Executive Privilege Abused Once More

[Kerberos]

You do realize that in the US, a basic principle of jurisprudence is that not only does the accused have the right to refuse to testify, but no conclusion is to be derived from such refusal, right?

You do realize that this a message board not a courtroom, right? We're under no constraint to stick our heads in the sand because some piece of relevant evidence isn't admissible in a courtroom for one reason or another.

 

[fishbob]

numbered for my convenience:

1 - This isn't about uncovering facts.
2 - This is using any rhetorical trick, no matter how dishonest, to attack Bush and anyone who doesn't unquestionly criticize him.

3 - Simply because I have a problem with the hypocrisy and dishonesty of their critics doesn't mean that I am defending them.
4 - Why are YOU defending THESE liars?
5 - And with childish attacks, to boot.

1 - I think you are grossly incorrect.
2 - Even more grossly incorrect.
3 - Sounds like you are. If not, you might want to adjust your rhetoric.
4 - When did I defend anybody? Which liars? What lies?
5 - Responding appropriately.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Art, instead of just voicing your dismay that we do not see the world as you do, perhaps you could actually try to discuss a single issue. So far everything you are saying dodges the issues.

How do you know that no crimes have been committed by the Bush administration?

How do you know none of the federal attorneys were fired because they wouldn't go along with something illegal?

Could you discuss the evidence instead of simply denying there is any? Take Tim Griffin and the voter caging incident. That one has the most clear evidence. Griffin was involved in purging legal voters from voter registration roles. Griffin worked directly for Rove, not just in some campaign office. The Department of Justice knew about the caging. Gonzales knew one of the fired attorneys was fired to give Griffin the job. And it was in a state that will likely be a key state in the 2008 election.

Do you just think election rigging is not possible? It can't happen here?

 

[Upchurch]

No, it doesn't. Suppose someone is accused of murder, and the police want to search his house. If he refused, saying that it would be a violation of his privacy, is he claiming that murder is a private matter that is no one else's business?

Art, are you arguing for or against investigating Presidential abuse of power here? If someone commits murder, they should be investigated and prosecuted. If a government official is corrupt, they should be investigated and prosecuted.

I don't know why this is so difficult to understand. Public service is not afforded the same protections as private life. That doesn't mean that the protections of private life can be stretched indefinitely. It does mean that the "protections" of public service can be stretched even less so.

The people have a right to know what is being done in their names with the power that they have given their elected officials. Pragmatically, there are limitations right in the form of national security, but I don't think anyone is claiming that we are talking about matters of national security.

But it is applicable to the claim the Congress can investigate anything it wants to, which it what it was a response to.

I thought the context was obvious, but you don't seem to see the distinction, so I'll clarify: Congress has the right to investigate anything about the President's execution of his duties it wants to.

Do you honestly think we're talking about breakfast cereal, here?

I've already answered that.

But not the mechanism of how they do it. They have a hearing. They ask people to bring them materials they need and to testify. If the material or people do not come willingly, they must subpoena. Congress does not go to people to ask questions or spend hours in the records room. People and records go to Congress.

This isn't about uncovering facts. This is using any rhetorical trick, no matter how dishonest, to attack Bush and anyone who doesn't unquestionly criticize him.

Evidence?

It is very much about uncovering what the White House is doing. We already have one conviction of a White House official committing perjury on a subject undermining national security and another case of perjury well on its way.

I'm not, and even if I were, it wouldn't be an equivocation fallacy.

Are you saying you aren't equating the private life to public service? Would you like me to show you exactly where you have done this? Do you require only one example or would you like all of the examples in this thread?

You do realize that in the US, a basic principle of jurisprudence is that not only does the accused have the right to refuse to testify, but no conclusion is to be derived from such refusal, right? If someone were accused of a murder, and refused to allow the police to search his house, would you be asking why he isn't doing everything to cooperate with the investigation?

Do you realize that the police can compel the search with a warrant? Do you realize that someone cannot plead the fifth arbitrarily?

 

[Art Vandelay]

If Congress has the power to issue subpeonas than that is not illegal search and seizure,

Then, not than.

You do realize that this a message board not a courtroom, right? We're under no constraint to stick our heads in the sand because some piece of relevant evidence isn't admissible in a courtroom for one reason or another.

That doesn't mean that the same principle is not applicable. "If he's not guilty, then he has nothing to hide" is a flagrantly anit-American attitude, whether it's presented in a courtroom or on a message board.

1 - I think you are grossly incorrect.
2 - Even more grossly incorrect.
3 - Sounds like you are. If not, you might want to adjust your rhetoric.
4 - When did I defend anybody? Which liars? What lies?
5 - Responding appropriately.

1,2- You have nothing to back those positions up
3- So either I approve of every criticism of Bush, no matter how hypocritical, or I am supporting Bush. A bit ironic, given the criticism of the "you're with us or against us" speech, no?
4- "Leftists my left buttock. People around here tend to want to uncover facts." In other words "People aren't posting this stuff out oif partisanship, their motives are purely to get to the truth". That defending them. And skeptigirl has lied repeatedly, misattributing quotes to me, and making outrageous accusations about Bush. This is in addition to the rampant dishonesty she has displayed elsewhere.
5- How so?

I thought the context was obvious, but you don't seem to see the distinction, so I'll clarify: Congress has the right to investigate anything about the President's execution of his duties it wants to.

I do not recognize your authority to tell me what Tokorona meant. The claim was that Congress has the right to investigate anything. Including breakfast cereal.

Evidence?

Just look at skeptigirl's posts.

Would you like me to show you exactly where you have done this?

The key is to show me where I have actually done this, not simply show me where you think I have done it.

Do you realize that the police can compel the search with a warrant?

Which means that they have oversight from another branch of government (judicial). The executive branch is claiming to have oversight over how Congress uses its power to investigate the executive branch, and Congress is saying that nope, no other branch of government gets to exercise oversight.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Art Vandelay: "This isn't about uncovering facts. This is using any rhetorical trick, no matter how dishonest, to attack Bush and anyone who doesn't unquestionly criticize him."

Upchurch: "Evidence?"

Art Vandelay: "Just look at skeptigirl's posts."

Rhetorical dishonest tricks to attack Bush are evidenced in my posts? Could you please point them out? Maybe it would help you face your distortions in perception to do so.

People in this thread are patiently asking you to actually make a case for your position. But if your position is just a fantasy in your head and you can't make any case for your beliefs, then I conclude you have no case. You only have the bizarre fantasy world you seem to be living in.

 

[Darth Rotor]

You claim Bush can fire attorneys for any reason whatsoever.
The argument is no, he cannot. Because in this case he is using the Department of Justice to rig the 08 elections and get top Republicans off the hook on corruption investigations.

SG: this is a bit of a compositional nitpick here.

You are mixing two (three?) points incorrectly. He can indeed fire attorneys at will, but he may also have done so in a punative manner due to their not following the alleged plan to rig elections, or use litigation in a dubious manner, or any number of any other nasty things that are alleged to have happened recently and which Congress is trying to get a grip on.

"No he cannot fire them" (not true) because in thie case he is using (facts not in evidence, though certainly alleged) is a bit of a non-sequitur, or at the least not related at the same level.

The "Because" does not fit the opening clause to the succeeding remarks.

DR

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

There is literal posting, very tedious, causes me to spend many an extra hour writing policies in my consulting work. And then there is making a point.

Technically Bush can fire .... but.....yadda yadda yadda.

It would constitute obstruction of justice for Bush to fire any federal attorney if the motivation was to abort a corruption case from going forward. When you have more than one law, people often argue as if only one of the laws existed. Lots of laws overlap, contradict, and supersede other laws. Arguing Bush can fire federal attorneys at will ignores the fact there are other laws such as obstruction of justice laws which also apply.

Same goes for other cases of abuse of power. Just because Bush had the authority to pardon Libby if someone would pursue the possibility the pardon was to prevent Libby from testifying against Rove, Cheney or Bush, then the pardon law may be superseded by an obstruction of justice charge. I doubt anyone is going to pursue that case but they could.

And you can't use the DoJ to rig the 2008 elections by voter disenfranchisement schemes. I'm sure that charge if the case were made would also supersede the ability to fire attorneys at will.

 

[fishbob]

Originally posted by me:
1 - I think you are grossly incorrect.
2 - Even more grossly incorrect.
3 - Sounds like you are. If not, you might want to adjust your rhetoric.
4 - When did I defend anybody? Which liars? What lies?
5 - Responding appropriately.

1,2- You have nothing to back those positions up
3- So either I approve of every criticism of Bush, no matter how hypocritical, or I am supporting Bush. A bit ironic, given the criticism of the "you're with us or against us" speech, no?
4- "Leftists my left buttock. People around here tend to want to uncover facts." In other words "People aren't posting this stuff out oif partisanship, their motives are purely to get to the truth". That defending them. And skeptigirl has lied repeatedly, misattributing quotes to me, and making outrageous accusations about Bush. This is in addition to the rampant dishonesty she has displayed elsewhere.
5- How so?

1,2 - Nothing except reality. Oh yeah, and facts. And, as I stated, this is my opinion. You want to support your assertions, go right ahead. Until that time, I think you are wrong.

3 - Apparently we are separated by a common language, because I am having trouble making any sense out of your statement. I do not agree with every criticism of Bush, but - based on news reports and other sources - I do agree with many of the criticisms regarding his competence, integrity, and the variance between what he says and what he does. I don't expect any more from you. Unless you are psychic (big money in that by the way) you have no way of knowing that it would be hypocritical of me to criticize Bush for his snappy wardrobe, but my criticism of his public speaking ability would not be at all hypocritical.

4 - You have no way of knowing whether people are posting this stuff out of partisanship or not. You don't know motives - you have no basis for your flaming assertions. And you just made some pretty serious accusations toward skeptigirl. List some specifics or face the same accusations yourself.

5 - Your posts convey an attitude that indicates to me an intellectual level of understanding that anything more than a childish response would be lost upon. I am waiting to be proved wrong.

 

[Ziggurat]

Same goes for other cases of abuse of power. Just because Bush had the authority to pardon Libby if someone would pursue the possibility the pardon was to prevent Libby from testifying against Rove, Cheney or Bush, then the pardon law may be superseded by an obstruction of justice charge. I doubt anyone is going to pursue that case but they could.

This is wishful thinking on your part. Bush can pardon anyone he wants to, for any reason he wants to. This is a power granted by the Constitution, and no law passed by Congress can constrain or punish its exercise.

 

[fishbob]

This is wishful thinking on your part. Bush can pardon anyone he wants to, for any reason he wants to. This is a power granted by the Constitution, and no law passed by Congress can constrain or punish its exercise.

Skeptigirl's point makes a certain amount of sense - but you are probably right.

If Bush can pardon at will unconstrained and unpunished, he still has to face public opinion, he can still be investigated to find out the whys and wherefores, he can still encounter consequences other than those regarding the pardon. If he pardoned Scooter to keep Scooter from blabbing, Bush could still face the consequences of whatever it was he wanted Scooter to keep quiet about. And the pardon is a big fat bullseye for where to start investigating.

 

[Art Vandelay]

3 - Apparently we are separated by a common language, because I am having trouble making any sense out of your statement. I do not agree with every criticism of Bush, but - based on news reports and other sources - I do agree with many of the criticisms regarding his competence, integrity, and the variance between what he says and what he does.

Then on what basing do you accuse me of defending Bush?

Unless you are psychic (big money in that by the way) you have no way of knowing that it would be hypocritical of me to criticize Bush for his snappy wardrobe,

When did I say you're hypocritical for doing that?

4 - You have no way of knowing whether people are posting this stuff out of partisanship or not.

Bull****. Skeptigirl has made it clear that she has nothing but contempt for anyone who doesn't agree with her politics.

And you just made some pretty serious accusations toward skeptigirl. List some specifics or face the same accusations yourself.

If you've not even going to bother reading this thread, then why should I respond to you?

5 - Your posts convey an attitude that indicates to me an intellectual level of understanding that anything more than a childish response would be lost upon. I am waiting to be proved wrong.

A position not arrived at by logic cannot by changed through logic. That you refuse to acknowledge that skeptigirl is a jackass, and instead accuse me of being childish, shows the futility of trying to reason with you.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

This is wishful thinking on your part. Bush can pardon anyone he wants to, for any reason he wants to. This is a power granted by the Constitution, and no law passed by Congress can constrain or punish its exercise.

Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution gives the president "Power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment."

Since the action one would take against Bush would be an impeachment action, then the fact he could not be convicted on the obstruction of justice laws would be irrelevant.

So once again, it depends on what you are looking at here. If it were to be proved via other evidence that pardoning Libby was specifically done to prevent him from testifying had Libby threatened to spill the beans if he wasn't pardoned could easily be considered impeachment grounds. One of Nixon's three counts was obstruction of justice.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...

Bull****. Skeptigirl has made it clear that she has nothing but contempt for anyone who doesn't agree with her politics....

Pure utter nonsense.

Art, you continue to avoid answering any real questions with this kind of reply. I don't have contempt for you, I actually feel sorry for you. You don't think things through, you just mold incoming data to fit your mistaken beliefs.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Technically Bush can fire.

Correct.

It would constitute obstruction of justice for Bush to fire any federal attorney if the motivation was to abort a corruption case from going forward.

Yes! Proving that is the trick, yes?

When you have more than one law, people often argue as if only one of the laws existed. Lots of laws overlap, contradict, and supersede other laws.

yes! *does happy dance*

Arguing Bush can fire federal attorneys at will ignores the fact there are other laws such as obstruction of justice laws which also apply.

NO NO and for a third time NO! It ignores nothing, it is an attempt to extract and organize the details in a coherent fashion, and to separate the allegation from the assertion from the rumor.

Same goes for other cases of abuse of power.

Exercise of Constitutional power. Fact. Abuse = your emotional interpretation. (By the way, I want to see Scooter behind bars. Grrrrrrrr. Lying sack of crap.)

Just because Bush had the authority to pardon Libby if someone would pursue the possibility the pardon was to prevent Libby from testifying against Rove, Cheney or Bush, then the pardon law may be superseded by an obstruction of justice charge.

And this is where you lose half your audience. It's like watching me make a daquari in a blender.

I doubt anyone is going to pursue that case but they could.

And you can't use the DoJ to rig the 2008 elections by voter disenfranchisement schemes.

You aren't supposed to, but someone might be trying to. Your source, the BBC attention seeker, seems to think that was going on. (That other thread)

I'm sure that charge if the case were made would also supersede the ability to fire attorneys at will.

Actually, what I think would happen would be that the firing of attorneys, if linked by the evidence to a clear conspiracy to defraud the electoral process, would be evidence to establish motive of an unethical use of executive power for illegal purposes. No need to curb that power to hire and fire, if it is rarely abused.

Draconianism sucks.

DR

 

[fishbob]

Then on what basing do you accuse me of defending Bush?

Seems to me that it's Congress that's abusing its privilige.

And does Congress have the right to subpoena anyone simply to satisfy their curiosity? If they want to know what Bush eats for breakfast, can they subpoena the White House cooks? Or is there such a thing as privacy? The hypocrisy here stinks. Leftists complain about Bush pushing for more powers to violate people's privacy to fight terrorism, and they complain. When Congress violates privacy to investigate completely legal, albeit perhaps unseemly, behavior, it's Bush that's blamed. If Congress were controlled by Republicans, and they were handing out Contempt of Congress charges for people refusing to cooperate with invasive terrorism investigations, I'm sure the Left would be screaming bloody murder.

If that means something other than a defense of the Bush administration, please clarify.

By the way;

Bull****. Skeptigirl has made it clear that she has nothing but contempt for anyone who doesn't agree with her politics.

is unsupported and quite childish. Time out for you. Go to your room, young man.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It doesn't surprise me that it is hard for people to believe there are real crimes here, DR. I remember my brother-in-law telling me when Nixon was about in this stage of his impeachment that, "all Presidents commit crimes". In other words, nothing to see here, move along. He was a cop, by the way.

I posted a heck of a lot of stuff on the fired attorneys and voter disenfranchisement schemes in 4 different states that just happened to potentially be the location of key races in 2008. The caging incident you seem to still think was only evidenced by "supposed" emails no one has seen, has already been admitted to by Gooding and Griffin. And the senior members of the Republican Party implicated themselves when they tried to make excuses for the list of addresses obtained by said BBC attention getter.

Congress is now digging into Miers', Rove's and one other member of Bush's administration's roles in the firing of the attorneys. There is a separate issue of the illegal wiretapping as an undercurrent. The GSA has now been implicated in using the office to campaign for 2008 Congressional seats and there is some quid pro quo with a no bid account for Sun Microsystems I've yet to read the details of. Ms Doan from that department is facing perjury charges along with Gonzales.

And you just think, nothing going on here that might be a snowball on a hill? Is this really the usual 'abuse' of power you prefer to label, "Exercise of Constitutional power"?

I don't think so and the fact that people who really haven't delved into all of it aren't yet seeing the picture does not in any way make me question the fact that I am.

 

[Upchurch]

The executive branch is claiming to have oversight over how Congress uses its power to investigate the executive branch,

You are correct and the executive is not.

and Congress is saying that nope, no other branch of government gets to exercise oversight.

Where did you get the underlined idea?

 

[Art Vandelay]

By the way; is unsupported and quite childish. Time out for you. Go to your room, young man.

How in the world is calling someone a zombie not contempt? Making bizarre claim, refusing to provide any evidence, and them posting monster posts with no point? And how is daring to point out when some is being rude "childish"? Telling someone to go to their room because they refuse to put up with crap from someone who agrees with you, now that's childish.

Where did you get the underlined idea?

The judicial branch doesn't have oversight. So if they refuse executive oversight, then there's no oversight.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...
NO NO and for a third time NO! It ignores nothing, it is an attempt to extract and organize the details in a coherent fashion, and to separate the allegation from the assertion from the rumor.

Exercise of Constitutional power. Fact. Abuse = your emotional interpretation. ...

Your source, the BBC attention seeker, seems to think that was going on. (That other thread)

Actually, what I think would happen would be that the firing of attorneys, if linked by the evidence to a clear conspiracy to defraud the electoral process, would be evidence to establish motive of an unethical use of executive power for illegal purposes. No need to curb that power to hire and fire, if it is rarely abused.

Draconianism sucks.

DR

I don't believe I said anything about curbing the power to appoint federal prosecutors.

But as for everything else, did you catch PBS NOW tonight? I posted it in my 2008 conspiracy thread but wanted to remind you it addresses this post of yours.