Althouse: "I can only conclude that your decision to issue a subpoena, authorized by a party-line vote..."

November 4, 2011

"I can only conclude that your decision to issue a subpoena, authorized by a party-line vote..."

"... was driven more by partisan politics than a legitimate effort to conduct a responsible investigation."

62 comments:

ndspinelli said...: Nixonian.; 11/4/11, 8:21 PM
Jason (the commenter) said...: The best, and only way to shame the Republicans, is for Obama to release the documents and have them be utterly devoid of corruption. You don't need rhetoric when you've got nothing to hide.

He's admitting guilt. Impeach him!; 11/4/11, 8:24 PM
Saint Croix said...: "Obama is like Nixon" tag?; 11/4/11, 8:26 PM
Big Mike said...: Even if it was driven by partisan politics, the White House is still duty-bound to release the documents.; 11/4/11, 8:29 PM
Crimso said...: So the WH gets to ignore Congressional subpoenas (or is that subpoenae?) if they are authorized by a "party-line vote?" Great precedent.; 11/4/11, 8:29 PM
I'm Full of Soup said...: $500 Million could have been used to make loans for $100,000 each to 5,000 businesses to try and expand their businesses and maybe add an employee or two. And some of those loans would have been repaid.

But I guess that would not have made for high profile photo-ops like the administration arranged for dumbass Slow Joe and for Prez Obama.; 11/4/11, 8:38 PM
Anonymous said...: Must be pretty bad, the documents. The way to deal with discovery requests is to give them all they want and much more (so there's sifting work involved), particularly when there should be basically nothing to lose but bad press.

This is another dumb mistake that Obama will soon have to walk back from.; 11/4/11, 8:41 PM
Sue D'Nhym said...: Oh, he gets to conclude that, does he?

Who the f*ck does this guy think he is?; 11/4/11, 8:47 PM
Automatic_Wing said...: Most transparent, ethical administration evah!; 11/4/11, 8:48 PM
Elliott A said...: Could someone please elucidate the process congress would use to force compliance?; 11/4/11, 8:51 PM
Shanna said...: This is another dumb mistake that Obama will soon have to walk back from.

Depends on how bad the docs are, I guess, and if anyone (that's not a republican) calls him on it.

Insanity. I hope somebody cuts a really good commercial with Obama talking about how ethical his administration is going to be with this crap.; 11/4/11, 8:52 PM
Sue D'Nhym said...: Elliot- there may be things they can do but he could always 'trump' in the same fashion he did here, until they decide to impeach.; 11/4/11, 8:52 PM
Anonymous said...: While I tend to side with the Administration on the underlying issue, the "all our guys voted against it, therefore your guys were being partisan to vote for it" argument is lame as always.; 11/4/11, 8:56 PM
Ron said...: Does this mean we, too, can reject things done by a "party line vote"? Like ObamaCare?; 11/4/11, 8:57 PM
Robert Cook said...: What a dick move. But who is surprised? If the President claims the right to murder anyone in the world he chooses, including American citizens--and acts on that claim--why would he feel bound to respond to a Congressional subpoena?; 11/4/11, 9:08 PM
coketown said...: I actually don't think the Solyndra fiasco is a poison pill for the Obama administration, but this kind of obstruction makes the situation seem far more sinister than it is. People inevitably wonder "what is he hiding? And did Sasha put on weight?"

Unless, of course, the documents really are damning. Harumph.; 11/4/11, 9:15 PM
Unknown said...: "... was driven more by partisan politics than a legitimate effort to conduct a responsible investigation."

So what? It isn't the Executive's place to set limits on Congress' subpoena power because a particular subpoena is more political than the current inhabitant of the white house would like.

So, Fred, what are you going to do about it? How will you punish the White House? Or will you roll like the GOP always does?; 11/4/11, 9:26 PM
Unknown said...: Could someone please elucidate the process congress would use to force compliance?

If it is the GOP, then heavy sighs followed by dolorous comments regarding the debasement of our fine institutions. If it is the Democrats, it is pitchforks, torches, and contempt of Congress citations accompanied by a press cacophony bemoaning the elitist and unconstitutional actions of the President.; 11/4/11, 9:30 PM
edutcher said...: Now if one of us ignored a Congressional subpoena, how long would it be before a certain platinum-bobbed Professor would be telling that person in the next Cafe, "You might want to see if there's Internet access in Atlanta Federal. And don't bend over."?; 11/4/11, 9:30 PM
Pettifogger said...: Impeachment for refusing to honor the subpoena is remote. This is just one more incremental chip at the rule of law. I don't like where this leads.; 11/4/11, 9:35 PM
Greg said...: Most transparent administration since Stalin.

I'm curious -- can he be held in contempt of Congress and face a criminal trial? Forget the notion of impeachment -- the Dems would do a party line vote against conviction. Instead put him in the dock of the third branch of government -- and let's see if he is willing to thumb his nose at both of the other co-equal branches.; 11/4/11, 10:01 PM
traditionalguy said...: He is fanning the flames of division towards a conflagration of revolution...Obama is evil and has the same goals as Charles Manson.

Other than that he is doing what he wants to do quite well.; 11/4/11, 10:03 PM
Paul said...: Nixonian?

This is more like Stalinism.

Or Kruschevism.

Next thing you know and Obama will start talking about 'loose talk' and how to deal with it.; 11/4/11, 10:16 PM
Anonymous said...: Obama is evil and has the same goals as Charles Manson.

Obama wants to do drugs and fuck hot 19-year-old girls?; 11/4/11, 10:17 PM
Paul said...: No wait.. Homeland Security is already wanting people to report 'loose talk'.

So we are past that stage.; 11/4/11, 10:18 PM
quercus said...: "Don't like it? Impeach him! Or just bitch about it and try to obstruct whatever you can as you drive your ratings toward the single digits after sweeping into office in January promising to deliver all sorts of accomplishments. Your choice, Congress."

Ann Althouse, July 9, 2007.

Just search this site for "executive privilege" and know that we have always been at war with Oceania.; 11/4/11, 10:35 PM
Mike said...: Shorter version of the letter:
"up yours Jack. We'll release the documents when our pet unicorn belches."; 11/4/11, 10:41 PM
Carol_Herman said...: Yup. This "committee business" will leave a bad taste.

Not as bad as HUAC, though.

There, the GOP just branded themselves. And, they watched their party SHRIVEL.

You can't fix 'stupid.'

And, nobody's paying attention!; 11/4/11, 10:47 PM
Quaestor said...: [O]r is that subpoenae?

Subpeonas is correct. The root Latin phrase sub peonae (under penalties) makes little sense in context.

The Solyndra loans were obliviously a criminal kickback scheme meant to reward Obama supporters with taxpayer funds, else why the resistance? Every corrupt politician tries this "just a partisan witch-hunt" dodge when caught in flagrante, and every time it ultimately fails. Smartest guy in the room, eh? Balderdash.

In the end the final words on Barack Hussein Obama and his presidency will be "merely typical".; 11/4/11, 11:13 PM
Jay Vogt said...: Apparently, Ms. Ruemmler was out that day in Practical Law 101 where they remind the students that it's a bad idea to send a nastygram to a party that has a bigger checkbook than you do.

Congress can out-tax, out-borrow and out-spend anybody.

Nastygrams are to scare off the twerps.

Also, who gives a rip what you "conclude"? You've been subpoenaed girl. Fight it or comply. Them's the options.; 11/4/11, 11:21 PM
Revenant said...: I wasn't aware that "nuh uh, don't wanna" was an officially recognized reason for refusing a subpoena.

Obama should have claimed executive privilege; now it is just going to keep dragging out.; 11/4/11, 11:28 PM
DADvocate said...: It was only a party-line, partisan politics vote because the Democrats are fully corrupt and completely lacking in integrity. Much more corrupt and dishonest than Republicans were during the Nixon years.; 11/4/11, 11:28 PM
Quaestor said...: Obama wants to do drugs and fuck hot 19-year-old girls?

If only...; 11/4/11, 11:32 PM
Quaestor said...: Could someone please elucidate the process congress would use to force compliance?

United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683. Though rather narrow (the opinion speaks directly to the matter of the infamous Nixon White House tapes) the 8-0 decision does set a precedent that the Congress does have a legitimate oversight role which requires subpoena power over the Executive Branch. Nixon argued "executive privilege", and after that failed, national security. He failed utterly and had to produce the tapes. Obama's refusal hasn't a leg to stand on, he's only hoping to spin out the affair past next November.; 11/4/11, 11:54 PM
bagoh20 said...: How dare you politicians try to get political with my politicians!

It reminds me of when the cheating lover says: If you really loved me you'd trust me.; 11/5/11, 1:29 AM
Carnifex said...: Quaestor has it right. As with the birth certificate, the angry sock monkey is just stalling. The question to be asked is what is he stalling for?

He surely knows he won't be re-elected. He even said as much...that if the economy didn't improve he was going to be a one term president.

There must be some end game in play, correct? I've got some ideas but they aren't to benefit this country.

To understand a man you must look at his life. With the sock monkeys penchant for secrecy we're going to have to infer a lot.

His mother was apparently a rebellious liberal with a new agers lack of societal repression. Committing outrageous behaviors to flaunt her freedom from her parents, she commits one of the most shocking deeds a white girl could commit at that time. She concieved a child with a black man. Not just any blackman though. One so lacking in judgement as to get thrown OUT of the United States. Think about that. There are illegal aliens killing Americans today that don't get thrown out.

So no father figure per se. A hippie mother who is not about to treat her "baby" as a child, but as a fully equal being. The only discipline would come from the grandparents, who didn't do such a hot job with their own daughter.

So we can infer abandonment issues,and superiority issues. Oedipus issues as well. Boys raised by single moms often show hyper-masculine behavior.

He would always be searching for a father figures, his moms new boyfriend or husband, or whatever she had that week. Because of his weak mother he would be searching for a strong woman, to be his mother, to replace his real mother who wasn't much of one.

One can imagine the chaos of the Dunhem household. Anne bringing in some new low life bad boy. I can see Barry being swatted around a bit by some, but so eager to have a real father. Grandma and Grandpa trying (I would hope) to talk some sense into their daughter. Dispensing punishments to both Anne, and Barry. Anne treating Barry like a small adult in her new age wackiness.

One can start to see the tatters and jig saw pieces that make up Barry today. His marriage to Moochie, by all definitions a very strong woman. His questionable associations with older reprobates (and terrorist).
His sense of superiority when dealing with others that question his greatness.

And that's enough for one off the cuff post; 11/5/11, 2:17 AM
Shouting Thomas said...: If Obama does win a second term, I predict, he will spend the entire term defending himself against the myriad of scandals that will dog him.

He might have to be impeached.

Jesus, that would be a disaster. Riots in the streets.; 11/5/11, 5:16 AM
Roger J. said...: I think quaestor has it--the administration will stonewall on this, gun Runner and other yet to be named scandals until the campaign--then they will accuse the republicans of being obstructionists.

Congress doesnt really have a lot of options short of impeachment as far as I can see--And the legacy media will not cover this issue or simply lie about it.; 11/5/11, 6:03 AM
AllenS said...: obama's refusal to produce anything before, never hurt him, and he won't produce anything now, that might hurt him. obama is bound and determined to put this country so far in debt that we'll never get out. Check out his friend Corzine. As long as there is a simpathetic press, nothing will come of this. I'll bet most law professors will vote for this piece of shit again.; 11/5/11, 6:03 AM
Roger J. said...: And, as always the timing--the Friday afternoon document thing; 11/5/11, 6:05 AM
Dear corrupt left, go F yourselves said...: The king of waste and fraud has spoken. Do not question the great king.; 11/5/11, 7:42 AM
Tank said...: Carnifex said...
Quaestor has it right. As with the birth certificate, the angry sock monkey is just stalling. The question to be asked is what is he stalling for?

No done shredding yet.

Con man. Con man gonna con.

Who believes that this White House thinks it's constrained by the Constitution or "law"? Really.

Democrats are, unsurprisingly, the scummiest crony Capitalists. They've really ruined the capitalist brand (as have the Repub's).; 11/5/11, 7:44 AM
Issob Morocco said...: The first shame should be on Congressional Dimmycrats who voted to say "Hey it is okay to lose half a billion dollars of taxpayer's money under rather shady manuevers with politics dripping from it."

The second shame is on our Milhouse Jr., The One.; 11/5/11, 7:45 AM
Anonymous said...: White House Counsel Kathryn Ruemmler, in her letter, scolded GOP lawmakers for demanding more documents...

“The Committee’s extremely broad request for documents — now a subpoena — is a significant intrusion on Executive Branch interests,..

a significant intrusion on Executive Branch interests

Chew on that one long and hard--or, as some would say, think deeply

Nixonian?

Shirley, you jest.; 11/5/11, 7:45 AM
MnMark said...: Actually, Obama is partly right - it obviously WAS sheer partisanship without regard for what is best for the country. Except that it was the sheer partisanship of the Democrats uniformly voting NOT to investigate this possible corruption that is the disgrace.; 11/5/11, 7:46 AM
DADvocate said...: Except that it was the sheer partisanship of the Democrats uniformly voting NOT to investigate this possible corruption that is the disgrace.

My point exactly. During the Nixon years, Republicans did not display this kind of partisanship, re: Howard Baker, Jr.

The Democratic Party has become the party of hate and tyranny.; 11/5/11, 7:58 AM
Anonymous said...: Shouting Thomas said...

If Obama does win a second term, I predict, he will spend the entire term defending himself against the myriad of scandals that will dog him.

If Obama wins a second term, I predict Obama will spend his 2nd term, "scandals" will be so fast and furious no one will be able to keep up.

Make no mistake, his course of action for his 2nd term has been mapped out long ago.

His 1st term is nothing more than laying the groundwork.; 11/5/11, 7:58 AM
Dear corrupt left, go F yourselves said...: The democrats who run Fannie and Freddie have decided to pay themselves $12 million dollars in bonuses. That's all tax payer money, too.; 11/5/11, 8:00 AM
Anonymous said...: It seems to me that you only hide things when there is something to hide.; 11/5/11, 8:06 AM
Dear corrupt left, go F yourselves said...: Where's the promised transparency from this administration?; 11/5/11, 8:11 AM
Anonymous said...: Actually the issue might not be that the documents themselves are damning but that they will cause investigators to look far more closely to the use of third party non-government email accounts in order to bypass FOIA and subpoenas.

And yes Gov. Palin was hammered for having a Yahoo! email account for personal business.

But there have been some references to using Yahoo! and other third party email systems in Fast & Furious documents and I figure that the green jobs debacle would likely make that even more prevalent.

And since those communications aren't ever intended to see the light of day once they are acquired by investigators they might prove even more damaging to this administration.

Even having third party email accounts to conduct official business is a violation of federal law and, if it involves classified materials or subjects, possible jail time.; 11/5/11, 8:17 AM
Anonymous said...: This Congress has no legal right to conduct oversight on this administration.

This Congress is invalid, as it contains too many republicans.

Rest assured, once a legitimate Congress is seated, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi will conduct a full investigation that is impartial and bi-partisan.; 11/5/11, 8:24 AM
Anonymous said...: Hey Ruemmler, hear that sound?
The hounds are onto you.; 11/5/11, 8:38 AM
jacksonjay said...: Will the MSM fill their papers, posts and airwaves with this trivial development or will they continue to report the important news about Herman?; 11/5/11, 8:52 AM
jacksonjay said...: I think you have all forgotten that this deal began with the Bush administration and investments in new green technology are often "risky"!; 11/5/11, 8:57 AM
Toad Trend said...: "It seems to me that you only hide things when there is something to hide."

Yes.

The utter nerve of congress to provide oversight for Dictator Zero and his pick-and-choose administration.

When does the executive branch secede from the legislative and the judicial?

They are the 'ones' we have been waiting for.; 11/5/11, 8:59 AM
PaulV said...: it is not the original crime-it is the cover up.; 11/5/11, 9:57 AM
Dear corrupt left, go F yourselves said...: The deal was passed over by the Bush admin. Too risky. Not that facts matter to lefties.; 11/5/11, 10:07 AM
Anonymous said...: Don't Tread 2012 said...

"When does the executive branch secede from the legislative and the judicial?"

August 2007 perhaps?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/08/01/us-usa-prosecutors-rove-idUSN0141867220070801; 11/5/11, 10:23 AM
Bruce Hayden said...: It will be interesting. The Administration seems to be hunkering down into full boat stone wall mode, just a year before the election. My guess is that they think that they can stall until then, and then be home free.

I kinda wondered if that was what Nixon and/or his people had planned. The break-in was (obviously) before the election, and some smoke started to waft up right before, but the scandal was contained, until after his landslide reelection. And then....

Obama's problem is that he has to stall for an entire year now. His advantage is that there aren't many Democrats who will go against him, and surely not any on any relevant committee in the House - say what you will about Pelosi, but she has shown a much better ability to crack the whip over her members, even now in the minority, than Republicans ever could (i.e. any of the few Democrats in the House that might vote against her orders are not going to be on the relevant committees).

I expect something similar in the Fast and Furious gun walking scandal. Today's line that "Bush did it first" doesn't stand up to close analysis. And, the one cabinet member that President Obama is most likely to protect, and go the line over, is his AG, Eric Holder. Most of the rest are disposable. Not Holder.

The ultimate recourse that the House has is to yank funding for either the White House or the Department of Justice, as the case may be, should they continue to stone wall. For example, they could require that anyone, excluding the President and Vice President, who works in the White House, certify under oath that he or she has disclosed all information in their possession concerning Solyandra to Congress in order to get paid or have any expenses paid on their behalf. Probably should exempt the permanent White House staff, or maybe limit it to the West Wing. Oh, and then, that may open up Qui Tam False Claim Act actions against anyone who does collect any such money by falsely swearing, which nicely steps around the Holder DoJ. And, then do something similar to the DoJ itself.; 11/5/11, 11:11 AM
Anonymous said...: "So, the WH gets to ignore Congressional subpoenas ..."

Well, yes, actually, since the WH is just a building.

But yes, Barack Obama and other actual people who just so happen to work inside that publicly-owned building can also ignore Congressional subpoenas because the Republicans aren't going to sue their fucking asses or issue arrest warrants.

Look ... If a cop threatens to arrest you, but you know in advance that he won't ever do that, then you can pretty much just spit in his face and tell him to fuck off and call him a "pig."

Barack Obama just spit into Congress' face and told them to fuck off.

Because he knows, in advance, they're not going to do a fucking thing about it.

That's why you just can't vote for Republicans any more.

Vote Tea Party.; 11/5/11, 4:35 PM
sorepaw said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 11/5/11, 10:08 PM