Newsvine
  • Welcome
  • Help
  • Report Bug
  • Conversation Tracker
  • Your Column
  • Replies
  • Friends
Type Comments Since You Last CheckedArticle Source Last Checked Stop Tracking All Clear Tracking All
Advertise | AdChoices
Log In | Register
Close the Login Panel
Existing users log in below. New users please register for a free account.

New Users:

Existing Users:

E-Mail:
Password:
Forgot Password?
Please enter the e-mail address or domain name you registered with:
E-Mail/Domain:
Back to Login
Log Out
  • Top News
  • Local News
  • World
  • U.S.
  • Sports
  • Politics
  • Tech
  • Entertainment
  • Science
  • Business
  • Health
  • Odd News
  • More
    • Arts
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Fashion
    • History
    • Home & Garden
    • Not News
    • Religion
    • Travel
What is Newsvine?

Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.

Get a Free Account
Help
Fun Stuff
  • Your Clippings
  • Leaderboard
  • E-Mail Alerts
  • Top of the Vine
  • Newsvine Live
  • Newsvine Archives
  • The Greenhouse
  • Recommended Articles
  • Wall of Vineness
Put a Seed Newsvine link on your own site

Mukasey Refuses Probe of Bush Aides

Fri Feb 29, 2008 6:00 PM EST
politics, congress, michael-mukasey, contempt, harriet-miers, white-house-chief, staff-josh-bolten
Laurie Kellman, Associated Press
< PreviousNext >
showing 1 of 3 photos
<p>White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten speaks in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building in Washington in this Feb. 7, 2005 file photo. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of calif. has asked for a grand jury investigation into whether Bolten and former counsel Harriet Miers should be prosecuted for contempt of Congress. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File)</p>

White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten speaks in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building in Washington in this Feb. 7, 2005 file photo. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of calif. has asked for a grand jury investigation into whether Bolten and former counsel Harriet Miers should be prosecuted for contempt of Congress. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File)

Advertise | AdChoices

WASHINGTON — Attorney General Michael Mukasey refused Friday to refer the House's contempt citations against two of President Bush's top aides to a federal grand jury. Mukasey said White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten and former presidential counsel Harriet Miers committed no crime.

As promised, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced that she has given the Judiciary Committee authority to file a lawsuit against Bolten and Miers in federal court.

"The House shall do so promptly," she said in a statement.

Mukasey said Bolten and Miers were right in ignoring subpoenas to provide Congress with White House documents or testify about the firings of federal prosecutors.

"The department will not bring the congressional contempt citations before a grand jury or take any other action to prosecute Mr. Bolten or Ms. Miers," Mukasey wrote Pelosi.

Pelosi shot back that the aides can expect a lawsuit.

"The American people demand that we uphold the law," Pelosi said. "As public officials, we take an oath to uphold the Constitution and protect our system of checks and balances and our civil lawsuit seeks to do just that."

The suit had a political purpose too. Democrats have urged that the filing occur swiftly so that a judge might rule before the November elections, when all 435 House seats and a third of the Senate are up for grabs. Criticism of Bush's use of executive power is a key tenet of the Democrats' platform, from the presidential race on down.

The House voted two weeks ago to cite Bolten and Miers for contempt of Congress and seek a grand jury investigation. Most Republicans boycotted the vote.

Pelosi requested the grand jury investigation on Thursday and gave Mukasey a week to reply. She said the House would file a civil suit seeking enforcement of the contempt citations if federal prosecutors declined to seek misdemeanor charges against Bolten and Miers. The plaintiffs would be the entire Judiciary Committee, who would be represented by the House's lawyers, according to aides to Pelosi and committee Chairman John Conyers, D-Mich.

Mukasey took only a day to get back to her. But he had earlier joined his predecessor, Alberto Gonzales, in telling lawmakers they would refuse to refer any contempt citations to prosecutors because Bolten and Miers were acting at Bush's instruction.

A civil suit would drag out a slow-motion crawl to a constitutional struggle between a Democratic-run Congress and a Republican White House that has been simmering for more than a year.

Democrats say Bush's instructions to Miers and Bolten to ignore the House Judiciary Committee's subpoenas was an abuse of power and an effort to block an effort to find out whether the White House directed the firing of nine U.S. attorneys in 2006 for political reasons.

Republicans call the whole affair a political game and walked out of the House vote on the contempt citations in protest.

The 223-32 House vote on a resolution approving the contempt citations Feb. 14 was the first of its type in 25 years. The White House pointed out that it was the first time that such action had been taken against top White House officials who had been instructed by the president to remain silent to preserve executive privilege.

In his letter, received by the House early Friday evening, Mukasey pointed out that not only was Miers directed not to testify, she also was immune from congressional subpoenas and was right to not show up to the hearing to which she had been summoned.

"The contempt of Congress statute was not intended to apply and could not constitutionally be applied to an executive branch official who asserts the president's claim of executive privilege," Mukasey wrote, quoting Justice policy.

"Accordingly," Mukasey concluded, "the department has determined that the noncompliance by Mr. Bolten and Ms. Miers with the Judiciary Committee subpoenas did not constitute a crime."

Though they were not surprised, Democrats reacted to Mukasey's letter with outrage.

"Today's decision to shelve the contempt process, in violation of a federal statute, shows that the White House will go to any lengths to keep its role in the U.S. attorney firings hidden," said Conyers. "In the face of such extraordinary actions, we have no choice but to proceed with a lawsuit to enforce the committee's subpoenas."

© 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Back To Top | Front Page

Published to:

  • Laurie Kellman's Column, All of Newsvine
  • Groups: none
  • Regions: Washington DC
  • Public Discussion (68)
Jerry Verlinger

I don't care if Miers and Bolton lied, or pissed on the Justice Departments carpets ........ I just want them ALL the hell out of the White House!
This move is going to do nothing except take attention away from the issues at hand. The GOP response to this action is right on target, calling it "...... a partisan political stunt" and "a complete waste of time," I agree with White House Spokesman Tony Fratto, who said "Rather than passing critical national security legislation, they continue to squander time on partisan hi jinx," And GOP House leader John Boehner, who said "this sort of pandering to the left-wing fever swamps of loony liberal activists does nothing to make America safer."
Justice Department Spokesman,Brian Roehrkasse said "The department told the House leadership last July that it generally would not let a U.S. attorney make a grand jury referral or prosecute executive branch officials when they followed a president's instruction and invoked a claim of executive privilege before a congressional committee.
So, why is she going there? Is this the time to pick this fight? I don't think Pelosi has been a good Speaker, and this is an example why.
TFTTTTRT (Thanks for taking the time to read this)

(Quotes were taken from the Associated Press report posted Thu 2/28 4/;11 PM EST)

  • 2 votes
Reply#1 - Fri Feb 29, 2008 6:48 PM EST
tucanofulano

This ought to wake up everyone but the dead to the facts of history that anyone at all Mr. Bush annoints is just as crooked as he is, and certainly no public servant.

  • 4 votes
#1.1 - Fri Feb 29, 2008 8:57 PM EST
crutch

Rather than passing critical national security legislation

Which "critical" security legislation is that? The bill that puts an asterisk on the Fourth Amendment? The one that allows the President the power to spy on Americans without a wiretap warrant? That legislation?

  • 4 votes
#1.2 - Fri Feb 29, 2008 9:16 PM EST
Eric AlbertDeleted
Charles of Bassett Breath

I am happily appeased, now onward with our Manisfest destiny...

    #1.4 - Sun Mar 2, 2008 1:05 AM EST
    Reply
    Roy Batty

    If they committed no crime they have nothing to fear. Why would they not embrace the idea of public vindication and put this to rest?

    • 5 votes
    Reply#2 - Fri Feb 29, 2008 6:58 PM EST
    replytoj001

    Because they did nothing wrong.

    Even then a person has to get a lawyer, or a team of lawyers to defend baseless charges. The process can be long and, if you have ever dealt with lawyers, very....very....expensive.

    Trying to defend yourself against baseless charges is pointless.

    Either way the partisan left/right will argue over this for days.

    replytoj001

      #2.1 - Fri Feb 29, 2008 7:24 PM EST
      luckydog

      How do you know they did nothing wrong? If they conceal facts by refusing to testify we do not know if these are "evildooers" (smirk) or not.

      • 3 votes
      #2.2 - Fri Feb 29, 2008 10:53 PM EST
      Jerry Verlinger

      Quote ..... the first line in the article ......

      "Attorney General Michael Mukasey refused Friday to refer the House's contempt citations against two of President Bush's top aides to a federal grand jury. Mukasey said White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten and former presidential counsel Harriet Miers committed no crime."

        #2.3 - Sat Mar 1, 2008 12:56 AM EST
        Behind My Screen

        contempt of congress is a CRIME so the AG is wrong. and the charges are not baseless.

        • 2 votes
        #2.4 - Sat Mar 1, 2008 1:48 AM EST
        Jerry Verlinger

        I think the AG might a little better grasp of what is a crime than us civilians. And, as I said
        "I don't care if Miers and Bolton lied, or pissed on the Justice Departments carpets ........ "

        This move is going to do nothing except take attention away from the issues at hand. The GOP response to this action is right on target, calling it "...... a partisan political stunt" and "a complete waste of time,"

        Justice Department Spokesman,Brian Roehrkasse said "The department told the House leadership last July that it generally would not let a U.S. attorney make a grand jury referral or prosecute executive branch officials when they followed a president's instruction and invoked a claim of executive privilege before a congressional committee. So, why is she going there? Is this the time to pick this fight?

        The Dems have control of the House and they need to work on legislation that will help fix this country's problems not to mention .... they have an lection to win!

        Meirs and Bolton are not running for office .....Pelosin eeds to get focused!

          #2.5 - Sat Mar 1, 2008 3:19 AM EST
          Behind My Screen

          Jerry,

          He is a political hack. Contempt of Congress is and always has been a crime. When congress puts out a citation for contempt that makes the action they are citing a crime. Kind of like contempt of court... you commit a crime because the judge said you did.

          But, if you prefer to trust authority just because they are in authority, you get the government you deserve.

          • 2 votes
          #2.6 - Sat Mar 1, 2008 10:53 AM EST
          Jerry Verlinger

          The Justice Department does not serve at will of, or for benefit of the administration. It is one of our 3 branches of government. It is up to the Justice Department to decide whether or not a crime MAY have been committed, and if so, it is their further responsibility to prosecute the alleged perpetrators. In this case The House , under the direction of Nancy Pelosi, has raised a question re; the actions of 2 members of the Administration, and that's fine, however, the Justice Dept. has responded as follows .....

          Justice Department Spokesman,Brian Roehrkasse said "The department told the House leadership last July that it generally would not let a U.S. attorney make a grand jury referral or prosecute executive branch officials when they followed a president's instruction and invoked a claim of executive privilege before a congressional committee.

          So why is she going there? Do we have time for this? Is this what is important at this time ??? The Dems have control of the House and they need to work on legislation that will help fix this country's problems not to mention .... they have an election to win!

            #2.7 - Sun Mar 2, 2008 5:00 AM EST
            Roy Batty

            The Justice Department does not serve at will of, or for benefit of the administration. It is one of our 3 branches of government.

            Er, that's not how I learned it. The three branches are Executive, Legislative and Judicial. The Justice Department reports to the Attorney General, a member of the President's Cabinet (Executive Branch.) The Judicial branch is the Supreme Court.

            And of course the Legislative branch is that bunch of spineless worthless weenies... er I mean Congress.

            • 2 votes
            #2.8 - Sun Mar 2, 2008 6:55 AM EST
            Behind My Screen

            Jerry, The justice department is part of the executive branch, not the judicial branch.

            no wonder you are so screwed up in your views on how the government is working.

            I think we need someone to write an article on how the government is constructed so these people can get a refresher and maybe right their minds as to many of the wrong ideas they have.

            • 2 votes
            #2.9 - Sun Mar 2, 2008 10:17 AM EST
            Jerry Verlinger

            OK, OK I stand corrected!

            I don't feel I'm "all screwed up" with my views - I just made a mistake.

            I'm not adverse to a little "constructive criticism".

            However, the main thrust of my comment is that I feel the whole issue is permeated by political partisanship and is a waste of valuable time and effort. I want the Republicans out of the White House and spending time on penny anti things like this are not helping in that cause. (and I've been in the GOP since 1958 - see my profile)

            • 1 vote
            #2.10 - Mon Mar 3, 2008 3:01 AM EST
            Behind My Screen

            keeping the executive in check is not penny anti. Ignoring laws that are broken makes them harder to enforce later.

            • 1 vote
            #2.11 - Mon Mar 3, 2008 12:00 PM EST
            Kevin Dicks

            I want the Republicans out of the White House and spending time on penny anti things like this are not helping in that cause. (and I've been in the GOP since 1958 - see my profile)

            That is commendable, Jerry. It shows that there are Republicans who can see what Bush has done to their party. I don't even know how people can call Bush a Republican in the first place.

            • 1 vote
            #2.12 - Mon Mar 3, 2008 1:08 PM EST
            Reply
            MaryGJ

            Thanks Chuckie Schumer for Mukasey. I am sure he is making you proud. No better than arrogant Gonzales. Hurry up 2009...

            • 5 votes
            Reply#3 - Fri Feb 29, 2008 7:13 PM EST
            Eric AlbertDeleted
            Kevin Dicks

            Forgive me for not understanding this aspect of your position, Eric, but ... isn't "Nazi Zionist" an oxymoron? Zionists are Jewish-friendly, while Nazis are decidedly not. While the Nazis want to exterminate the Jews, Zionists are in support of the Israeli State.

            So, how can one be both a Zionist and a Nazi?

            • 3 votes
            #3.2 - Fri Feb 29, 2008 10:04 PM EST
            MaryGJ

            Eric don't get me wrong -- I do not think they had much choice with Bush unless they wanted to leave the position open. I just question the choice they made especially when Mukasey would not say waterboarding was torture...uh, I think that was a red flag.

            • 4 votes
            #3.3 - Fri Feb 29, 2008 10:52 PM EST
            Eric AlbertDeleted
            Kevin Dicks

            Okay, so you're just using Nazi in the generic sense and making it synonymous with fascist? That's how I'm understanding your answer.

            • 1 vote
            #3.5 - Sat Mar 1, 2008 8:11 PM EST
            Reply
            replytoj001

            I have to agree with this decision.

            The federal prosecutors serve at the discretion of the president; as such the president can fire them at will. Much like an "at will" employment state, you can walk in one day and be told your services are no longer needed.

            replytoj001

              Reply#4 - Fri Feb 29, 2008 7:28 PM EST
              Prospero1

              The federal prosecutors serve at the discretion of the president; as such the president can fire them at will. Much like an "at will" employment state, you can walk in one day and be told your services are no longer needed.

              The president serves at the discretion of the people. That's the theory, anyway. He's simply not supposed to fire federal prosecutors on a whim, no matter how much the right warms to phrases like "serve at the discretion of the president," and "fire at will."

              See, prosecutors are part of the "justice" system. "Justice" means you justify what you do within the parameters of the Constitution. Just because the president gets away with 86-ing a bunch of rowdy attorneys who can't seem to shake the idea they're supposed to treat people fairly -- with "justice" -- doesn't make it right. And just because torture boy Mukasey tells people clearly in contempt of Congress that it's okay also doesn't make that right either.

              Meanwhile, our moribund legislative branch who also supposedly serves at the discretion of the people, wrings their hands like they're powerless to do their jobs, and they let the president AND Mukasey get away with it.

              Next in line is We The People. Are we going to take this or not? This actually is our country. It really doesn't belong to George Bush and Michael Mukasey or any of their ilk. They work for us, not vice versa.

              Somebody kill me.

              • 6 votes
              #4.1 - Fri Feb 29, 2008 9:04 PM EST
              Kevin Dicks

              Killing you would serve no purpose, Prospero, aside from putting you out of your misery. We need people like you to tell the truth, though, so suck it up, and keep fighting the good fight. Sense has to win out at some point ... doesn't it?

              • 4 votes
              #4.2 - Fri Feb 29, 2008 9:15 PM EST
              Behind My Screen

              So, presidential staff are exempt from any law because the president can fire any prosecutor who tries a case against them?

              • 3 votes
              #4.3 - Sat Mar 1, 2008 1:50 AM EST
              Prospero1

              So, presidential staff are exempt from any law because the president can fire any prosecutor who tries a case against them?

              You're on the right track.

              • 2 votes
              #4.4 - Sat Mar 1, 2008 6:17 PM EST
              Behind My Screen

              That is a crack pot neo-con idea.

                #4.5 - Sat Mar 1, 2008 9:35 PM EST
                Prospero1

                What is a crack pot neo-con idea?

                • 1 vote
                #4.6 - Sun Mar 2, 2008 10:04 AM EST
                Behind My Screen

                That People in the White House are above the law.

                • 1 vote
                #4.7 - Sun Mar 2, 2008 10:18 AM EST
                Prospero1

                Okay. Thanks for clarifying that. And I couldn't agree more.

                Too bad those crackpots have so much power.

                • 1 vote
                #4.8 - Sun Mar 2, 2008 10:34 AM EST
                Reply
                Kevin Dicks

                After what the GOP did to Clinton at the end of his term, I think a little partisan politics is in order. Hell, it worked for them, it got Bush into office. I say let them have their revenge, but I think they should pursue it more aggressively. They should stop being such pushovers and @!$%#ing get @!$%# done.

                As far as the FISA bill ... it's crap. It should die in the House. No telecom immunity. Talk about partisan politics. "We need to keep America safe." Bull@!$%#. Lies and Bull@!$%#.

                • 5 votes
                Reply#5 - Fri Feb 29, 2008 8:38 PM EST
                Jerry Verlinger

                Can't agree with you Kevin ....read my comment at the head of this thread ....... the Dems don't have time for this nonsense.

                  #5.1 - Sat Mar 1, 2008 1:04 AM EST
                  Roy Batty

                  the Dems don't have time for this nonsense.

                  Perhaps, but as long as the President is going to participate by making comments about the candidates and upcoming election, his credibility (and those surrounding him) are fair political game.

                  They should stop being such pushovers and @!$%#ing get @!$%# done.

                  You are spot on, Kevin.

                    #5.2 - Sat Mar 1, 2008 1:21 AM EST
                    Kevin Dicks

                    Can't agree with you Kevin ....read my comment at the head of this thread ....... the Dems don't have time for this nonsense.

                    I did read that. First thing I read after the article, and I respectfully disagree. I have a different view of it, however. Since the Dems have such a slim majority, nothing I want done is going to get done under this Presidency. Period. Even if they manage to get good legislation passed, Bush is just going to veto it like he has everything else he doesn't agree with, so it's pointless. Nothing good is going to get done until Bush is out of office. So why not spend the year wasting the Republicans time with this type of stuff so that no more of their harmful bills will pass? I don't want any more laws created under the Bush Administration. I say tie up Congress with stuff like this. That's what the GOP did to the Dems, why not do it back?

                    You are spot on, Kevin.

                    Thanks, Roy.

                    • 2 votes
                    #5.3 - Sat Mar 1, 2008 1:40 AM EST
                    Behind My Screen

                    Besides that Kevin, after 5 years of a free ride, it is about time congress get back to its oversight duties. I mean... 50% of their job is to oversee the goings on of the other two branches... it is kind of important to the "checks and balances" part of the constitution.

                    It is going to take this country 3 generations to get over the miseducation that many conservatives have been given as to how this country operates, If we do not come back to a point where people get outraged by those leaders of their party acting badly, we are a doomed nation and I fear my grandchildren will not know the America I knew as a child, or even the America I am coming to know today.

                    • 2 votes
                    #5.4 - Sat Mar 1, 2008 1:56 AM EST
                    Kevin Dicks

                    Also very good points, BMS, thanks for bringing it up. I'm in favor of holding them all accountable. I don't think Congress is wasting their time at all.

                    If Bush and his cronies only had brains, they would want to get all this overwith as quickly as possible so that everyone could be charged with their crimes and he could pardon them when they left office. As it is now, they are all fair game when the next administration takes over.

                    Not that I want them to be pardoned, mind you.

                    • 1 vote
                    #5.5 - Sat Mar 1, 2008 3:27 AM EST
                    Jerry Verlinger

                    I did read that. First thing I read after the article, and I respectfully disagree. I have a different view of it, however

                    You have an interesting perspective and I know I have an reply for you, but my head won't work right now because it's 4 o'clock in the morning and my brain is threatening to shut down and go to bed without me ... when my brain is not working properly, I say stupid things.
                    I'll get back to you tomorrow.

                    • 1 vote
                    #5.6 - Sat Mar 1, 2008 4:16 AM EST
                    replytoj001

                    After what the GOP did to Clinton at the end of his term, ....

                    What exactly, did the GOP do to Clinton at the end of his term?

                    "As far as the FISA bill ... it's crap. It should die in the House. No telecom immunity. Talk about partisan politics. "We need to keep America safe." Bull@!$%#. Lies and Bull@!$%#. "

                    Do you want America, Americian's to be safe?

                    replytoj001

                      #5.7 - Sat Mar 1, 2008 6:10 PM EST
                      Kevin Dicks

                      What exactly, did the GOP do to Clinton at the end of his term?

                      Are you fricken' serious?

                      Does someone else want to field this question? I can't even stomach a serious reply.

                      • 2 votes
                      #5.8 - Sat Mar 1, 2008 8:15 PM EST
                      Reply
                      WMK

                      Is anyone surprised by this?

                      Whomever gets appointed to Bush's Attorney General has one job - to keep the heat off Bush and to obstruct any effort to investigate, Mukasey is doing a heck-of-a-job!

                      Is this what you guys wanted? Do your parents want this? Do you think your children will be able to look back with pride about the last 7 years?

                      Sure a lot of voices will say that the Dems are complicit in this criminal circus of a government we have - and they'd be right. But it is the GOP which is guaranteed to perpetuate this virulent authoritarian rape of our republic without apology and without slowing down.

                      'Change' might be a jingoistic platitude but is preferable to staying under the boot heels of this filthy gang of looters and despoilers of Americas future.

                      Take a good look and ask why it is that this mafia government doesn't get indicted for their crimes?

                      • 2 votes
                      Reply#6 - Fri Feb 29, 2008 8:40 PM EST
                      greenpagan

                      Mukasey is perfidious. (As if we didn't know he would be.)

                      Congress should subpoena him !

                      ====

                      • 1 vote
                      Reply#7 - Fri Feb 29, 2008 8:48 PM EST
                      Jerry Verlinger

                      perfidious? I'll have to look that up.

                        #7.1 - Sat Mar 1, 2008 1:07 AM EST
                        Roy Batty

                        per·fid·i·ous /pərˈfɪdiəs/ Pronunciation Key - [per-fid-ee-uhs]

                        –adjective: deliberately faithless; treacherous; deceitful

                        yup, nice word.

                        • 2 votes
                        #7.2 - Sat Mar 1, 2008 1:24 AM EST
                        Jerry Verlinger

                        Thanks Roy,

                        I get it now.

                        But, I'm glad he did what he did ..... I don't see the value in chasing down penny-anti liars when there's an entire administration to defeat in an up coming election. Nancy needs to get focused or, better yet ....replaced!

                          #7.3 - Sat Mar 1, 2008 3:44 AM EST
                          Reply
                          tucanofulano

                          Just goes to show you that ANYONE BUSH APPOINTS OR RECOMMENDS IS JUST AS CROOKED AS HE IS.

                          • 2 votes
                          Reply#8 - Fri Feb 29, 2008 8:54 PM EST
                          replytoj001

                          Just remember it is the Senate that confirms......

                          Here we are ranting at each other ........................................... again

                          I am so convinced this is all part of the fracturing of the 2000 election.

                          When did it become evil to convey and talk of our common agreements and our common bonds. Have we all become so partisan that we can no longer look at something for what it is?

                          Why can't we see that the Left/Right have screwed us all; out of control spending, larger bigger government, intrusion into who we are and how we live?

                          Am I so wrong here?

                          The Democrats have boned this up, as well as the Republicans. I really see this as a non issue. I know there are some who will see me as defending the ultra right wing Ne-con platform.....but trust me...I am as tired of it all as you.

                          Whatever...............I'm tired . Samuel Adams and I are going to talk this through...

                          replytoj001

                          replytoj001

                          • 1 vote
                          #8.1 - Fri Feb 29, 2008 10:06 PM EST
                          luckydog

                          The far right has shown themselves particularly inept at governing. Everything they have touched has turned to crap and they show criminal behavior at every turn. Unfortunately what passes for the left in this country has shown a remarkable ineptness in opposing them. Reinforced no doubt by a fickle public that believes every time the prez cries wolf.

                            #8.2 - Fri Feb 29, 2008 10:58 PM EST
                            replytoj001

                            The far right has shown themselves particularly inept at governing. Everything they have touched has turned to crap and they show criminal behavior at every turn.

                            The Right and the (current) Left have both shown themselves to be useless.

                            I am tired of their quest for (retaining) power.

                            Both sides are turning us against each other. I mean...look at us (all) I read these threads and I look at how much we argue.

                            Each camp (L&R) is dug in and sometimes the replies can be a little mean-spirited, they have gotten us in the divide and conquer mode..........and it appears to be working.

                            replytoj001

                              #8.3 - Sun Mar 2, 2008 8:06 PM EST
                              Behind My Screen

                              Thank Reagan and the invention of the wedge issue, a meaningless issue that sharply divides the electorate.

                              Also thank the failure of the education system. I will not lay blame soley at the Public education system, because many wrong headed ideas are put into the heads of children in private and home schooling situations. The public system is to blame for not encouraging activism, either conservative or Progressive, I do not care. Our culture has become unmotivated and that allows the government to ride roughshod over our rights.

                              I don't care who you are or who you support politically, your rights should be sharply defended and any politician that attacks them should be strung up by his/her feet. Unfortunate, we have morons who think that a loss of rights is OK and advocate policies that are Totalitarian in nature. What happened to America!

                              • 2 votes
                              #8.4 - Sun Mar 2, 2008 9:10 PM EST
                              Kevin Dicks

                              What happened to America!

                              Woodrow Wilson sold it to the bankers in exchange for getting elected?

                              • 1 vote
                              #8.5 - Mon Mar 3, 2008 1:10 PM EST
                              Reply
                              replytoj001

                              The president serves at the discretion of the people. That's the theory, anyway. He's simply not supposed to fire federal prosecutors on a whim, no matter how much the right warms to phrases like "serve at the discretion of the president," and "fire at will."

                              So when then President Clinton fired....er, replaced all federal (93 I believe) prosecutors, you were cool with that?

                              The President serves for four (4) years, and after the election process, good luck in determining your (and mine) level of access and service at our discretion.........you are right about the theory part.

                              replytoj001

                                Reply#9 - Fri Feb 29, 2008 9:55 PM EST
                                luckydog

                                It's one thing to fire prosecutors are the beginning of your administration as those are patronage positions and the president can appoint whomever he would like and as long as they adhere to the law and do a reasonably good job, no one much cares. The problem is when those positions are in law enforcement and are applied to suppressing or damaging the presidents political rivals not as a matter of enforcing the law but rather as a political instrument.

                                • 3 votes
                                #9.1 - Fri Feb 29, 2008 11:09 PM EST
                                Behind My Screen

                                he replaced them at the beginning of his term... that is standard practice. Replacing Prosecutors that you have appointed during the prosecution of cases against your political allies is ethically wrong.

                                • 2 votes
                                #9.2 - Sat Mar 1, 2008 1:58 AM EST
                                Reply
                                njb

                                I am not surprised at all, am disappointed at the gald.

                                  Reply#10 - Fri Feb 29, 2008 10:00 PM EST
                                  Debbie-246220

                                  Wow. Totally not a surprise. Why did anyone confirm this idiot? What I'd like to know is what this administration is holding over everyone that they consistently and boldly think themselves above EVERY law that this nation was built on?

                                  Folks, something drastic really needs to happen here. We need to get rid of this bi-partisan system as it no longer benefits or protects its people.

                                  Are any of you familiar with the National Initiative? www.nationalinitiative.us - Please take a few minutes to review this. It's time that more power was given back to the people who are directly affected by it. We need to start bringing in independent third party candidates or this system is going to only slide further and further into corruption. Bush and his cronies have nearly made this country unrecognizable.

                                  And ANYONE here who truly thinks that Bush and the rest of the republicans are enacting these horrible bills like the "protect america act" to protect the people, you are seriously delusional. Putting a patriotic name on something doesn't make it so. Just like the "patriot act". Any bill that circumvents the constitution to allow the government to infringe upon our rights is anti-American. We are moving closer to fascism every day.

                                  • 1 vote
                                  Reply#11 - Fri Feb 29, 2008 11:26 PM EST
                                  Velcro Van

                                  I for one am glad Mr. Mukasey is doing his job properly. This country is better served by this action and from the court ruling on executive privilege that will inevitably result if Pelosi stumbles onward with this.

                                  • 1 vote
                                  Reply#12 - Sat Mar 1, 2008 12:04 AM EST
                                  JoulesBeef

                                  First it is a poltiical stunt. It has been since the beginning. Peloci knows bush hurts the gop and has planned all along not to do crap no matter how much it hurts america, until now. That is ovious and she is a politician(said with spite).

                                  But can you imagine if reno said she wouldnt appoint a special prosecutor in the clinton affair? there would have been civil war. I don't really think it is up to the justice department to decide if this is warranted.

                                  And really having the department that would be incharge of investigating the president, being appointed by the president is a bit of a confliuct of interest, that is why we kept having the "special prossecutors" that were out side of the exectuve ti investigate the president and to settle issues of law.

                                  This is also a fundemental question of the constitution and must make it into the judicial system just so the supreme court can rule on it(which is another idiocy, why must the third brach of gov sit there quietly in the corner until the legislative or exective gives it the ole tag team high five? maybe we wouldn't get these flag burnign amendments every few years is the supreme court could stand uyp and say "that law you are passing would never get by us, so why do it?")

                                  • 2 votes
                                  Reply#13 - Sat Mar 1, 2008 12:50 AM EST
                                  Jerry Verlinger

                                  The following words an phrases were included in a comment posted on this thread by Eric Albert Posting #1.3 - Fri Feb 29, 2008 9:19 PM EST

                                  corporate class parties appeasers, hacks, criminal equal opportunity thugs, white corporate masters,
                                  criminal apologist Republican thugs, Amerika, liberal Zionists, democratic class shills, Zionist Appeasers, liberal war hawks, Zionist liberals, corporate fascism, imperialism, class rot, imperial rot Amerikan Empire states justifies Amerika. rotten appeasers, corporate appeasers, imperial appeasers, Zionist and Amerikan apppeasers, torture appeasers rotten Attourney Generals "expert idiots", class ideologiests, class elites, class opportunism, nationalistic opportunism, liberal Zionists, Congress is lower than the Fuehrer of Amerikan Empire. republican thugs

                                  The comment was so infested with this vile language, that it was difficult, if not impossible, to decipher what he was trying to say. I have tried to communicate with Eric and have asked him to tone it down, but he keeps right on Bullying his way through articles with his very inflammatory comments. If you go to my profile, you will see what I have to say about Bullies.

                                  In my opinion, if the Newsvine Code of Honor is to maintain any credibility, this author and others like him (if there are any) should be sanctioned and told to tone it down, or be asked to leave Newsvine

                                  When vile, uncivil and insulting language is used in the comments of authors like Eric Albert it only serves to demean and reduce the overall quality of the exchange of opinions and ideas expressed on Newsvine I do not believe Mr. Albert fits the image the founders of Newsvine have in mind.

                                    Reply#14 - Sat Mar 1, 2008 12:53 AM EST
                                    Behind My Screen

                                    And this is why the Attorney General should not either be the referring official for this stuff, or not be recommended for appointment by the President.

                                    What solutions can come of this? perhaps a better solution will be a law that forces the AG to appoint an indipendant council to all Congressional inquiries.

                                    • 2 votes
                                    Reply#15 - Sat Mar 1, 2008 1:46 AM EST
                                    Jerry Verlinger

                                    I DON"T CARE!

                                    I don't care if Miers and Bolton lied, or pissed on the Justice Departments carpets ........ I just want them ALL the hell out of the White House! This move is going to do nothing except take attention away from the issues at hand. The GOP response to this action is right on target, calling it "...... a partisan political stunt" and "a complete waste of time,"

                                    I'm glad he did what he did ..... I don't see the value in chasing down penny-anti liars when there's an entire administration to defeat in an up coming election. Nancy needs to get focused or, better yet ....replaced!

                                      Reply#16 - Sat Mar 1, 2008 3:54 AM EST
                                      Behind My Screen

                                      because "checks and balances" are a total waste of our time.

                                      • 1 vote
                                      #16.1 - Sat Mar 1, 2008 11:15 AM EST
                                      Debbie-246220

                                      You are missing the danger here of congress NOT doing this. Bush has continuously been chipping away at the other two branches of government. It is against the law to not appear when congress subpoenas you. Bush cannot claim that everyone he appoints is under executive privilege. That is non-sensical and just a way to avoid ANYONE testifying to what is really going on with this administration. Smell the corruption. It is ABSOLUTE now.

                                        #16.2 - Sat Mar 1, 2008 3:52 PM EST
                                        Velcro Van

                                        Actually you are incorrect. The president absolutely can direct any member of his branch not to comply with a congressional subpoena. It's called "checks and balances" and it works both ways. You should study up on it.

                                          #16.3 - Sat Mar 1, 2008 4:54 PM EST
                                          Behind My Screen

                                          Velcro, you are wrong as to how far the president's power goes with executive privilege. The people still have to appear, but they then issue a statement as to why they cannot testify. Not showing up is contempt.... period

                                          • 2 votes
                                          #16.4 - Sat Mar 1, 2008 5:01 PM EST
                                          Reply
                                          DirtClod88

                                          SATIRE ALERT!! WARNING: USE OF SATIRE IMMINENT!!!

                                          I don't blame Mukasy - I wouldn't want to "probe" Bush OR any of his aides, that's just nasty.

                                          Hey! This room needed a bad joke! Don't kill me!

                                          • 1 vote
                                          Reply#17 - Sat Mar 1, 2008 2:04 PM EST
                                          Leave a Comment:
                                          You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
                                          You're in XHTML Mode. If you prefer, you can use Easy Mode instead.
                                          (XHTML tags allowed - a,b,blockquote,br,code,dd,dl,dt,del,em,h2,h3,h4,i,ins,li,ol,p,pre,q,strong,ul)
                                          Newsvine Privacy Statement
                                          As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
                                          FUN STUFF:
                                          • Leaderboard |
                                          • E-Mail Alerts |
                                          • Top of the Vine |
                                          • Newsvine Live |
                                          • Newsvine Archives |
                                          • The Greenhouse
                                          COMPANY STUFF:
                                          • Code of Honor |
                                          • Company Info |
                                          • Contact Us |
                                          • Jobs |
                                          • User Agreement |
                                          • Privacy Policy |
                                          • About our ads
                                          LEGAL STUFF:
                                          • © 2005-2012 Newsvine, Inc. |
                                          • Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
                                          • Newsvine is a property of msnbc.com