Q&A Friday #64: Should Condi Rice Be Allowed To Ignore A Congressional Subpoena.

Question: “Should Condi Rice be allowed to “flick off” a congressional subpoena? In response to the subpoena she said:

“This is an issue that has been answered and answered and answered.”

Shall we allow her to decide which subpoena she will respond to and which she won’t.

Is she above the law?” — CardsFan

Trending: The 15 Best Conservative News Sites On The Internet

Answer: Setting aside the fact that this is all a ridiculous stunt, because Condi Rice has already voluntarily testified in front of Congress about the exact same subject matter before, Condi isn’t required to respond to congressional subpoenas. As a matter of fact, Condi is no more required to appear in front of Congress because of a subpoena than Henry Waxman would be required to appear in front of George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Karl Rove if they wanted to investigate him.

It’s called the Separation of Powers. You, and for that matter — Henry Waxman — should look into it.

PS: The Bush Administration DID NOT say Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger for nuclear weapons, which is something that has been erroneously reported by the mainstream media over and over and over again. They claimed that, “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” They were right and the British government still stands by that story today.

Share this!

Enjoy reading? Share it with your friends!