Condi Rice hints at rejecting subpoena

[wicket]

:grr:

LINK

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.

Rice said she would respond by mail to questions from the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on the Bush administration's prewar claims about Saddam Hussein seeking weapons of mass destruction, but signaled she would not appear in person.

"I am more than happy to answer them again in a letter," she told reporters in Oslo, where she is attending a meeting of NATO foreign ministers. The comments were her first reaction to a subpoena issued on Wednesday by the committee chaired by Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif.

Rice said she respected the oversight function of the legislative branch, but maintained she had already testified in person and under oath about claims that Iraq had sought uranium from Africa during her confirmation hearing for the job of secretary of state. "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."

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.

[Atman]

1. SURPRISE!

I can't believe anyone thought she's ever testified. Subpoena and the rule of law mean nothing to the treasonous bastards in the White House.

.

[halobeam]

3. question

If she could reject subpeona, claiming exec. priv., then why did Waxman do this? Wouldn't he have known that? I don't understand.

[Atman]

4. Because he has to. It's his duty. And, it is so transparent it makes her look bad

Denying the subpoena is almost as tacit an admission of wrongdoing as demanding to testify un-oathed, non-transcripted, with fingers crossed behind back.

.

[wicket]

8. You hit the nail on the head Atman!

:thumbsup:

[H2O Man]

16. There is an on-going

debate about the amount of power the congress has over certain positions in the executive branch. There is a difference, for example, in their ability to call Rice to testify about her role as National Security Adviser, as opposed to her role as Secretary of State.

[Kagemusha]

2. Just goes to show people who let her skate in her hearings were morons.

They acted like, oh, we can get her to testify later if anything comes up, we need to let the President get his team in place without too much of a fight. Now the fact they didn't grill her hard at the time is being used as a stick with which to beat them in public.

[Phredicles]

9. Yeah - I hope your ears are burning, Joe Biden.

[SammyWinstonJack]

5. "The votes have been counted and recounted and recounted again"

"This is an issue that has been answered and answered and answered." These thugs are all the same. Smug, arrogant LIARS!

[ronnie624]

17. That quote,

"The votes have been counted and recounted...", belongs to James Baker, I believe.

How angry I was, as I watched him say these words on television, knowing he was lying.

And the corporate 'journalists' never challenged his statement. :grr:

[ronnie624]

18. That quote,

"The votes have been counted and recounted...", belongs to James Baker, I believe.

How angry I was, as I watched him say these words on television, knowing he was lying.

And the corporate 'journalists' never challenged his statement. :grr:

[Lobster Martini]

6. Condi Rice—“Hey, I’ve just found the Constitution!”

Take a deep breath, this is going to be one really long sentence. (Inhale) So, (inhale) Condi claims that she’s already answered the questions concerning pre-war intelligence concerning Iraq’s WMDs but when she answered them they weren’t covered by executive privilege but they are now so she won’t answer the same questions in person despite a subpoena from Waxman’s congressional committee because she’s upholding a constitutional principle but she will answer the same questions in writing because somehow writing the answers to the questions that are protected by executive privilege won’t violate the same constitutional principle that would be violated if…sorry, need to inhale again. Getting dizzy. (Inhale)

So, Condi, if you’ve already answered the questions, how can the answers be protected by executive privilege? Or is this your quaint way of saying “if I have to testify under oath, I am going to have to come up with such a whopper of a lie that its sheer size will make my head explode”?

[Blackhatjack]

7. She has better things to do --shoe shopping on her list? n/t

[Phredicles]

10. What recourse is there if she blows off the subpoena?

I've heard the phrase "comtempt of congress"; does that have any teeth to it?

[meldroc]

11. Yes, Contempt of Congress, if Congress has the testicles for it.

There are two types. The first is statutory contempt - if Congress votes to do so, they can hold a person in Contempt of Congress, and refer the matter to Washington DC's U.S. Attorney, who then (in theory) brings the case before a grand jury, which indicts. Then comes prosecution, trial & punishment (a month to a year in jail, plus $100 - $1000 fine.)

Of course, we know how trustworthy the DOJ is these days. That leave the other option: inherent contempt. This one's more of a pain in the ass as far as parliamentary procedures goes (requires a long series of hearings,) but if Congress chooses to do so, they they can send the Seargent at Arms of the House or Senate to go out, arrest the person, bring him or her before the House or Senate, and the House can directly vote on a sentence for him or her.

Inherent contempt is a pain, but since the DOJ isn't likely to enforce contempt charges brought up by Congress, they may have to do this.

[wicket]

12. kick

:kick:

[shadowknows69]

13. How about contempt of we the people?

n/t

[wicket]

22. I could live with that!

:D

[sampsonblk]

14. Litmus test: where do the candidates stand on this?

They all weighed in on the momentous issue of Don Imus' vocabulary. They should all be asked to comment on this.

[librechik]

15. But I DID hand in my homework!

oh, all right, I'll do it AGAIN...but I'm going to need some time, since I gave you the only copy, and our system is down and besides my assistant forgot to get and copy paper, so I sent him out to get some, but now he's held up in traffic, and then of s course theres' security, what with the anthrax scare he's bound to get delayed with a package...

stop me when I reach 2009.

[AspenRose]

19. I hope Congress can muster the courage to 'hint' at throwing her ass in jail.

And then follow up on it.

[Bucky]

20. It's not a real subpoena cause it's from a Democratic Congress & Democrats aren't real Americans

I know I've heard that logic before. But it's from a Republican, so it's not real logic.

[wicket]

21. kick

:kick:

[sampsonblk]

23. Where do our candidates stand on this? - kick

nt