Thursday, March 22, 2007

President Bush, I'm Confused.

I'm a simple person. I try to not pay attention to politics as much as I possibly can. However, I have a question and any insight anyone can give me would be greatly appreciated.

Allegedly, President Bush and his Gang (Posse, if you prefer) fired a bunch of United States Attorneys. These firings, for the most part, were not justified. I realize that these are not yet facts and are, at this point, only speculation. However, I don't trust Karl Rove as far as I could throw him and, believe me when I tell you, that ain't very far.

Now, the president says he will not allow certain parties to testify under oath even though they might be (may have already been, at this point) subpoenaed?! Would someone please tell me how this is legal by any stretch of the imagination?

Doesn't a subpoena compel a person to appear and testify under oath, no matter who your boss is? Isn't the whole purpose of having three separate branches of govenment to prevent such blatant...I mean...supposed abuses of power?


La Sirena said...

Yes, yes, you are right about subpoenas, Karl Rove, etc.

We're all confused, I think. And there is no nice way to explain it.

Larry Jones said...

First, my opinion: The Bush Administration is made up of lying thieves who would literally burst into flames if they had to take an oath to tell the truth.
The reality is that everybody in DC is rich, powerful and arrogant, and the law is simply what they negotiate it to be among themselves.

Jack said...

Anonymous said...

Yep. That thing that Jack sent, its all in my government book if you want to look at it. All that crap was on my last test.

Baby sis

Laurie said...

La Sirena - It's crazy, I tell you.

Larry - That would be one big bonfire.

Jack - Oh, that. I think I called bullshit on that way back in 1972, too.

Baby Sis - It's all starting to come back to me now. Watergate! Ugh!!

Jack said...

The part I don't get is why it matters whether they're under oath or not. Lying to Congress is a felony whether you swore to tell the truth or not. It's right there in 18 USC 1001.

Perhaps they figure that the President can pardon (or decline to prosecute) their crimes against the United States, but he can't save an oathbreaker from Hell.

Laurie said...

Jack - The whole oath thing bugs me the most. If you won't take an oath, you're lying. Period. End of story. At least give people the illusion you're telling the truth. Not that I was going to believe anything they said, at this point, anyway.

Jen T. (soon to be E.) said...

F***ing politicians...

(I don't have anything of substance to say. I'm just as confused.)

OldHorsetailSnake said...

Well, see, Bushy wants his boys to testify off the record. That way, their lies won't seem to be so bad.

But, yes, he can declare presidential secrecy and get away with it. But that doesn't raise his numbers any, does it.

Marinade Dave said...

Newt Gingrich was whoring around on his wife while attempting to hang Clinton for a lesser offense. So was Henry Hyde.

"At least they didn't do it in the White House," I heard them say, as if cheating only counts, depending on where it's done. Works both ways, too. Not the first time.

I have an answer to your question about subpoenas and testifying under oath:


Serena Joy said...

The fact that they're insisting on "no oath" tells us all we need to know.

I like the changes you've made to your blog. Looks great!

Laurie said...

Jen - Fucking politicians pretty much covers it.

Old Horsetail Snake - I think he's pretty much thrown in the towel at this point and is just doing whatever he pleases.

Dave - I never did understand the whole uproar over Clinton's sex life. So very un-European of us.

Serena Joy - Thanks. :)

NOMAD said...

I feel sorry for you to have such a representative as Bush ; I don't mean our is a good fair one too, but he did not do a mess in international relations

LG said...

I knew this blog was largely composed of where the best crawfish was, which local bands were playing where and drink tallys, but werent' you paying attention in Government class at TJ? Come on, your sister is a teacher for crying out loud and ought to help you with this.

These people serve at the presidents pleasure, meaning he can fire them because he does not like their hair. Now, in these cases, these prosecutors were refusing to persue certain cases dealing with drug and other border prosecution cases, so they're gone. There's no crime, nothing sneaky nothing illegal about it.

Now, here is another question: Why did President Clinton have Janet Reno fire ALL 93 Fed. Prosecutors on a single day? Basically the entire Federal system went up in smoke in a minute. Your homework is to look this up (google it) and report back on this blog my Monday morning.

LG said...

Homework extra credit: Why did President Clinton have Janet Reno attack a church, with people praying inside, and torch women and children simply because the preacher owned a few guns? Google Waco.

I don't want to be political here, but you guys have to pay attention to all of the facts and not go off based on a few grandstanding moves by a few individuals on the national stage.

By the way, this action earned Janet Reno, perhaps the history's most incompetent AG the nickname Janet Sterno.

Laurie said...

Nomad - I definitely think he made a bad situation worse in the Middle East.

LG - I remember Executive Privilege (now that everyone has helped me remember), but I guess it never occurred to me that the privilege could be extended to the WHOLE DAMN Executive Branch.

When I do a post about Bill Clinton, we'll talk about Bill Clinton. As a whole, politicians are not my favorite people and violence is rarely, dare I say, ever, a good solution for anything.

Laurie said...

LG - Part 2 regarding: " guys have to pay attention to all of the facts and not go off based on a few grandstanding moves by a few individuals on the national stage."

What makes you think we aren't paying attention? Just because former politicians did the same or similar stupid things but weren't mentioned in this post doesn't mean it's okay for Bush to do it but not Clinton.

Executive Privilege when applied to oral sex in the oval office vs. Executive Privilege when applied to breaking and entering (Watergate) are two different cupcakes, if you ask me.

In Bush's case, both sides are to blame for this thing becoming a circus. I repeat, I do not like politics in any form.

LG said...

"Executive Privelidge" does not even enter into the discussion - the attorneys general serve at the presidents pleasure.

This is like you changing the place that cuts your hair, then having the barbers union supoena you to explain under oath why, and the barbers union being in the paper every day yelling that you've broken some kind of pact, law or agreement where none had existed.

People who knew little about how hair cutting decisions are made would accuse you of all kinds of ugly things, putting people out of work, destroying the scissors industry, etc.

Well, I guess that's all for me, tell Red, your mama and everyone I said "hey"

Laurie said...

LG - My question wasn't about the firing of the U.S. Attorneys. It was about how the president can refuse to answer questions under oath and also how he can prevent people of his choice from responding to subpoenas or testifying under oath. That's where Executive Privilege comes into the discussion. The firings are peripheral to the discussion.

Laurie said...

LG ( - I will definitely tell mom and day you said hi! Happy Easter!!!

LG said...

The use of EP is the symptom. If folks weren't trying to make an issue out of a non-issue, they'd be no since in not answering a subpoena... Happy Easter to y'all too.

Laurie said...

LG - So, they should respond to the subpoena and, under oath, say that the U. S. Attorneys serve at the discretion of the president, but I guess that would have been too simple.

LG said...

You actually make a very good point. The problem lies with the attorneys doing the questioning that will waver over various subjects and attempt to catch someone with an imperfect memory to give a varying answer to the same general question over several days.

This is what we just went through with the Scooter Libby thing, next thing you know you have a perjury event borne out of a basic non-event to begin with.

We're in a lot of trouble in the world without these guys (all of them) playing these games to sway a few hundred thousand votes 18 months from now.

The democrats should have the patriotism to knock it off and the republicans should have the sack to tell them to knock it off, this gets us nowhere and makes us look foolish to the world. The next thing you know, we'll look so weak the Iranians will try to capture some of our soldiers, or journalists. We're looking like we did in 1979 - well, I could go on but picking on Jimmy Carter is like, well picking on a total idiot.

I like the new look of the blog by the way.

Grimm said...

I was going to take a pass on the post and not comment but after reading the extended discussion between yourself and lg I just had to say something.

I have no clue what you guys are saying.

LG said...

Grimm it's OK if you don't know what we're saying, the only problem would be if you knew more about American Idol, than what we're saying about what's going on in DC.

Laurie, I may just have to start my own blog! Just kidding, I don't know how y'all can do this everyday, it'd be so draining.

Laurie said...

Grimm - Don't worry. You aren't missing anything.

LG - You should definitely start your own blog! Also, I don't know about Grimm, but I know a lot more about what's going on with American Idol than I do about what's going on in Washington, DC. I like it that way. :P