Thread: Bush orders ex-aide to zip it = witness tampering

More abuse of executive power by Bush today. He ordered his ex-aide not to testify about the attorney firings. Congress wants to know what role the White House played in the firings. Bush doesn't want congress to know.

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/07/1...03334.html

What are Bush and Cheney hiding?

And it's not just that....but this woman does not work for Bush any longer. She is a private citizen. For Bush to tell her she cannot testify is WITNESS TAMPERING.

Another crime for the huge pile that's leading to impeachment.

Welcome back ViolaLee, missed ya. lol

Originally Posted by Migi e!

Welcome back ViolaLee, missed ya. lol

Is that an inside joke? This is my first time posting on this board.

Or are you just trying to take the thread off topic?

Originally Posted by ViolaLee

More abuse of executive power by Bush today. He ordered his ex-aide not to testify about the attorney firings. Congress wants to know what role the White House played in the firings. Bush doesn't want congress to know.

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/07/1...03334.html

What are Bush and Cheney hiding?

And it's not just that....but this woman does not work for Bush any longer. She is a private citizen. For Bush to tell her she cannot testify is WITNESS TAMPERING.

Another crime for the huge pile that's leading to impeachment.

It's only abuse if you have no comprehension of our form of Government, or are of a political philosophy that whines about abuses of power ONLY when their candidate does not occupy the White House.

Executive Privilege is a necessary part of "separation of power" and is not an abuse of power because the Constitution PERMITS it. It's only an abuse when you are a partisan politico who doesn't agree with the powers that be.

Here's the pertinent passage in that story:

"While I may be unable to answer certain questions today, I will answer those questions if the courts rule that this committee's need for the information outweighs the president's assertion of executive privilege," said Taylor, 32, who left her White House job two months ago.

Now, this partisan congressional fishing expedition is free to pursue this in the courts. How much do you want to bet the courts will laugh this case out of the courtroom? Any takers?

Originally Posted by Truth Detector

It's only abuse if you have no comprehension of our form of Government, or are of a political philosophy that whines about abuses of power ONLY when their candidate does not occupy the White House.

Executive Privilege is a necessary part of "separation of power" and is not an abuse of power because the Constitution PERMITS it. It's only an abuse when you are a partisan politico who doesn't agree with the powers that be.

Here's the pertinent passage in that story:

"While I may be unable to answer certain questions today, I will answer those questions if the courts rule that this committee's need for the information outweighs the president's assertion of executive privilege," said Taylor, 32, who left her White House job two months ago.

Now, this partisan congressional fishing expedition is free to pursue this in the courts. How much do you want to bet the courts will laugh this case out of the courtroom? Any takers?

Actually here is the pertinant part of your pertinant passage:

said Taylor, 32, who left her White House job two months ago.

She doesnt get executive privilege if she isn't working for the executive.

This is witness tampering. And she can be charged with contempt of congress.

Why do so many of you neocons still defend the worst President in history?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Truth Detector
It's only abuse if you have no comprehension of our form of Government, or are of a political philosophy that whines about abuses of power ONLY when their candidate does not occupy the White House.

Executive Privilege is a necessary part of "separation of power" and is not an abuse of power because the Constitution PERMITS it. It's only an abuse when you are a partisan politico who doesn't agree with the powers that be.

Here's the pertinent passage in that story:

"While I may be unable to answer certain questions today, I will answer those questions if the courts rule that this committee's need for the information outweighs the president's assertion of executive privilege," said Taylor, 32, who left her White House job two months ago.

Now, this partisan congressional fishing expedition is free to pursue this in the courts. How much do you want to bet the courts will laugh this case out of the courtroom? Any takers?

Originally Posted by ViolaLee

Actually here is the pertinant part of your pertinant passage:

said Taylor, 32, who left her White House job two months ago.

She doesnt get executive privilege if she isn't working for the executive.

This is witness tampering. And she can be charged with contempt of congress.

Why do so many of you neocons still defend the worst President in history?

So why don't the Democrats charge her and charge Bush? I am waiting.

As far as the suggestion that Bush is the worst President in history, that is about as absurd as Germans proclaiming Hitler was their best leader.

It is YOUR opinion and I understand, but the FACTS don't support your conclusions. I prefer to stick with facts. I suggest you review Jimmy Carters Presidency if you want to see what WORST REALLY looks like. You may be too young, but a few of us here had to live through that one and it was not a fun period in US history.

Carter makes Bush look like a genius. But then, it is a fascinating thing to watch the same people who claim Bush as the worst, defend Carter with such passion. I guess it's because he cared.

Being a leftist is so easy.

Originally Posted by Truth Detector

I guess it's because he cared.

Being a leftist is so easy.

You think it's easy being a person who cares about the world around us and who wants the best for our community, when the world is run by a bunch of cyborgs who don't fucking care?

Guess again.

Your correct ViolaLee, this is nothing short of witness tampering. The problem is, the Dem's are poking and prodding every thing at once that the are failing to see the trees for the forest. They wont pursue this or any crime that Bush&co. has done to the point of impeachment. They will just bash them hard enough till the elections hoping to gain the points needed for victory. That really pisses me off. It's their way of looking good to their constituents for their failure to end this war.
I have told countless Dem's this and most get pissed, so what. I also told them that these pukes will not end the war, again they get pissed, so what. You and most Dem's and Repubs alike need to clear the smoke and mirrors that the parties keep putting up.

Originally Posted by Coyote

....when the world is run by people who don't fucking care?

....because I say they don't.

:dramaqueen:

Originally Posted by michaelr

Your correct ViolaLee, this is nothing short of witness tampering. The problem is, the Dem's are poking and prodding every thing at once that the are failing to see the trees for the forest. They wont pursue this or any crime that Bush&co. has done to the point of impeachment. They will just bash them hard enough till the elections hoping to gain the points needed for victory. That really pisses me off. It's their way of looking good to their constituents for their failure to end this war.
I have told countless Dem's this and most get pissed, so what. I also told them that these pukes will not end the war, again they get pissed, so what. You and most Dem's and Repubs alike need to clear the smoke and mirrors that the parties keep putting up.

The Democrats won't pursue this legally because that would not serve their desired purpose. They know damn well they don't have a legal case worth the paper they type it on.

The express goal is to keep these nonsensical issues in the media and perpetuate the "perception" that there is a cover up and Bush is corrupt.

Only the most naive or blind partisan in denial doesn't understand this. This is nothing more than a continuing attempt to use the media to keep the perception that Bush and Republicans are corrupt and therefore, it might permit them to gain political power, which is more important to them than the truth, our safety or bi-partisanship.

This is why after all the allegations the last six long years, the ONLY thing they have is Libby not properly remembering who he heard Plame's name from in an investigation where the source of the exposure of Plame was already known the first week of the investigation.

opcorn: