Lieberman to Have Subpoena Power to Investigate President Obama?

[Phred42]

Ahhh, is this a trick question?
Another question is: After what Liebermann has done in the past six months alone - does Obama really think he can trust him? Really?

Do You Want Lieberman to Have Subpoena Power to Investigate President Obama?
http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/http://bravenewfilms.org/106526/

Joe Lieberman has launched consistent, deeply partisan attacks on President-elect Barack Obama, questioning his patriotism and fitness to lead. While Lieberman campaigned for John McCain and spoke on his behalf at the Republican National Convention, he spread some of the GOP's nastiest smears. Think Progress has provided thorough evidence of Lieberman's partisan politics. Lieberman should not be allowed to have subpoena power to investigate the Obama administration as chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. In fact, he should not be allowed to remain chairman of this or any other committee.

Lieberman has proven he cannot be trusted to hold a high rank within the Democratic caucus. That is why we launched Lieberman Must Go last summer, a campaign that caught Congress' attention when we delivered a petition with over 43,000 signatures. Now, we ask you to help us escalate the pressure by contacting members of the Senate Democratic Steering Committee. Tell them to strip Lieberman of his chairmanship in the Democratic caucus.

We have included a sample script and phone numbers below for you to use, and we ask that you be polite when you explain why Lieberman Must Go. {more...}

[shadowknows69]

1. I originally had a long response to this but i chucked it in lieu of something simpler

WHAT THE FUCK?????? Why can't we be free of this pox?

[cali]

2. it takes a majority vote to issue a subpoena in committee

with one or two exception in house committees. Repubs are losing at least one member of the Homeland Security committee. There won't ever be a majority there to issue subpoenas investigating President Obama- even if Joe wished to do so.

Ignorant and hysterical is a sucky form of argument

[Name removed]

4. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MindMatter]

10. That's not the point. Why give him a soap box.

Leave him in the caucus if you must, no committee assignment more consequential than Joint Committee on the Library.

If he doesn't like that, fuck him.

[cali]

12. Who said I disagreed with stripping him of his chairmanship?

I absolutely think he should be and I've contacted my Senators to say so. It's a secret vote, so unless they say, i'll never know, but with pat and bernie as my senators, i'm hopeful.

[Dhalgren]

11. Hey, Kettle, the Pot's on the phone for you...

:rofl:

[cali]

16. care to dispute the claims in my post, or to explain how said post

is hysterical?

[Dhalgren]

19. I just think you were being an ass for no good reason.

And 'hysteria' can take many forms and be manifested in many ways...

[cali]

20. oh, now that's a cogent argument. not.

[Dhalgren]

25. Ooooo, good one!

:rofl:

[onenote]

13. exactly right, Cali

Not that it will matter to some.

[cali]

14. clearly, pointing out facts that don't fit the narrative of certain morans

will get a vituperative response. nothing new about that.

[Occulus]

23. Technically correct, perhaps. Cali is, however, forgetting that

even having a voice to raise the question of an investigation could be damaging, possibly severely damaging.

Raising the questions inherent in a call for 'an investigation' could and would whip the "morans" s/he is referring to- you know, the real ones, not those who honestly disagree with Cali- into a spitting frenzy. I think Cali knows this very well. If not, s/he hasn't been paying attention to the last, oh, sixteen years of rightwing "political discourse".

Swift boat vets for truth, anyone? Remember them? Or perhaps kerning and a certain IBM typewriter model? And those are only two of a myriad of examples.

Again, Cali is technically correct, but only in a one-dimensional sense of the term.

Lieberman should not be allowed to have anything at all to do with the Democratic Party because it is assumed he will do the members of the party political damage. After all, he just got done trying to do the worst possible damage, and he will not stop.

Lieberman is another Zell Miller, with more power. He needs to be politically curbstomped- like the corpses in "Dead Space".

[still_one]

3. If liberman keeps his current chair, the DNC isn't going to get anymore of my money

I don't care if he want to caucus with the Dems, but in my view for him to retain his current chairmanship shows a major failure of the Democrats

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

5. Just For Curiosity: If He Takes Such An Approach, We Can Kick Him Out Within Minutes Can't We?

I hope at the least he's kicked out of that position for obvious reasons. But if the leadership fails us and he remains, and is given a chance with a "don't fail us joe" type message, then if he started doing such anti-obama things we could throw him out on his ass right then and there anyway though, no?

[Phred42]

7. that would have overtones of Nixons "Saturday Night Massacre

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

8. No, It Really Wouldn't.

You're using fear tactics in this thread as is the author of the article. There is practically zero risk of such a thing coming to fruition or having any real merit.

Fear tactics are dumb.

[Bolo Boffin]

21. Not if they are under the same agreement as this last Congress.

Because the Democrats were able to flip the Senate in 2001, they made sure that couldn't happen to them in the last Congress, and I'm sure that's going to happen here. Once the assignments are made and the counts on the committees determined, everyone gets locked in for the entire two years, no matter what happens during those two years.

Lieberman could conceivably flip to Republican after the lock and really throw down on his committee. They would still be outnumbered then, probably, but all they need is one Blue Dog Democrat to agree, and they've got a subpoena.

[riverdeep]

6. Someone asked the other day, 'what does it take to get kicked out of the Democrat's

good graces?' This guy took a knife and twisted it your back for six months. Disagreeing with certain issues is one thing, campaigning for the other guy is another, and it's a line from which you can never come back. Send him to the Republicans, he won't have a career if he does. Holy Joe is in no position to bargain, kick him in the teeth! Repeatedly.

[KharmaTrain]

9. I Still Haven't Heard That He's Keeping His Toy...

Listen closely...all you hear is that Traitor Joe should remain in the caucus, not that he should remain as chairman of Homeland Security (damn I hate that name). I see this as handing Joementum some rope and letting him hang for a while. And Joe's actions are showing he's dangling...playing his usual attention whore is a vain effort to bully his way around.

The two people who will have the biggest say on this are Schummer and Reid...as well as 29 or so Senators (a majority of the Democrats)...as to his ultimate fate. Thus, our calls and pressure on Democratic Senators is important...let them know how you don't trust this slimeball in any critical position in helping fix this country. His tenure on Homeland Security is a total joke...especially compared to its House counterpart headed by Henry Waxman...and he's proven he's not to be trusted. Our votes and checks didn't mean just a Democratic President, but a legislature that represents us as well.

Cheers...

[investintrains]

15. Lieberman is guilty of treason and should be removed from the Senate

Lieberman is guilty of treason and should be removed from the Senate
for his role in the illegal stupid violent immoral expensive
wars in Iraq Afghanistan.. his muzzling of the truth about 911

No dual citizen should head a commiitee, much less Homeland Security

[onenote]

17. So exactly why does Obama want him to stay in the Democratic caucus

Is Obama secretly a "treason sympathizer" in your mind?

[cali]

18. lol. removing Lieberman under those auspices would require the removal

dozens of Senators. You're living in a dim fantasy land if you think that Lieberman is legally guilty of treason or can be removed from the Senate for his actions.

[liberalhistorian]

22. Unfortunately, a lot of

people here are living in that very same fantasyland. And the hysteria-fearmongers play and prey off of that.

Note to hysteria fearmongers: That does NOT mean that I want LieberBush in the Caucus, and I definitely do NOT want him on the HS committee, or any committee for that matter, in any capacity whatsoever. It just means that you need to use logic, facts and reason instead of hysteria, ignorance and fear. The freepers don't have a lock on the use of that, you know.

[Occulus]

24. Wanting him gone from any and all political power or influence is not fear and hysteria,

but rather, a prudent and completely understandable reaction to Joe Lieberman's political actions, up to and including this most recent Presidential election.

Wow. Did someone retcon half this board or something?