March 21, 2007
-
Subpoenas
President Bush announced the other day that he would fight any subpoenas forcing his top aides to testify under oath on the issue of the firing of eight federal prosecutors.
He said he didn’t care if it would cause a constitutional crisis. He offered for his top aides to testify privately to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees but he would not allow them to testify under oath or on the record.
As you can guess, the House Judiciary subcommittee on commercial and administrative law decide to call the top aides to testify publicly and under oath. Here is the link: Link
The president has stated he is concerned that the issue will be made political.
Do you think President Bush’s top aides should testify publicly under oath or privately off the record?
Comments (99)
publicly
ok, i’m a pretty big g.w.b. fan, but those comments make it seem like he’s trying to hide something.
Honestly, I could care less.
neither
For the public!
publicly. but that’s just cuz i’m annoying that way.
Privately on private record. American secrecy is important.
freedom of information is so central to keeping check on our government. so – publicly please.
i’m not sure
Private.
Technicolor.
Does it matter?
publicly.
That is how a republic works!
The representatives are to be held accountable by their consituents.
Geez what an arrogant thing for him to say!!!
Publicly.
Publicly.
This admin’s just getting slimier and slimier.
Testify publicly and under oath. This is a matter of public concern.
“That is how a republic works!”
You might try reading the US constitution. Calling up members of the executive branch to be questioned under oath is against the law. The congress has just ignored the US constitution.
i too like george, but asking for it to be privatly does seem like he is hiding something. I dont know what to say…
public and under oath
i’m sick of all those ass holes. none of them are doing thier job ! they are all egotistical , self centered sons of bitches.
“i’m sick of all those ass holes. none of them are doing thier job ! they are all egotistical , self centered sons of bitches.”
Are we talking about Bush and Co. or a lot of xanga commenters here? =)
Testify. ON THE RECORD.
If not, I’m assuming they have something to hide.
If anyone would like to actually know what they are talking about look this up and read it
United_States_v._Nixon
No one will, being boldly stated and ignorant is how it works around here
I like Tony Snow’s quote from the press conference:
“This is not a hearing. It’s not a trial. It’s an interview. … We have offered them everything that gives them access to the facts and truth. If they do not accept the offer, it lifts the veil on some of the motivations, which means that people are less interested in the truth than creating a political spectacle.”
I agree.
I don’t know enough about it even after reading this article. I do know that all Dems quoted have moved againt the President at every opportunity. That doesn’t exactly make them people I readily listen to when they level accusations against President Bush. Congress has a propensity for trying to make executive authorities their own. If they were given the opportunity to hear from the aides as they want, then what are they trying to accomplish if they don’t take that opportunity?
by the emails released the President was not involved in the decision to fire these prosecutors. So the testimony should be public and under oath…
And one last thing, the President has no need to have a reason to fire any federal prosecutor. They work for him at his pleasure, Bill Clinton fired 94 of them one of whom was investigating him and his dealings while governor. Not a word was said about it by these hypocrites.
You people are so damn ignorant on this. No wonder these politicians get away with being such hypocrites. They represent ignorant fools and they know it
It’s up to Bush, really. Damn executive privilege.
Reminds me of how a previous president had to get up in front of cameras under oath and testify whether or not he had “sex” with an intern.
Under oath. Paige you Republican cutie, you are so cute and educated. I bet you are right about calling up members of the executive branch to testify under oath.
So Clinton’s blowjob fiasco was against the law too!
Ain’t payback a bitch? Honestly, I wish the liberal eco nazi’s would drop this vendetta and let us fight evildoers to protect the world, this is really so silly…
I like how these comments are stacking up!
Publically. The people gotta know.
So Clinton’s blowjob fiasco was against the law too!
No because it was not a congressional hearing, but a civil suit. Bad precedent truthfully, he should have fought it instead of arrogantly going and perjuring himself. Making it a criminal matter and solid grounds for impeachment
Semantics…
Are everything aren’t they?
PUBLIC.
MrKikestein
I can’t believe it, an intelligent comment
I think they should ask the prosecutors who weren’t doing their jobs why they were fired.
Then they should ask Bill Clinton why he had all 93 of them fired shortly after he took office back in ’93.
public under the oath on record
Publically under oath.
Man I pray that the dems don’t let that snake get away with this.
“intimidation by purge:”
I just noticed the article had the word purge in it, lol
PUBLIC AND UNDER OATH.
Under oath.
not that it matters–I expect they will lie anyhow
I think Paige should unblock MrKikestien.
Just another mistake in a long list of Bush Administration’s F-ups.
Wait a minute! Is Theologians_cafe commentship right wing or left?
I don’t know who any of us are anymore…
public. though i dun believe the whole under oath, just reading and hearing that Bush doesn’t want to have his aides to be put under a microscope means that he’s hiding something.
Mind you there are Republicans (people from Bush’s party) on the House and Senate Judiciary Committees (you can take it from there).
You know, we have already gone WAY beyond the gravity of Watergate, with what this administration has admitted to doing and been proven to have done.
But we the people are just SO apathetic. Democracy doesn’t work if we don’t get involved.
and I think trunthepaige is being way too confrontational and adversarial.
but that’s just me, apparently.
I was just looking for the stat that RugamuffinKing used. Good point. It is amazing how silly Bush looks until you compare him with other Presidents. How easily we forget.
“Then they should ask Bill Clinton why he had all 93 of them fired shortly after he took office back in ’93.” RagamuffinKing
I recommend Privately under oath.
They work for him at his pleasure, Bill Clinton fired 94 of them one of whom was investigating him and his dealings while governor. Not a word was said about it by these hypocrites.
You people are so damn ignorant on this. No wonder these politicians get away with being such hypocrites. They represent ignorant fools and they know it
Posted 3/21/2007 4:31 PM by trunthepaige
The difference is that Clinton had to have a vote to remove those people from office. Bush’s office slimed their way through it by using the Patriot Act ( I believe I could be thinking of the wrong one) that allows them to make decisions during times of crises WITHOUT consulting Congress. THAT is the difference. Incidentally, that particular clause was very recently revoked by our government so this cannot happen again. I love it when people call others ignorant in the face of their own ignorance!
Publicly, under oath. It seems a little suspicious that he thinks he would need to take such an action…
Of course they should testify publicly, they’re citizens right????
PUBLICLY under oath.
Publicly under oath.
Momentkeeper
Your wrong that’s not what happed at all. And your an idiot for believing such crap
He really likes destroying what little support he has, doesn’t he?
And thank you for calling my actually educating myself on this subject being “confrontational”. Yes i am and most of you are ignorant fools on this subject. And no one dares dispute my facts. Because that is what they are, Facts.
And yes I should unblock MrKikestein
Ahg…
This is baaaaad for democracy.
Who knows when it’ll be illegal to be a democrat?
Morison vs. Olson
S.P. Case.
It’ll go the same way I’m sure. I think we’ll see this in the S.P. by the end of the summer.
“Then they should ask Bill Clinton why he had all 93 of them fired shortly after he took office back in ’93.”
Posted 3/21/2007 5:02 PM by RagamuffinKing
Well, that normally happens when the new guiy comes in, just not ALL of them.
Momentkeeper IS right, mostly. Instead of Congress it’s the Senet (for some reason I can’t remember how to spell that). And I can’t remmeber what Act it is in, but it was slipped in there and nobody saw untill this incident. And it has(or will be shortly) been changed back.
I guessing that Pres. Bush will declare Pres. Privilage when the court orders come.
If congress decides to supeona them, then they have no choice but to go (Unless of course the president veto’s the decision and they don’t get enough votes a second time). Honestly though, Clinton did this in ’93 and no one gave a damn. I think people are just looking for a scandal.
Ok morons this is way it illegal to force executive branch members to testify. Take this case, no laws were broken, the president can hire and fire for any reason, just like president Bill Clinton did when he fired 93 federal prosecutors. If congress can call President staff into hearings at will, they can tie up the executive branch, making if no longer able to do its job.
The equivalent would be if the Presedent were to use his powers of criminal investigation every time congress had a close vote. He would called in 10 senators (all democrats) for questioning during every role call vote.
I know I so over all your heads . I am only an averages intellect, but in this group tonight I feel like an adult among babies.
Morison vs. Olson was about the constitutionality of the special prosecutors law. United_States_v._Nixon be closer case law to this topic. that and a bunch of much older cases going back to Thomas Jefferson
Hey Mr. Big Shot.
You’re TAGGED.
As soon as you have been blog tagged, you must consume yourself with the task of creating a weblog posting (hereafter known as a “blog”) containing 10 unlikely, unique, personal, disgusting, fascinating facts about yourself or events in your life.
Once you have completed this task you are rewarded with the opportunity to assign your friends this monumental undertaking.
Make sure you inform them via comment that they must do this.
Thanks!
We look forward to learning all about you!
Kaz
You know, there is a way display your [allegedly] superior intellect and stronger point without insulting everyone else here. That is not the way to “educate”, if indeed that is what you are doing.
Sorry squeakysoul but I am not only right but anyone that didn’t know this stuff already should have had enough sense to know they were ignorant on the subject. And stayed silent until they maybe read a little.
Publicly, under oath.
What’s Georgy Boy afraid of anyway?
And I am not educating anyone, I am abusing morons. These are not the type of people to care if they are ignorant. they have an opinion and will not let facts get in the way
you know what? people are gonna be in his face anyways
it just makes me wonder… where theres smoke, theres fire. so there’s probably some reason they need to silence these people this late in the presidency.
geez bush is a slack jawed ugly bastard
Do any of you honestly know what this is all about or is this the first you heard of it? and did you even hit the link to the story?
wow this is fishy
Is it just me or does trunthepaige sound like Borat?
Testifying is testifying as long as it is under oath. I believe that if they want it private, why not? Georgie has a point though, doing it publicly is a political move. What other reason? Accountability? That can still be upheld in private, under oath.
I’d be lying if I said I cared
I do think “W” has a point. If you want top, close advisors who will give you their honest, direct opinion about matters, they better have a little protection. He has offered for them to speak in private. I think they should take him up on the offer.
What do YOU think, Dan? You helped put this criminal in office, didn’t you? I don’t recall him speaking out against Ken Starr’s absurdly POLITICAL inquisition of Bill Clinton for much, much less of real substance.
wow… paige is really letting us “uneducated morons” have it! maybe she should try getting her mouth off of bush’s ass so we can actually have a democratic/ republic process. us liberals and those who find this all fishy have a right to speak up and say that this should be made public. if there is nothing to hide, then let it be known. why should we follow blindly into the light that is george bush’s political agenda? it is not a question of what political party we are apart of, it is if we can actually be American and stop hiding behind a veil that is our personal political agenda. we should be allowed to question our government’s actions when we find it necessary. we are allowed to speak up and protest against what we feel is wrong. do not call us Americans who wish to understand this issue better uneducated and stupid.
Eccentrique
You are a smart guy and know that no law is being broken. Keep your credibility on this one, your hate of Bush doesn’t change the law of the land.
“democratic/ republic process”
That would mean following the law of the land. but then that concept is over your head isn’t it? Or you don’t care and want to break the law because you don’t like Bush.
No one has addressed the facts other than me. And that is due to many here ether not knowing the facts or not liking them.
No one deserves special treatment.
I am being apethetic about this one. I don’t feel like reading about and I am going to say I don’t know. Too much going on. I want a fun post.
If they are going to tell the truth then there should be no objection to testifying under oath. If their intention is to be deceptive (lie) then an oath is the last thing they want to take. They fact they are fighting to avoid it should make everybody raise their eyebrows and wonder.
publicly.
just another expansion of executive power. to be rather metaohorical only so many weights can be placed on one side of the scale before some start to fall off and balance begins to be restored…
ummm metaphorical…
and under oath. public or private under oath.
in public!
this man is such an idiot
Publicly.
Be Patriotic = Impeach Bush
it looks like he’s about to break out in a west side sign in about two seconds…
WEST SIIIIIIIIIDE!!!!!
NO many people are addressing the facts Paige. You are just stuck in too far in your raging “I am better than everyone else” bitch agenda to see that. You are one of those people who are nothing but a net bully. “I am going to talk crap to everyone else and try to degrade their opinions to make myself look better.” Have fun with that. You loose any sense of anyone giving a crap about what you say when you are once again a nasty human being to those around you. /done with you.
*shrugs* I don’t care.
Publicly is the way I’d go, but eh… don’t care. They’ll do it the way they want to.
Archibald Cox. What a name.
Publicly and under oath
UNDER OATH!!!!
*rumbling* The sound of the founding father’s spinning in their graves. No one is above the law!!!
I haven’t decided how I feel on publicly vs. private, though my gut reaction without reading anything is public.
Either way, I believe that it should be private. And I don’t believe that presidents should really be able to just “fire at will.”
They should be questioned privately and not under oath. There is no crime being investigated. The problem with answering questions under oath is the possibility of perjury on a matter of no concern. Even if they are not under oath it is illegal to intentionally mislead Congress, so they would be compelled to tell the truth in answering questions about the firing of prosecutors even though they are not under oath. The private questioning would keep them from being trapped by having to answer questions that do not particularly pertain to the firings of the prosecutors. The only reason the Dems want them to testify under oath is to create an opportunity to catch them in a contradiction and then try to criminalize it.