Welcome to PatsFans.com

Conyers Announces He Will Issue Subpoenas Tomorrow

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by Holy Diver, Mar 20, 2007.

  1. Holy Diver

    Holy Diver Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,834
    Likes Received:
    15
    Ratings:
    +23 / 0 / -0

    #80 Jersey

    The Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law (CAL) will meet TOMORROW, March 21st at 10:15 am in 2141 Rayburn House Office Building to consider subpoenas for Kyle Sampson, Karl Rove, Harriet Miers, William Kelley, and Scott Jennings, as well as White House and Justice Department documents, which have not been provided to date.
  2. PressCoverage

    PressCoverage Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2005
    Messages:
    8,609
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    oh, it's on now, MFers...
  3. Holy Diver

    Holy Diver Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,834
    Likes Received:
    15
    Ratings:
    +23 / 0 / -0

    #80 Jersey

    After telling a bunch of different stories about why they fired the U.S. Attorneys, the Bush Administration is not entitled to the benefit of the doubt. Congress and the American people deserve a straight answer. If Karl Rove plans to tell the truth, he has nothing to fear from being under oath like any other witness.


    This is correct. The only reason to refuse to be under oath or even have a transcript is because you plan to lie and you want to do it with impunity.

    Any executive privilege claims can only theoretically potentially limit the scope of questioning, not prevent them from testifying at all. Working for the president doesn't give you magic immunity from everything.

    http://atrios.blogspot.com/2007_03_18_atrios_archive.html#117442580775953413
    Last edited: Mar 20, 2007
  4. Pujo

    Pujo Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    It's an interesting constitutional showdown. If they subpoena administration officials, and Bush claims executive priveledge, they could hold the administration in contempt of congress. But to jail anyone for contempt of congress, a federal prosecutor has to seek an indictment in front of a grand jury, and the prosecutors, being part of the executive branch, could refuse (or Bush could fire a prosecutor that went ahead with it)

    It's be very interesting to see this play out, but I think Bush f-cked himself by refusing to let Rove testify under oath... sure makes it seem like they have something to hide.
  5. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    39,900
    Likes Received:
    176
    Ratings:
    +567 / 2 / -9

    Conyers is a Racist Creep.
  6. Pujo

    Pujo Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    Maybe so, but he's going after Bush. Once he finishes that, somebody can go after him.
  7. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,013
    Likes Received:
    195
    Ratings:
    +452 / 6 / -2

    I said this before, and I'll say it again, what administration, under these circumstances and conditions, would permit their aides to testify under oath, in public, to the opposing party's politiicans? NONE. No laws were broken here remember.
  8. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,013
    Likes Received:
    195
    Ratings:
    +452 / 6 / -2


    You do understand that they could have fired them for picking their nose right? Be objective here.
  9. Pujo

    Pujo Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    It's not a criminal inquiry, Congress isn't limited to considering whether a crime was comitted or not (which they actually can't do, unless it's just for the purpose of filing Articles of Impeachment). Congress has subpoena power related to anything that could conceivably be related to their legislative powers, which effectively gives them subpoena powers for almost anything. It's politics, but it's very effective politics. The administration is going to look very bad if they're held in contempt of congress, and even Republicans in congress are going to go for blood.
  10. Pujo

    Pujo Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    Legally, yeah, but with serious political consequences. That's what we want and that's what Bush will get: political consequences.

    Bye bye Alberto!
  11. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,013
    Likes Received:
    195
    Ratings:
    +452 / 6 / -2

    They will only look bad to a point. Have you seen the movie Mad City? When you push the envelope too far, you run the risk of reversing public sentiment against you. What looks good "politically" today, could be egg tomorrow. When people start discussing how this was done in past administrations, and how this was legal, the Dems could have this reverse on them. I'm just as curious as the next guy, but I think the politicization of crap in this country is upsetting. Look at the war supplemental and tell me it doesn't have politics written all over it? None of this is about the people or the country anymore, it's about 1-up'ing the other party politically.
  12. PatsWSB47

    PatsWSB47 Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2007
    Messages:
    7,859
    Likes Received:
    86
    Ratings:
    +155 / 0 / -1

    #12 Jersey

    Good point. This very thing was discussed on the Today show this morning(on pushing the envelope too far, that is).
  13. Pujo

    Pujo Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    Not far enough until Gonzo resigns.
  14. Holy Diver

    Holy Diver Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,834
    Likes Received:
    15
    Ratings:
    +23 / 0 / -0

    #80 Jersey

    Have you seen the movie "Top Gun"? When you fly below the hard deck and kill Jester, its against the rules. Maverick is unsafe!

    are we really comparing movies to life?
  15. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,013
    Likes Received:
    195
    Ratings:
    +452 / 6 / -2

    Did you see Mad City? My point would be self explanitory if you had.

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>