Judge Rules White House Must Honor Congressional Subpoenas

[Knightskye]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/01/washington/01SUBPOENA.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&oref=slogin


Unless overturned on appeal, a former White House counsel, Harriet E. Miers, and the current White House chief of staff, Joshua B. Bolten, would be required to cooperate with the House Judiciary Committee, which has been investigating the controversial dismissal of the federal prosecutors in 2006.


Judge Bates, who was appointed to the bench by President Bush in 2001

It's a good day. :D

[acptulsa]

Awww... Dubya and Darth Cheney are getting tripped up by those damned founding fathers' checks and balances again...

Anyone got a tiny violin?

[IRO-bot]

Awww... Dubya and Darth Cheney are getting tripped up by those damned founding fathers' checks and balances again...

Anyone got a tiny violin?

Never stopped them before. I'll bet $5 they weazle out of it.

[cska80]

Clinton got rid of all 93 federal prosecutors...who cares?

[Knightskye]

Clinton got rid of all 93 federal prosecutors...who cares?

Well, the article I posted was about a Bush-appointed judge who ruled that two people can't use executive privilege to avoid testifying before Congress.

But I guess you didn't want to post something related to that.

Bill Clinton didn't do that in the middle of his second term. Changing attorneys when you become president is a common thing. It's not a common thing to do halfway through a term. It was also alleged to have been done for political reasons.

[cska80]

And I'm supposed to believe Clinton didn't do it for political reasons, or any other president for that matter, because they say so? They server at the pleasure of the president. Nothing was done illegally. There are matters much more important for Congress to be investigating. There are also many other things to attack Bush on...but not this. This is a waste of our time and tax dollars IMHO.

[powerofreason]

Well, the article I posted was about a Bush-appointed judge who ruled that two people can't use executive privilege to avoid testifying before Congress.

But I guess you didn't want to post something related to that.

Bill Clinton didn't do that in the middle of his second term. Changing attorneys when you become president is a common thing. It's not a common thing to do halfway through a term. It was also alleged to have been done for political reasons.

"Alleged to have been done for political reasons"

Well, duh. Pretty sure thats the only reason presidents fire attorneys.

[acptulsa]

Clinton got rid of all 93 federal prosecutors...who cares?

I thought he kept four or five. And, no, I don't think anyone here likes that factoid, either. But it is nice to hear that Congress isn't completely irrelevant yet, no matter how little good they are doing with their power at the moment...

[Knightskye]

This is a waste of our time and tax dollars IMHO.

Right, let's just use our time productively and pass resolutions to apologize for slavery, or spend $300 billion on housing relief. Or overhaul FISA or authorize sanctions on Iran.

This is what our tax dollars should be spent on. Accountability. Why ruin it?

[micahnelson]

This is a waste of our time and tax dollars IMHO.

They can spend as much time as they want fighting. I fully support gridlock.

Yes, When Godzilla and Mothra are fighting, they might knock down a few buildings- but its better than them working together and leveling all of Tokyo.

[cska80]

I'd rahter see investigations into things like...hmmm, I dunno...the Fed? Media Matters? 9/11? Ramos and Campeon? Shall I go on?

[Knightskye]

I'd rahter see investigations into things like...hmmm, I dunno...the Fed? Media Matters? 9/11? Ramos and Campeon? Shall I go on?

How likely is it that the Democrats would subpoena Bernanke, when they don't believe he's done anything wrong?

Has Media Matters broken the law?

Dennis Kucinich seemed to be willing to launch a new investigation (at least during the primaries, but he hasn't introduced anything). And he's usually into the accountability stuff.

The Wikipedia entry on Ramos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignacio_Ramos) doesn't seem to have any information about the shooting itself. Was Ramos threatened? Did he have a reason to shoot the guy in the first place? Did he have the authority?

Beggars can't be choosers. Have you e-mailed your congressmen or senators and suggested that they introduce legislation?

[micahnelson]

I dunno. Part of me would like to see that- but it seems when the government does an investigation it just becomes a high level coverup.