Interesting WH legal arguments for ignoring a subpoena

[hypocritexposer]

from a friend on another discussion group......

They can be ignored if there was a party line vote. (Using this reasoning, any subpoena can be ignored if your own party votes against it. Essentially, no democrat will ever be subpoenad again.)

If all documents related to the company (Solyndra) involved, it's a "fishing expedition." (A fishing expedition would be to request documents for companies other than Solyndra.)

Documents include news clips. (Interesting ploy. Expand the definition of documents to include things such as news clips, which would be unreasonable if they were available elsewhere.)

There isn't any need to produce more documents because they ones they already produced didn't reveal anything illegitimate. (This argument is great. Just turn over anything that isn't incriminating and claim there isn't any need to look at what's being hidden.)[/color] bluelaugh:

 

[Steve]

so asking for any and all correspondence relating to solyndra is to broad,... so the white house admin suggest they look at what the White House has directed them to look at in the investigation...

:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :secret: :secret: :secret: :gag: :gag:

in Obama's world, Congress is only allowed to fish in puddle..

 

[Mike]

"intrusive request"? :lol: :lol: :lol:

How dare they intrude by asking for documentation about what might have happened to the peoples money!!