CatWoman
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Apr-24-07 08:22 PM
Original message |
Howard Fineman brought up a very good point |
|
in that, by the OSP investigating Rove and the Bush WH, he is actually giving them cover and keeping them from having to testify before Conyers, et al.
|
babylonsister
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Apr-24-07 08:24 PM
Response to Original message |
1. And I wouldn't put it past this admin for a second. nt |
snappyturtle
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Apr-24-07 08:32 PM
Response to Original message |
2. I heard that too and you know what came to my mind? |
|
The Iraq Study Group.........that report and *'s studying of it, remember how long that took allowed him in the end to quietly escalate the war. imho
|
napi21
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Apr-24-07 08:35 PM
Response to Original message |
3. I disagree! First, as I understood Fineman, he said the OSC would |
|
subpoenadocs...the same docs that Waxman wants, so it's a rush to the court house to see who's subpoena makes it first. THAT, is total BS!
I have personal experience with multiple sources issuing subpoenas for the same damn docs. I b*tched more than I care to admit right now, but guess what? Our attorneys said TS baby, if 5 different Gov't Depts subpoena the same docs, YOU MAKE 5 COPIES!!!!!
You see, subpoenas are never for the original docs, only copies, so the availibility is endless. I damn near got thrown in jail because I asked an employee of one Gov't "Just how far away are you PHYSICALLY from Dept XXX?" Her response was, they are down the hall from us. I couldn't control my frustration and responded "For GOD SAKE, can't you share?" I guess she called our attorneys and complained (or threatened) because about 15 minutes later I received a call telling me to shape up, make the damn copies, and quit complaining or I would be in a position they wouldn't be able to help me out of.
So Howard was making nice talk but just because two different Depts or Agencies demand the same info means NOTHING!
|
orleans
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Apr-24-07 08:43 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
5. i saw him on olbermann too--and here's what concerns me: |
|
they will not respond to waxman, answer questions, etc because of a prior investigation that is ongoing.
(the old white house commentary on the libby/fitzgerald business)
|
napi21
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Apr-24-07 08:47 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
7. Waxman is smart enough to handle that argument. Ignoring |
|
a subpoena or refusing to respond is a criminal offense, and I doubt Henry will back off of that!
They may try that, but it won't work!
|
jpgray
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Apr-24-07 08:37 PM
Response to Original message |
4. Ever since his response to Sharpton at the DNC in '04, I've learned to despise Fineman |
|
There were reasons before that, obviously, and he may say something of worth once in a while, but he remains in my estimation a douchebag.
|
krkaufman
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Apr-24-07 08:45 PM
Response to Original message |
6. Right. A typical Rove/Republican firebreak tactic. |
|
I just hope the Dems (and the media, most of all) don't fall for this. The Constitution calls for Congressional oversight, not intra-branch faux oversight.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Mon May 06th 2024, 07:55 PM
Response to Original message |