You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: Politix
WH Rejects Solyndra Subpoena
2011-11-05
President Obama's attorney sent a letter to Congressional investigators on Friday, saying the White House would not cooperate with a subpoena requesting documents related to its doling out a $535 million loan guarantee to now bankrupt solar panel manufacturer Solyndra.

"I can only conclude that your decision to issue a subpoena, authorized by a party-line vote, was driven more by partisan politics than a legitimate effort to conduct a responsible investigation," Obama's counsel, Kathryn Ruemmler, wrote in a letter to the top Republicans on the House Energy and Commerce committee. (Read Ruemmler's full letter here).

Committee chairman Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich, blasted the White House response:

“We have been reasonable every step of the way in this investigation, and it is a shame that the Obama Administration and House Democrats continue to put up partisan roadblocks to hide the truth from taxpayers. Solyndra was a jobs program gone bad, and we must learn the lessons of Solyndra as we work to turn our economy around and put folks back to work. Our judicious and methodical work over the last eight months has garnered tens of thousands of pages of documents from DOE and OMB that have proven we are on the right track. Now, we need to know the White House’s role in the Solyndra debacle in order to learn the full truth about why taxpayers now find themselves a half billion dollars in the hole. The White House could have avoided the need for subpoena authorizations if they had simply chosen to cooperate. That would have been the route we preferred, and frankly, it would have been better for the White House to get the information out now, rather than continue to drag this out. Our request for documents is reasonable - we are not demanding the President’s blackberry messages as we are respectful of Executive Privilege. What is the West Wing trying to hide? We owe it to American taxpayers to find out.”
Posted by:Beavis

#7  A subpoena is a subpoena. If compliance was optional, it would be called something else.

Unreal.
Posted by: RandomJD   2011-11-05 23:37  

#6  Zero Scandal BOBS
Posted by: Bright Pebbles   2011-11-05 18:29  

#5  So much for the foundation of democracy and freedom; the rule of law bites the dust. The fifth column (aka MSM) will not even let forth a whisper.
Posted by: AlanC   2011-11-05 16:02  

#4  if it's a valid subpoena, they don't get to refuse it. Contempt of Court will be found, then Contempt of Congress. People go to jail for that stuff, unless OZero issues blanket pardons. Most Transparent* administration evah!

*not the way they meant
Posted by: Frank G   2011-11-05 15:33  

#3  Can he do that? Nope, no more than you or I can. But the difference here is that he will have several thousand dedicated reporters, commentators, columnists and assorted pundits assuring us that were he to do so, the Republic itself would be doomed, and therefore we should concern ourselves more with the misadventures of the Kardashian family.

Mike

M
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski   2011-11-05 15:19  

#2  Seconded.
Posted by: g(r)omgoru   2011-11-05 13:21  

#1  I not a lawyer so I don't know. But I want to know: Can he do that, legally?
Posted by: Abu Uluque   2011-11-05 13:10  

00:00