Posted on 12/13/2001 6:02:13 AM PST by Oldeconomybuyer
Edited on 04/13/2004 2:39:12 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
I don't believe that Congress can delegate it's power
without an Amendment authorizing the transfer of power.
by exodus
You took Libertarianize the GOP's post completely out of context. You didn't even realize that his position supported mine.
Liar.
Well, Bush certainly doesn't belong to that herd you run with.
And I Quote-verbatim
``Disclosure to Congress of confidential advice to the attorney general regarding the appointment of a special counsel and confidential recommendations to Department of Justice officials regarding whether to bring criminal charges would inhibit the candor necessary to the effectiveness of the deliberative process by which the department makes prosecutorial decisions,''
It is my concern that certain members of congress might attempt to frustrate the system should members of Al-Qaeda or other terrorist groups be captured.
However I have my concerns due to historical precedent. Even during a time of conflict, there should be careful reflection over what legacy we leave to later generations.
There seems to be probable cause to believe that there was a cover-up in both cases. That cover- up would have happened in the decision making process. Were "Justice" Department officials deciding if the evidence was good enough to go to court? Were they trying to decide how they could protect the perpetrators?
If they were trying to protect the perpetrators, new crimes were committed. This is what Burton is investigating now. Without the records he cannot investigate. The deliberations were the crime scene.
On its face there seems to be ample evidence to show probable cause of a cover-up. I'm sure I don't have to go into the vast amount of evidence against Clinton, Gore and their campaign. You know it as well as I do. In the Boston case we have evidence from a federal court showing that FBI agents committed crimes. Yet nobody was prosecuted in either case. If it wasn't a cover-up what was it? If the "Justice" Department officials were really only interested in doing justice, why leave the impression there was a cover-up?
Sure the committee has all the evidence on the crimes we know happened. They are seeking evidence on the additional crimes that appear to have happened. They should get access to that information.
Well, I believe we are doing stuff about the foreign ones, maybe even some domestic ones.
Mostly I believe our government is corrupt and is covering up for themselves and/or others.
I answered you on # 277.
I told you why Clinton should be in prison.
Aren't you going to respond?
"...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.
# 265 by Luis Gonzalez
********
That's irratating, Luis.
Stop with the his/her stuff.
I'm a he.
I give you concrete, substantive evidence on what happens if you don't have your political ducks in a row, and this is your retort? Name-calling?
And I don't know why you used such "restraint." Even if you went full-throttle, you would have never laid a glove on what I said because you never addressed it.
Yet I bet you have that warm, fuzzy, righteous feeling about you since you hold such a principled view.
Didn't I tell you not to bring a knife to a gunfight?
To: exodus
"Liar."
# 281 by Luis Gonzalez
********
Okay, Luis.
Libertarianize the GOP said,
"I have a slight disagreement with your opinion
that Congress can not delegate its authority..."
I said that, Luis.
Not you.
You said that Congress followed the Constitution.
I said it didn't.
Libertarianize the GOP was talking to me,
and had a slight disagreement with me.
You were called out of politeness,
because you were involved in an on-going discussion with me.
A "slight disagreement" means that we agree on most points.
Thus, his position supports mine.
To: Luis Gonzalez; exodus
I second Gonzalez's -
on the mark post to exodus!
# 255 by ChaseR
********
I apologize, ChaseR.
I completely missed your reply.
In what way do you disagree with me?
As to Luis' rant on # 252,
I answer that on # 274.
He's becoming completely irrational.
Luis has decided that private Freepmail is public property,
much as the government has decided that our email is fair game.
If you want to read the complete Freepmail between us,
I'll be glad to send it to you.
If he's going to use it to attack me in public,
there's no reason why I should consider it private any longer.
The "help" Luis gave me is documented on another thread,
Terrorism and the Expansion of Federal Power
I would appreciate hearing your comments on my opinions.
For example:
Justice Official: We have evidence which proves that the Clintons are guilty of numerous felonies involving influence peddling and racketeering. I recommend that we appoint a special counsel to seek indictments.
Bush: But that would divert attention away from my programs. Deep six all of that stuff.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.