth bared?

What everyone (in Congress) seems to forget is an election is upcoming, and by Fall of this year, all attention should focus on that, less critical interest be deflected in lieu of an investigation into Bush et al.

If the Democratic Congress thinks it holds the Bush Administration on the hook, it better act promptly. Time is running out.

What are the presumed or alleged shenanigans?

just the mere mention of subpoena has Bus/Cheney/Rove shaking in their collective shorts.......


regards---rhjameshttp://www.pelicanparts.com/support/smileys/pc2.gif

Keep watching kiddies. . . This is the neocon version of "what is the meaning of 'is'?" crap. Should be very amusing. It'd be funny if it wasn't tied into the deep-seeded corruption, deceit, theft, murder and treason that have become hallmarks of this "administration".

I don't know anymore. I'm a little burned out by both the protagonist and antagonist in this sad saga.

My new catchphrase is:

BUSH LIED! CONGRESS TRIED! SmileWavy

NO OVERSIGHT? WTF are you people babbling about?

Iraq War - Congress, including democrats, voted for it!

Patriot Act - Congress, including democrats, passed it!

As for Firing AG's - Grow up! That's just part of political spoils and it has been done by both parties forever.

The problem with political discourse is extremism.
The idiot republicans tried the same list of accusations on Clinton 10 years ago. The accusations were unsubstantiated drivel then and they are the same today. Don't we all remember the "Clinton body count."

Accusations without any offer of proof are perverse in the extreme, not to mention the persons (on both extremes) expounding this type of nonsense are buffoons extraordinaire.

Interesting. When did you notice this?

The President was far from "shaking in his boots" during the address he did yesterday. In fact, most of the news agencies said that he came out with a "take no prisoners" attitude.

Perhaps its your side of the audience that is shaking as they have no leg to stand on here?

This is just another example of just how incompetent the Bush administration is.

They can create scandals out of thin air. Create "coverups" of non-crimes. Those USAs could be fired for any reason. All they had to say at the time of the firing was the AGs did not share the priorities of the administration. Which is true, and is more than enough to fire them. Issue over. There's no separation of powers issue here. They are not judges.

It's also a good example of no good deed being unpunished. Those AGs were all appointed during the Clinton admin, from what I saw, and they should have all lost their jobs when Bush first came in. They should have been long gone.

this sounds like a political witch-hunt by the democrats.. they should let it go and move on to more important issues, like the war , increasing cost of healthcare, etc.

more hearings, subpoenas, investigations, etc are very disruptive and get in the way of doing the job they were hired to do by the voters.
it's a shame our government is so messed up.

It's all just pre-election "dirtying-up."

Both parties do it. It's just part of political life these days.

This is the Chuck Schumer show.

AFAIK, admin. officials not subject to Senate confirmation (Nat. Sec. Advisor, WH Counsel, press secretary, political advisors, etc.) cannot be compelled to testify before Congress unless a crime is involved or alleged. You'll recall that when Rice was still Nat. Sec. Advisor, there was no real serious talk of subpoenaing her, because Dems did not want to set a precedent that could later be used against them when they have the WH again. And I think any president is entitled to candid and confidential advice from his advisors. If every word could be subject to a televised Senate hearing, then no one would ever tell the boss what they really think.

Cabinet secretaries, who are subject to Senate confirmation, have to testify on the Hill all the time. And if the hearing is not televised, they are not usually put under oath. The under oath thing is purely for the tv cameras and means absolutely nothing, since lying to Congress equals perjury whether under oath or not.

Since no crime could possibly have occured here, as the president can fire US attys. for any reason, there is no way Rove or Miers should have to testify. I wouldn't even let them be interviewed without some big concessions on other issues from Congressional Dems. Why should Bush appease them? He has the law on his side and has no reason to give them what they want.

This is a well articulated assessment of the issue at hand. No partisanship or wild ass claims. I agree 100% with the statement by Rick Lee.

I would add that there is no more TV savvy, disingenuous personality than Chucky. He would say or do anything that would make himself sound important even when spouting pure partisan rhetoric.

In prison, he'd be identified as "talking out of his neck" and would bleed for the practice.

Well, the subpoenas have been approved, but Conyers is saying he'll hold off on issuing them a bit longer.

As bad a precedent as I think this is, I really hope Rove socks it to them. He is smarter than anyone on that committee and they will question him at their own peril.

This will be very interesting. Agree and hope that Rove hands their heads back in a basket...

I am a registered Republican, but also a fair minded American. I don't blindly agree with the Republican Party or President Bush. Also, if anybody, politician or not, does something wrong, then I think there should be repercussions. As far as this issue goes though, the whole thing really does seem like a witch hunt. It is perfectly legal to fire AGs for any reason. So, then what are the alleged shenanigens? It sounds like someone is just saying that they should investigate just to find out if anything was possibly done that will not look right to the constituents.

I analogize this to a police officer pulling you over for safely turning right on a red light, then wanting to search your vehicle and ask you questions. The turn was perfectly legal, and he just used it as an excuse to pull you over, then the officer wants to search around and ask you if you have ever done anything wrong. That is not how our system works. To search there must be probable cause, and I just haven't seen any in the current situation.

I am not saying this to protect the President or any other Republican. The whole thing just doesn’t seem right, that is all.

I would be surprised if the subpoenas are ever issued. They will play it for the cameras, then let it go.
That said, Rove will never respond to coercion. Although I believe Bush has lost a tremendous quantity of sack recently (if he ever had any) he will fight this one.

He (Bush) has the law on his side and let's remember that he will stands a pretty good chance of winning in any appeal in front of his hand picked court.

Even the dummies in congress understand this.

Bush's brilliance continues to elude me. I work with investigators, and I've noticed what happens when a party decides to be uncooperative. It doesn't make the investigators less curious.

For those of you who do not understand, or are pretending not to understand, what the potential problem is here:

Yes, there are political appointees that serve at the pleasure. But on the other hand, it's not okay to fire them because their investigations are targeting your political cronies, or because they are not spending enough time investigating your adversaries.

Also, according to an overwhelming body of evidence, it will be challenging at best for the "administration" to justify some of those terminations on the basis of performance. By all accounts that McKay guy was about as efficient and professional as the day is long. Too efficient........is the suspicion.

There's nothing wrong with the president firing USAs because the president does not agree with the agenda being pursued by the USA.

Normally that is done at the beginning. I.e., Clinton fired all of Bush's USAs right off the bat because of course they weren't going to be in agreement with Clinton's agenda. Nothing wrong with that, it's done all the time. Maybe an argument can be made that the law should be changed, but until it is, there's nothing wrong with it and new presidents will continue to fire all of the USAs they don't like and/or who were appointed by the previous president of the other party.

Bush disagreed with the agenda being pursued by these USAs and he is free to fire them. He does not have to "justify" their termination based on "performance," not one bit. He should have fired all of them right when he first took office, like Clinton was smart enough to do with the Bush Sr. USAs.

As far as Bush's "brilliance," umm, yeah. Real brilliant creating a scandal by simply doing something you are absolutely entitled to do. Reverse brilliance!

this is a democratic fishing expedition. they are looking to create a political scandal.

when Clinton took office in 92, he ordered his attorney general at the time to fire 93 attornies. where were the subpoenas back then?
:)

the media is making this into a story, which it is not.

The Dems controlled Congress when Clinton did it.

The real story is the sneaky little clause in the "Patriot" Act which give Bush (via Gonsalez) the power to appoint AG's without oversight. The fact that AG's were fired for things like coming down too hard on the likes of Randy Cunningham is just icing on the cake.

While we're at it, I haven't seen a peep in these hallowed halls about yesterday's repeal of the AG clause in "Patriot" Act.

And here's Tony Snow on the subject of testifying under oath

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2007/03/tony-snow-says-president-must-let-his.html

there, fixed it for you.

Sorry but you are forgetting something.

THEY CAN BE FIRED BECAUSE THEY WORE THE WRONG COLOR TIE THAT DAY! They can be fired for anything, period. They serve at the pleasure of the President, end of story.

That's right Thom, but it's not getting a lot of coverage because Patrick Leahy was also chairman of of the Senate Judiciary Committee when the PATRIOT Act passed.

And I don't know why Cunningham is even a part of this since he was guilty as sin, copped a plea and is sitting in the joint right now for a while.

I don't normally think of you as "dense." Should I. In at-will employment states, workers can be fired for having moustaches. Wearing red. Driving a 911. But even in those states, you can't be fired because you are black. Or Jewish.

Same here. If Dubya had 'cleaned house' when he arrived in Washington, nobody would have said a thing. Instead, he waited five years and then fired some AG's whose performance was at the TOP of the heap. For what appears to be political reasons.

Now, if any of you conservative types really think that the "president" can fire competent, effective AG's who have had nothing but GLOWING reviews.......because they are investigating the wrong cronies or failing to investigate the right political adversaries......

.....then I have a real estate deal I want you to look at. A couple of them, in fact.

The Ostrich approach to politics is tempting, but it doesn't work. Not for you. Not for your "president."

And now, I guess Dubya is thinking he'll test the theory that Congress and the Amercan people are not entitled to the truth. Unless Duyba makes some changes in his past way of handling things, this will be a delightfully entertaining two years.

What law would that violate?

I repeat, they can be fired for ANY REASON. I could care less what kind of reviews they have had, they work at the pleasure of the President.

I am not dense, but for some reason this concept is not getting through to some people very easily.

Joe

PS He is "your" President as well. He is the President of the entire country, at least until 2008. Sooner everyone understands this the better. They may not agree with him but he is still the Commander in Chief and leader of this country.

Someone serving in a post at the pleasure of the president is NOT like an at-will employee, at all.

USAs are released by Presidents for political reasons all the time. All of the USA's released by Clinton when he first took office, for example, were of course done so for political reasons. They were appointed by Bush and would not have the same agenda (i.e., investigate or not investigate the same people as Clinton would like to have investigated or not investigated) as Clinton.

That's the way the system is set up, there's nothing wrong with the Pres releasing a USA because the USA's agenda and the Pres's agenda don't match.