Subscribe: Comments on A Bunch of Hot Air: Obstinance or Criminality?
http://abunchofhotair.blogspot.com/feeds/4732730874908592128/comments/default
Added By: Feedage Forager Feedage Grade B rated
Language: English
Tags:
campaign  department  frankly  fund raisers  house  justice department  justice  party fund  party  point  records  rnc  working people 
Rate this Feed
Rate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feed
Rate this feed 1 starRate this feed 2 starRate this feed 3 starRate this feed 4 starRate this feed 5 star

Comments (0)

Feed Details and Statistics Feed Statistics
Preview: Comments on A Bunch of Hot Air: Obstinance or Criminality?

Comments on A Bunch of Hot Air: Obstinance or Criminality?





Updated: 2014-10-16T18:19:23.703-07:00

 



Working with people goes both ways, and frankly, D...

2007-07-13T14:47:00.000-07:00

Working with people goes both ways, and frankly, Dems have done a lot more on that end then Reps have.

The subpoenas issued (they were just issued earlier today) have nothing whatsoever to do with the RNCs fundraising lists or campaign records. They do have something to do with gathering material related to firing the US attorneys. It only applies to emails, nothing else. Frankly, if the administration has properly followed the law, the sum total of emails on the matter will be 0.




2007-07-13T14:36:00.000-07:00

This comment has been removed by the author.



Sirocco, I'll grant you that, but a Justice Depart...

2007-07-13T13:07:00.000-07:00

Sirocco,

I'll grant you that, but a Justice Department request(which was run by a Clinton appointee), and a partisan and politicized House Judiciary request are light years apart in terms of degree.

Get a grand jury together, get a scope of what is needed, and get an indictment. If you cannot do that, you have no business snooping around the RNC's records. Quite frankly a small majority in the House should not give license for access the other party's campaign records and information.

And you know that to disclose embarrassing items from this area is all that is wanted and can be obtained by such a search anyway.

Be careful with the precedents you set, because they will ALWAYS come back to bite you. That whole "special prosecutor" thing turned out well for Democrats, didn't it. Filibustering of judges will be another road you will wish you hadn't been down as well.

Democrats had better start working for the people instead of continuing these silly investigations that few are aware or care about, or that 2008 advantage may start to slip. Unless the supposed scandal involves sex or murder, few care. Sad, but true.



You make an interesting point. The counter point i...

2007-07-13T11:05:00.000-07:00

You make an interesting point. The counter point is the administration and RNC put themselves in this position by allowing so much business (likely some of it official) to be carried out over RNC servers.

By the way, the precedent was set over a decade ago:

"White House, DNC Files Subpoenaed -- Justice Dept. Task Force Seeks Records Related to Party Fund-Raisers, Donors --

By Ruth Marcus and Susan Schmidt

The Justice Department task force investigating Democratic campaign contributions has issued wide-ranging subpoenas to the White House and the Democratic National Committee for all records relating to a host of party fund-raisers and donors whose activities have been the focus of a controversy besetting the Clinton administration for the last three months, according to sources familiar with the documents. (Washington Post, Dec. 20, 1996"

While there is no question the DNC dragged its feet in making the requested documents available, they did, in fact, make them available.



Admittedly, I haven't put a lot of effort into thi...

2007-07-13T07:46:00.000-07:00

Admittedly, I haven't put a lot of effort into this, nor am I too heavily invested, but don't you think that a highly partisan congressional committee requesting confidential information of a potentially unlimited scope from the other Party's campaign arm is an extremely bad precedent?

Were the situation reversed, I would suspect that there would be a tremendous hue and cry from the media, say if the justice department wanted to open up DNC correspondence to see what they knew about William Jefferson and when they knew it.

The justice department would be a model of objectivity, at least in comparison with the current House Judiciary.

I would tell Conyers to stick it too, even if I didn't have anything to hide.