1 posted on
09/05/2001 1:23:51 PM PDT by
jern
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-26 next last
To: jern
``While I have a great deal of respect for the attorney general, he has announced a new policy that broadens executive privilege,'' Burton said. ``If this unprecedented policy is permitted to stand, Congress will not be able to exercise meaningful oversight of the executive branch.'' That says it all.
2 posted on
09/05/2001 1:28:13 PM PDT by
Lanman
To: jern
Most recently in the 1990s such documents were turned over to the Whitewater, fund-raising, pardons and impeachment investigations. Not without massive redaction, stonewalling, and in some cases - not at all.
To: jern
"Podesta said. ``It appears to me that every administration has to learn that the hard way.''
Problem is, Mr. Podesta, you made it too easy for Bill Clinton.
To: jern
Now comes all of the Bush apologists who have been apologizing about stem cells and increased education wasting(funding) with no parental choice. I can hear the same group again making excuses.
To: jern
The claim would be the latest in a string of efforts by the new administration to restrain the flow of information to Congress about private deliberations.
Vice President Dick Cheney (news - web sites) has rebuffed requests by the General Accounting Office (news - web sites) and a Democratic congressman to divulge information about people he met with and how he helped develop Bush's energy policy. If this was still Clinton doing this Bush lovers would be outraged.
Business as usual.
9 posted on
09/05/2001 1:39:45 PM PDT by
Aerial
To: Calypgin/CCRM
"By JOHN SOLOMON, Associated Press WriterWASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush is prepared to invoke executive privilege if Congress demands to see documents about prosecutors' decisions in three Clinton-era cases, administration officials said Wednesday." badabadabada...
So you wanna mess with the snake pit vipers known as the Associated Press, eh?
Please...do make *note* of who the Associated Press writer works for?
Yea.
~Sweet, huh?
23 posted on
09/05/2001 2:01:51 PM PDT by
Landru
To: JohnHuang2 - fyi
bttt
To: kattracks - fyi
bump
To: rdavis
fyi
37 posted on
09/05/2001 2:16:14 PM PDT by
mancini
To: Mudboy Slim, ChaseR
bump bump bump bump WHAT'S UP HERE? bump bump bump bump
To: jern
So now the Bush Administration is openly providing cover for the Clinton Administration. Can anyone honestly say these two are not hand in glove?
To: jern
Might Bush be reluctant to have fingered Clinton as the greatest traitor in American history? Maybe a nod to "bipartisanship"?
75 posted on
09/05/2001 3:02:48 PM PDT by
onedoug
To: jern
I think Solomon, who I follow and enjoy, has fallen down in his article in giving the particulars here. Instead he has tried to make the story sell better by making its focus the tittilating study of "executive privelige". I have to assume what cases are being talked about...i.e., Solomon didn't do his job
I assume we are talking about the Ray office ending and the full report not yet out and Burton is mad about the indictments not being made and wants to paw through raw information to have his just revenge. Ah, too easy...Burton will never get redress for the Clinton smears and belittlement...It was too massive and Big Lies always work in the Media.
A quotation comes to mind (doesn't it always in my posts?) so let's have a little Robert Bolt playwrite view of Thomas More sort of on target:
More: And go he should, if he were the Devil himself, until he broke the law!Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat?
This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down (and you're just the man to do it!), do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?
Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!
95 posted on
09/05/2001 3:17:22 PM PDT by
KC Burke
To: jern
All Hail Clinton! And All Hail his successor who is learning his lessons well! Bushtigula rules supreme! Screw the little people and the public!
107 posted on
09/05/2001 3:24:53 PM PDT by
Demidog
To: jern
so the 'mystery' continues (shoot, burn and bulldoze). just 'trust' your government, they caaaare about you.
To: jern
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
To h with this compassionate conservatism clap. SOS
To: jern
The Clintons must have a picture of GW Bush molesting a sheep. That's the only explanation for Bush slow-rolling and stonewalling this.
To: jern
President Bush is prepared to invoke executive privilege
if Congress demands to see documents about prosecutors' decisions in three "Clinton-era cases",
Meet the New Boss.
Same as the Old Boss.
SOS for four more years,
CATO
143 posted on
09/05/2001 5:22:08 PM PDT by
Cato
To: jern
What the heck does Bush think he stands to gain from covering Clinton's butte?? This is an outrage. We need to support the more conservative GOP Congress that is trying to uncover the truth about Clinton's crimes against the Constitution on this one.
To: jern
BTTT for new developments.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-26 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson