Bush hiding documents from Katrina, Abramoff, Plame, & Illegal Wiretapping

[bigtree]

"I have authorized a terrorist surveillance program to aggressively pursue the international communications of suspected al Qaeda operatives and affiliates to and from America. Previous Presidents have used the same constitutional authority I have, and federal courts have approved the use of that authority. Appropriate members of Congress have been kept informed." Bush SOTU

Bush balking over spying documents
Justice Department objects to requests for classified opinions from the Senate panel hearing the issue next week.

Eric Lichtblau, New York Times

February 01, 2006 – 9:30 PM
http://www.startribune.com/587/story/220477.html

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration is rebuffing requests from members of the Senate Judiciary Committee for its classified legal opinions on President Bush's domestic spying program, setting up a confrontation in advance of a hearing scheduled for next week, administration and congressional officials said Wednesday.

The Justice Department is balking at the request so far, administration officials said, arguing that the legal opinions would add little to the public debate because the administration already has laid out its legal defense at length in several public settings.

With the committee scheduled to hold the first public hearing on the eavesdropping program on Monday, the Justice Department stance could provoke another clash between Congress and the executive branch over access to sensitive internal documents. The administration already has drawn fire from Democrats in the last week for refusing to make available internal documents on Hurricane Katrina as well as photos and other material related to White House visits by lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

Several Democrats and at least one Republican have pressed the Justice Department in recent days to give them access, even in a closed setting, to the internal documents that formed the legal foundation of the surveillance program. But when asked whether the classified legal opinions would be made available to Congress, a senior Justice Department official said Wednesday, "I don't think they're coming out."

full article: http://www.startribune.com/587/story/220477.html

[linazelle]

1. So if the Justice Department doesn't comply they go to SCOTUS?

:rofl: :sarcasm:

[bigtree]

2. they go to the AOI

Articles of Impeachment

[fooj]

3. Thank God.

Peace.

[bigtree]

17. Rep. Baldwin demands Bush accountability

By John Nichols
http://www.madison.com/tct/opinion/column/index.php?ntid=71161&ntpid=0

{snips}

Baldwin, who has long been one of Congress' bluntest and most consistent critics of the administration, minced no words in her description of why she decided to back the Conyers impeachment resolution.

"The most basic foundations of our democracy are set forth in our nation's Constitution. For more than two centuries, people around the world have looked to our nation and our Constitution as a beacon of freedom and a model for the world to follow.

"The founders of our nation were clear that the most important role of the president is to '... preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.' President Bush has twice taken this oath of office. In the past several years, numerous questions have been raised about President Bush's conduct in relation to some of the most basic elements of our democracy: respect for the rule of law, the principle of checks and balances, and the fundamental freedoms enshrined in the Bill of Rights," noted Baldwin, a Democrat who is serving her fourth term as south-central Wisconsin's representative in the House.

"The American public has always relied on congressional oversight to check the power of the president," Baldwin said. "During the Clinton presidency, Congress held thousands of hours of hearings regarding presidential actions on virtually every topic. Just one committee the House Committee on Government Reform required the Clinton administration to produce well over 1.2 million pages of documents ... . However, with Republican Party control of the White House, as well as the Senate and the House of Representatives, meaningful oversight of presidential actions has essentially stopped."

To Baldwin's view, "Unchecked executive power invites abuses."

Our Constitution "provides checks and balances between the branches of government and demands a respect for the rule of law," she said. "Wisconsinites expect open and transparent government. Wisconsin's strong open meetings and open records laws empower citizens to know about the actions of their elected officials. I am working hard to bring those values to the issues facing our country, to guarantee that our government is of the people, by the people, and for the people."

full article: http://www.madison.com/tct/opinion/column/index.php?ntid=71161&ntpid=0

[punpirate]

4. Hate to say it, but...

... not this Congress. :grr:

[bigtree]

5. midterms

The Constitution empowers the House of Representatives to impeach federal officials (both executive and judicial) for "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

The Senate is constitutionally empowered to try all impeachments. A simple majority in the House is required to impeach an official; however, a two-thirds majority in the Senate is required for conviction.

[punpirate]

8. Oh, ye of...

... great faith. Tell me how you get two-thirds of the Senate?

[bigtree]

9. pressure from the public

and from our new, Democrat-controlled House.

[punpirate]

10. Never will step on someone's dreams...

... but, get back to me after November on that. :)

[mikelewis]

11. Abramoff

[punpirate]

12. As much as I would like to believe Abramoff...

... or Abramamoff, as Bush calls him, will make a difference, I don't think so. The Abramoff scandals won't have an effect on the average person, because they have no impact on people's pocketbooks--or, at least, in ways they can connect. You could publish pictures of Abramoff buggering Bush at high noon on the Truman balcony and most of the people in the country would never see them, and the `pugs would just say, "well, yeah, they are friends after all, I guess." And that's what would be reported.

I don't know what the breaking point is where most voters will take the corruption seriously, but I'm beginning to think that it's going to take middle class people scrounging for dinner in dumpsters before they change their voting patterns. There's a reason why about 97% of incumbents get reelected, and it's not because the public is all fired up to change the status quo. It's because most people don't connect the dots regarding the systemic governmental corrosion that's occurred in the last several decades. For Democrats to connect those dots for them means to give up the campaign contributions that have kept many of them in office.

Beyond that, expect a small change in the balance of power in the House, virtually none in the Senate, and not enough to give Democrats a majority in either house, for now. It's going to have to get a lot worse before it gets better. My guess is that 2012 will be our generation's 1932.

[bigtree]

19. Sen. Barbara Boxer just introduced an amendment to the tax bill

calling for full disclosure from the Whie House in regard to the 200+ visits there of Abramoff. The amendment is co-sponsored by Sen. Kerry.


Feb. 02, 2006
Boxer, Feinstein introduce lobby reform, disclosure bills

Boxer planned to offer her measure as an amendment to a tax bill the Senate was debating, and hoped to get a vote as early as today. The measure would express the Senate's desire for the White House to disclose details of all meetings between Abramoff and Bush or White House staff, and any photos.

''I believe there's a trail of documents that show a pretty active relationship and a very unsavory one at that and I just think the president has to come clean on this,'' said Boxer.

Some Republicans also have called on Bush to disclose contacts with Abramoff, who helped raise more than $100,000 for Bush's re-election campaign, had his photo taken with Bush and, according to Bush's spokesman, had a few staff-level meetings in the White House complex.

Bush rejected such calls in an interview Wednesday with The Associated Press, saying there was an investigation of Abramoff's activities and ''to the extent they ask for information, they'll get it.''

http://www.montereyherald.com/mld/montereyherald/news/state/13773342.htm?source=rss&channel=montereyherald_state

[mikelewis]

21. Well, I was sort of thinking that maybe a few of the Repukes will be...

voting from prison. Prisoners usually vote more liberal than Conservatives, that's why ex-cons aren't allowed to vote in most states.

[bigtree]

13. Plame

[KharmaTrain]

6. Like You Didn't Expect A Stonewall?

For many in this regime, this is now a game to play out the clock. Even if (heaven forbid) they win in 2008, many in this regime will be packing it in and moving on after January, 2009...so the game now is to stall, delay and hope they can get out of Dodge with most of their spoils...pardoning themselves along the way.

If Democrats want an issue to glam onto right now, it's mounting a call for a Special Prosecutor (ala Fitzgerald) to investigate the illegal wiretaping and violation of laws...and a second one into Abramoff-related corruption in ALL branches of the government.

[izzie]

7. Well if they have done nothing wrong they should be happy ----

if we see all the stuff they have.

[G_j]

14. I think this track record

would be good to point out in a LTTE. I have been trying to kick my ass into writing one on this subject for a few days now. I am glad you posted this.

thanks

[bigtree]

15. good. it's needed

'what are they hiding'?

[The Stranger]

16. "Politicians now promise to protect us from -- from a danger we cannot see

and would not understand."

The Power of Nightmares

[bigtree]

18. interesting

"In politics, what begins in fear usually ends in folly.

-Samuel Taylor Coleridge (1772-1834), British poet

[helderheid]

20. k & r