BREAKING - Bush defies congressional subpoenas - Claims EXECUTIVEPRIVELEGE, of course

Someone show me where the constitution mentions executive privilege.

 

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8Q1RB300&show_article=1

 

White House Asserts Executive Privilege

Jun 28 09:18 AM US/Eastern

By TERENCE HUNT

AP White House Correspondent

 

WASHINGTON (AP) - The White House, moving toward a constitutional

showdown with Congress, asserted executive privilege Thursday and

rejected lawmakers' demands for documents that could shed light on the

firings of federal prosecutors.

 

President Bush's attorney told Congress the White House would not turn

over subpoenaed documents for former presidential counsel Harriet Miers

and former political director Sara Taylor.

 

WASHINGTON (AP)

Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS wrote:

> Someone show me where the constitution mentions executive privilege.

>

> http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8Q1RB300&show_article=1

>

> White House Asserts Executive Privilege

> Jun 28 09:18 AM US/Eastern

> By TERENCE HUNT

> AP White House Correspondent

>

> WASHINGTON (AP) - The White House, moving toward a constitutional

> showdown with Congress, asserted executive privilege Thursday and

> rejected lawmakers' demands for documents that could shed light on the

> firings of federal prosecutors.

>

> President Bush's attorney told Congress the White House would not turn

> over subpoenaed documents for former presidential counsel Harriet Miers

> and former political director Sara Taylor.

>

> WASHINGTON (AP)

The Constitution mentions three independent branches of government. Or are

you going to deny that simple fact?

 

You can't get much simpler than that - and the key word remains

"independent," even if comrades Conyers and Leahy don't see it that way.

 

If one branch has to kiss ass every time another branch sends out some paper

demand, there is no independence, and the branch receiving the paper and

paying any attention to it is, then, and forever, at the beck and call of

the branch issuing the paper. That means it ain't "independent," Sancho.

 

Of course, for the most part, the liberal Democratics congresscritters, who

will now act indignant, didn't do it that way in the Supreme Soviet, so they

think everybody else should cower and bow and scrape every time they figure

they are the supreme power and want to make someone jump.

 

Actually, according to the Supreme Soviet model most liberals ascribe to, it

is now perfectly permissible for Bush to send around some of his boys with

the "Either/Or" notes on the silver trays and the nice chrome plated

revolver with a single bullet, or the dude with the .45 drawn and pointedly

pointed.

 

I am sure they will then sign the card stating that there are,"Definitely 3

independent branches of government," in spite of their typically defective

liberal thinking.

Let's see if you feel the same way next time there's a Democratic president.

 

 

"Docky Wocky" <mrchuck@lst.net> wrote in message

news:BeTgi.3833$RZ1.1190@trnddc05...

> The Constitution mentions three independent branches of government. Or are

> you going to deny that simple fact?

>

> You can't get much simpler than that - and the key word remains

> "independent," even if comrades Conyers and Leahy don't see it that way.

>

> If one branch has to kiss ass every time another branch sends out some

> paper

> demand, there is no independence, and the branch receiving the paper and

> paying any attention to it is, then, and forever, at the beck and call of

> the branch issuing the paper. That means it ain't "independent," Sancho.

>

> Of course, for the most part, the liberal Democratics congresscritters,

> who

> will now act indignant, didn't do it that way in the Supreme Soviet, so

> they

> think everybody else should cower and bow and scrape every time they

> figure

> they are the supreme power and want to make someone jump.

>

> Actually, according to the Supreme Soviet model most liberals ascribe to,

> it

> is now perfectly permissible for Bush to send around some of his boys with

> the "Either/Or" notes on the silver trays and the nice chrome plated

> revolver with a single bullet, or the dude with the .45 drawn and

> pointedly

> pointed.

>

> I am sure they will then sign the card stating that there are,"Definitely

> 3

> independent branches of government," in spite of their typically defective

> liberal thinking.

>

>

On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 18:38:25 GMT, Docky Wocky wrote:

> The Constitution mentions three independent branches of government. Or are

> you going to deny that simple fact?

>

> You can't get much simpler than that - and the key word remains

> "independent," even if comrades Conyers and Leahy don't see it that way.

>

> If one branch has to kiss ass every time another branch sends out some paper

> demand, there is no independence,

 

My guess is that docky was singing a very different tune when the

republican congress issued more then 14400 subpoenas during the Clinton

years.

 

Docky is the typical neo-con , party before country.

 

Pathetic. Don't pretend to be an American.

Republicans in congress are

thinking ahead to the day when

there's a Democrat in th White

House and how bush,jr, if he's

successful, will have diminished

congressional power.

 

I don't think Republican senators

will accept this situation.

 

Anyway, bush,jr being a world

class loser will probably fail at

this ploy, too.

 

 

 

 

Tom Mason wrote:

> Let's see if you feel the same way next time there's a Democratic

> president.

>

> "Docky Wocky" <mrchuck@lst.net> wrote in message

> news:BeTgi.3833$RZ1.1190@trnddc05...

>> The Constitution mentions three independent branches of government.

>> Or are you going to deny that simple fact?

>>

>> You can't get much simpler than that - and the key word remains

>> "independent," even if comrades Conyers and Leahy don't see it that

>> way. If one branch has to kiss ass every time another branch sends out

>> some paper

>> demand, there is no independence, and the branch receiving the paper

>> and paying any attention to it is, then, and forever, at the beck

>> and call of the branch issuing the paper. That means it ain't

>> "independent," Sancho. Of course, for the most part, the liberal

>> Democratics

>> congresscritters, who

>> will now act indignant, didn't do it that way in the Supreme Soviet,

>> so they

>> think everybody else should cower and bow and scrape every time they

>> figure

>> they are the supreme power and want to make someone jump.

>>

>> Actually, according to the Supreme Soviet model most liberals

>> ascribe to, it

>> is now perfectly permissible for Bush to send around some of his

>> boys with the "Either/Or" notes on the silver trays and the nice

>> chrome plated revolver with a single bullet, or the dude with the

>> .45 drawn and pointedly

>> pointed.

>>

>> I am sure they will then sign the card stating that there

>> are,"Definitely 3

>> independent branches of government," in spite of their typically

>> defective liberal thinking.

On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 17:44:50 GMT, Speeders & Drunk Drivers are

MURDERERS <xeton2001@yahoo.com> wrote:

>

>Someone show me where the constitution mentions executive privilege.

>

 

The actual legal principle in question is "sovereign immunity"

established in Common Law long before the Constitution.

In article <p22883tm73ghd2fum1kbuao78087ramcct@4ax.com>, david@block.net

says...

>

>

>On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 17:44:50 GMT, Speeders & Drunk Drivers are

>MURDERERS <xeton2001@yahoo.com> wrote:

>

>>

>>Someone show me where the constitution mentions executive privilege.

 

It doesn't. Only mentions Congressional Immunity, a whole other thing.

>

>The actual legal principle in question is "sovereign immunity"

>established in Common Law long before the Constitution.

 

I thought there was a revolution aimed at removing "sovereign" from

government. In any case, the President does not have it. It is a battle

that has been fought many times. Of course, given the present makeup and

obvious course of the SCOTUS, one doesn't know. They strike me as a

bunch of Monarchists for whom the King can do no wrong.

On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 19:02:12 GMT, P.Henry wrote:

> On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 18:38:25 GMT, Docky Wocky wrote:

>

>> The Constitution mentions three independent branches of government. Or are

>> you going to deny that simple fact?

>>

>> You can't get much simpler than that - and the key word remains

>> "independent," even if comrades Conyers and Leahy don't see it that way.

>>

>> If one branch has to kiss ass every time another branch sends out some paper

>> demand, there is no independence,

>

> My guess is that docky was singing a very different tune when the

> republican congress issued more then 14400 subpoenas during the Clinton

> years.

 

that should have read 1400 not 14400

>

> Docky is the typical neo-con , party before country.

>

> Pathetic. Don't pretend to be an American.

In article <msSgi.1787$rR.95@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,

Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS <xeton2001@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Someone show me where the constitution mentions executive privilege.

>

> http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8Q1RB300&show_article=1

>

> White House Asserts Executive Privilege

> Jun 28 09:18 AM US/Eastern

> By TERENCE HUNT

> AP White House Correspondent

>

> WASHINGTON (AP) - The White House, moving toward a constitutional

> showdown with Congress, asserted executive privilege Thursday and

> rejected lawmakers' demands for documents that could shed light on the

> firings of federal prosecutors.

>

> President Bush's attorney told Congress the White House would not turn

> over subpoenaed documents for former presidential counsel Harriet Miers

> and former political director Sara Taylor.

>

> WASHINGTON (AP)

On Jun 28, 12:38 pm, "Docky Wocky" <mrch...@lst.net> wrote:

> Actually, according to the Supreme Soviet model most liberals ascribe to,

 

Load of bullshit, Mr. Wocky. Most liberals do not subscribe to this

notion.

 

Bleepy

Deliri wrote:??> In article <msSgi.1787$rR.95@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,??> Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS <xeton2001@yahoo.com> wrote:??> ??>> Someone show me where the constitution mentions executive privilege.??>>??>> http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8Q1RB300&show_article=1??>>??>> White House Asserts Executive Privilege ??>> Jun 28 09:18 AM US/Eastern??>> By TERENCE HUNT??>> AP White House Correspondent ??>> ??>> WASHINGTON (AP) - The White House, moving toward a constitutional ??>> showdown with Congress, asserted executive privilege Thursday and ??>> rejected lawmakers' demands for documents that could shed light on the ??>> firings of federal prosecutors.??>>??>> President Bush's attorney told Congress the White House would not turn ??>> over subpoenaed documents for former presidential counsel Harriet Miers ??>> and former political director Sara Taylor.??>>??>> WASHINGTON (AP)

On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 17:44:50 +0000, Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS

wrote:

 

> Someone show me where the constitution mentions executive privilege.

>

> http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8Q1RB300&show_article=1

 

Actually, I believe the mainstream media is (deliberately) ignoring what

is the most significant event of the day, probably of this year to date.

 

The Bush Administration (in furthering its policy of dividing the American

people against themselves whenever possible) is forcing a showdown with

the US Congress, the body that represents the American people, the

citizenry, in the government of the United States.

 

There is very little doubt remaining in the minds of the American people

that their leadership is totally wrong, utterly destroying every

traditional principle of the nation, and run amok with its plans for a

militaristic totalitarian state in which all constitutional laws are

subject to the whim of the President.

 

This is a war between the leadership of tyrants and the American people,

and I am putting my money on the American people to win this one.

 

What happened is that, last week, Vice-President Dick Cheney said that the

Office of the Vice President (OVP) was NOT subject to an Executive Order

from the President of the United States that applies to all Executive

Branches of the US government (those headed up by cabinet secretaries,

Labor, Defense, Justice, etc).  Cheney claimed that the OVP was NOT part

of the Executive Branch of the government

(http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/320876_cheney22.html).

On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 11:33:30 -0700, Yahoo message boards were best

<abc@xyz.com> wrote:

>Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS wrote:

>> Someone show me where the constitution mentions executive privilege.

>>

>> http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8Q1RB300&show_article=1

>>

>> White House Asserts Executive Privilege

>> Jun 28 09:18 AM US/Eastern

>> By TERENCE HUNT

>> AP White House Correspondent

>>

>> WASHINGTON (AP) - The White House, moving toward a constitutional

>> showdown with Congress, asserted executive privilege Thursday and

>> rejected lawmakers' demands for documents that could shed light on the

>> firings of federal prosecutors.

>>

>> President Bush's attorney told Congress the White House would not turn

>> over subpoenaed documents for former presidential counsel Harriet Miers

>> and former political director Sara Taylor.

>>

>> WASHINGTON (AP)

On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 22:27:44 GMT, bw@barrk.net (Blackwater) wrote:

 

>

> Being somewhat unpopular, if "W" was a pushover the power

> and purpose of his office would be nullified, giving the

> congress a double-dose of authority.

 

As it stands, the power and purpose of Congress has been nullified.

Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS wrote:

>

> Someone show me where the constitution mentions executive privilege.

>

> http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8Q1RB300&show_article=1

>

> White House Asserts Executive Privilege

> Jun 28 09:18 AM US/Eastern

> By TERENCE HUNT

> AP White House Correspondent

>

> WASHINGTON (AP) - The White House, moving toward a constitutional

> showdown with Congress, asserted executive privilege Thursday and

> rejected lawmakers' demands for documents that could shed light on the

> firings of federal prosecutors.

 

Good for the President.

Deliri wrote:

 

> IF GONZALES REFUSES TO SHOW UP FOR TESTIMONY UNDER THE SUBPOENA,

> WHY COULDN'T THE COMMITTEE DISPATCH THE SERGEANT AT ARMS WITH A

> COUPLE OF ASSISTANTS TO FROG-MARCH HIM OVER TO THE COMMITTEE VENUE?

 

Congress has no such authority.

David Hartung <dhart1ng@quixnet.net> wrote in news:1J-dnf-

aOcWv_BnbnZ2dnUVZ_qzinZ2d@comcast.com:

> Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS wrote:

>>

>> Someone show me where the constitution mentions executive privilege.

>>

>> http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8Q1RB300&show_article=1

>>

>> White House Asserts Executive Privilege

>> Jun 28 09:18 AM US/Eastern

>> By TERENCE HUNT

>> AP White House Correspondent

>>

>> WASHINGTON (AP) - The White House, moving toward a constitutional

>> showdown with Congress, asserted executive privilege Thursday and

>> rejected lawmakers' demands for documents that could shed light on the

>> firings of federal prosecutors.

>

> Good for the President.

 

 

Weren't you saying the same thing in defense of Nixon

when he was covering up his Watergate coverup?

David Hartung <dhart1ng@quixnet.net> wrote in news:1J-

dnf6aOcVA_BnbnZ2dnUVZ_qzinZ2d@comcast.com:

> Deliri wrote:

>

>

>> IF GONZALES REFUSES TO SHOW UP FOR TESTIMONY UNDER THE SUBPOENA,

>> WHY COULDN'T THE COMMITTEE DISPATCH THE SERGEANT AT ARMS WITH A

>> COUPLE OF ASSISTANTS TO FROG-MARCH HIM OVER TO THE COMMITTEE VENUE?

>

> Congress has no such authority.

>

 

 

Facts one, Hartung zero.

 

"Contempt of Congress is the act of obstructing the work of the United

States Congress or one of its committees. Following the refusal of a

witness to produce documents or to testify, the Committee is entitled

to report a resolution of contempt to its parent chamber. Following

a contempt citation, the person cited for contempt is arrested by the

Sergeant-at-Arms for the House or Senate, brought to the floor of the

chamber, held to answer charges by the presiding officer, and then

subject to punishment that the House may dictate (usually imprisonment

for punishment reasons, imprisonment for coercive effect, or release

from the contempt citation.)"

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress

tom mason sez:

 

"Let's see if you feel the same way next time there's a Democratic

president..."

___________________________

Why would I "feel" any different if there was a Democratic president? Does

the Constitution change?

 

You have to ask yourself if the Constitution is the determining factor in

this, or not?

 

People that seek to weaken my Constitution by naked, highly partisan power

grabs like this are criminals, and enemies of all Americans -whether they

are too stupid to realize it or not.

phenry sez:

 

"My guess is that docky was singing a very different tune when the

republican congress issued more then 14400 subpoenas during the Clinton

years.

 

Docky is the typical neo-con , party before country.

 

Pathetic. Don't pretend to be an American..."

____________________________________

Just like a lib. "You guess?"

 

Given to overstatement much? Or, does it just "feel" good?

 

Since you know so much, please show everyone how many of those 14,400

subpoenas were issued in my name?

 

Or you could just admit you don't know squat about me, or the Constitution.

On Jun 28, 11:37 pm, "Docky Wocky" <mrch...@lst.net> wrote:

> phenry sez:

>

> "My guess is that docky was singing a very different tune when the

> republican congress issued more then 14400 subpoenas during the Clinton

> years.

>

> Docky is the typical neo-con , party before country.

>

> Pathetic. Don't pretend to be an American..."

> ____________________________________

> Just like a lib. "You guess?"

>

> Given to overstatement much? Or, does it just "feel" good?

>

> Since you know so much, please show everyone how many of those 14,400

> subpoenas were issued in my name?

>

> Or you could just admit you don't know squat about me, or the Constitution.

 

You guys missing something. The constitution no longer exists. on the

last page of the homeland security presidental directives 51 it states

the constitution is REVOKED. So now bushie and his boyfriend chenny

are no longer bonded by thein bushs' word "The goddam piece of paper"

"Docky Wocky" <mrchuck@lst.net> wrote in message news:BeTgi.3833$RZ1.1190@trnddc05...

> The Constitution mentions three independent branches of government. Or are

> you going to deny that simple fact?

>

> You can't get much simpler than that - and the key word remains

> "independent," even if comrades Conyers and Leahy don't see it that way.

 

The word "independent" does not appear in the U.S. Constitution. The

first three articles of the U.S. Constitution define The Legislative Branch,

The Executive Branch, and The Judicial Branch, but the U.S. Constitution

does not say these branches of government are "independent" of each other.

 

James Madison wrote that the three branches "should not be so far

separated as to have no constitutional control over each other."

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers_under_the_United_States_Constitution>

 

Checks and Balances; Checks of the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial

on the other two branches of government. An excellent summary list here.

<http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/United_States_Government/The_Three_Branches>

 

Your approval of dictatorship and endorsment of government sponsored murder

is noted.

bleepy sez:

 

"Load of bullshit, Mr. Wocky. Most liberals do not subscribe to this

notion..."

______________________________

Bullshit, Bleepy. Let's be realistic.

 

You have shown, on occasion, that you can be realistic.

 

The congresscritters behind this are wannabee Supreme Soviet types. History

just passed them by, so they gotta show everyone what losers they are by

staging Wizard of Oz-like shows of the judicial powers of congresscritter

committees with powerful sounding names. It is all smoke and mirrors. And it

ain't going anywhere. Who has ever been afraid of the House Judicial

Committee?

 

Look at the problem: (a) weasel extremist liberal congresscritters, of

legislative branch, issue congresscritter-type subpoenas for (b) officials

of the executive branch - without even hearing how © judicial branch feels

about attempted usurpation of power by legislative branch over executive

branch, ignoring judicial branch in the process.

 

So here we have no-saving-graces chairperson of supreme sovie...er!...US

congressional committee determined to show the rube's how powerful he thinks

he is by attempting to force the executive branch officials to kau t

After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, Speeders & Drunk Drivers are

MURDERERS <xeton2001@yahoo.com> Spat the Words

> Someone show me where the constitution mentions executive privilege.

>

> http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8Q1RB300&show_article=1

>

> White House Asserts Executive Privilege

> Jun 28 09:18 AM US/Eastern

> By TERENCE HUNT

> AP White House Correspondent

>

> WASHINGTON (AP) - The White House, moving toward a constitutional

> showdown with Congress, asserted executive privilege Thursday and

> rejected lawmakers' demands for documents that could shed light on the

> firings of federal prosecutors.

 

The sheepish looks on bush and cheney's faces today were telling.

They know they're breaking the law and their entire strategy depends

on no one ever getting access to those documents.

 

Just exactly where will those classified documents be after they

leave office.. Crawdad, Texas? Cheney's swiss bank vault ?