Thursday, November 10, 2011

White House Ignores Solyndra Subpoena

As Eric Holder and his corrupt Justice Department stonewalls Congress on Fast and Furious, the "most transparent White House in history" is stonewalling a congressional subpoena for records pertaining to the Solyndra scandal.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/11/10/white-house-misses-deadline-for-solyndra-subpoena/

"Smart move."

I'll say, especially since newly-released Solyndra e-mails make it pretty clear that the White House's assertions that those 17 visits by Solyndra investor and Obama campaign contributor George Kaiser to the White House only concerned his charities are false.

"White House spokesman Eric Schultz noted Thursday that the administration has produced more than 85,000 pages of documents to date, including 20,000 pages the day before the vote on the subpoena."

Eric Schultz. Wasn't he the guy who screamed at CBS reporter Sharyl Attkisson, who has been uncovering information on this scandal?

"Uhhhhh.....yeaaaah."


"He coulda worked for me."
at

4 comments:

  1. FindalisNovember 10, 2011 at 7:18 PM

    Obama better remember this one: United States v. Nixon

    If Nixon had to do it, Obama has to do it.

    Failure to do so will bring Impeachment.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Siarlys JenkinsNovember 11, 2011 at 4:51 PM

    In your dreams, Findalis.

    ReplyDelete
  3. FindalisNovember 11, 2011 at 6:16 PM

    He starting to backtrack. Some documents came out in the Friday Night dump. Obama will release all the documents.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Siarlys JenkinsNovember 12, 2011 at 7:18 PM

    If he does, he does. But this is far from impeachment. There are a broad range of possibilities in any situation. Like any person with the responsibilities of office and decision making, he is threading his way through the choices and options available to him.

    United States v. Nixon was about a subpoena issued by a federal judge for evidence in a criminal proceeding, not a fishing expedition by a congressional committee. Congress is not without its due prerogatives, but they are not identical, nor infinite.

    The most the Supreme Court could unanimously agree on was that a president does not have an absolute right, immune to judicial review, to refuse any and all subpoenas whatsoever. That leaves plenty to litigate with a different factual situation.

    ReplyDelete