I am all for an Indepenent Investigation

[eeyore1954]

I am all for an independent investigation. Let the truth movement finance it. Why haven’t they started yet if they have the convictions they claim they have?

First they should pay for independent verification of the facts that cause them to believe it.

As any good truther can tell you it is obvious that the towers fell too fast and too straight to not have been CD’ed .So why doesn’t Dr Jones , Dr griffin et al hire several top unbiased independent scientists in the appropriate fields to see if the collapse should have been arrested if they determine it wouldn’t have been then they could see if how long the collaspe should have taken once it started .

It would also be good to have this same group see how the laws of physics (mainly conservation of momentum) were violated. For an extra fee I am sure they would be willing to give an opinion on why WTC 7 fell relatively straight down. Aside from the facts that skyscrapers are generally tall and thin , gravity usually pulls straight down , building are not designed to hold together once they start to lean ,etc.

Hand over samples of the smoking gun dust that contains traces of thermite , thermate or graphite or whatever it was to independent labs to determine the contents and then pay to have experts (metallurgists?) give an opinion on the results and Dr Jones theory.

At the same time the truth seekers from PFT could pay to have the black box data analyzed by people who actually do it for a living and see if they find any thing to suggest it was either faked or the plane could not have followed the path claimed..

I am sure there are others. interviwer first responders , etc

Once these are done and come back proving that their claims are correct then they could take the next step in the investigation.

Of course I think we all know the truth movement as a whole is not really interested in putting their money where their mouths are. In fact many of them would not like to do it because it is their gravy train. Not a road to riches mind you but I am sure several of them make a modest living off of it.

Of course I think we all know what would happen if they actually had their claims analyzed .

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

Problem is, there IS no 'Truth Movement' per se, and no unified theory of 'The Truth'. Any investigation funded by truthers would tear itself apart as they tried to pull it in different directions to support their own delusions, or the 'Delusion of the Day'.

[Edmund Standing]

Why isn't Alex Jones putting up money for this instead of begging his listeners for donations that will allow him to get some new TV show?

Presumably because he couldn't give a [rule 10] about getting another investigation. After all, so long as there isn't one, he can keep up his 'NWO cover-up' line.

[DC]

oh some 100 -200 million Dollars are a huge problem for the JREFers....

but noone seems to be upset about goverments waste of tacdollars, or that some of theyr money is unaccounted for etc. billions of theyr money is spend on things they not exactly know about, but the money for a new investigation is such a huge problem for them.

the whole world is spending the money today already from the next 5 generations, they dont care.
but a little bit more for an investigation, that is not aceptable.....

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

oh some 100 -200 million Dollars are a huge problem for the JREFers....

but noone seems to be upset about goverments waste of tacdollars, or that some of theyr money is unaccounted for etc. billions of theyr money is spend on things they not exactly know about, but the money for a new investigation is such a huge problem for them.

the whole world is spending the money today already from the next 5 generations, they dont care.but a little bit more for an investigation, that is not aceptable.....

So let's spunk some MORE away on an investigation into something that has already BEEN satisfactorily investigated, in order to appease a deluded minority who can't even AGREE on what should be investigated? Is that right?

[DC]

So let's spunk some MORE away on an investigation into something that has already BEEN satisfactorily investigated, in order to appease a deluded minority who can't even AGREE on what should be investigated? Is that right?

satisfactorily

polls do contradict that extremly. just cause it is for you doesnt mean it is for others.

and yeah exatly here we start taking care about wasting money, the investigations into an event that has changed the world.

its a very weak excuse to not spend the money needed for an investigation...

[Thunder]

there isnt gonna be a 2nd investigation. the only investigation that should take place would look into Alex Jones' and Dylan Avery's finances.

[zorro99]

Truthers have not provided a compelling reason for another investigation.

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

satisfactorily

polls do contradict that extremly. just cause it is for you doesnt mean it is for others.
and yeah exatly here we start taking care about wasting money, the investigations into an event that has changed the world.

its a very weak excuse to not spend the money needed for an investigation...

I don't think they do.. a poll - which I believe was conducted on a 'Truth' site (IIRC) showed that most participants believed the offcial version of events. Where are all these unsatisfied people? Or do you refer to the handful of delusional jokers that make up LCF, PFT etc?

For someone who seems to be so worried (and wrong) about how the American Government accounts for and spends its' money, you seem to have no problem wasting it on duplicating an investigation.

[Björn Toulouse]

oh some 100 -200 million Dollars are a huge problem for the JREFers....

but noone seems to be upset about goverments waste of tacdollars, or that some of theyr money is unaccounted for etc. billions of theyr money is spend on things they not exactly know about, but the money for a new investigation is such a huge problem for them.

the whole world is spending the money today already from the next 5 generations, they dont care.
but a little bit more for an investigation, that is not aceptable.....



Who said that?

[CptColumbo]

"Indepenent"-Is that something to do with flags or false-flags?

[MarkyX]

satisfactorily

polls do contradict that extremly. just cause it is for you doesnt mean it is for others.


Yeah, less than 5% who can't even agree if planes were used or the victim phone calls were faked.

[1337m4n]

oh some 100 -200 million Dollars are a huge problem for the JREFers....

but noone seems to be upset about goverments waste of tacdollars, or that some of theyr money is unaccounted for etc. billions of theyr money is spend on things they not exactly know about, but the money for a new investigation is such a huge problem for them.

the whole world is spending the money today already from the next 5 generations, they dont care.
but a little bit more for an investigation, that is not aceptable.....

Hey, I'm all for streamlining government and cutting back on useless spending.

The problem is that this would just be another instance of said "useless spending".

Not to mention it would tie up resources currently being used for existing anti-terror investigations.

[Clippy]

Which would you rather see: investigations into whether the Patriots cheated in a SuperBowl or some baseball player did steroids, or a new investigation that publicly interviewed Cheney and Bush separately and under oath? You're going to pay for this crap anyway. Why not something of importance, or at least entertaining for a broader range of people?

[CHF]

I've been calling for the TM to conduct a new invetsigation for ages now.

They claim to have the evidence, the witnesses, the whistleblowers and the experts. Meanwhile, Alex Jones, Charlie Sheen and Rosie O'donnell have the money. What else do they need in order to put together their own report to combat the "official story?"

Oh right, there's that nagging problem of each twoofer having his own theory, which would bog down any invetsigation in an endless battle over who's "disinfo."

So instead they whine about how no one will do their work for them.

[CptColumbo]

Which would you rather see: investigations into whether the Patriots cheated in a SuperBowl or some baseball player did steroids, or a new investigation that publicly interviewed Cheney and Bush separately and under oath? You're going to pay for this crap anyway. Why not something of importance, or at least entertaining for a broader range of people?Do you think they would suddenly break down and confess if it was "under oath?" Why would someone killed 3000 people, and accused others of doing it on national TV (to the public), suddenly get an attack of conscience and confess before a senate commitee?

There is no evidence that their story would change, so it would be a waste of time and money.

[1337m4n]

Which would you rather see: investigations into whether the Patriots cheated in a SuperBowl or some baseball player did steroids, or a new investigation that publicly interviewed Cheney and Bush separately and under oath? You're going to pay for this crap anyway. Why not something of importance, or at least entertaining for a broader range of people?

A tiny cabal of teenagers who spend all of their time in their parents' basement is not "a broader range of people".

Your retarded question also assumes that by having a pointless new 9/11 investigation, somehow that will cancel out the money wasted on Super Bowl investigations.

[Disbelief]

I too think that they should do something along the suggested lines. I proposed this in the moderated thread:

Here's an idea (someone may have already suggested this) for the TM. Instead of going for a full blown investigation, why not gather the donations and hire a few different structural engineering firms in a few different countries. Now, they have access to all of the relevant data to determine if collapse progression would be arrested or if global collapse was inevitable. Now, if these firms come back with hard data showing that the collapse would be arrested, then the TM can work on getting this information published and peer reviewed. Instead of clamoring for a full blown new investigation, why not try taking it one step at a time?

So CTists, how about using this as a good starting point?

[Jonnyclueless]

OK Clippy. SO ya get Bush under oath just like they did to Clinton, and you ask him if he was behind 9/11. He then says "No". Then what?

[SpitfireIX]

Which would you rather see: investigations into whether the Patriots cheated in a SuperBowl or some baseball player did steroids, or a new investigation that publicly interviewed Cheney and Bush separately and under oath? You're going to pay for this crap anyway. Why not something of importance, or at least entertaining for a broader range of people?


I've explained this a couple of times in the past.

The September 11 Commission was created by Congress. Whether you like it or not, Congress cannot compel the President or Vice President to testify under oath. Possibly you will say that Bush and Cheney should have done so voluntarily, if they had nothing to hide. This is identical to saying that the accused in a criminal trial shouldn't receive a lack of adverse inference from a decision not to testify. If the jury is allowed to infer that the lack of testimony is indicitive of guilt, then the right not to be compelled to testify becomes meaningless.


Any new investigation with subpoena power will likewise have to be authorized by Congress, so again, that investigation will be unable to compel Bush and Cheney to testify under oath. So I'd respectfully suggest you stop grousing about it, unless you're planning to start a campaign to have the US Constitution amended.

[CptColumbo]

I'm not an expert on law, but isn't it hard for Congress to compel anyone to incriminate themselves under the 5th amendment? They may hold them in Contempt of Congress, but that is rarely used anymore.

[DC]

OK Clippy. SO ya get Bush under oath just like they did to Clinton, and you ask him if he was behind 9/11. He then says "No". Then what?

waterboarding?

[Clippy]

OK Clippy. SO ya get Bush under oath just like they did to Clinton, and you ask him if he was behind 9/11. He then says "No". Then what?

Slick Willy is just what his name says. George Bush is a cretin. Just look at him trying to answer why he and Cheney were testifying together. It's a joke. The guy would crack under examination.

[Clippy]

waterboarding?

Let's give KSM the water bucket ;)

[applecorped]

What kind of examination? Prostate?

[Dave Rogers]

You're going to pay for this crap anyway. Why not something of importance, or at least entertaining for a broader range of people?

I'd like to chip in with a note of support here. Those of us who wouldn't have to pay for this investigation would, I'm sure, find it a rich source of entertainment. Not necessarily for the reasons Clippy would like, but entertaining nonetheless.

Dave

[Clippy]

Do you think they would suddenly break down and confess if it was "under oath?" Why would someone killed 3000 people, and accused others of doing it on national TV (to the public), suddenly get an attack of conscience and confess before a senate commitee?

There is no evidence that their story would change, so it would be a waste of time and money.

I'd at least like to see Cheney address the inconsistencies as to his whereabouts on the morning of.

And you don't think this guy would spill any beans?

C9AoaU7LlTk

At the very least it would be high comedy.

[DC]

why would someone want to prevent to be under oath ?

[Clippy]

And for the record, I'm against waterboarding anyone.

[DC]

i would only waterboard waterboarders.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Which would you rather see: investigations into whether the Patriots cheated in a SuperBowl or some baseball player did steroids, or a new investigation that publicly interviewed Cheney and Bush separately and under oath? You're going to pay for this crap anyway. Why not something of importance, or at least entertaining for a broader range of people?

Tthat's one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. I would reject such an investigation and hope that it gets aborted before it gets off the ground.

The last thing I would want is to see the militarys commander-in-chief forced into giving up critical intelligence during a time of war.

Under your demented idea of an investigation, you would have had Churchill give up ENIGMA. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ENIGMA)

More proof that troofers just can't live in the real world.

[CptColumbo]

I'd at least like to see Cheney address the inconsistencies as to his whereabouts on the morning of.

And you don't think this guy would spill any beans?
No.

Why would he?

I'm unsure what "inconsistencies" you are writing about. If you mean Minetta's testimony, then it would Minetta's recollections that don't jive with the know evidence, and the Vice President's testimony that is supported by the evidence.

[DC]

Tthat's one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. I would reject such an investigation and hope that it gets aborted before it gets off the ground.

The last thing I would want is to see the militarys commander-in-chief forced into giving up critical intelligence during a time of war.

Under your demented idea of an investigation, you would have had Churchill give up ENIGMA. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ENIGMA)

More proof that troofers just can't live in the real world.

times of war for the next 100 years when the MIC and other warmongers get their will.....

[SpitfireIX]

I'm not an expert on law, but isn't it hard for Congress to compel anyone to incriminate themselves under the 5th amendment? They may hold them in Contempt of Congress, but that is rarely used anymore.


Yes, but in a non-judicial proceeding a person can't merely decline to take the stand, as the defendant in a criminal trial can. Witnesses testifying before Congress may decline to answer certain questions, however, by invoking their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. (See the Iran-Contra hearings for some famous examples of this.) Note that Congress may still compel a witness to answer such questions if a federal judge agrees to grant him or her limited immunity, in which case the witness's testimony cannot be used as evidence against him or her in a criminal prosecution.

[Myriad]

i would only waterboard waterboarders.


Just curious -- after you waterboarded all the waterboarders, would you waterboard yourself?

Respectfully,
Myriad

[DC]

Just curious -- after you waterboarded all the waterboarders, would you waterboard yourself?

Respectfully,
Myriad

aah good point.
ok no waterboarding then :)

[Blender Head]

Which would you rather see: investigations into whether the Patriots cheated in a SuperBowl or some baseball player did steroids, or a new investigation that publicly interviewed Cheney and Bush separately and under oath? You're going to pay for this crap anyway. Why not something of importance, or at least entertaining for a broader range of people?

I'm not sure about that, Spygate was pretty damn entertaining until Walsh turned out to have nothing of significance.

[SpitfireIX]

why would someone want to prevent to be under oath ?


Are you asking why Congress can't compel the President and Vice President to testify under oath, or are you asking why they wouldn't agree to do it voluntarily if they don't have anything to hide?

[Jonnyclueless]

why would someone want to prevent to be under oath ?

The fact that you don't know says quite a lot. There are very good reasons for this and we learned this in a big way when Clinton was in office as to exactly why.

[Blender Head]

Are you asking why Congress can't compel the President and Vice President to testify under oath, or are you asking why they wouldn't agree to do it voluntarily if they don't have anything to hide?

I'm guessing the latter.

[DC]

The fact that you don't know says quite a lot. There are very good reasons for this and we learned this in a big way when Clinton was in office as to exactly why.

no sorry, i really can only imagen one reason to not wanting to be under oath

[beachnut]

There is no "9/11 truth movement" but in the minds of those who are fooled by the lies. Some pay their 15 dollars for a DVD of lies called ironically "9/11 truth". Other members support the false ideas because of some bias and/or lack of knowledge (dirt dumb) on 9/11 issues.


9/11 truth ideas are all false, only those without knowledge support silly ideas of CD and thermite, and any of the endless list of fantasies 9/11 truth has to offer.

Maturity and knowledge will cure some; but others are the true snake oil salesmen of the internet.


How long will it take for you and I to gain maturity and knowledge to expose the fraud of 9/11 truth?

Yes, if the people ignorant on 9/11 pay for a new investigation, they can have it! But if they would just gain knowledge, learn how to comprehend, use logic, they will see there is enough information now to understand 9/11 without another investigation.

The truth is those who believe 9/11 truth have not investigated 9/11 due to ignorance. They need to investigate 9/11 themselves, and gain the tools on their own to make that possible. But they are not individuals yet, they are just parrots and followers who believe in lies about 9/11. Ignorance, does require investigation to gain knowledge; Catch 22.

[CptColumbo]

Yes, but in a non-judicial proceeding a person can't merely decline to take the stand, as the defendant in a criminal trial can. Witnesses testifying before Congress may decline to answer certain questions, however, by invoking their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. (See the Iran-Contra hearings for some famous examples of this.) Note that Congress may still compel a witness to answer such questions if a federal judge agrees to grant him or her limited immunity, in which case the witness's testimony cannot be used as evidence against him or her in a criminal prosecution.Thank you for clearing that up.

The fact that you don't know says quite a lot. There are very good reasons for this and we learned this in a big way when Clinton was in office as to exactly why.It also makes for a bad photo-op. When you mention Ollie North, what's the first picture that comes to your mind?

[SpitfireIX]

I'm guessing the latter.


That's my guess, also, but I'm hoping DC will clarify.

[DC]

congress cant get the president under oath??
what a great system.....

[DC]

Politicans should be under oath all the time

[CptColumbo]

why would someone want to prevent to be under oath ?

no sorry, i really can only imagen one reason to not wanting to be under oath
So, when a police officer stops you on the street and asks to search you, you would let him because you have nothing to hide?

And if you say no, that should be enough probable cause for him to go ahead and search you anyway, because you must be hiding something?

Why is it important that he be sworn in? If the "twoofers" are to believed, about the level of evil he has perpetrated, it would little more than a symbolic gesture. Especially taking into consideration that he had earlier swore an oath of office on a Bible!

[CptColumbo]

Politicans should be under oath all the time

They are, they swear an oath of office.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_office#United_States

[DC]

So, when a police officer stops you on the street and asks to search you, you would let him because you have nothing to hide?

And if you say no, that should be enough probable cause for him to go ahead and search you anyway, because you must be hiding something?

Why is it important that he be sworn in? If the "twoofers" are to believed, about the level of evil he has perpetrated, it would little more than a symbolic gesture. Especially taking into consideration that he had earlier swore an oath of office on a Bible!

when i am involved in a investigation like the 9/11 commission, sure i would let search me, and i also would answer questions under oath. in case i have nothing to hide.

[DC]

They are, they swear an oath of office.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_office#United_States

i thaught the congress cant get the president under oath :boggled:

or is a president not a politican ?

[CptColumbo]

when i am involved in a investigation like the 9/11 commission, sure i would let search me, and i also would answer questions under oath. in case i have nothing to hide.

So police should be allowed to search everyone, whenever they want, because if the person refuses they must have something to hide?

In other words you are against the Constitution of the United States and Liberty.

[CptColumbo]

i thaught the congress cant get the president under oath :boggled:

or is a president not a politican ?
When the President takes office he is sworn in with the oath:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. "

The Constitution Article VI, clause 3:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

As SpitefireIX earlier wrote:
The September 11 Commission was created by Congress. Whether you like it or not, Congress cannot compel the President or Vice President to testify under oath. Possibly you will say that Bush and Cheney should have done so voluntarily, if they had nothing to hide. This is identical to saying that the accused in a criminal trial shouldn't receive a lack of adverse inference from a decision not to testify. If the jury is allowed to infer that the lack of testimony is indicitive of guilt, then the right not to be compelled to testify becomes meaningless.

Any new investigation with subpoena power will likewise have to be authorized by Congress, so again, that investigation will be unable to compel Bush and Cheney to testify under oath. So I'd respectfully suggest you stop grousing about it, unless you're planning to start a campaign to have the US Constitution amended.

[Drudgewire]

So police should be allowed to search everyone, whenever they want, because if the person refuses they must have something to hide?

In other words you are against the Constitution of the United States and Liberty.

At least he's consistent. I mean, any time I hear twoofers complain about the Patriot Act their main beef is "it doesn't take away enough of our freedoms." :p

[fullflavormenthol]

Look. The President and Vice-President have access to the best lawyers in the world. They have time on their side, and so even if you got them under oath seperately; they stories would only be different as it would be expected. Also you would never get a public testimony given the nature of the high level executive office. You can't ask people with classified access a free range of questions in public.

I said it before. The troofers don't want an investigation. They want the American people to hand them the key and say "take over". So that they can "convict" and punish every person in our current system, and then rip the place to shreds trying to figure out what to do next.

You want a new investigation? Find compelling evidence for one, but don't try to use hunchs and crackpot theories as a justification and expect me agree with your "case".

[DC]

So police should be allowed to search everyone, whenever they want, because if the person refuses they must have something to hide?

In other words you are against the Constitution of the United States and Liberty.

no i clearly said when, why do you ignore that?
not whenever they want, but when they have a reason. like an investigation into 9/11.

[CptColumbo]

no i clearly said when, why do you ignore that?
not whenever they want, but when they have a reason.
ETA: bolding mine. And the reason would be that the person doesn't want to be search?

like an investigation into 9/11.
So, the Constitution should only be ignored in important cases?

[Drudgewire]

So, the Constitution should only be ignored in important cases?

And for those who worry about slippery slopes, how bad is it going to be when the "important" bar BEGINS with cases that have no evidence to support them?

[BenBurch]

Seems to me I offered to set up the trust to do just this for the truthers. I told them how much money or real property would be required to do it, and promised a truly independent panel.

And I'm still waiting for the money to be presented so I can get my lawyer working on it.

[dudalb]

What cracks me up is that the Truthers think that Bush and Cheney santionced or ordered the murder of 3000 American Citizens but think they would not lie under oath.
Amazing.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

times of war for the next 100 years when the MIC and other warmongers get their will.....

So rather than fight a difficult, but winnable war, you'd rather have the nations chief executive give the enemy all our intelligence the day after the war starts so that they can win easily?

[Jonnyclueless]

no sorry, i really can only imagen one reason to not wanting to be under oath

Imagine if you wanted to get someone of the opposite party out of office and replace them with someone of your own party, thus changing the balance of power in your favor? All you have to do is get the President to testify under oath. It doesn't matter what the issue is, it could be a simply blow job or something like that. All you have to do is entrap them into some kind of lie no matter how small, and then you can change the balance of political power fore the entire country. Democrats preventing a bill from getting through or something like that? Get the Democratic president to testify under oath. So long as there is something untrue in his testimony no matter how small, you can take him out of office and replaced.

Testifying under oath is used as a political tool to change power, much like what Bush did with firing all those lawyers. He will never volunteer to testify under oath because he has smart advisers who more than understand these cheap tactics as they sue them themselves. But it has absolutely NOTHING to do with some 9/11 conspiracy nonsense.

[Clippy]

What cracks me up is that the Truthers think that Bush and Cheney santionced or ordered the murder of 3000 American Citizens but think they would not lie under oath.
Amazing.

Catching them in a lie under oath would be ok too.

[Drudgewire]

Catching them in a lie under oath would be ok too.


Good thing you guys have so much evidence they'd have to lie about, right?

[HawksFan]

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. "

Notice nowhere in that oath does it say "and tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth". Politicians are under no obligation to tell the truth at any time.

Of course, that isn't entirely true, I guess. Any politician that routinely lies to and deceives his/her constituents and gets caught doing it will have a difficult time getting re-elected.

[CptColumbo]

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. "


Notice nowhere in that oath does it say "and tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth". Politicians are under no obligation to tell the truth at any time.

Of course, that isn't entirely true, I guess. Any politician that routinely lies to and deceives his/her constituents and gets caught doing it will have a difficult time getting re-elected.

faith·ful
–adjective
1. strict or thorough in the performance of duty: a faithful worker.
2. true to one's word, promises, vows, etc.
3. steady in allegiance or affection; loyal; constant: faithful friends.
4. reliable, trusted, or believed.
5. adhering or true to fact, a standard, or an original; accurate: a faithful account; a faithful copy.
6. Obsolete. full of faith; believing.

[qarnos]

Under your demented idea of an investigation, you would have had Churchill give up ENIGMA. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ENIGMA)

More proof that troofers just can't live in the real world.

Hitler should have just called Churchill up and asked him to swear that the Brits weren't reading the ENIGMA traffic - then he would have been forced to spill the beans.

[SpitfireIX]

congress cant get the president under oath??
what a great system.....


Yes, it is a great system. There are two principles involved here; they are separation of powers and executive privilege.

Separation of powers requires that the Congress not be able to put the President on the hot seat whenever a committee chairman is displeased with some action the President has taken; such an ability would clearly represent a serious impairment to the executive's independence from the legislature.

Executive privilege, a concept related to the separation of powers, is based in part on the recognition that the President must be able to receive frank and honest counsel from his advisors in all circumstances. If those advisors fear that they (or the President) may later be compelled to repeat their statements before Congress, they may well hesitate to speak their minds. The US Supreme Court unanimously recognized this in United States v. Nixon.

The expectation of a President to the confidentiality of his conversations and correspondence, like the claim of confidentiality of judicial deliberations, for example, has all the values to which we accord deference for the privacy of all citizens and, added to those values, is the necessity for protection of the public interest in candid, objective, and even blunt or harsh opinions in Presidential decision-making. A President and those who assist him must be free to explore alternatives in the process of shaping policies and making decisions and to do so in a way many would be unwilling to express except privately. These are the considerations justifying a presumptive privilege for Presidential communications. The privilege is fundamental to the operation of Government and inextricably rooted in the separation of powers under the Constitution. . . .

The President's need for complete candor and objectivity from advisors calls for great deference from the courts.


The Court went on to rule that executive privilege could be disallowed only in cases where specific records had been subpoenaed, and that probable cause existed to believe that those records were directly relevant to an ongoing criminal prosecution.

You and your fellow truthers will doubtless be disappointed to learn that executive privilege prohibits the sort of fishing expedition or witch hunt that you so desperately wish would take place; however, such affairs are exactly the sort of thing that executive privilege is intended to prevent.

[HawksFan]

faith·ful
–adjective
1. strict or thorough in the performance of duty: a faithful worker.
2. true to one's word, promises, vows, etc.
3. steady in allegiance or affection; loyal; constant: faithful friends.
4. reliable, trusted, or believed.
5. adhering or true to fact, a standard, or an original; accurate: a faithful account; a faithful copy.
6. Obsolete. full of faith; believing.

Yes, and that is decided at re-election time, isn't it? I've not heard of any politician being removed from office for not "faithfully" executing his duty in office by not keeping promises, vows, being untrustworthy, etc. There's always been some sort of other law broken.

I mean, heck, if we held them all to the letter of the definition of faithfully, there'd be none left. :D

On another note, I still really don't understand the truthers' assumption that testifying under oath would automatically cause them to tell the absolute truth, if they actually did what truthers claim they did. :boggled:

[eeyore1954]

oh some 100 -200 million Dollars are a huge problem for the JREFers....

but a little bit more for an investigation, that is not aceptable.....

It isn't acceptable as long as there hasn't been any evidence that one is needed.
It isn't enough to warrent a new investigation because someone says the building fell to fast.
so why doesn't the truth movement start actually trying to get legitimate evidence that would show a new investigation is necessary.
Of course in my opinion the real reason is there isn't any real evidence.

[eeyore1954]

I'd at least like to see Cheney address the inconsistencies as to his whereabouts on the morning of.

And you don't think this guy would spill any beans?

C9AoaU7LlTk

At the very least it would be high comedy.

So in your version of justice someone should be forced to answer these questions even though there is not any legitimate evidence of wrong-doing. Just because you and a few other people think so. How would you like that version of justice to be used on you.

[qarnos]

So in your version of justice someone should be forced to answer these questions even though there is not any legitimate evidence of wrong-doing. Just because you and a few other people think so. How would you like that version of justice to be used on you.

POLICE STATE!!!OMG!!1!11!!eleventysix!!

[eeyore1954]

why would someone want to prevent to be under oath ?
Do you believe if Cheney and Bush had anything to do with planning 9/11 being under oath would influence their testimony. would a person who planned the murder of thousands of people and who has been able to continue with business as usual after it care if they were at risk of perjuring themselves

[eeyore1954]

Originally Posted by eeyore1954
So in your version of justice someone should be forced to answer these questions even though there is not any legitimate evidence of wrong-doing. Just because you and a few other people think so. How would you like that version of justice to be used on you.

POLICE STATE!!!OMG!!1!11!!eleventysix!!

Would you agree that this is a typical understanding of truther justice. If someone asks you to move to the other side of the street when the presidents family is coming by that is a violation of their rights. But to violate the rights of others by forcing them to be subject to questioning about their involvement in 9/11 without any valid reason is fine.

[Texas]

Catching them in a lie under oath would be ok too.
Yes that's called a perjury trap. Now assuming GWB is under oath and you are questioning him. What would be the one question that you would ask that would spring the trap?

[qarnos]

Yes that's called a perjury trap. Now assuming GWB is under oath and you are questioning him. What would be the one question that you would ask that would spring the trap?

Isn't it obvious by now?

The question would be, "Did you do 9/11".

If he answers, "no", then we know he is lying.

:D

[Texas]

Isn't it obvious by now?

The question would be, "Did you do 9/11".

If he answers, "no", then we know he is lying.

:D

Of course but to actually nail him with a perjury charge they would then be forced to prove it with evidence and everything.

[qarnos]

Of course but to actually nail him with a perjury charge they would then be forced to prove it with evidence and everything.

Evidence has always been the Truther movement's biggest obstacle.

[SpitfireIX]

Isn't it obvious by now?

The question would be, "Did you do 9/11".

If he answers, "no", then we know he is lying.

:D


And if the truthers tie a 200-lb barbell to him and throw him in the Potomac, and he floats to the surface, they'll know he's a witch. :rolleyes:

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Catching them in a lie under oath would be ok too.


Yeah, hey... let's just repeatedly call them before Congress until one of them slips up. It can be something petty, too. Absolutely nothing frivolous about that, and most definitely not a completely asinine waste of time and taxpayer money.

Awesome strategy!

:rolleyes:

[BenBurch]

Remember - scum floats. :P

[Jonnyclueless]

OK so once again. You get them to testify under oath and ask them if they were behind 9/11. They both answer "No". Now what do you do? What's the next step?

[zorro99]

1. The title of this local law is “Act to Create a Temporary Independent Commission to Investigate 9/11”.

2. An independent, temporary New York City commission (the “Commission”) is hereby created to conduct a comprehensive, factdriven
investigation into the events that took place on 9/11, as well as to thoroughly examine related events before and after the
attacks, including any activities attempting to hide, cover up, impede or obstruct any investigation into these 9/11 events, following
wherever the facts may lead. The Commission shall publish one or more reports of their findings.

3. The Commission shall include Dr. William Pepper (international attorney and author), Lorie Van Auken (9/11 widow,
representative of 9/11 victims families), Dr. Edgar Mitchell (Apollo 14 astronaut), Lincoln Chafee (former U.S. Senator), Mike
Gravel (former U.S. Senator), Ed Asner (actor/activist), Ralph Schoenman (political scientist), Thomas Gumbleton (Roman Catholic
Bishop), and others to be appointed by majority vote of the Commission members to bring the Commission up to as many as 15
members, and to fill any vacancies thereafter from nominees proposed by any member of the Commission. The Commission shall
have a duty to maintain the number of Commissioners at no less than nine and to fill vacancies promptly.

4. The Commission shall act by majority vote, adopt its own Rules of Procedure and shall choose its Chairman, Vice Chairman,
Treasurer and Secretary.

5. The Commission shall have the power to place witnesses under oath, issue subpoenas for documents and testimony, take and record
testimony, and to apply to the appropriate federal, state, out-of-state or foreign courts for the issuance of subpoenas, Letters Rogatory,
or Applications for Mutual Assistance, for service upon persons, corporations, agencies or other entities beyond the subpoena power
granted to the Commission.

6. The Commission shall have authority to act up to a maximum period of 5 years from the date of their creation by the voters of New
York City unless delayed by legal or administrative procedure, in which case the investigation shall continue until matters are
resolved.

7. The Commission shall have a budget not to exceed $10,000,000 per year for the conduct of its investigation and related activities.
Financing shall be entirely drawn from private contributions. No public funds shall be requested or accepted. Four prominent citizens
have pledged substantial matching fund contributions. In addition, pledges of specific contributions from wealthy private individuals
are being obtained with payment subject to enactment of the Initiative by the voters of New York City. A substantial five figure seed
money fund has been established as of January 2008, and a world wide internet fund raising campaign has been launched. Celebrity
parties, concerts and other fund raising events and activities are also being planned to take place throughout the months of the Petition
drive. Cumulatively, these sources will provide for the funding of the investigation. The work of the Commission will commence upon
the expected realization of the full funds specified in our anticipated budget.

8. Commission disbursements shall require the signatures of at least two Commissioners serving under the Treasurer on the
Commission’s Finance Committee which shall consist of a total of three Commissioners appointed by the Commission. The
Commission’s finances and accounts shall be audited each year by an independent public accounting firm appointed by the
Commission.

9. The Commission will also endeavor to consider the effects of the 9/11 attacks on the health and well being of police, firefighters,
the enormous numbers of other first responders, local residents and others affected, and examine ways and means of alleviating the
health care crisis which afflicts many of the above through the enforcement of their right to health care services and compensation.

10. As a law-enforcement agency, the Commission shall have the right not to publicly disclose activities of a secret or confidential
nature and shall have the duty of recording the taking of testimony by film or video, and the duty of providing an opportunity for CSPAN
and other television networks, stations and programs to broadcast Commission proceedings on a live or other basis.

11. Each Commissioner shall be paid a base annual salary of $100,000, plus reimbursement of out-of-pocket expenses actually
incurred on behalf of the Commission, lodging, and transportation expenses to and from a Commissioner’s residence outside of New
York City.

12. Commissioners may come from any part of the world and shall not be required to maintain a residence in New York State.

13. The Commissioners are not required to devote 100% or substantially all of their time to the work of the Commission and it is
expected that Commissioners will be able to continue with non-conflicting activities.

14. The Commission by a majority vote shall have the right, to seek indictments in any relevant Court located in the City of New
York, or elsewhere and, at its discretion, to work with existing prosecutorial agencies or to seek the appointment of a special
prosecutor under Section 701 of the New York County Law.

15. The Commission as a temporary investigative office of New York City shall during its lifetime enjoy the same immunities,
privileges and prosecutorial discretion granted under law to elected prosecutors.

16. No New York City employee, past or present, shall have the right to avoid testifying before the Commission based on any prior
agreements not to disclose or testify with any officials or agencies of New York City or other governmental agency; the Commission
has the power to maintain secrecy and confidentiality of testimony or other disclosures where appropriate.

http://www.nyc911initiative.org/PetitionFinal-01.pdf

[CptColumbo]

Why do they need Ed Asner (IIRC he no longer subscribes to the TM theories) and a Roman Catholic Bishop (I notice there is no Rabbi listed)?

[R.Mackey]

Haven't we seen this petition before?

I agree, the list of named chairholders is unimpressive and appears arbitrary. There also is no clearly identified charter here. One could take the mandate in the preamble and do practically anything.

I also add that Clause 10 and 16, in particular, appear to be totally unenforceable, even if the up to $50 Million just happens to materialize. The budget is perhaps the weakest part of the whole petition, but even disregarding this, it appears to be a laughably naive proposal.

[zorro99]

Clause 7 is interesting in that no public funds will be used to finance this thing; it will all be financed through private donations including “celebrity parties” and "concerts" (maybe Toby Keith?). And no work will commence until all these funds have been raised!

Clause 11, $100 grand a year for part-time work (according to Clause 13) – heck, I’ll volunteer!

[Texas]

Haven't we seen this petition before?

I agree, the list of named chairholders is unimpressive and appears arbitrary. There also is no clearly identified charter here. One could take the mandate in the preamble and do practically anything.

I also add that Clause 10 and 16, in particular, appear to be totally unenforceable, even if the up to $50 Million just happens to materialize. The budget is perhaps the weakest part of the whole petition, but even disregarding this, it appears to be a laughably naive proposal.


Heck, even Congress is not a law ENFORCEMENT organisation. This just has to be written by teenagers.

[CptColumbo]

The cost of the lawyers alone will add up to more than $10 mil., because if they think people are going to respond to a subpoena or recognize the authority of a committee with the members they propose without going to court they are very mistaken

[Jonnyclueless]

Looks like quite an inpadendant investigation...

[fullflavormenthol]

The cost of the lawyers alone will add up to more than $10 mil., because if they think people are going to respond to a subpoena or recognize the authority of a committee with the members they propose without going to court they are very mistaken
Not to mention the first thing that stuck out to me, the inevitable Constitutional challenge in the Supreme Court dealing with a city trying to conduct such an investigation.

[Texas]

The cost of the lawyers alone will add up to more than $10 mil., because if they think people are going to respond to a subpoena or recognize the authority of a committee with the members they propose without going to court they are very mistaken The entire concept is laughable. Ed Asner as a "law enforcement officer"? He's got spunk, I really hate spunk.

[CptColumbo]

Not to mention the first thing that stuck out to me, the inevitable Constitutional challenge in the Supreme Court dealing with a city trying to conduct such an investigation.AFAIK a city (even NYC) is not able to set up a law enforcement agency that can have jurisdiction and the power of subpoena over the entire United States. At least not without it being challenged in court.

Even if the person lives in the city, it would be hard to compel them to appear. Unless it is set up as a Grand Jury.

However, I'm not an expert on the law and may be wrong.

[SpitfireIX]

Haven't we seen this petition before?

I agree, the list of named chairholders is unimpressive and appears arbitrary. There also is no clearly identified charter here. One could take the mandate in the preamble and do practically anything.

I also add that Clause 10 and 16, in particular, appear to be totally unenforceable, even if the up to $50 Million just happens to materialize. The budget is perhaps the weakest part of the whole petition, but even disregarding this, it appears to be a laughably naive proposal.


Yes; this has been discussed here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=106611) and here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=109724).