It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Fight over White House subpoenas rises

page: 3
17
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 11:32 AM
link   
The secret, I think, is to keep pushing. It is easy to let one's anger at all this fade. Life gets in the way, other things come along that catch our attention, and we put off those e-mails and phone call. Pretty soon, we stop even pretending that we are involved.

I have a note taped to my monitor that says "Today-Ron Paul" in red letters. It is a reminder to myself to think if I have done something today to push forward his run for the White House. I think there is another note I need to add concerning this thread.

This needs to be an ongoing effort. And we need to involve as many family, friends, neighbors and co-workers as we can.

I personally try to at the very least, e-mail three elected officials every work day. And I then send at least one letter, not a form letter, to an elected official every day. (Even I can afford 20 stamps per month.)

While this site is not endorsing a particular political stance, I cannot see how it would be in violation of the T&C to urge lawmakers to abide by the constitution of the United States.

And while it may seem that this is a problem only to be addressed by citizens of the US, remember that actions here have a spillover effect on other western nations. I'm sure that letters from concerned people in the UK, Canada, Australia, etc. would be noticed. We are all in this boat together, and if one leader tries to sink it, then we all need to speak up. And it can't hurt to remind our lawmakers that the eyes of the world are on this mess.




posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 02:54 PM
link   
Endorsing the preservation of our democracy through our elected officials without favoring one over the other is actually the right thing to do for a patriot that loves this nation.

Political parties are nothing than elite clubs, but democracy is free for everyone in this nation and is not the sole property of either elite party, is the job of every American citizen to make sure our elected officals respect it and protects it even from themselves if is necessary.

Is our jobs as citizens to make sure also that they remember for whom they work for.



posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by NGC2736
The secret, I think, is to keep pushing. It is easy to let one's anger at all this fade.

Oh, I'm not worried too much about that...Once you anger the People, we're not likely to let it slide easily. The King of England (who signed the Magna Carta) learned that readily enough...

"It's American to be pissed off. This country wasn't founded by complacent people happy with life in England."--Gallagher



Originally posted by marg6043
Endorsing the preservation of our democracy through our elected officials without favoring one over the other is actually the right thing to do for a patriot that loves this nation.

Personally, I'd rather see the restoration of the Constitutional Republic, not the preservation of Democracy. It wasn't Democracy that founded this Nation & it's the adoption of Democracy that's led to the downfall that we've been experiencing here.

History has shown that Democracy will never last: When I was in High School, my Sociology classes were teaching "comparative government." Democracy holds the seeds of its own destruction, simply because 51% of the voting Citizens can literally "vote away" any/all Rights of the other 49%. All it takes is a measure of control over propaganda to sway the voting Public...As Hitler knew & used to his advantadge. This is why the US Founding Forefathers didn't want a Democracy in the first place.

However, I still think the use of (Congressional/Judicial) subpeonas is the right path: If The People put enough emphasis on accountability & obedience to the Constitution, I believe that will tell the Government that it won't get away with its criminal behavior any more & eventually lead to the Republic form of Government described in the Constitution.


Originally posted by marg6043
Is our jobs as citizens to make sure also that they remember for whom they work for.

...And what their jobs actually are: To protect & preserve our Rights under the Constitution. In general, their job is to serve the People, not rule them.



posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 03:21 PM
link   
That's very true. We've got to remember that the vote works for us, and not for them. You saw what kind of "damage" we did in the '06 elections. The GOP got spanked. Ifthe Republicans got that same sort of thrashing again, they might stop just long enough to think about their agendas. If the Dems fail to learn from that blood-letting, they can get a taste of it, too. If both parties fall out of favor...just enough...we might decide to vote for that third party.



posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 03:28 PM
link   
MidnightDStroyer

You are right when you said that this country was founded on a republic, but I feel sometimes that our political leaders are making sure that the republic is death.

Calling our nation Democratic and spreading democracy served our political leaders better in their agendas.

I also remember when my teacher in political science at college predicted the fall of Russia this was back in the 70s he also predicted the fall of our nation.

That is still to come and it have not happen yet because the people in this nation support our constitution so much that they will die protecting that constitution if necessary.



posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 03:36 PM
link   
I have a copy of the Constitution hanging in my office. I like this rough-cut republic of ours, and I hope to see it weather the coming storm.



posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Justin Oldham
I have a copy of the Constitution hanging in my office.

If only all Government Officials (at both Federal & State levels) did the same...

The way I figure it, anyone who actually wants to take up a seat in Government shouldn't have it; Anyone who feels the need to take the job should have it.

Why? Because I believe there can be only one of two motivations for doing so -- #1: To serve the Public, or #2: to serve themselves. Anyone who chooses #2 is not fit for the job because the Constitution demands reason #1. Someone who wants the job would have reason #2 in mind...Someone who feels the need for the job would hold reason #1.

It seems to me that you favor #2, Justin.
Say, you wouldn't consider running for Office, would you?


Say, how about the People start contacting Congress listing specific crimes that should bear investigating & call for subpoenas? Since we can write to any & all members of Congress, regardless of our demographic differences, that means we could still point out suspicions that may apply to our own district representatives!
I wonder how many subpoenas would wind up getting started this way?



[edit on 10-7-2007 by MidnightDStroyer]



posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 07:19 PM
link   
As I said earlier in this thread, it really is a good idea to write to the various committee chair persons to ask them to look in to specific things. For example, you could look at a committee's web page...or CSPAN.org and see what's coming up. Then, write to them with a list of questions that thay could ask during the upcoming hearings. Again, make sure its a one page letter. No rants. When they get your letter, somebody will look at it for about 30 seconds. If you can make your point real fast, you make get what you ask for.

Me? Run for office? If I ever did, I would pledge from the start to only stay for two terms. Why? If two terms is good enough for the President, two terms is good enough for me. At this time, I am not a viable candidate. Ask me that question again in five years, and we'll see what things look like. For now, I am still a citizen in good standing, so I will continue to ask my own questions.

I might be able to run locally, in the 2012 races, but that's a ways off. My published work is still not that widely know, but it is certainly contraversial. I can't imagine that The Establishment would be glad to see me.

[edit on 10-7-2007 by Justin Oldham]



posted on Jul, 11 2007 @ 01:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Justin Oldham
Me? Run for office?
------------
At this time, I am not a viable candidate. Ask me that question again in five years, and we'll see what things look like. For now, I am still a citizen in good standing, so I will continue to ask my own questions.

Well, 5 years seems a bit long considering that the fan will already be looking really $#|++y by that time anyway, but I see that you're taking things step-by-step & I've got no problem with that. While you're "still in the trenches," you still have a much smaller bullseye on your shirt than the bullseye you'd have once in Office.

I'll volunteer to be your running mate. I'm not much good with "creating" new agencies, but I think the Government's got too many of those as it is anyway; But I'm real good at using an existing organization against itself. In other words, since the Executive Branch has already stolen a lot of Powers from the rest of the Fed Government/States/People, I could use that "Power of Tyranny" against the existing "structure of tyranny" to get those Constitutional Powers back where they belong.

When you get into the White House I'd suggest that you appoint Constitutionally-minded people into the Judicial Branch (much the same way Bush "stacked the courts" in his favor) & then turn me loose; Then you could just sit back & watch the supoenas fly! My next steps would be directed towards Congress, then the Federal Reserve...

If you would take a look at this thread, you might get an idea what I could do; Then decide if I would "qualify" as your running mate. Granted, the thread is a bit outdated with no recent posts, but it's enough to start generating ideas on more current issues.



Originally posted by Justin Oldham
I can't imagine that The Establishment would be glad to see me.

Hint: Beef up the Secret Service...A lot! Remember my quip above about the "bulleye on your shirt?"

---------
Back on track: I've already derailed this thread too much as is...

Originally posted by Justin Oldham
If you can make your point real fast, you make get what you ask for.

Sounds good to me; I'm well aware of how mass-media has trained most Americans for short attention span.


Another point I'd like to mention is that, in order to utilize the "keep it short & concise" strategy, it would probably be best to make the points on a single topic with each letter...If there's a lot of different topics that need addressing, just write a different letter for each topic.

For example, writing to DHS about how the INS has been rendered ineffective for Border Security would be the topic for one letter, but if I'd also want to write to DHS about how illegal & unconstitutional the Patriot Act really is & how it should be disobeyed for those reasons, then this different topic should be in a different letter--Not a part of the same letter about Border Security.

This way, if enough people write about a lot of different concerns, then I think Congress could be moved to start more subpoenas to investigate a lot of criminal activities.




[edit on 11-7-2007 by MidnightDStroyer]



posted on Jul, 11 2007 @ 12:54 PM
link   
Well, now. You've had time to think about this for a while, eh? have you checked out the podcast that I've prepared on this subject? There are several entries, so you'll have a lot to listen to. When the ATS guys put the upload back online, there will be more.



posted on Jul, 12 2007 @ 04:13 AM
link   
Yeah, I've heard your Pcasts & commented on that thread...But in the interests of keeping this thread on topic, I'd like to post a bit of update on Bush's action for Libby:


Source: Bush refuses to explain Libby order
President Bush refused to explain to Congress on Wednesday why he commuted the prison sentence of former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby. The husband of the CIA agent outed in the case testified during a House hearing that the clemency grant had cast a pall of suspicion over the presidency.
---------------------
"To allow such an inquiry would chill the complete and candid advice that President Bush, and future presidents, must be able to rely upon in discharging their constitutional responsibilities," he wrote.
--------------------
Conyers said he recognized Bush's constitutional right to grant clemency, but he argued that using the power to benefit a former aide who was in a position to incriminate other administration officials was suspect.
Even President Clinton's pardon of fugitive financier Marc Rich "did not involve someone who worked in the White House and could potentially implicate others there, as may be or appears to be the case in this instance," Conyers said.


Yeah, Bush has the Constitutional authority to lessen or eliminate Libby's sentencing & even can keep quiet about his reasons for doing so (unless, of course, Bush gets a subpoena!), but Bush does not have the Constitutional or legal authority to obstruct an investigation that stems from Libby's original testimony that implicated Cheney. However, it is the Constitutional Duty of Bush (to "execute faithfully the laws") to demand further investigation on other alleged criminal activities. It doesn't matter that Cheney happens to be in Bush's group or not, the Law demands investigation!



posted on Jul, 12 2007 @ 05:45 PM
link   
So, how did you folks like the Sarah Taylor...testimony....I personally thought it was funny that very frew Republicans bothered to show up. In her own way, she did a good job of, like, avoiding the answers to those hard questions, like y'know?



posted on Jul, 12 2007 @ 08:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Justin Oldham
So, how did you folks like the Sarah Taylor...testimony....I personally thought it was funny that very frew Republicans bothered to show up. In her own way, she did a good job of, like, avoiding the answers to those hard questions, like y'know?


Like, totally. But at least she showed up; it looks like Harriet Miers is in a world of hurt in that regard. Tomorrow's news should be very interesting, indeed.



posted on Jul, 13 2007 @ 12:23 AM
link   
Yes, Harriet was a no show. Yes, she can be cited for Contempt of Congress. I sense the hand of Karl Rove, again. A man after my own dark heart. Congress can legislate, or they can throw down and fight these subpoena battles. The legal battles alone, to challenge just one subpoena, will take a year just to reach the Supreme Court. Remember that the SC ends its 2007 calendar year at the end of Sepetember. It's cruddy, but this is hard ball in the big leagues. Superior gamesmanship, to say the least. What do the Dems really want? They can legislate and earn more street cred with the voters, or, they can spank the Bushies and risk 'failure' when they walk...because...they'll be civilians before the gavel comes down on any of them. "I don't remember it that way. Sorry, but I'm not in office any more. Those records must be in the National Archives by now. Have you checked with them? No. Really. I don't know what you're talking about."



posted on Jul, 13 2007 @ 02:03 AM
link   
Even Taylor should be charged with contempt...A subpeona legally requires a person's testimony to answer the questions, not dodge them.

That's probably the whole reason why Bully Boy Bush & His Corporate Crony Gang don't want to see any subpoenas served at the White House & continue to try actively obstructing investigations.

This is why, IMO, that it would be good to see the Executive Branch getting swamped with subpeonas...It'll be a long, uphill battle for Justice, but maybe also serve to distract effort away from the "NWO Agenda."

If Bush wants to play "dodge the lawbook" when it's thrown at him, even when he's Constitutionally charged with enforcing the law, then we may as well hit him with the whole legal library & see if he can dodge that!


Would ideas like this serve to aid your time in Office, Justin?


[edit on 13-7-2007 by MidnightDStroyer]



posted on Jul, 13 2007 @ 02:43 AM
link   
In the event that I run for office, I won't go out of my way to do the bad things. Citizenship matters. Good citizenship is hard. I won't run for office until I have done more with my career as an author. That way, I'll have some money in the bank that will allow me to kiss off some of the lobbyists.



posted on Jul, 13 2007 @ 02:53 PM
link   
Well, I think a part of being a good Citizen involves seeing that crooks don't get away with commiting crimes...Shouldn't that fall under the concept of "Civic Duty?"

Since Bully Boy Bush & His Corporate Crony Gang have commited Breech of Constitutional Oath & formented so many crimes already, wouldn't it be about time to drag out the whole legal library on them? I've been keeping in touch with my Government Representatives...I point out to them that Libby is just a tip of the iceberg & that, by following through with the law & keeping in touch with the Judicial Branch, the most likely thing that should happen is to bury the White House in subpoenas & indictments.

Oh, I hope you didn't think that if/when you get into the Office that I was implying that such drastic measures would be needed on you (At least I would hope not!)...So far as the subpoena mountain goes, I was only referring to the current situation in Government.


[edit on 13-7-2007 by MidnightDStroyer]



posted on Jul, 13 2007 @ 04:16 PM
link   
I'd like to share my most recent blog entry with you. It reflext many of the points you made here. I jsut wanted to do that so that many of you will see that you're not alone in your thoughts. That's why you can make such a splash when you work together to pester Congress.



posted on Jul, 13 2007 @ 11:03 PM
link   
Let's see, what have we got here so far?
Congress issues subpoenas to White House...
Bush claims "Executive Priviledge" to ignore them...
Almost all persons subpoenaed do up but dodge questions...
Now I've got this:
Another update on the battle between Congress & the White House:


More at Source: House panel rejects Bush privilege claim
House Democrats on Thursday took the first step toward holding former White House counsel Harriet Miers in contempt of Congress after she defied a subpoena — at President Bush's order — and skipped a hearing on the firing of U.S. attorneys.
Over the strenuous objections of Republicans, a subcommittee cleared the way for contempt proceedings by voting 7-5 to reject Bush's claim of executive privilege. He says his top advisers, whether current or former, cannot be summoned by Congress.
"Those claims are not legally valid," Rep. Linda Sanchez, D-Calif., said of Bush's declaration. "Ms. Miers is required pursuant to the subpoena to be here now."
----------------
"If the House Judiciary Committee wants to avoid confrontation, it should withdraw its subpoenas," said White House spokesman Tony Fratto. "The committee is rejecting accommodation because they prefer just the kind of political spectacle they're engaged in now."
Miers' testimony emerged as the battleground for a broader scuffle between the White House and Congress over the limits of executive privilege. Presidents since the nation's founding have sought to protect from the prying eyes of Congress the advice given them by advisers, while Congress has argued that it is charged by the Constitution with conducting oversight of the executive branch.
----------------
The dispute extended to Congress' request for information on other matters, including the FBI's abuses of civil liberties under the USA Patriot Act and Bush's secretive wiretapping program.
But it is a pair of congressional subpoenas for two women who once were Bush's top aides that has moved the disagreement to the brink of legal sanctions and perhaps a court battle.
---------------
"If we do not enforce this subpoena, no one will ever have to come before the Judiciary Committee again," Conyers, D-Mich., said.
---------------
Legal scholars said the issue of Miers' immunity is far from clear-cut. No president has gone as far as mounting a court fight to keep his aides from testifying on Capitol Hill.


Well, Bush is still defying the laws that he's Constitutionally sworn to uphold & continues to obstruct investigation of the law. Looks like Bully Boy Bush & his Corporate Crony Gang can't hide behind his "privileges" to ignore the Legislature anymore. After all, Congress does have the Constitutional Right to "check & balance" the Executive Branch...So Bush doesn't HAVE anything he can hide behind anymore.



posted on Jul, 13 2007 @ 11:09 PM
link   
I will reserve the last word about what Bush is supposed to defend and who he is truly supporting.


With all the executive powers and privileges he has recently found I will not be surprise if he decides to eliminate congress completely


I imagine that just like the constitution is nothing but a piece of paper, congress is just a darn piece of unnecessary bodies.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join