Bush comes out strong against Congress "fishing expedition"

dog --
This became less hard to understand the other night.
The president doesn't want his people to testify under oath. The ExecPrivilege argument doesn't wash because he's willing to have those same people talk under circumstances that make their being held accountable for what they say almost impossible.
Why?
Simple.

 

When is a democrat going to grow a spine and bring impeachment officially to the floor?

 

Is there anything better for the Democrats than The Hammer coming out of exile and flapping his gums on this issue?

 

Not going to happen, and you know it.

 

Very gelatinous crew in there right now.

 

Actually, his ultimate trump card are the 5 Supreme Court justices that made him president in 2000. And two of those are out and replaced by two even friendlier neocons.

Any court case against his administration would eventually go to SCOTUS. Guess which way the Fredo Five will vote?

 

Think jello if you want, Cowbell, but I'm thinking more important issues like, y'know, ending the war in Iraq.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/21/AR2007032102713.html?nav=hcmodule

Prosecutor Says Bush Appointees Interfered With Tobacco Case

By Carol D. Leonnig
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, March 22, 2007; Page A01

The leader of the Justice Department team that prosecuted a landmark lawsuit against tobacco companies said yesterday that Bush administration political appointees repeatedly ordered her to take steps that weakened the government's racketeering case.

Sharon Y. Eubanks said Bush loyalists in Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales's office began micromanaging the team's strategy in the final weeks of the 2005 trial, to the detriment of the government's claim that the industry had conspired to lie to U.S. smokers.

She said a supervisor demanded that she and her trial team drop recommendations that tobacco executives be removed from their corporate positions as a possible penalty. He and two others instructed her to tell key witnesses to change their testimony. And they ordered Eubanks to read verbatim a closing argument they had rewritten for her, she said.

"The political people were pushing the buttons and ordering us to say what we said," Eubanks said. "And because of that, we failed to zealously represent the interests of the American public." ...

 

Football_Bat, the way our system works (some would argue doesn't) a case takes approximately three to four years to go from trial through the appellate process to the U.S. Supreme Court. No one, with the possible exception of the fired U.S. attorneys, will care at that point.

 

Not a fan of what Bush did by any means, and I think that this is yet another example of his use of 9/11, via the Patriot Act, to establish his vision of an imperial Executive Branch.

But I don't think that he did anything illegal.

 

That's what oversight hearings and subpoenas are for.
If anyone in the WH political operations dicked around with Carol Lam's prosecutions in SF, then somebody could very well go to jail.

 

Maybe not, but if they get subpoenaed and inevitably lie about it -- it's a different story.