"We'll proceed with subpoenas on Thursday," Schumer told MSNBC.

"We'll proceed with subpoenas on Thursday," Schumer told MSNBC. (Full Version)

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

Message

farglebargle -> "We'll proceed with subpoenas on Thursday," Schumer told MSNBC. (3/20/2007 12:49:15 PM)
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Conyers_Sanchez_to_seek_subpoenas_of_0320.html

SimplyMichael -> RE: "We'll proceed with subpoenas on Thursday," Schumer told MSNBC. (3/20/2007 12:58:20 PM)
Gee, people testifying under oath, what a concept! What will be curious to see is how the resident blind men will spin the lies and corruption as it gets revealed. Anyone want to place bets on whether it will be "clinton did it to" "clinton made us do it" "its all clintons fault"? At least they realize that Democratic presidents have the power to affect generations of weak Republican presidents in a way theirs are unable to do.

subrob1967 -> RE: "We'll proceed with subpoenas on Thursday," Schumer told MSNBC. (3/20/2007 1:35:09 PM)
They should pull a Clinton and plead the fifth, like so many of the previous administration did.

farglebargle -> RE: "We'll proceed with subpoenas on Thursday," Schumer told MSNBC. (3/20/2007 1:50:14 PM)
Better than Reagan's Alzheimer's Excuse? "Uh... I Forget" A'li North? "Uh, I Forget", Contras, "Uh. Mommy?"

SimplyMichael -> RE: "We'll proceed with subpoenas on Thursday," Schumer told MSNBC. (3/20/2007 2:24:47 PM)
Raygun was busy dealing with terrorists and drug dealers all while undermining the constitution and those were the crimes they were charged with. Bush will be charged with crimes against humanity, treason, and probably various criminal charges related their theft of the treasury. Compared with Clinton, who if you believed every nutcase winger's consipracy charge was involved in fraud somewhere under a million total or so? A few dead bodies. Clearly an amatuer in comparison to Raygun and Bush. Considering the rights record on predicting events compared to the lefts, I have no doubt there will be a lot of upcoming prison terms.

puella -> RE: "We'll proceed with subpoenas on Thursday," Schumer told MSNBC. (3/20/2007 3:33:41 PM)
It's finally nice to have at least one Senator from my state that I can be proud of!

domiguy -> RE: "We'll proceed with subpoenas on Thursday," Schumer told MSNBC. (3/20/2007 3:59:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: subrob1967 They should pull a Clinton and plead the fifth, like so many of the previous administration did. Another person living in the past....God remember when gas was under a dollar a gallon and the majority of people weren't so fat.....Oh for the good ol' days.

thompsonx -> RE: "We'll proceed with subpoenas on Thursday," Schumer told MSNBC. (3/20/2007 4:46:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: domiguy quote: ORIGINAL: subrob1967 They should pull a Clinton and plead the fifth, like so many of the previous administration did. Another person living in the past....God remember when gas was under a dollar a gallon and the majority of people weren't so fat.....Oh for the good ol' days. domiguy: Hell I remember gasoline at .30 cents a gallon normal price and down to .22 cents durring the "gas wars" all of this with blue chip stamps, green stamps and free dinner ware. thompson

thompsonx -> RE: "We'll proceed with subpoenas on Thursday," Schumer told MSNBC. (3/20/2007 4:57:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: subrob1967 They should pull a Clinton and plead the fifth, like so many of the previous administration did. subrob1967: It would appear that the white houses requirement for non sworn and non recorded testimony would allow for that very thing. The question that begs being asked is why would they want their testimony to be non sworn and non recorded ? It sounds to me like "I don't want to talk to you folks but if I have to I don't want to have to tell the truth and I don't want anyone to know what I lied about" Your buddy Clinton had to testify under oath so why should'nt these thugs? thompson

thompsonx -> RE: "We'll proceed with subpoenas on Thursday," Schumer told MSNBC. (3/20/2007 4:59:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Conyers_Sanchez_to_seek_subpoenas_of_0320.html farglebargle: I will believe subpoenas and sworn testimony when I see it. thompson

farglebargle -> RE: "We'll proceed with subpoenas on Thursday," Schumer told MSNBC. (3/20/2007 5:21:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: subrob1967 They should pull a Clinton and plead the fifth, like so many of the previous administration did. subrob1967: It would appear that the white houses requirement for non sworn and non recorded testimony would allow for that very thing. The question that begs being asked is why would they want their testimony to be non sworn and non recorded ? It sounds to me like "I don't want to talk to you folks but if I have to I don't want to have to tell the truth and I don't want anyone to know what I lied about" Your buddy Clinton had to testify under oath so why should'nt these thugs? thompson The point of the article I linked to is that it's irrelevant what the White House wants, if they don't come to the Senate and testify under oath Schumer's going to subpoena them on Thursday. You said, "I'll believe it when I see it". I agree. That's the beauty of Sworn Testimony. It's either Credible or Perjury.

dcnovice -> RE: "We'll proceed with subpoenas on Thursday," Schumer told MSNBC. (3/20/2007 6:50:27 PM)
This should be interesting; I wonder if it will end up in court. I can understand Bush's defiance: It's worked for him in the past, and he's passionate about presidential powers. But dragging this out only gives the scandal new legs. We'll see. . . And now a shameless plug for my Will Gonzales Go? poll, which is languishing in Random Stupidity.

farglebargle -> RE: "We'll proceed with subpoenas on Thursday," Schumer told MSNBC. (3/20/2007 6:55:49 PM)
Bush's problem is: Executive Privilege didn't keep the Nixon's Tapes out of the Court's hands, and didn't cover Bill Clinton. There's no way it would cover a "Political Advisor". I'm listening to his speech from this evening. Does Bush think this appearance was a good idea. Conyer's response to Bush's "Reasonable Proposal" is an announcement that the House will do subpoenas tomorrow. Putting people under oath makes it difficult for people to walk in and give Bush honest opinions? Never try to understand the "Logic" of an insane person.

dcnovice -> RE: "We'll proceed with subpoenas on Thursday," Schumer told MSNBC. (3/20/2007 9:27:08 PM)
quote: They should pull a Clinton and plead the fifth, like so many of the previous administration did. We should have a pool to predict when we'll finally have a political thread that doesn't include an irrelevant reference to Bill Clinton. They again, it may never happen.

cyberdude611 -> RE: "We'll proceed with subpoenas on Thursday," Schumer told MSNBC. (3/20/2007 9:39:17 PM)
Im no fan of the Bush admin. But I think this just looks like much ado about nothing. The president under the constitution is the chief executive of the nation. It is his duty to enforce and execute the law. He has the right to delegate this responsibility to who he sees fit. That is where the Attorney General and the Department of Justice comes in. Again he has the right like any company to decide who works for him. Back in 1993, Janet Reno fired all the prosecutors including some that were looking into some of Clinton's early scandals. No one made any stink about it. What I think we have here is a dead-locked congress that is controlled by Democrats. These Dems were put in power by the left-wing. They have been unable to fulfill any promises to the left wing. They have been unable to limit the war. They have been unable to pass even the simple bill to raise the minimum wage. As soon as that bill looked like it was going to pass, every congressman decided they wanted to tack on some of their own junk. It wasn't long before it ended up with over 110 amendments. Now it is stuck. They have been unable to nail the Bush admin in the Valarie Plame scandal. So now they are trying to invent scandals so that they can pull people in to testify in order to make it seem like they are doing something. And it isn't the GOP blocking things. Divisions in the Democratic party is the reason the congressed is stuck in purgatory. So in my opinion, this is a giant sham. It's a show.

SimplyMichael -> RE: "We'll proceed with subpoenas on Thursday," Schumer told MSNBC. (3/20/2007 9:45:34 PM)
quote: So in my opinion, this is a giant sham. It's a show. Yep, but that didn't help Clinton any did it?

farglebargle -> RE: "We'll proceed with subpoenas on Thursday," Schumer told MSNBC. (3/20/2007 10:24:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cyberdude611 Im no fan of the Bush admin. But I think this just looks like much ado about nothing. Obstruction of Justice is a crime. Whatever authority is delegated to the Executive, First and Foremost is obedience to The Law. The investigation of the reasons why the DOJ removed the USA who had secured the conviction of Randy Cunningham, and the timing of that removal, coming just as she was going to launch another Grand Jury for further charges is warranted. The investigation of the reasons why Alberto Gonzales recommeded to BUSH that he stonewall the clearances needed to investigate the unwarranted-NSA-Spying case AFTER he learned he was a target of that investigation warrants investigation also. The PATTERN of suspicious removals and the possible obstruction of justice charges need to be investigated. quote: The president under the constitution is the chief executive of the nation. It is his duty to enforce and execute the law. MOST importantly. He has the duty to OBEY the law.

luckydog1 -> RE: "We'll proceed with subpoenas on Thursday," Schumer told MSNBC. (3/20/2007 10:47:13 PM)
Hey if the democrats want to waste time on this stuff, let em. Ultimatley Bush has the right to fire them at will. He doesn't have to give a reason. Let congress spend the next year and a half trying to force this. The people will remember at election time. Bush isn't running again....

Page: [1]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.078125