* threatened these Democratic Members of the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary.

[jody]

Patrick J. Leahy, CHAIRMAN, D-VERMONT

Edward M. Kennedy, D-MASSACHUSETTS

Joseph R. Biden, Jr., D-DELAWARE

Herb Kohl, D-WISCONSIN

Dianne Feinstein, D-CALIFORNIA

Russell D. Feingold, D-WISCONSIN

Charles E. Schumer, D-NEW YORK

Richard J. Durbin, D-ILLINOIS

Benjamin L. Cardin, D-MARYLAND

Sheldon Whitehouse, D-RHODE ISLAND

:rofl:

[PurpleChez]

1. how so?

[jody]

4. Did you read *'s press conference? * clearly told the Judiciary Committee not to subpoena his staff

and implied a fight if subpoena's were given etc.

[bdamomma]

7. what's * going to do to them?

have a duel at the corral?

[PurpleChez]

16. Thanks for the info.

[malaise]

17. 100% correct

IMPEACH

[Cha]

2. Stalwart Americans..all

of them.

[salin]

3. ???

just got back from work tonight. Have no idea per the reference/context of this post. Laughing at an assertion of intimidation (again just fresh to trying to catch up on the days news - did I miss something)? Laughing at the idea that he could intimidate?

Hate it when I know I should *get* an inference to some event (in the news, or on DU) but just can't make the connection. Help me out please? Thanks.

[jody]

5. * said he would fight subpoena's and a witch hunt among other implied threats. n/t

[salin]

8. got it ... heh. Agreed, Good luck at that, jr.

thanks for the context. :-)

[bdamomma]

6. bush is out of control

yes, those who don't testify under oath, subpoenaed them, and if they don't want to testify under oath, the Congress can hold them for Contempt of Congress, has a nice ring to it, Contempt of Congress.

[msongs]

10. contempt of congress must be enforced by the US attorneys in question

from what Ive read today. the US attorneys answer to..ta da...bushco.

Msongs
www.msongs.com

[Greeby]

9. Not to mention the House Judiciary Committee

Hon. Conyers Jr.
Chairman
(D) Michigan, 14th

Hon. Berman
(D) California, 28th

Hon. Boucher
(D) Virginia, 9th

Hon. Nadler
(D) New York, 8th

Hon. Scott
(D) Virginia, 3rd

Hon. Watt
(D) North Carolina, 12th

Hon. Lofgren
(D) California, 16th

Hon. Jackson Lee
(D) Texas, 18th

Hon. Waters
(D) California, 35th

Hon. Meehan
(D) Massachusetts, 5th

Hon. Delahunt
(D) Massachusetts, 10th

Hon. Wexler
(D) Florida, 19th

Hon. Sánchez
(D) California, 39th

Hon. Cohen
(D) Tennessee, 9th

Hon. Johnson
(D) Georgia, 4th

Hon. Gutierrez
(D) Illinois, 4th

Hon. Sherman
(D) California, 27

Hon. Weiner
(D) New York, 9th

Hon. Schiff
(D) California, 29th

Hon. Davis
(D) Alabama , 7th

Hon. Wasserman Schultz
(D) Florida, 20th

Hon. Ellison
(D) Minnesota, 5th

Vacant

http://judiciary.house.gov/fullcommittee.aspx

[madrchsod]

11. that`s what you call the a-team......

dam that is quite a line up

[Blue_In_AK]

12. It's the way he said

"I HOPE they don't do that." The inflection was very threatening.

[jody]

13. Reasons why IMO * threatened the Senate Committee on the Judiciary and Conyer's House Committee.

Bush warns Dems to take offer in firings
QUOTE
A defiant President Bush warned Democrats Tuesday to accept his offer to have top aides speak about the firings of federal prosecutors only privately and not under oath, or risk a constitutional showdown from which he would not back down.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
"We will not go along with a partisan fishing expedition aimed at honorable public servants," he said. "It will be regrettable if they choose to head down the partisan road of issuing subpoenas and demanding show trials when I have agreed to make key White House officials and documents available."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
"If the Democrats truly do want to move forward and find the right information, they ought to accept what I proposed," Bush said. "If scoring political points is the desire, then the rejection of this reasonable proposal will really be evident for the American people to see."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Even without oaths, Bush aides would be legally required to tell the truth to Congress. {see 18 USC 1001} But without a transcript of their comments, "it would be almost meaningless to say that they would be under some kind of legal sanction," Schumer complained.
UNQUOTE

[madrchsod]

14. remember only -two senators-voted against

rescinding the appointment process included in the patriotic act. i`d say bush lost a big vote today..

[pnwmom]

15. But the vote that will count is the one the Supreme Court will take

when the battle about subpoena power and Executive Privilege ends up in their lap.

And considering that this Supreme Court is even more weighted against us than the one that put Bush into office . . . Bush could end up achieving his dream -- the Unitary Executive.