The Conservative Cave
Current Events => Politics => Topic started by: DLR Pyro on November 04, 2011, 08:08:58 PM
-
Most transparent administration in history, my ass... (http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/wh-rejects-subpoena-request-solyndra-docs)
-
How do you reject a subpeona and stand for the rule of law?
-
How do you reject a subpeona and stand for the rule of law?
Has this administration given any indication that they stand for the rule of law? More like they rely on the rule of The Won.
-
Has this administration given any indication that they stand for the rule of law? More like they rely on the rule of The Won.
Ok, next question: Would the HOR go as far as finding 0bama in "Contempt of Congress", for lack of a better term? Or would it be grounds for impeachment? And what would have happened had W rejected a subpeona from Pelosi's HOR?
-
Ok, next question: Would the HOR go as far as finding 0bama in "Contempt of Congress", for lack of a better term? Or would it be grounds for impeachment? And what would have happened had W rejected a subpeona from Pelosi's HOR?
I would almost bet that many replicans would say that Obama has done things that merit impeachment, but not on the record. They also know that it would cause riots across the blue states if they tried to bring articles of impeachment.
-
Ok, next question: Would the HOR go as far as finding 0bama in "Contempt of Congress", for lack of a better term? Or would it be grounds for impeachment? And what would have happened had W rejected a subpeona from Pelosi's HOR?
I was going to say to your first question that a subpoena from Congress isn't really a subpoena from a court of law. He can (and probably will) tell Congress to pound sand.
And I have very, very little confidence in Boehner that he'll hold Barry's feet to the fire.
Let's not forget that Bush himself refused to comply with subpoenas on the firing of federal prosecutors issue back in '09. Nixon also comes to mind, and there were no doubt others.
As far as I can tell, if the WH invokes executive privilege (as Bush certainly did and probably Nixon as well), Congress can pound sand. Nothin' they can do about it except bray and stomp their feet.
-
Whether it yields any documents or not, just like the birth certificate fiasco, it presents the optics that he is hiding something. It's actually a completely inappropriate context to assert executive privilege, as there isn't any policy-making aspect involved in this whole thing, just a question of whether Barry was far out of bounds helping out one of his big bundlers.
-
Whether it yields any documents or not, just like the birth certificate fiasco, it presents the optics that he is hiding something. It's actually a completely inappropriate context to assert executive privilege, as there isn't any policy-making aspect involved in this whole thing, just a question of whether Barry was far out of bounds helping out one of his big bundlers.
I don't disagree that the perception is he's hiding something. Let's just add this to the ever-growing list of shit that Barry's done or not done that may or may not come before the voters next November.
Again, I don't have confidence that the Repubs are going to use this as ammunition, just as they're not going to challenge Barry on the executive privilege thing. Barry'll get a free pass on this one, I'm afraid.