Can the US government use the Organs of the State to attack its critics ?

[Trajan]

Wasnt this part of the issue with Nixon ? ...

Can a politician use the resources of the US government, which is budgeted and earmarked for specific activities, to gather incriminating information against a political opponent ????

Isnt this a clear ethical violation ? ...

[aquart]

1. Someone in this administration has ethics? Who?

[sam sarrha]

2. you mean like the guys that broke in and stoled the FBI files collected

by freedom from information on Kerry's anti war days, the demos had collected... 14 boxes and selected other files...!! Dirty Tricks??

[BlackVelvetElvis]

3. O'Reilly claims he was audited by the IRS

many times during the Clinton administration.

[Trajan]

5. If OReally said it ...

It MUST be true ....

[Trajan]

4. I mean this generally AND specifically ....

In this case: Can the WH use government resources to search and develop material with which to impugn Clarke's assertions ? ..

[Sulldogg]

7. This is different than your post

The WH can not use staff to dig up info on Kerry or political rivals.

The WH can defend itself and members of the administration from allegations made by anyone. Clarke is testifying as to operational matters int he WH, I think it would be a tough call for them not to be able to investigate his past actions and statements to disprove his assertions.

If so, anyone could make any accusations, and the WH could not respond.

[Trajan]

8. There is a difference between responding ....

and posting a battalion in the National Archives to seek out every damning utterance uttered by a opponent ....

Is there a line somewhere ? ... which laws define this line ???

[Trajan]

9. Furthermore: ..

It is presumed tht ALL incumbent presidents are 'accused' of something bad or malfeasant .... so:

SHOULD the american tax payer foot the bill to counter ALL accusations against the incumbent ? ...

If this is true: .. WHY even have contributors ? .... isnt the incumbent ALWAYS trying to respond to accusations ? ....

[Sulldogg]

10. Contributors?

I don't follow your question, contributors fund political activities... rallies, flights, ads, speeches, voter drives...

As for research, all political offices do research to defend against accusations, and all at the expense of tax-payers. I think this white house does way too much of it, but they have to since they f### up a lot.

[Trajan]

11. So ...

ALL incumbents are allowed to use the resources of their state office to run their campaigns ? ..

ALL can execute their official duties AND campaign functions, using state revenues, with no boundary between each ? ...

Somehow: .. I dont find this claim to ring true ....

[Sulldogg]

12. Can you show me

where I claimed that?

I'll lay it out one more time:

ALL CAMPAIGN FUNCTIONS ARE PAID FOR BY CONTRIBUTORS AND THEIR CAMPAIGNS

But accusations about whether the president did/said something, can and should be researched and defended by their staffs.

[Trajan]

13. Clarke's assertions are of actions or lack of actions

But Bush is seeking DIRT with which to impeach Clarke ....

They are searching (Frantically) to expose countering statements to discredit Clarke .... NOT to directly refute his assertions, per se ...

Is THIS our responsibilty ? ... to help Bush fend off critics of Bush while digging in the public purse? ...

I dont buy it: ... IF it is done in the course of assuring his own re-election, then it SHOULDNT be paid for by Joe Taxpayer ....

[Sulldogg]

14. Every action

has an effect on an incumbents re-election, that's just fact. That's like saying the government shouldn't pay for the Press Secretary in an election year, because that person goes out everyday and pushes the Presidents message, trying to ensure the re-election.

I really don't see how trying to prove someone is lying isn't a refutation of their claims. Whether its proof that action didn't take place like a video, or the persons prior statements saying it did, all are the ways you refute accusations.

Clinton's office did background research on the women who accused him, and to not allow him that right would have been a travesty.

[maggrwaggr]

6. Bush can do whatever the fuck he wants

because nobody ever, ever stops him.

That's all there is to it.

He's a bully and a thug and that's how these people operate.

If we want to stop Bush, we need to have some leaders who will actually prosecute him for his crimes.

Who might that be?

I'm drawing a blank........