PDA

View Full Version : House Democrats Set to Force a Vote on Gannon Investigation


Taco John
03-03-2005, 04:13 AM
House Democrats will force vote on Gannon investigation as it relates to outed agent


Democrats set to play new card in ĎGannoní scandal


House Democrats say they will force a vote in the House Judiciary Committee to put the Republican majority on the record with regards to investigating discredited White House correspondent Jeff Gannon who allegedly had access to confidential information, including a memorandum naming CIA operative Valerie Plame, RAW STORY has learned.

The procedure, called a Resolution of Inquiry, will be directed to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and departing Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge, senior House aides say. Ridge has jurisdiction over the Secret Service, which is responsible for presidential security; Gonzales oversees the FBI, whose databases are used for criminal background checks.

The resolution requests all documents on how Gannon was personally cleared and repeatedly allowed access to the White House, aides tell RAW STORY. It also calls for any information the departments have on White House policies about how an applicant would go about getting clearance in general.

Among those supporting the resolution include ranking Judiciary Committee Democrat Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), ranking Rules Committee Democrat Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) and ranking Government Reform Committee Democrat Henry Waxman (D-CA). Other Judiciary Democrats are also expected to sign on.

The Judiciary Committee will be forced to decide whether to demand that all records from the respective agencies relating to Gannonís credentialing be turned over to Congress.

If the Committee does not vote after fourteen legislative days, the resolution goes to the floor for a vote of the full House.

Democrats used this maneuver before, in Feb. 2004, to force four House committees to vote on whether to demand the Justice Department, the State Department and the Department of Defense released all documents relating to the outing of Valerie Plame.

Largely along party lines, the Republican-led committees quashed the resolution.

Democrats expect Republicans to vote down the new measure, but feel it might provide leverage in future Congressional elections, as it will force members to go on the record as to whether they support the investigation and its relation to the outed CIA operative.

Plame, formerly an undercover CIA employee, is married to former U.S. ambassador Joe Wilson. Wilson vexed the Administration after reporting that Iraq had not tried to obtain uranium from Niger and his wife was subsequently Ďoutedí as an undercover operative by conservative columnist Robert Novak.

Critics saw the outing of Plame as retribution.

The correspondent in question, who wrote under the name
Jeff Gannon, referenced the 2002 CIA memo naming Plame in an interview with her husband. He later suggested he read about it in the Wall Street Journal.

Reps. John Conyers (D-MI) and Louise Slaughter have already filed a Freedom of Information Act Request with Homeland Security and the Secret Service demanding all documents relation to Gannonís credentialing. To date, they have received no response.

Correction: Due to a miscommunication, the first version of this article stated that four House committees would vote on the resolution. An aide said late Wednesday that only the Judiciary Committee would be asked to vote on the matter.



http://rawstory.com/news/2005/printthis.php?p=142

BigMeatballDave
03-03-2005, 05:16 AM
This thread is teh ghey...

Cochise
03-03-2005, 06:00 AM
"come on guys, maybe we can make this a story"

|Zach|
03-03-2005, 06:00 AM
teh ghey...
No thread or post can ever be as stupid as typing the above phrase.

Amnorix
03-03-2005, 08:20 AM
No more stupid than half the stuff we spent millions for Ken Starr to investigate.

Of course, that's not exactly setting the bar very high, is it?

Iron Chef
03-03-2005, 08:55 AM
Oh I see, so they can force a vote on weather or not a reporter should or should not have been in the White House, but they canít vote on qualified judicial nominees, have to love the priorities of these guys.

:shake:

Amnorix
03-03-2005, 08:57 AM
Oh I see, so they can force a vote on a reporter should or should not have been in the White House, but they canít vote on qualified judicial nominees, have to love the priorities of these guys.

:shake:

Sounds alot like what happened when Clinton and Democrats controlled the Senate... In fact, it sound EXACTLY like what was happening...

Iron Chef
03-03-2005, 08:58 AM
Sounds alot like what happened when Clinton and Democrats controlled the Senate... In fact, it sound EXACTLY like what was happening...


I'm not sure I remember..Which nominees submitted by Clinton did not get a vote?

Amnorix
03-03-2005, 09:04 AM
I'm not sure I remember..Which nominees submitted by Clinton did not get a vote?

Feel free to discover Google for yourself at any time. I'll help you out this time aorund, however.


"The tension has come over Bush's appointments to the powerful Circuit Courts of Appeals. Bush nominated 52 appellate court judges in his first term; Congress approved 35 of them. That's prompted the GOP charge that Democrats are abusing the right to advise and consent on presidential appointees.

But Republicans blocked almost exactly as many of President Clinton's nominees. Clinton, during his second term, nominated 51 appellate court judges ó and the Republican Senate confirmed 35.

The preferred GOP technique for sinking Clinton nominees was to deny them hearings or a floor vote. Since Democrats don't control committees or the floor schedule, they have been compelled to use the more incendiary weapon of the filibuster to stop the Bush nominees they oppose. But the result has been the same: frustration in the White House and rising bitterness in Congress."

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-outlook21feb21,1,458927.column?coll=la-utilities-politics&ctrack=1&cset=true

Iron Chef
03-03-2005, 09:55 AM
Feel free to discover Google for yourself at any time. I'll help you out this time aorund, however.


"The tension has come over Bush's appointments to the powerful Circuit Courts of Appeals. Bush nominated 52 appellate court judges in his first term; Congress approved 35 of them. That's prompted the GOP charge that Democrats are abusing the right to advise and consent on presidential appointees.

But Republicans blocked almost exactly as many of President Clinton's nominees. Clinton, during his second term, nominated 51 appellate court judges ó and the Republican Senate confirmed 35.

The preferred GOP technique for sinking Clinton nominees was to deny them hearings or a floor vote. Since Democrats don't control committees or the floor schedule, they have been compelled to use the more incendiary weapon of the filibuster to stop the Bush nominees they oppose. But the result has been the same: frustration in the White House and rising bitterness in Congress."

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-outlook21feb21,1,458927.column?coll=la-utilities-politics&ctrack=1&cset=true



Thank you for the info.. No need to get snippy as some of us don't have all day to search Google.. as you can see by my post count. I do not believe it is right for either party to block a vote on any judicial nominee.

Mr. Kotter
03-03-2005, 10:21 AM
"The Raw Story"? :hmmm:

Is that like the left's "Drudge" or "TalonNews?"

Seriously? :hmmm:

Saulbadguy
03-03-2005, 10:30 AM
Who the HELL is Jeff Gannon, anyways?

Mr. Kotter
03-03-2005, 10:35 AM
Who the HELL is Jeff Gannon, anyways?

He's the guy jAZ, Duhnise and the others were whinin' about him havin' "insider access" to the WH and the Bush campaign, despite his lack of journalistic credentials. They were certain it would be a "huge" story this week.... :rolleyes:

Garcia Bronco
03-03-2005, 10:38 AM
No more stupid than half the stuff we spent millions for Ken Starr to investigate.

Of course, that's not exactly setting the bar very high, is it?


that was the biggest waste of money

patteeu
03-03-2005, 11:01 AM
Partisan games of no consequence. Let them vote.

Amnorix
03-03-2005, 11:02 AM
Thank you for the info.. No need to get snippy as some of us don't have all day to search Google.. as you can see by my post count. I do not believe it is right for either party to block a vote on any judicial nominee.

My post was 6 minutes after yours. Deducting the time it took me to notice your post, and to type my long-winded (as usual) answer, I'd say I spent 3 minutes finding the right article on Google.

I didn't mean to come off as an ass, but really, it doesn't take long to punch up "clinton judge filibuster" on Google.

Cochise
03-03-2005, 11:14 AM
Neither party should block up or down votes on nominees.

Hopefully they will make a rule change that prevents one party from changing the intent of the approval process from a majority to a super-majority or however many you need to break a fillibuster.

Amnorix
03-03-2005, 11:15 AM
that was the biggest waste of money

No kidding. Unbelievable.

From 1994 to 2001, the OIC racked up $65M in expenses in the Whitewater/Lewinsky matter. For all this, we got 4 trials with 3 acquittals, an amazing abuse of power, and the Congress allowing the OIC law to lapse. Oh, and a couple of judicial sanctions against the OIC's office for violating federal law by leaking stuff to the press for political purposes.

http://a255.g.akamaitech.net/7/255/2422/13may20041220/icreport.access.gpo.gov/lewinsky/appe.pdf

Similarly, the OIC on Mike Espy cost us taxpayers $23.7M in order to see Espy get a full acquittal (something like 90% of prosecutions end in a guilty plea or guilty verdict.

http://www.gpo.gov/oic/#V-A

Amnorix
03-03-2005, 11:19 AM
Neither party should block up or down votes on nominees.

Hopefully they will make a rule change that prevents one party from changing the intent of the approval process from a majority to a super-majority or however many you need to break a fillibuster.

:shrug: That rule has been in effect forever. This isn't a parliamentary democracy. It really wasn't designed for one party to do whatever it wants while completing ignoring the other party. The filibuster rules are part of the process for ensuring that one party doesn't run away with themselves.

I'm sure you'd have a different point of view if the Democrats controlled the WH and both houses of Congress. Funny how the "nuclear option" was never raised back then as a good idea by Republicans.

Cochise
03-03-2005, 11:32 AM
I'm sure you'd have a different point of view if the Democrats controlled the WH and both houses of Congress.

No, I wouldn't and didn't, and I am somewhat insulted that you are sure my opinion would change so quickly.

Contrary to popular belief I don't agree with everything that Republicans do all the time.

Taco John
03-03-2005, 12:10 PM
No, I wouldn't and didn't, and I am somewhat insulted that you are sure my opinion would change so quickly.

Contrary to popular belief I don't agree with everything that Republicans do all the time.


ROFL

Amnorix
03-03-2005, 12:20 PM
No, I wouldn't and didn't, and I am somewhat insulted that you are sure my opinion would change so quickly.

Contrary to popular belief I don't agree with everything that Republicans do all the time.

In that case I apologize to you, but I never heard anyone, anywhere talk about changing the Senate's rules until now. Ever.

Cochise
03-03-2005, 12:28 PM
In that case I apologize to you, but I never heard anyone, anywhere talk about changing the Senate's rules until now. Ever.

I can't think of any instance where I would be in favor of it. It's only supposed to take a majority of support. Perhaps it's the letter of the law but I believe the intent of the law lies elsewhere. It was never supposed to require 60 votes to approve a judge or they would have just written it that way, right? What am I missing?

Cochise
03-03-2005, 12:28 PM
ROFL

SBK
03-03-2005, 12:46 PM
:shrug: That rule has been in effect forever. This isn't a parliamentary democracy. It really wasn't designed for one party to do whatever it wants while completing ignoring the other party. The filibuster rules are part of the process for ensuring that one party doesn't run away with themselves.

I'm sure you'd have a different point of view if the Democrats controlled the WH and both houses of Congress. Funny how the "nuclear option" was never raised back then as a good idea by Republicans.

Actually, a filibuster is set forth in the constitution, but there are specifics for what it can be used for. PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEES ARE NOT ONE OF THOSE ISSUES.

And there has been no filibuster. To do that someone would have to go on the senate floor and talk, and talk, and talk for hours in order to make enough people leave so that no vote can be taken.

Just saying, "we're gonna fillibuster" is bs, but nobody has called them out and forced them to do it yet either.

Amnorix
03-03-2005, 12:47 PM
I can't think of any instance where I would be in favor of it. It's only supposed to take a majority of support. Perhaps it's the letter of the law but I believe the intent of the law lies elsewhere. It was never supposed to require 60 votes to approve a judge or they would have just written it that way, right? What am I missing?

Right, we're talking procedural rules of the Senate, not any "law" or the Constitution.

Of course, the Constitution requires that the President select judges with the "advice adn consent" of the Senate. There hasn't been any "advice" in centuries for whatever that matters.

Amnorix
03-03-2005, 12:48 PM
Actually, a filibuster is set forth in the constitution, but there are specifics for what it can be used for. PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEES ARE NOT ONE OF THOSE ISSUES.

And there has been no filibuster. To do that someone would have to go on the senate floor and talk, and talk, and talk for hours in order to make enough people leave so that no vote can be taken.

Just saying, "we're gonna fillibuster" is bs, but nobody has called them out and forced them to do it yet either.
With all due respect, you have no idea what you're talking about. And I don't have time to educate you. Do a Google search for "history of filibuster" or something... Read about cloture rules.

SBK
03-03-2005, 01:14 PM
With all due respect, you have no idea what you're talking about. And I don't have time to educate you. Do a Google search for "history of filibuster" or something... Read about cloture rules.

I do know what Im talking about. Show me where it says it's ok to filibuster presidential nominees. Show me that there has even been a filibuster lately, not just the threat of one.....

Amnorix
03-03-2005, 01:21 PM
I do know what Im talking about. Show me where it says it's ok to filibuster presidential nominees. Show me that there has even been a filibuster lately, not just the threat of one.....

The Senate is not full of idiots. If the other side is threatening filibuster, they count noses. If they don't have the votes to break it they don't bring it to the floor.

And the Senate's procedural rules permit filibustering and cloture. I'm not going to read through them all to prove it to you. Kindly do that on your time, not mine.

SBK
03-03-2005, 01:29 PM
The Senate is not full of idiots. If the other side is threatening filibuster, they count noses. If they don't have the votes to break it they don't bring it to the floor.

And the Senate's procedural rules permit filibustering and cloture. I'm not going to read through them all to prove it to you. Kindly do that on your time, not mine.

If you would re-read my previous post, I said there has been no filibuster, because nobody has called their threat.

Read the filibuster rules, because there are rules set forth on what can be filibustered, and presidential nominees are not one of those items.

mlyonsd
03-03-2005, 01:52 PM
Well I'm glad the Democrats found some way to be relevent until the mid-term elections. I wonder how many other dusty rules they'll unleash.

Amnorix
03-03-2005, 01:57 PM
If you would re-read my previous post, I said there has been no filibuster, because nobody has called their threat.

Read the filibuster rules, because there are rules set forth on what can be filibustered, and presidential nominees are not one of those items.

*sigh* Then why are the Republicans looking to change the rule?

SBK
03-03-2005, 02:18 PM
*sigh* Then why are the Republicans looking to change the rule?

*backhanded slap* ROFL

It's a rule that's been changed before, and they only want it changed for judicial nominees. I don't know how I feel about it personally, cause it might work for em now, but it might bite em in the butt later.

I do feel that all nominees deserve at least a vote, whoever is president, whoever nominates em, whoever is in power, and whoever the nominee is deserve a vote.

Amnorix
03-03-2005, 03:29 PM
*backhanded slap* ROFL

It's a rule that's been changed before, and they only want it changed for judicial nominees. I don't know how I feel about it personally, cause it might work for em now, but it might bite em in the butt later.

I do feel that all nominees deserve at least a vote, whoever is president, whoever nominates em, whoever is in power, and whoever the nominee is deserve a vote.

That doesn't answer my question. if you are right and the rule doesn't apply to judicial nominees, why do they need to change the rule?

go bowe
03-03-2005, 04:09 PM
Actually, a filibuster is set forth in the constitution, but there are specifics for what it can be used for. PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEES ARE NOT ONE OF THOSE ISSUES.
. . .filibuster is set forth in the constitution?

article and section or amendment number please...

i'd like to read that...

Amnorix
03-03-2005, 04:16 PM
filibuster is set forth in the constitution?

article and section or amendment number please...

i'd like to read that...

Yeah, no kidding. One of many issues iwth his posts that I haven't bothered to get into detail on. He's in that "knows enough to be dangerous" zone, I think. :) :p

patteeu
03-03-2005, 05:36 PM
Funny how the "nuclear option" was never raised back then as a good idea by Republicans.

Did the Republicans ever block judicial appointments via the filibuster? I was under the impression that they hadn't. I am aware of the fact that the Republican majority in the Senat blocked votes on Clinton judicial nominees, but I don't know of a case where a minority blocked such a vote. The reason this is relevant is because the so-called "nuclear option" was not available to the Democrat minority in response to the obstruction tactics of the Republicans during the Clinton years. Had it been, who can say what would have happened.

patteeu
03-03-2005, 05:51 PM
Actually, a filibuster is set forth in the constitution, but there are specifics for what it can be used for. PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEES ARE NOT ONE OF THOSE ISSUES.

I don't believe any kind of filibuster is set forth in the constitution. If you can direct me to it, I'll hit you with my rep stick.

My understanding is that the constitution says that the Senate can make their own rules and that the filibuster is created under that power. For the first hundred years or so, debate could not be ended via a cloture vote so as long as a Senator could keep talking he could hold up legislation. It was rarely used, but at the end of that period it's use began to increase. In the early 20th century (1912, I think), the Senate voted to change their rules in response to what was seen as a growing abuse of this obstruction tool. They implemented the cloture rule that allows a block of 60 Senators to force an end to debate.

Before the cloture rule, a very small group of Senators could hold up legislation indefinitely by tag teaming. After the cloture rule, the requirement for maintaining a filibuster jumped to 41 Senators. That's a pretty drastic change and that applied to ALL legislation.

patteeu
03-03-2005, 05:55 PM
That doesn't answer my question. if you are right and the rule doesn't apply to judicial nominees, why do they need to change the rule?

I could be way off on this, but my understanding is that the Republicans are technically taking the position that they can use a parlimentary procedure to rule that the filibuster has never actually been applicable to judicial nominees rather than that they can change an established rule.

Amnorix
03-03-2005, 08:56 PM
Did the Republicans ever block judicial appointments via the filibuster? I was under the impression that they hadn't. I am aware of the fact that the Republican majority in the Senat blocked votes on Clinton judicial nominees, but I don't know of a case where a minority blocked such a vote. The reason this is relevant is because the so-called "nuclear option" was not available to the Democrat minority in response to the obstruction tactics of the Republicans during the Clinton years. Had it been, who can say what would have happened.

Dunno. The only opportunity over the last X years (X being a very large number) would've been during the first two years of Clinton's first term.

Practically speaking, there's little difference to the majority of the Senate refusing to bring a nominee to the floor for a vote versus a threatened filibuster. Either way, the nominee isn't getting a chance on the floor of the Senate.

Amnorix
03-03-2005, 08:59 PM
I don't believe any kind of filibuster is set forth in the constitution. If you can direct me to it, I'll hit you with my rep stick.

My understanding is that the constitution says that the Senate can make their own rules and that the filibuster is created under that power. For the first hundred years or so, debate could not be ended via a cloture vote so as long as a Senator could keep talking he could hold up legislation. It was rarely used, but at the end of that period it's use began to increase. In the early 20th century (1912, I think), the Senate voted to change their rules in response to what was seen as a growing abuse of this obstruction tool. They implemented the cloture rule that allows a block of 60 Senators to force an end to debate.

Before the cloture rule, a very small group of Senators could hold up legislation indefinitely by tag teaming. After the cloture rule, the requirement for maintaining a filibuster jumped to 41 Senators. That's a pretty drastic change and that applied to ALL legislation.

My understanding of the history is in agreement, except I dunno about that 1912 thing. Remember that Strom filibustered a civil rights act in the 60s for a little over 24 hours (the record).

The rest i agree with. The argument some make is that the Constitution DOES include supermajority provisions for some things (overriding a veto) so you could say that as a matter of interpretation, supermajorities are EXCLUDED for everything else.

But, as you say, the Constitution also provides that each chamber of Congress can establish its own procedural rules.

Amnorix
03-03-2005, 09:00 PM
I could be way off on this, but my understanding is that the Republicans are technically taking the position that they can use a parlimentary procedure to rule that the filibuster has never actually been applicable to judicial nominees rather than that they can change an established rule.

And I could be way off too, but my understanding is that they're going to revise the procedural rules to explicitly state that it only takes a simple majority to cloture an attempt to filibuster a judicial nominee.

SBK
03-04-2005, 09:46 AM
I don't believe any kind of filibuster is set forth in the constitution. If you can direct me to it, I'll hit you with my rep stick.

My understanding is that the constitution says that the Senate can make their own rules and that the filibuster is created under that power. For the first hundred years or so, debate could not be ended via a cloture vote so as long as a Senator could keep talking he could hold up legislation. It was rarely used, but at the end of that period it's use began to increase. In the early 20th century (1912, I think), the Senate voted to change their rules in response to what was seen as a growing abuse of this obstruction tool. They implemented the cloture rule that allows a block of 60 Senators to force an end to debate.

Before the cloture rule, a very small group of Senators could hold up legislation indefinitely by tag teaming. After the cloture rule, the requirement for maintaining a filibuster jumped to 41 Senators. That's a pretty drastic change and that applied to ALL legislation.

I can't find it in the constitution, but Im not reading over it either. A google search brought up this.

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Filibuster_Cloture.htm

SBK
03-04-2005, 09:48 AM
And I could be way off too, but my understanding is that they're going to revise the procedural rules to explicitly state that it only takes a simple majority to cloture an attempt to filibuster a judicial nominee.

Personally, I think this is the way to go. I think it's bs what's going on, with a minority in the Senate keeping these folks from getting a vote. And yes, I'd say that if it were the right doing this to the left.

If you don't want em in, bring it to a vote and vote no. :thumb:

RINGLEADER
03-04-2005, 10:11 AM
If Gannon broke the law then put the dude in jail. If someone from the admin helped him break the law then put that dude in jail. But can someone explain how the House Democrats can force anything to happen?

Michael Michigan
03-04-2005, 10:21 AM
If Gannon broke the law then put the dude in jail. If someone from the admin helped him break the law then put that dude in jail. But can someone explain how the House Democrats can force anything to happen?

Win more elections?

;)

go bowe
03-04-2005, 04:45 PM
. . .can someone explain how the House Democrats can force anything to happen?well, it depends on the meaning of "anything"...

if you mean empty procedural votes in committees, then yes, apparently, they can force "anything" (something) to happen...

if you mean anything meaningful, in the slightest, then the answer would appear to be no they can't...

occasional obstructionism is about all that's left to congessional democrats, i'm sad to say...