Alright, since it seems as though words are being placed into my mouth let me clear this up a bit.
Originally Posted by cascade
Being "tired of the questions" has never been recognized as a valid reason to defy a valid subpoena, even if you think it is politically motivated, such as the Kevin Starr caper.
Defy one and you can be held in contempt of court, with very possible custodial and financial penalties a real possibility.
That's just how it works. Subpoenas are merely a legal tool used to get at the truth. Sure they can be overbroad or abused, or issued for political purposes, harassment or grandstanding, but they are legal and accepted as part of the legal process.
Tired of the quesitions was not a key argument, I was just stating an opinion. Much like you eluded to Ken Starr,(although I thought he did have some items worth investigating, could be my bias too) I feel that this is going to become an abuse as already stated in multiple articles that the quesitons that they want to ask of her have already been asked before.
Originally Posted by GermanStar
Are you suggesting that she is entitled to defy a law if she disagrees with it? Are you really in law enforcement?
Not at all. The question was do you think Rice will be impeached, I said no and gave an opinion as to the current situation at hand. No Iam not suggesting that she defys the law if she disagrees with it, that she can fight in court. Yes I am really in law enforcement.
Originally Posted by FeelTheLove
So you are saying the Constitution is invalid? It is what has given the Congress the duty and the right to do exactly what it is doing. There is strong evidence this country was defrauded into war under false pretensions, a charge if proven that would result in the impeachment of all three of the top conspirators, Rice, Cheney and Bush. Is Rice, since she is suspected of being part of what many are seeing as an obvious conspiracy, not obstructing justice here ? Is she not attempting to block investigation of a crime she may be a party to? Congress has every right, in fact it has a duty to investigate what may be the greatest crime perpretrated against the American people since slavery. As Germanstar has repeatedly pointed out, the yellowcake fraud is at the heart of all of it, the gateway to finding the truth of how we ended up in Iraq and why.
Again your placing words in my mouth. The constitution is valid and if they feel that there was a crime committed go after all who is implicitly involved even if that incurs the President. All I am saying is read over the transcripts from previous sessions and if you feel there is a problem with what was said, have follow up questions in line instead of the same damn questions. If she already went on record under oath she can be held for purjury later on. And if the President led this country to war under KNOWN(before the war) false pretenses, then do what is necessary.
Am I making myself clear??
PS Sorry Jim if I didnt respond to your follow up comment to FTL's, I didn't want to read a follow up diatribe to my response!