Post reply

Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 300 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.

Note: this post will not display until it's been approved by a moderator.

Message icon:

Type the letters shown in the picture
Listen to the letters / Request another image

Type the letters shown in the picture:
What is Nacho's Twitter handle? (e.g. @xxxx - this is case sensitive)):

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview

Topic Summary

Posted by: fajwat
« on: August 07, 2008, 10:55:36 AM »

which is why we're all resigned to doom and gloom.
Posted by: Matt
« on: August 07, 2008, 08:36:38 AM »

I know it'll never happen. But impeaching him is the only recourse we have right now.
Posted by: nacho
« on: August 07, 2008, 07:27:22 AM »

With this Congress?  It'll never happen.  We should impeach Pelosi.  Talk about empty promises...
Posted by: Matt
« on: August 06, 2008, 11:47:19 PM »

Regardless of whether or not Obama pardons people, impeaching the president will still prevent him from pardoning OTHER people. It should happen, and it needs to happen quickly.
Posted by: RottingCorpse
« on: August 04, 2008, 09:03:28 AM »

I know Bush will get out alive, but other people in the adminsitration should be brought down low.

Also, if charges are made and Obama pardons everybody, there will be a certain part of the population who will go through the roof, thus helping to make his one term presidency a reality.
Posted by: nacho
« on: August 04, 2008, 07:26:18 AM »

An example is never made.  It's always been accepted that it'll be bad for the American people to put the President on trial.  Obama will pardon whoever needs to be pardoned.

But it's not the president who makes the example, anyway.  It's Congress.  So the people who can actually make that example you want made, RC, have been in office since 2004.  So that's the answer as to whether or not an example will be made.  In fact, even when the Bushies openly reject the authority of Congress, they still choose not to make an example.
Posted by: Tatertots
« on: August 03, 2008, 06:57:52 PM »

Yeah, totally. The fat girl blow job is way more important. IMPEACH! KILL! MURDER! AHHHHHH!
Posted by: RottingCorpse
« on: August 03, 2008, 06:39:38 PM »

Lying about getting sucked off by a fat girl and lying about going to war are two different things.
Posted by: Cassander
« on: August 03, 2008, 12:18:48 PM »

See, I'll take fucking Obama over if it means criminal charges on the Bushies. An example has to made.

because that was soooo effective when the repubs did it to Clinton
Posted by: RottingCorpse
« on: August 03, 2008, 10:54:00 AM »

See, I'll take fucking Obama over if it means criminal charges on the Bushies. An example has to made.
Posted by: nacho
« on: August 03, 2008, 08:44:47 AM »

Well, it's also echoing Watergate in terms of the administration ignoring Congress... They can only do so for a short time.

Here's how their thinking should work:  It's just over three months till the election.  Avoid the law until then.  When Obama is elected, everyone will be distracted and the Democrats will hesitate trying to screw shit up for the remainder of the year.  When Obama takes office, it'll be in his best interest to pardon everybody because he'll be inheriting so much shit, the last thing this country needs is to tear itself apart trying to deal with Bush fallout.  Obama's only real path to salvation will be if he can stop everything and keep us all calm.
Posted by: Cassander
« on: August 03, 2008, 02:58:16 AM »

not if you've been solid drunk for 25 years.
Posted by: Matt
« on: July 31, 2008, 01:09:26 PM »

I just don't get how anyone can make the argument that someone is immune from subpoena. That anyone is immune from a subpoena. I mean, your head has to hurt as you try and form an argument against this, shouldn't it?
Posted by: RottingCorpse
« on: July 31, 2008, 12:49:02 PM »

Sometimes, I'm just awed by the gall of these guys.

US judge: White House aides can be subpoenaed

WASHINGTON - President Bush's top advisers are not immune from congressional subpoenas, a federal judge ruled Thursday in an unprecedented dispute between the two political branches.

House Democrats called the ruling a ringing endorsement of the principle that nobody is above the law.

In his ruling, U.S. District Judge John Bates said there's no legal basis for Bush's argument and that his former legal counsel, Harriet Miers, must appear before Congress. If she wants to refuse to testify, he said, she must do so in person. The committee also has sought to force testimony from White House chief of staff Joshua Bolten.

"Harriet Miers is not immune from compelled congressional process; she is legally required to testify pursuant to a duly issued congressional subpoena," Bates wrote. He said that both Bolten and Miers must give Congress all non-privileged documents related to the firings.

The ruling is a blow to the Bush administration's efforts to bolster the power of the executive branch at the expensive of the legislative branch. Disputes over congressional subpoenas are normally resolved through political compromise, not through the court system. Had Bush prevailed, it would have dramatically weakened congressional authority in oversight investigations.

The administration can appeal the ruling.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., called it "very good news for anyone who believes in the Constitution of the United States and the separation of powers, and checks and balances."

Democrats swiftly pledged to call Miers before the Judiciary Committee as soon as September to testify about whether the White House played any role in the firings of nine U.S. attorney's last year.

Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, D-Mich., said he hoped that Miers and Bolten do not appeal the ruling, but that was far from clear.

White House spokesman Tony Fratto and Justice Department spokesman Peter Carr said they were reviewing the opinion and declined immediate comment.

Nonetheless, Conyers signaled election-season hearings will be held on the controversy that scandalized the Justice Department and led to the resignation of a longtime presidential confidant, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

"We look forward to the White House complying with this ruling and to scheduling future hearings with Ms. Miers and other witnesses who have relied on such claims," Conyers said in a statement. "We hope that the defendants will accept this decision and expect that we will receive relevant documents and call Ms. Miers to testify in September."

Bates, who was appointed to the bench by Bush, issued a 93-page opinion that strongly rejected the administration's legal arguments. He noted that the executive branch could not point to a single case in which courts held that White House aides were immune from congressional subpoenas.

"That simple yet critical fact bears repeating: the asserted absolute immunity claim here is entirely unsupported by existing case law," Bates wrote.
Posted by: Reginald McGraw
« on: July 11, 2008, 11:50:28 AM »

I think he's going into "It doesn't matter what I do!" mode.  Which is terrifying.