• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Presidential Powers Hearing- Constitutional Crisis

A

Anonymous

Guest
These are the hearings I posted about yesterday- nearly 6 hours of hearings..I got a chance to watch the parts I missed yesterday, last night...Charges ranging from Bush should be indicted for murder- to war crimes- to violation of US torture laws- to obstructing justice- to impeachment for refusal to allow Congressional Oversight.....

You can argue the others all day long- but I think the one that is the biggest Constitutional Crisis is the Congressional Oversight- because Bush is claiming anyone with connection to the White House has Administrative Immunity from releasing documents or testifying- and the fact that he is selectively enforcing the law- picking bits and pieces out of a law- and using the argument that everything else is unconstitutional to get around not enforcing it , something never allowed before...

It was kind of comical- that while the Republicans arguing to protect GW couldn't argue against the facts- they had to argue that he was just a bumbling idiot, or been misled by bad legal advice, and couldn't be impeached because he had no intent to do wrong or harm...

I think former Congressman (Libertarian Presidential Candidate) Bob Barr and former Reagan Deputy Attorney General Bruce Fein were probably the most learned on the Constitution and operation of government that testified.....

BARR: If we don't get a handle on this now, in some form or fashion, the next administration and the one after that, regardless of party, will take these abuses, these powers, these liberties with the fundamental institutions of our government, and take them to even higher and higher levels."

"FEIN: The Executive Branch has vandalized the Constitution every bit as much as the barbarians sacked Rome in 410 A.D. The Executive Branch has destroyed the constitution's time honored checks and balanced [and] taken the nation perilously close to executive despotism.


US Congressional Panel Hears Testimony on Case for Bush Impeachment
By Dan Robinson
Washington
25 July 2008


A congressional committee has heard testimony about the case for impeachment of President Bush. VOA's Dan Robinson reports, while majority Democrats have ruled out formal impeachment efforts, they approved the public hearing to examine limitations on presidential powers and arguments about what constitute impeachable offenses.

Critics say President Bush and Vice President Cheney should be impeached because of a range of alleged legal and constitutional abuses.

The list includes administration justifications to Congress and Americans for the war in Iraq, authorization of secret electronic surveillance, approval of harsh interrogation techniques, and defiance of congressional subpoenas.
-------------------

Bruce Fein, a former Associate Deputy U.S. Attorney General and one of the first constitutional legal scholars to call for impeachment, was joined by Vincent Bugliosi, a former Los Angeles County Prosecutor:

"FEIN: The Executive Branch has vandalized the Constitution every bit as much as the barbarians sacked Rome in 410 A.D. The Executive Branch has destroyed the constitution's time honored checks and balanced [and] taken the nation perilously close to executive despotism.

BUGLIOSI: Whether Republican or Democrat, all Americans should be absolutely outraged by what this administration has done. How dare they do what they have done. How dare they!"

Also testifying were Bob Barr and Elizabeth Holtzman, former Republican and Democratic members of Congress:

"HOLTZMAN: The only remedy and that is the one the framers gave to the Congress of the U.S., the House and the Senate, is the remedy of impeachment because no one can interfere with it.

BARR: If we don't get a handle on this now, in some form or fashion, the next administration and the one after that, regardless of party, will take these abuses, these powers, these liberties with the fundamental institutions of our government, and take them to even higher and higher levels."

Frederick Schwarz, of New York University's School of Law, says any impeachment effort at this stage would be too late and politically divisive, but recommends creation of a bipartisan investigative commission. "I recommend that the Congress and the new president sign a bill that sets up an independent nonpartisan and bipartisan investigatory commission that will look at what has been done wrong, look at what has been done right, and recommend remedies for things that have been done wrong," he said.

Elliott Adams represented the anti-war organization Veterans for Peace. "When our founding fathers signed the Declaration of Independence, they were not worried about political will or about how much time there was or about what parties might effect their political future. They were just worried that they were going to be hanged by the neck, yet they did the right thing. Now gentlemen it is your time to stand up," he said.

http://www.voanews.com/english/2008-07-25-voa55.cfm

When some of the Republicans on the committee started yipping about witch hunt it was Rep Jones of N.C. another Republican and strong Constitionalist that reminded them that the next President likely could be a Democrat- and if they allowed these violations to go unchallenged that it would set precedent and automatically revert these powers to him- just as Barr said....


Frederick Schwarz, of New York University's School of Law, says any impeachment effort at this stage would be too late and politically divisive, but recommends creation of a bipartisan investigative commission. "I recommend that the Congress and the new president sign a bill that sets up an independent nonpartisan and bipartisan investigatory commission that will look at what has been done wrong, look at what has been done right, and recommend remedies for things that have been done wrong," he said.

I doubt if any impeachment will take place altho there was total agreement that there definitely is much more than enough probable cause to bring them about...
I believe Congress will follow Schwarz's (who was a member of the Church Commission) advice to try and get consent from both Presidential Candidates- and then set up an Independent Commission to look into the allegations, violations of law, and look at remedy to close the gaps without having to do an impeachment... Which I agree with as Impeachment will just tear this already divided country further apart- but these actions that have occurred need to be made open and transparent- which is necessary for us to keep operating as a Republic...

As Fein said "Sunlight is the best Disinfectant"....

It was agreed upon tho during the hearings- that once a President leaves office- they or none of their administration any longer has any immunity from any criminal charges that may be brought upon them by the US, state govt., or International Courts....

Scarily--several echoed Ron Pauls and the right wing Conservative fear- of what more will King George do in his last 6 months in office.....Many still think he will go around the Constitutional war powers and start a war with Iran....
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
King George keeps blundering on in his "Tammany Hall- Daley Machine" type actions to build his legacy as the most corrupt President in modern history....He has done more to politicize and turn "the peoples attorney" (the Attorney General) into his private attorney than possibly even Nixon.... :(

Internal Justice Dept. Report Cites Illegal Hiring Practices


By Carrie Johnson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, July 29, 2008; Page A01

For nearly two years, a young political aide sought to cultivate a "farm system" for Republicans at the Justice Department, hiring scores of prosecutors and immigration judges who espoused conservative priorities and Christian lifestyle choices.

That aide, Monica M. Goodling, exercised what amounted to veto power over a wide range of critical jobs, asking candidates for their views on abortion and same-sex marriage and maneuvering around senior officials who outranked her, including the department's second-in-command.

An extensive report by the department's Office of the Inspector General and Office of Professional Responsibility concluded yesterday that Goodling and others had broken civil service laws, run afoul of department policy and engaged in "misconduct," a finding that could expose them to further scrutiny and sanctions. The report depicted Goodling as a central figure in politicizing employment decisions at Justice during the Bush administration.

Goodling declined to cooperate with investigators, who instead interviewed 85 witnesses and scoured documents and computer hard drives to prepare their report. Last year, she trembled as she told the House Judiciary Committee that she "crossed the line" by asking improper questions of job seekers to gauge their political leanings.

But the report and accounts from lawyers who worked alongside Goodling, 34, at Justice provide a far more extensive examination of her dominance during her time as the department's White House liaison and counselor to the attorney general. One source said staff members called her "she who must be obeyed."

Thirty-four candidates told investigators that Goodling or one of her deputies raised the topic of abortion in job interviews and 21 said they discussed same-sex marriage, the report said. Another job applicant said he admired Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, only to watch Goodling "frown" and respond, "But she's pro-choice."

She and her aides regularly gave candidates for career civil service jobs a form designed for political appointees that sought information on party affiliation and financial contributions. When job seekers sometimes raised objections, Goodling replied that the form was a mistake, showing that she was "aware that it was improper," the report said.
-------------------

A report last month by Inspector General Glenn A. Fine and Office of Professional Responsibility chief H. Marshall Jarrett found that politics had permeated hiring for the elite honors and summer law intern programs. That revelation already has prompted unsuccessful candidates to bring lawsuits seeking monetary damages and access to internal department correspondence. Lawyers who scrutinized yesterday's report predicted fresh claims would flow from people who maintain that their employment prospects have been hindered.

-------------------------

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/28/AR2008072801007.html?hpid=topnews
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
I would guess that after the next Pres. is in office...and the dust settles from all that you're gonna see TONS of investigations break out into the Bush Admn.

All those people who are afraid to loose their jobs NOW....will be able to speak later on and I feel they surely will.


We will be amazed and stunned at what they will tell us.


Of course, the ' regulars' will still lawd Bush as the perfect Decider in Chief!!!
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
And King Georges kingdom continues to unravel.... :)

U.S. Judge: White House Aides Can Be Subpoenaed

Thursday, July 31, 2008 11:16 AM

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.


The House Judiciary Committee wants to question the president's chief of staff, Josh Bolten, and former legal counsel Harriet Miers, about the firing of nine U.S. attorneys. But President Bush says they are immune from such subpoenas. They say Congress can't force them to testify or turn over documents.

U.S. District Judge John Bates disagreed, saying there's no legal basis for that argument and that Miers must appear before Congress. If she wants to refuse to testify, he said, she must do so in person.


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


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.

http://www.newsmax.com/us/white_house_aides/2008/07/31/117852.html
 

Mike

Well-known member
The Impeachment Hearing That Wasn't
By JR Dieckmann
Jul 28, 2008 MichNews.com (Excerpt)

"What would you call it when a group of Bush hating, hallucinating, antiwar liberals get together for an antiwar, Bush bashing party on the taxpayers' dime? Today, we call it a "Congressional Committee Hearing." Most recently, it was the House Judiciary Committee discussing the "Constitutional Limits of Executive Power" - at least that is what they were supposed to be discussing. It wasn’t.

Chaired by Rep. John Conyers (D-Mi), this hearing was based on the Dennis Kucinich points of impeachment of President Bush. Although billed as a House Committee Hearing on the Constitutional Limits of Executive Power, it was actually more like a lynch mob intent on putting Bush's neck in a noose and pushing the articles of impeachment onto the House floor.

Repeatedly it was stated by Conyers that this was not an impeachment hearing, but rather an inquiry into presidential powers. Impeachment hearings had not been authorized by House leadership. Why? Because the House leadership knew they didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of ever passing impeachment of the president on the House floor. If you have ever wondered why Congress now has a 9% approval rating, this explains it all.

There was nothing new or different in this hearing that we haven't been hearing from Democrats for the past 5 years. It was just a rehash of everything they hate about Bush and all of their unsupported charges thrown at the president over the years which include: lying to Congress and the American people; manipulating intelligence pertaining to WMD in Iraq; ordering the illegal use of torture; outing a covert agent; spying on the American people; firing U.S. Attorney's for political purposes; denying the constitutional powers of congressional oversight; ignoring subpoenas; and other alleged crimes. Yet, this wasn't an impeachment hearing.

It should be noted that throughout the hearing, Democrats rarely made mention of the attacks of 9-11, or the fact that we have been at war against terrorists ever since. As far as they are concerned, none of that exists and national defense and protecting the country from attack are irrelevant.

The Democrats have the right to pursue this nonsense, and as Mike Pence said, it's a waste of time and will never be considered by Congress, but some of the accusations and hateful language used against the President were highly disrespectful and way over the top, if not just liberal nonsense. There was no shortage of references to Richard Nixon throughout the hearing, but only a couple of brief mentions of Bill Clinton, who also faced impeachment.

The hearing was supposed to be an investigation into the powers of the president (and the Democrats’ hopes of reducing them), not an impeachment hearing. That's not the way it turned out. It was a clear and obvious attempt by Democrats to criminalize politics because they disagree with the policies of the president.

What hurts the most are the accusations by Democrats that President Bush has put his personal interests above the best interests of the American people; that everything he has done in defense of our country was done instead for some sort of personal gain. I don’t agree with Bush on a number of issues, but one credit I will give him is that his primary concern is for the safety and security of the country above all else. Democrats have made a big mistake by attacking him on this issue.

In their opening statements, they profess that Bush started a war in Iraq for no good reason, all on his own, and without the consent of Congress. The fact that Bush had a consensus of world intelligence in support of his reasons for going to war, that he had the full approval of Congress, and that Congress continues to fund the war in Iraq to this day, means nothing to them. They don't care.

What they care about is getting their false charges and lies out on television and into the media to sucker in the uninformed voters; to increase their power to subvert the U.S. government; to trash the Constitution; and offer "change" - from capitalism to socialism, if not communism, and justify it all by saying they simply want to be sure the Constitution is being adhered to by the president.

An early example of liberal ignorance came from Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, the same Sheila Jackson Lee who recently said the government should "socialize" and take over the oil companies." MichNews.com
 

hopalong

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
These are the hearings I posted about yesterday- nearly 6 hours of hearings..I got a chance to watch the parts I missed yesterday, last night...Charges ranging from Bush should be indicted for murder- to war crimes- to violation of US torture laws- to obstructing justice- to impeachment for refusal to allow Congressional Oversight.....

You can argue the others all day long- but I think the one that is the biggest Constitutional Crisis is the Congressional Oversight- because Bush is claiming anyone with connection to the White House has Administrative Immunity from releasing documents or testifying- and the fact that he is selectively enforcing the law- picking bits and pieces out of a law- and using the argument that everything else is unconstitutional to get around not enforcing it , something never allowed before...

It was kind of comical- that while the Republicans arguing to protect GW couldn't argue against the facts- they had to argue that he was just a bumbling idiot, or been misled by bad legal advice, and couldn't be impeached because he had no intent to do wrong or harm...

I think former Congressman (Libertarian Presidential Candidate) Bob Barr and former Reagan Deputy Attorney General Bruce Fein were probably the most learned on the Constitution and operation of government that testified.....

BARR: If we don't get a handle on this now, in some form or fashion, the next administration and the one after that, regardless of party, will take these abuses, these powers, these liberties with the fundamental institutions of our government, and take them to even higher and higher levels."

"FEIN: The Executive Branch has vandalized the Constitution every bit as much as the barbarians sacked Rome in 410 A.D. The Executive Branch has destroyed the constitution's time honored checks and balanced [and] taken the nation perilously close to executive despotism.


US Congressional Panel Hears Testimony on Case for Bush Impeachment
By Dan Robinson
Washington
25 July 2008


A congressional committee has heard testimony about the case for impeachment of President Bush. VOA's Dan Robinson reports, while majority Democrats have ruled out formal impeachment efforts, they approved the public hearing to examine limitations on presidential powers and arguments about what constitute impeachable offenses.

Critics say President Bush and Vice President Cheney should be impeached because of a range of alleged legal and constitutional abuses.

The list includes administration justifications to Congress and Americans for the war in Iraq, authorization of secret electronic surveillance, approval of harsh interrogation techniques, and defiance of congressional subpoenas.
-------------------

Bruce Fein, a former Associate Deputy U.S. Attorney General and one of the first constitutional legal scholars to call for impeachment, was joined by Vincent Bugliosi, a former Los Angeles County Prosecutor:

"FEIN: The Executive Branch has vandalized the Constitution every bit as much as the barbarians sacked Rome in 410 A.D. The Executive Branch has destroyed the constitution's time honored checks and balanced [and] taken the nation perilously close to executive despotism.

BUGLIOSI: Whether Republican or Democrat, all Americans should be absolutely outraged by what this administration has done. How dare they do what they have done. How dare they!"

Also testifying were Bob Barr and Elizabeth Holtzman, former Republican and Democratic members of Congress:

"HOLTZMAN: The only remedy and that is the one the framers gave to the Congress of the U.S., the House and the Senate, is the remedy of impeachment because no one can interfere with it.

BARR: If we don't get a handle on this now, in some form or fashion, the next administration and the one after that, regardless of party, will take these abuses, these powers, these liberties with the fundamental institutions of our government, and take them to even higher and higher levels."

Frederick Schwarz, of New York University's School of Law, says any impeachment effort at this stage would be too late and politically divisive, but recommends creation of a bipartisan investigative commission. "I recommend that the Congress and the new president sign a bill that sets up an independent nonpartisan and bipartisan investigatory commission that will look at what has been done wrong, look at what has been done right, and recommend remedies for things that have been done wrong," he said.

Elliott Adams represented the anti-war organization Veterans for Peace. "When our founding fathers signed the Declaration of Independence, they were not worried about political will or about how much time there was or about what parties might effect their political future. They were just worried that they were going to be hanged by the neck, yet they did the right thing. Now gentlemen it is your time to stand up," he said.

http://www.voanews.com/english/2008-07-25-voa55.cfm

When some of the Republicans on the committee started yipping about witch hunt it was Rep Jones of N.C. another Republican and strong Constitionalist that reminded them that the next President likely could be a Democrat- and if they allowed these violations to go unchallenged that it would set precedent and automatically revert these powers to him- just as Barr said....


Frederick Schwarz, of New York University's School of Law, says any impeachment effort at this stage would be too late and politically divisive, but recommends creation of a bipartisan investigative commission. "I recommend that the Congress and the new president sign a bill that sets up an independent nonpartisan and bipartisan investigatory commission that will look at what has been done wrong, look at what has been done right, and recommend remedies for things that have been done wrong," he said.

I doubt if any impeachment will take place altho there was total agreement that there definitely is much more than enough probable cause to bring them about...
I believe Congress will follow Schwarz's (who was a member of the Church Commission) advice to try and get consent from both Presidential Candidates- and then set up an Independent Commission to look into the allegations, violations of law, and look at remedy to close the gaps without having to do an impeachment... Which I agree with as Impeachment will just tear this already divided country further apart- but these actions that have occurred need to be made open and transparent- which is necessary for us to keep operating as a Republic...

As Fein said "Sunlight is the best Disinfectant"....

It was agreed upon tho during the hearings- that once a President leaves office- they or none of their administration any longer has any immunity from any criminal charges that may be brought upon them by the US, state govt., or International Courts....

Scarily--several echoed Ron Pauls and the right wing Conservative fear- of what more will King George do in his last 6 months in office.....Many still think he will go around the Constitutional war powers and start a war with Iran....

How could you miss any of it?? were you too busy in the other forums you spout off in?
cattle today as Oldtimer
advantagecattle as Oldtimer
dgroopsagriculture as Oldtimer
agriville.com lets see i think you were willowcreek in that one
and lets see which one you were arroya193403 in?


were you too busy reading emails from all the sub commitees you belong to, or were you too busy being an ex sheriff. legislator, cia operitive, fbi agent, border patrol, school crossing guard self appointed protector of the gloom and doom crowd .
or were you in the getdrunk and vote mccain trying to make yourself fit in with a bunch of drunks?

You gave up 30 yrs in what to let the younger crowd have their say? So when you gonna quit cutting and pasting all the gloom and doom bash bash bash posts and let them make up theit own minds?
Or are you gonna continue to be a hypocrite??
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Does your little temper rants make you feel better little man of many names... :???:
Grandma tells the grandkids its timeout time- and after their nap they feel much better... :roll: :wink: :lol: :lol: :p
 

hopalong

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Does your little temper rants make you feel better little man of many names... :???:
Grandma tells the grandkids its timeout time- and after their nap they feel much better... :roll: :wink: :lol: :lol: :p

Yep I always Feel better after a nap, you should try it sometime maybe it will get rid of some of that dark cloud of gloom and doom that surrounds you.
Wait a minute if you done that you would not be able to spend all the tiime you do spouting all your whining in all of the forums you do, and attend all them secret meetings :roll: :roll:
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
What they care about is getting their false charges and lies out on television and into the media to sucker in the uninformed voters; to increase their power to subvert the U.S. government; to trash the Constitution; and offer "change" - from capitalism to socialism, if not communism, and justify it all by saying they simply want to be sure the Constitution is being adhered to by the president.
There is no doubt about the fact these Democrats are socialist and socialism goes totally against the Constitution. If Obama is elected, all this will go away(because after the election, it will be meaningless) and the Socialist Democrats will begin to socialize the government!
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
RobertMac said:
What they care about is getting their false charges and lies out on television and into the media to sucker in the uninformed voters; to increase their power to subvert the U.S. government; to trash the Constitution; and offer "change" - from capitalism to socialism, if not communism, and justify it all by saying they simply want to be sure the Constitution is being adhered to by the president.
There is no doubt about the fact these Democrats are socialist and socialism goes totally against the Constitution. If Obama is elected, all this will go away(because after the election, it will be meaningless) and the Socialist Democrats will begin to socialize the government!

So you think the investigations done by the US military and General Tagabu- or the Red Cross that both reported that high level officials in the Bush administration authorized and are guilty of War Crimes are Marxist oriented :???:

I can't believe that any conservative can sit there and defend the actions of GW- and how he has tore apart the Constitution and caused a Constitutional crisis involving Congress's duty (shall) of oversight over the Administrative branch- knowing that if these are allowed to stand- they will set precedent in law- which will then be powers that can/will be used by future Presidents-- many of which may not be of their Party....

Do you want Obama to assume all these powers on Jan 20th :???:
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
If laws have been broken, there should be prosecution.
My question to you...a former sheriff and judge...where is your "presumption of innocence"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
RobertMac said:
If laws have been broken, there should be prosecution.
My question to you...a former sheriff and judge...where is your "presumption of innocence"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I presume innocence-- but also when I see probable cause I believe there should be indictments and those folks brought before the scales of justice to determine that guilt or innocence....

As was the total consensus of those in the hearings-- there is way more than enough "probable cause"......

The only thing that has kept Bush from "impeachment hearings" to decide if he should be impeached is the fact that Pelosi promised she would not do it and further divide the country--letting the public decide at the polls like they did in 2006...And I think its comical the above author calling it "political" - as three of the loudest calling for hearings are some of the most Conservative you could find- Congressmen Paul and Jones and ex Congressman Bob Barr-- (both of the latter of which testified at that hearing)......

But that said- I think there needs to be hearings and investigations into what was done by this Bush crew- if for no other reason than to find ways to fix the problem...And I would be surprised if he and/or others in his circle are not indicted in either US or International courts when everything surfaces....The State Dept has already warned several in the inner circle that it could be dangerous for them to travel abroad- because they could be arrested in some of these nations....

Some very interesting evidence being "leaked" to folks in Congress (because Bush refuses to authorize their release) by someone-- including the original security estimate that Bush used to promote Congress's backing of the Iraq war---except the copies the Congress had received from Bush to make their decision with had been edited and censored including the removal of the final sentence which summed up the report " Iraq poses no National Security threat to the US"......

To me thats too serious a deception to overlook in a country that only exists because of openness and transparency....
 

MoGal

Well-known member
OT - isn't it a moot point now??

I read on another blog that attached to the Freddie and Fannie bailout bill ................ small sentence saying Bush and Company couldn't be tried for any crimes......... and I've not seen it anywhere else.

Have you read the housing bailout bill in entirety? Anybody else heard this??

Also your buddy GW, is pardoning many, many people in December. I guess all the central bankers will be on that list.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
MoGal said:
OT - isn't it a moot point now??

I read on another blog that attached to the Freddie and Fannie bailout bill ................ small sentence saying Bush and Company couldn't be tried for any crimes......... and I've not seen it anywhere else.

Have you read the housing bailout bill in entirety? Anybody else heard this??
.

I doubt it-- Bush enacted the Military Commissions Act (MCA) in an attempt to regulate the legal procedures involving illegal combatants. Part of the act was an amendment which retroactively rewrote the War Crimes Act effectively making policy makers, i.e. politicians and military leaders, and those applying policy, i.e. CIA interogators and soldiers, no longer subject to legal prosecution under US law for what before the amendment was defined as a war crime. Cheney and/or Rumsfeld also issued a memorandum to the military and CIA granting them "immunity before the fact"....
But all legal scholars are in agreement- that no one- not even King George- nor Congress can give a person immunity or permission to violate the law... They can change the law- but they didn't do that...And no one can give them immunity from International Law or the laws of other nations of the world-- which we are seeing now as several CIA agents are being tried in abstentia in Italy- which could/would make them extraditable from any country that has extradition agreements with Italy if they ever are caught outside the U.S....

Just a huge slimy stinky mess they made when they put themselves out to be above the law and the Constitution...

"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face," Bush screamed back. "It's just a goddamned piece of paper!"
Nov, 2005
 

Larrry

Well-known member
Well then the Dems(socialists) should push for charges. Either they are incompetent and not doing their job or there is not probable cause. Either way they are losers.
 

Texan

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Just a huge slimy stinky mess they made when they put themselves out to be above the law and the Constitution...

"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face," Bush screamed back. "It's just a goddamned piece of paper!"
Nov, 2005

You're pathetic, JUDGE:

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_president_bush_call_the_constitution_a.html

You have reached the point where you just post one lie after another. Even when you've been previously informed of the truth. Pathetic.

http://ranchers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=284890#284890
 

hopalong

Well-known member
Texan said:
Oldtimer said:
Just a huge slimy stinky mess they made when they put themselves out to be above the law and the Constitution...

"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face," Bush screamed back. "It's just a goddamned piece of paper!"
Nov, 2005

You're pathetic, JUDGE:

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_president_bush_call_the_constitution_a.html

You have reached the point where you just post one lie after another. Even when you've been previously informed of the truth. Pathetic.

Judge Judy AKA Oldtimer probabally never read it the first time because it failed to have anything bashing Bush, and failed to have the word Neocon anywhere in the article. :roll: :roll:


http://ranchers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=284890#284890
 

loomixguy

Well-known member
Looks more and more every day that the final stages of Alzheimer's (Old Timer's) is setting in. Dementia is a horrible thing for the masses to have to witness.
 
Top