Comments (21)

TheOtherWA wrote on June 27, 2007 1:36 PM:

It's about time. Thank you, Sen. Leahy!

TheOtherWA wrote on June 27, 2007 1:38 PM:

It's about time. Thank you, Sen. Leahy!

Anonymous wrote on June 27, 2007 1:39 PM:

According to Addington, the OVP is not in the Exeucive Branch, so they can't claim "executive" privilge.

Or is Addington not exple to explalin why he didn't clear his comments through his "minder" in the OVP office?

Bad dog, David...bad dog!

kate2 wrote on June 27, 2007 1:50 PM:

Karl doesn't have to testify because then he'd be reluctant to give confidential advice.
President Cheney doesn't have to tell who the devils are that he makes our Engergy Pact with becuase then big-money CEO's couldn't give confidential advice.
The White House won't turn over spying on Americans info because they have a RIGHT to get confidential advice.

So far all the "confidential advice" they've gotten has been pretty damn awful. Maybe public advice would be better for all concerned. Like: get our kids out of Iraq, fire Gonzales, and resign yourself (and take the puppet prez with you).

Bucketochicken wrote on June 27, 2007 1:51 PM:

Thank god. Go get 'em, Pat.

SC = blood. As is it's in the water...

gonzone wrote on June 27, 2007 1:57 PM:

It's about time!
Oh, did someone else already say that? :-)
Let's torture the information out of Dick if necessary. Dick loves torture.
Seriously, whay wait so long?
We know these felons care nothing for process and law.

interested litigant wrote on June 27, 2007 2:02 PM:

Cats. You are all cats. Monkey see, monkey do. Look deeper. Ask the important question 'why'? WHY is this going on? WHY is the WH stonewalling? WHY do the Democrats want information that private meetings with leaders already has given. They can't talk about it publicly, so they demand the WH turn over information so it can be made public. CATS! Stop being cats. Start asking WHY?!?!?!?

foggylady wrote on June 27, 2007 2:07 PM:

And for the snark of the week...
see Gonzo tell Gov't employees how to preserve documents...apparently a training video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PHHdMhyLEE&mode=related&search=

It"s on You Tube under "Gonzales on FOIA"

his stutters and mis pronounced words are charming, also.

tekel wrote on June 27, 2007 2:09 PM:

um, AP? "Warrant-free" wiretapping? is that like "fat-free" yogurt? Since the only legal way to obtain a wiretap is with a warrant, why not call this what it is:

Bush's ILLEGAL wiretapping program.

ReggaeBass wrote on June 27, 2007 2:15 PM:

Feels like tipping point week.

tekel wrote on June 27, 2007 2:18 PM:

And why should we agree that executive privilege is proper? Bush's political capital is spent. Congress should seize this opportunity to destroy executive privilege entirely.

I think the tubes ate my last post, so I'll echo the point here, becuase the security code (spade) wants me to do it.

A note to the AP: "warrant-free" wiretapping? Is that like "fat-free" yogurt, all of the flavor and none of the guilt? Warrants are good things- they keep the police from just barging into your house whenever they feel like it. Since only legal way to tap someone's phone in the US is when authorized by a warrant, perhaps you should call a "spade" a "spade." The wiretapping program at issue here is ILLEGAL. It's an ILLEGAL wiretapping program. The President's ILLEGAL wiretapping program.

The important thing to get across here is that the President ordered people to do things that are against the law.

Legalize wrote on June 27, 2007 2:20 PM:

Please, please, please, Congressional Dems, tear these skunks apart. In any event, since Cheney isn't a part of the Executive branch, he enjoys no executive privilege, so there shouldn't be any problem there.

parrot wrote on June 27, 2007 2:31 PM:

While the arguments are laughable, the consequences are not. Let's hope that some of those consequences include impeachment...because, without exercising that, the Republic is in graver jeopardy down the road than it even is today. And today things are pretty bad on their face. Representatives of the People, paid by the People, could care less about the Bill or Rights or any semblance of legality. That is already bad enough. When the whole system of the Republic become nothing more than a fiction, a thin paint slapped on top of fascism, strong-arming, and thuggery, and no one cares enough to exercise legal authority to correct that, then, well, we are indeed in trouble as a people and as a nation.

The question for the remainder of the Bushites term is how long is that term? Because, from here, it is plain to see that they will be back. The question is, how strong will they be the next time? They haven't seemed to weaken since Watergate, not in terms of decades, only momentarily.

As is being argued here by Addington, it becomes plain to see that the modification of the Constitution to make the Vice President and the President members of the same political faction, is very, very dangerous. The confusion in the Senate, the President of the Senate position that the VP exercises was designed at a time when it was assumed that the VP would have run as an opposing candidate to the President in a general election. That was the original reasoning of the Framers. The subsequent Amendment, officially, for the first time in the Constitution, recognizing party and factionalism, placed there because of parties and factionalism, has brought us a strong party system that builds strongman government and one party statism. We see that because a divided Senate can be overruled by the VP in a tie-vote, the Congress itself has become ineffective against even itself to right injustice and violations of the Constitution in other aspects. The political parties in Washington hesitate to do anything immediately to rectify the grave errors and crimes committed by the Executive as a result...because they can't see outside the system they themselves help create.

The problem is a two party system. Not that that isn't better than a one party system. We should never forget that. Two points of view are always better than one in a reasoned debate. But, what if the reality of two legal entities, each calling themselves seperate parties, blinds us from their similarities...because there is unspoken agreement between them that they will 1) institutionalize themselves at the expense of all other input and opinion and 2) ignore the flaws in the system they create out of fear of losing the power that their membership, not the populace at large, the People being feared of by them, have invested, sometimes over decades, if not centuries, in creating?

parrot wrote on June 27, 2007 2:47 PM:

I'm not appealing to "Dems" to help us out here...although it is in the interest of the nation and even their own incorporated party that they do so. I appeal to all Representatives of the People in the Congress to restore repect for that Congress by holding the Executive to the Laws, as crafted by Congress, supposedly as Representatives of the People. The problem right now is that political expediency has been the same as kissing ass to the party brass...and whoring with greed...rather than actually ruling for the long term benefit of the People. The selfish and the ignorant fear the tyranny of the Bill of Rights and their own oaths to the Constitution. The sane believers in the promise of the Constitution do not fear that particular tyranny but the tired, wearing, worse tyranny that came before those once esteemed documents. May estimation of those documents power rise up in the People. It certainly will if the Congress bothers to exert its power under them, rather than pandering to the tyrannts in power.

NYFM wrote on June 27, 2007 3:29 PM:

Kerry's confrontation (through Addington) on Cheney's denial of being part of any particular branch of the government makes me think they are going to pull the rug from under their very tired claims of "national security" and finally nail them.

EdNSted wrote on June 27, 2007 7:11 PM:

I confidently predict that in the end these subpoenas will be utterly meaningless. As a practical matter, the White House is simply not going to comply with these subpoenas and the Senate Judiciary Committee has absolutely no way to force them to do so.

The Senate Judiciary Committee can issue all the subpoenas it wants but there is no force of law behind them. Oh, in theory, perhaps. But in reality, the White House can continue to fight them until the end of its administration - and beyond if necessary.

Those who believe the White House will eventually be forced to turn over the requested documents are simply deluding themselves. That's simply not the way this administation works.

dee illuminati wrote on June 27, 2007 8:49 PM:

brilliant move, never has an administration and its members been so discredited, the refusal to answer the questions and subpeonas is as good as the requests being met with the 5th, something that these guys didn't feel was part of 'due process.' The animal farm logic is showing itself for what it is, anxious GOP members up for re-election must make a choice.

the word cheney is now synonomous with failure and deceit, and I remember Dick saying that people were trying to re-write history, or 'revise' his alternate reality... no that is not the case.

dee illuminati wrote on June 27, 2007 8:50 PM:

a picture of darth cheney with your election opponent??? spot-ad priceless

Al in Austex wrote on June 28, 2007 4:43 AM:

Ed N Sted - are you Ed Gillispe in disguise.
Leahy et al have the goods on your whole crowd Wait . Listen , & Weep the NEOCONS have destroyed the GOP brand forever .

rockyroad wrote on June 28, 2007 3:43 PM:

Well said parrot.

imntacrook wrote on June 28, 2007 11:55 PM:

You guys rely on Democratic senators that have the lowest approval rating EVER recorder???? OOOOEEEEOOOO 6 points below your hated criminal Bush?? Nanny states Libs, you want them to raise your kids, wipe your chins?