White House to Investigate Pelosi, Reid, et al

Cerise

Cerise

Well-Known Member
Oops, sorry. That should be Pelosi Intends to Sue White House:

WASHINGTON — House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Friday she intends to sue the Bush administration in response to Attorney General Michael Mukasey's refusal to refer the House's contempt citations against two of President Bush's top aides to a federal grand jury.
Click to expand...

wwitchwest_pelosi1.jpg


"Just try and stay out of my way. Just try! I'll get you, my pretty and your little dog too!"

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,334173,00.html

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080301/D8V4C5HG5.html

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/02/28/national/w131102S16.DTL

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/29/mukasey-refuses-probe-of-_n_89289.html
 
She would rather waste time with unfounded investigations into legal Whitehouse activities and listening to testimony of steroid use in baseball than strengthening this country's intelligence-gathering capabilities. The Whitehouse should hold hearings as to whether San Fran Nan commited a felony last year with her trip to Syria.
 
Cerise said:
She would rather waste time with unfounded investigations into legal Whitehouse activities and listening to testimony of steroid use in baseball than strengthening this country's intelligence-gathering capabilities.
Click to expand...

The investigation will determine whether the Whitehouse activities were legal. Not that the republicans would ever investigate a president :laugh:

Oh and the steroid use hearings were started by republicans.

By "strengthenng intelligence gathering capabilities" you mean giving telecoms immunity for something that's supposedly legal? If it's legal why do they need immunity?
 
She's Totally mad with power right about now.
"She's crazy as hell." in the words of my late dad.
 
The AG has determined Bolton and Miers committed no crime when they ignored, under advice from the President, subpoenas from Congress to cooperate with an inquiry regarding the firing of 9 federal prosecutors in 2006.

"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."
Click to expand...

The dims are just spinning their wheels and showing their petulance and insolence when they vote to hold former Bush confidants in contempt of Congress rather than taking up the FISA enhancement that has since expired.

The active 1978 version of FISA is legal--and outdated. Cell phones, emails, routers have become commonplace. The private-sector telecoms need immunity from greedy trial lawyers who would seek to sue to collect damages for their terrorist-client's 'invasion of privacy.' The House leadership is more interested in protecting the interests of one of their constituencies than in protecting the interests of all Americans.


Waxman and Rush, both Ds, chair the two panels that heard the steroid testimony. :shrug:
 
Cerise said:
The AG has determined Bolton and Miers committed no crime when they ignored, under advice from the President, subpoenas from Congress to cooperate with an inquiry regarding the firing of 9 federal prosecutors in 2006.
Click to expand...

I figured you would support the suppression of justice. Ignoring subpoenas was wrong and I see nothing wrong with a lawsuit over it.

The dims are just spinning their wheels and showing their petulance and insolence when they vote to hold former Bush confidants in contempt of Congress rather than taking up the FISA enhancement that has since expired.
Click to expand...

The cons are obstructing justice and thank goodness the FISA enhancement has expired.

The active 1978 version of FISA is legal--and outdated. Cell phones, emails, routers have become commonplace. The private-sector telecoms need immunity from greedy trial lawyers who would seek to sue to collect damages for their terrorist-client's 'invasion of privacy.'
Click to expand...

Yes, everybody who's privacy is invaded are terrorists. No non-terrorists would ever be eavesdropped on. :laugh:

If the telecoms aren't doing anything illegal then they shouldn't need immunity. Unless you think they are doing something illegal.

Waxman and Rush, both Ds, chair the two panels that heard the steroid testimony. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Rep. Cliff Stearns first called for steroid investigations in Congress.
 
What we've got here is a classic temper tantrum.

Bill and his cohorts broke more laws than Manson, and someone had the balls to call them on it. The welfare libs have had their toes stepped on ever since, and have made it their mission to avenge Bill at all costs since the time it happened. They'll grasp at any straw, go to any length, tell any lie, distort any truth, manipulate any fact, and hide any evidence that gets in their way. They see smoke everywhere they look, but ain't found a fire yet. Not to say there isn't one. But it's clearly become more important to them than even furthering their own policies and agendas has been. Fifty chicks all pecking to be the big rooster, so much so they sabotage each other's witch hunts. It's actually amusing, until you stop to remind yourself why they are where they are to begin with. Then it gets frustrating.

How some stupid assed backwards Arkansas hillbilly nobody sex maniac compulsive liar thief moron got to be so important is beyond me.

Then again, take a good long look at his disciples.
 
SouthernN'Proud said:
What we've got here is a classic temper tantrum.

Bill and his cohorts broke more laws than Manson, and someone had the balls to call them on it.
Click to expand...

Yet Bush and cohorts have them beat by miles and someone has the balls to call them on it.

Your hypocrisy is amusing however.
 
spike said:
By "strengthenng intelligence gathering capabilities" you mean giving telecoms immunity for something that's supposedly legal? If it's legal why do they need immunity?
Click to expand...

To stop the lawyers from prying wads of cash from businesses, who are following government orders, by explaining to the union member jury that, they don't need it but Hamid does.
 
Gonz said:
To stop the lawyers from prying wads of cash from businesses, who are following government orders, by explaining to the union member jury that, they don't need it but Hamid does.
Click to expand...

Lawyers can pry wads of cash from legal business practices?
 
spike said:
I figured you would support the suppression of justice. Ignoring subpoenas was wrong and I see nothing wrong with a lawsuit over it.
Click to expand...

Did those lawyers have a right to employment? Did they have some kind of contractual agreement with the government? Why did Congress feel the need to investigate their removal, and why does Congress they think they will prevail when going up against the President's discretionary right of executive privilege?

..... thank goodness the FISA enhancement has expired.
Click to expand...

Why?
?? said:
"Paranoia makes you afraid of things that aren't real. Fear makes you easily controllable."
Click to expand...
Just don't leave a trail: paper, e-, or witness, and you'll be OK.

And don't think it won't be renewed. The dims are just playing games with our national security, that's all. Just like all the 'withdraw from Iraq bills' that got shot down. They want the American people to think that they are still relevant.


If the telecoms aren't doing anything illegal then they shouldn't need immunity. Unless you think they are doing something illegal.
Click to expand...

The private companies that assist the government by providing telephone and e-mail records in counterterrorism investigations should not be penalized for acting in good faith when we are at risk of another terrorist attack.

I know it's hard to face, but that risk is going to be around for a long time.

Otherwise, these telcos will be discouraged from cooperating in the future because of liabilities flowing from lawsuits filed by greedy class action lawyers that could reach billions of dollars.

And how would that affect your phone and internet service, anyway? Why, the cost of defending these suits would be passed on to the consumer.
 
Cerise said:
Did those lawyers have a right to employment? Did they have some kind of contractual agreement with the government? Why did Congress feel the need to investigate their removal, and why does Congress they think they will prevail when going up against the President's discretionary right of executive privilege?
Click to expand...

All questions to be answered in the investigation I would think.

Why? Just don't leave a trail: paper, e-, or witness, and you'll be OK.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's what the Bush administration focuses on.

And don't think it won't be renewed. The dims are just playing games with our national security, that's all.
Click to expand...

The Bush administration is playing games with our freedoms. Hopefully it's not renewed for that reason. "Those who would trade freedom for security deserve neither".

They want the American people to think that they are still relevant.
Click to expand...

It's Bush that wants the American people to think he's still relevant. He's a lame duck tho'.


The private companies that assist the government by providing telephone and e-mail records in counterterrorism investigations should not be penalized for acting in good faith when we are at risk of another terrorist attack.
Click to expand...

Yes, they should act legally.

I know it's hard to face, but that risk is going to be around for a long time.
Click to expand...

I know the administration has you so scared that you'd give up all your freedom. Not me. There's a huge list of things that are far bigger risks for Americans.

Otherwise, these telcos will be discouraged from cooperating in the future because of liabilities flowing from lawsuits filed by greedy class action lawyers that could reach billions of dollars.
Click to expand...

That's what Bush told you to think. Almost verbatim. You haven't figured out that he lies yet huh?

And how would that affect your phone and internet service, anyway? Why, the cost of defending these suits would be passed on to the consumer.
Click to expand...

I'd gladly pay a few extra bucks for my freedoms.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top