If you have "no place to go," come here!

Simple answers to simple questions

Steve Soto:

After a Bush-appointed judge ruled in favor of House Democrats and against administration claims that it can simply blow off congressional subpoenas by citing executive privilege, why in hell did John Conyers immediately contact the White House seeking a negotiated settlement? Wasn't it clear to the House Democratic leadership that a GOP judge opened the door to challenging the basic Cheney/Addington doctrine of an imperial presidency, and yet the next thing Conyers did was to invite more stonewalling until the end of the administration?

Simple answers to simple questions:


It was quite clear to them.

No votes yet


Submitted by Paul_Lukasiak on

If Conyer's is acting like a prosecutor who has just gotten a ruling from a judge that damning evidence is admissible -- at that point, the prosecutor will approach defense counsel and offer the opportunity to the defense for a guilty plea for a reduced sentence. The defense may choose to reject the offer, not based on the inevitability of a guilty verdict at trial, but on the basis of having the verdict overturned in an appeal based on the judges ruling to admit said evidence (but that is a high risk manoevre).

Bushco does not need "negotiations" to stonewall this issue...with less than six months left in bush's term, it can stonewall quite effectively through the appeals process. This was a district court decision, and Bushco can go to the Appeals Court, and if three judge panel rules against him can appeal to the court en banc, and then can go to the Supremes.