Originally Posted By gadzuux >> It wasn't with the Clinton administration. << That is correct. Clinton honored every single request from congress for members of his administration to testify - for whatever reason - under oath. About forty requests in all. He never refused a single one. And this whole "grand tradition" of executive privilege was essentially unheard of before nixon, so it's not all that much of a 'tradition' at all.
Originally Posted By Mr X Wow, what a liar that guy is! "this is a not entirely analogous situation" nice cover. "What we are doing is we are holding apart confidential communications between advisers and the president, and that is pretty standard practice in White Houses" Which would be, executive priviledge. Right? Wow. He lies better than Clinton did!
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Remember how they originally said the attorneys were fired for bad performance? And how in the case of David Iglesias of NM, specifically they cited his bad performance about going after voter fraud? Turns out the DOJ had not only praised his efforts on voter fraud, they considered him so good at it that they twice chose him to train other attorneys in going after it. <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/18/AR2007031801077.html" target="_blank">http://www.washingtonpost.com/ wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/18/AR2007031801077.html</a> "One of the U.S. attorneys fired by the Bush administration after Republican complaints that he neglected to prosecute voter fraud had been heralded for his expertise in that area by the Justice Department, which twice selected him to train other federal prosecutors to pursue election crimes. David C. Iglesias, who was dismissed as U.S. attorney for New Mexico in December, was one of two chief federal prosecutors invited to teach at a "voting integrity symposium" in October 2005. The symposium was sponsored by Justice's public integrity and civil rights sections and was attended by more than 100 prosecutors from around the country, according to an account by Iglesias that a department spokesman confirmed." (snip) "Sen. Pete V. Domenici (R-N.M.) cited suspected voter fraud in complaints about Iglesias to the Justice Department, officials have said. Iglesias and another U.S. attorney fired in December, John McKay of Seattle, said they were surprised by the White House's explanation because they had coordinated closely with Justice attorneys in handling allegations of fraudulent voting in recent elections. Justice officials had never expressed disagreement with their judgment, the two said." Moreover, Iglesias is himself a Republican, an evangelical, and until this flap had been considered an up and comer in NM Republican circles. Now the right-wing blogs are smearing him like crazy, accusing him of being a lefty and the usual nonsense. It looks very much like Domenici and others in NM wanted Iglesias to make headlines charging Dem. voter fraud just before the elections. Iglesias investigated, and didn't find any "there there" - i.e. didn't think there was enough to warrant an investigation. Remember, he's a Republican himself and an expert on what constitutes voter fraud and what does not. By refusing to prosecute what didn't need to be prosecuted, he incurs the wrath of Domenici, Gonzalez, and the right-wing world in general. Amazing.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/03/21/dobbs.March22/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/03/ 21/dobbs.March22/index.html</a> Lou Dobbs, of all people, may have it right here calling all involved a bunch of "buffoons". Dobbs is more concerned about economic related issues as a rule. The energy being expended over this issue ticks him off. Some excerpts: "An incompetent attorney general, who says he wasn't fully aware that nearly 10 percent of the U.S. attorneys who work for him throughout the country were being fired and permitted the 110,000-person Justice Department that he leads to give inaccurate information at best, or simply lie about it at worst, to the Congress and the American people, has the full confidence of the president who's lost the confidence of most people. And this is what passes for a big-time, dramatic, historic constitutional crisis in 21st century America? You've got to be kidding. This is the most partisan, politically driven administration in history, and we're all supposed to be surprised by its conduct and motivation in the firing of these U.S. attorneys? Please." and "While this president's so-called free trade policies continue to bleed the nation and the economy of millions of jobs and add to a $5 trillion mountain of trade debt, and while our public schools continue to fail a generation of young Americans, this Congress chooses to invest its energy and time in pure partisan blather and cheap political theatrics."
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>Clinton honored every single request from congress for members of his administration to testify - for whatever reason - under oath.<< Of course, he also instructed them to lie, including filing false affidavits. But it's the thought that counts.
Originally Posted By jonvn And we have that on record someplace that he instructed people to lie under oath? In any case, executive privilege was first used by Thomas Jefferson.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>And we have that on record someplace that he instructed people to lie under oath?<< Yes, as a matter of fact. Go through various news accounts at the time and you will find that Clinton gave deliberately misleading statements to any number of his subordinates, with instructions to repeat the statements in hearing testimony. He actually encouraged Monica Lewinsky to file a false affidavit. (In December of '97 he encouraged her to lie about their relationship in an investigation of the Paula Jones matter; Lewinsky did just that in January of '98.) He further invoked Executive Privilege (in March of '98) and it took a federal judge to get him to drop it. He still invoked attorney-client privilege to keep Bruce Lindsay from testifying. He also attempted legal end runs to keep Sidney Blumenthal, Secret Service agents, and White House staff from testifying. In each case, it took a judge's legal ruling against him before testimony could be given. Clinton did successfully invoke attorney-client privilege to keep notes taken by the late Vince Foster off the record, only after the Supreme Court ruled that such privelege extends beyond the grave. There's nothing sinister or even particularly suspicious about any of this. Clinton did what anyone in his position would do. But it is a far cry from the revisionist history presented here: >>Clinton honored every single request from congress for members of his administration to testify - for whatever reason - under oath. About forty requests in all. He never refused a single one.<< Just not true. Clinton made a great effort, through his lawyers, to keep any number of people off the stand. Only when he had exhausted all legal means did he "fully cooperate."
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< He further invoked Executive Privilege (in March of '98) and it took a federal judge to get him to drop it. >>> So, do you expect President Bush to comply with a federal judge's orders if they say that executive privilege doesn't apply in a situation where the President wants it to or thinks that it does?
Originally Posted By DlandDug I am fairly confident that Bush will use all legal means available to him, just as others have done before. And if all efforts are to no avail, he will then "do the right thing."
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< I am fairly confident that Bush will "do the right thing." >>> What makes you so confident that he'll change?
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< Unlike what has happened when CIA officials have leaked to reporters, Ms. Plame's "outing" did not harm our national security at all. I love my country, but I'm not at all disgusted about what has happened to Ms Plame. >>> DouglasDubh, as smart as you are, it continues to amaze me how you just lap up whatever Rush tells you to think.
Originally Posted By SuperDry "Document: Gonzales attended meeting on attorney firings" <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/24/fired.attorneys/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITI CS/03/24/fired.attorneys/index.html</a> <<< Gonzales told reporters last week that he "was not involved in any discussions about what was going on." The officials said that the participants in the meeting -- which included Gonzales and his chief of staff, Kyle Sampson -- could not "rule in or out" if the final list of eight attorneys to be fired was signed off at the meeting or if the list was even discussed. The officials contend that Gonzales' attendance at this meeting is not contradictory to what he has previously said -- that he was not involved in the details of the firings or in selecting the specific prosecutors. >>> Well, how about that? If you carefully read the above, you'll notice that the last statement appears to rely on what might be described as a semantic argument, relying on either a hyper-literal interpretation of what was said or an unnatural interpretation other than what would commonly be used. As an aside, does this technique remind you of anyone around these parts? Another part of the article quoted a DOJ spokesman as saying "although there is no evidence to suggest ..." I want to take this opportunity to point out this particular semantic trick. Whenever someone says "there is no evidence" and does not also say something along the lines of "it didn't happen" or "I know it to be false," then that should raise warning flags in your mind. Often when asked about whether this or that happened, the response will include the phrase "there is no evidence." This is interpreted by most people as a denial, even though it's not. This phrase can be used deliberately when someone wants to put on the appearance of denying something without actually doing so (perhaps because they know that it is actually true). For example, if Gonzales actually had been involved in alleged discussions about the US Attorney firings, someone that was physically present at such a meeting and therefore knows without a doubt that it happened can honestly say "there is no evidence that it happened" if asked about it if they know that there was no record of it happening. Most people will interpret this as a denial, which of course is the intended result. If they had said "It didn't happen, and there is no evidence that it happen" then that's another matter. Word to the wise: whenever you see the phrase "there is no evidence" watch very carefully what else is said. If it's not also accompanied by an explicit denial, then there's a good chance that it's not actually a denial.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< Word to the wise: whenever you see the phrase "there is no evidence" watch very carefully what else is said. If it's not also accompanied by an explicit denial, then there's a good chance that it's not actually a denial. >>> To follow up on my own post, consider why someone would do the above. If they really believe that something didn't happen, why not just come out and say so? That would be the most natural thing to do. When people go to great effort to give the impression that they're saying one thing but actually say another, you should carefully consider what their motivations for doing so are.
Originally Posted By Mr X So, SuperDry, since I've been reading quite a few people say "there is no evidence that the subprime meltdown will spill over into the larger economy", what am I actually reading? Oh, sorry. Off topic.
Originally Posted By SuperDry ^^^ I'm glad you asked! As a point of order, I'll say that the situation I talked about and the one you talked about are fundamentally different situations. I was talking about people discussing things that may or may not have already happened, whereas you're talking about things that might happen in the future. To directly address your quote about the subprime market, I would think that someone using such language about future events would be hedging their bets: that is, although they are de facto making a prediction about the future, they are doing so in a way that it can't be held against them should their prediction turn out to be wrong.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Well, how about that? If you carefully read the above, you'll notice that the last statement appears to rely on what might be described as a semantic argument, relying on either a hyper-literal interpretation of what was said or an unnatural interpretation other than what would commonly be used.> Excellent summation, SuperDry, and excellent point about the whole "there is no evidence" ploy. But despite what the Gonzalez people might say, their current attempt: "that he was not involved in the details of the firings or in selecting the specific prosecutors" certainly doesn't match the previous "was not involved in ANY discussions about what was going on." <As an aside, does this technique remind you of anyone around these parts?> Oh, I just don't know... who could it be...?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <DouglasDubh, as smart as you are, it continues to amaze me how you just lap up whatever Rush tells you to think.> I enjoy listening to Rush, but I don't listen to him regularly. I certainly don't "lap up" whatever he says. While it may be true that something may have happened and yet no evidence is available, it is unlikely. Claiming something happened when there is no evidence to back you up is a little foolish.
