Exploding Garrmondo Weiner Interactive Swiss Army Penis - YOU CAN'T SUBPOENA ME I'M THE PRESIDENT

Exploding Garrmondo Weiner Interactive Swiss Army Penis (http://www.gamingforce.org/forums/index.php)

- Political Palace (http://www.gamingforce.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=7)

- - YOU CAN'T SUBPOENA ME I'M THE PRESIDENT (http://www.gamingforce.org/forums/showthread.php?t=22707)

YOU CAN'T SUBPOENA ME I'M THE PRESIDENT

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19480518/

Quote:

WASHINGTON - President Bush, moving toward a constitutional showdown with Congress, asserted executive privilege Thursday and rejected lawmakers' demands for documents that could shed light on the firings of federal prosecutors.

Bush's attorney told Congress the White House would not turn over subpoenaed documents for former presidential counsel Harriet Miers and former political director Sara Taylor in a fight that centers on Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' stewardship of the Justice Department.

In reaction, Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy accused the administration of shifting "into Nixonian stonewalling" and revealing "disdain for our system of checks and balances."

"With respect, it is with much regret that we are forced down this unfortunate path which we sought to avoid by finding grounds for mutual accommodation," White House counsel Fred Fielding said in a letter to Leahy and the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. "We had hoped this matter could conclude with your committees receiving information in lieu of having to invoke executive privilege. Instead, we are at this conclusion."

Thursday was the deadline for surrendering the documents. The White House also made clear that Miers and Taylor would not testify next month, as directed by the subpoenas, which were issued June 13. The stalemate could end up with House and Senate contempt citations and a battle in federal court over separation of powers.

"Increasingly, the president and vice president feel they are above the law," said Leahy, D-Vt., after getting the news from Fielding in an early-morning phone call. "In America no one is above law."

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. Democrats Patrick Leahy of Vermont and John Conyers of Michigan, the chairs of the Senate and House Judiciary Committees, have rejected that offer.

Bedrock presidential prerogative

On the other hand, Fielding said Bush "was not willing to provide your committees with documents revealing internal White House communications or to accede to your desire for senior advisors to testify at public hearings.

"The reason for these distinctions rests upon a bedrock presidential prerogative: 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," Fielding said.

"The doctrine of executive privilege exists, at least in part, to protect such communications from compelled disclosure to Congress, especially where, as here, the president's interests in maintaining confidentiality far outweigh Congress's interests in obtaining deliberative White House communications," Fielding said.

"Further, it remains unclear precisely how and why your committees are unable to fulfill your legislative and oversight interests without the unfettered requests you have made in your subpoenas," Fielding said. "Put differently, there is no demonstration that the documents and information you seek by subpoena are critically important to any legislative initiatives that you may be pursuing or intending to pursue."

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.

Tensions between the administration and the Democratic-run Congress have been building for months as the House and Senate Judiciary panels have sought to probe the firings of eight federal prosecutors and the administration's program of warrantless eavesdropping. The investigations are part of the Democrats' efforts to hold the administration to account for the way it has conducted the war on terrorism since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

Democrats say the firings of the prosecutors over the winter was an example of improper political influence. The White House says U.S. attorneys are political appointees who can be hired and fired for almost any reason.

Democrats and even some key Republicans have said that Gonzales should resign over the U.S. attorney dismissals, but he has steadfastly held his ground and Bush has backed him.

Just Wednesday, the Senate Judiciary Committee subpoenaed the White House and Vice President Dick Cheney's office, demanding documents pertaining to terrorism-era warrant-free eavesdropping.

Separately, that panel also is summoning Gonzales to discuss the program and an array of other matters -- including the prosecutor firings -- that have cost a half-dozen top Justice Department officials their jobs.

The Judiciary panels also subpoenaed the National Security Council. Leahy added that, like House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, D-Mich., he would consider pursuing contempt citations against those who refuse.

I wonder if this will rush to the Supreme Court like Bush v. Gore did.

I mean, the best part about rejecting these subpoenas is that they aren't even doing it under the guise of national security, which they always seem to be doing. They just claim executive privilege and go on with their day.

I mean, they are essentially saying that they can't turn over documents when someone accuses the president of not doing his job because in order to do his job they need not be turn-overable.

Was this at all unexpected? I just hope they find their balls and impeach his ass for contempt of Congress.

Hello President Cheney. :(

Meh. Bush is a lame duck now and he knows it. He truly has little incentive to cooperate with or capitulate to both Congress and the American people.

He's acquired his two terms. He bullied his way into Iraq, served in the President's seat while Saddam Hussein was deposed, arrested, tried and put to death. He basically finished his daddy's war. He lasted twice as long in the job as daddy, too. That's gonna be a witty rejoinder at the next family dinner!

The current situation in Iraq, that's not really his problem anymore. All Bush has to do is maintain the status quo. Don't push too many soldiers in, don't pull too many out. If the liberals want to bring the troops home, they can do it when they have a candidate in the White House. Hussein was toppled. The war against terror was waged. Surely history will vindicate Bush as a bold man of action!

No, all Bush needs to do now is wait. Let his detractors stomp around and shout big words. Big words never prevented Bush from doing what needed to be done. Big words won't oust him from the Presidency now. There's no need to worry about solving crises before 2009. If someone else wants the job so badly, then they'll have to take on the burdens that come with the position.

Yup. Bush's executive pension is assured. Come January 1st, 2009, his life will be a leisurely series of library dedications, charity dinners and paid speeches. Maybe he'll play some more golf and frown in a concerned manner as his limousine drives by some homeless people. All while enjoying the vast family oil fortunes. Yup, life sure is good for ol' G. Dubya.

So what if he obstructs Congressional hearings? So what if he makes a mockery of the very purpose of executive privelege? He's got no sway over Congress and he's disliked more than ever by anyone who doesn't have a Bible shoved up his or her ass. Fuck 'em all. Don't you get it? GEORGE W. BEAT SUDDAM HUSSEIN. No president before even came close. If the man who beat Saddam wants to keep a few documents secret, who are we to argue? SUDDAM FUCKING HUSSEIN, MAN.

Anyone who wants to remove a hero like G.W. Bush over a few, miscellaneous papers is simply unamerican! You'd expect that kind of thing from the British or maybe those worrywart Frenchies. Questioning our leaders is like questioning the flag - you just don't do it! By refusing to kowtow to those guttersnipes in Congress, Bush is sending the message, loud and clear, that good, old, American pride is alive and well in the Oval Office!

Let's see a Democrat weild a pair of testicles like that!

God, Bush is a twat.

Crash's post is the exact reason why the 22nd amendment should be amended again.

Funny how it's only now, that Congress actually decides to take some responsibility to keep the executive branch in check.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bradylama (Post 460494)

Hello President Cheney. :(

What if we impeach both? Could be worth it!

What I hear is that congress can step around this executive privilege is by stating outright that the president has violated federal law. They're not going to, because that would be incredibly awesome, but they could.

Quote:

I just hope they find their balls and impeach his ass for contempt of Congress.

Which will do nothing at all, because a conviction is virtually impossible.

Hell, I'm still giddy that the Amnesty Bill fell through today :3: God damn thing gave me the chills.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Night Phoenix (Post 460780)

Which will do nothing at all, because a conviction is virtually impossible.

True, but the problem isn't the firings necessarily, but the lying to Congress. Since Bush never testified, he wouldn't have a problem, but if the courts force the subpoenas, it could make a life a living hell for a couple of very important people in his administration.

Too bad this administration only has a little over a year left.

But, yeah. Hello President Pelosi if Bush AND Cheney got the axe. Ahahaha wishful thinking. :(

too bad this administration only has a year left in it, because you want them impeached?

dude hella shortsighted to the nth degree

Missed my point. But thanks for playing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by a lurker (Post 460854)

too bad this administration only has a year left in it, because you want them impeached?

dude hella shortsighted to the nth degree

But wasn't this essentially the same logic used by Republicans when they impeached Clinton in 1998?

(Fuck me, I'm old. That shit was nearly a decade ago?)

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Dopefish (Post 460814)

But, yeah. Hello President Pelosi if Bush AND Cheney got the axe. Ahahaha wishful thinking. :(

I dunno how I feel about her grandkids being close to The Button.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bradylama (Post 460876)

I dunno how I feel about her grandkids being close to The Button.

If Bush can show restraint...

My good sir, you do insult to Pelosi's grandchildren by comparing them to President Bush.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bradylama (Post 460494)

Hello President Cheney. :(

That would be the day the white house is flooded with angry US citizens.

Go ahead and try and impeach him I guess, but his term is almost over so it wont really do any good.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Dopefish (Post 460859)

Missed my point. But thanks for playing.

Then what was your point if it wasn't lol president Peloski?

The fact that impeachment hearings haven't already started for these criminals is ridiculous. Wait, no, I take that back... I don't honestly expect either Bush or Cheney to ever be impeached, despite them running around with breaking the law left & right. What's worse is that the media is passing this off and not even mentioning impeachment. Not to mention the public thinking that everything is alright (also who's gonna be the next American Idol)(really who is it gonna be?)(seriously). Who fucking cares if he's only got a year left in office or a day, the fact that this isn't being dealt with should be putting people into riots.

I'm just waiting for someone on the hill to have the balls to call this administration what it really is... a dictatorship.

Dictatorships excerise complete and absolutely unrestricted power. They typically possess the ability to completely squelch any and all naysayers with little or no reprecussions.

To say the Bush Administration in anyway resembles a dictatorship is simple demagoguery.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Night Phoenix (Post 460780)

Which will do nothing at all, because a conviction is virtually impossible.

Other than restore faith that the American Political system isn't entirely broken to the billions of disillusioned people across the world watching the disaster that is this administration?

Impeachment is quite simple since it just requires a majority vote. Conviction, while difficult, is not impossible to believe since (A) the proof that he's guilty is quite evident and (B) even his own party doesn't like him.

Guilty of WHAT?!

Be fucking serious.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Night Phoenix (Post 461478)

Okay, what about a plutocracy? Shadow government? I can come up with more names if you'd like. The fact is that just because you have absolute power does not mean you go around flaunting it. Especially when you are parading around as a shining beacon of freedom and democracy.

Show to me where George W. Bush has absolute power. If he had absolute power, he wouldn't need Congress to do shit. Whatever he wanted would be the law of the land based on his executive fiat and that alone.

I don't think you understand the concept here. He needs the Congress to keep the appearance of a democracy. How good of a facade would it be, if the government didn't at least go through the motions of functioning properly? Besides, congress is a great distraction for the American public. If Bush (really now, its Cheney) wants something, he'll just sign an executive order for it. Or maybe they'll just tack on an amendment at the last minute on a bill that is sure to pass.