3
POPSA federal court rejects Bush's "executive privilege" claims And did some liberal "I make the law from the bench" write this ruling? Errrm....NO! "as a Federal District Judge, John D. Bates of the District of Columbia District Court -- a Bush 43-appointed (and generally very pro-Bush-administration) Judge as well as the former Deputy Independent Counsel for the Whitewater investigations -- held in a 93-page ruling (.pdf) that Bush aides Harriet Miers (former White House counsel) and Josh Bolten (White House Chief of Staff) are not entitled to absolute immunity from Congressional subpoenas."
4
POPSBush "Executive Priviledge" He and his cronies will be doing all they can in the next few months to mess us up for decades. Our government has become closed and veiled in secrecy.
1
POPS20 Ex-Prosecutors Side with Congress in Subpoena Case The piece goes on: "If permitted to enforce its subpoenas for documents and testimony, Congress has a unique ability to address improper partisan influence in the prosecutorial process," the former prosecutors wrote. "No other institution will fill the vacuum if Congress is unable to investigate and respond to this evil." In other words, allow the subpoenas or the WH is above the law.
14
POPS‘It’s just a goddamned piece of paper’ Put aside, for a moment, political affiliation or personal beliefs. It doesn’t matter if you are a Democrat, Republican or Independent. It doesn’t matter if you support the invasion or Iraq or not. Despite our differences, the Constitution has stood for two centuries as the defining document of our government, the final source to determine “in the end ” if something is legal or right. Every federal official - including the President - who takes an oath of office swears to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States.” WHAT IS GLARINGLY OBVIOUS IS THE OUR "LEADERS" DON'T BELIEVE IN THE CONSTITUTION
0
POPSWexler Pushing for Impeachment While Praising Pelosi see site for video When? Millions of Americans have been calling for impeachment for a long time, Rep. Wexler and I admire you for pushing the issue in the HR....BUT-- I wonder why you praise Speaker Pelosi so highly since she is the person who took impeachment off the table from the start of the movement to take these criminals in the WH down to where they belong--under oath and before a jury of their peers. Get going! Ms. Pelosi shouldn't have to get her butt kissed to do her job defending the Constitution!
2
POPSWexler goes after Executive Branch In a vote on the House floor, we acted to enforce the law and our Constitution, and hold former White House Counsel Harriet Miers and White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten in Contempt of Congress.
2
POPSTime To Vote Contempt Where's the beef, when it comes to justice, and the rule of law. I guess politics trumps the law everytime.
3
POPSHouse Democrats push Bush on Subpoenas The White House said executive privilege meant those who were charged with withholding documents from a congressional hearing-Contempt of Congress, were immune from prosecution. Of course they were only the messengers.
8
POPSHoney, They Shrunk The Congress "Defending Congressional authority should not be a partisan issue. The founders wanted a strong Congress because they understood the importance of ensuring that the most democratic branch have a strong say in how the nation is run."
0
POPSRepublicans Trot Out Same Tired Lies Predictably, the Republicans rehash their own brand of swill by lying to the faithful in Atlanta. Using the bludgeon of fear they resort to the same stale rhetoric that has worked for them in the past. The same rhetoric that the rest of the country is beginning to see as manipulative and hypocritical.
0
POPSContempt and Congress Rather than run from this fight, supporters of the constitutional system ought to stand firm with the president. Presidents, Congresses, and the courts have long accepted a president's right to keep internal executive discussions confidential. Even when the Supreme Court ordered Richard Nixon to hand over the Watergate tapes, it recognized "the necessity for protection of the public interest in candid, objective, and even blunt or harsh opinions in Presidential decisionmaking." Without secrecy, the government can't function. No one thinks conversations between federal judges and their clerks, or members of Congress and their staff, ought to be aired publicly without good reason. The same goes for presidents -- even if their poll ratings are low.
2
POPSTalk about obstructing justice The chutzpah of the Bush Admin truly knows no bounds (which I realize isn't much of a revelation, but still can't be pointed out often enough!) Now, in addition to their recent refusal to hand over documents subpoenaed by Congress, the White House is telling former aids not to testify, even though they've been subpoenaed! The notes below refer to Sara Taylor, who is alleged to have potentially valuable information regarding the questionable firings of several US Attorneys, but according to Raw Story , Harriet Miers has also been instructed not to testify. In the letter (referenced in the clip below) from Neil Eggleston, Taylor's attorney, he notes that she is currently caught between the subpoena for her testimony from Congress and orders from the President not to testify. These contrary directions undoubtedly create a monumental clash between the executive and legislative branches of
7
POPSBush Moves Toward Showdown With Congress Rejected subpoenas? How can he? Oh, his sweeping executive privilege of course. How convenient... Rep. John Conyers, also a Democrat, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said Bush's assertion of executive privilege was "unprecedented in its breadth and scope" and displayed "an appalling disregard for the right of the people to know what is going on in their government."
0
POPSIncorrigible and Defiant As Ever Bush acts as if it's an insult to have his appointed officials testify "under oath" even though they've proven time and time again that their words cannot be trusted. If they can't be trusted to tell the truth while not under oath, they should be compelled to do so under oath in public while being taped, and a transcript of their testimony should be made available. It is the only means of holding liars accountable and responsible for their misleading statements to Congress. If they intend to tell the truth, why is Bush opposed to them testifying while under oath?
3
Pops
Newest Clips
Latest Comments
Most Pops
Print
Save
Turn on live update