Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Clinton administration subject to 1,052 subpoenas

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
mistertrickster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-25-07 02:45 PM
Original message
Clinton administration subject to 1,052 subpoenas
But the agenda (of Congressional oversight) was different during the Clinton administration. The government reform panel alone, for example, issued 1,052 subpoenas related to investigations of the Clinton administration and the Democratic National Committee from 1997 to 2002, and only 11 subpoenas related to allegations of Republican abuse.

The panel received more than 2 million pages of documents and heard from 44 Clinton administration officials, including two White House chiefs of staff, according to statistics culled by Democratic staff on the Government Reform Committee.

The nonpartisan Government Accountability Office has found that from October 1996 to March 1998 -- well before the impeachment hearings -- the Clinton White House staff had spent more than 55,000 hours responding to more than 300 congressional requests, and had produced hundreds of video and audio tapes, along with hundreds of thousands of pages of documents, to congressional investigators.

(snip)

The Energy and Commerce panel has not conducted aggressive inquiries into powerful industries under its jurisdiction such as oil, gas, and tobacco companies, Dingell and others have said.

Nor has the panel done a comprehensive inquiry into Vice President Dick Cheney's energy task force, which played a critical role in giving tax breaks to a number of oil, gas, and nuclear companies.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/11/20/congress_reduces_its_oversight_role/?page=2

******

Gee, how many of these 1,000 subpeonas did Clinton deny based on "executive priviledge"? I don't remember any . . .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
LiberalFighter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-25-07 02:53 PM
Response to Original message
1. How many did Burton issue?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Toots Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-25-07 02:54 PM
Response to Original message
2. He tried numerous times to claim not only "Executive Privilege" but Attorney Client Privilege as wel
He was overruled each and every time. His own personal council had to testify along with his chief of staff and many many of his close personal aides.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mistertrickster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-25-07 03:49 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. Whoa! Got links handy for this? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Toots Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-25-07 04:16 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. Try this one
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/starr050698.htm

President Is Denied Executive Privilege
A federal judge has ruled that President Clinton cannot use the power of his office to block prosecutors from questioning his senior aides, rejecting Clinton's assertion of executive privilege in the Monica S. Lewinsky investigation, lawyers familiar with the decision said yesterday.
<snip>
Clinton invoked both executive privilege and attorney-client privilege to prevent Starr from asking deputy counsel Bruce R. Lindsey, communications adviser Sidney Blumenthal and other top officials about conversations regarding the Lewinsky case. According to the lawyers, Johnson also dismissed the attorney-client privilege claim on the grounds that Clinton could not use government-paid White House lawyers to aid his defense in a criminal probe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
On the Road Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-25-07 03:58 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. The Claim of Attorney/Client Privilege Was Solid
I can't believe the Republicans tried to destroy that. It was another one of their throwaway, thoughtless push to overturn any precedent that was momentarily incovenient.

I don't remember the other claim of executive privilege. But I do believe Clinton ever repudiated subpoenas. Am I wrong?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Toots Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-25-07 04:17 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. Check this out
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/starr050698.htm

President Is Denied Executive Privilege
A federal judge has ruled that President Clinton cannot use the power of his office to block prosecutors from questioning his senior aides, rejecting Clinton's assertion of executive privilege in the Monica S. Lewinsky investigation, lawyers familiar with the decision said yesterday.
<snip>
Clinton invoked both executive privilege and attorney-client privilege to prevent Starr from asking deputy counsel Bruce R. Lindsey, communications adviser Sidney Blumenthal and other top officials about conversations regarding the Lewinsky case. According to the lawyers, Johnson also dismissed the attorney-client privilege claim on the grounds that Clinton could not use government-paid White House lawyers to aid his defense in a criminal probe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mistertrickster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-25-07 05:08 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. Great. When I get a spare minute, it'd be really interesting to compare
how the Repubs treated Clinton with how Bush is treating Congress now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Uncle Joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-25-07 04:08 PM
Response to Original message
5. I've come to the conclusion that much of the Clinton Witch Hunt
Edited on Wed Jul-25-07 04:09 PM by Uncle Joe
was primarily motivated as a *back door attempt to keep Al Gore from coming to power, because they didn't want the primary champion and staunch protector of the Internet to be President. The corporate media kept the fuel in the furnace through out the nineties on such trivial bull shit reporting slamming the Clintons and then Al Gore's integrity beginning in March of 99. Today the same corporate media which couldn't get enough of White Water, etc. etc. continuously ask the question "Can America elect a woman as President?" With the implication being if we don't vote for Hillary Clinton, we haven't evolved enough, never mind the issues, qualifications or record of achievement.



*See Big Brother television program for details.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mistertrickster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-25-07 05:01 PM
Response to Reply #5
8. Interesting. The Corporate Media sure don't seem to have much
problem with getting behind Hillary, that's for sure.

As far as they're concerned, we need not even bother to vote . . .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Uncle Joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-25-07 05:03 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. The turnaround in attitude is astonishing to say the least. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dkofos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-25-07 05:12 PM
Response to Reply #5
11. I always thought it was just a partisan witch hunt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Uncle Joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-25-07 05:39 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. Regarding many of the Republicans, I agree with you
however the corporate media as a group were acting on script, this included "liberal', "moderate" and "conservative" pundits, papers and programming, and they're still doing it to this day. The largest threat to corporate media's monopoly on information; hence power,influence and money comes from the Internet. One example of corporate media profits is the extraordinary cost of running for political office, particularly President, because of television advertising. The primary champion of the Internet was Al Gore, by keeping scandal albeit much of it manufactured, in the American People's consciousness for so many years, they could frame the 2000 election more along the lines of "honor and integrity", if this sounds familiar, it's because this is precisely what Bush ran on. They set the stage for him, now they're doing it again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Apr 24th 2024, 02:02 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC