Talk about arrogant
 

Man has any president ever been as arrogant as this joke? Now he's ordering former (yes that's right as in those who no longer work for him) aides to refuse supeonas from Congress.

In addition to putting those persons at risk of contempt charges Fratto (who as we know speaks for the regime and offers only what he is instructed to) actually had the audacity to offer the following quote today...."If the House Judiciary Committee wants to avoid confrontation, it should withdraw its subpoenas. The committee is rejecting accommodation because they prefer just the kind of political spectacle they're engaged in now."

umm aren't we missing the point? why can't she testify? or is there some way the unethical (and more than likely illegal) firings have something to do with national security?

Here's to the Congress holding up their end and while they've already begun to file court action against the White House with the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, let's hope they pursue it all the way to the SCOTUS.

I used to think impeachment was extreme but clearly the current regime has no respect for rule of law (let alone the nation). Lucky for him he's a lame-duck or I'd be willing to bet it would be inevitable.

I think you're missing the point, hork. The question is'nt why can't she testify, the question is who does Congress think they are? The President has the right to fire the entire group of attorney's for what ever reason he wants to. This is defined in the Constitution and the separation of powers should prevent one branch from sticking their nose into the business of another branch. This is nothing less than a case of harassment. Face it, no matter what the investigation could uncover, the President has the right to can them all anytime for any reason. The Congress may not like the reason it was done. You and I may not like the reason it was done, but so what? It wasn't their call to make, nor is it yours or mine.

The problem I have with that arguement is that the Constitution does not provide for the executive to be above the law. Nor does it allow for the office of the president to use his/her office for political extortion as has been repeatedly alleged in this ordeal.

While I agree that those attorneys in questions did work at the pleasure of the executive branch, they did not have the right to request and/or encourage them to break the law they were sworn to uphold. Furthermore, when they refused to committ crimes and were subsequently released from their positions, that reeks of corruption and unethical behavior. Not to mention it violates numerous labor laws on the books in the US all of which have been deemed Constitutional by the SCOTUS in the past.

So the real question here is, does the executive have the right to overtly break the law, encourage others to do with threats and fear of retribution? Regardless of political views, the law is the law, and someone needs to remind mr. bush neither he nor his branch of government are exempt from the law.

This recent action is nothing less than criminal. Failure to appear when supeonaed is illegal and carries with it criminal prosecution under contempt statutes. The sad thing is the poor lackey who's being ordered to committ the crime will be the one who suffers legal ramifications while the true criminals again walk scott free as they have repeatedly done for over 6 years now.

Right. The President can do whatever he wants with no oversight and checks and balances are a quaint idea.

Long live the annually chosen king.

checks and balances? haven't you learned anything over the past six years? those silly little checks and balances are nothing more than a simple clause in a "goddamn piece of paper".

i'm a little concerned that you put the Constitution over your nation. now shut up, recognize your place and forget that silly little constitution before you start to make other people think for themselves. Besides all it does is get in the way of national security and our grand and righteous war.