Still Hating America.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by sgtclub
... do it behind closed doors ...

You're good. Stick a "Partisan" in there somewhere and you've got the Rove schtick.

Sunlight is a good disinfectant.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Plus, they'd get fired if they got anywhere.

Or get a poor rating on their next performance.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

• As you no doubt know, the Primates of the Anglican Communion, at their recent meeting in Tanzania, issued a number of ultimatums to The Episcopal Church. . . .
  
  I think it is fair to say that the vast majority of our bishops – progressive and conservative alike – see this as an unfair, illegal and wholly unprecedented assault on the polity and internal integrity of The Episcopal Church. Never before has any constituent member of the Anglican Communion been subjected to the authority of such an external body. Fears were expressed by most bishops that this would move us closer to a centralized authority in the Communion, and constituted an unwarranted and un-Anglican arrogation of authority to the Primates, unprecedented in the 500 years of our Anglican tradition and practice. It seemed to most of us that it was important to put a stop to this assault on our polity now, before it went any further. . . .
  
  We calmly and thoughtfully have said “no� to this encroachment on our polity and authority as a Church. We have also pledged ourselves to meeting the pastoral needs of the minority within our Church who are upset by the directions we have taken and by the leadership we have elected. We will also take seriously the demands made of us by the Primates – in consultation with the lay and clerical leadership of this Church, as demanded by our polity. That is not a slap in the face, but rather a responsible and respectful response to the inappropriate demands made of us.

A letter from the Episcopal Bishop of New Hampshire, posted here.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

• A common adage is that it's not what is illegal that stuns, but, rather, what is legal. So my question--which I mean as a serious one--is why in the world we treat Karl Rove as a "public servant" whose salary we the taxpayers must pay? There is no evidence at all that Mr. Rove has any views on public policy that he genuinely cares about or that anyone has ever paid the slightest attention to; what he is is a brilliant political tactician, first in Texas and then on the national stage, who is able to process the link between certain political positions and the likely consequences for the success of his clients. His sole job, from the first day he met George W. Bush to this very day, is to offer political advice.
  
  Isn't the presence of Mr. Rove on the public payroll simply one more bit of evidence of the bloated presidential office? No doubt there were similar political operatives on the Clinton payroll and in earlier administrations, though I suspect that the casual acceptance of "political advisers" within the very heart of the West Wing as paid public officials is a relatively recent phenomenon. There is simply no comparison between Karl Rove and, say, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Richard Nixon's principal domestic policy advisor. But we now seem to accept it as a matter of course that public funds will be expended for what Justice Peckham would have properly described as completely private purposes. The casual acceptance of Karl Rove's status as a "public servant" is ideologically linked, ironically enough, with triumph of post-New Deal "interest group liberalism" and the demise of any distinction between "public welfare" and "private rent seeking." It is one thing to declare that courts should no longer try to discern the difference and instead defer to legislatures. It is another to believe that there is no distinction at all that it might be valuable to try to maintain. Let the Republican National Committee pay Mr. Rove's salary; why should the taxpayers?

UT prof Sandy Levinson

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
The DOJ investigates the EB all the time, but if you are concerned, do it behind closed doors and take the grandstanding out of it. Or do a special prosecutor.

Given what's happened thus far, Congress has every reason not to want to keep this "behind closed doors" -- i.e., in secret, with no record. Why should Congress make it easy for the Admin to keep lying?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Given what's happened thus far, Congress has every reason not to want to keep this "behind closed doors" -- i.e., in secret, with no record. Why should Congress make it easy for the Admin to keep lying?

I think both you and Ty are missing my point. I think this should be investigated. I do not think that open congressional hearings are the way to do it, because I don't see the primary purpose of such hearings as trying to determine the truth. If the administration is going to lie, it will do so regardless of whether it is an open or closed hearing, and congress can take appropriate action in that case.

The concept of a special prosecutor, in theory, is a good one, but it has become so abused over the years that I'm not sure it's a workable solution.

In this case, I think the DOJ is perfectly able to investigate and the AGs certainly have an interest that should be independent of the President's to get it right. If the President wants to fire the DOJ investigators, he would suffer politically much like Nixon did in the 70s.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I think both you and Ty are missing my point. I think this should be investigated. I do not think that open congressional hearings are the way to do it, because I don't see the primary purpose of such hearings as trying to determine the truth. If the administration is going to lie, it will do so regardless of whether it is an open or closed hearing, and congress can take appropriate action in that case.

The concept of a special prosecutor, in theory, is a good one, but it has become so abused over the years that I'm not sure it's a workable solution.

In this case, I think the DOJ is perfectly able to investigate and the AGs certainly have an interest that should be independent of the President's to get it right. If the President wants to fire the DOJ investigators, he would suffer politically much like Nixon did in the 70s.

It's a lot easier to lie, and get away with it, when (1) you are behind closed doors and (2) there is no transcript so you can deny having said what you said.

On the other hand, Dick Cheney and others in this Admin have repeatedly denied saying things that they said on national TV (like Cheney claiming he never said that the link between Iraq and al Qaeda was "pretty well confirmed"), so you may have a point. But still -- I'd rather that anyone from this adminstration talking about these events know that their comments will be recorded, parsed and analyzed.

As for the AG investigating the President, this is pretty basic. Like any other lawyer, AGs are bound by the Rules of Professional Conduct. I don't practice in DC, but it's hard to imagine that the local rules of professional conduct would let a lawyer there investigate his own boss.

My comment that they would be fired was a joke, I thought that was pretty obvious.

Do you think Couture can defend his title, or was it a fluke? Do you think he can beat Cro Cop? (Feel free to respond to that one via PM)

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I think both you and Ty are missing my point. I think this should be investigated. I do not think that open congressional hearings are the way to do it, because I don't see the primary purpose of such hearings as trying to determine the truth. If the administration is going to lie, it will do so regardless of whether it is an open or closed hearing, and congress can take appropriate action in that case.

The concept of a special prosecutor, in theory, is a good one, but it has become so abused over the years that I'm not sure it's a workable solution.

In this case, I think the DOJ is perfectly able to investigate and the AGs certainly have an interest that should be independent of the President's to get it right. If the President wants to fire the DOJ investigators, he would suffer politically much like Nixon did in the 70s.

This is an investigation into the DOJ and you want the DOJ to handle it?

I think Congress is a perfectly sensible place to handle it -- I think it is the least likely place for them to lie, especially if it is public. Gonzales has already demonstrated the down side to that.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
This is an investigation into the DOJ and you want the DOJ to handle it?

On the other hand, the conflict waiver letter they would have to draft would be a hoot.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
It's a lot easier to lie, and get away with it, when (1) you are behind closed doors and (2) there is no transcript so you can deny having said what you said.

So do it under oath with a reporter.

As for the AG investigating the President, this is pretty basic. Like any other lawyer, AGs are bound by the Rules of Professional Conduct. I don't practice in DC, but it's hard to imagine that the local rules of professional conduct would let a lawyer there investigate his own boss.

Congress is also employed by the same employer, no?

[Adder]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Congress is also employed by the same employer, no?

As the AG and his underlings? No.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Adder
As the AG and his underlings? No.

The employer is both cases is not the US government?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by sgtclub
So do it under oath with a reporter.




Congress is also employed by the same employer, no?

Actually, under the Constitution, no. Each branch is a separate entity. Theoretically, they're all employed by the People. But you can't be seriously trying to make that argument, can you?

ETA I take it back. Apparently you were trying to make that argument with a straight face.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by sgtclub
The employer is both cases is not the US government?

Are you actually serious with this? The "US Government" is not the person/entity being investigated. The investigation is of certain higher-level employees of the US goverment, and it makes sense not to have them being investigated by their own underlings.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Actually, under the Constitution, no. Each branch is a separate entity. Theoretically, they're all employed by the People. But you can't be seriously trying to make that argument, can you?

ETA I take it back. Apparently you were trying to make that argument with a straight face.

It wasn't my analogy, but I think I've now proven that that one is busted.