AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Nice Sourcewatch cut and paste JTT. Now if you could post an honest and complete list from a reliable source, that would be appreciated. If you won't, we'll just assume you aren't interested in participating in the discussion and are back to spamming thread with irrelevent information.

Foxfyre wrote:

Nice Sourcewatch cut and paste JTT. Now if you could post an honest and complete list from a reliable source, that would be appreciated. If you won't, we'll just assume you aren't interested in participating in the discussion and are back to spamming thread with irrelevent information.

Even his own list supports what you said, Foxfyre, notice no ex-congressmen are Dems, all Republicans, so Repubs are drummed out of Congress, while corrupt Dems tend to stay.

Congressman William Jefferson Indicted on Bribery Charges

Tuesday, June 05, 2007

An FBI raid on Jefferson's Capitol Hill office last year became a constitutional showdown between Congress and the administration over whether the executive branch overstepped its boundary. The legality of the raid is still being argued on appeal.

...


Hearing of the indictment, House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, announced he would offer a resolution to refer the indictment to the House ethics committee. The resolution, which could be voted on as early as Tuesday, will instruct the ethics panel to review the matter against Jefferson and report within 30 days on whether he should be expelled from the House.

Democrats will not oppose the resolution, a high-level Democratic aide told FOX News. Separately, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called the charges "extremely serious."

"The charges in the indictment against Congressman Jefferson are extremely serious. While Mr. Jefferson, just as any other citizen, must be considered innocent until proven guilty, if these charges are proven true, they constitute an egregious and unacceptable abuse of public trust and power," Pelosi said in a statement.


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,277774,00.html

Expelling a House member before a conviction would be unprecedented, according to the Congressional Research Service.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-06-05-congressman-probe_N.htm

It is not the quantity of what has been achieved by the Congress that is of greatest concern. It is the quality of what has been achieved by the Congress that is of greatest concern.

Too much of what Congress has adopted is crippling our country. Especially crippling is their taking money from some groups of Americans and either giving it to other groups of Americans, or using it to buy stuff to give to other groups of Americans. The Congress is not authorized by the Constitution to do either. Consequently both are illegal.

"Bush's Deficit Legacy"

More from the "Party of Fiscal Responsibility"...

When Bush took office in 2001, he inherited a budgetary surplus of $128 billion.

When he leaves office in 2009, he will leave his successor a record budgetary deficit of $490 billion.


Record deficit expected in 2009

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-07-27-deficit_N.htm?csp=34

USA Constitution
Article I.
Section 5. Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members, and a majority of each shall constitute a quorum to do business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the attendance of absent members, in such manner, and under such penalties as each House may provide.

Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two thirds, expel a member.

Each House shall keep a journal of its proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such parts as may in their judgment require secrecy; and the yeas and nays of the members of either House on any question shall, at the desire of one fifth of those present, be entered on the journal.

Neither House, during the session of Congress, shall, without the consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.

Quote:

USA Constitution
Article I.
Section 5.

Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two thirds, expel a member.

ican711nm wrote:

It is not the quantity of what has been achieved by the Congress that is of greatest concern. It is the quality of what has been achieved by the Congress that is of greatest concern.

Too much of what Congress has adopted is crippling our country. Especially crippling is their taking money from some groups of Americans and either giving it to other groups of Americans, or using it to buy stuff to give to other groups of Americans. The Congress is not authorized by the Constitution to do either. Consequently both are illegal.

Can you say Bear Stearns? Can you say,

Quote:

"Bush's Deficit Legacy"

More from the "Party of Fiscal Responsibility"...

When Bush took office in 2001, he inherited a budgetary surplus of $128 billion.

When he leaves office in 2009, he will leave his successor a record budgetary deficit of $490 billion.


Record deficit expected in 2009

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-07-27-deficit_N.htm?csp=34

Interesting little graph there which highlights the fiscal responsibility of the Republican presidents. What are they called again by their cult followers, ... , what is that again, something about fiscal, oh yeah, "the party of fiscal responsibility".

ican711nm wrote:

Quote:

USA Constitution
Article I.
Section 5.

Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two thirds, expel a member.

Do you have the slightest idea of the meaning of 'may'?

Thanks there, Mr Conshitooshun.

http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=may&x=24&y=7

Main Entry: 1may
...
1 archaic : have the ability or competence to : CAN
2 a : have permission to : have liberty to
...
5 : SHALL, MUST -- used especially in deeds, contracts, and statutes

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-07-27-deficit_N.htm?csp=34
Record deficit expected in 2009The projected deficit for the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1 is being driven higher by the continuing economic slowdown and larger-than-anticipated costs of the two-year, $168 billion fiscal stimulus package passed by Congress, said two senior administration officials with direct knowledge of the report. In February, President Bush predicted the 2009 deficit would be $407 billion.

The budget update shows this year's deficit headed under $400 billion, at least $10 billion less than projected, according to the two officials. That's partly because tax revenue held up reasonably well despite the weaker economy.

The rising deficit for 2009 marks a sharp turnaround for Bush's fiscal legacy. He inherited a $128 billion surplus when he came into office in 2001. It soon turned to red ink because of a recession, the Sept. 11 attacks and the war on terrorism.
...

Court Rules on Miers/Bolten Subpoenas

Just in: A federal district court in DC has overruled the White House-backed motion to dismiss the House lawsuit to enforce contempt of Congress proceedings against former White House Counsel Harriet Miers and White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten.

The court also granted the House Judiciary Committee's motion for partial summary judgment in part.

In doing so the U.S. District Judge John D. Bates ruled:

Harriet Miers is not immune from compelled congressional process; she is legally required to testify pursuant to a duly issued congressional subpoena from plaintiff; and Ms. Miers may invoke executive privilege in response to specific questions as appropriate

and that:

Joshua Bolten and Ms. Miers shall produce all non-privileged documents requested by the applicable subpoenas and shall provide to plaintiff a specific description of any documents withheld from production on the basis of executive privilege consistent with the terms of the Memorandum Opinion issued on this date

Just a reminder: The Judiciary Committee is seeking testimony and documents from the White House relating to the U.S. attorneys firings. Bolten is a party because he is the custodian of White House records, but it's really the White House on the line here.

--David Kurtz

They cant be "forced" to testify,no matter how much you protest that they can.

For someone that demands that the WH follow the Constitution, are you now saying that Miers and Bolten are not allowed to simply plead the fifth?

They work for the American people, to not be able to tell your bosses about what you've been doing is f*cking shaming and ridiculous, and really unsupportable.

American Conservatism in 2008 and Beyond

Quote:

Court Rules on Miers/Bolten Subpoenas

Just in: A federal district court in DC has overruled the White House-backed motion to dismiss the House lawsuit to enforce contempt of Congress proceedings against former White House Counsel Harriet Miers and White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten.

The court also granted the House Judiciary Committee's motion for partial summary judgment in part.

In doing so the U.S. District Judge John D. Bates ruled:

Harriet Miers is not immune from compelled congressional process; she is legally required to testify pursuant to a duly issued congressional subpoena from plaintiff; and Ms. Miers may invoke executive privilege in response to specific questions as appropriate

and that:

Joshua Bolten and Ms. Miers shall produce all non-privileged documents requested by the applicable subpoenas and shall provide to plaintiff a specific description of any documents withheld from production on the basis of executive privilege consistent with the terms of the Memorandum Opinion issued on this date

Just a reminder: The Judiciary Committee is seeking testimony and documents from the White House relating to the U.S. attorneys firings. Bolten is a party because he is the custodian of White House records, but it's really the White House on the line here.

--David Kurtz

Looks like the Bush tactic of claiming Exec privilege for everything just ran out of steam. Meiers, Bolten and likely Rove will all be forced to publicly testify about the things that went on inside the WH.

And this is as it should be. The Bush interpretation of executive privilege was a joke and every lawyer in American knew it. The Congress as an oversight power over the Executive branch and it's about goddamn time that the Bush crew, the neocons, and their loyal followers accepted limitations on the Executive power.

Cycloptichorn

Quote:

They work for the American people, to not be able to tell your bosses about what you've been doing is f*cking shaming and ridiculous, and really unsupportable.

How do you figure this?
There are all types of people that "work for the American people", that arent allowed to tell anyone what they do.
While I doubt that is the case here, anyone with a high enough security clearance is barred from talking about what they do.

You just made a blanket statement without thinking about it first.
You claim to be better then that.

Everybody has the right to not testify.
All you have to do is not answer any questions,just sit there silently.

mysteryman wrote:

Everybody has the right to not testify.
All you have to do is not answer any questions,just sit there silently.

Can you think of anything that makes one look guiltier?

I hope they do what you suggest, I really do; it will show America what American Conservatism is really all about.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

mysteryman wrote:

Everybody has the right to not testify.
All you have to do is not answer any questions,just sit there silently.

Can you think of anything that makes one look guiltier?

I hope they do what you suggest, I really do; it will show America what American Conservatism is really all about.

Cycloptichorn

Sure I can.
Having people like you take one sentence out of their answer and using that as a basis for convicting them.

BTW, I noticed you ignored ican's post with the court ruling that shows that Miers CAN invoke executive privelege.

Everybody has the right to not testify.
All you have to do is not answer any questions,just sit there silently.