1. Anonymous says:

    She’s been blowing him off in those written responses for months. Why does she think they decided to go for a subpoena?

    How did this woman get an advanced degree without understanding simple connections like this? Can her degrees be revoked, or should we put it down to advancing senility? [/sarcasm or something]

  2. Anonymous says:

    Do I get to claim that I anticipated that Condi would not appear a year ago? Maybe that was too general, though. I anticipated that no one would appear.

  3. Anonymous says:

    Uh, IANAL, but I thought you couldn’t refuse a subpoena to appear before a Congressional committee. WTF?

  4. Anonymous says:

    I posted some of this below, so I know Marcie is aware of the issue.

    More on site sight problems.

    I use Mac OSX 10.3.9 and Safari, and the weirdness started for me last night with the April 25, 2007 â€The Other 13†post by emptywheel. I can’t see any posts older than that one, no way to comment on that posting, wrong formatting, etc.

    At least, today’s posts look and behave OK.

    (new) Hmm. I clicked on the Emptywheel link under Contributors, and the â€Other 13†post abruptly jumps (in the middle of the post) to the â€Foley Preying on Parents’ Inability to Monitor Internet Use†post dated Sept. 30, 2006. There are NO posts between 9/30/06 and 4/25/07 visible (to me). A bigger TypePad problem??

  5. Anonymous says:

    Using a forgery to start a war is a hanging offense.

    Who’s it gonna be, Condi? You or Hadley?

  6. Anonymous says:

    We’ve been over this before. Failure to appear can be grounds for contempt of Congress. But enforcement of sanctions for contempt is problematic because unless the Sergeant-at-Arms physically enforces it, it is up to our friends at DOJ. And once one appears, refusal to answer can be prosecuted as a contempt also (so long as the hearig is legitimately related to a legislative purpose).

  7. Anonymous says:

    You can refuse anything you want.

    If you — that is, you personally — refuse, the court will issue an order for your arrest, and you’ll be taken into custody by officers of the â€unitary executive.â€

    If Condi Rice refuses and the paper is issued for her arrest, what happens?

  8. Anonymous says:

    Has a sitting Secretary of State ever refused to testify before Congress under any circumstances??

  9. Anonymous says:

    If Condi Rice refuses and the paper is issued for her arrest, what happens?

    They don’t let you wear heels in the clink, so I doubt it’ll get that far.

  10. Anonymous says:

    And remember, contempt of Congress has to be voted by the entire House, not just the one committee. So don’t expect it to happen quickly, if at all.

  11. Anonymous says:

    I don’t know if a Secretary of State has refused. I do know that an EPA Administrator once refused. Charged with contempt of Congress, the US Attorney refused to prosecute.

  12. Anonymous says:

    Though Kagro, in his more vicious moment, I’m sure Cheney has wondered how he coudl get Condi out of his hair. Getting her arrested would certain accomplish that objective!

    As to whether a sitting SOS has refused to appear, for these purposes, you need to consdier her a former National Security Advisor, since that is what the questions pertain to. The rules on privilege ARE more expansive for an NSA. And of course, Condi almost refused to show up before the 9/11 commission in that role. So I assume we’re back to that battle again.

  13. Anonymous says:

    I do know that an EPA Administrator once refused. Charged with contempt of Congress, the US Attorney refused to prosecute.

    was that under Bush 43?

    I don’t understand why Waxman and Pelosi can’t go on national television and scream bloody murder about this. Accuse her of being complicit in the forgeries and lying the nation into war and state flat out that she refuses to testify because she knows she’s guilty as sin.

    If the situation were reversed, the Republicans would just sic Limbaugh, Hannity and Coulter on this and start a major firestorm. They’d be screaming from the highest mountain that the Sec. of State is guilty of treason and Katie Carsick and Matt Lauer would be all over it like flies on a turdblossom.

    contempt of Congress has to be voted by the entire House, not just the one committee. So don’t expect it to happen quickly, if at all.

    Why not? There’s a rapid-increasing (Young, Renzi, Feeney, et al) 30 seat advantage in the house.

  14. Anonymous says:

    it’s time to revisit the phrase:

    THE LAST FULL MEASURE OF DEVOTION

    as I write this, THREE THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED AND TWENTY AMERICAN SOLDIERS HAVE GIVEN THE LAST FULL MEASURE OF DEVOTION TO THEIR COUNTRY

    now, does somebody want to explain why the CONDILIAR can’t give truthfull TESTIMONY about the was in which THREE THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED AND TWENTY AMERICAN SOLDIERS HAVE GIVEN THE LAST FULL MEASURE OF DEVOTION TO THEIR COUNTRY

    when you frame it like that, the condiliar has no choice

    support the troops condiliar, raise your hand, take the oath, and tell the truth

    if you don’t want to testify, please explain why you hate our soldiers

  15. Anonymous says:

    Didn’t NATO go after Milosevic’s summer home to try to bring him to heel? Can’t Congress cut the State Department’s funding (esp. her office), and can’t it also selectively cut the budget of the President?

  16. Anonymous says:

    I have always had a great respect for Colin Powell, and sensed that the man knew considerably more than he could say. I wonder if he could or would shed more light on this issue? In light of all the information coming out, he may be just angry enough that he might want to add a few words…

  18. Anonymous says:

    Didn’t NATO go after Milosevic’s summer home to try to bring him to heel? Can’t Congress cut the State Department’s funding (esp. her office), and can’t it also selectively cut the budget of the President?

  19. Anonymous says:

    Didn’t NATO go after Milosevic’s summer home to try to bring him to heel? Can’t Congress cut the State Department’s funding (esp. her office), and can’t it also selectively cut the budget of the President?

  20. Anonymous says:

    Well emptywheel,

    it seems pretty simple. Waxman writes the questions down, and Condi writes back with her answer. What is wrong with that?

    She is a busy woman, too busy trying to make a better world just to provide a video clip. I understand that. I would have thought you would too, but then on the other hand I have seen some video clips of you.

  21. Anonymous says:

    Ah, our troll returneth.

    I wonder what excuse Condi’s going to give for not showing up, and also blowing off the questions again. I think she’s running out of plausible reasons, and getting into the area of ’the dog ate the subpoena’.

  22. Anonymous says:

    Here I was going to ask Jodi to bring some cookies to the party, you know, the kind with the Nestles chocolate chips in them, but then s/he had to go and get all catty about EW and video and stuff. Though I didn’t get the joke. Was it her hair blowing in the wind? The glasses? Humph.

    Uh, Jodi, the subpoena was to appear before the committee. Not to respond in whatever way Condi wanted to, like a nice letter (nobody writes letters anymore, ya’ know, it’s a dying tradition), or a Q&A, or–hey, I know–how ’bout a nice FAQ on discredited justifications for the war? Or perhaps a game show: I’ll take discredited justifications for $500, Alex.

    Ah, well, times are tough over there under the right side of the bridge.

  23. Anonymous says:

    Condoleezza â€trying to make a better world†is like Jodi trying to make sense.

    Neither is trying, but both are becoming trying.