Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

bush: not in public, not under oath?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • bush: not in public, not under oath?

    Bush rejects Senate 'show trials'

    US President George W Bush says he will not allow his advisers to take part in "show trials" in the escalating row over the firing of federal prosecutors.

    He has offered to let his staff give evidence, but only in private and not under oath.

    The head of the Senate Judiciary Committee has rejected the offer.

    Democrats in Congress have accused Attorney General Albert Gonzales of sacking prosecutors for political reasons, and called for him to quit.

    But Mr Bush has backed Mr Gonzales, a long-time confidant, and warned Democrats against seeking a fight over the issue in order "to score political points".

    "We will not go along with a partisan fishing expedition aimed at honourable public servants," Mr Bush said.

    Bi-partisan anger

    He said Democrats should accept his proposal for staff including his chief political adviser, Karl Rove, and his former counsel, Harriet Miers, to meet Senators in private, and that he would fight any effort to subpoena them.

    US ATTORNEYS
    93 nationwide
    Serve at the discretion of the president, with the advice and consent of the Senate
    Prosecute criminal cases brought by the government
    Prosecute or defend civil cases in which the government is a party
    Collect debts owed to the government
    Source: US Department of Justice

    "If the staff of a president operates in constant fear of being hauled before congressional committees... the president would not receive candid advice and the American people would be ill-served," he said.

    Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, rejected his argument.

    "Testimony should be on the record and under oath. That's the formula for true accountability," he said.

    He said Mr Bush's offer "is not constructive and it is not helpful to be telling the Senate how to do our investigation, or to prejudge its outcome".

    Earlier the Senate voted to strip the attorney general of the power to appoint US attorneys without Senate approval.

    Ninety-four senators voted for the bill, while only two voted against.

    The BBC's Jonathan Beale in Washington says that shows the anger in Republican as well as Democrat ranks over the way the Bush administration has handled the row.

    Mr Gonzales has denied there was any political motivation for the sacking of eight US attorneys last year, saying their performance was below standard.

    However, several leading Democrats, including 2008 presidential hopefuls Hillary Clinton, Barrack Obama, and John Edwards, have demanded Mr Gonzales' resignation, as have some Republicans.


    assuming one can accept the private thing, why should an "honourable public servant" not be under oath?

    BBC, News, BBC News, news online, world, uk, international, foreign, british, online, service
    Co-Founder, Apolyton Civilization Site
    Co-Owner/Webmaster, Top40-Charts.com | CTO, Apogee Information Systems
    giannopoulos.info: my non-mobile non-photo news & articles blog

  • #2
    Whereas the 109th Congress would say, "Yeah, sure. That's ok then..." I hope the 110th Congress finds this unamusing.
    The cake is NOT a lie. It's so delicious and moist.

    The Weighted Companion Cube is cheating on you, that slut.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: bush: not in public, not under oath?

      Originally posted by MarkG

      assuming one can accept the private thing, why should an "honourable public servant" not be under oath?
      a) "honorable public servant" doesn't apply. These are appointed positions not elected. They work solely at the whim/behest of the president and are not as a consequence beholden to congress or the people per se but only in as much as the president and his conduct is. They can not be compelled to testify short of a SCOTUS interpretation.

      b) the answer lies in the story
      "If the staff of a president operates in constant fear of being hauled before congressional committees... the president would not receive candid advice and the American people would be ill-served," he said.
      It's called executive privledge and its well established in precedent and constitutional law. Preservation of this principle is at the heart of the matter.
      "Just puttin on the foil" - Jeff Hanson

      “In a democracy, I realize you don’t need to talk to the top leader to know how the country feels. When I go to a dictatorship, I only have to talk to one person and that’s the dictator, because he speaks for all the people.” - Jimmy Carter

      Comment


      • #4
        you mean that the president has the legal right to recieve advice on breaking the law?
        Co-Founder, Apolyton Civilization Site
        Co-Owner/Webmaster, Top40-Charts.com | CTO, Apogee Information Systems
        giannopoulos.info: my non-mobile non-photo news & articles blog

        Comment


        • #5
          I thought the first part was a suggestion for Britney to wear some knickers!
          Is it me, or is MOBIUS a horrible person?

          Comment


          • #6
            Uh, lying to Congress is still a crime. Oath or no oath, IIRC.
            I make no bones about my moral support for [terrorist] organizations. - chegitz guevara
            For those who aspire to live in a high cost, high tax, big government place, our nation and the world offers plenty of options. Vermont, Canada and Venezuela all offer you the opportunity to live in the socialist, big government paradise you long for. –Senator Rubio

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by MarkG
              you mean that the president has the legal right to recieve advice on breaking the law?
              While this is designed to reflect the extreme and to be inflamatory, I would say it is essentially correct.
              "I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration somehow you're not patriotic. We should stand up and say we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration." - Hillary Clinton, 2003

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by MarkG
                you mean that the president has the legal right to recieve advice on breaking the law?
                As Plato indicated one could interpret that. On the other hand the President is allowed differing views on what constitutes the meaning and intent of law and as an officer of the constitution is required to do so. Advisors should be free and clear to give advice on matters of the law and interpretations thereof in addition to matters of policy and strategy.
                "Just puttin on the foil" - Jeff Hanson

                “In a democracy, I realize you don’t need to talk to the top leader to know how the country feels. When I go to a dictatorship, I only have to talk to one person and that’s the dictator, because he speaks for all the people.” - Jimmy Carter

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by MarkG
                  you mean that the president has the legal right to recieve advice on breaking the law?
                  Have you never watched West Wing?
                  "Just puttin on the foil" - Jeff Hanson

                  “In a democracy, I realize you don’t need to talk to the top leader to know how the country feels. When I go to a dictatorship, I only have to talk to one person and that’s the dictator, because he speaks for all the people.” - Jimmy Carter

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by MOBIUS
                    I thought the first part was a suggestion for Britney to wear some knickers!
                    She has no bush, silly one. She's shaved clean. But of course there are only six billion select people who know that detail.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      The Congress needs to force this issue to make it clear people cannot ignore the rule of law. Diane Feinstein is saying she has uncovered a White House memo where they explicitly say one of the eight fired US Attorneys should be fired because he is bringing corruption charges against against a Republican Congressman. They wanted to replace the US attorney with a loyal party man who would simply drop the corruption case.

                      If that's true then we have a clear case of obstruction of justice in the white house.
                      Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        BTW Bush's attempts to pretend this is some how a partisan ploy is completely laughable. Large numbers of Republicans, the honest ones, are now coming forward and saying the White House must answer these questions and any crimes committed by the administration must be brought to light. It's bi-partisan and it isn't a fishing expedition, unlike the Republican attack on Clinton, because they are specifically dealing with one act (the sacking of 8 U.S. Attorneys) and the claim that the White House was obstructing justice by sacking a US Attorney for bring corruption charges against a Republican Congressman. If they did the crime then they need to do the time and the first step is find out the facts. That's what this is about.
                        Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Re: bush: not in public, not under oath?

                          Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
                          a) "honorable public servant" doesn't apply. These are appointed positions not elected. They work solely at the whim/behest of the president and are not as a consequence beholden to congress or the people per se but only in as much as the president and his conduct is. They can not be compelled to testify short of a SCOTUS interpretation.
                          They receive pay from the public coffers and if they committed a crime, specifically obstruction of justice, then they are not immune from prosecution simply because of who they work for. I'm tired of Republicans saying they're hard on crimes... unless of course they're the ones committing the crimes.
                          Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe

                            As Plato indicated one could interpret that. On the other hand the President is allowed differing views on what constitutes the meaning and intent of law and as an officer of the constitution is required to do so. Advisors should be free and clear to give advice on matters of the law and interpretations thereof in addition to matters of policy and strategy.
                            That is entirely unrelated to the facts at hand. These are the facts: 1) The firing of one of the eight fired US Attorneys was said to be needed in order to shut down a corruption case against a Republican Congressman 2) That US attorney was fired. Therefor the Congress, as the over sight body, has the duty to determine if that US attorney was fired in order to obstruct justice and to block a corruption case against a Republican Congressman. It is that simple.
                            Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
                              Have you never watched West Wing?
                              i only watched a few from the first season where he was bombing foreign countries and stuff. but that's not illegal, right?
                              Co-Founder, Apolyton Civilization Site
                              Co-Owner/Webmaster, Top40-Charts.com | CTO, Apogee Information Systems
                              giannopoulos.info: my non-mobile non-photo news & articles blog

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X