Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Lawyer: Dumbya told staff to ignore subpoenas

  1. #1

    Lawyer: Dumbya told staff to ignore subpoenas

    Lawyer: Dumbya told staff to ignore subpoenas

    [url]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19662270/[/url]

  2. #2
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    4,115
    OK...

    So is your point here to actually [b]discuss[/b] something, or to just continually throw sh*t at the wall, seeing what sticks?

    We get the idea that you hate Bush...all you are doing now is spamming.

  3. #3
    [QUOTE=Greenwave81]OK...

    So is your point here to actually [b]discuss[/b] something, or to just continually throw sh*t at the wall, seeing what sticks?

    We get the idea that you hate Bush...all you are doing now is spamming.[/QUOTE]

    I agree with this point. I see little value in posting stories without commenting on them.

    It's good that people post stories on this board, but, when they do that, they should say why they think the story is good fodder for the board, or at least what previously-made point they think it proves.

    As for the story posted above, all I can say is: Par for the course.

    This Administration simply doesn't believe in checks-and-balances at all, and it becomes more Nixonian with every passing day, in the sense of Nixon's claim that "if the president does it, it's not illegal." It thinks it is entitled to operate without oversight from either congress or the courts, and this is simply the latest example.

    Urging someone to ignore a subpoena is just total cowardice. If she wants to talk and tell the truth, she should be encouraged to. If she doesn't want to talk, she should honor the subpoena, show up, and take the 5th.

  4. #4
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    4,115
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola]This Administration simply doesn't believe in checks-and-balances at all, and it becomes more Nixonian with every passing day, in the sense of Nixon's claim that "if the president does it, it's not illegal." It thinks it is entitled to operate without oversight from either congress or the courts, and this is simply the latest example.

    Urging someone to ignore a subpoena is just total cowardice. If she wants to talk and tell the truth, she should be encouraged to. If she doesn't want to talk, she should honor the subpoena, show up, and take the 5th.[/QUOTE]

    Oh please....it's been done countless times since the institution of our government, beginning with Washington.

    Rather than exhibiting a callous disregard for the system of checks and balances as you simplistically describe, it is an exhibition of the authority granted to two [b]co-equal[/b] branches of the government. The POTUS and the executive branch of government has a right to legal counsel too...and can ask that their right to be secure in their business be respected.

    Congress can always go to the 3rd [b]co-equal[/b] branch of government and ask it to decide the matter; that is the system of 'checks and balances' in action.

  5. #5
    [QUOTE=Greenwave81]Oh please....it's been done countless times since the institution of our government, beginning with Washington.

    Rather than exhibiting a callous disregard for the system of checks and balances as you simplistically describe, it is an exhibition of the authority granted to two [b]co-equal[/b] branches of the government. The POTUS and the executive branch of government has a right to legal counsel too...and can ask that their right to be secure in their business be respected.

    Congress can always go to the 3rd [b]co-equal[/b] branch of government and ask it to decide the matter; that is the system of 'checks and balances' in action.[/QUOTE]

    Bush's contempt for congress is a major step up from what we've had in the past. The subpoenas, in isolation, are not groundbreaking, I suppose, but taken in a body of evidence that includes his absurd signing statements (in which he takes license to ignore hundreds of laws passed by congress [I]that he signed[/I]), warrantless wiretaps, etc... I won't even get into Dick Cheney's absurd argument that he is an extraconstitutional branch of government accountable only to himself.

    All of this is mostly unprecedented, and certainly a huge ramp up in degree from what any past administration has done.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us