About time!

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by DirtyMartini
....
(2) the decision says nothing regarding claiming executive privilege and refusing to answer questions at the hearing, it just says she/they must respecte the subpoena and appear for the hearing.

True, but here (hopefully) is what is going to happen.

Executive privilege involves conversations between the President and his advisors.

So what will be ask of Rove is: "What did you do?" What did you tell your subordinates?" "What did your subordinates tell you?"

If anyone tries to hide behind Executive Privilege at that point, they're toast.

And...if we can drag this out for more than 6 months, Bush will no longer be President and so will not be able to issue pardons to any of these @holes.

[PLATO]

Hmmm...I think there is good reason for seperation of powers. I wonder how a Congressman would react if the White House summoned one of their aids over to answer questions.

If Congress feels that a law has been broken, then they have the power to call for a special prosecutor.

That being said, I do feel that Bush has done as much as any President since Nixon to try and expand the power of the Presidentcy. However, the Congresses of the mid and late 1970's did a whole lot to try and expand the power of the Congress.

It is a continual struggle...and one that I believe the founders anticipated by setting up an odd number of power centers.

I hope that the Presidentcy appeals and that it goes to the SCOTUS. I will be happy with their decision whichever way it goes.

[GePap]

Originally posted by PLATO
Hmmm...I think there is good reason for seperation of powers. I wonder how a Congressman would react if the White House summoned one of their aids over to answer questions.

The Constitution gave Congress the power to subpoena. The Presidency has no such powers. The ability to investigate and have oversight is one of the most important things Congress can do.

If Congress feels that a law has been broken, then they have the power to call for a special prosecutor.

Congress can only "feel" whether a law has been broken by investigating. HOw is anyone supposed to investigate without the ability to subpoena evidence and testimony?????

[Grandpa Troll]

I often view congressional hearings/potenntial investigations as a result of "backroom handshake agreements"

In other words, they hold these, but when all said and done, has it amounted to much?

I hope it does GePap, just simply dont feel it is Justice served, more an afront to say they did something when in fact they havent done squat


I have seen in the business world "out front" firm, fair and so called just statements, but behind the scenes, just the exact opposite


But I do have hope, just not a believer in any "biggies" coming out of it


Gramps

[GePap]

There have been many worthwhile congressional hearings over the years, for example, hearing on war production and profiteering during WW2.

I don't care if this particular hearing goes anywhere. WHat I do want is the dangerous claims made by the Bush administration to be slapped down by the courts.

[Grandpa Troll]

Originally posted by GePap
There have been many worthwhile congressional hearings over the years, for example, hearing on war production and profiteering during WW2.

I don't care if this particular hearing goes anywhere. WHat I do want is the dangerous claims made by the Bush administration to be slapped down by the courts.

What happened in those hearing, about profiteering?

Also, how long after diid the hearings take place and were the guilty sent away or had all items removed from them that they profitted from?

Thanks, learning something new here............

[GePap]

Originally posted by Grandpa Troll


What happened in those hearing, about profiteering?

Also, how long after diid the hearings take place and were the guilty sent away or had all items removed from them that they profitted from?

Thanks, learning something new here............

What I was thinking about specifically turns out to be the Truman Committee, named after Harry Truman. Can't find much online in a short time, so a short blurb from Wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truman_Committee#Truman_Committee

Truman Committee
Truman gained fame and respect when his preparedness committee (popularly known as the "Truman Committee") investigated the scandal of military wastefulness by exposing fraud and mismanagement. The Roosevelt administration had initially feared the Committee would hurt war morale, and Under Secretary of War Robert P. Patterson wrote to the president declaring it was "in the public interest" to suspend the committee. Truman wrote a letter to the president saying that the committee was "100 percent behind the administration" and that it had no intention of criticizing the military conduct of the war.[36] The committee was considered a success and is reported to have saved at least $15 billion. Truman's advocacy of common-sense cost-saving measures for the military attracted much attention. In 1943, his work as chairman earned Truman his first appearance on the cover of Time. He would eventually appear on nine Time covers and be named the magazine's Man of the Year for 1945 and 1948.[37] After years as a marginal figure in the Senate, Truman was cast into the national spotlight after the success of the Truman Committee

[Grandpa Troll]

Thanks GePap, and for the record, I aint "trolling you" but merely suspicious that theses committes are anything more than a circus, and yes, some lambs get sacrificed but in the end, no real victories, other than the dreaded moral or "they knew we were there" victories...

Thanks for the response though, informative

[PLATO]

Originally posted by GePap


The Constitution gave Congress the power to subpoena. The Presidency has no such powers. The ability to investigate and have oversight is one of the most important things Congress can do.

Oh, I wasn't trying to imply that The President had the power to subpoena. Just pointing out how a Congressman was likely to feel.

I believe in the power of Congress to subpoena. I also believe in the right of Presidents to have confidential advice from their closest advisors. There is merit in Executive Priviledge.

Where the line is drawn is something that should be handled by the third branch...and since it is such a high level dispute, then by the SCOTUS. It has never been a good idea for Congress to determine their powers in relation to the Executive just as it has never been a good idea for the Executive to determine their powers in relation to the Congress.

In this dispute, the courts are upholding Congress...which is fine by me. My issue is that the Presidentcy should push this to the SCOTUS in order to give us a definitive and final answer to where the line of executive priviledge and Congressional Oversight really is.

If Congress feels that a law has been broken, then they have the power to call for a special prosecutor.

Congress can only "feel" whether a law has been broken by investigating. HOw is anyone supposed to investigate without the ability to subpoena evidence and testimony?????

In most cases I agree, but not when the dispute rises to the highest level of another branch. This is what the independent special prosecutor was created for. The special prosecutor has investigational powers as well.

In cases where there is clearly a political underwurrent, then Congress should err on the side of creating a special prosecutor and then getting out of the way. Unfortunately, that does not make as good of TV.

[Theben]

The talking heads are saying they'll go to Congress and cite 'executive privilege' per question as asked.