Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

House Intelligence committee votes down Plame "resolution of inquiry"

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
paineinthearse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-15-05 11:32 PM
Original message
House Intelligence committee votes down Plame "resolution of inquiry"
http://whateveralready.blogspot.com/

House Intelligence committee votes down Plame "resolution of inquiry"

The House Intelligence Committee earlier today became the third congressional committee to derail a "resolution of inquiry"that would have required the Bush administration to turn over to Congress sensitive information and records relating to the outing of CIA officer Valerie Plame. The 11-9 vote by the committee earlier today to adversely report H. Res. 418 follows similar votes yesterday (see post immediately below) by the House Judiciary and House International Relations Committee.

Had the resolutions of inquiry been adopted, they would have lead to the first independent congressional inquiries of the Plame affair, and perhaps even the public testimony of senior Bush administration aides, such as Karl Rove, the White House deputy chief of staff, and I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby, the chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, about their personal roles. Republicans argued that any vote in favor of the resolution might impair the ongoing federal grand jury probe by special prosecutor Fitzgerald. In the case of the House Intelligence Committee, they were aided, when at the very last minute, the Justice Department informed the committee that Fitzgerald himself opposed any independent inquiry at this time by Congress.

In a letter to the committee, dated Sept. 14, William E. Moschella, an assistant Attorney General for legislative affairs, wrote: "Mr. Fitzgerald has advised that production at this time of the documents responsive to H. Res.418 and the other resolutions, and any attendant hearings, would interfere with his investigation. According, we request that the committee report adversely H. Res. 418." Democrats, however, pointed out that Congress engaged in its own extensive formal investigations of Watergate and Whitewater while special prosecutors conducted criminal inquiries.

Rep. John Conyers, of Michigan, the ranking Democrat, and former chairman, of the Judiciary committee made just that point during the debate, telling his colleagues: "Let us not forget the endless hearings in this Committee and others on alleged Clinton-Gore campaign finance violations, the Whitewater claims, and Clinton White House Travel Office firings. These were matters all under Justice Department review at the time of our hearings. Finally, I must remind my colleagues of the numerous House and Senate hearings on Watergate that were simultaneous with the Justice Department's own investigation."

more......
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Broken_Hero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-15-05 11:49 PM
Response to Original message
1. Well...
that just effing figures.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benfranklin1776 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-15-05 11:49 PM
Response to Original message
2. The Nixonian coverup is in full swing
Only tricky dicky did not have a GOP Congress to carry water for him. This will backfire as it is clear they are covering up. So blare it from the rooftops: "What are the Rethugs hiding and what did * know and when did he know it?"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
burrowowl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-16-05 12:52 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. Oh! Nixon
would have loved to be in Bu$hie's place and have Raygun's teflon!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benfranklin1776 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-16-05 05:07 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. Indeed.
Had he a Rethug Congress and a quiescent media that gave him a free pass he would have survived Watergate no doubt. But it is refreshing to see courageous Dems like John Conyers pushing this issue hard and trying to bring it to the forefront. Now they need some help. Since there are marginal signs of a slight awakening in the Rip Van Winkle press corps now is the time for us to press them to force the Rethugs to have to defend their blatant cover-up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paineinthearse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-16-05 09:03 AM
Response to Original message
5. Un fucking believable!
Has DU forgotten the Downing Street Memos?

Un fucking believable!

Pardon my French.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-16-05 10:11 AM
Response to Original message
6. Argh !
:grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Totally Committed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-16-05 10:16 AM
Response to Original message
7. We cannot govern if we do not win...
Please, when the time comes, if you want your country back, BACK A CANDIDATE IN THE PRIMARIES THAT CAN ACTUALLY WIN THE GENERAL ELECTION -- or stop whining about the consequences. We do not even have the power to get a "resolution of inquiry" passed.

We must start winning again.

TC
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Dec 26th 2024, 03:35 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC