[TheMissing]

I read this in the paper today(OMG people still read the paper?!), I'll link the online version of the article here:
Pelosi wants Bush aides investigated

"Rather than passing critical national security legislation, they continue to squander time on partisan hijinx," Fratto said. Boehner spokesman Michael Steel said "this sort of pandering to the left-wing fever swamps of loony liberal activists does nothing to make America safer."

Safer from WHAT asshat? How many empty threats have you given us about the terrorists again? We're trying to keep America safe from jackasses like you, and the rest of the corrupt GOP.

"There is no authority by which persons may wholly ignore a subpoena and fail to appear as directed because a president unilaterally instructs them to do so," Pelosi wrote Mukasey. She noted that Congress subpoenaed Miers to appear before the House Judiciary Committee, which is investigating the firings.
"Surely, your department would not tolerate that type of action if the witness were subpoenaed to a federal grand jury," Pelosi wrote.

She added: "Short of a formal assertion of executive privilege, which cannot be made in this case, there is no authority that permits a president to advise anyone to ignore a duly issued congressional subpoena for documents."

Go get 'em!

[noodles]

I'm happy she's doing this, but the current DOJ is going to do absolutely nothing about it. However, in less than a year, there will be no more cronies to protect Bush & Co from as many invistigations and trials as Congress wants to level at them.

The Democrats are doing exactly what they need to be doing, which is continuing to press the issue. Whenever Republicans form a roadblock and complain, they are simply demonstrating to the American public that they think they should be held unaccountable for their actions, and that government oversight is to be held with contempt. This will only hurt them more in November.

Sixty Senators. That is all we need to keep Republicans from fillibustering. Sixty Senators, and everything Bush and the GOP did can be dismanteled while they sit in the corner and whine.

[TheMissing]

But it's refreshing that someone is standing up against it rather than just bending over.

[noodles]

Originally Posted by TheMissing

But it's refreshing that someone is standing up against it rather than just bending over.

Exactly. Just because the DOJ won't pursue the charges, doesn't mean that this is a waste of time. On the contrary, this is setting the prescedent needed to show that the checks and balances are not working. A blatant refusal to follow a Congressional order to pursue an investigation and contempt charges is grounds for impeachment of the head of the DOJ.

[TheMissing]

What still puzzles me (and i'm sure many of us here) is that we quickly nabbed Bill Clinton for lying about a blowjob but we can't nail people for garbage like THIS?

[noodles]

Yep. That's the Republican way of dealing with things: make it all about the "morality" issues, so as to divert attention from the real problems at hand.

[dcunning30]

You all are ignoring the executive privilages matter. That is where this should be handled. This sort of matter should be resolved by the third branch of the government, the judiciary. This situation is the reason for the constitutional construct called the balance of powers. I see everyone taking Pelosi's side in theis matter, without even explaining to the rest of us the constitutionality of the vote in the first place.

I don't know which side is on solid constitutional ground in this matter, I'm not smart enough to vet this out in light of the US Constitution. Maybe you guys who have voiced an opinion are, if so I'd appreciate you explain this to me so I can have a more clear constitutional understanding of this matter.

[TheMissing]

Originally Posted by noodles

Yep. That's the Republican way of dealing with things: make it all about the "morality" issues, so as to divert attention from the real problems at hand.

Which was a problem even back in the Clinton administration. IIRC When the Taliban were growing strong, Clinton wanted to launch offensives against them (I belive he started to) but got STRONG opposition from republicans saying he was diverting attention away from the BJ scandal...

I believe that's how that went down, I was probably 14 at the time and didn't really pay attention to politics at that point.

Originally Posted by dcunning30

You all are ignoring the executive privilages matter. That is where this should be handled. This sort of matter should be resolved by the third branch of the government, the judiciary. This situation is the reason for the constitutional construct called the balance of powers. I see everyone taking Pelosi's side in theis matter, without even explaining to the rest of us the constitutionality of the vote in the first place.

I don't know which side is on solid constitutional ground in this matter, I'm not smart enough to vet this out in light of the US Constitution. Maybe you guys who have voiced an opinion are, if so I'd appreciate you explain this to me so I can have a more clear constitutional understanding of this matter.

I'll let Noodles answer this one, he can probably explain better than I.

[dcunning30]

Originally Posted by TheMissing

What still puzzles me (and i'm sure many of us here) is that we quickly nabbed Bill Clinton for lying about a blowjob but we can't nail people for garbage like THIS?

Unfortunately for Bill Clinton, he lied about the BJ under a federal subpoena. He perjured himself to a federal court. As a result, he lost his law license for several years. Clinton would have been better off just telling the truth. Then, nobody would have cared, and probably there would be a lot of people wanting to give him high fives.

[TheMissing]

Originally Posted by dcunning30

Unfortunately for Bill Clinton, he lied about the BJ under a federal subpoena. He perjured himself to a federal court. As a result, he lost his law license for several years. Clinton would have been better off just telling the truth. Then, nobody would have cared, and probably there would be a lot of people wanting to give him high fives.

Yes, he did indeed dig himself a deeper hole. My point was that he was actually given the chance to lie about it from a subpoena over something so trivial and unconcerning to national business. So if such a private matter can cause such a stink, why can't we nab some of the people in the current administration?