**Bush invokes executive privilege to keep Justice Department documents secret**

AP ^ | 12-13-01 | John Solomon

[Oldeconomybuyer]

06:57 PST WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush has invoked executive privilege for the first time to keep Congress from seeing documents of prosecutors' decision-making in cases ranging from decades-old Boston murders to the Clinton-era fund-raising probe, The Associated Press has learned.

[carenot]

Do not forget that Bush Senior was involved at Mena Arkansas with Bill CLinton and Jackson Stephens.

Do not forget that GW BUsh has been and still is involved with many Saudi businessmen and Jack Stepehns in questionable finacnial arrangements.

I have not forgotten.

I sure do miss Michael Rivero.

[sandydipper]

Because we - the American public - are stupid and don't need to know that the US Gov't is corrupt. Money talks and B/S walks.

[PeoplesRepublicOfWashington]

Ask yourself if someone like Maxine Waters should have any access to privileged information under any circumstances.

Should Maxine Waters have access to air?

[ChaseR]

Your ON THE MARK post #239 - I've copied it and will be using it - for many months to come. (and again I have to say, unfortunately I do this) :( :( :(

[everyone make note of post #239 as this is a Sad Day for American Justice - it's a Sad Day for the Rule of Law!!!]

[Luis Gonzalez]

"He has been convicted of squat, Luis."

Answers exodus's question as to why he's not in jail, doesn't it?

"Because of people that believes he could do no wrong."

Not true, lots of people acknowledged that he did lots wrong, but Congress didn't have the balls to see it through.

"Sorta' like you seem to believe Bush can do no wrong."

Mmmm, intersting, I've never said that. I just happen to believe, from the things I've read, and the information in front of me, that as far as the military action underway to destroy the organization of terrorists that murdered thousands of innocent people is justified, and constitutionally correct, as well as necessary. Don't you believe that we should be doing whatever we have to do to bring terrorists "both foreign and domestic" to justice?

"Is it true that you believe everything President Bush says?"

No, I believe in what people DO, not what they say they will do, that's why I voted for Bush rather than for someone like Alan Keyes, who having the luxury of knowing that he would never have to actually live up to his promises, is free to make any claim, and promise damned near anything he wants to during a campaign.

exodus, being a Keyes supporter, is one of those people who believe everything that someone SAYS, having nothing else to base his/her opinion of Keyes on.

[ChaseR]

I don't take any pleasure in correcting my typo - but will do so -

***
You're ON THE MARK post #239 - I've copied it and will be using it - for many months to come. (and again I have to say, unfortunately I do this) :( :( :(

[everyone make note of post #239 as this is a Sad Day for American Justice - it's a Sad Day for the Rule of Law!!!]

[carenot]

WE won't. We never have.

[Native American Female Vet]

Yes I saw what it says.

Its a nice way of saying, I dont want you to know how I decide to execute the laws you make and I dont want to tell you anything that may lead you to change or make laws, that would make it so that I cant do that anymore. Clinton did it too

[Zon]

I wonder how big the voter turnout would be if we had a -NONE OF THE ABOVE- vote?

Record turn out. Especially from previous, eligible non-voters.

How about a -KICK 'EM ALL OUT VOTE?

Now that would send a distinct message, wouldn't it?

[Mr. Lucky]

Now can you show me what in the Constitution supports your claim that Congress does not have an oversight role in criminal prosecutions

Sure.

Article I, Section 9, paragraph 3:

No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto laws shall be passed

The Supreme Court has always held that laws such as you suggest Congress may pass in "oversight" of prosecution of criminal matters constitue bills of attainder.

The Bill of Attainder clause was intended not as a narrow, technical (and therefore soon to be outmoded) prohibition, but rather as an implementation of the separation of powers, a general safeguard against legislative exercise of the judicial function or more simply - trial by legislature. US v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437, 440 (1965)

Congress gets to pass criminal laws, the executive gets to prosecute them.

[Belial]

Attorneys need to feel free to express their candid opinions without fear that their advice will be flashed all over the network news programs.

Pure BS. This decision-making has traditionally been transparent to Congress. Bush is further removing accountability of the Executive.

And what's truly frightening is that you're applauding. Either you have no understanding of the framework the Constitution provides for, or your secret desire is for a Bush dictatorship.

[Kangaroo Court]

" President Bush invoked executive privilege for the first time Thursday to keep Congress from seeing documents of prosecutors' decision-making...
Only the decision making process is being kept privileged, not any of the facts of the case upon which the decisions were based.

Thank you for pointing this out. It made reading this thread of mostly libertarian, 3rd party dribble worthwhile.

[exodus]

***********************

To: exodus
MY uninformed mind?
You spent all day yesterday asking me for sources (which I gave you) for my information, I had to inform you of the Presidential State of Emergency decree issued on 9/14 (that you did not know existed), pointed you to the War Powers Act of 1973 (that you didn't know existed), and was now just witness to another poster pointing out that the Tenth Amendment to the constitution gives power to the Congress that you claimed they didn't have, and you have the balls to call me an idiot?

Then you argue that the president has no reason to repel an invasion, because there has been no invasion? You crap on the bodies of the dead and rotting under the rubble of the towers and deem them insignificant, and not worthy of revenge.

You are sickening, and an imbecile.
# 252 by Luis Gonzalez
********

Your "informed" mind has betrayed you again, Luis.
Tell me, since when does any of the Bill of Rights
give power to any branch of government?
The 10th Amendment doesn't give any power to Congress.
It says that Congress can't take powers not enumerated in the Constitution.

You took Libertarianize the GOP's post completely out of context.
You didn't even realize that his position supported mine.

I asked you several times for references, Luis.
You gave me two links, which did not help your argument any.
They showed violations of the Constitution,
which was my point all along.

I don't call you an idiot because of your lack of knowledge, Luis.
You took that out of context, too.
I called you an idiot because of your idiotic
"The friend of my enemy is my enemy" comment.

Invasion?
Where?
I don't see any foreign militaty troops stomping on American soil.
Isn't that what an invasion is?

The 9-11 terrorists were criminals,
just like the skyjackers decades ago were criminals.
Yes, they killed a lot of people,
but they weren't an invasion.

Bush is just a man, Luis.
Try to see past the Republican label.
These violations also happened
when the Democrats were in power,
and you hated it then.
Think, Luis.

[exodus]

This is no longer a matter for Congress to decide.
Clinton is no longer the President.
He doesn't have the protection of the office any more.
Why isn't Clinton in prison?
# 223 by exodus
***********************

To: exodus
"Why isn't Clinton in prison?"
What has he been convicted of?
# 231 by Luis Gonzalez
********

He hasn't been convicted of anything, Luis.
He hasn't even been charged with anything.

Clinton is a traitor.
He acted as a paid agent of a foreign power.
He interfered with the internal workings
of the government of the United States,
to further the interests of that foreign power.
Worse, the foreign power, China, considers us,
and has said publicly, that we are their enemy.
Clinton was acting as a paid agent of an enemy nation.

I would call that a major national security risk,
considering the information that Clinton had access to,
and the people he still has access to.

Clinton should be locked up,
in the interests of National Security,
even though he hasn't been convicted.

The fact that Clinton is free
is itself evidence of criminal behavior on Bush's part.
Go ahead, Luis.
Tell me that Bush has a secret plan.

[carenot]

"The conduct being investigated by the Committee has led to over one thousand million dollars of civil law suits against the government and has contributed to the murders of a number of individuals. The events under review took place over almost four decades and can be described as one of the greatest failures of federal law enforcement in the history of the United States."

That is just a very small part of it.

[The Raven]

You have to do better than those arguments if you want to hand around the FR.....You'll get fried with that logic.