Rice "not inclined to comply with subpoena"...

[TypicalFish 0]

Without commenting on the Administration, I have to ask; is it OK to ignore a subpoena? Isn't mandatory compliance kind of the point?

Quote

OSLO, Norway - Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Thursday she has already answered the questions she has been subpoenaed to answer before a congressional committee and suggested she is not inclined to comply with the order.

Full story here...

"I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Without commenting on the Administration, I have to ask; is it OK to ignore a subpoena? Isn't mandatory compliance kind of the point?

Quote

OSLO, Norway - Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Thursday she has already answered the questions she has been subpoenaed to answer before a congressional committee and suggested she is not inclined to comply with the order.

Full story here...

Normally you would be correct. But in the Bushie new world the Constitution serves at at the pleasure of the president, the Geneva Conventions are "quaint", and "Congressional oversight" is the executive power to overlook the Congress. Don't believe me? Just ask the Decider, and his little dog too.

[Channman 2]

Without getting to involved in a Liberal Blog, it boils down to seperations of power. This will get worked out in the courts for sure.

This subpoena will be one of many that will be issued by the Dems to the Admin. that will be challenged.

Now back to my self imposed banning from DZ.Com.

Oh, completly off topic, put congrads to Kallend and all the others for being apart of the Texas State Record 150 way.

[JohnnyD 0]

Quote

Without commenting on the Administration, I have to ask; is it OK to ignore a subpoena? Isn't mandatory compliance kind of the point?

What is a whimpy subpoena to an administration that doesn't feel particularly bound by the Constitution?
I think its just posturing. Even if they are successful in subpoening her, I don't believe they can force her to say anything.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Without commenting on the Administration, I have to ask; is it OK to ignore a subpoena? Isn't mandatory compliance kind of the point?

Quote

OSLO, Norway - Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Thursday she has already answered the questions she has been subpoenaed to answer before a congressional committee and suggested she is not inclined to comply with the order.

Full story here...

Normally you would be correct. But in the Bushie new world the Constitution serves at at the pleasure of the president, the Geneva Conventions are "quaint", and "Congressional oversight" is the executive power to overlook the Congress. Don't believe me? Just ask the Decider, and his little dog too.

What about "no controlling legal authority" - does that one play, too?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Without commenting on the Administration, I have to ask; is it OK to ignore a subpoena? Isn't mandatory compliance kind of the point?

Quote

OSLO, Norway - Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Thursday she has already answered the questions she has been subpoenaed to answer before a congressional committee and suggested she is not inclined to comply with the order.

Full story here...

Normally you would be correct. But in the Bushie new world the Constitution serves at at the pleasure of the president, the Geneva Conventions are "quaint", and "Congressional oversight" is the executive power to overlook the Congress. Don't believe me? Just ask the Decider, and his little dog too.

What about "no controlling legal authority" - does that one play, too?

I think you mean "out of control legal authority", goes by the name of Alberto. I didn't mention him because he's got his own thread

[mnealtx 0]

No, I meant what I said... nice try, though. Care to answer the question?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

No, I meant what I said... nice try, though. Care to answer the question?

So you don't think that the Executive branch has a duty to respond to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee?

[Amazon 7]

Quote

What about "no controlling legal authority" - does that one play, too?

At what point does that make it a dictatorship??

[tbrown 26]

Quote

OSLO, Norway - Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Thursday she has already answered the questions she has been subpoenaed to answer before a congressional committee and suggested she is not inclined to comply with the order.

Not surprising in the least for an administration that believes the law is for other people. A weekend in the hoosegow might do the girl some good.

Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity !

[mnealtx 0]

How quickly they forget....

"No controlling legal authority"

As for Rice...

Quote

Rice noted that she had been serving as
President Bush's national security adviser during the period covered by the panel's questions and stressed the administration's position that presidential aides not confirmed by the Senate cannot be forced to testify before Congress under the doctrine of executive privilege.

Hmm...this seems familiar... oh yes, I remember now - when Richard Clarke was called to testify about the Y2K scare...

From the congressional record:

Quote

Last night, into the evening, we were notified that the legal staff of the National Security Council had determined that it would be inappropriate for Mr. Clarke to appear. I have just spoken to him on the telephone. The rule apparently is that any member of the White House staff who has not been confirmed is not to be allowed to testify before the Congress. They can perform briefings, but they are not to give testimony. And that in response to that rule, Mr. Clarke will not be coming.

So, it's good when a Dem doesn't testify because of the rules, but
BAD when a Rep does it... gotcha.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Zipp0 1]

Christ - it ALWAYS comes back to the Clinton administration. The playbook is getting pretty damn old.

It's funny though that some people can't see any difference between making some phone calls and lying your injured nation into a war.**

**(crazy icons borrowed from the RushMC playbook)

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Christ - it ALWAYS comes back to the Clinton administration.

I think it goes back much further.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

So, it's good when a Dem Rep doesn't testify because of the rules, but
BAD when a Rep Dem does it... gotcha.

What is it with you guys and the binary thought process?

But back to the topic:
Start reading on page 11
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL30240.pdf

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Christ - it ALWAYS comes back to the Clinton administration. The playbook is getting pretty damn old.

It's funny though that some people can't see any difference between making some phone calls and lying your injured nation into a war.**

**(crazy icons borrowed from the RushMC playbook)

So is the "everything bad is the fault of Bush/Republicans, and the Dems are the givers of cuddly puppies and all things good" playbook.

I just like showing that BOTH sides of the aisle do stupid shit...

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

It's funny though that some people can't see any difference between making some phone calls and lying your injured nation into a war.....

Not to re-direct the thread but I don't recall hearing many of those who damned Gore for making those calls condemning Cheney for having a $24 million fund raiser once he settled in to his new VP digs. It is kinda funny though, the Clinton admin was supposed to respond to the nearly 1100 subpoenas (that I'm certain were ALL very important, like pics of Willy's willie) but the Bushies don't think that questioning their war propaganda is suitable scrutiny.

[lummy 4]

Quote

Dems are the givers of cuddly puppies and all things

Where can I get a cuddly puppy?

I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. eat sushi, get smoochieTTK#1

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Not to re-direct the thread but I don't recall hearing many of those who damned Gore for making those calls condemning Cheney for having a $24 million fund raiser once he settled in to his new VP digs.

What are you talking about?

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Quote

Not to re-direct the thread but I don't recall hearing many of those who damned Gore for making those calls condemning Cheney for having a $24 million fund raiser once he settled in to his new VP digs.

What are you talking about?

Cheney had a fund raiser at the Observatory in 2001. Of course, even though it was organized by the RNC, and it raised about $24 million, they didn't call it a "fund raiser". I think it was just a "party".

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Not to re-direct the thread but I don't recall hearing many of those who damned Gore for making those calls condemning Cheney for having a $24 million fund raiser once he settled in to his new VP digs.

What are you talking about?

Cheney had a fund raiser at the Observatory in 2001. Of course, even though it was organized by the RNC, and it raised about $24 million, they didn't call it a "fund raiser". I think it was just a "party".

I know about the reception held there, but I couldn't find any mention of $24 million being raised at that event.

Hmm.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

I know about the reception held there, but I couldn't find any mention of $24 million being raised at that event.

Hmm.

That was it, "reception". I can't find the link to the story, I'm almost positive it was in the Washington Post. The only thing I can find was a NYT article leading up to the soirée, so I don't have the actual post party figure. It may have been only $22 million in the article. I just remember arguing with a Bush apologist about it, damn.....six years ago! Maybe they purged the articles from washtingtonpost.com to make room for the Iraq war. If I stumble across it I'll let you know.

[NCclimber 0]

Thanks for your honest reply.

[Channman 2]

Quote

Quote

I know about the reception held there, but I couldn't find any mention of $24 million being raised at that event.

Hmm.

That was it, "reception". I can't find the link to the story, I'm almost positive it was in the Washington Post. The only thing I can find was a NYT article leading up to the soirée, so I don't have the actual post party figure. It may have been only $22 million in the article. I just remember arguing with a Bush apologist about it, damn.....six years ago! Maybe they purged the articles from washtingtonpost.com to make room for the Iraq war. If I stumble across it I'll let you know.

I'm thinking Lexis Nexis can help you locate the article in question.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Thanks for your honest reply.

Honesty is easier than the alternative
I'm not a complete phreak and I don't keep a file with all that stuff in it. But here's something I dug up from a right wing media watchdog group. They were pissed because the person interviewed was from Common Cause and wasn't identified as being a liberal. Regardless, the basis of the story is the same.

Here's a snippet from Peter Jenning's report on May 22, 2001:

"In Washington, it’s been a big week for fundraising, and you shouldn’t be surprised if the Republicans in this next report remind you of the Democrats they so recently criticized. ABC’s John Martin is on the money trail tonight."

Martin began his piece, as transcribed by MRC analyst Brad Wilmouth: "The presidential gala tonight will draw thousands of party donors to these tables and raise millions for the Republican National Committee. Four hundred of those donors came to a thank you dinner last night here at the Naval Observatory, the official home of Vice President and Mrs. Cheney. In limousines and vans and on foot they arrived, including Edison Electric Institute President Thomas Kuhn and his Wife Wendy."
Martin to Kuhn outside the Naval Observatory on Massachusetts Ave. NW: "This is an event on public property for political donors. What’s your thought about that?"
Kuhn: "I don’t have any comment on that."
Martin: "The Kuhns and the Edison Institute, which lobbies for electric power companies, have given a total of $830,075 to both political parties since 1997. Other guests also declined to talk. A security officer threatened arrest."
Security officer, a little too power hungry: "The next person that walks in that you talk to, you get locked up."
Martin: "What has upset critics is this letter inviting donors to tonight’s presidential gala with promises of briefings from Cabinet and sub-cabinet officials, congressional leaders, and White House staff."
Scott Harshbarger, President of Common Cause: "I think it not only doesn’t look right. It’s also hypocrisy because these are the very people who criticized the Democrats for doing it."
Martin: "In the 2000 campaign, candidates Bush and Cheney criticized the use of the White House for receptions and sleep-overs for Democratic donors. Today the White House defended its actions as proper, saying the Clinton administration sought funds on a far more organized and broader scale."
White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer: "They used the White House for the ability to get more money out of people. This is a way just to say thank you."
Martin concluded: "After tonight’s gala, the President and his party will be saying thank you to some of the most powerful people in the country for about $22 million in donations."


edited to add: It's a nice stroll down memory lane but let's not forget what this thread is about

[NCclimber 0]

I couldn't find any mention of $24 million being raised at that event.

From CNN:
***The New York Times reported that some Democratic fund-raisers say they explicitly sold invitations to White House coffees, arranging invitations for $50,000 to $100,000.