Executive privilege
Name that author.
...wants to shield virtually any communications that take place within the White House compound on the theory that all such talk contributes in some way, shape or form to the continuing success and harmony of an administration. Taken to its logical extreme, that position would make it impossible for citizens to hold a chief executive accountable for anything. He would have a constitutional right to cover up.
8 comments:
Big difference, Garrett, and you know it. In 1998 it was a criminal investigation. Now it's...err...what? What law was broken?
Again, nice try but dishonest.
Obstruction of justice, yanking Carol Lam out of her position so she has to stop following leads from the Cunningham investigation. The only reason this isn't a criminal investigation yet is that the investigators are, in large part, the ones committing the crime.
And, incidentally, perjury, considering Gonzales lied to Congress about why the USAs were fired.
Actually, uninformed one, the Cunningham investigation continued aggressively. In fact, Lam was left in place longer that they wanted to so that things were wrapped up better. I am prepared to cite you into embarrassment on that one.
There IS no crime. This is a partisan witchhunt with no witches.
In a way, I hope this farce continues as it's going to end up badly for the Dems when it all comes up zip.
Furthermore, this is what I see from you: I post strong answers or fact based posts about events and you don't respond to them - rather, you post someone elses opinions as new posts when the topic already exists and hide behind them.
If you really believe your shit, form your own opinion or at least defend it. And defend it wisely, and honestly. You have been neither wise nor honest lately.
Hope you're having fun in Las Vegas :-) Wish I were there!
Anyhow, I don't really care if they subpoena these guys. I think it's a tremendous waste of time and petty politics, that's all.
Back to the comparisons with 1998, then there were identifiable crimes being investigated but what now? Can you name one? Honestly, I can't.
John, you didn't read my post very well. I didn't say that it was to stop the Cunningham investigation: it was to stop her seeing where she would be led by the Cunningham investigation. During her last week, she indicted Foggo and Wilkes. Had she remained in office, would she have indicted more people connected to those three? Because Bush chose to play politics with the Justice system, we won't know.
Seems to me that the prosecution of Foggo and Wilkes is coming along just fine and I'm sure there might be more subpoenas as the investigation continues.
Seems to me pretty lame to say that she was fired for this if the case is still ongoing.
Post a Comment