Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Will Condi Ignore the Subpoena?
Topic Started: Apr 26 2007, 05:32 AM (274 Views)
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
From the WaPost:

Quote:
 
"A subpoena is not a request; it's a demand for information," said Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.), chairman of the House oversight committee that issued the bulk of yesterday's subpoenas. "They ought to understand it's no longer a request, it's no longer an option."

The White House signaled that it will continue to resist efforts to secure testimony from Rice, Rove and other aides. Spokesman Tony Fratto said that, in Taylor's case, the committee should reconsider an earlier offer from the White House, which would allow aides to be interviewed without a transcript and not under oath.

The demand for Rice's testimony would put a spotlight on her role as national security adviser in promoting discredited administration claims that Saddam Hussein was pursuing a nuclear weapons program.

"There was one person in the White House who had primary responsibility to get the intelligence about Iraq right -- and that was Secretary Rice, who was then President Bush's national security adviser," Waxman said. "The American public was misled about the threat posed by Iraq, and this committee is going to do its part to find out why."

Rice, in Oslo for a meeting with NATO foreign ministers, said on Thursday she was not inclined to appear before the committee, saying her advice to the president as National Security Adviser was privileged, the Associated Press reported. She said that she had answered many of the same questions in her confirmation hearings for secretary of state, and said she would respond to this round of inquiry in writing -- but not in person.

"I addressed these questions, almost the same questions, during my confirmation hearing," she said. "This is an issue that has been answered and answered and answered...I am more than happy to answer them again in a letter."

"This all took place in my role as national security adviser," she said. "There is a constitutional principle. There is a separation of powers and advisers to the president under that constitutional principle are not generally required to go and testify in Congress."

A Democratic committee aide had earlier rejected that assertion, providing a lengthy list of White House aides, including chiefs of staffs, senior advisers and counsels, who provided testimony to the GOP-run oversight committee during the Clinton administration. He said that if Rice defied the subpoena, the committee and then the full House could vote to find her in contempt before she could litigate a claim of executive privilege. The political costs of such a fight would be too great for Rice or the White House, he said.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
George K
Member Avatar
Finally
Quote:
 
She said that she had answered many of the same questions in her confirmation hearings for secretary of state, and said she would respond to this round of inquiry in writing -- but not in person.

"I addressed these questions, almost the same questions, during my confirmation hearing," she said. "This is an issue that has been answered and answered and answered...I am more than happy to answer them again in a letter."


Does Waxman have some indication that there is new information to be had, or is he (gasp!) grandstanding? The Congress had opportunity to ask those questions before, and in fact, a Congressional Commission did that as well. Unless Waxman has something new, he is simply blowing smoke.



"Mommy can I have some candy?

"No"

Mommy can I have some candy?

"No'

Repeat as necessary...
A guide to GKSR: Click

"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... "
- Mik, 6/14/08


Nothing is as effective as homeopathy.

I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles.
- Klaus, 4/29/18
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
She should.
Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
If she does ignore it, it will be interesting to see two things: whether the Dems cite her for contempt, and how the Republicans manage to totally ignore the precedent the next time a Republican Congress tries to get testimony from a Democratic White House staff.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
I would say the same thing for any Democrat administration. White House Staff is protected by Executive Privelege. Unless Waxman has any indication that high crimes or misdemeanors are afoot he is off base.
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne


There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".


Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.

Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.

From The Lion in Winter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
George K
Member Avatar
Finally
That's an interesting point, JB. Where does the role of Congress in investigating "High Crimes.." intersect with its role in "Oversight?"
A guide to GKSR: Click

"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... "
- Mik, 6/14/08


Nothing is as effective as homeopathy.

I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles.
- Klaus, 4/29/18
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Just makes you feel really safe to know that our government "leaders" are spending all this energy playing political games instead of working to protect us, doesn't it?

Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
JBryan
Apr 26 2007, 09:09 AM
I would say the same thing for any Democrat administration. White House Staff is protected by Executive Privelege. Unless Waxman has any indication that high crimes or misdemeanors are afoot he is off base.

Personally, I hope they cite her for contempt. Let SCOTUS sort it out. Whichever way it comes out, at least there would be a uniform, applicable-to-everyone set of rules that everyone can know, in advance. Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
George K
Member Avatar
Finally
Quirt, you're right. There should be a set of standards that everyone obeys, and this may be the zit that pops to establish it. It'll be good sport, at least.

OTOH, I find it interesting that Waxman's committee wants to subpoena Rice (who as National Security Advisor certainly knows about the intel in 2001-2003), yet ignores other players who were not White House Staff, such as Tenet and Powell.
A guide to GKSR: Click

"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... "
- Mik, 6/14/08


Nothing is as effective as homeopathy.

I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles.
- Klaus, 4/29/18
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
QuirtEvans
Apr 26 2007, 08:38 AM
JBryan
Apr 26 2007, 09:09 AM
I would say the same thing for any Democrat administration. White House Staff is protected by Executive Privelege. Unless Waxman has any indication that high crimes or misdemeanors are afoot he is off base.

Personally, I hope they cite her for contempt. Let SCOTUS sort it out. Whichever way it comes out, at least there would be a uniform, applicable-to-everyone set of rules that everyone can know, in advance. Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander.

SCOTUS is not known for its eagerness to get into separation of powers disputes between the Executive and Congress.
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne


There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".


Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.

Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.

From The Lion in Winter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
JBryan
Apr 26 2007, 10:01 AM
QuirtEvans
Apr 26 2007, 08:38 AM
JBryan
Apr 26 2007, 09:09 AM
I would say the same thing for any Democrat administration. White House Staff is protected by Executive Privelege. Unless Waxman has any indication that high crimes or misdemeanors are afoot he is off base.

Personally, I hope they cite her for contempt. Let SCOTUS sort it out. Whichever way it comes out, at least there would be a uniform, applicable-to-everyone set of rules that everyone can know, in advance. Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander.

SCOTUS is not known for its eagerness to get into separation of powers disputes between the Executive and Congress.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Nixon
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
George K
Member Avatar
Finally
One could make the point that that investigation was of, as JBryan points out, "High Crimes and Misdemeanors." If the Democrats are so sure that crimes have been committed, why have they waited 4 months to bring indictments?

Edit to add, from that article:

no person, not even the President of the United States, is completely above law; and the president cannot use executive privilege as an excuse to withhold evidence that is 'demonstrably relevant in a criminal trial.'
A guide to GKSR: Click

"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... "
- Mik, 6/14/08


Nothing is as effective as homeopathy.

I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles.
- Klaus, 4/29/18
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
George K
Apr 26 2007, 10:11 AM
One could make the point that that investigation was of, as JBryan points out, "High Crimes and Misdemeanors." If the Democrats are so sure that crimes have been committed, why have they waited 4 months to bring indictments?

Edit to add, from that article:

no person, not even the President of the United States, is completely above law; and the president cannot use executive privilege as an excuse to withhold evidence that is 'demonstrably relevant in a criminal trial.'

You're missing my point. I don't care which way it's resolved, as long as it's resolved and the rules are clear.

I cited US v. Nixon just to show that SCOTUS will stick its nose into those issues, every now and then.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
George K
Member Avatar
Finally
I agree that it should be resolved, once and for all, and my zit analogy was exactly that. However, the ruling in Nixon was on investigation of a criminal matter. "No person, not even the President of the United States, is completely above law," the court said, and therefore allowed Congress to subpoena documents relating to the coverup of the Watergate break-in.

I haven't heard anyone say that Congress' subpoena of Rice is in relation to a criminal matter.

SCOTUS stuck its nose into a criminal matter.
A guide to GKSR: Click

"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... "
- Mik, 6/14/08


Nothing is as effective as homeopathy.

I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles.
- Klaus, 4/29/18
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
Again, absent any evidence of a crime SCOTUS has always been loathe to enter into purely separation of powers disputes. They may not even want to touch this one.
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne


There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".


Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.

Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.

From The Lion in Winter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
JBryan
Apr 26 2007, 09:34 AM
Again, absent any evidence of a crime SCOTUS has always been loathe to enter into purely separation of powers disputes. They may not even want to touch this one.

And they shouldn't.

Unless there is credible evidence that something illegal may have occurred, the nation's business should not be interrupted for fishing expeditions, no matter what party may hold the Executive Branch.
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Jolly
Apr 26 2007, 11:06 AM
JBryan
Apr 26 2007, 09:34 AM
Again, absent any evidence of a crime SCOTUS has always been loathe to enter into purely separation of powers disputes. They may not even want to touch this one.

And they shouldn't.

Unless there is credible evidence that something illegal may have occurred, the nation's business should not be interrupted for fishing expeditions, no matter what party may hold the Executive Branch.

If Condi is cited for contempt, then it's a court case.

Or do you think the DoJ would just ignore that, too?

God, I hope they do. If anything will turn the middle of the country against the Republicans, it would be a complete arrogant refusal to adhere to the rule of law.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Quote:
 
God, I hope they do. If anything will turn the middle of the country against the Republicans, it would be a complete arrogant refusal to adhere to the rule of law.


Unless the middle of the country is smarter than you think, in which case it will turn them against the democrats for playing politics instead of working to protect the country.

Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
OperaTenor
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Larry
Apr 26 2007, 06:18 AM
Just makes you feel really safe to know that our government "leaders" are spending all this energy playing political games instead of working to protect us, doesn't it?

Just like when they were chasing Clinton around for consensual sexual conduct between two consenting adults?

[Jodi mode] SNORT! [/Jodi mode]

:D



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
George K
Member Avatar
Finally
OperaTenor
Apr 26 2007, 11:34 AM
Just like when they were chasing Clinton around for consensual sexual conduct between two consenting adults?

Personally, I don't care if the President screws Laura, the dog, or Kenny. It matters not to me, and should not to anyone else.

However, when he testifies under oath about it, and lies, that's a different story. Of course, the response is "well, it's about sex." If we don't respect the law about trivial things, why bother respecting it at all?
A guide to GKSR: Click

"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... "
- Mik, 6/14/08


Nothing is as effective as homeopathy.

I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles.
- Klaus, 4/29/18
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
George K
Apr 26 2007, 11:40 AM
OperaTenor
Apr 26 2007, 11:34 AM
Just like when they were chasing Clinton around for consensual sexual conduct between two consenting adults?

Personally, I don't care if the President screws Laura, the dog, or Kenny. It matters not to me, and should not to anyone else.

However, when he testifies under oath about it, and lies, that's a different story. Of course, the response is "well, it's about sex." If we don't respect the law about trivial things, why bother respecting it at all?

A fair point, which ignores the question of why he was being asked the question under oath in the first place.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
QuirtEvans
Apr 26 2007, 10:24 AM
Jolly
Apr 26 2007, 11:06 AM
JBryan
Apr 26 2007, 09:34 AM
Again, absent any evidence of a crime SCOTUS has always been loathe to enter into purely separation of powers disputes. They may not even want to touch this one.

And they shouldn't.

Unless there is credible evidence that something illegal may have occurred, the nation's business should not be interrupted for fishing expeditions, no matter what party may hold the Executive Branch.

If Condi is cited for contempt, then it's a court case.

Or do you think the DoJ would just ignore that, too?

God, I hope they do. If anything will turn the middle of the country against the Republicans, it would be a complete arrogant refusal to adhere to the rule of law.

If they cite her for Contempt of Congress, then it's off to SCOTUS we go.

You reckon Waxman is that stupid?
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
QuirtEvans
Apr 26 2007, 11:36 AM
George K
Apr 26 2007, 11:40 AM
OperaTenor
Apr 26 2007, 11:34 AM
Just like when they were chasing Clinton around for consensual sexual conduct between two consenting adults?

Personally, I don't care if the President screws Laura, the dog, or Kenny. It matters not to me, and should not to anyone else.

However, when he testifies under oath about it, and lies, that's a different story. Of course, the response is "well, it's about sex." If we don't respect the law about trivial things, why bother respecting it at all?

A fair point, which ignores the question of why he was being asked the question under oath in the first place.

Who cares?
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne


There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".


Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.

Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.

From The Lion in Winter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nobody's Sock
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
JBryan
Apr 26 2007, 09:55 AM
QuirtEvans
Apr 26 2007, 11:36 AM
George K
Apr 26 2007, 11:40 AM
OperaTenor
Apr 26 2007, 11:34 AM
Just like when they were chasing Clinton around for consensual sexual conduct between two consenting adults?

Personally, I don't care if the President screws Laura, the dog, or Kenny. It matters not to me, and should not to anyone else.

However, when he testifies under oath about it, and lies, that's a different story. Of course, the response is "well, it's about sex." If we don't respect the law about trivial things, why bother respecting it at all?

A fair point, which ignores the question of why he was being asked the question under oath in the first place.

Who cares?

The side that can score points or take away the other guy's.

It's sad where our 2 parties have taken themselves.

When the first priority for the party is to take/keep the reigns, crap like this sidetracks the real issues.
"Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
DealsFor.me - The best sales, coupons, and discounts for you
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply