Why not under oath?

[mikester]

Doink!

[rhjames]

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.

Iraq war, firing of AG's for political gain, abuse of the Patriot Act.......it goes on, and on.

20 months and counting......


OH *****!!!! SOMEONE'S AT THE DOOR!!!!!! THEY'RE HERE!!!!!


regards---rhjames

[the]

Originally posted by mikester



There's been some shenanegans going on and the American people are entitled to honest answers.

What are the shenanegans?

[Joeaksa]

Originally posted by the
What are the shenanegans?

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

[Tobra]

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.

[rhjames]

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---rhjames

[Turbo_pro]

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.

[dd74]

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.

[the]

What are the presumed or alleged shenanigans?

[rhjames]

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


regards---rhjames

[Porsche-O-Phile]

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".

[dd74]

Originally posted by the
What are the presumed or alleged shenanigans?

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!

[Lothar]

Originally posted by rhjames
Zero responsibility for their actions, zero oversight until now.


Iraq war, firing of AG's for political gain, abuse of the Patriot Act.......it goes on, and on

20 months and counting......

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.

[Turbo_pro]

Originally posted by Porsche-O-Phile
edited for clarity............... 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".

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.

[Joeaksa]

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


regards---rhjames

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?

[the]

Originally posted by mikester


What are the shenanigens? There are allegations that the AG's were fired for reasons that circumvent our judiciary system as well as our separation of powers. Those are hard accusations to make; some evidence to support those claims has come to bear (meager as it is). I believe that this sort of thing must be investigated if not for any other reason than to enforce our President and his cabinet's innocence above all else.

. . .

I would love to see Bush vindicated as much as i would love to see him proven guilty.

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.

[on-ramp]

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.

[the]

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

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

[Rick Lee]

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.

[Turbo_pro]

Originally posted by Rick Lee
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.