Comments (17)

neo1 wrote on July 6, 2007 1:20 PM:

"I hope"

-- Helplessly Hoping...

Jake wrote on July 6, 2007 1:54 PM:

How about we arrest Leahy for debating on the floor of the Senate even though the Constitution clearly sets forth absolute Congression immunity?

KilgoreTrout XL wrote on July 6, 2007 2:30 PM:

Lauren Holly: "Uh, More like one in a million."

[long pause]

Jim Carrey: "So you're saying there's a chance."

jawbone wrote on July 6, 2007 2:43 PM:

This is a test-tried to post 4 times at ACLU/ruling post--no results.

Yeah, good luck with the Roberts' Supreme Court!

But, is there something about working with the NeoCons and their minions which dulls the fgiht-or-flight response?

Is that what happens to so many MCMers*?

*MCMers--Members of the Mainstream Corporate Media

(Security code word is "where," as in "Where, oh, where is our salvation?")

UnEasyOne wrote on July 6, 2007 10:50 PM:

What wiretap ruling is this article referring to?

Quackers wrote on July 7, 2007 12:26 AM:

I don't know if this is correct or not, but I've read that if this ends up in court and Bush claims executive privilege he will lose if congress says it's investigating a potential criminal act. I think the wiretapping fits that description nicely.

Jane wrote on July 7, 2007 1:06 AM:

Yeah, Jake:

So your argument is that Bush has absolute immunity unless we impeach him?

Throw me in that Briar Patch, Brer Faux.

An elected King is not the government we fought for.

If Bush has a good idea (no proof of that on anything so far), he should be able to convince Congress on the merits not just his school boy bully pose becuz I said so.

Jake, anytime you wish to rejoin the thinking world, let us know.

JNagarya wrote on July 7, 2007 10:46 AM:

How about we arrest Leahy for debating on the floor of the Senate even though the Constitution clearly sets forth absolute Congression immunity?

Posted by: Jake
Date: July 6, 2007 1:54 PM

Congressional immunity is not absolute. Read the _full_ terms in the Constitution on that issue. And read the House and Seante's rules on the point.

Nor is Bushit's claim to be exempt from all rule of law "during wartime" -- an "absolute -- the fact. First, we are not at war; second, the impeachment clause in the Constitution stipulates exactly opposite.

It only takes one exception to an absolute to demolish the absolute.

Do the world a favor, "Jake": learn how to go away, and then exercise that new learning by acting upon it.

steambomb wrote on July 7, 2007 12:17 PM:

Bush better tuck his tail and run for the hills. He is in big Kim-Chee. That includes all his fellow enablers.

anon wrote on July 7, 2007 12:19 PM:

Bush has raised the ire of congress enough for them to get the truth out and act on it.

JNagarya wrote on July 7, 2007 5:21 PM:

I don't know if this is correct or not, but I've read that if this ends up in court and Bush claims executive privilege he will lose if congress says it's investigating a potential criminal act. I think the wiretapping fits that description nicely.

Posted by: Quackers
Date: July 7, 2007 12:26 AM

The Democrats are not Republicans. That means the subpoenas they've issued are thoroughly supported by hard evidence that the Committees already have in hand -- evidence sufficient to back them in court.

And in the communictions to the White House, the Congress has put on the record that they are investigating, among other things, obstruction of justice. As we know from the Libby trial and conviction, obstruction of justice is a crime. A felony. As concerns Bushit and Cheney, a High Crime.

Nixon asserted Executive Privilege in the face of subpoenas for evidence of apparent crimes. The SC held 8-0 against him. Subsequent rulings against Clinton further narrowed the scope of Executive Privilege claims.

As for "Jake"'s wingnut fabrications of pseudo-law: if a sitting president can be sued civilly by a private citizen -- civil infractions being less serious than criminal, the latter affecting the entire community -- then a sitting president can be sued criminally. Indicted, and not only by means of impeachment. All the gibberish by the fetid cesspool that is the lunatic fringe, through such proxies as "Jake," are wishful "thinkings" constructed from bowel gas.

"Jake" has attempted by deceitful means to communicate the claim that he is a lawyer. He has also pretended to be objective. Yet he asserts the lie that Bushit is wholly immune and absolutely exempt from all rule of law. That he can do anything he damned well pleases. That claim flies in the face of the Impeachment clause -- which he leaves out because it demolishes his totalitarianism masked by him behind outlandish pseudo-law gibberish.

Anonymous wrote on July 8, 2007 11:30 AM:

weak tea.

piggly wrote on July 8, 2007 2:39 PM:

I have to wonder is it possible that the dustup between the whitehouse and DOj was because the whitehouse proposed to outsource the domestic wiretapping program ?

Anonymous wrote on July 8, 2007 6:13 PM:

Rather than demanding documents, Congress needs an NSA-like system which audits the Executive. Let's hear it for Congress expanding, and creating for itself an electronic intercept system that will audit, oversee, and ensure Executive Complies with FISA requirements. Stop asking for documents: The President takes our e-mails and web pages without asking. Time for Congress to take the same things from the Executive.

A;. Checks and Balances Require Balanced Tools

POTUS says he can spy on Americans. Surely, Congress will give itself the tools to audit POTUS compliance with the law. President has NSA capabilities; for Congress to Check him, and ensure he does cooperate with the FISA court, Congress needs a similar tool to monitor whether he is or isn't of complying. No more subpoenas; nor more waiting for documents; real time monitoring of the Executive: E-mails, file transfer systems, and all data archiving systems: To ensure they are being archived correctly, not to look at the data. The information on that archived data can be subpoenaed. The Executive's compliance with the security compliance, and retention requirements is ongoing task of Congress to audit without notice, without a subpoena.

B. Judiciary Supports Intrusion of Executive

The Courts have ruled that warrants are not required to get information about public emails and public surfing. Surely, the Courts cannot object to Congress getting the same information -- without a warrant -- from the Executive.

IT remains for the Court to explain why it is "OK" for the Executive to intrude on our privacy; but the Congress will not use that "inherent intrusion power" against the Executive to sample his data. What's good for the Executive is no bar for Congress.

Anonymous wrote on July 8, 2007 6:15 PM:

Posted by: JNagarya
Date: July 7, 2007 5:21 PM

You're not a lawyer. If you have evidence that someone is lying about being a lawyer, substantiate.

Do'nt want to year whing from you. Either Act on what you know, or get off the boards.

It's a serious charge to accuse Jake of UPL. Not clear you have any standing to file a complaint given your apparet "non-lawyer" status.

If you are a "legal profesional" start using the "approved" complaint procedure; don't use this board to whine about things that should be revieed by the Disciplianry Bar: UPL.

Anonymous wrote on July 8, 2007 6:18 PM:

Posted by: piggly
Date: July 8, 2007 2:39 PM

Good question. I thought the surveillance was outsourced: NSA contractors do the samplind reviewing. DOJ Staff lawyers aren't writig the code and doing the analysis. There are NSA contractors areound the globe doing this.

Your question has merit. Would like to year more ofy our ideas on this. Thank you.

JNagarya wrote on July 8, 2007 8:36 PM:

Posted by: JNagarya
Date: July 7, 2007 5:21 PM

"You're not a lawyer."

You've substantiated that assertion like all your others?

"If you have evidence that someone is lying about being a lawyer, substantiate."

"Jake" is not a lawyer; he doesn't know even the basics, such as distinguishing between law and non-law. And the pro-Bushit assertions of "law" he makes are outlandish on their face -- if one knows the basics of our system of laws.

You aren't a lawyer eithr, despite your pretentious nonsense.

"Do'nt want to year whing from you. Either Act on what you know, or get off the boards."

Go fuck yourself, ass.

"It's a serious charge to accuse Jake of UPL. Not clear you have any standing to file a complaint given your apparet "non-lawyer" status."

I didn't accuse anyone of unathorized practice of law (you obviously don't know the meaning of the term or where it applies). I accuse "Jake" of endeavoring to imply he is a lawyer with a little implication here, and another little implication over there; that isn't "unauthorized practice of law"; it is a common lie among right-wingers used in effort to give their gibberish credibility.

"If you are a "legal profesional" start using the "approved" complaint procedure; don't use this board to whine about things that should be revieed by the Disciplianry Bar: UPL."

Again, you don't know the meaning of "unauthorized practice of law". And stop the pretense that you know what you're talking about as concerns law: you don't.

As for the "Disciplinary Bar" and all your pretentious huffing-and-puffing: it has no jurisdiction over those who are not lawyers.

Posted by:
Date: July 8, 2007 6:15 PM