« Courtney Elwood Shreds the Constitution | Main | The coming Justice Department disaster »

April 09, 2007

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b97969e200d834f4e70a53ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference I Smell a Subpoena Coming On:

Comments

"...I suspect (as I've been predicting) Condi has no intention of complying with Waxman's requests. Henry, ready your subpoena pen."

Having the Secretary of State plead the 5th Amendment probably wouldn't smell any better than Abu Gonzale's doin' it.

The Condi will just have to show up in her high heel boots and explain while she was as inept National Security Advisor as she is Sec. of State. She ought to be teaching at a great school like Regents University.

Haven't you heard of executive privilige?

Jodi: Haven't you heard that executive privilege hasn't played since Nixon?

Of course not, because you're a clown.

Back to your corner, and think up a new plea.

Certainly the moment of accountability for Condi will make heckofajob Brownie seem like saint. Talk about a box, how can she do anything BUT take the 5th?

She can come to the committee and refuse to answer based on the Addington/Cheney theory of executive supremacy, which is what I can only assume Jodi was grasping at.

She can try executive privilege first, though. And she might, if the aim is to bog the proceedings down in litigation that she'll eventually lose, just to buy time. Then she can come back and plead straight separation of powers refusal to comply with legislative branch demands on the executive, which is what all of this intransigence is ultimately based on. That litigation will be bounced as an injusticiable political question, but that's about when the clock runs out and we all formally begin pretending we don't care any more because we have a new president, and what happened in the past can't hurt us anymore.

No could have imagined that Condi would take the 5th...

EW: are you going to appear? if not, why the hell not? WADR to the committee staffers, nobody there can do that thing that you do....
seriously. Have you sent them your book? are you in contact with them? it's yer duty.....
I'm willing to beg or bribe, cajole, or whatever it takes... what are your demands?

Tokyo Jodi, Condi has to assert Executive Privelege as a response to Waxman. She's too lazy to do that and it's not mentioned in Bergner's letter, which I guess you were too lazy to read.

You stated on a prior thread that you had read ANATOMY OF DECEIT. It certainly doesn't sound like it from your comment above. If Condi did assert EP, I think Waxman would ask about Scooter's GJ testiomy regarding precisely this kind of classified material. According to Scooter's GJ testimony, (the stuff that Fitz did not charge him with, because Fitz thought it was complete, accurate, and true) Cheney told Scooter that Bush authorized the selective leak of classified intelligence to one journalist, Judy Miller. Condi and Bush do not want to Waxman to ask why if Bush now thinks this is covered by EP, he ordered its very selective release to Judy Miller to write about in the NYTimes?

99.9% of your TNH comments are extremely vague sniping opinions. When was the last post by emptywheel that did not include at least one link? I don't recall any, ever. Your comments, however, always come completely unsupported by anything except your own misplaced faith in your really uninformed opinions. Instead of making "knee-jerk," comments, why don't you, Tokyo Jodi, try to find a link to someone who agrees with your position? Then, insert that link with your opinion.

I've heard of executive privilege, Jodiā€“it's invoked when there's something to hide. The founding fathers had never heard of it, so they didn't include it in the Constitution. They hadn't heard of the unitary executive, either.

Hey Lady Haw Haw (jodi), you must have a very large brain to hold so much ignorance.

Tokyo Jodi, Fair is fair. Not one of the responses by people responding for Condi Rice mentions executive privilege. I'm beggining to get the idea that your mind is already made up on these matters. Only lady justice should wear a blind fold.

EW, I subscribed to the RSS feed for the House Oversight Comittee, on their web page. The postings there and your analysis here have been an excellent source for keeping current on these issues. Thanks again.

yo, tokyo jodi;

sure, we've heard of Executive privilege

and, unlike you, we actually understand the concept, and how it is validly invoked, and in this case, how it would be invalidly invoked

crawl back under your bridge and try again

Executive privilege? Haven't you heard that 9/11 changed everything?

The president backed off his insistence that executive privilege precluded testimony by White House advisers, such as Rice, after getting written assurances from the commission and congressional leaders that their appearance would not set a precedent for future investigations.

Bush said he agreed to waive claims of executive privilege to let Rice appear publicly and under oath because the attacks were a "unique circumstance."

Seriously, though -- is the guesswork here that Rice herself has something to hide or rather that many others in the administration have something to hide and once Rice appears under oath, it will remove their figleaf of an excuse for not testifying?

(I'm sure most of you will answer "both," so perhaps a better way to ask the question is -- is the latter enough to explain the behavior, without having to invoke Rice's own culpability?)

The only party who can claim Executive Privilege is the President -- because at root the concept is about the President being able to openly and freely discuss policy matters with top Aids and Officers in the process of building policy. It is really a very narrow privilege because it must directly include a direct advisory role with the President on specific issues.

Watergate narrowed the privilege in the sense that it may not be claimed over discussions of illegal acts, such as Nixon tried to claim as part of the Cover-up. For instance, Nixon could not claim Ex Privilege on anything about conversations with Dean (his white house counsel) because the evidence existed that they had discussed how to raise the money and execute payments to the Watergate Burglers -- and he couldn't claim it regarding Colson, because they discussed pardons for the convicted, and that Colson should get messages to them they could trust in Nixon't intent to Pardon. Thus, once a relationship is tainted with conversation about criminal intent -- no executive privilege on any communications with that aid or advisor.

Condi may or may not have a privilege during the first Bush II administration when she served as National Security Advisor. While her job was not confirmable by the Senate, the actual job description of National Security Advisor is in statute, in the National Security Act of 1947. It is, to serve as primary national security advisor to the President, to chair the National Security Council in the absence of the President, and to coordinate all security and intelligence that flows to the President. Congress clearly has the right to question whether the Bush Administration followed the statute. There is clearly no prohibition on Congress asking detailed questions on whether its own statutes are being followed.

~pockets

There are several reasons to believe that Stephen Hadley willingly put the 16 words in the SOTU, having only invented thin rationale for it after the fact (that's what seems to have happened with the January 24 document--they asked for it after Foley already told them they couldn't use the Niger intell). And Armitage, at least, has said that Condi knew all of this as well. Waxman is asking very specific questions designed to either get Condi to admit this--or get her lying under oath.

The net effect of Condi testifying would be to admit (or come much closer to admitting) that the administration willingly used a discredited claim in its SOTU.

Has anyone catalogued all of the Administration's varying answers to the "16 Word" issue in a single document? Frankly, It's getting hard to recall how that all came down. I think they're planning on us forgetting about it. It would be nice [for us as well as Waxman] to have it all in one place [with EW and eRiposte comments appended]...

No, no, no, Democrats!!!

Stop buying into your bogus narrative. I'm speaking to you as a Republican. I know whereof I speak. Condi is baiting Waxman. It's so easy, too.

Condi never, ever proceeds against an opponent without an intimate understanding of who her opponent is and what his objectives are. Most of you people get your impression of Rice from listening to Keith Olbermann. Stop. Olbermann is an overpaid ass. Rice has an IQ of 186 (we think) and can easily best Henry Waxman.

You folks, because you are partisans, think Henry Waxman wants the truth. He wants nothing of the sort. He wants what ANY committee chairman wants: face time and glory in front of a live national TV audience (party doesn't matter, Republicans and Democrats up there are all unprincipled glory hounds...). The template of course was the Kefauver Racket hearings, and later the Senate Watergate Committee hearings.

Waxman is a bully, and treats his subjects as if they are all tobacco executives. Rice understands this, and also realizes that Waxman has hitched his wagon to the Left's bogus Niger narrative, which (if you read the President's 2003 SOTU) had nothing to do with an Iraqi uranium expedtition to Niger. GW's speech didn't even mention Niger. Joe Wilson did. Rice knows this too.

She's baiting Waxman, knowing that he's running hard with an ersatz narrative, knowing that he's a glory hound and a headhunter.

She's going to get him angrier and angrier. Condi knows how to do this. She's been dealing with Chinese, Russians, Palestinians, Germans, Iranians, Iraqis, and Lebanese, and of course, those damned, difficult Israelis for over 20 years, and you people think she can't handle Henry Freaking Waxman, a jumped up ambulance chaser? She's going to wound his pride until the pressure from the lefty bloggers and his own staffers and idiots like Pete Stark force him to subpeona her.

Then she'll destroy him on live TV, and his usefulness as a shakedown artist for the Democrats will be at an end. If Waxman is smart, real smart, he'll pick another target, like cost overruns in the F-22 or F-35 programs to go after that and let this jihad against Rice die a quiet death. But too many of you have the political acumen of Roman Hruska and the restraint of Joe McCarthy. Won't happen.

section8, lay off the bong dude.

Shorter section9: "Oh please Brer Fox, whatever you do, please don't throw me into the briar patch."

She's going to get him angrier and angrier. Condi knows how to do this. She's been dealing with Chinese, Russians, Palestinians, Germans, Iranians, Iraqis, and Lebanese, and of course, those damned, difficult Israelis for over 20 years

Um, section 9? She's been dealing with all those groups poorly, miserably. If that's her and her 186 IQ's idea of a good performance, I'd say Henry et al are in good shape. Hell, my diss subject overlaps heavily with Condi's, and I would say honestly that she can't even deal with the topics of her diss subject well.

One more thing, section 9? Reading lessons might be useful for you. You see, the questions Waxman has asked Condi don't ride on the wording of the SOTU, at all. So it doesn't matter if, after hearing No from Foley, Joseph invented a word game to satisfy him. Though of course, that, too, would be reviewed and expanded, which wouldn't help Dr. Rice either.

Just like Irving Scooter Libby baited Patrick Fitzgerald.

Like so many Republicans, section9 has never evolved beyond his little reality and simply assumes that everyone else agrees with his vision of success. In his world, the only glorious life worth living is one filled with fame and fortune. He can't imagine finding inner-fulfillment from developing his unique talents because he isn't aware that he has any. But when he does, he will blossom and hopefully inspire his republican buddies to follow their intellectual passions where they too will find great skills that they were born to hone... Well, I did say hopefully after all.

Folks, Section9 is obviously writing a parody. The anger just isn't there.

Waxman is nothing if not persistent. Besides addressing the concern about Iraqi oil production and transport, he is establishing his authority to merit the prompt and considered response of Secretary Rice's current and former Department.


Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Iraq Reconstruction
Corruption Mars Iraqi Oil Production and Transport
Chairman Waxman asks Secretary Rice to investigate persistent allegations of corruption that have slowed the recovery of the Iraqi oil industry.
http://oversight.house.gov/story.asp?ID=1241

I dunno Muldrew. I would agree with your assessment of Jusumbody's rant on "David Iglesias: Nice Touch!" thread but section's got a li'l too much the smell of troll to it.

Nobody could possibly be serious who mentions Roman Hruska. I haven't seen or heard that name in years. At least we know that Section 9 isn't a teenager (although I wouldn't bet against him living in his mom's basement).

Thanks Ken. Apologies Section 9, fwiw, Roman Hruska

Condi's 186 IQ (we think - it could be much higher) is clearly evidenced by the way she played out all the possible results of the Iraq invasion so far in advance, brilliantly planning for every eventuality. How could Waxman stand up to that kind of brain power? I stand in awe of her superhuman intelligence, which is rivaled only by her collection of Italian stilettos.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Where We Met

Blog powered by Typepad