Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think they should be compelled to testify. If they are being asked questions about policy. If there is a specific focus to the questioning.
I don't think they should be asked questions in their advisory position to the President, but it is legitimate to ask questions about their involvement in the implementation of policy.
Regarding Cheney, there was a big difference between his assertion of executive privilege and what's happening here. There were specific policy questions that the legislature wanted answers to. It was not a fishing expedition. When they wanted to know about Valerie Plame, that was a very specific topic that the legislature wanted addressed. And the Vice President blocked that investigation in every way he could. When they wanted to know about the intrusion of partisanship in the hiring and firing of Justice Department personnel, that was a very specific topic that the legislature wanted addressed.
Senator Collins isn't specifying what she wants to know, she's advocating a fishing expedition. The Executive Branch isn't blocking a specific investigation. They are attempting to protect advisors, because the United States law has long-recognized that people providing advice and insights will provide such information more honestly and freely, when they know that they don't have to do so publicly. Can executive privilege be abused? Most definitely. Does Congress have an obligation to put pressure on the White House to minimize and avoid abuse? Absolutely.
But the czar issue is being exagerrated and over-blown for the purposes of partisanship, not for the purpose of maintaining the balance of power.
Do you think that Mark Lloyd can be protected with your reasoning? You are very right, up to a point, but just what is his real job as Diversity czar on the FCC?
Yep, they did it so it is ok for us to do it. The guy in front of me in a line going to a movie produced a gun and took all the money from the ticket seller so it is ok for me to do the same thing after they get a little bit more. Prog reasoning is so simple minded.
It's offensive when you tell people what they are thinking, why, and then call them stupid. Don't you think actually having a conversation with people would be better than revealing how prejudiced you are from the get-go?
Do you think that Mark Lloyd can be protected with your reasoning? You are very right, up to a point, but just what is his real job as Diversity czar on the FCC?
He is protected in his advisory capacity. He is not protected in his policy-implementation capacity. It's not complicated. What specific policy has the FCC implemented that Congress wants to assure itself is in line with the laws they've passed? They call a hearing on that policy, and then start calling the people involved in to be questioned. If the "Diversity Czar" was involved, he should be compelled to testify to his involvement. But he should not be compelled to testify regarding any communications he had with the President or with the President via Presidential staff.
READ what Tom Ridge had to say. Please, read. He specifically states that when he first when to work for Homeland Security, the Executive Branch, ie President Bush, did not want him testifying about the advice he was giving to the White House, and the nature of their communications. However, when policy was being implemented, the White House was comfortable with him testifying about those policies.
Not wanting someone to testify is not the same as claiming executive privlidges that they cant. Do you not know the difference between wishes and a refusal?
Whenever there's a pseudo-big thing like this that gets the republicans all heated up, I find myself not being able to take them seriously. Why? Because they had their fingers in their ears the last 8 years instead of doing this stuff when it was really important. They spent all their time justifying the horrible policy decisions of Dick n Bush because they were blinded by the (R).
So a few republicans want to question Obama's czars.. well did they question Bush's czars?
It's offensive when you tell people what they are thinking, why, and then call them stupid. Don't you think actually having a conversation with people would be better than revealing how prejudiced you are from the get-go?
I guess I have to agree with what you say but so many progs don't seem to agree with you from the answers they throw at me. Discussion is good but tough to do with more than not.
Not wanting someone to testify is not claiming executive privlidges claiming they cant. Do you not know the difference between wishes and a refusal?
Did you read what Tom Ridge said?
When your boss doesn't wish you to testify, and he's the President of the United States, he can refuse on your behalf. Funnily enough, the POTUS is pretty effective at making his wishes happen. Would you like me to start citing all the times the Bush administration did claim executive privilege? I mean, it could probably go on for pages, and thus negate your entire argument, but I'll do it if you want.
I guess I have to agree with what you say but so many progs don't seem to agree with you from the answers they throw at me. Discussion is good but tough to do with more than not.
I shouldn't have jumped on you like I did, because I have a great deal of respect for you and your point of view. But "simple-minded" is just one of my buttons, I guess.
He is protected in his advisory capacity. He is not protected in his policy-implementation capacity. It's not complicated. What specific policy has the FCC implemented that Congress wants to assure itself is in line with the laws they've passed? They call a hearing on that policy, and then start calling the people involved in to be questioned. If the "Diversity Czar" was involved, he should be compelled to testify to his involvement. But he should not be compelled to testify regarding any communications he had with the President or with the President via Presidential staff.
Of course, Lloyd has never spoken any words that might tend to tip us off to how he thinks. When the FCC rulings that they began considering yesterday about net neutrality, whatever that is, I think we will see the commission voting along partisan bases and Lloyd just happens to be the same party as the majority on the commission. Do you think that the Congress we now have will be calling him or any of them in if they rule what I think they will when it comes time to use fairness doctrine lite to start control of the internet? I don't think they will and surely they won't be calling Lloyd in since Oba mao won't put up with that.
When your boss doesn't wish you to testify, and he's the President of the United States, he can refuse on your behalf. Funnily enough, the POTUS is pretty effective at making his wishes happen. Would you like me to start citing all the times the Bush administration did claim executive privilege? I mean, it could probably go on for pages, and thus negate your entire argument, but I'll do it if you want.
We've already listed numerous times where "czars" have testified under Bush, and not one time where he has claimed such privlidges existed for "czars".. now you want to change the subject to other "privlidges"? Dont want to stay on topic?
And a presidential refusal on your behalf does not stop Congress from issuing subpoenas' demanding your testimony, unless of course you want to claim executive privlidges. Tell me when this took place under Bush, I really would like to read up on it..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
