Welcome to PatsFans.com

Bush set to defy Congress by blocking Taylor testimony

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by PressCoverage, Jul 7, 2007.

  1. PressCoverage

    PressCoverage Banned

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

    each week, this totalitarian executive "branch" ups the ante and begs impeachment proceedings to begin... this latest arrogance creates a monumental showdown between Boy King and the legislative branch.... unfortunately, Chimp has the judicial branch largely in his pocket....

    BREAKING: White House To Block Testimony Of Former Rove Aide

    Early last month, the Senate Judiciary Committee issued a subpoena to former Karl Rove aide and former Director of the White House Office of Political Affairs, Sara Taylor, for her involvement in the “unprecedented firings of several prosecutors and politicization within the Department of Justice.” Taylor — despite White House refusals to surrender documents related to her subpoena — agreed to testify before the Judiciary Committee as required on July 11, 2007.

    Today, however, Taylor’s attorney W. Neil Eggleston, delivered a letter to Senate Judiciary Chairman Pat Leahy (D-VT) explaining that Taylor expects that the White House will attempt to block her testimony, citing executive privilege:
     
    Last edited: Jul 7, 2007
  2. mikey

    mikey In the Starting Line-Up

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

    I want to know WHY George Bush is blocking Taylor's testimony.

    If there is NOTHING TO HIDE, why is George Bush preventing Taylor from testifying?

    .
     
  3. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    25,372
    Likes Received:
    138
    Ratings:
    +370 / 10 / -14

    Because it is his perrogative to fire or keep US attorney's under the constitution and it is none of congress's business, anymore than it is the president's business who congressmen hire as their adies.

    This separation of powers thing seems to confuse you.
     
  4. grapedog

    grapedog Practice Squad Player

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2006
    Messages:
    101
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Damn, I wish there was a law protecting people from just getting fired because of the color of their skin, sexual orientation, religion or political views...
     
  5. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    25,372
    Likes Received:
    138
    Ratings:
    +370 / 10 / -14

    Depending on the job there is, if these people were civil servants for example there would be criteria that would have to be met. However they are Political appointee's who serve at the pleasure of the President, this has been the case with political appointee's for over 200 years.

    If you wanted job security and protections they should have turned down the political appointments and become civil servants in the JD for example.

    I am surprised so many are unfamiliar with the basics of how the government and separation of powers work.
     
  6. PressCoverage

    PressCoverage Banned

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

    if it's possible, at least TRY to not be so condescending... it's not that simple, and you know it... you also know, full well, what makes this situation rather egregious, and yet you're hoping to dumb it down... if this were a liberal president who had a bunch of US attorneys fired for not chasing down Pubs, you'd be frothing at the mouth and crying foul... ... your constant Clinton deflections bare that out quite plainly....

    even GOP lawmakers are saying Gonzales has to go... what's funny is watching people like you attempt to plug every leak in the doomed dam, hoping anyone buys it anymore... this tired "nothing to see here" tactic is just making loyal Bushies look more and more goofy... too funny...

    ironic that Cheney feels his office is exempt, yet he's the one calling the shots on executive privelidge...

    rotten to the core... this nation has been hijacked... still sleeping through it?
     
  7. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    42,766
    Likes Received:
    284
    Ratings:
    +717 / 20 / -30

    I was talking to a woman from SF who I do some work for the other day, she used to be a US Trustee, which is similar to a US attorney except in her case she was overseeing the bankruptcy of Pacific Gas and Electric.. she is an older woman well published, received high praise in several national publications and extremely well thought of in the legal community. Midway during the first term of George, Ashcroft just fired her in the middle of her 5 year appointment.. was not given a reason, except she is known for her Democratic affiliation. She was replaced by someone who had republican party affiliations, less experience and less knowledge of the business of bankruptcy.

    While changing employees of the executive branch of gov't is certainly a presidents perogative, sometimes the political motivation outweighs what is good for a locale or specific situation.. then progress is impeded and the courts get more bogged down than they already are. Sometimes party politics needs to take a back seat to what is good for this country and its citizens. In this case Ashcroft interrupted a five year appointment, of a person who was well qualified and competent, because she was a democrat and replaced her with someone who was less competent because he was a republican.
     
  8. mikey

    mikey In the Starting Line-Up

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

    Nobody is questioning his "perrogative" to fire or keep the US attorney.

    We just want to learn if he used the Department of Justice to help Republicans win the last election.

    .
     
    Last edited: Jul 8, 2007
  9. sdaniels7114

    sdaniels7114 Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

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

    If Congress can investigate Baseball they can certainly investigate this. Did the Admin do anything wrong? Well, its hard to say since there hasn't been an investigation yet. Didn't Congress investigate the Clinton/Lewinski matter before it brought Clinton up on blowjob charges?
     
  10. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,626
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -1

    #75 Jersey

    Not everything is covered under the concept of separation of powers. Are you suggesting that if the president decided that he wanted to fire all of the black attorneys, that's his "perrogative", too?
    I would like to hear what the difference is, philosophically in regards to constitutional protections, between skin color and political view.
     
  11. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    25,372
    Likes Received:
    138
    Ratings:
    +370 / 10 / -14

    Clinton fired all the attorneys including the one who agressivly investigating Whitewater and replaced him with a creampuff who was an ex law student of his. No one suggested an investigation where his aides were to be grilled.

    Why? because they were political appointee's and it was his prerogative. Sorry this doesn't fit youpartisan script but..
     
  12. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    25,372
    Likes Received:
    138
    Ratings:
    +370 / 10 / -14



    There are always political motives for political appointees. It is funny you guys are noticing this for the first time. This has been going on for 200 years.
     
  13. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    25,372
    Likes Received:
    138
    Ratings:
    +370 / 10 / -14

    Youa re correct congress can do what they like (although in the case of things like investigating baseball it is usually political grandstanding). OTOH if it isn't the business of congress the executive can tell them to pound sand when they ask for cooperation. The congress can go to court to srbitrate the disagreement between the other 2 branches.
     
  14. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    25,372
    Likes Received:
    138
    Ratings:
    +370 / 10 / -14

    Under the constitution it would be, it wouldn't be a wise move politically though. ;)
     
  15. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,768
    Likes Received:
    272
    Ratings:
    +494 / 20 / -17

    Bush is hiding an awful lot, and against a do-nothing Congress he's simply going to put up enough obstacles to ensure nothing is resolved until after his term. I think the only way the Congress can fight back is to commence impeachment proceedings. That would garner the national attention in the MSM to fully expose the failings of the Bush administration.
     
  16. mikey

    mikey In the Starting Line-Up

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

    patsfan13


    All we want to know is if George Bush used the Department of Justice to help elect Republicans in the last election.

    Do you think that a legitimate concern?

    Do you want the Department of Justice to be part of the Republican Party?

    .
     
    Last edited: Jul 8, 2007
  17. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    25,372
    Likes Received:
    138
    Ratings:
    +370 / 10 / -14

    mikey, it is certainly a good basis for political grandstanding.
     
  18. mikey

    mikey In the Starting Line-Up

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

    patsfan13

    Please answer my question:

    Should the Department of Justice be a part of the Republican Party?


    .
     
  19. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    25,372
    Likes Received:
    138
    Ratings:
    +370 / 10 / -14

    The political appointees are appointed on the basis of politics, they don't constitute the whole of the justice dept.

    The justice dept as a whole should be a branch of any party. dem or pubbie.

    Conyers is fishing and grandstanding. Recently he tried to subpoenaed Bush's personal lawyer. Perhaps he feel his committee's interest trumps lawyer client privilege?
     
  20. mikey

    mikey In the Starting Line-Up

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


    So your answer is "YES, the Department of Justice should be a branch of the Republican Party".

    Is that your answer?


    .
     
    Last edited: Jul 8, 2007

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>