Cheney's Office: Part of the Executive Branch or Not?

[Ivan Seeking]

Obviously he thinks so.

...In an eight-page letter to Cheney on Thursday, Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., also charged that Cheney or his top staffers tried to abolish the Information Security Oversight Office earlier this year after its director tried repeatedly to force Cheney's office to comply with the presidential order.

...Some legal scholars and government-secrecy experts noted the irony in Cheney's stance that his office is not fully part of the executive branch, given his claims of executive privilege when refusing to provide information requested by Congress.
[continued]

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003758120_cheney22.html

So he is part of the executive branch is when it's convienent, but he's not when it's not. Which is it?

These guys make Nixon look like a Boy Scout. I can't even begin to express the contempt, no, the hatred felt towards this administration. At this point it is beyond words. IMO, Cheney and Bush are a greater threat to Constutional law than any terrorist ever could be.

 

[ptabor]

hahaha, Ivan - man Dick HAS to do that. It's the only way to keep the terrorists from murdering you. Don't you see? IT'S THE ONLY WAY!In all seriousness, this is apalling. I've not heard one word of this on any "mainstream" ( i.e. television ) news source. Has anyone?

Such news needs to be disseminated far and wide to every citizen. I'd be willing to bet more people know Paris Hilton is in jail than are aware of even half the fiascos of the current administration.

 

[edward]

hahaha, Ivan - man Dick HAS to do that. It's the only way to keep the terrorists from murdering you. Don't you see? IT'S THE ONLY WAY!


In all seriousness, this is apalling. I've not heard one word of this on any "mainstream" ( i.e. television ) news source. Has anyone?

Such news needs to be disseminated far and wide to every citizen. I'd be willing to bet more people know Paris Hilton is in jail than are aware of even half the fiascos of the current administration.

Cheney is an evil person. He has managed to give himself presidential powers without having to be held accountable for anything. It is as if he is running a secret presidency within the recognized presidency.

yet as you mentioned the news media would rather cover trivial crap. It is all about money now, sensationalism sells. PBS is about the last bastion of valid news reporting.

 

[turbo]

PBS is about the last bastion of valid news reporting.

Even PBS is crap, now. Have you ever watched Gwen Ifill ask a politician a tough, pointed question? She lobs softballs, and she acts apologetic even then. About the only place you can find real investigative reporting now is on Democracy Now!, when Amy Goodman invites real journalists on the show. TV news is all about news-reading and not about digging and reporting.

 

[edward]

Even PBS is crap, now. Have you ever watched Gwen Ifill ask a politician a tough, pointed question? She lobs softballs, and she acts apologetic even then. About the only place you can find real investigative reporting now is on Democracy Now!, when Amy Goodman invites real journalists on the show. TV news is all about news-reading and not about digging and reporting.

You are probably right to a great extent. I guess I was thinking about several of the Bill Moyers recent programs such as, Selling The War".

As far as Cheney goes here is a link that contains an interesting video depiction of Cheneys secret government.

http://www.progressivedailybeacon.com/more.php?page=opinion&id=1457

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Even PBS is crap, now. Have you ever watched Gwen Ifill ask a politician a tough, pointed question? She lobs softballs, and she acts apologetic even then. About the only place you can find real investigative reporting now is on Democracy Now!, when Amy Goodman invites real journalists on the show. TV news is all about news-reading and not about digging and reporting.

I agree about Ifill. She just doesn't have the edge needed for serious investigative reporting. Lehrer is still pretty good though. Moyers is almost always good, and I think Russert still does a superb job on Meet the Press. The CBS Sunday show Face the Nation is a joke ever since Rather went down. But I do still like Stephanopoulis on This Week.

Anyway, this should hit the evening news tonight... at least I would hope!

 

[ray b]

I really really hope that SOB goes to jail to die there
he is an very very evil man without a oz of goodness
but is very good at covering his boney rear end
and letting others take the fall

 

[ray b]

saddly john stewert and his ''fake news'' is about the best out there
how sad is that!

 

[edward]

Is Cheney safe in the bunker of his mind

Cheney on a number of occasions claimed that he is not a part of the Executive Branch. Lately I have been reading that at times he has claimed that he is not a part of the Legislative Branch. He seem to change branches depending on who wants information from him.

Has this turkey and his Halliburton lawyers found or ask Bush to give him some loop hole that the rest of the country is unaware of ?? It is time to get rid of the dirty laundry, but with the Supreme Court stacked I don't think it will happen.

I have seen fellow Republicans speak out against Bush but never against Cheney.

Here is a video clip that was on Fox news arguing both sides.

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Fox_pundit_Cheney_in_secure_undisclosed_0624.html

 

[BobG]

The Washington Post is running a four part series on the roles Cheney has played in the White House.

Vice president has shaped his times as no other has before

 

[Cyrus]

Although I must admit, I found Amy Goodman to be very Liberal and annoying at first; I do enjoy her show. The quality of her news is far beyond what you can find on most other sources.

My two sources of news are Amy Goodman and Charlie Rose.

 

[edward]

The Washington Post is running a four part series on the roles Cheney has played in the White House.

Vice president has shaped his times as no other has before

Great link Bob

This reads like some kind of spy counter spy novel. This is the type of activity that was going on in the old Soviet Union.

The article hints that Bush still calls the shots when Cheney goes off the deep end, but good god why should Cheney have this much control ?

So far it appears that just about everything that Bush did in regards to war and prisoner treatment shortly after 911 was initiated by Cheney.

 

[K.J.Healey]

Just an update:
At the end it says :
"

Meanwhile, on Capitol Hill, one of Cheney's archenemies is now crafting a bill that would stop all funding for Cheney's office.

"He's acting as if he's unaccountable -- a whole fourth branch of government unto himself. So my view is if you're not in the executive branch we shouldn't fund you as the executive branch," Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill., said.

Emanuel is set to introduce his bill this week. The vice president's spokeswoman accused Emanuel of "playing politics."
"

http://www.abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=3316434&page=1

 

[edward]

The Washington Post Blog has all four parts of their series on Cheney available. The wednesday part is, of course, not yet click-able.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/cheney/

 

[baywax]

News about the US Vice President from 57 minutes ago:

Cheney Role As Power Broker In Spotlight Again (Reuter's Foundation)

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N26247653.htm

What I still don't understand is how all these diagrams of "secret train cars" and "semis full of WMDs" that were shown at the UN (to gain support for an invasion) didn't get this admin thrown out of office immediately when they were proven to be false, misleading and otherwise b*******.

 

[edward]

News about the US Vice President from 57 minutes ago:

Cheney Role As Power Broker In Spotlight Again (Reuter's Foundation)

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N26247653.htm

What I still don't understand is how all these diagrams of "secret train cars" and "semis full of WMDs" that were shown at the UN (to gain support for an invasion) didn't get this admin thrown out of office immediately when they were proven to be false, misleading and otherwise b*******.

It was along time before the majority of the American people realized that the entire WMD fiasco was a hoax. Many people still believe that WMD are lurking somewhere out there buried in the desert.

The administration very cleverly convinced millions of Americans that Saddam was connected to 911. Then it was rebuild Iraq, then it was democracy for Iraq.

They played the game well, using Cheney's secret government within a government, even high ranking officials were suckered in. If they couldn't be sucked in they were left out of the loop.

To keep the momentum of the war going the administration started delivering train car loads of pure Bull to the American people. One of their fortes was to essentially make their own news. The White House had staged reporters asking questions at news conferences.

Cheney would have a fallacy leaked to one of the major news papers, then go on Meet The Press the next Sunday and use the news paper article as a reference to give the story credence.

If anyone spoke out against the war where American soldiers were in danger, the outspoken were called unAmerican at the least and a traitor at the worst. No politician wanted to risk being branded with that label, not even Democrats who knew by then that the war and it's premise were invalid.

But the biggest share of the blame can be laid on the Republican controlled Legislature for taking every thing they were told at face value and not challenging anything. Even when they knew it was wrong they still did not challenge the Bush Cheney cabal. Above all else they would not and still will not challenge the Bush/Cheney war machine. Nor would they ever support charging Cheney with any wrong doing.

This administration has run the best damn propaganda machine since Joe Stalin.

This excerpt from the Washington post series on Cheney sums up how He controlled the government.

By Barton Gellman and Jo Becker
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, June 24, 2007; Page A01

Just past the Oval Office, in the private dining room overlooking the South Lawn, Vice President Cheney joined President Bush at a round parquet table they shared once a week. Cheney brought a four-page text, written in strict secrecy by his lawyer. He carried it back out with him after lunch.

In less than an hour, the document traversed a West Wing circuit that gave its words the power of command. It changed hands four times, according to witnesses, with emphatic instructions to bypass staff review. When it returned to the Oval Office, in a blue portfolio embossed with the presidential seal, Bush pulled a felt-tip pen from his pocket and signed without sitting down. Almost no one else had seen the text.

Cheney's proposal had become a military order from the commander in chief. Foreign terrorism suspects held by the United States were stripped of access to any court -- civilian or military, domestic or foreign. They could be confined indefinitely without charges and would be tried, if at all, in closed "military commissions."

"What the hell just happened?" Secretary of State Colin L. Powell demanded, a witness said, when CNN announced the order that evening, Nov. 13, 2001. National security adviser Condoleezza Rice, incensed, sent an aide to find out. Even witnesses to the Oval Office signing said they did not know the vice president had played any part.

 

[Mk]

Cheney is an evil person.

Nah, I think he's just a politician.

 

[baywax]

It was along time before the majority of the American people realized that the entire WMD fiasco was a hoax. Many people still believe that WMD are lurking somewhere out there buried in the desert.

The administration very cleverly convinced millions of Americans that Saddam was connected to 911. Then it was rebuild Iraq, then it was democracy for Iraq.

They played the game well, using Cheney's secret government within a government, even high ranking officials were suckered in. If they couldn't be sucked in they were left out of the loop.

To keep the momentum of the war going the administration started delivering train car loads of pure Bull to the American people. One of their fortes was to essentially make their own news. The White House had staged reporters asking questions at news conferences.

Cheney would have a fallacy leaked to one of the major news papers, then go on Meet The Press the next Sunday and use the news paper article as a reference to give the story credence.

If anyone spoke out against the war where American soldiers were in danger, the outspoken were called unAmerican at the least and a traitor at the worst. No politician wanted to risk being branded with that label, not even Democrats who knew by then that the war and it's premise were invalid.

But the biggest share of the blame can be laid on the Republican controlled Legislature for taking every thing they were told at face value and not challenging anything. Even when they knew it was wrong they still did not challenge the Bush Cheney cabal. Above all else they would not and still will not challenge the Bush/Cheney war machine. Nor would they ever support charging Cheney with any wrong doing.

This administration has run the best damn propaganda machine since Joe Stalin.

This excerpt from the Washington post series on Cheney sums up how He controlled the government.

Thank you Edward. When people question the motives and actions of their leaders its done not only to protect their service men and women from going into a conflict that is unnecessary or that is unethical but also to protect the nation and its reputation abroad.

"If'n yer not wit me yer agin me" is an old posse round-up ploy from a 50 year old cowboy movie. "Smoke em out" is another one. Obviously the speech writer was pandering to an affluent and influencial group who have just finished a career and have children who are of enlistment age and who have seen the old "ride em cowboy" movies. But it just ends up compromising and jeopardizing the entire population of every nation concerned. Its not a movie gang. There are far less intrusive ways to secure energy. The half a trillion dollars already spent would have proven very helpful toward securing a self-sufficient energy program for the whole of the United States of America. But America needed to respond to being attacked. I would think the appropriate response would be a scathingly thorough investigation by top, bipartisan, investigators into the incidents. Not a same day automatic declaration of we know "who dunnit".

 

[Astronuc]

White House, Cheney's Office Subpoenaed

WASHINGTON June 27, 2007, 6:16 p.m. ET · The Senate subpoenaed the White House and Vice President Dick Cheney's office Wednesday, demanding documents and elevating the confrontation with President Bush over the administration's warrant-free eavesdropping on Americans.

Separately, the Senate Judiciary Committee also is summoning Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to discuss the program and an array of other matters that have cost a half-dozen top Justice Department officials their jobs, committee chairman Patrick Leahy announced.

Leahy, D-Vt., raised questions about previous testimony by one of Bush's appeals court nominees and said he wouldn't let such matters pass.

"If there have been lies told to us, we'll refer it to the Department of Justice and the U.S. attorney for whatever legal action they think is appropriate," Leahy told reporters. He did just that Wednesday, referring questions about testimony by former White House aide Brett Kavanaugh, who now sits on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

The escalation is part of the Democrats' effort to hold the administration to account for the way it has conducted the war on terrorism since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. The subpoenas extend the probe into the private sector, demanding among other things documents on any agreements that telecommunications companies made to cooperate with the surveillance program.

Hmmmm! Seems about time.

 

[chemisttree]

Associated Press Updated: 9:51 a.m. CT June 28, 2007
"
White House Refuses to Answer Subpoenas"

"Increasingly, the president and vice president feel they are above the law," said Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt. He portrayed the president's actions as "Nixonian stonewalling."

Sounds more like "Clintonian" to me... Recall that Clinton invoked executive privilege to prevent Sid Blumenthal and Bruce Lindsey from testifying before Starr's Grand Jury. Of course that subpoena was given during the investigation of an actual crime unlike the Leahy-issued subpoena.

His House counterpart, Judiciary Chairman John Conyers, D-Mich., said Bush's assertion of executive privilege was "unprecedented in its breadth and scope" and displayed "an appalling disregard for the right of the people to know what is going on in their government."

In his letter, Fielding said Bush had "attempted to chart a course of cooperation" by releasing more than 8,500 pages of documents and sending Gonzales and other senior officials to testify before Congress. The White House also had offered a compromise in which Miers, Taylor, White House political strategist Karl Rove and their deputies would be interviewed by Judiciary Committee aides in closed-door sessions, without transcripts.

Leahy and Conyers rejected that offer. Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, a member of the Judiciary Committee, said the Democrats should have accepted it.

"We would be much farther ahead in finding out whether there's any real impropriety here or not," said Hatch, a former chairman of the committee. He also said presidents have legitimate reasons to protect the confidentiality of the advice they get.

Bedrock presidential prerogative
In his letter, Fielding explained Bush's position on executive privilege this way: "For the President to perform his constitutional duties, it is imperative that he receive candid and unfettered advice and that free and open discussions and deliberations occur among his advisors and between those advisors and others within and outside the Executive Branch."

This "bedrock presidential prerogative" exists, in part, to protect the president from being compelled to disclose such communications to Congress, Fielding argued. And he questioned whether the documents and testimony the committees seeking are critically important to their investigations.

It was the second time in his administration that Bush has exerted executive privilege, said White House deputy press secretary Tony Fratto. The first instance was in December, 2001, to rebuff Congress' demands for Clinton administration documents.

Yeah, that's "Nixonian" all right! Its hardly 'unprecedented'.

The Supreme Court has already ruled on this issue and the decision has been used both by a Democrat President and now a Republican one.

As the Supreme Court has explained,"A President and those that assist Him must be free to explore alternatives in the process of shaping policies and to do so in a way many would be unwilling to express except privately...

..."Not only does executive privilege apply to confidential communications to the President but also to 'communications between high Government officials and those that advise them in the performance of their manifold duties.'"
(United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 708 (1974)

or

"The Constitution clearly gives the President the power to protect the confidentiality of Executive Branch deliberations." (Opinion of Attorney General Janet Reno, "Assertion of Executive Privilege With Respect to Clemency Decision", 23 Op. O.L.C. 1, 2 (1999).

Of course the Senate can overcome the executive privilege if it can demonstrate that the subpoenaed documents are required to fulfill its legislative function. In this case the function of the Senate is to either approve or disapprove of the appointment of the US Attorney. The choice for the nomination or removal of US Attorneys is squarely within the Executive branch's realm.

Are the Democrats trying to rewrite the Constitution and overturn legal precedent in this matter stretching back to 1926?

 

[edward]

Sounds more like "Clintonian" to me... Recall that Clinton invoked executive privilege to prevent Sid Blumenthal and Bruce Lindsey from testifying before Starr's Grand Jury. Of course that subpoena was given during the investigation of an actual crime unlike the Leahy-issued subpoena.

WOW talk about rewriting history. Blumenthal ended up testifying. Comparing Stars investigation to what is happening now is oranges and apples. No crime had been committed when Stars investigation began. You right wingers just can't get over that BJ can you.

Blumenthal reportedly answered questions about his contacts with the press, but declined to answer certain questions about confidential conversations within the White House. For several months, he and White House lawyers argued that those conversations were covered by executive privilege. That argument was dropped after Judge Norma Holloway Johnson ruled that executive privilege in this case was outweighed by Starr's need for information. Blumenthal was brought back before the grand jury on June 4.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/players/blumenthal.htm

Of course the Senate can overcome the executive privilege if it can demonstrate that the subpoenaed documents are required to fulfill its legislative function.

The documents are that important. If Blumenthal's testimony about who said what regarding criticism of Star's investigation was considered to be important enough, why would the documents involving Bush Cheney Gonzales hat dance with the American justice system not be important enough??

Are the Democrats trying to rewrite the Constitution and overturn legal precedent in this matter stretching back to 1926?

No they are trying to put the constitution back on the track after the great Bush/Cheney derailment.

 

[siddharth]

Here's jon stewart's take on this. It's the funniest clip I've seen in ages.

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/The_Daily_Show_lambastes_Cheney_secret_0626.html

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Here's jon stewart's take on this. It's the funniest clip I've seen in ages.

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/The_Daily_Show_lambastes_Cheney_secret_0626.html

Sorry just by standing but I have to say The Today Show is an excellent watch, we get it over here on cable and it's probably one of the best political comedy shows I've seen in years

John Oliver: He is neither man nor beast, yet has elements of the twain. He is at once everything and nothing, substance without form, shape without motion, time without reason... he is the Highlander."

Jon Stewart: No John Wait Wait no no no no! What do you mean the Highlander? What does that even mean etc

John Oliver: Cheney is but his latest avatar for he has always been, to the Norse he was Loki, the Pujet Sound Indians: Raven, to the Tombuku of Malawi he was Kalulu or loosely translated "he who breaks ties in The Senate"

:rofl:

 

[turbo]

It's a bit unnerving when Jon Stewart has the most accurate assessment of political news (or perhaps the 2nd most accurate after Amy Goodman). The US television networks suck up to the conservatives like nobody's business, yet the Republicans call them the "liberal media". How sick!

 

[denverdoc]

Well I had the small and likely pointless pleasure of signing a petition for Cheney's impeachment. In the comments section, I asked for a twofer deal, but understand that Cheney must be the first to go...

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The latest Bill Moyer's Journal about impeachment is well worth the watch. IMO, this conversation elucidates the ultimate challenge that this nation faces today. Everything is at risk if we continue on the present course. This is why so many people are as passionately against Bush and Cheney as I am. This isn't about Iraq, or terrorism - though they made good and convenient excuses -this is about Constitutional Law and the abuse of power. This isn't about politics; this is about the end of the U.S. as it was envisioned, and as it has survived until now. As I have said before, the only acceptable option is removal from office for at least one [as a worst case compromise], and preferably both, Bush and Cheney. And I don't care if it is the last day in their normal term of office before they are escorted out of the White House. It is the legal precedent that matters.

This will launch the first of two video segments on impeachment ["Moyers on Impeachment", and "Tough Talk on Impeachment"], found at the top of the page.
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07132007/watch.html

Here is a brief excerpt.

...BILL MOYERS: Bruce you wrote that article of impeachment against Bill Clinton. Why did you think he should be impeached?

BRUCE FEIN: I think he was setting a precedent that placed the president above the law. I did not believe that the initial perjury or misstatements-- that came perhaps in a moment of embarrassment stemming from the Paula Jones lawsuit was justified impeachment if he apologized. Even his second perjury before the grand jury when Ken Starr's staff was questioning him, as long as he expressed repentance, would not have set an example of saying every man, if you're president, is entitled to be a law unto himself. I think Bush's crimes are a little bit different. I think they're a little bit more worrisome than Clinton's. You don't have to have--

BILL MOYERS: More worrisome?

BRUCE FEIN: More worrisome than Clinton's-- because he is seeking more institutionally to cripple checks and balances and the authority of Congress and the judiciary to superintend his assertions of power. He has claimed the authority to tell Congress they don't have any right to know what he's doing with relation to spying on American citizens, using that information in any way that he wants in contradiction to a federal statute called the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. He's claimed authority to say he can kidnap people, throw them into dungeons abroad, dump them out into Siberia without any political or legal accountability. These are standards that are totally anathema to a democratic society devoted to the rule of law.

BILL MOYERS: You're talking about terrifying power but this is a terrifying time. People are afraid of those people abroad who want to kill us. Do you think, in any way, that justifies the claims that Bruce just said Bush has made?

JOHN NICHOLS: I think that the war on terror, as defined by our president, is perpetual war. And I think that he has acted precisely as Madison feared. He has taken powers unto himself that were never intended to be in the executive. And, frankly, that when an executive uses them, in the way that this president has, you actually undermine the process of uniting the country and really focusing the country on the issues that need to be dealt with. Let's be clear. If we had a president who was seeking to inspire us to take seriously the issues that are in play and to bring all the government together, he'd be consulting with Congress. He'd be working with Congress. And, frankly, Congress, through the system of checks and balances, would be preventing him from doing insane things like invading Iraq. [continued]

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07132007/transcript4.html

 

[Astronuc]

Here's jon stewart's take on this. It's the funniest clip I've seen in ages.

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/The_Da...cret_0626.html

John Oliver's commentary reminds of Monty Python.

Cheney's role and actions in the current administration are very worrisome. I think in the long run the US will be weaker and less secure as a result.

Let us see where Bush's perpetual war leads the nation in the decades to come.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Let us see where Bush's perpetual war leads the nation in the decades to come.

I don't think there is any mystery about the fruits of excessive power.

 

[turbo]

Our country's laws are supposed to be written by our representatives in DC, and the administration is supposed to administer those laws - nothing more or less. This administration exempts itself from any law it finds inconvenient and asserts the the powers of a despotic tyrannical regime. With no justification, they can spy on any of us and if they decide that we are a "threat" (their decision, not the courts) citizens can be rounded up, tortured, and detained without access to our legal system. Meanwhile, Pelosi keeps impeachment "off the table" despite ample evidence that it is the only threat that can rein in the radicals in the White House. Sick.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

In Moyer's diddy, the comment is made that part of the problem is that many in the Congress don't understand the Constitution and the critical role that Congress plays in oversight. But, the wheels are still turning... I never did take Pelosi seriously when she took impeachment "off the table". She can't rule out impeachment as an option when so much information is still being gathered. She could only rule it out based on the information known at the time.

According to the Moyer discussion, Bush and Cheney can be removed for a pattern of abuse, and for absurd claims of executive privilege.

 

[turbo]

Unfortunately, Ivan, I do not expect that the toothless, neutered Congress will do anything of substance in moving toward impeachment. They are paralyzed by fear and are unwilling to exert their oversight over the executive branch, despite a clear constitutional responsibility to do so. Sheep.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

They are working their way up the ladder. With talk of a subpoena for Rove, contempt of Congress for Miers and Bolten,
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aRe77FXfM4.8&refer=home

and calls for a special prosecutor for Gonzales,
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/politics/4996798.html

I am hopeful that Congress is trying to and will do its job. But they are fighting and trying to penetrate a wall created by an abuse of power in the executive branch unlike any ever seen before.

Although loaded with puns and satire, there are a few excerpts in the last half of this Daily Show video that are staggering.
http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/player.jhtml?ml_video=90429&ml_collection=&ml_gateway=&ml_gateway_id=&ml_comedian=&ml_runtime=&ml_context=show&ml_origin_url=/shows/the_daily_show/videos/most_recent/index.jhtml&ml_playlist=&lnk=&is_large=true

Frankly, I don't care if Congress accomplishes nothing else between now and the next election, but they must get these guys and prosecute them as criminals.

I hope that everyone who feels as outraged as I do writes their Congressmen and Senators to let them know. Demand that these criminals be removed from office.

 

[edward]

The die is cast, Rove has been subpoenaed and Gonzales testimony has been contradicted by no less than the head of the FBI.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,291000,00.html

Now the creeps wil claim executive privelidge and walk away. According to the link Gonzales is looking at a perjury charge

 

[EugP]

Obviously he thinks so.


http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003758120_cheney22.html

So he is part of the executive branch is when it's convienent, but he's not when it's not. Which is it?

These guys make Nixon look like a Boy Scout. I can't even begin to express the contempt, no, the hatred felt towards this administration. At this point it is beyond words. IMO, Cheney and Bush are a greater threat to Constutional law than any terrorist ever could be.

I'm actually not really surprised. I mean, he DID shoot a guy in the face.
What do you expect from a preson like that?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

According to CNN, the cowards are going to recess and will see if the investigation of Gonzales has "grass roots" support.

This reminds me of the politician who sees a crowd running past him. He starts running after the crowd while saying, "I had better see where they are going so that I can lead them"

I wasn't aware that Constitutional Law was a matter of popular opinion.