America Moves Into Constitutional Crisis

[Drake Tungsten]

I make no claims of being unbaised, as I've long since come to hate this administration*. I agree with Imran - if anything, I want *more* pressure and "fishing expeditions" into what these *******s were up to.

Normally I might disagree, but in this case I think anything that distracts this Congress and keeps them from passing any legislation is a good thing. Bring on the investigations!

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by PLATO
The idea of obstruction of justice has been raised, but I have yet to see any evidence anywhere to substantiate it.

Um... that kind of is the point of the subpoenas. To produce documents to see if there is enough evidence to substantiate the charges. All you really need is enough evidence to suggest there may be a criminal violation... you don't have to substantiate it before issuing subpoenas (otherwise, why would you need a subpoena).

[Ben Kenobi]

BEDEMIR: How do you know she is a witch?
VILLAGER #2: She looks like one.
BEDEMIR: Bring her forward.
WITCH: I'm not a witch. I'm not a witch.
BEDEMIR: But you are dressed as one.
WITCH: They dressed me up like this.
CROWD: No, we didn't... no.
WITCH: And this isn't my nose, it's a false one.
BEDEMIR: Well?
VILLAGER #1: Well, we did do the nose.
BEDEMIR: The nose?
VILLAGER #1: And the hat -- but she is a witch!
CROWD: Burn her! Witch! Witch! Burn her!
BEDEMIR: Did you dress her up like this?
CROWD: No, no... no ... yes. Yes, yes, a bit, a bit.
VILLAGER #1: She has got a wart.
BEDEMIR: What makes you think she is a witch?
VILLAGER #3: Well, she turned me into a newt.
BEDEMIR: A newt?
VILLAGER #3: I got better.
VILLAGER #2: Burn her anyway!
CROWD: Burn! Burn her!

[Imran Siddiqui]

It's Bedevere, you twit .

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


All you really need is enough evidence to suggest there may be a criminal violation.

And this exists? They should certainly let the rest of us know of this evidence.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You have listened to the testimony, right? You know, about firing prosecutors for political reasons? For refusing to go after Dems for trumped up, non existent charges to make their campaigns harder? Obstruction of justice much?

Subpoenas have be filled for far less evidence.

Or are you being deliberately obtuse?

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
You have listened to the testimony, right? You know, about firing prosecutors for political reasons? For refusing to go after Dems for trumped up, non existent charges to make their campaigns harder? Obstruction of justice much?

Subpoenas have be filled for far less evidence.

Or are you being deliberately obtuse?

I guess I was being obtuse...although I didn't men to be. (Obtuse? 30 Days in the hole for you!! ).

I guess I was unaware of credible testimony relating to "refusing to go after Dems for trumped up, non existent charges to make their campaigns harder?"

However, "firing prosecutors for political reasons" is totally legal unless the political reasons have "Obstruction of justice much" involved.

[GePap]

Congress has the power to investigate anything it pleases, a power given to it in the constitution. They decided to investigate why those prosecutors were fired. Whether those firings were illegal or not is utterly irrelevant to the point that Congress could.

So we have people saying that the reason the President fired these prosecutors is irrelevant, because they president can do so at his whim, and therefore demanding that Congress give a reason why it needs to investigate, something it can do at its whim. Sorry, but if there is no need to know why the president fired these guys because he can without breaking the law, then you should also not care why congress decided to investigate because they can do so at will without breaking the law as well.

The more pressing question is why, when asked to explian themselves the WH felt the need to make up all sorts of rationales for firing these prosecutors, thus leading many to ask if they had lied to Congress.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by GePap
Congress has the power to investigate anything it pleases, a power given to it in the constitution. They decided to investigate why those prosecutors were fired. Whether those firings were illegal or not is utterly irrelevant to the point that Congress could.

True...Congress can investigate whatever it chooses. The WH, on the other hand, can exercise executive privilege whenever it chooses without evidence of a crime existing.

Originally posted by GePap

So we have people saying that the reason the President fired these prosecutors is irrelevant, because they president can do so at his whim, and therefore demanding that Congress give a reason why it needs to investigate, something it can do at its whim. Sorry, but if there is no need to know why the president fired these guys because he can without breaking the law, then you should also not care why congress decided to investigate because they can do so at will without breaking the law as well.

Not disagreeing with Congress's right to investigate. I am meerly saying that without evidence that a crime may have been committed, then Congress cannot enforce its subpoena due to seperation of powers.

Originally posted by GePap

The more pressing question is why, when asked to explian themselves the WH felt the need to make up all sorts of rationales for firing these prosecutors, thus leading many to ask if they had lied to Congress.

Yes...an interesting question indeed. Is it just the paranoia inspired by a Congress determined to "get" the administration at nearly anycost...or is there really something deeper here?

I am all for Congress continuing its investigation. If they find something that shows evidence a crime was committed or strong credible evidence that a crime may have been committed, then reissue the subpoenba and go to SCOTUS to back it up if need be. This maintains both the seperation of powers and the oversite of the branches of each other.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by PLATO
True...Congress can investigate whatever it chooses. The WH, on the other hand, can exercise executive privilege whenever it chooses without evidence of a crime existing.

Yet, during the investigations there were contradictory statements, so even if the firings themselves weren't a crime (actually weren't obstruction), there does seem to be lying to Congress by some people in the administration, which IS obstruction of justice.

Remember Clinton tried to assert executive privilege in the Lewinsky scandal and lost.

[SlowwHand]

The skank had dried *** on her dress, for pete's sake.
How was he going to lie about that triviality?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Yet, during the investigations there were contradictory statements, so even if the firings themselves weren't a crime (actually weren't obstruction), there does seem to be lying to Congress by some people in the administration, which IS obstruction of justice.

Remember Clinton tried to assert executive privilege in the Lewinsky scandal and lost.

Yep and I thought that the Repug crusade was horse**** too, if you recall. 14% Trefrickinmendous. Boot em all.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Yet, during the investigations there were contradictory statements, so even if the firings themselves weren't a crime (actually weren't obstruction),

In the case of the firing of the prosecutor investigating Duke Cunningham, I'd say that obstruction is a legit claim.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by PLATO
True...Congress can investigate whatever it chooses. The WH, on the other hand, can exercise executive privilege whenever it chooses without evidence of a crime existing.

Executive privilege isn't a constitutional power. It's an assumed power that SCOTUS, in its "wisdom" has decided the POTUS has. It does not, however, trump the investigative power of Congress. If the Congress wants to know what the POTUS ate yesterday, the POTUS has to drop trow and spread 'em. Our little ol' framers were very fearful of kingly authority, and executive privilege is the power of a despot, not of a temporary leader of a democratic state.

According to SCOTUS, executive privilege may only be invoked against Congress when it would impair national security to submit to Congress' investigations. This doesn't even come close. The WH could reasonably get away with it against Wexler's committee, even with clear evidence of law breaking there. In this case, no way, though like I said earlier, this SCOTUS will suck Cheney for the imperial Presidency.

[Kuciwalker]

Executive privilege isn't a constitutional power. It's an assumed power that SCOTUS, in its "wisdom" has decided the POTUS has.

You just contradicted yourself in the span of two sentences.