Welcome to PatsFans.com

Attention Whore George Bush defies Subpoena again

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by mikey, Jul 11, 2007.

  1. mikey

    mikey In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    2,422
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ratings:
    +3 / 0 / -0

  2. PressCoverage

    PressCoverage Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2005
    Messages:
    8,608
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

  3. Holy Diver

    Holy Diver Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,834
    Likes Received:
    15
    Ratings:
    +23 / 0 / -0

    #80 Jersey

    Honestly Mikey....

    This is the funniest post title of the day.

    Kudos to you!
     
  4. QuiGon

    QuiGon Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2006
    Messages:
    6,123
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

  5. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    25,628
    Likes Received:
    176
    Ratings:
    +473 / 13 / -14

    Great the WH counsel ie Bush's attorney doesn't want to testify about her priviliged conversations with her client.

    Anyone ever hear about attorney client privilege?
     
  6. Patriot_in_NY

    Patriot_in_NY Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2007
    Messages:
    8,556
    Likes Received:
    22
    Ratings:
    +45 / 0 / -0

    IT was actually a pretty shrewd move by the DEMS. Just about every president would have done the exact same thing in this case. In that position you have to solicit "unabridged" advice and you must depend on a certain measure of candidness that only confidentiality brings. Undermining that by allowing them to testify would set a terrible precedent going forward. Future advice would always be given with a dose of "will I have to answer to this later" and may alter it. Not that that is altogether bad, but you can understand why the president (any president) would want to protect it.

    They knew that he would take that stand, it's a no brainier. They pushed it already knowing how he'd respond and now he's backed into the corner on it, knowing it looks as if he "has something to hide". Maybe he does, maybe he doesn't........... but this was a something everyone already knew was coming like 2 months ago.

    It's politics, that's all. Smooth move by the dems. Although, I have to say, if it was reversed, Repubs would have done the same. Actually, you can even take out the dems/repub aspect and call it a Exec/Legislative branch pissing match. A lot of it is that too.
     
  7. Pujo

    Pujo Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    Can't deny a man his credit, you do have very parody-worthy things to say.
     
  8. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    43,289
    Likes Received:
    331
    Ratings:
    +841 / 27 / -33

    Wasn't Harriet Myers, the head of the draft board that helped young George avoid Viet Nam?? Would like to get her stoned and drunk, betcha she would have some stories to tell..
     
  9. sdaniels7114

    sdaniels7114 Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Messages:
    5,738
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    Its hard to say exactly what the admin is pushing for here. Obviously there is something to both the executive privilege and the privilege that exists between a person accused of a crime and that person's lawyer(Miers was Bush's personal attorney at one point); but to say that she can tell Congress to 'piss off' and just not show up might be grounds to toss her in jail. Bush ordering her to do so is probably a crime all by itself. The two privileges I mentioned are limited and she most definitely has to testify if the questions are outside those limits, and Bush's people know that. This is why they 'allowed' the blond chick to testify yesterday. So either Bush's order is just a negotiating tactic designed to get Congress to leave certain topics out of the questioning or he's afraid that Miers isn't bright enough to testify right.
     
  10. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    25,628
    Likes Received:
    176
    Ratings:
    +473 / 13 / -14

    UH Bush isn't being accused of a crime here. What he did was legal even the idiot senators admit this.
     
  11. Patriot_in_NY

    Patriot_in_NY Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2007
    Messages:
    8,556
    Likes Received:
    22
    Ratings:
    +45 / 0 / -0

    Right again. Congressional Subpoena and Criminal Subpoena are different from each other. Likewise, compliance with a Subpoena from Congressional Subcommittee is different than compliance with a Subpoena from a criminal court proceeding.

    This is not unprecedented and executive privilege has been exerted in the past on this type of subpoena, although in all fairness, the WH does usually (but not always) capitulates. Something tells me, this one won't.
     
  12. sdaniels7114

    sdaniels7114 Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Messages:
    5,738
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    Well, until an investigation has been conducted we don't know what crimes Bush has committed. This is why Congress called Miers in the first place, to delve into the murky waters here. They can look into felonies, misdemeanors, even if they simply want to make sure all these prosecutors got a fair severance package. They are entitled to investigate anything they want and when they call, you have to go. This is why Mark MacGuire appeared and fumphered his way through his testimony, because if he said 'eat me' instead, he'd have been locked up. You can be held in contempt of Congress the same as being held in contempt of court. There's limits that come from her being an ex-attorney of his and there's the limit that comes from the executive privilege; but those don't entitle her to say 'eat me, I'm not going,' and its never ok for the prez to order her to do so.
     
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2007
  13. Pujo

    Pujo Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    A congressional subpoena and a court subpoena are very different, defying a court subpoena gets you immediately sent to jail on civil contempt charges. You don't get a trial, just go straight to jail until you decide to talk. Criminal contempt charges are also possible from ignoring a court subpoena, but it's considered indirect contempt, and can only be punished after the accused has had a trial (unlike for, say, an angry outburst in court which is direct contempt and can be punished summarily by a judge).

    Contempt of congress can never be summarily punished (it would violate the prohibition on bills of attainder), instead congress refers the case to a US Attorney, who presses charges which would go to trial. As such, there's a lot more opportunity to come to a compromise before the process is completed. Miers isn't going to jail, this was a shrewd move by the executive branch.

    For the record, I don't think subpoenoing Miers is appropriate. I do think subpoenoing his aides is OK, but attorney-client priveledge can't be violated unless it's waived, and only Bush (not even Miers) can do that.
     
  14. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    25,628
    Likes Received:
    176
    Ratings:
    +473 / 13 / -14


    Bush had/has an absolute right to hire/fire US Attorney's under the constitution the reason is totally irrelevant legally.

    So by definition no crime can be committed in this circumstance.

    It doesn't matter why he fired the 8 attorneys. This is just political grandstanding by Conyers.

    Bush has every right to tell them to pound sand.
     
  15. Pujo

    Pujo Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    So why doesn't Bush tell the American people, "Yes, I fired them for political reasons"? Because it'd be his neck. Republicans in congress would jump ship to save their own arses in the next elections, and his hopes of getting any business through congress would be lost.

    So Democrats have a lot to gain and Bush has a lot to lose if the truth comes out, and these subpoenas are designed to bring the truth to light. Who even cares if there was a crime?
     
  16. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    25,628
    Likes Received:
    176
    Ratings:
    +473 / 13 / -14

    Why should he?

    Everything that happens in Washington is politics.

    Why don't the dems admit that they weren't decieved about the Iraq campaign and admit it just politics?
     
  17. Pujo

    Pujo Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    The point is this is a losing battle for Bush, it's not going to get out of the papers between now and election time.

    Time for the Republicans to face the consequences of Bush's actions, for better or worse.
     
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2007
  18. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    25,628
    Likes Received:
    176
    Ratings:
    +473 / 13 / -14


    True it leave the papers it fits the MSM / Dems agenda. If it's not the attorneys it will be something else. The dems are in the 2008 leection already.

    OTOH the dem congress has accomplished NOTHING which their ratings are even lower than Bush's. If they only thing they persue are 'scandals' which produce nothing how will that play?
     

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>