Above the Law...

Hardly.

That point was defeated immediately by the Supreme Court ruling from 1959.

The democrats can't win. All they can do is make noise.

 

Yep.

One Congress had no legal grounds to issue.

Now Congress will issue a contempt citation and nothing will come of it. Paper tiger. Smoke and mirrors. Playing politics.

Perish the thought that they would actually try to legislate:BangHead: instead of issue subpoenas to investigate firings of political appointees fired by the people that appointed them.

I'm sure you found Ex con John Dean's article interesting. You agree with the ramblings of his opinion column.

Find us some legal justification for your position that this was against the law and not just your opinion that they think they are "above the law". So far, you have provided none at all.

 

Kinda like liberals in general, eh!!??

I must admit that I've rarely seen/heard/read any poster that can use so many words to say nothing! (But he says it real nice!)

Edited to correct above "nothing"

Should read --"use so many words to say so little!"

 

Congress is conducting an investigation beyond the scope of their Constitutional authority. They know it, and they know they are bound to be defeated. It's all for show. Political theater.

 

No one here has produced evidences showing from a statute or the Constitution that they are compelled to answer these subpoenas.



"the White House has remained staunch in its stance that it has the right at any time to fire attorneys. Furthermore, it has rebuffed attempts to bring any more White House officials before public hearings using the claim to executive privilege."

 

And that is their only intent. To cast yet more doubt, and suspicion on the WH. The Dems are despicable, thank you slick willy.

 

And the wiggety wack right continues to blame President Clinton for the world's problems, even though he has not been in public office in nearly 7 years. When does the current administration start being responsible? And what about all the "noise" made by the GOP during the last Democratic administration?

 

Why would you show up to honor an illegitimate subpoena? Simply by showing up, you are giving credence to the legitimacy of it.

I tend to agree that she should have showed up and refused to speak. Tell them, "That's none of your business. If you want to know what goes on in the WH, win an election."

But I still wonder why one should show up in honor of a subpoena that should have never been issued.

 

Larry, our government is not (or is not supposed to be) a covert, secretive club making decisions in the dark with no accountability. The White House is accountable to "We the People", and "We the People" are represented by our congressional delegation. Congress DID win an election, and they have a duty to perform the checks and balances required for open, honest government. All 3 branches have a role to play in that.

Despite the opinion of those who look to a single leader, this is not a dictatorship, nor even a country ruled by mandate of the President. He is not stronger than Congress or the SCOTUS...all are co-equal branches, by design.

 

I don't think anyone disagrees. I certainly don't.

But do those checks and balances come into play here? The congress is operating unchecked, and when the WH checks them by refusing to comply with an illegitimate subpoena, they cry foul.

What would the Congress think if Bush starting calling in Congressional aides to ask about discussions that were going on in congressional offices? I bet they wouldn't be too happy.

So under what rationale do they think it is okay to do this? Simple: It's politics.

I don't know of any who look to a single leader. But the point is, if they are equal, the Congress cannot pull rank over the WH in this way. Congress has no more right to call WH aides to testify about internal communications than they have to call SCOTUS clerks to testify about what goes on in deliberations. Separations of powers still exists.

Remember, there are no allegations or suspicions of actual wrongdoing. The US attorneys work at the pleasure of the president. He can get rid of them at any time he chooses.

The Dems complain that Bush politicized the attorney's office. They are doing the same thing by politicizing this.

Remember, Bush offered to make these witnesses available, and the Dems refused. Then they turn around an issue a subpoena.

 

There is also separation of powers and congress cannot just infringe on the executive powers because of "suspicion". If this were the case then the agendas could be used to delay, convolute, or undermine the duties of the President.

 

'

Did the Watergate investigation begin because of evidence or suspicion?