Why NOT under oath?

[Outofdodge]

Originally Posted by Army_of_One

Shouldn't a President be able to discuss things in private with his advisers and not have it show up in the media the next day?

In normal circumstances I would say yes. If the administration had seen fit to fire all the DA's after the election this thing might not really have taken on the life it has. But firing 8 republican DA's and blaming it on their competence, then back pedaling that it's the President's priviledge regardless of their competency. Denying, then acknowledging White House involvement, etc etc and ad nauseum. Given Mr. Gonzales' inability to keep his feet out of his mouth during any public appearance this just tacks on the appearance of something to hide given this gang's inability to keep a story straight on other situations. This is all on top of the possibility that the two New Mexico lawmakers committed an ethics violation.

The people in question that Mr. Bush has said no oaths and no transcripts have shown themselves to be circumspect. It is true that even without an oath they were legally bound to tell the truth, problem is without the oath and transcripts there would be little chance of proving "who said what" should something which could be prosecuted come out of this, which I sincerely doubt it will. Unfortunately stupidity is not illegal.

[Outofdodge]

Originally Posted by Highwayman

There is no evidence that there was any wrongdoing with dismissing eight attorneys.

Sounds like a Clinton and Gore defense-remember "they found no evidence against me", or "no controlling legal authority"?

Originally Posted by Highwayman

President Klinton fired all but one, total of 93, all at once. Other Presidents before him fired attorneys. This is normal procedure and the Presidents don’t have to explain their reasons to anybody.

To compare this with Clinton's and others' firing of the DA's at the time of a change in administrations is an intellectual run around. No one disputes the President had the authority to fire them at any time, and if they had done that, then this storm of their making wouldn't amount to much more than a pimple. That they came out with various tales and impugned the competence of the fired republican DA's makes it seem suspicious at best.

[Outofdodge]

Originally Posted by wordsmythe

Evidently I don't think so. You're welcome to skip it if you don't care to read it.

The flaw with that argument is you have have to read them to know to skip them.

[wordsmythe]

Highway OOD pretty much summed it up firing everyone at the beginning and bringing in your own choices is much different than firing 8 to send a message to the rest about falling in line. Especially when at least 3 of those, San Diego, Arizona and Nevada, were in the process of investigating key Republicans and their removal pretty much killed those investigations.

Maybe there is no evidence of wrongdoing that's why there's an investigation to find out.

Bush say's sure you can talk to em but nobody takes notes and they can lie if they want to. Congress is a coequal part of our government that has let the executive branch build it's power far too much.

They all have to answer to each other for this to work.

W has taken signing statements and executive privilege too far not to answer some serious questions.

Since you can't stop bringing up the Clinton administration maybe you should look and see how many of his top advisers testified under oath in Congress.

OOD

Each headline was a tiny bit different on the development of this situation. I teach my students to skim things to see if they are relevant maybe you could try that.

[notyoubob]

The point, as I see it, is not the firing of the prosecutors, but rather the ability under the Patriot Act to allow a president, any president even a future Democrat, to appoint replacements without the advise and consent of the Senate. Thank goodness the Congress finally grew some huevos and removed that part of the ill-named Patriot Act.
The lesson here is that the checks and balance system only works if more than one party controls the trinity of our government.

[Highwayman]

Wordy, I bring up the Klinton years because often what you’re complaining about with Bush is no different than what was going on with Klinton. But we don’t have to stop there. I could bring up Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman who worked for years to protect a notorious racketeer named Thomas Pendergast in Kansas City MO. During their administrations they fired anyone that spoke up against Pendergast.

John F Kennedy, Robert Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson used the FBI and IRS to harass political opponents and it is well know about bugging Martin Luther King’s phones.

Even if these attorneys were fired for political reasons its damn small on the scandal scale. But I’m sure the Democrats in Congress will make a mountain out of a speed bump. Where you as a Democrat should be concerned isn’t with what Bush allegedly did but the fact that your Democrat majority is going to chase one potential scandal after another right up to the next election. By then the voters will be sick and tired of the childish political games instead of real issues being dealt with. Don’t plan on Democrats staying in power.

[TigerEyes]

Originally Posted by Army_of_One

Shouldn't a President be able to discuss things in private with his advisers and not have it show up in the media the next day?

Sure he can. Should his advisors be allowed to blatantly lie to the representatives we the people have chosen to represent our interests in Washington? Hell, no.

[lurker]

Originally Posted by TigerEyes

Sure he can. Should his advisors be allowed to blatantly lie to the representatives we the people have chosen to represent our interests in Washington? Hell, no.

I'd like to feel all warm a fuzzy about being truthful to politicians but I can't because they are the biggest bunch of lying bastards ever to assemble into two rooms....

[The Drifter]

i didnt read through any of this for content, frankly i don't give a damn about it. the one question i do have is why is there this whole "pres. Klinton" thing.
why "klinton." not the first time i've seen this, but it is kinda. insult? funny inside joke? just curious.

[lurker]

It indicates the level of respect.