Bush denies congress access to key aides

[Guest sith lord]

www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=3358670

What does he have to hide and does anybody still defend this man? I actually believe he is the most corrupt president in history, even more than Nixon.

[ImmortalDragon]

They are the ones he sleeps with.

[rictus58]

Whether there was someone Shady going on or not, things like this lead the American public to believe there was.

[Kilmer17]

I think at this point, he just doesnt give a f@#k what the Dems in Congress wants.

What's the worst thing that could happen? His approval ratings are already at the bottom. He's not up for re-election.

I think now he's just thumbing his nose at them for fun.

[Teller]

Whether there was someone Shady going on or not, things like this lead the American public to believe there was.

Exactly. It's like he doesn't know rule #1. For anyone else unfamiliar:

Rule #1: You must not only DO the right thing, you must also give the APPEARANCE that you're doing the right thing.

[Burgold]

Surely, you can't believe there's anything to hide when his people are found guilty of obstructing justice, deleting millions of emails, will only testify without a recorded transcript, and refuses access to any of his people including people who haven't been on his team for more than a year?

Stop being so paranoid.

Honestly, this White House has always treated Congress as second class citizens and servants to the White House. It's just more noticeable now, because Congress (while still ineffective) is not bowing and scraping to his every whim and want.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

What does he have to hide and does anybody still defend this man? I actually believe he is the most corrupt president in history, even more than Nixon.

sith, I have no great love for Bush, but those prosecutors are employed AT THE WILL OF THE PRESIDENT. That means he can hire and fire them whenever he wants for whatever reason he wants. The President doesn't like a prosecutor's facial hair, THE PRESIDENT CAN FIRE HIM. The President doesn't like the length skirt one of the prosecutor's wears, THE PRESIDENT CAN FIRE HER.

The Democrats need to get this through their heads. The POTUS can do pretty much whatever he damn well pleases in regard to the people occupying those positions. Would ANY Democrat in the US Senate have been of assistance if the Republicans had sought to investigate why they fired a member of their staff when the Republicans were in power? I don't think so.

Therefore maybe they should be able to comprehend why he isn't going to assist them in attempting to railroad him, or at least attempt to further soil his reputation on a topic where he has all the leeway in the world to make any choice he wants.

[rictus58]

I think at this point, he just doesnt give a f@#k what the Dems in Congress wants.

What's the worst thing that could happen? His approval ratings are already at the bottom. He's not up for re-election.

I think now he's just thumbing his nose at them for fun.

Which goes to show exactly how much respect he has for the American public.

He apparently doesn't care how his actions are going to affect his party either.

We deserve better than this. Both from the Executive and Legistlative branches. And while people will talk a big game now, will they actually VOTE for change during the primaries and subsequent elections?

[Teller]

sith, I have no great love for Bush, but those prosecutors are employed AT THE WILL OF THE PRESIDENT. That means he can hire and fire them whenever he wants for whatever reason he wants. The President doesn't like a prosecutor's facial hair, THE PRESIDENT CAN FIRE HIM. The President doesn't like the length skirt one of the prosecutor's wears, THE PRESIDENT CAN FIRE HER.

I agree with you in theory, MSF. So why the coverup?

It is simply not possible for 5-million white house emails to vanish. IT IS NOT POSSIBLE.

[rictus58]

sith, I have no great love for Bush, but those prosecutors are employed AT THE WILL OF THE PRESIDENT. That means he can hire and fire them whenever he wants for whatever reason he wants. The President doesn't like a prosecutor's facial hair, THE PRESIDENT CAN FIRE HIM. The President doesn't like the length skirt one of the prosecutor's wears, THE PRESIDENT CAN FIRE HER.

Mass,

You are right. However, just because he can, doesn't mean he should.

The Democrats need to get this through their heads. The POTUS can do pretty much whatever he damn well pleases in regard to the people occupying those positions. Would ANY Democrat in the US Senate have been of assistance if the Republicans had sought to investigate why they fired a member of their staff when the Republicans were in power? I don't think so.

No. Probably not. The hypocracy goes both ways.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

I agree with you in theory, MSF. So why the coverup?

It is simply not possible for 5-million white house emails to vanish. IT IS NOT POSSIBLE.

hog, fine. Why don't you send me a list of every individual you've met, worked with, dated, or had contact with in the last two years and include a copy of all your mail and email correspondence while you're at it.

Why do I want it? Because maybe I'm hoping to find something incriminating or just to make it look like you're dirty or criminal. I know I don't actually have a legal leg to stand on in requesting this material, but if you don't give it to me I'm going to call CNN, ABC, and every other media outlet I can find and tell them how unfair you're being because you won't provide me with that info.

Oh, and your horribly ill uncle that you don't want me to interview because he's in bad shape and doesn't need the stress... If you don't present him RIGHT NOW for an interview, I'm going to the press again, because you're obviously trying to hide something. The same thing with your four year old niece.

Before you go and tell me it's not the same thing... BULL****!!!! The Democrats have not been able to provide a single bit of reasonable assertion that there was any actual wrongdoing in terms of these firings. Until they can provide credible evidence of wrongdoing, there is no reason the President should be required to provide them with anything other than a single finger salute.

[Burgold]

Before you go and tell me it's not the same thing... BULL****!!!! The Democrats have not been able to provide a single bit of reasonable assertion that there was any actual wrongdoing in terms of these firings. Until they can provide credible evidence of wrongdoing, there is no reason the President should be required to provide them with anything other than a single finger salute.

It is apples and oranges.

Here's evidence. It's circumstantial, but I have heard enough that I would want to know more.

There was a District Attourney who was investigating Jack Abrahmoff about five years ago. The district attourney was pursuing a political corruption case. This Attourney had always received the highest possible marks. He received calls from politicos in DC to stop reviewing Abramhoff (a no-no) and the attourney declined saying that he felt there was something important and bad going on. This attourney was then fired. The case was supressed for four years. When it was eventually picked up, Abramhoff was found guilty, and a number of high ranking Congressmen were forced to resign.

The firing of this Attourney to protect Congressmen and lobbiests was an obstruction of justice. The fact that this case was squelched by the mechanism of firing could be illegal.

[Teller]

hog, fine. Why don't you send me a list of every individual you've met, worked with, dated, or had contact with in the last two years and include a copy of all your mail and email correspondence while you're at it.

Um, if you REALLY want everything I've done on my computer at work, I'm 100% positive my boss could provide you with that...y'know, provided you've got supbeona power like congress does.

Why do I want it? Because maybe I'm hoping to find something incriminating or just to make it look like you're dirty or criminal. I know I don't actually have a legal leg to stand on in requesting this material, but if you don't give it to me I'm going to call CNN, ABC, and every other media outlet I can find and tell them how unfair you're being because you won't provide me with that info.

If you think warrantless wiretaps are a good thing, then more power to you. I have to say I've grossly misjudged you though, if that's the case.

Oh, and your horribly ill uncle that you don't want me to interview because he's in bad shape and doesn't need the stress... If you don't present him RIGHT NOW for an interview, I'm going to the press again, because you're obviously trying to hide something. The same thing with your four year old niece.

I agree that someone in dire medical condition shouldn't have to testify if it would be detrimental to their health. I can't think of many reasons why said person couldn't given a written or transcribed statement though.

Who's the four-year old they're trying to call? I missed that.

Before you go and tell me it's not the same thing... BULL****!!!! The Democrats have not been able to provide a single bit of reasonable assertion that there was any actual wrongdoing in terms of these firings. Until they can provide credible evidence of wrongdoing, there is no reason the President should be required to provide them with anything other than a single finger salute.

Like I said, if there was no wrong-doing, why the coverup? That's the second time I've asked that one, and I suspect it will be the second time you dodge it.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

The firing of this Attourney to protect Congressmen and lobbiests was an obstruction of justice. The fact that this case was squelched by the mechanism of firing could be illegal.

And as soon as you have something more than a circumstantial case, I'd say go for it. However, while all you have in inuendo, you're out of luck so far as I'm concerned.

[jbooma]

I agree with you in theory, MSF. So why the coverup?

It is simply not possible for 5-million white house emails to vanish. IT IS NOT POSSIBLE.

because the whole thing is a waste of time, thats why, congress needs to worry about more important things instead of trying to make the president look bad which he doesn't need help with

he can fire and hire whom he wants for whatever reason, heck if you live in va and i think dc as well your company can fire you for any reason, they don't even need to give you one

[Burgold]

The case I laid out is enough to start an investigation. I don't think it's enough to convict, but it's certainly enough to want to know more. If you are saying that no investigation should be allowed to begin unless there everything is already known and all the evidence is in hand, then boy are we a long way off in our thinking

[Teller]

because the whole thing is a waste of time, thats why, congress needs to worry about more important things instead of trying to make the president look bad which he doesn't need help with

he can fire and hire whom he wants for whatever reason, heck if you live in va and i think dc as well your company can fire you for any reason, they don't even need to give you one

So why not come out and say that? Again, why...the...cover...up?

Three more times in this thread, still no answer.

And you know me, booma. I'm not a liberal trying to stir ****. I'm an arch-conservative who's been betrayed by this administration, and I want some damn answers.

[chomerics]

he can fire and hire whom he wants for whatever reason

That is not true Jbooma. He can not fire someone from the Justice department because he doesn't want an investigation.

That is obstruction of justice in the most obvious terms, and it is illegal.

[chomerics]

because the whole thing is a waste of time, thats why, congress needs to worry about more important things instead of trying to make the president look bad

Kind of like spending $50million dollars to investigate a blow job huh. . .

[81artmonk]

I know I will hear it for this but, good for him! First, what he did in thefirerings wasn't illegal, nor unethical, nor out of line with what a president is allowed to do.

So what congress wants to do is basically another witch hunt. Why should the president allow them to grill people who were doing hiw will on something that wasn't illegal or outside of his powers.

If that were the case, than congress should have the power to interview anyone at anytime for anything that the president does. That's not how the system works.

However shady this may look, which I believe is the fault of the democrats for making it so, by thier talking points, the president was within his power and shouldn't have to answer to congress for something that wasn't illegal or out of his power to do. If it was, than I would agree with congress on this one, however it isn't so I don't.

[Baculus]

MSF, considering you claim to support a return to a more ideal form of American government and the Republic, it is amazing when I see you support the actions of the current POTUS. The President is not above and beyond Congress or the American people, and yet, this is exactly how the current administration behaves. In fact, NO branch of office, including Congress, is beyond reproach by its constituents, even though office holders and some of their supporters would like for us to believe that as well.

It Congress is supposed to be the "people's house" and represent the American citizenry in this Republic, and the POTUS believes he is not beholden to Congress, then he also feels he is not beholden to their constituents, which are us.

If Congress's actions does not represent the will of the American people, then we need to vote them out, once again.

[Destino]

Love Bush or hate him the guy is just plain shady. Would anyone be surprised if an investigation turned up some crazy stuff at this point? I don't even think republicans would be surprised.

[Baculus]

I know I will hear it for this but, good for him! First, what he did in thefirerings wasn't illegal, nor unethical, nor out of line with what president is allowed to do.

There are several issues here: One, the White House has already lied about the issue of the attorney firings. They stated, flat out, that the firings were not for politcal reasons, and that is exactly the reason why these people were fired. Why did they lie?

And second, the entire issue is that we don't know all the details, so we can't say 100% that actions weren't "out of line" when evidence points to the opposite: That actions, which are out of line *were* taken.

So what congress wants to do is basically another witch hunt. Why should the president allow them to grill people who were doing hiw will on something that wasn't illegal or outside of his powers.

How do you know for certainty that nothing outside of his powers or illegal happened? That is the entire issue! We have no transparency on some of these issues, so you CANNOT make that statement with accuracy.

If that were the case, than congress should have the power to interview anyone at anytime for anything that the president does. That's not how the system works.

Presidential privilege does not mean he is not beholden to anyone.

Is he a dictator with no responsibilities? Isn't this issue the exact reason why some Republicans had an issue with the Clinton Whitehouse and lack of transparency? So, here we are with a Republican, the shoe is on the other foot, and now, we want Bush to behave like Clinton?!

However shady this may look, which I believe is the fault of the democrats for making it so, by thier talking points, the president was within his power and shouldn't have to answer to congress for something that wasn't illegal or out of his power to do. If it was, than I would agree with congress on this one, however it isn't so I don't.

How is it the fault of the Democrats when it has been the administration's actions and behavior which has caused my issues? You are laying the blame in the wrong direction.

Again, when we don't have all of the information involved with this subject, you cannot say something illegal or out of line of the POTUS power didn't happen.

If something DIDN'T happen, all the President has to do is show some transparency: That is it. There isn't a difficult way to diffuse this situation, so why isn't the President taking that pathway, unless he DOES have something to hide?

[Tulane Skins Fan]

The thing you are missing Mass is that while the President has the power to fire them, Congress has the power to investigate this issue. So, if Congress subpoenas them, it is just as Constitutionally valid as the President firing them. So, the only one attempting to circumvent the constitution here is the President.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

If you think warrantless wiretaps are a good thing, then more power to you. I have to say I've grossly misjudged you though, if that's the case.

Personally, there are a large number of cases where I DO think that warrantless wiretaps are a good idea. Not in all cases, but in a large number of cases I do believe they have a very high value.

I agree that someone in dire medical condition shouldn't have to testify if it would be detrimental to their health. I can't think of many reasons why said person couldn't given a written or transcribed statement though.

Who's the four-year old they're trying to call? I missed that.

The point was more that the idea of forcing people to testify was stupid than anything else.

Like I said, if there was no wrong-doing, why the coverup? That's the second time I've asked that one, and I suspect it will be the second time you dodge it.

How about because this whole thing is a fishing expedition and nothing more. If they had even the faintest shred of physical evidence of a crime having been committed then I'd agree with you. Similarly to the police officer who pulls a car over solely to try and find something to arrest the occupants on, compared to the one who pulls a car over for speeding THEN asks to search the car.