As Their Employer, I Demand To Know The Truth!!!
white house staffers should testify, and the american people have the right to demand it.
from 
JoeUser Forums
JoeUser Forums
In 2001, Congress rubber stamped the Patriot Act with the blessing of the vast majority of American people. But after the "bumpersticker" and "wear it on your sleeve" brand of patriotism wore off for some, they began to question the constitutional ramifications and loss of civil liberties it would cause our great nation. Of course, in the style that we all have become accustomed to, the White House and it's puntitry immediately smeared anyone who dared question them.
Questions of potential abuse were brushed aside and the questioners ridiculed. People like US Attorney Kevin Ryan defended the administration with statements like "We've taken age-old investigative techniques, techniques that have been around and have been approved by the courts and have been used by prosecutors in other areas and simply transitioned them into the areas of domestic and international terrorism as it affects us, post-September 11th," Ryan says.
The FBI touted similar lines...Mark Mershon, the FBI's special agent-in charge for San Francisco, said, "It is a shame that some communities see the PATRIOT Act as... some alarming behemoth that's going to trample the constitutional rights of Americans. That's simply not the case."
Well, well, well...here we stand in 2007. And it turns out, those who questioned did so for good reason.
Recent revalations have showed administration officials actually purposefully taking advantage of the "loophole" that allowed them to subvert the normal process. Emails show them knowing full well their purposes have absolutely nothing to do with terrorism or national security and are simply using this power "cause they can."
The FBI has recently admitted to abusing our personal privacy freedoms by using national security letters and other letters improperly and illegally to obtain personal information from US corporations. The inspector general's recent report showed just how bad the situation is just "at the tip of the iceberg."
Now the President is atempting to block any meaningful and as importantly, public disclosure of how his administration has been operating behind their "cloak of secrecy."
I surely hope the democrats (of which i am not one) and republicans (of which i am not one either) will continue their insistance and force the White House staffers to testify in open session and under oath. I surely hope they do not accept the "Nixonian" lines from Watergate lawyer Fred Fielding. Nixon tried to stop Congress from having his staff testify and the Bush administration is faithfully following in their predecessors footsteps using some of the very players that tried, and failed in the early 70's.
The whole stance of "if white house staff testify, they can't give honest advice" is absolute B*LLSHIT!!! If that were the case, that essentially says that anyone who works for any administration is above the law. That they do not answer to their employers, the American people. Sorry, but they do. Dozens of Clinton staffers testified in the 90's in open session and under oath. As did scores of staffers in administrations for decades did.
There is absolutely NO national security issues at stake in the US attorney case. No claims can be made in that arena. And even if some of that did get "brushed upon," I am fine with any of that being in closed session, but absolutely still under oath. And it does seem clear that Senators were lied to by the Attorney General, who has yet to explain those lies. And the last time I checked, it is a crime to lie to Congress. And even if by some technicallity it is not, as their employer, I demand to know what went on.
In Arkansas, a loyal repubican US Attorney was unfairly replaced by a Rove crony with almost no courtroom experience. How does that serve my country better? As their employer, I demand to know.
In San Diego, a prosecutor who was expanding her already successful investigation of corruption by Bush loyalist Randall "Duke" Cunningham was abruptly fired for performance reasons. The White House later tried to defend the firing pointing to "immigration" and a lack of any cases on the subject. In her actual performance review, however, it was shown that her vigilance on immigration issues was outstanding, devoting up to 50% of her staff and resources to cases on the issue.
Other attorneys, like David Iglasius, were unfairly charged with not going after "voter fraud" cases. But after looking at the actual cases, one sees that the chance of convictions were virtually nil in the cases. And I guess the White House doesn't realize that some of us know that a voter fraud conviction (or many of them) is a bnig feather in a cap for any US attorney, especially one who may run for office in the future. In other words, it was in Iglasius interest, career wise, to get any voter fraud conviction he could. But losing cases would be bad. Imagine the opposition commercials lambasting his screwing up of trials that let "scammers go free." Iglasius's case is compounded by the facts that he was called on and reportedly pressured in unprecedented calls from Senator Dominicci and at least one New Mexico house member. As their employer, I demand to know the answers.
In Washington State, the removal of that US Attorney and the political improprieties are obvious as well. And in the rest of the cases, as with the former mentioned ones, we need to know what went on and if the US Department Of Justice has become a political wing of the administration and not the independent body that is only concerned with justice that the Constitution intended and as their employer, I demand.
Hopefully , Senator Leahey will stand by his words from last night when he said, "I intend to bring the attorney general up here. I am requesting several other people to come up here, certainly Mr. Sampson, Ms. Miers, I assume eventually Karl Rove. If they don’t come, then I’ll seek to subpoena them up here, because the story changes almost every time we pick up the newspaper. […]What I want to find out is what happened, why we’ve been given different stories. And I want those answers, not in an informal briefing; I want those answers in public, in sworn testimony, under oath before my committee. As chairman, that’s what I insist."
And as your employer Mr Leahey, I demand it.
Questions of potential abuse were brushed aside and the questioners ridiculed. People like US Attorney Kevin Ryan defended the administration with statements like "We've taken age-old investigative techniques, techniques that have been around and have been approved by the courts and have been used by prosecutors in other areas and simply transitioned them into the areas of domestic and international terrorism as it affects us, post-September 11th," Ryan says.
The FBI touted similar lines...Mark Mershon, the FBI's special agent-in charge for San Francisco, said, "It is a shame that some communities see the PATRIOT Act as... some alarming behemoth that's going to trample the constitutional rights of Americans. That's simply not the case."
Well, well, well...here we stand in 2007. And it turns out, those who questioned did so for good reason.
Recent revalations have showed administration officials actually purposefully taking advantage of the "loophole" that allowed them to subvert the normal process. Emails show them knowing full well their purposes have absolutely nothing to do with terrorism or national security and are simply using this power "cause they can."
The FBI has recently admitted to abusing our personal privacy freedoms by using national security letters and other letters improperly and illegally to obtain personal information from US corporations. The inspector general's recent report showed just how bad the situation is just "at the tip of the iceberg."
Now the President is atempting to block any meaningful and as importantly, public disclosure of how his administration has been operating behind their "cloak of secrecy."
I surely hope the democrats (of which i am not one) and republicans (of which i am not one either) will continue their insistance and force the White House staffers to testify in open session and under oath. I surely hope they do not accept the "Nixonian" lines from Watergate lawyer Fred Fielding. Nixon tried to stop Congress from having his staff testify and the Bush administration is faithfully following in their predecessors footsteps using some of the very players that tried, and failed in the early 70's.
The whole stance of "if white house staff testify, they can't give honest advice" is absolute B*LLSHIT!!! If that were the case, that essentially says that anyone who works for any administration is above the law. That they do not answer to their employers, the American people. Sorry, but they do. Dozens of Clinton staffers testified in the 90's in open session and under oath. As did scores of staffers in administrations for decades did.
There is absolutely NO national security issues at stake in the US attorney case. No claims can be made in that arena. And even if some of that did get "brushed upon," I am fine with any of that being in closed session, but absolutely still under oath. And it does seem clear that Senators were lied to by the Attorney General, who has yet to explain those lies. And the last time I checked, it is a crime to lie to Congress. And even if by some technicallity it is not, as their employer, I demand to know what went on.
In Arkansas, a loyal repubican US Attorney was unfairly replaced by a Rove crony with almost no courtroom experience. How does that serve my country better? As their employer, I demand to know.
In San Diego, a prosecutor who was expanding her already successful investigation of corruption by Bush loyalist Randall "Duke" Cunningham was abruptly fired for performance reasons. The White House later tried to defend the firing pointing to "immigration" and a lack of any cases on the subject. In her actual performance review, however, it was shown that her vigilance on immigration issues was outstanding, devoting up to 50% of her staff and resources to cases on the issue.
Other attorneys, like David Iglasius, were unfairly charged with not going after "voter fraud" cases. But after looking at the actual cases, one sees that the chance of convictions were virtually nil in the cases. And I guess the White House doesn't realize that some of us know that a voter fraud conviction (or many of them) is a bnig feather in a cap for any US attorney, especially one who may run for office in the future. In other words, it was in Iglasius interest, career wise, to get any voter fraud conviction he could. But losing cases would be bad. Imagine the opposition commercials lambasting his screwing up of trials that let "scammers go free." Iglasius's case is compounded by the facts that he was called on and reportedly pressured in unprecedented calls from Senator Dominicci and at least one New Mexico house member. As their employer, I demand to know the answers.
In Washington State, the removal of that US Attorney and the political improprieties are obvious as well. And in the rest of the cases, as with the former mentioned ones, we need to know what went on and if the US Department Of Justice has become a political wing of the administration and not the independent body that is only concerned with justice that the Constitution intended and as their employer, I demand.
Hopefully , Senator Leahey will stand by his words from last night when he said, "I intend to bring the attorney general up here. I am requesting several other people to come up here, certainly Mr. Sampson, Ms. Miers, I assume eventually Karl Rove. If they don’t come, then I’ll seek to subpoena them up here, because the story changes almost every time we pick up the newspaper. […]What I want to find out is what happened, why we’ve been given different stories. And I want those answers, not in an informal briefing; I want those answers in public, in sworn testimony, under oath before my committee. As chairman, that’s what I insist."
And as your employer Mr Leahey, I demand it.
