George Bush's Watergate and the numerous cover-ups.

George Bush's Watergate and the numerous cover-ups. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

SirDiscipliner69 -> George Bush's Watergate and the numerous cover-ups. (3/17/2007 12:51:52 AM)
Welcome to George Bush's Watergate and the numerous cover-ups. The Bush Administration fired eight U.S. Attorneys. They were fired because they wouldn't follow marching orders given by the George Bush's Administration. They were given walking papers because they refused to go on witch-hunts against Democrats, or turn a blind eye to the Republicans' blatant disregard for the law. They were let go, fired so that they could be replaced by media spinners , lobbist and loyalists of and to the Bush Administration. This latest White House scandal, just one of many, of this Republican Bush administration is reminisant of Richard Nixon's administration. The administration is more obsessed with the legacy in history, their critics than with their jobs to represent as the American people entrust them with. Just what did George Bush,Bush White House and Republican senior staff, Karl Rove, Alberto Gonzales know about the Justice Department firings ? When did they know it? Use the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to try to cut through all the White House's garbage. It is time to stop the finger-pointing, the lies, and the countless cover-ups. All Americans have a right to know what was and is going on and the right to access any and all records between the Republican National Committee, other Republican party committees, and the Department of Justice. Do your part to help America get to the bottom of this investigation. Ross ©º°¨¨°º©

Sinergy -> RE: George Bush's Watergate and the numerous cover-ups. (3/17/2007 12:57:11 AM)
Matt Taibbi put it best, he said (I dont remember the exact quote) that the Bush administration 5 years ago did everything they could to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. This is similar to the Nixon administration screwing up by bugging Watergate when they would have won handily without resorting to illegal activities. Sinergy

pahunkboy -> RE: George Bush's Watergate and the numerous cover-ups. (3/17/2007 5:16:49 AM)
bush and nixon in the same post? egads. i propose the matter is more like TREASION. bush standing next to nixon elevated bush. TREASON! he acts like a king. but worse

Real0ne -> RE: George Bush's Watergate and the numerous cover-ups. (3/17/2007 6:41:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SirDiscipliner69 Do your part to help America get to the bottom of this investigation. Ross ©º°¨¨°º© http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/ http://www.house.gov/writerep/ http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Governors.shtml http://www.petitiononline.com/ http://www.petitions.org/ http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/ http://www.aclu.org/

SirDiscipliner69 -> latest emails relating to the firings of U.S.RE: George Bush's Watergate and the numerous cover-ups. (3/17/2007 9:39:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pahunkboy bush and nixon in the same post? egads. Last night, the Justice Department released the latest emails relating to the firings of U.S. Attorneys. They appear to further implicate Karl Rove and Alberto Gonzales in the affair. Read the Karl Rove email http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/doj/smpsnwh105emails.html actual copy of it Ross ©º°¨¨°º©

SirDiscipliner69 -> What is George Bush hiding?????? Can you say "Impeach"? (3/21/2007 8:33:58 AM)
What is George Bush hiding?????? Seems instead of hindering the investigation Bush should have learnt from what happened with his father and Regan's situation. Instead he is defiant and non cooperative in his stance. Exactly what sense does it make to have staff testify not under oath for public record Rather than help clear the Justice Dept he would rather have everyone kick it around like a football. So much for imparial justice. Sounds alot like "I am not a crook"....ala Nixon Can you say "Impeach"? Ross ©º°¨¨°º©

FirmhandKY -> RE: What is George Bush hiding?????? Can you say "Impeach"? (3/21/2007 10:11:06 AM)
An Administrations rights to hire or fire US Attorney's is part of the Executive rights given to him by the Constitution. Congress is simply on a witch-hunt, sticking their noses into something that isn't in their brief, or area of responsibility. It's the criminalization of political dissent, nothing more and nothing less. My biggest complaint is that the first words out of the President's mouth, when they (Congress) started this crap should've been: "F**k off." FirmKY

farglebargle -> RE: What is George Bush hiding?????? Can you say "Impeach"? (3/21/2007 10:25:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY An Administrations rights to hire or fire US Attorney's is part of the Executive rights given to him by the Constitution. Yes. That is true. HOWEVER. Removing USAs with PERFECT performance records, and justifying it with "underperformance" is a lie, isn't it? The President's authority ENDS when he lies. Perhaps they should have reviewed the actual records of the USA before using the "Performance" excuse? Removing the USA who had successfully prosecuted Randy Cunningham, and who was launching another round of investigations DOES seem like "Obstruction of Justice", doesn't it? quote: Congress is simply on a witch-hunt, sticking their noses into something that isn't in their brief, or area of responsibility. So the "Separation of Powers" doesn't involve Congress' legitimate oversight functions? quote: It's the criminalization of political dissent, nothing more and nothing less. Nice talking point, but it's an investigation into Obstruction of Justice charges. And that email from AG's CoS, where he states that being a "Loyal Bushie" was a criteria for retention. I thought these guys came from the Corporate World? I guess they didn't learn shit from Enron. Sampson wrote, "we would like to replace 15-20 percent of the current U.S. Attorneys -- the underperforming ones . . . The vast majority of U.S. Attorneys, 80-85 percent, I would guess, are doing a great job, are loyal Bushies, etc., etc." Smoking Gnu.

slaveluci -> RE: What is George Bush hiding?????? Can you say "Impeach"? (3/21/2007 10:56:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY An Administrations rights to hire or fire US Attorney's is part of the Executive rights given to him by the Constitution. Since when has Bush cared what the Constitution says? To him and his administration, it contains suggestions. It's to be referred to only when it benefits their cause. Congress is simply on a witch-hunt, sticking their noses into something that isn't in their brief, or area of responsibility. It's the criminalization of political dissent, nothing more and nothing less. "Political dissent" has BEEN "criminalized" throughout the Bush Administration. It's just that it has always been people who disagreed with his policies and/or who spoke up about the illegalities and abuses of his administration that were the criminals. My biggest complaint is that the first words out of the President's mouth, when they (Congress) started this crap should've been: "F**k off." They probably were (in private) but, as with everything else he does, he's not going to have the guts to actually stand before Congress and the Amerian public and admit it. He'll just find some underhanded, illegal way of getting his way regardless of what Congress, the constitution, or the people say. Business as usual........slave luci FirmKY

FirmhandKY -> RE: What is George Bush hiding?????? Can you say "Impeach"? (3/21/2007 11:14:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY An Administrations rights to hire or fire US Attorney's is part of the Executive rights given to him by the Constitution. Yes. That is true. HOWEVER. Removing USAs with PERFECT performance records, and justifying it with "underperformance" is a lie, isn't it? No justification is required. It's a political post. They can be removed at any time, for any reason. quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle The President's authority ENDS when he lies. okey dokey, my legalistic minded friend. Ya wanna bother to source this rather dubious claim? quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY Congress is simply on a witch-hunt, sticking their noses into something that isn't in their brief, or area of responsibility. So the "Separation of Powers" doesn't involve Congress' legitimate oversight functions? What are they overseeing? The hiring and firing of political appointees? quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY It's the criminalization of political dissent, nothing more and nothing less. Nice talking point, but it's an investigation into Obstruction of Justice charges. No, that's just the shallow justification used as the wedge to start the political witch hunt. quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle And that email from AG's CoS, where he states that being a "Loyal Bushie" was a criteria for retention. I thought these guys came from the Corporate World? I guess they didn't learn shit from Enron. Sampson wrote, "we would like to replace 15-20 percent of the current U.S. Attorneys -- the underperforming ones . . . The vast majority of U.S. Attorneys, 80-85 percent, I would guess, are doing a great job, are loyal Bushies, etc., etc." Political appointees, FB, every single one. Clinton did it. In fact, if memory serves correctly, Clinton fired every single US Attorney when he took office. You see any "Congressional oversight" then? So ... let me see if I have this correct .... A Democratic President can fire all 93 US Attorneys at one time, and there's no need for "oversight". A Republican President fires 8 ... and all hell breaks loose? Seems like it's more about politics that "oversight", to me. FirmKY

farglebargle -> RE: What is George Bush hiding?????? Can you say "Impeach"? (3/21/2007 11:41:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY An Administrations rights to hire or fire US Attorney's is part of the Executive rights given to him by the Constitution. Yes. That is true. HOWEVER. Removing USAs with PERFECT performance records, and justifying it with "underperformance" is a lie, isn't it? No justification is required. It's a political post. They can be removed at any time, for any reason. Agreed. But this isn't an investigation into the removal of the USAs, per se. It's an investigation into the Cover-up and lies associated with it. IF the Bush Admin had been HONEST and said, "We asked them to resign. Period". then we wouldn't be here. BUT what the Bush Admin did, was, without really a NEED TO, lie about the removal being about their performance. It's not the action. It's the subsequent lies about the action. The lies about their performance brings up the AG CoS emails about the requirement for service being "Loyal Bushies". And it's the investigation into whether any of the removals would qualify for Federal Obstruction of Justice statute violations. LYING about why you asked the Prosecutor holding Members of Congress accountable, and securing the convictions of them is what was wrong. And it goes behind the "Appearance of Impropriety". Remember "Bringing Honesty and Integrity back into the White House"? Bush lied about that too. quote: quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle The President's authority ENDS when he lies. okey dokey, my legalistic minded friend. Ya wanna bother to source this rather dubious claim? Yes. The Constitution does not grant the Executive the authority to lie to The People, or Congress, in the performance of his duties. quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY Congress is simply on a witch-hunt, sticking their noses into something that isn't in their brief, or area of responsibility. So the "Separation of Powers" doesn't involve Congress' legitimate oversight functions? What are they overseeing? The hiring and firing of political appointees? Why the Executive LIED about the USAs performance record. quote: quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY It's the criminalization of political dissent, nothing more and nothing less. Nice talking point, but it's an investigation into Obstruction of Justice charges. No, that's just the shallow justification used as the wedge to start the political witch hunt. quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle And that email from AG's CoS, where he states that being a "Loyal Bushie" was a criteria for retention. I thought these guys came from the Corporate World? I guess they didn't learn shit from Enron. Sampson wrote, "we would like to replace 15-20 percent of the current U.S. Attorneys -- the underperforming ones . . . The vast majority of U.S. Attorneys, 80-85 percent, I would guess, are doing a great job, are loyal Bushies, etc., etc." Political appointees, FB, every single one. Clinton did it. In fact, if memory serves correctly, Clinton fired every single US Attorney when he took office. You see any "Congressional oversight" then? So ... let me see if I have this correct .... A Democratic President can fire all 93 US Attorneys at one time, and there's no need for "oversight". A Republican President fires 8 ... and all hell breaks loose? Case A: 93 Attorneys at the end of their terms, being asked to step down at the beginning of an administration is normal and expected. Case B: Firing SELECTED Attorneys based on the LIE of their poor performance, when the DOJ's OWN PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS show that they did not fail to meet their performance objectives. Which one would earn a "Wrongful Dismissal" lawsuit in the Corporate World? Their oaths aren't to The President. Their oaths are to The Constitution and The People. The Loyal Bushies thing just makes them look too unsophisticated and petty to be trusted with the duties they have. The LIE about why they were asked to leave is what the problem. If this isn't investigated, EVERY USA will be considered nothing more than a Political Flunky, and cannot command the respect due their office. "Show Trials" are what the appointees NOT removed are capable of. That's why they're there. Not exactly bringing Honesty and Integrity to the DOJ, is it?

slaveluci -> RE: What is George Bush hiding?????? Can you say "Impeach"? (3/21/2007 11:49:18 AM)
No justification is required. It's a political post. They can be removed at any time, for any reason. True. So then when Clinton did so as he took office, that was acceptable and legal. Actually, it makes sense that a candidate entering office would do that AS HE ENTERS OFFICE, not years later when it just doesn't make sense. Not that anything a politician does HAS to make sense, but that WOULD make sense. Not just all of a sudden doing it on the spur of the moment years later when those folks have doing an exemplary job for you. Kind of raises suspicions.............. So ... let me see if I have this correct .... A Democratic President can fire all 93 US Attorneys at one time, and there's no need for "oversight". A Republican President fires 8 ... and all hell breaks loose? All in the timing and circumstances, i guess................ Seems like it's more about politics that "oversight", to me. Everything is about "politics." That's their business. Rather than making everything a Democrat -vs- Republican issue or a liberal -vs- conservative issue, just look at it objectively and admit it. This wasn't done because Bush just all of a sudden decided he had the constitutional right to do so and thought he would. He's had that right all along and did not exercise it. Even you have to admit it goes much deeper than that. If the tables were reversed, it would be the same. Clinton (or anyone, dem or repub) coming into office and automatically doing a cleansing is one thing. Up and doing it to only a few at such a crucial point and in such circumstances as this should make anyone have to acknowledge something's fishy........slave luci FirmKY

SirDiscipliner69 -> RE: What is George Bush hiding?????? Can you say "Impeach"? (3/21/2007 11:58:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY An Administrations rights to hire or fire US Attorney's is part of the Executive rights given to him by the Constitution. So it is ok not to have his aids under oath to testify for public record what is going on or what went on? Gonzalez was a pawn from the begining but he did not know it...they set him up as a fall guy to continue their political venture Congress is simply on a witch-hunt, sticking their noses into something that isn't in their brief, or area of responsibility. The last time I was aware Congress is to represent the people ...where as the President is Commander in Chief....many versus one in My book. It's the criminalization of political dissent, nothing more and nothing less. I am sure that is what Nixon's supporters said before.... My biggest complaint is that the first words out of the President's mouth, when they (Congress) started this crap should've been: "Fk off." I am sure it was.... but not with the "off"** FirmKY Everyone one knows that "Friends Don't Let Friends Torture Republicans" Ross ©º°¨¨°º©

SirDiscipliner69 -> RE: What is George Bush hiding?????? Can you say "Impeach"? (3/21/2007 12:01:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle Nice talking point, but it's an investigation into Obstruction of Justice charges. Sampson wrote, "we would like to replace 15-20 percent of the current U.S. Attorneys -- the underperforming ones . . . The vast majority of U.S. Attorneys, 80-85 percent, I would guess, are doing a great job, are loyal Bushies, etc., etc." Sad thing is the one that rated the Attorneys had no skill, experience nor right in doing so...investigate that while you are out there. Everyone one knows that "Friends Don't Let Friends Torture Republicans" Ross ©º°¨¨°º©

SirDiscipliner69 -> RE: What is George Bush hiding?????? Can you say "Impeach"? (3/21/2007 12:04:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slaveluci "Political dissent" has BEEN "criminalized" throughout the Bush Administration. It's just that it has always been people who disagreed with his policies and/or who spoke up about the illegalities and abuses of his administration that were the criminals. Actually everytime it gets close to actually rating the administration about the performance or lack of Bush's cronies find somehing else to stir up to take the fickle public mind off of them. Sometimes the retention of the public is all of two seconds. Just how long did the public stay interested in Oliver North's contribution to arms to the wrong people? Everyone one knows that "Friends Don't Let Friends Torture Republicans" Ross ©º°¨¨°º©

SirDiscipliner69 -> RE: What is George Bush hiding?????? Can you say "Impeach"? (3/21/2007 12:07:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY Political appointees, FB, every single one. Clinton did it. In fact, if memory serves correctly, Clinton fired every single US Attorney when he took office. You see any "Congressional oversight" then? Then let them testify under oath (as if that will make a difference) for public record. Co-operate with Congress then.....Daddy Bush did it...Reagun did it....this Bush...nadda Everyone one knows that "Friends Don't Let Friends Torture Republicans" Ross ©º°¨¨°º©

farglebargle -> RE: What is George Bush hiding?????? Can you say "Impeach"? (3/21/2007 12:08:09 PM)
You misspelled A'li North.

SirDiscipliner69 -> RE: What is George Bush hiding?????? Can you say "Impeach"? (3/21/2007 12:11:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle And it's the investigation into whether any of the removals would qualify for Federal Obstruction of Justice statute violations. LYING about why you asked the Prosecutor holding Members of Congress accountable, and securing the convictions of them is what was wrong. And it goes behind the "Appearance of Impropriety". Remember "Bringing Honesty and Integrity back into the White House"? Bush lied about that too. Embellishing the truth is one thing...but they have reinvented the truth.... Which came frist...the chicken or the egg? Even if you removed the current administration Bush's cronies are so far imbedded it would take at least 8 more years to remove them all. Everyone one knows that "Friends Don't Let Friends Torture Republicans" Ross ©º°¨¨°º©

FirmhandKY -> RE: What is George Bush hiding?????? Can you say "Impeach"? (3/21/2007 12:23:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY An Administrations rights to hire or fire US Attorney's is part of the Executive rights given to him by the Constitution. Yes. That is true. and ... quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY No justification is required. It's a political post. They can be removed at any time, for any reason. Agreed. If there is no originating crime ... no underlying crime ... and US Attornys are political appointees, who can be removed at any time, with or without cause ... how and why should there be an investigation into their removal? Politics, FB. Partisan politics on the Dems side in Congress. A witch-hunt in other words. quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle HOWEVER. Removing USAs with PERFECT performance records, and justifying it with "underperformance" is a lie, isn't it? But this isn't an investigation into the removal of the USAs, per se. It's an investigation into the Cover-up and lies associated with it. IF the Bush Admin had been HONEST and said, "We asked them to resign. Period". then we wouldn't be here. BUT what the Bush Admin did, was, without really a NEED TO, lie about the removal being about their performance. Again ... if there is no basis in a crime ... then there is no reason for an "investigation" .. unless your goal is to simply throw shit up against the wall, hoping it will stick and damage the Administration. I'll admit, I think the Admin handled it badly. It's par for course, and one of the reasons I don't rank Bush very highly as a President in most things. He should have simply done it, and said "Executive Privilege" when asked, and gone on. quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle It's not the action. It's the subsequent lies about the action. The lies about their performance brings up the AG CoS emails about the requirement for service being "Loyal Bushies". Being "loyal" is usually a prerequisite for a political appointee. quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle LYING about why you asked the Prosecutor holding Members of Congress accountable, and securing the convictions of them is what was wrong. And it goes behind the "Appearance of Impropriety". You've lost me on this one. quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle The President's authority ENDS when he lies. okey dokey, my legalistic minded friend. Ya wanna bother to source this rather dubious claim? Yes. The Constitution does not grant the Executive the authority to lie to The People, or Congress, in the performance of his duties. Does it grant him the power to tell the truth? quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY Political appointees, FB, every single one. Clinton did it. In fact, if memory serves correctly, Clinton fired every single US Attorney when he took office. You see any "Congressional oversight" then? So ... let me see if I have this correct .... A Democratic President can fire all 93 US Attorneys at one time, and there's no need for "oversight". A Republican President fires 8 ... and all hell breaks loose? Case A: 93 Attorneys at the end of their terms, being asked to step down at the beginning of an administration is normal and expected. Case B: Firing SELECTED Attorneys based on the LIE of their poor performance, when the DOJ's OWN PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS show that they did not fail to meet their performance objectives. FHKY: An Administrations rights to hire or fire US Attorney's is part of the Executive rights given to him by the Constitution. FB: Yes. That is true. FHKY: No justification is required. It's a political post. They can be removed at any time, for any reason. FB: Agreed. What parts of "at any time" and "for any reason" do you not get? quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle Which one would earn a "Wrongful Dismissal" lawsuit in the Corporate World? Their oaths aren't to The President. Their oaths are to The Constitution and The People. The Loyal Bushies thing just makes them look too unsophisticated and petty to be trusted with the duties they have. The LIE about why they were asked to leave is what the problem. If this isn't investigated, EVERY USA will be considered nothing more than a Political Flunky, and cannot command the respect due their office. Got news for ya, FB. US Attornys ARE "political flunkies" by definition. They swear to the Constitution, yes, but are appointed and hold their offices at the convenience and on the suffage of the US President. quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle "Show Trials" are what the appointees NOT removed are capable of. That's why they're there. Not exactly bringing Honesty and Integrity to the DOJ, is it? More honesty and Integrity than the US Congress is showing, I'm afraid. It's a show trial. Just as the Plame hearings were show trials. FirmKY

Sinergy -> RE: What is George Bush hiding?????? Can you say "Impeach"? (3/21/2007 12:25:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SirDiscipliner69 The last time I was aware Congress is to represent the people ...where as the President is Commander in Chief....many versus one in My book. I agree with everything you state except this, SirDiscipliner69. He is not my Commander In Chief. I have not sworn an oath to serve in the US military. I am not under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. He is their Commander in Chief, not mine. I refer to him as Mr. President while he is in office. I find it amusing as hell that he insists on referring to himself as my commander in chief, and Faux News parrots it like lemmings charging the sea. Sinergy

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

4.492188E-02