[Orion27]

Originally Posted by tie 

You were denying that it was bipartisan. I'm not sure what Reno being a good or bad AG has to do with it. BTW, what does "kiping" mean?

At least Reno had the balls to after those gun toting Christians in Waco. My kind of man! ( sic )

[tie]

Magic!

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by tie 

You were denying that it was bipartisan.

I'm denying anything above wanting to keep some measure of power over the executive branch is bipartisan.

Most people with half a brain cell knows that political apointees can and will be removed for political reasons and there's nothing illegal about it. Trying to make it more than that is just fishing for bad press.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by tie 

BTW, what does "kiping" mean?

In the context I wrote it, fishing. They are fishing for tempests in teapots. They are looking for problems where none really exist, for the sake of politics.

[Chuckit]

You know, I haven't been really convinced that this is anything important. But that joke of a compromise Bush has proposed is the most guilty-looking thing I've seen in a long time. "Sure, I'll testify in my defense…as long as it's in private, with no record of anything that's said and no promise that I'll tell the truth." What on earth is the point of that?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

You know, I haven't been really convinced that this is anything important. But that joke of a compromise Bush has proposed is the most guilty-looking thing I've seen in a long time. "Sure, I'll testify in my defense…as long as it's in private, with no record of anything that's said and no promise that I'll tell the truth." What on earth is the point of that?

He knows what the Democrats are trying to do. Get Rove under oath, and open up a fishing expedition with EVERYTHING they can throw at him to make him look bad. This isn't a hunt for the truth, this is an attempt at a witch hunt. If they wan't answers, then they can get them. They don't want answers, they want scalps regardless of what it takes to get them. The fact is, Bush is under no obligation to give the Democrats ANYTHING in this case (the people in question haven't been accused of any crimes, and their testimony is regarding how they advised the White House on what the President can legally do for any reason), and the Democrats know it. He's signaled that if they want to play hardball, he doesn't think he has anything to lose (his approval numbers aren't going to get much lower).

On the other hand, the Dems have a lot to lose. If it becomes apparent that this is just another partisan fishing expedition, that can be pointed out on a daily basis. Then the "the most partisan Congress ever" chimes can be played to the media. It's how the Democrats played the Republicans to some success, back in 94-95.

[OldManMac]

Um, you're conveniently ignoring one thing; the number of Republicans who are calling for Gone-zales' ouster is growing daily as well. Nice try, though.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

He knows what the Democrats are trying to do. Get Rove under oath, and open up a fishing expedition with EVERYTHING they can throw at him to make him look bad. This isn't a hunt for the truth, this is an attempt at a witch hunt. If they wan't answers, then they can get them.

Not with Bush's suggestion. A private conversation in which there is no expectation of honesty and no accountability whatsoever? Bush may as well send them a ****ing Ouija board and tell them to ask that.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

They don't want answers, they want scalps regardless of what it takes to get them. The fact is, Bush is under no obligation to give the Democrats ANYTHING in this case (the people in question haven't been accused of any crimes, and their testimony is regarding how they advised the White House on what the President can legally do for any reason), and the Democrats know it. He's signaled that if they want to play hardball, he doesn't think he has anything to lose (his approval numbers aren't going to get much lower).

If Bush felt there was nothing to lose, he wouldn't be hesitant to just hand them over. The fact that he is fighting the Democrats — and in such a flagrantly desperate way that it makes him look worse than they do — shows that he feels there is a lot to lose.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

Um, you're conveniently ignoring one thing; the number of Republicans who are calling for Gone-zales' ouster is growing daily as well. Nice try, though.

How many are there? What percentage?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Not with Bush's suggestion. A private conversation in which there is no expectation of honesty and no accountability whatsoever? Bush may as well send them a ****ing Ouija board and tell them to ask that.

I wasn't aware that the President's advisors where accountable to Congress. When do they confirm them?

You see..Congress isn't allowed to call up the people who advise the President, otherwise you'd have them getting supoenas every other day, trying to get them to spill the beans on everything they suggest to them. The loophole is if they've been found to do something illegal that effects congress. I don't think illegal advice to the President is covered under executive privledge. It's pretty clear that nothing illegal has been done by those involved, so there's no justification for the supoenas. In fact, the votes that were given per the supoenas where based on the understanding that they'd only be put out if they found that someone had done something potentially illegal. Good luck there!

If Bush felt there was nothing to lose, he wouldn't be hesitant to just hand them over. The fact that he is fighting the Democrats — and in such a flagrantly desperate way that it makes him look worse than they do — shows that he feels there is a lot to lose.

He has everything to lose by setting the precedent that if everytime the Democrats found fault with some decision he made because they disagree, that they supoena his advisors and force them under oath to provide confidential conversations they had in advising the President regarding his responsibilities per law and the Constitution. Either the Dems will stand down and learn their lesson, or it will go to the SC and the Dems will learn that they can't bully the Exec. branch into doing their bidding. They really don't have anything to lose.

The Democrats aren't going to stop trying to make them look bad if they relented, and it would set a bad precedent and make them unable to negotiate from a position of strength in the future.

[stupendousman]

My Way News - Showdown Looms in Attorney Firings Probe

In response, an unyielding White House threatened to rescind its day-old proposal for top strategist Karl Rove and other officials to answer lawmakers' questions away from the glare of television lights and not under oath. "If they issue subpoenas, yes, the offer is withdrawn," said presidential spokesman Tony Snow. Democrats "will have rejected the offer," he said.

...then, one side blinks

Despite the rhetoric, Rep. John Conyers, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, repeatedly suggested there was room for negotiations in a confrontation that has threatened Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' hold on his job and forced his chief of staff to resign.

"What we're voting on today is merely a backup," said the Michigan Democrat, adding that he would refrain from issuing the subpoenas, at least for the time being.



Who blinked first? Yep. The guys who know they aren't in a position of strength in this matter.

[tie]

They didn't blink, they approved the subpoenas. How does approving subpoenas equate to blinking? I suppose the same way a 96-to-2 Senate vote is entirely partisan.

[hyteckit]

Might be off topic.

How the hell did Pres. Clinton get put under oath and questioned whether he had sexual relations with Monica?

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Might be off topic.

How the hell did Pres. Clinton get put under oath and questioned whether he had sexual relations with Monica?

Here's the chronology: http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/...nsky/timeline/

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by tie 

They didn't blink, they approved the subpoenas.

Correction. They approved AUTHORIZING them. They will only actually approving ISSUING THEM if there's evidence of criminal behavior according to all parties, but the Democrats are now suggesting "negotiation" without having to issue them because they don't have a leg to stand on.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Might be off topic.

How the hell did Pres. Clinton get put under oath and questioned whether he had sexual relations with Monica?

He was being sued for sexual harassment. Whether or not he had a habit of requesting sexual favors from employees was determined to be material to showing a pattern by the judge in charge, and the opposing lawyers had evidence that there was such a pattern (using Lewinsky as evidence). He then lied under oath.

[tie]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Correction. They approved AUTHORIZING them. They will only actually approving ISSUING THEM if there's evidence of criminal behavior according to all parties, but the Democrats are now suggesting "negotiation" without having to issue them because they don't have a leg to stand on.

The Democrats were always "suggesting" negotiation. That's general how things work.

My random quotation marks are better than yours.

[subego]

From Wednesday's White House Press Conference...

Q Just to follow up on one point earlier, yesterday the President said, and you've repeated, that the principle at stake here with executive privilege is that the President needs to get candid advice from his advisors, right?

MR. SNOW: What the President has talked about is privileged communications with close staff members, that is correct.

Q But earlier you were saying that, when I asked about, well, was the President informed of this decision, did the President sign off on U.S. attorneys being fired, you said the President has no recollection of being informed of all this.

MR. SNOW: Correct.

Q So were his advisors really advising him on this? Is this really privileged communication involving the President and his advisors, if the President wasn't looped in, you're saying, on this decision? So it was other people --

MR. SNOW: Well, that also falls into the intriguing question category.




Where's the popcorn smiley when you need it? I mean, really. This is way better than seeing someone slip on a banana peel.

[stupendousman]

The questioner is trying to be clever.

Aids often act on the President's behalf under the notion that he trusts their judgment and advise in the matters they are being assigned to manage. I don't think that anyone believes that EVERY single action that his staff takes is directly signed off on by the President in a way where he "reads the fine print". The only guy who might have worked this way was Carter.

Again...unless there is evidence that the President or one of his aids did something illegal....



ps. We have one party "suggesting negotiation" but demanding a specific end result. The other party gives them their bottom line and says that they can take it or leave it. The other says that there's still room for negotiation.

Which party is firm?
Which one is still wiggling around?

The one wiggling is the one not having a position of strength in the matter. The "negotiation" has already taken place. The bluff has been called. That's the way it works.

[subego]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Again...unless there is evidence that the President or one of his aids did something illegal....

Is your browser broken or something?

I think when I post it's coming up for you.

Just in case, you should know I usually don't find the President or one of his aides doing something illegal as a "ha ha chuckles" sort of thing.

Now, watching them trip over themselves to do damage control...

Priceless.

[tie]

stupendous, this isn't a TV show. Congress always works this way. Nobody's bluff has been called. At the moment, it is good politics to let the administration squirm anyway, especially given that there is nothing else of any consequence going on in the world.

Well, that also falls into the intriguing question category.

Bush's stance is predictable. We all know he loves defending failures until the last minute. See Rumsfeld. There would be a lot of Americans still alive today if we had had a competent Secretary of Defense when we needed one.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by subego 

Now, watching them trip over themselves to do damage control...

Priceless.

I don't think it really did damage the press as much as you think. I think most people expect them to try and be clever and ask phony questions in order to try and make others look bad when the guys they back in real life can't seem to find any traction in passing helpful legislation or real scandals from their opponents. Par for the course, really.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by tie 

stupendous, this isn't a TV show.

Boy..ARE YOU NAIVE!

Congress always works this way. Nobody's bluff has been called. At the moment, it is good politics to let the administration squirm anyway, especially given that there is nothing else of any consequence going on in the world.

..especially since there isn't much the Democrats can do, after making a big to do over nothing.

[subego]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I think most people expect them to try and be clever and ask phony questions

How is the question phony?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by subego 

How is the question phony?

It's purposely relying on the false assumption I listed.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by subego;3333962Where's the popcorn smiley when you need it? I mean, [i

really[/i]. This is way better than seeing someone slip on a banana peel.

I once literally watched somebody do a cartoon-style pratfall on ice. This is way more embarrassing.

[OldManMac]

I've thought about this issue a lot since it's been in the news, and I realize that I have been wrong in my views on it, from the perspective that it has indeed been blown out of proportion, and it really isn't of such importance that we, as a country, need to spend such an inordinate amount of time on it. I came across the following article, and it helped bring me back to reality. As a result, I'm going to write my representatives in Congress, sending them a copy of the article. I'm going to highlight the last two paragraphs of the article (as I've done here), and my letter will simply ask, "Will you be that person?"

Whatever our political views are, we need to let the people that we elected know that they aren't doing the job we expect of them, and that we shouldn't have to tolerate this side show, while our country suffers from issues that are much more important! Will you write your representatives, and join me, and actually attempt to accomplish something besides bickering on an internet forum?

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/03/21/dob...h22/index.html

NEW YORK (CNN) -- An incompetent attorney general, who says he wasn't fully aware that nearly 10 percent of the U.S. attorneys who work for him throughout the country were being fired and permitted the 110,000-person Justice Department that he leads to give inaccurate information at best, or simply lie about it at worst, to the Congress and the American people, has the full confidence of the president who's lost the confidence of most people.

And this is what passes for a big-time, dramatic, historic constitutional crisis in 21st century America? You've got to be kidding. This is the most partisan, politically driven administration in history, and we're all supposed to be surprised by its conduct and motivation in the firing of these U.S. attorneys? Please.

Now the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law has voted to approve subpoenas that would force chief policy adviser Karl Rove, former White House counsel Harriet Miers and other top presidential aides to testify publicly and under oath about their involvement in the firings.

Guess what? That little ol' subcommittee can't do much of anything to force executive branch employees to testify without the help of the very man and department at the center of this altogether silly and over-baked controversy. That's right; Attorney General Alberto Gonzales or one of his U.S. attorneys would have to enforce any subpoenas refused by any of the president's aides.

This is the same Democratic-controlled Congress that millions of voters thought would be so vastly different from the last gaggle of partisan buffoons in the Republican-led 109th Congress. With almost 30,000 young Americans killed or wounded in Iraq, with a half-trillion dollars spent on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, this Congress can do no better than publicly fulminate in futility and bray endlessly without effect on the course and conduct of the war in Iraq. Is there no sense of proportion and higher purpose anywhere in Washington?

While this president's so-called free trade policies continue to bleed the nation and the economy of millions of jobs and add to a $5 trillion mountain of trade debt, and while our public schools continue to fail a generation of young Americans, this Congress chooses to invest its energy and time in pure partisan blather and cheap political theatrics.

Is there not one decent, honest man or woman in either the House of Representatives or the Senate, in either party's leadership, who possesses the courage and the honesty to say, "Enough. The people who elected us deserve better"? So far the answer is no. Is there really any wonder that public opinion polls demonstrate that the president and this Congress share equally low approval ratings in poll after poll?

The White House is behaving with utter contempt for Congress and Congress is acting without respect or regard for this president. Could it be that, at long last, they're both right?

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the writer.

[tie]

The Senate Judiciary Committee voted today to authorize subpoenas for Rove et al. Guess they're blinking, too, according to stupendous's logic.

“The reason Republicans are not coming over the hill like the cavalry is, the best defense you can give is it was poorly handled,” said Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, a member of the Judiciary Committee. “That is as good as it gets.”

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

I've thought about this issue a lot since it's been in the news, and I realize that I have been wrong in my views on it, from the perspective that it has indeed been blown out of proportion, and it really isn't of such importance that we, as a country, need to spend such an inordinate amount of time on it. I came across the following article, and it helped bring me back to reality. As a result, I'm going to write my representatives in Congress, sending them a copy of the article. I'm going to highlight the last two paragraphs of the article (as I've done here), and my letter will simply ask, "Will you be that person?"

Whatever our political views are, we need to let the people that we elected know that they aren't doing the job we expect of them, and that we shouldn't have to tolerate this side show, while our country suffers from issues that are much more important! Will you write your representatives, and join me, and actually attempt to accomplish something besides bickering on an internet forum?

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/03/21/dob...h22/index.html

NEW YORK (CNN) -- An incompetent attorney general, who says he wasn't fully aware that nearly 10 percent of the U.S. attorneys who work for him throughout the country were being fired and permitted the 110,000-person Justice Department that he leads to give inaccurate information at best, or simply lie about it at worst, to the Congress and the American people, has the full confidence of the president who's lost the confidence of most people.

And this is what passes for a big-time, dramatic, historic constitutional crisis in 21st century America? You've got to be kidding. This is the most partisan, politically driven administration in history, and we're all supposed to be surprised by its conduct and motivation in the firing of these U.S. attorneys? Please.

Now the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law has voted to approve subpoenas that would force chief policy adviser Karl Rove, former White House counsel Harriet Miers and other top presidential aides to testify publicly and under oath about their involvement in the firings.

Guess what? That little ol' subcommittee can't do much of anything to force executive branch employees to testify without the help of the very man and department at the center of this altogether silly and over-baked controversy. That's right; Attorney General Alberto Gonzales or one of his U.S. attorneys would have to enforce any subpoenas refused by any of the president's aides.

This is the same Democratic-controlled Congress that millions of voters thought would be so vastly different from the last gaggle of partisan buffoons in the Republican-led 109th Congress. With almost 30,000 young Americans killed or wounded in Iraq, with a half-trillion dollars spent on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, this Congress can do no better than publicly fulminate in futility and bray endlessly without effect on the course and conduct of the war in Iraq. Is there no sense of proportion and higher purpose anywhere in Washington?

While this president's so-called free trade policies continue to bleed the nation and the economy of millions of jobs and add to a $5 trillion mountain of trade debt, and while our public schools continue to fail a generation of young Americans, this Congress chooses to invest its energy and time in pure partisan blather and cheap political theatrics.

Is there not one decent, honest man or woman in either the House of Representatives or the Senate, in either party's leadership, who possesses the courage and the honesty to say, "Enough. The people who elected us deserve better"? So far the answer is no. Is there really any wonder that public opinion polls demonstrate that the president and this Congress share equally low approval ratings in poll after poll?

The White House is behaving with utter contempt for Congress and Congress is acting without respect or regard for this president. Could it be that, at long last, they're both right?

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the writer.

Incompetance is not criminal.

[OldManMac]

Whoosh. Just what I expected from you.

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

Whoosh. Just what I expected from you.

Brooks came to the same conclusion in the NYT's. Incompetance of the Attorney General who couldn't handle a partisan congress by just blowing them off by say Presidential Prerogative in the beginning and a an partisan congress trying to create illegality when there is none. We need a stronger Attorney General, the sooner the better.

[OldManMac]

The point of my post had nothing to do with the "incompetance" (sic) of the Attorney General, but, once again, you've shown your reading comprehension skills. Keep shooting from the hip; you're bound to hit something sooner or later.

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

The point of my post had nothing to do with the "incompetance" (sic) of the Attorney General, but, once again, you've shown your reading comprehension skills. Keep shooting from the hip; you're bound to hit something sooner or later.

I just read the article and not your entre. The Dems do need to back away and get a hold of their senses.
Executive branch has been doing the rope a dope. The Dems really don't want to force this issue. It's a loser for them.

[subego]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

It's purposely relying on the false assumption I listed.

Are you sure?

The way you are explaining the non-issue here seems like you didn't read the whole exchange.

It isn't about whether Bush was in the loop on this. Everyone agrees that is standard operating procedure for much of the insanely huge job that the president is tasked with.

It's about how if he wasn't in the loop, i.e. no one communicated with him, what communication is he protecting with Executive Privilege?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

Incompetance is not criminal.

Janet Reno thanks God every day for this.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by subego 

Are you sure?

The way you are explaining the non-issue here seems like you didn't read the whole exchange.

It isn't about whether Bush was in the loop on this. Everyone agrees that is standard operating procedure for much of the insanely huge job that the president is tasked with.

It's about how if he wasn't in the loop, i.e. no one communicated with him, what communication is he protecting with Executive Privilege?

If an advisor to the President is advised by a member of staff that something is a good idea, and the President has stated that if such good idea ever comes up to act on it (and the advisor does), then the President has been advised and consented regardless of whether he's directly signed off on the thing in question. In other words, advice and counsel isn't just whispering in his ear "hey...I think we should do this specific thing". Making the President's advisors have to testify about what the President tells them to do, or what they advise him he should do, or how they decide to get a job done isn't something that can be done. Unless there is evidence that a crime had been committed, and a President doesn't have the right to ignore a supoena if it's a criminal investigation.

We'll see how far the Dems go with this. If they stop short of issuing sopoenas or end up losing in the SC, then you can thank me later for MY advise on the subject.

[subego]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

We'll see how far the Dems go with this. If they stop short of issuing sopoenas or end up losing in the SC, then you can thank me later for MY advise on the subject.

Well, it was an honest question, so I appreciate any correct answer.

I get the impression that Executive Privilege isn't quite as transferrable as you imagine, but if it is, then it is.

I mean, where does the transference end? Is someone who Rove talks to covered as well? Is the person that person talks to covered? So, is Rove's wife is covered?

It's not like Snow knows this for a fact either, otherwise I imagine he would have mentioned that rather than call it an "intriguing question" and then going further to say:

MR. SNOW: No, you're asking -- you're asking me to -- look, Ed, there are a number of complex legal considerations in here, and I'm not going to try to play junior lawyer. These are the sort of things that people are going to have an opportunity to talk about.

Just looking at how things went down, it comes off as an unanticipated hole in their defense.

Peterbilt size.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by subego 

I mean, where does the transference end? Is someone who Rove talks to covered as well? Is the person that person talks to covered? So, is Rove's wife is covered?

I'd assume it was only for the President's staff, doing business on behalf of the President regarding private discussions or legal actions taken in order to carry out official duties.

It's not like Snow knows this for a fact either, otherwise I imagine he would have mentioned that rather than call it an "intriguing question" and then going further to say:...

I think Snow was using a bit of sarcasm. They've already said more than they should have on this matter.

[subego]

The latest Keystone Coppery:

Williams: The — so the list came to you toward the end for you to sign off on. But you were not involved in deciding who should be on or off the list during the process.

Gonzales: I was not involved in the deliberations during the process as to who-- who should or should not be — asked to resign.

Williams: If that —

Gonzales: I depended on the people who knew about how those United States attorneys — were performing — people within the department — who — who would have personal knowledge of — about these individuals, who would have, based upon their experience, would know what — what would be the appropriate standards that a United States attorney should be asked to — to achieve.

Williams: Given that, then how can you be certain that none of these U.S. attorneys were put on that list for improper reasons?

Gonzales: What I can say is this: I know the reasons why I asked you — these United States attorneys to leave. And it — it was not for improper reasons. It was not to interfere with the public corruption case. It was not for partisan reasons.

I also — we also know that there's nothing in the documents that indicates that they were asked to leave for improper reasons. But all — but lastly, just to be sure, I have asked for an internal — review by the Office of Professional Responsibility, working with the Office of Inspector General. And, of course, the Congress is going to be doing its own review because I want to know as well if, in fact, there were improper reasons, we — we should know about it. And there will be accountability.

Williams: To put this question another way — if you didn't review their performance during this process, then how can you be certain that they were fired for performance reasons?

Gonzales: I — I've given — I've given the answer to the question, Pete. I know — I know the reasons why I made the decision. Again, there's nothing in the documents to support the allegation that there was anything improper here. And there is an internal — department review to answer that question, to reassure the — the American people that there was nothing improper that happened here.

I know why I made the decision to ask these people to leave even though I won't tell you, I wasn't involved, and I don't remember anything.


This was from Monday's WHPC:

Q Let me ask you about the email that shows the Attorney General in a meeting on November the 27th, and then the Attorney General's statements on March 13th, "We never had a discussion about where things stood." Do you find anything inconsistent in that?

MS. PERINO: The Justice Department, when they gave their statements on Friday night, said that they weren't inconsistent. And my reading of it is that the Attorney General has said -- I understand that there's a March 13th piece, but I also looked back on March 14th, when he did interviews back and forth -- I think it was with a CNN network -- in which he said, and he said consistently, that he does not recall being involved in deliberations about who -- which U.S. attorneys might be asked to be replaced for the remainder of the term.

[later in the conference]

Q Dana, can I just follow one more time on this notion of transcript? Doesn't the events of last Friday illustrate perfectly why a transcript is necessary? In other words, you have more documents that come out Friday. You have the Attorney General saying something that appears inconsistent. And then you say, ah, but look at the transcript of CNN on the --

MS. PERINO: I see your point. (Laughter.) I see your point, Jim, and I understand that people would think --

Q -- it's a serious question, that you're referring to something that there's no dispute about what was said, because there's a transcript.

MS. PERINO: Jim, I see your point, but -- however, the decision that we have made is to allow for interviews that would be on the record, where people could take notes. And I understand that some people would think that that is not a good idea, and I understand the inconsistency of my own statement of referring back to a transcript of March 14th.

Understanding the inconsistencies of your own statement?

Snow would never have let this happen. I open to the floor conjecture as to how Snow would have finessed this.

Or for pure entertainment value, just how hard would have McClellan dented his forehead on this one?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by subego 

I know why I made the decision to ask these people to leave even though I won't tell you...

Actually he clearly stated that he knew, and that the reasons where "proper". WIlliams didn't ask him to regurgitate the rationale as to WHY. I guess it's lost on him and you that someone could be presented with a list of under-performers from a subordinate, you see the rationale as to why they feel they are under-performering, and sign off to let them go regardless if you had a hand in actually selecting the employees who were on the list to begin with.

It's not rocket science....

[subego]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

It's not rocket science....

You keep missing out. That's what makes this so goddamn funny.

It isn't rocket science. At all. yet they all seem to have the darndest time making clear statements about this.

Why didn't he just say the reason I know it wasn't improper was because the the attorneys in question were underperforming?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by subego 

You keep missing out. That's what makes this so goddamn funny.

It isn't rocket science. At all. yet they all seem to have the darndest time making clear statements about this.

I'm not confused, but you keep seeming to be unable to grasp basic answers. If you think that's funny..well..that's your prerogative I suppose.

Why didn't he just say the reason I know it wasn't improper was because the the attorneys in question were underperforming?

He answered the question that was asked of him, which included an explanation that he relied on his subordinates for the rationale, which he deemed was proper.

I understand you're hoping for some kind of perjury trap, or some kind of instance where you, the media or the Democrats can create a "lie" out of one of his answers and it's frustrating when people who haven't done anything illegal aren't being tripped up by the attempts to cause themselves some kind of real-world damage by not remembering everything exactly as it happened. As another potential witness said this week, it's clear with the Libby standard that regardless of if anything criminal has happened, if someone says something that is wrong (but maybe not a "lie"), they are going to be held over hot coals regardless of the intent. It's best to say as little as possible.

Sad, but true.

[subego]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I'm not confused

Good. I didn't say you are confused.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I understand you're hoping for some kind of perjury trap, or some kind of instance where you, the media or the Democrats can create a "lie" out of one of his answers and it's frustrating when people who haven't done anything illegal aren't being tripped up by the attempts to cause themselves some kind of real-world damage by not remembering everything exactly as it happened.

What are you talking about? You clearly have no idea what I'm hoping for. I be hoping for funny.

If they didn't do anything wrong, then they are tripping up for no reason. That's funny.

If they did do something wrong, then they seem to be tripping up in order to weasel out of things. That's funny.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

As another potential witness said this week, it's clear with the Libby standard that regardless of if anything criminal has happened, if someone says something that is wrong (but maybe not a "lie"), they are going to be held over hot coals regardless of the intent. It's best to say as little as possible.

Sad, but true.

Sorry. too "rocket science" of a concept for Gonzo.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by subego 

If they didn't do anything wrong, then they are tripping up for no reason. That's funny.

It's like asking someone to walk through a minefield (knowing if they unintentionally misstep they'll call them a "liar" as part of a potential perjury trap), then throwing bricks at them and laughing because they are "tripping up for no reason".

Not really funny.

What would be humorous if the left and the media actually where honest about the whole thing, seeing how it doesn't appear that anyone has done anything illegal or immoral (though, you can disagree with what they did). They kind of took the opposite stance when the last administration lied, cheated and stole without much opposition from the press.

[subego]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

It's like asking someone to walk through a minefield (knowing if they unintentionally misstep they'll call them a "liar" as part of a potential perjury trap), then throwing bricks at them and laughing because they are "tripping up for no reason".

Completely whacked analogy.

Who's asking AG to walk the minefield? Me? You? Have you not said multiple times that what he needs to do is STFU? Have I not agreed?

You also seem to have gotten your undies in a bunch because of the treatment of Libby. News Flash: Pete Williams is a journalist. You don't go on NBC news under oath. It is impossible to perjure yourself in this situation.

Regardless, it would have been fairly easy for him to skirt this. When asked "how do you know if there is no impropriety if you weren't involved in deliberation process?" there are two simple answers.

"I don't" or "I trust and rely on my people to behave properly. As there have been allegations to the contrary, this is being investigated. People in the Justice Department who behaved improperly will be held accountable".

The problem with such a direct answer (and this is the part you don't seem to want to acknowledge) is that answering in such a fashion walks him right into the minefield of the "incompetence" allegation.

Not because (as you seem to want to mischaracterize) there is a problem delegating to your subordinates, but because when that subordinate ****s-up, guess who's fault it is for delegating without enough oversight? Is screwing that up criminal? Of course not.

But, unless you can come up with a better reason he did not answer the question in one sentence, the way he answered indicates that he knows something was improper.

Not put AG in jail improper, but put AG out of a job if he's caught on tape putting the full weight of his trust on people who end up going down.

I'll say it again. The man is squirming. This is what I find entertaining.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Janet Reno thanks God every day for this.

My goodness, you're slipping. You forgot to bring up Bill Clinton.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by subego 

Completely whacked analogy.

Who's asking AG to walk the minefield?

The media, democrats, etc. He's tried to be truthful about the matter and he's been accused of lying under oath even though there's no real evidence of such a thing.. If he says nothing, he's stonewalling. If he says anything, and SOMEHOW, his statement can be taken and twisted to saying something untrue, then the minefield set before him will be sprung.

You also seem to have gotten your undies in a bunch because of the treatment of Libby. News Flash: Pete Williams is a journalist. You don't go on NBC news under oath. It is impossible to perjure yourself in this situation.

The question is...why is Williams bothering? The answer is, so that they continue the cycle. It's the same thing they did with the CIA leak. Another non-legality that was used to try to gin up "crimes".

Regardless, it would have been fairly easy for him to skirt this. When asked "how do you know if there is no impropriety if you weren't involved in deliberation process?" there are two simple answers.

HE ANSWERED: "What I can say is this: I know the reasons why I asked you — these United States attorneys to leave. And it — it was not for improper reasons. It was not to interfere with the public corruption case. It was not for partisan reasons."

I'll say it again. The man is squirming. This is what I find entertaining.

I'd be squirming too, after I saw what people like Libby were put through. it's quite sad.

[subego]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

The question is...why is Williams bothering? The answer is, so that they continue the cycle. It's the same thing they did with the CIA leak. Another non-legality that was used to try to gin up "crimes".

Bollocks. This was the purpose of the entire interview. It's an obvious question, this gives AG an opportunity to clear this up. If AG was capable of actually answering the question, he would have broken the cycle.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

HE ANSWERED: "What I can say is this: I know the reasons why I asked you — these United States attorneys to leave. And it — it was not for improper reasons. It was not to interfere with the public corruption case. It was not for partisan reasons."

The question is "HOW do you know?"

"I know" is not an answer to this question.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I'd be squirming too, after I saw what people like Libby were put through. it's quite sad.

What Libby was put through was because of what he said under oath. AG was not under oath during this interview. Your claim that they will do to him what they did to Libby is not applicable.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by subego 

Bollocks. This was the purpose of the entire interview. It's an obvious question, this gives AG an opportunity to clear this up. If AG was capable of actually answering the question, he would have broken the cycle.

..and as I've explained, he answered the questions asked.

The question is "HOW do you know?"

"I know" is not an answer to this question.

ACTUALLY, the question was "How can you be certain" and he stated that he knew what the justification for their firing was, and that those justifications were not improper. Again..it's not rocket science. Let me diagram the question and answer a little more simply so maybe you can understand.

Q: How can you be sure that the bed was made properly?
A: I know the way that the bed was made, and I based on that I know that it was made properly.
Q. How can you be sure?

WTF??

He saw the rationale, and was able to determine that it was proper. There's really not much more he could say. He saw the rationale, and determined it was proper. To continue to ask "how can you be sure" assumes that the AG doesn't know what is "proper" and since no rationale is needed to fire the people in the first place, it's clear that there is an agenda in trying to get the AG to answer a question OTHER than what is being asked.

What Libby was put through was because of what he said under oath. AG was not under oath during this interview.

The AG testified before Congress. He has been accused of lying. What he says NOW impacts whether they can engage in the kinds of harassment they did Libby based on his testimony.

[subego]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

ACTUALLY, the question was "How can you be certain" and he stated that he knew what the justification for their firing was, and that those justifications were not improper. Again..it's not rocket science. Let me diagram the question and answer a little more simply so maybe you can understand.

Q: How can you be sure that the bed was made properly?
A: I know the way that the bed was made, and I based on that I know that it was made properly.
Q. How can you be sure?

WTF??

Let's take your analogy. I think it's an excellent one. Allow me to extend it a little to encompass the whole exchange.

Q: Did you personally make the bed?
A: No.
Q: How can you be sure that the bed was made properly?
A: I know the way that the bed was made, and I based on that I know that it was made properly.
Q. How can you be sure?


It seems to me (and again, work me through this, I am trying to see what you are getting at here) that he is not answering the second question in the way you propose. He says he knows that the bed was not made in a certain way.

If he had answered it in the way you propose, there wouldn't be any more question. Instead he used a torturous negation.

There seems to be a fair amount of evidence that some mistakes were made, not the least of which being AG saying "mistakes were made". There had to be some reason Sampson got axed. How are mistakes made and people losing their jobs pointing you towards the bed being made properly?

The fact that he won't profess explicit confidence in his staff for the way they made the bed is something which should raise the possibility there is a reason he isn't willing to profess confidence in his staff at this moment.