Waxman: "I don't want a confrontation with her [Condi], but a subpoena is not a request"

[sabra]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB117823936063691656.html?mod=home_whats_news_us

<snip>

Mr. Waxman now has sweeping powers and he has placed Ms. Rice, the president's national security adviser at the time of the speech, in his crosshairs. In an interview, Mr. Waxman said he wants to question her about why the administration made the claim even though the CIA had earlier told White House officials it was unfounded.

"If the administration knew it was false at the time of the speech, they misled the country into war," he said.

Last week, his panel voted along party lines to subpoena Ms. Rice. The committee's ranking Republican, Rep. Tom Davis of Virginia, accused Mr. Waxman of "bundling a number of old issues and grievances in an effort to get high-profile administration figures under oath, before the cameras, for the sake of political theatrics."

Ms. Rice has so far refused to appear before the panel. She has argued that her interactions with the president as national-security adviser are off limits to Congress because of the doctrine of executive privilege. She has offered to answer the questions in writing -- which Mr. Waxman dismissed as insufficient. Democratic aides said they will seek a full House vote to find Ms. Rice in contempt of Congress if she fails to testify.

"I don't want a confrontation with her, but a subpoena is not a request," Mr. Waxman said. "It is an insistence."

[marylanddem]

1. Congressman Waxman is so freaking eloquent it's scarey!

I love him.

[waiting for hope]

2. OMG - did anyone see

Tom Davis last night on The Colbert Report? It was priceless! Boehner should be telling his people to stay away, not Emmanuel.

[me b zola]

13. He looked drunk to me

Isn't it strange that as long as they have the talking points they know how to speak, but as soon as they are in a forum that doesn't allow them to read from the gop script they can't put two words together. I had to keep reminding myself how vile this man is to keep myself from feeling sorry for him.

[G_Leo_Criley]

3. k & r

:kick:

glc

[theoldman]

4. Too bad that we do not have more Democrats like Waxman.

He has more backbone and brains than most of the other Democrats. Think about this the next time you vote.

[Phredicles]

5. A confrontation may well be necessary;

with Waxman however I have confidence that he will see it through.

[KansDem]

6. They're stilling clinging to their old ways...

Last week, his panel voted along party lines to subpoena Ms. Rice.

"Republicanism" is dead, but still the neo-con fascists huddle around Il Duce to protect him. Gawd, how I hate Republicans! I envision their brains to be nothing more than a rotting mass of tissue, a kind of benign pustule, unable to function in the human sense, but acting on a kind of artificial instinct created by daily spoon-feedings of propaganda and lies!

The committee's ranking Republican, Rep. Tom Davis of Virginia, accused Mr. Waxman of "bundling a number of old issues and grievances in an effort to get high-profile administration figures under oath, before the cameras, for the sake of political theatrics."

Hey, Tommy! Remember the Clinton impeachment? I'm sure you do...


edited...

[lapfog_1]

8. They aren't protecting Il Dunce...

they are trying desperately to cover their own sorry butts.

When it finally penetrates the general public that not only did they cherry pick, not only did they lie, but they manufactured evidence to support the case for war and we did so by committing crimes (OSP and the forged Niger documents, the DSM, etc, etc). When all that comes out, people will ask why the repuke Congress didn't dig into this for the last 5 years.

[frogcycle]

28. "old issues and grievances"

that the fucking republicans refused to do their jobs over

its a big mess; cleaning it up calls for starting at the beginning

[lovuian]

7. That Rice has the audacity to refuse to come is AMAZING

she is in contempt of this Congress and its going to be a Constitional crisis for this country coming up

because if she refuses to come in on a subpoena then others will follow

[firefox_fan]

9. She should be jailed

[Phredicles]

10. Hey, if it was appropriate for Susan McDougal (or even Judith Miller)...

[speedoo]

11. "they will seek a full House vote to find Ms. Rice in contempt of Congress if she fails to testify"

I love the smell of finding her in contempt.

I just love it. Go, Henry.

[Marnieworld]

12. Man you have to digest media so carefully these days

1) there is no mention of any republicans supporting these efforts. Now that the Dems are pushing this all, many Repubs are voting with them on committees. If not then the underlying message throughout the piece is that Dems care about these issues and all Congressional Repubs are perfectly content not to know why we went to war with such shitty intelligence. There should be a hint of examining this in a "balanced" piece dontcha think?

2)The poll supporting the Dems efforts is referenced by name with a link. The poll that indicates that they could be in jeopardy with the voters if it starts to look like a "partisan fishing expedition." 50% against vs. 44% for it. As if anyone should ignore 44% of the population but even so there is no link or named poll. They could have polled WH insiders or 10 freepers for all we know.

3)"In the Senate, Democrats are wrapping up two reports on the administration's use of prewar intelligence concerning Iraq, with the first to be released within weeks." No mention of the long drawn out obstruction by the Repubs to completing this report and releasing it. No mention of the temporary shut-down showdown over this. No examination of why they would want this held back and their obvious partisan attempts to do so. Once again Repubs choose party over country but it's ignored.

4)"The investigations are part of the party's attempt to capitalize on the growing public opposition to the Iraq war and further weaken President Bush's hand in his current showdown with Congress."

- or the investigations are part of an attempt to investigate a war crime, document it and right a terrible wrong that has happened, save remaining lives in Iraq, and prevent this sort of thing from ever happening again. But that wouldn't be as easy to just wrap it up as some partisan game, some political advantage to manipulate.


The whole piece just makes it all a competition left vs. right instead of actually dealing with the facts and the natural conclusions that one can make from them. WSJ? Why did I bother?

[doublethink]

15. You bothered taking that piece apart because your insight is right on.

Thanks. Peace. :thumbsup:

[sabra]

17. I totally agree - unfortunately the reporter is a friend of mine

[Marnieworld]

20. At this point it's an accomplishment to even have the story told at all

So much is usually ignored so we have to accept what we can get even with the obvious bias. I can imagine that it wouldn't be approved for print without it. Still though, to continue the meme that this is all just some political game, same old same old when people are dying? How this has tainted the country and all of us? That's just some soul bargaining that's hard to comprehend but Iguess everyone has to eat.

Thanks for posting it and all of your posts too I guess. You definitely inform us all here well. :hi:

[jmondine]

25. Not to mention

4)"...the party's attempt to capitalize on the growing public opposition to the Iraq war..."

The last time I checked, "capitalizing on the public's opinion" was also known as "representing your constituents". Not to mention doing the very job they voted you into office to perform in the first place. It's amazing how some of these folks can characterize carrying out the will of the people instead of just rubber stamping Bushco as somehow a bad thing.

[Marnieworld]

26. Precisely

pretty damn amazing. But I have hope that people aren't buying it anymore. November's election told us that. It's still a relief.

Welcome to DU! :hi:

oops on edit I see that you've been hanging around for quite a while. I feel honored to inspire one of your few posts. ;)

[Beetwasher]

31. Demolished

Well done!

[BlooInBloo]

14. An insistence *under penalty*

[maddezmom]

16. I heart Waxman

:D


:kick: and rec'd

[in_cog_ni_to]

18. SO, will this go to court? OR can Waxman hold her In Contempt of Congress?

How does this all play out when she REFUSES to testify?

[BlooInBloo]

21. Hopefully someone will start talking about Inherent Contempt.

I bring it up here on DU, but no one ever responds. Rather, people just ask the same question over & over.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/4/28/184224/780

[in_cog_ni_to]

23. I've never heard of "Inherent Contempt!" It sounds like the PERFECT option !

Have you ever started a thread to bring DUer's attention to this? YOU SHOULD! THEN people may may discuss it. First they need to know something about it. If you've posted about it before, I missed those posts. Also, I'm more apt to read about something if a snippit is copied and pasted here. That way, if I'm still interested, I can follow the posted link and read more. Why don't you START A THREAD about INHERENT CONTEMPT? We have MANY Attorneys here who could add to the discussion.

Brad Miller and Linda Sanchez KNOW ABOUT INHERENT CONTEMPT and are trying to find a way to use it! This is VERY interesting! START A THREAD! This shouldn't be buried on this thread.


Under the inherent contempt power, the individual is brought before the House or Senate by the Sergeant-at-Arms, tried at the bar of the body, and can be imprisoned. The purpose of the imprisonment or other sanction may be either punitive or coercive. Thus, the witness can be imprisoned for a specified period of time as punishment, or for an indefinite period (but not, at least in the case of the House, beyond the adjournment of a session of the Congress) until he agrees to comply. The inherent contempt power has been recognized by the Supreme Court as inextricably related to Congress’s constitutionally-based power to investigate.

The most obvious benefit of inherent contempt is that it's conducted entirely "in-house," that is, entirely on the authority of the legislative branch. The most obvious drawback? Spending time on a trial. Well, that and the scene of having the Sergeant at Arms and the Capitol Police physically barred from entering the White House to arrest those who've defied subpoenas.

But is there another choice? What other power, besides impeachment, does the Congress have in its arsenal to enforce the "subpoena power" we were all told this election was about? There are no other direct options, only oblique approaches to using indirect leverage.<snip>

<snip>
So as Rep. Miller has become increasingly pessimistic about the chances that the "administration" will relent in his case, he's been consulting the same Congressional Oversight Manual, and was dismayed to learn that the enforcement options are indeed quite limited. Inherent contempt, he's discovered, is perhaps the only way Congress will be able to enforce its subpoena power with this "administration," and he's been talking with CRS experts to explore how a modern inherent contempt procedure might be established. Even better, he's been sharing that information with Rep. Linda Sanchez, chair of the Judiciary committee's Commercial and Administrative Law panel that's handling the subpoenas in the U.S. Attorneys matter.<snip>

[BlooInBloo]

24. (shrug) Go for it. May you have better luck than I did. :)

[WinkyDink]

19. I *heart* Henry!

[HamdenRice]

22. I'm beginning to think this is 9/11 related

I mean the absolute dread the bushites have of testifying under oath -- even about the Iraq War.

If the questioning drifts to the false connection between 9/11 and Sadam's regime, it could drift into what intelligence the administration had about 9/11.

This doesn't seem like a separation of powers issue, an executive privelege issue or a refusal to discuss the Iraq war etc. I suspect they are really afraid of something additional.

I mean, what sitting Secretary of State would risk impeachment by refusing to respond to a subpoena?

[burythehatchet]

32. the administrations knowledge of the 9/11

plot and their complicity in allowing it to happen is the destination of all this.

[Major Hogwash]

27. Has Condi been served yet?

Since she's been out of the country so much lately.

[frogcycle]

29. yes, frequently. she and shrub...oops

I thought you said "serviced"

:rofl:

[bobthedrummer]

30. kick

[Hubert Flottz]

33. If she has nothing to hide, then what is she afraid of?

Edit...I call it the Freeper Test.