helderheid
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-25-07 10:39 AM
Original message |
This is NOT ABOUT EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE. This is about IGNORING SUBPOENAS! |
Deep13
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-25-07 10:42 AM
Response to Original message |
1. Executive privilege equals no legislative oversight on the "president"... |
|
...or the rest of the executive branch.
Good thing executive privilege does not exist.
|
mediaman007
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-25-07 10:45 AM
Response to Original message |
2. What a "Good-old-boy" Club...on a amendment vote |
|
The Democrats feature Whites, Blacks, men, women (a cross section of America). The GOP: white men!
|
mod mom
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-25-07 10:46 AM
Response to Original message |
3. I wish they would yield you the floor to point that out. |
TahitiNut
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-25-07 10:53 AM
Response to Original message |
4. The White House claims a willingness to answer questions (in 'private') .... |
|
... at the very same time they claim that answering such questions (in 'public' and under oath) violates "Executive Privilege."
This is a repudiation of their own stance - a contradiction. 'Executive Privilege' is wholly related to confidentiality - and the privilege to keep such information from Congress. They cannot logically both agree to disclosure and claim to not disclose. In essence, they're asserting a 'privilege' to LIE ... without penalty.
It's batshit insane.
|
Swamp Rat
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-25-07 10:55 AM
Response to Reply #4 |
|
Edited on Wed Jul-25-07 10:55 AM by Swamp Rat
:applause:
|
LSK
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-25-07 10:54 AM
Response to Original message |
5. but the Clenis claimed executive priviledge |
radfringe
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-25-07 11:09 AM
Response to Original message |
7. but there's no underlying crime |
|
the republic logic at it's best...
because there was no underlying crime - the subpoenas should not have been issued in the first place - therefore there's no contempt for ignoring the subpoenas
|
bigtree
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-25-07 11:10 AM
Response to Reply #7 |
8. that's why Conyers alleged an underlying crime in his remarks today |
radfringe
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-25-07 11:35 AM
Response to Reply #8 |
9. I know it, you know it and Conyers knows it |
|
but since when do facts apply to republic spin? :evilgrin:
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Fri May 10th 2024, 10:58 PM
Response to Original message |