Obama said to withdraw from Iraq--McCain said to Surge!!!

[Fox Mulder]

None of the President's men or women think they have to answer to Congress via legal writ because they don't believe in checks and balances. Congress needs to kick some Executive butt.

They don't have to answer Congess--if they had to answer to Congess, THERE WOULD BE NO CHECKS AND BALANCES. That's what liberals don't get--that the Constitution provides for a TRIPARTITE govenment--the executive branch answers to no one and shouldn't answer to anyone under the Constitution. The checks and balance are that each of the three branches exerts their own power to be checked and balanced by the power of the other two, not one to be subjugated to the power of the other two, which is what liberals insist on doing to the office of the President!

Let me ask you--should Congress have to answer to the President? If not, why not?

Also--do you actually support the US Constitution? Have you ever read it? Do you understand it?

 

[Minor Axis]

Every person in the Administration is not shielded by executive privilege. Executive Privilege does not shield individuals from breaking the law. Congress can summon them especially when it concerns law breaking. I believe the Rove example is being looked at by the court.

 

[Fox Mulder]

Every person in the Administration is not shielded by executive privilege. Executive Privilege does not shield individuals from breaking the law. Congress can summon them especially when it concerns law breaking. I believe the Rove example is being looked at by the court.

Who said (or even implied) that executive privilege shields someone from breaking the law? And by the way, its the Executive Branch's responsibility to prosecute people who break the law, not Congress.

 

[Minor Axis]

Who said (or even implied) that executive privilege shields someone from breaking the law? And by the way, its the Executive Branch's responsibility to prosecute people who break the law, not Congress.

And what reason makes you think the current Executive Branch is capable of functioning responsibly in this capacity? Taking down the President's buds? sure thing.

 

[Fox Mulder]

And what reason makes you think the current Executive Branch is capable of functioning responsibly in this capacity? Taking down the President's buds? sure thing.

That question isn't even worth a response. The fact that there's absolutely no evidence to support any of your tin foil hat conspiracy theories makes no difference to you. If there were even a shred of any competent evidence regarding a Bush cabinet or admin member, you can bet your life it would be fully investigated and prosecuted. And I already know what your answer to that is going to be so save it for the next Moveon.org or CodePink meeting.

 

[Minor Axis]

That question isn't even worth a response.

Very good, the less I hear from you the better.

Directed at other participants:

What happens when citizens ignore a subpoena?

Does a subpoena from Congress have any legal force?

Rove, Josh Bolton, and Harriet Miers who all ignored subpoenas from the Congress, are they above the law?

(Bolton and Miers, and probably Rove were involved in the U.S. Attorney firings, politicizing a "non-political" appointment.)

 

[Strauss]

None of the President's men or women think they have to answer to Congress via legal writ because they don't believe in checks and balances. Congress needs to kick some Executive butt.

Wow, what a completely inaccurate and totally false statement as the reasoning behind not responding to the "Congress via legal writ". You are amazing.......you set the premise and post absolute bullshit to make it look like someone has done something wrong.

Answer me why the indiviuals who ignored the "writ" haven't been arrested for contempt?

 

[Strauss]

Very good, the less I hear from you the better.

Directed at other participants:

What happens when citizens ignore a subpoena?

Does a subpoena from Congress have any legal force?

Rove, Josh Bolton, and Harriet Miers who all ignored subpoenas from the Congress, are they above the law?

(Bolton and Miers, and probably Rove were involved in the U.S. Attorney firings, politicizing a "non-political" appointment.)

See response posted above. Do you ever accurate present what is occurring or do always twist to reach your intended liberal outrage?

 

[Alien Allen]

None of the President's men or women think they have to answer to Congress via legal writ because they don't believe in checks and balances. Congress needs to kick some Executive butt.

If congress had legal ground to hold the people you mention under contempt then why have they not done so under a democrat congress??

maybe congress had no legal standing in issuing the subpoenas ?

or are the dems just afraid when they fuck up bad enough and lose control of congress eventually that the republicans will play paybacks?? you friends the liberals in congress are being led by bufoons in the name of Pelosi and Reid. too bad you are so blinded by your distaste of the right you can't see how incompent these two clowns are.

 

[Minor Axis]

Answer me why the indiviuals who ignored the "writ" haven't been arrested for contempt?

I don't know. Congress does not have the resolve to see this through? Are you saying or implying that Congress acted improperly?

 

[Strauss]

I don't know. Congress does not have the resolve to see this through? Are you saying or implying that Congress acted improperly?

My answer requires me to provide two responses:

First, you set up a strawman by implying that the reason Rove etc didn't answer the subpoenas is because they don't believe in checks and balances. To wit:

None of the President's men or women think they have to answer to Congress via legal writ because they don't believe in checks and balances.

This statement shows a lack of understanding and complete ignorance on the subject matter. As to subject matter, checks and balances are contained within the US Constitution. Specifically, a three branch system of equal power to all branches couple with specific authority reserved upon each branch. There is nothing in the US Constitution about subpoena power of Congress upon executive branch members. It doesn't exist as a authority granted by the governing document. Such authority was created by Congress and, as such, is limited in its scope based upon the authorities set forth in the US Constitution as to the specific authority granted to each branch of government. Note: Have you ever heard of Congress issuing a subpoena to a member of the Supreme Court or one of his or her functionaries? Never going to happen. So your assertion of "checks and balances" has no basis in fact, law or reality.

Second point, the furtherance of the strawman argument. Rove etc have never asserted "checks and balances" nor "exective priviledge" which by the way doesn't exist. Its a catch all to excplain various specific types of priviledges and immunities available to the exective branch and its agencies as well as the legislative branch and its agencies. And that is the assertions of Rove etc, that various privildges and immunities apply and therefore Congress can not compel testimony. So far, excluding one recent loss, the Courts have held the assertions of Rove etc. as being correct. BTW, how many times has Rove testified on the Hill?

 

[Minor Axis]

I'm happy to admit there is much I don't know about the U.S. government, but I believe that the Executive Dept under Bush do believe they are above the law. They did it with FISA. They destroyed emails that were supposed to be kept on record. They get their underlings to leak classified info for political purposes. They basically do what they want to and dare anyone to call them on it. No?

I will ask again, does refusing a Congressional subpoena cover everyone in the Bush Administration from Congressional oversight? And is the Executive Department, controlled by the Bush Administration really expected to come down on Administration insiders? I don't think it's likely. And when they do, it's conveniently setup so the lieutenants take the bullet for the bosses. Comment?

 

[Fox Mulder]

I'm happy to admit there is much I don't know about the U.S. government, but I believe that the Executive Dept under Bush do believe they are above the law. They did it with FISA. They destroyed emails that were supposed to be kept on record. They get their underlings to leak classified info for political purposes. They basically do what they want to and dare anyone to call them on it. No?

No--that's total bullshit--Moveon.org crap. Again--if all of this actually happened why has no one been prosecuted for these crimes (putting aside your conspiracy theores)?

I will ask again, does refusing a Congressional subpoena cover everyone in the Bush Administration from Congressional oversight? And is the Executive Department, controlled by the Bush Administration really expected to come down on Administration insiders? I don't think it's likely. And when they do, it's conveniently setup so the lieutenants take the bullet for the bosses. Comment?

The Justice Department comes down on anyone that commits a crime and where there is evidence to proscute them. There is where the reality and sanctity of the Constitution and the rule of law separates from your world of irrational assumptions and baseless theories comes into play.

Are you aware and do you agree with the fact that the Justice Department (and in fact any prosecutor) has a legal obligation NOT to prosecute a crime unless there is sufficient evidence to prove the crime beyond a reasoanble doubt? Apparently, this part of the Constitution your willing to throw out in your zeal to see people in the Bush Administration punished for the fact they have different political viewpoints than you do!

 

[Minor Axis]

Apparently, this part of the Constitution your willing to throw out in your zeal to see people in the Bush Administration punished for the fact they have different political viewpoints than you do!

According to your own standards, even to the point of starting a thread about it, you're not minding your own business, which we are all supposed to do around here, right?

I've realized that our exchanges are becoming detrimental to the health of this forum and I will do my best to ignore you on a multitude of political and social topics. It's just not promoting civil discussion around here and not worth running in continuous contentious circles.

 

[Strauss]

I'm happy to admit there is much I don't know about the U.S. government, but I believe that the Executive Dept under Bush do believe they are above the law. They did it with FISA.

There is just so much so wrong in the whole post that you are forced to take them on one at a time.

Please explain to me Mr. "I don't know much about the US government", what it is, exactly, that the "Executive Dept" did under Bush that is above the law as to FISA? I'll wait while you research MoveOn.org. While we are waiting can you tell us what FISA means? Can you tell us who was the first president to have to deal with FISA? Can you tell us what the Clinton Adminstration's position was with regard to FISA?

Again, you google and we'll wait.

 

[Fox Mulder]

Very good, the less I hear from you the better.

Directed at other participants:

What happens when citizens ignore a subpoena?

I have citizens ignore subpoenas I issue all the time--I am sure Strauss does too. So it depends on how important it is to me and the case--I NEVER do anything the first time--I send a letter warning them they need to comply--if they ignore it again, I go into court and aske the judge for a bench warrant for their arrest--when that's served on them, they usually comply, but I've also had judges refuse to issue the warrant.

Does a subpoena from Congress have any legal force?

Depends on whether Congress complies with the law and the Constitution, the latter serving as the ceiling or floor for the former as the case may be. Assuming a subpeona from Congress is valid, do the people who are served with the subpoena have any legal rights at all to refuse to testify?

Rove, Josh Bolton, and Harriet Miers who all ignored subpoenas from the Congress, are they above the law?

Is Congress above the law? Because Congress also has to comply with the Constitution when issuing a subpoena--they don't have the right to command anyone to appear for any reason. People also have the right to refuse to testify for various reason such if there is a risk they may be prosecuted (you, know, the little thing called the 5th Amendment).

What gets me, and that what demonstrates that you are interested only in disparaging a political viewpoint and particular people (as oppossed to any real discussion) is that you are constantly droning on about Bush and his violations of the Constitution--the illegal wire taps and all the other bullshit, yet you are perfectly willing and content to allow Congress, like Hitler and the Nazis, to compel anyone in the US to appear before them for any reason and strip those appearing of their Constitutional rights as long as they disagree with your political philosophy. Go read the briefs and the legal issues raised before spouting on about how people believe they are above the law because all you are doing is regurgitating stuff that is not accurate at the very least or a deliberate lie at worst.

(Bolton and Miers, and probably Rove were involved in the U.S. Attorney firings, politicizing a "non-political" appointment.)

I have no idea what this even means.

 

[Fox Mulder]

According to your own standards, even to the point of starting a thread about it, you're not minding your own business, which we are all supposed to do around here, right?

No--the minding your own business thread is regarding people (like you) deciding based on their own interpretation of the rules when someone else is breaking the rules rather than allowing a moderator to do it.

I've realized that our exchanges are becoming detrimental to the health of this forum and I will do my best to ignore you on a multitude of political and social topics. It's just not promoting civil discussion around here and not worth running in continuous contentious circles.

Then what you should do is simply place me on Ignore--that way you will not see anything I post, but I have a right to respond to anything that anyone posts.

 

[Strauss]

I have no idea what this even means.

He's talking about Goodling (I think that's how her name is spelled) who use to work at DOJ. She has been accused of hiring only people who identified with certain political viewpoints. Such a requirement is verboten for regular civil servants. She would ask inappropriate questions during their interviews. That said, there is nothing that points to the three people he has identified as possibly assisting Goodling. It's liberal conjecture at this point.
BTW, the Atty General has found there are no crimes for prosecution as a result of her behavior.

 

[Fox Mulder]

There is just so much so wrong in the whole post that you are forced to take them on one at a time.

Please explain to me Mr. "I don't know much about the US government", what it is, exactly, that the "Executive Dept" did under Bush that is above the law as to FISA? I'll wait while you research MoveOn.org. While we are waiting can you tell us what FISA means? Can you tell us who was the first president to have to deal with FISA? Can you tell us what the Clinton Adminstration's position was with regard to FISA?

Again, you google and we'll wait.

I already started a thread on FISA--I cited the federal cases that intepreted--all deciding that the President has right to issue wiretaps without a warrant under specific circumstances. It blew right by him--I doubt he even read it or if he did, he certainly didn't understand it. Trust me, he'll go on believing that Bush has violated the Constitution by issuing warrants agaisnt suspected terrorists without getting some low level judge to sign of on it!

This whole FISA argument is so ridiculous its really not worth explaining anymore--people are just going to keep believing what they want, the facts be damned.

 

[Minor Axis]

Then what you should do is simply place me on Ignore--that way you will not see anything I post, but I have a right to respond to anything that anyone posts.

I reserve the right to read the outlandishly deceptive posts you make because it's not smart to not know what is going on around you.