|
|
Post by CMF Newsman on Apr 26, 2007 9:40:07 GMT -5
OSLO, Norway - 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. story |
|
Homebrew Dave
Full Forumite
The President is Nearer
We're drinkers, we're liars. But we're men.
Posts: 1,596
|
Post by Homebrew Dave on Apr 26, 2007 12:41:00 GMT -5
Oh that's funny. And this is one case where she can probably get away with thumbing her nose at Congress and ignoring the subpeona. The Constitution makes no provisions for Congress to have the power of subpeona in the first place. It is only by a decision of the Supreme Court that Congress has such power because the SC determined such power was neccesary for Congress to carry out some of its constitutional functions. But the SC decision did not mandate a way for Congress to enforce its subpeonas.
The traditional means by which Congress has enforced its subpeonas is by passing legislation empowering the Department of Justice (i.e. the Attourney General) to enforce an individual subpeona. But all this legislation does is permit the enforcement. It cannot require the DOJ to enforce it because that would violate the separation of powers restrictions of the Constitution. Therefore, it is up to the DOJ (i.e., the Attourney General) whether or not the subpeona gets enforced. And since, in this case, it's the Attourney General himself who is under investigation by this particular committee, I'd tend to think the AG is going to decline to enforce.
Dave
|
|
|
|
Post by plasticone on Apr 26, 2007 16:43:36 GMT -5
This is getting rather tiresome since they asked, asked, and reasked questions on that topic during the confirmation hearings. Now that it's a Democratically controlled congress, they just want to rehash everything that they said before in the hope they cab trip someone into a mistatement that will be thrown out to the world as a lie and a basis to call for their resignation.
I think it is time for the congress to move on to getting something done and time to stop initiating new investigations into issues that have already been beaten to death.
|
|
|
|
Post by bernardjenkins on Apr 26, 2007 18:04:19 GMT -5
They might consider legislating instead of investigating.
|
|
TNBear
Senior Forumite
Posts: 2,285
|
Post by TNBear on Apr 26, 2007 18:59:53 GMT -5
One wonders why a fine upstanding person as Ms. Rice is would not want to answer questions under oath. Surely she has nothing to hide.
|
|
|
|
Post by Justin Thyme on Apr 26, 2007 20:49:45 GMT -5
One wonders why a fine upstanding person as Ms. Rice is would not want to answer questions under oath. Surely she has nothing to hide. Ever heard of Martha Stewart? Ever heard of Scooter Libby? I don't think there is much to wonder about. My advice to anyone would be to avoid saying anything under oath regardless of how truthful you are. |
|
|
|
Post by bernardjenkins on Apr 27, 2007 18:02:27 GMT -5
and she has answered their questions
|
|
|
|
Post by Gary on Apr 27, 2007 19:51:46 GMT -5
Ever heard of Martha Stewart?
Guilty of insider trading.
Ever heard of Scooter Libby?
Guilty of perjury.
Only the latter is relevant, and even then, if he hadn't lied to Congress, he wouldn't have gotten into trouble.
|
|
TNBear
Senior Forumite
Posts: 2,285
|
Post by TNBear on Apr 27, 2007 19:58:04 GMT -5
Yeah, and they indeed did break (or at least bend) the law.
I just find the fact that no one in the Bush administration is willing to testify under oath, or if they do they can't remember shit (like Ramierez) quite interesting.
Just wait till the investigation into playing fast and loose with the Hatch Act plays out, there will be more dumbass political appointees playing stupid than you can shake a stick at.
Let's face it, the current administration does not care in the least about the vast majority of the American people. They care about filling the wallets of their associates in Big Oil and Halliburton, etc.- which will eventually fill theirs.
This is probably the most corrupt administration since Richard Nixon. Maybe even more so, as Nixon was more into power than money.
|
|
|
|
Post by Justin Thyme on Apr 27, 2007 20:19:00 GMT -5
That has never been legally substantiated and she has never been charged with that crime. One of the charges that was eventually dropped against her was that she claimed she was innocent which the Feds claimed was a lie.
And as far as Libby is concerned he was charged with lying to investigators in an investigation that failed to establish that a crime had been committed except for Libby's lying to them.
The point is that when one is put under oath one exposes oneself to risks. There is nothing for her to gain by exposing herself to that risk.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gary on Apr 27, 2007 20:32:56 GMT -5
Technically, she wasn't found guilty. What she did was settle the insider-trading charges with the SEC stemming from her 2001 sale of ImClone Systems Inc. shares. She agreed to pay disgorgement penalties of $58,062 and a civil penalty of $137,019. She also cannot serve on the board of any publicly-traded company for five years.
She was convicted of criminal obstruction of justice charges in 2004 and served five months in a federal prison before she was released in March 2005, after which she served five months of home detention.
It was a plea-bargain on the insider-trading and a conviction of obstruction of justice, neither which really has any bearing on the current situation with Condi Rice, which was my original point.
|
|
|
|
Post by Justin Thyme on Apr 27, 2007 21:28:34 GMT -5
I think both instances illustrated my point quiet well, which was the risks one takes when testifying under oath. What does she have to gain from testifying?
|
|
|
|
Post by Gary on Apr 28, 2007 8:29:02 GMT -5
which was the risks one takes when testifying under oath
I'm sorry, but I think it shows the risks one takes when deciding to lie under oath. They both did, and they both paid the penalty.
|
|
|
|
Post by bernardjenkins on Apr 28, 2007 11:38:20 GMT -5
okay but has Rice lied. they have asked all the questions in both houses so is this just a witch hunt?
|
|
|
|
Post by damnyankee on May 1, 2007 10:45:49 GMT -5
I just wish she'd go to a dentist and get that canyon sized david letterman gap fixed,,Without a doubt ugliest woman on bush's band of losers...
|
|
osrb
Senior Forumite
Semper Fi
Mostly Harmless
Posts: 3,150
|
Post by osrb on May 1, 2007 17:09:58 GMT -5
She could just go and do what the Clinton did. Just say "I have no recollection" or "I cannot remember" Who can prove otherwise? Or better yet what is the meaning of "is".
|
|
|
|
Post by Justin Thyme on May 1, 2007 19:21:54 GMT -5
The risk of being accussed of lying is there and with the testimony under oath the risk of having to legally defend one's self is there. Even if one is innocent and found innocent of the charges the cost is great.
|
|
TNBear
Senior Forumite
Posts: 2,285
|
Post by TNBear on May 1, 2007 19:44:50 GMT -5
The risk of being accussed of lying is there and with the testimony under oath the risk of having to legally defend one's self is there. Even if one is innocent and found innocent of the charges the cost is great.
So therefore, anyone accused of anything should plead the fifth or stand mute?
My ass.
These people are making a hell of a lot of money which is coming out of our wallets. They OWE the American people. They should be proud to step forward and give the "whole truth and nothing but the truth" if they have nothing to hide.
|
|
|
|
Post by gridbug on May 1, 2007 19:49:10 GMT -5
I honestly don't know whether I should agree with bear or just laugh so hard I pee myself
|
|
|
|
Post by Justin Thyme on May 1, 2007 21:24:14 GMT -5
I would have to be legally compelled to testify under oath and I have no intention of lying about anything, ever, and I have no political enemies that I know of.
She has testified repeatedly and claims to have told the truth each time. I think she's given what she owes. I don't see any up side for her to testify under oath. How will she benefit from this? What is her gain?
|
|
|
|
Post by stray on May 1, 2007 21:35:10 GMT -5
I don't see any up side for her to testify under oath. How will she benefit from this? What is her gain? About this much publicity.....  ...and to promote her new product...  |
|
