Apr 26 2007

Stuff Your Subpoenas

Published by at 9:31 am under All General Discussions

One good thing came out of the Plame Game – the administration is not going to be responding to frivolous investigations and partisan witchhunts. The Bush administration tried to be accommodating, but they got smart and are now saving the country from these BDS madness driven acts from the Dems. Sec of State Condi Rice is the latest to tell the Dems to go stuff their subpoenas back where they pulled them from.

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.

Dems should know they are not being graded for the number of subpoenas but number of Bills passed. In fact, I would say they get a -3 for every subpoena and a +1 for every Bill. By that measure, so far they are a dismal failure. Are the Dems going to do anything of value? Appears the answer is no.

17 responses so far

17 Responses to “Stuff Your Subpoenas”

  1. BarbaraS says:

    Waxman wants her to come in and testify to lies? It is astonishing to me that the dims can take the 16 words and change them so drastically and get away with it. And why the WH took the words back I’ll never know. They were true then and they are true now. He said the British government has found that Saddam sought yellow cake from Africa. Niger was not mentioned. Our intelligence agencies were not mentioned. And certainly Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame were not mentioned. But the dims keep yodeling this idiocy constantly and pay no attention to the facts. To serve Condi with a supoena based on outright lies is ridiculous and they are getting away with it.

  2. scaulen says:

    Repeat a lie enough times…….

  3. Bikerken says:

    There is a real amusing irony here. All of this supoena stuff is going back to the 2003 state of the Union, FOUR years ago. Does anyone remember where MOVEON.org got it’s name from?

  4. crosspatch says:

    Everyone knows what this is designed to do. It is for the purpose of creating a “reality TV show” starring various Democrat politicians seen grilling a member of BushCo. It is theater and Ms. Rice as rightfully decided not to play a role in that particular production. They already have the information they are supposedly after and she isn’t going to give them an opportunity to produce a CSPAN TV special.

  5. Terrye says:

    I think people are going to get tired of this myself.

    The Brits still stand by the intel. I think Tenet took it out because they thought it would shut people up. Big mistake. The problem faced often times is that the proof or evidence for claims is classified and if it is challenged it is difficult to back it up without putting some asset at risk. but they did find hundreds of tons of the stuff in Iraq so apparently Saddam was able to get it when he wanted it.

  6. lurker9876 says:

    Gonzales should be smart to respond to the supplemental testimony with “I still do not remember” or “I still do not recall” statements.

    Goodling would also be smart to respond just like Oliver North did with “I do not recall” statements.

    Then Waxman, Leahy, and Specter will have to go to the court to address these subpoenas.

    Waxman seems to have a problem distinguishing the difference between “sought” and “bought”.

  7. Soothsayer says:

    I think people are going to get tired of this myself.

    You think wrong. The “people” – as in the American people – want the Bush Administration held accountable for the damage they have done to America. The skilled liar Ms. Rice may think declining to appear is a cute appeal to the lunatic right – but subpoenas – from “sub” – under and “poena” penalty – have teeth.

    If she doesn’t want to get dragged into Congress in a orange jumpsuit – she will comply.

  8. Terrye says:


    You do not know what you are talking about, there is such a thing as executive privilege and considering the fact that all these questions have been answered time and again but people like you are too dense to understand it does not mean everyone else wants to put up with this. If Sandy Berger can get away with stealing and shredding classified information I doubt that we will be seeing Condi Rice in a jumpsuit.

    By the way, the latest numbers are interesting. According to some new polls cited at Don Surbers Reid’s approval rating right now is lower than Cheney’s. And Pelosi is at about 30%. Boy that did not take long.

    You know the Brits still stand by this information and so does the Senate, why should the American people see their tax dollars wasted on a witch hunt? Besides that they found hundreds of tons of yellow cake in Iraq.

    It was Clinton’s man Pollack who said Saddam was dangerous and only going to get more dangerous.. It was Clinton in a 1998 indictment against Osama following the embassy bombings in Africa who claimed an association between AlQaida and Saddam. It was Clinton who made Tenet CIA director. It was the Democratic Senate in 2002 who said that Saddam had indeed sought yellow cake in Africa.

    Time and again the Democrats supported this intel without any prompting from Bush or Rove or any other Republican. Now they lack the courage to stand by their own votes or own intel and in the traditions of cowards and charlatans they seek to evade responsibility. And with the help of ill informed and partisan people like you they might be able to fool people who were either stoned or in grade school during the late 90’s.

  9. Soothsayer says:

    Terry – why in the world do you try to argue the law? Find me an executive privilege claim that was upheld absent an identifiable “national security” factor? You won’t – cause you can’t.

    The idea that Ms. Rice has some standing to ignore a subpoena is absurdist bilge – and if she declines to appear – something she has carefully not yet done – one of two things will happen: a court will order her to appear, or the House can send its Sergeant at Arms to Foggy Bottom, seize her, clap her in irons and drag her in front of Waxman’s committee.

  10. lurker9876 says:

    The House has no authority to seize Rice. Regardless, Rice will tell Waxman the exactly same thing she’s been telling him in writing. And if Waxman asks her any question beyond the scope of the topic or addressing classified information, Rice should use the “I do not recall” tactic.

  11. gumshoe says:

    sooth is rabid.

    wants blood.

  12. Terrye says:


    Are you an American? I ask that because your ignorance of the law and the seperation of powers and the rules of government and current events is so astounding that I find myself wondering if I am debating someone from a foreign country.

  13. scaulen says:

    Is your name really Al Gore? You seem extremely bitter about every little thing this adminstration does, but you give a pass to everything the previous administration did. Relax and enjoy your hard earned carbon offests scam while you can.
    And I hate to tell you but Dr. Rice has already answered these questions under oath, her previous testimony is all that is needed. All Waxman is trying to do is to get her to say something other then what was in her testimony so he can scream gotcha. If she says “we” instead of “I” or vice versa he’ll scream conspiracy. They know they nothing wrong has happened (after all why wasn’t Clinton’s administration run through a dog and pony show for firing everyone?), this is all being done to keep the administration busy, it is also being done to discredit Gonzales to keep him from investigating intelligence leaks to the press. If he gets discredited, or quits Bush will have a hard time getting the replacement he wants approved in time to get to the bottom of all the treason that is going on in the security community, plus the House and Senate.

    As for Americans who want show trials you can only speak for yourself, I don’t want them, no one I know wants them. We would like the Democrats to try and lead the country instead of the silly charade of trying to find crimes that were never comitted. I think it all goes back to the Democrats feeling guilty over all the Vietnamese and Cambodian blood that is on their hands. That is a stain that will be on their party for ever, even after they melt back into the wilderness. Learn to lead, or step aside.

  14. Soothsayer says:

    Before debating legal niceties, it would be a good idea for Strataspheristas to acquaint themselve with the controlling case law:

    The House has no authority to seize Rice.

    your ignorance of the law and the seperation [sic] of powers and the rules of government and current events is so astounding

    I beg to differ, fools. See, McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135 (1927). This case involved an investigation into a corrupt Attorney General, Harry M. Daugherty who served from 1921 until 1924. In the course of investigating the \”various charges of misfeasance and nonfeasance\” in the Department of Justice under Daugherty, the committee issued a subpoena to the AG\’s brother . The brother, Mally S. Daugherty, ignored the subpoena. The Senate Committee issued a second subpoena which was also ignored. The Senate ordered the Sergeant at Arms to arrest Daugherty, who was brought before the bar of the Senate. In the ensuing legal battle, the Supreme Court ruled both Houses of Congress have the power to both subpoena and enforce against flouting the subpoena. \”We are of opinion that the power of inquiry — with process to enforce it — is an essential and appropriate auxiliary legislative function.\”

  15. scaulen says:

    Smarmy comes to mind when ever I read one of your posts, but I won’t do the Democrat dirty trick of personally attacking you like you did.

    Did you read only what you pasted? Read the whole case, don’t cherry pick. The first thing going against you is, it wasn’t the AG it was his brother a private citizen and not some one on the Presidential Cabinet.

    Second the case states “The Court also referred to various federal laws that demonstrated that either house of Congress has the power to commence investigations and gather evidence concerning activities within its jurisdiction” key word in that is jurisdiction, look it up.

    Third “neither house has unlimited “general” power to investigate private matters and force testimony.” They can’t go on fishing trips for a gotcha statement.

    Fourth the time in question that they want to force her to testify about she was the NSA, thus a Presidential aide not confirmed by the Senate so executive privilege comes into play.

    Fifth she had already answered the questions under oath before a congressional committee. She had to answer all of these questions to get confirmed by Congress. By the way she was confirmed by a vote of 85-13 in the Senate, and 16-2 on teh Senate Foreign Relations committee. So obviously her answers about pre war intel was fine then. Thus this is nothing but a fishing trip and per your pasting of McGrain v Daugherty has gone into the realm “unlimited general power”.

    Oh and sixth, this is a precedent the Democrats don’t want to set if they win the White House.

  16. Soothsayer says:

    As posted earlier above – a claim of executive privilege unsupported by a specific national security claim will not be supported.

    Second, if she has already testified to these questions, she cannot claim executive privilege, as having already revealed the information to a third party, the privilege no longer applies.

    Third, a cabinet member enjoys no special exemption from the laws that apply to all Americans, and what applied to the AG’s brother in McGrain applies to Secretary Rice.

    Fourth, her answers to pre-war intelligence then were made against a different informational topology than obtains now, and the altered terrain certainly justifies a re-examination of Ms. Rice’s less than candid or truthful responses.

    Fifth, the fact that reappearing may subject her to prosecution for earlier perjury is not a recognized excuse for failing to appear and being in contempt of Congress.

    Sixth, talking about precedents that should not be set, it will be interesting when a Democrat – perhaps even the Evil Queen Hillary herself – takes over the Oval Office in Janurary 09, and under the Military Commissions Act has the power to declare any American citizen an unlawful combatant aider and abettor and therefore stripped of the right of habeas and of standing to appeal to any court system.

  17. scaulen says:

    Buzzzz wrong.

    1.) Not supported by a National Security Claim? How does having the NSA under oath not constitue a possible harm to National Security? Waxman just wants to get her under oath and ask questions until he can find something else to investigate. This won’t be only about pre-war intel this will be about anything they think they can use against the Republicans. It’s a fishing expedition, every one knows it.

    2.) The answers to their questions are already on public record, all she will have to do is say refer to answer such and such on this day. If she decides to show up she will have them printed out and read from them thus showing what a collosal waste of time and money the dog and pony show is. Democrats, so good at spending other peoples money.

    3.) They are questioning her on matters that pertain to when she was a Presidential Advisor and not on matters dealing with her current Cabinet position. Thus executive privilege does apply.

    “Certain powers and privileges flow from the nature of enumerated powers; the protection of the confidentiality of Presidential communications has similar constitutional underpinnings.”

    4.) Simplified, Democrats have the power now and will go on any fishing trip they want and no one will be able to stop them. Basically the government will grind to a halt while every one is in the middle of one dog and pony show trial after another. What have the Democrats done since coming into power? Any bills of substenance passed, any new laws, anything but witch hunts? Such a great platform to run on for re-election.

    5.) Reads from notes verbatim. Colossal waste of time, money, and Democratic credibility once they start asking questions outside the scope of what the subpoena was issued for. Once outside the scope, Executive Privilege for anything security related, 5th amendment for political fishing trip, and classic Democrat I do not recall for the wrest.

    6.) Alien unlawful enemy combatant, alien, alien alien. If the President could use this against US Citizens half the Congress would be in Gitmo right now for the traitorous release of secret and classified information, and for aiding terrorists with political propoganda.

    Sec. 948c. Persons subject to military commissions

    Any alien unlawful enemy combatant is subject to trial by military commission under this chapter.

    Legal and Constitutional scholar Robert A. Levy commented that the Act denies habeas rights only to aliens, and that U.S. citizens detained as “unlawful combatants” would still have habeas rights and could challenge their indefinite detention. While formally opposed to the Act, Human Rights Watch has also concluded that the new law limits the scope of trials by military commissions to non-U.S. citizens including all legal aliens. CBS legal commentator Andrew Cohen has commented on this question and writes that the “suspension of the writ of habeas corpus – the ability of an imprisoned person to challenge their confinement in court—applies only to resident aliens within the United States as well as other foreign nationals captured here and abroad” and that “it does not restrict the rights and freedoms and liberties of U.S. citizens anymore than they already have been restricted.”

    It will be very funny if there is a Democratic President, and Republican Congress in 09 especially after the temper tantrums the Democrats are throwing now. But it will probably go back to all Republican in 09 since the Democrats are so weak on Defense and have been trying to pull a Vietnam all over again. Democrats keep forgetting Americans love winners, not people who try and snatch defeat from victory.