If Republicans regain control of the House, will they abuse their subpoena power? (1 Viewer)

[Chappy]

“When it comes to subpoena power, we saw the kind of abuses Republican took with subpoena power during the Clinton years. It is certainly part of the picture America should look at when voting. When Republican were last in charge of Congress, that is what they did.” — Rep. Chris Van Hollen, chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee​

More Republican witch hunts? Impeaching the president shortly after Al Qaeda attacks in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Disturbing memories. it could happen again.

 

[R. Shackleferd]

So I should vote for Democrats because Republicans may have an opportunity to issue subpoenas?

 

[Redress]

I am a democrat, and a liberal. I sincerely do not want republicans to regain control of either house. However, this is one of the stupidest arguments for why I have ever heard. Republicans may, maybe, possibly, potentially, be mean....

 

[Slartibartfast]

I am sure they will waste taxpayer money to try and find charges to level against Obama just like they did with Clinton.

 

[R. Shackleferd]

So members of a political party cannot ethically charge other politicians with anything because it requires the use of extortion revenue we call "taxes"?

 

[Slartibartfast]

So members of a political party cannot ethically charge other politicians with anything because it requires the use of extortion revenue we call "taxes"?

If you are referring to me, I wasn't speaking of ethics as much as a desire for any tax money taken to put to good (whatever good is in my opinion since I am a voter) use. They got clinton after dogging him for years pursuing what I consider to be useless investigations that came to nothing. To put in forum terms, they were trolling him and using taxpayer money to do it.

 

[Chuz Life]

If you are referring to me, I wasn't speaking of ethics as much as a desire for any tax money taken to put to good (whatever good is in my opinion since I am a voter) use. They got clinton after dogging him for years pursuing what I consider to be useless investigations that came to nothing. To put in forum terms, they were trolling him and using taxpayer money to do it.

Paula Jones (a then Democrat) filed 'sexual harassment charges' against Clinton when he was but a candidate,.... the appeals reached the Supreme Court which ruled she could in fact sue a (then elected) sitting President.

The facts betray your recollection of the chain of events.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Paula Jones (a then Democrat) filed 'sexual harassment charges' against Clinton when he was but a candidate,.... the appeals reached the Supreme Court which ruled she could in fact sue a (then elected) sitting President.

The facts betray your recollection of the chain of events.

Thats great, but congress should have never gotten involved as it was a private matter between her and Clinton.

 

[Chuz Life]

Thats great, but congress should have never gotten involved as it was a private matter between her and Clinton.

Bill Clinton is a lawyer, he took an oath to uphold the laws and the Constitution,... when deposed in the sexual harassment case that no less than the Supreme Court said could proceed,... he took another oath "to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth." He then proceeded to lie in that deposition. He comitted purjury and as a lawyer, he knew what he was doing.

There are many quotes from our founders made when our justice system was being created that stressed the seriousness of purjury and how serious it must be taken.

I don't agree completely with how the case was made against Clinton and for his impeachment... but in principle, he knew (as a Lawyer) knew what he was doing, when he did it.

Cigar?

 

[Slartibartfast]

Bill Clinton is a lawyer, he took an oath to uphold the laws and the Constitution,... when deposed in the sexual harassment case that no less than the Supreme Court said could proceed,... he took another oath "to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth." He then proceeded to lie in that deposition. He comitted purjury and as a lawyer, he knew what he was doing.

There are many quotes from our founders made when our justice system was being created that stressed the seriousness of purjury and how serious it must be taken.

I don't agree completely with how the case was made against Clinton and for his impeachment... but in principle, he knew (as a Lawyer) knew what he was doing, when he did it.

Cigar?

Oh I agree that he should not have lied under oath, but thats not the point. The point is that congress got involved before that, while it was still a civil matter.

Plus there was that whole whitewater thing, which again, since clinton was not found guilty, it was not the business of congress as it was a judicial matter and not a legislative one.

Once the president is found guilty of something, yeah, than it is the business of congress.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

“When it comes to subpoena power, we saw the kind of abuses Republican took with subpoena power during the Clinton years. It is certainly part of the picture America should look at when voting. When Republican were last in charge of Congress, that is what they did.” — Rep. Chris Van Hollen, chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee​

More Republican witch hunts? Impeaching the president shortly after Al Qaeda attacks in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Disturbing memories. it could happen again.

*laughs*

You know - I don't think people give a crap, really . . . They voted in Obama who now has the powers at hand which Bush had - and everyone *hated* it when Bush conjured them up. :shrug

That proves to me that people don't hate the regulations and rulings - they hate the people who wield the power instead.

 

[Chuz Life]

Once the president is found guilty of something, yeah, than it is the business of congress.

Then.

And regardless of whether Congress shuld have been investigating Whitewater or not,... that's what they were doing when the Paula Jones case broke. It was an opportunity the other side would have taken as well,... were the roles reversed.

It aint pretty and it aint going away. This will be (in my opinion) how elected officials are treated by their opposite parties from now on.

If one holds the other accountable to that extreme they can expect to be scrutinized and held accountable in the same manner.

Glass houses and and all that,....

I personally don't have a problem with it.

 

[Dezaad]

This is a perfectly legitimate reason to refuse a candidate your vote. It is referred to in this thread as 'being mean', and dismissed. However, "meanness" has far reaching real world consequences, and those who wield it as a political weapon should not be allowed to use it without that fact becoming part of the overall picture as to whether they are fit to serve as legislators.

So, yes, you shouldn't vote for them, when their party has shown that it monolithically votes and acts together to be "mean".

 

[Slartibartfast]

Then.

And regardless of whether Congress shuld have been investigating Whitewater or not,... that's what they were doing when the Paula Jones case broke. It was an opportunity the other side would have taken as well,... were the roles reversed.

It aint pretty and it aint going away. This will be (in my opinion) how elected officials are treated by their opposite parties from now on.

If one holds the other accountable to that extreme they can expect to be scrutinized and held accountable in the same manner.

Glass houses and and all that,....

I personally don't have a problem with it.

It is wrong no matter who does it. However, I do not recall the Democrat controlled congress treating Bush the same way? (And they had opportunity, such as him being AWOL while in the national guard) Please enlighten me if I am wrong though.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

So, yes, you shouldn't vote for them, when their party has shown that it monolithically votes and acts together to be "mean".

But try telling someone that their beloved president is 'mean' . . . or that their voted-in representatives turned 'mean'

It just doesn't work like that - people will blindly support their chosen people no matter what. It takes *a lot* to change people's mind and running the opposition's underoos up the flagpole isn't on that list. People often support such actions as long as it's party-serving and nailing down on their opposition.

 

[Chuz Life]

It is wrong no matter who does it. However, I do not recall the Democrat controlled congress treating Bush the same way? (And they had opportunity, such as him being AWOL while in the national guard) Please enlighten me if I am wrong though.

Wow,... I recall just the opposite; that guys from Bush's unit were hounded relentlessly by people digging for anything they could find to use against him regarding his prior service.

The "tit for tat" is going to vary from one election to another,... based on what people alledge and what they will testify to and the candidates themselves,.... But it's going to be a large part of the norm regardless. To me it just stresses the need for each party to do a better job of vetting their candidates.

Making sure they are U.S. citizens, meet the other requirments and are breaking any laws in shady land deals,... whatever the case may be.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Wow,... I recall just the opposite; that guys from Bush's unit were hounded relentlessly by people digging for anything they could find to use against him regarding his prior service.

The "tit for tat" is going to vary from one election to another,... based on what people alledge and what they will testify to and the candidates themselves,.... But it's going to be a large part of the norm regardless. To me it just stresses the need for each party to do a better job of vetting their candidates.

Making sure they are U.S. citizens, meet the other requirments and are breaking any laws in shady land deals,... whatever the case may be.

Was congress doing it or voters? I do clearly recall voters doing it, but I don't recall congress getting into it or special prosecutors and all that other stuff.

 

[BWG]

If you are referring to me, I wasn't speaking of ethics as much as a desire for any tax money taken to put to good (whatever good is in my opinion since I am a voter) use. They got clinton after dogging him for years pursuing what I consider to be useless investigations that came to nothing. To put in forum terms, they were trolling him and using taxpayer money to do it.

Oh, they're already salivating at the possibility of regaining subpoena power and using it in much the same manner as they did with Clinton.

“That will make all the difference in the world,” he [Rep. Darrell Issa, R-CA] told 400 applauding party members during a dinner at the chocolate-themed Hershey Lodge. “I won’t use it to have corporate America live in fear that we’re going to subpoena everything. I will use it to get the very information that today the White House is either shredding or not producing.”

In other words, Issa wants to be to the Obama administration what Rep. Dan Burton (R-Ind.) was to the Clinton administration — a subpoena machine in search of White House scandals.

[...]


As the committee’s chairman from 1997 to 2002, Burton issued 1,052 subpoenas* to the Clinton White House and various Democrats.
[...]
Burton, who is still on the committee, sees Issa as possibly continuing his work.

Darrell Issa has eye on subpoena team - James Hohmann and Jake Sherman - POLITICO.com

[*an average of a subpoena every other day for six consecutive years, including weekends, holidays, and congressional recesses.]

 

[PeteEU]

Pity the Dems did not go after the Republicans in the same manner.. would love to have seen charges and subpoena's against a host of former Bush era and Republican politicians..... but I guess that is the difference between the Republican's and Democrats... Democrats actually manage the country instead of sitting on their asses like the Republican's..

 

[Chuz Life]

Was congress doing it or voters? I do clearly recall voters doing it, but I don't recall congress getting into it or special prosecutors and all that other stuff.

There wasn't enough evidence for them to do so (no smoke no fire) else,... you should know as well asi do,... the Dems would have jumped on any opportunity to nail Bush. Especially since they were still stinging over the investigations of the Klintons.

 

[Slartibartfast]

There wasn't enough evidence for them to do so (no smoke no fire) else,... you should know as well asi do,... the Dems would have jumped on any opportunity to nail Bush. Especially since they were still stinging over the investigations of the Klintons.

There was no reason for congress to get involved with whitewater either. :shrug: As you say, no smoke, no fire.

 

[Chuz Life]

There was no reason for congress to get involved with whitewater either. :shrug: As you say, no smoke, no fire.

We seem to be talking past one another. You say "it's wrong no matter which side does it." "Right and wrong" are very subjective notions,... but Ok,... I'll go with that. And I say this "tit for tat" is going to go on for as long as things are missed (or covered up) in the vetting process.

What say you?

 

[PeteEU]

There wasn't enough evidence for them to do so (no smoke no fire) else,... you should know as well asi do,... the Dems would have jumped on any opportunity to nail Bush. Especially since they were still stinging over the investigations of the Klintons.

LOL there was more evidence against Bush and his cronies that there ever was against Clinton. The Dems have and had more than enough to start probes into everything from the AJ scandal over to miss management of the Iraq war and to even investigating the Bush administrations cherry picking of intelligence to justify the Iraq war. Problem is that the dems are not as blood thirsty and twisted as the Republican's when it comes to nailing the opposition into a stand still.

 

[Slartibartfast]

We seem to be talking past one another. You say "it's wrong no matter which side does it."

I am applying the same moral standard to both parties. I think it is wrong in all cases.

"Right and wrong" are very subjective notions,... but Ok,... I'll go with that. And I say this "tit for tat" is going to go on for as long as things are missed (or covered up) in the vetting process.

What say you?

My point is that the Democrats did have opportunity to go after Bush for useless and trumped up things like the GOP did with Clinton. So where you see tit for tat, I do not (personally, I think its because Republicans tend to have bigger balls than Democrats, not because of any greater morality, but a result of a different dialogue with their base and viewpoints). In either case, it would be a waste of taxpayer money that I would prefer to either have not be taxed or used for something that would be beneficial to the country.

 

[Chuz Life]

LOL there was more evidence against Bush and his cronies that there ever was against Clinton. The Dems have and had more than enough to start probes into everything from the AJ scandal over to miss management of the Iraq war and to even investigating the Bush administrations cherry picking of intelligence to justify the Iraq war. Problem is that the dems are not as blood thirsty and twisted as the Republican's when it comes to nailing the opposition into a stand still.

The problem with the things you listed is they couldn't go after Bush without implicating themselves or their own.

Do we really need to retry the whole who said what based on what intelligence before the decision to go into Iraq?

Quotes from Bubba, Hitlary, etc?