Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Conyers welcomes administration's negotiation offer

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 (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-08-08 06:09 PM
Original message
Conyers welcomes administration's negotiation offer
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/conyers-welcomes-administrations-negotiation-offer-2008-08-08.html

Conyers welcomes administration's negotiation offer
By Susan Crabtree
Posted: 08/08/08 06:23 PM


Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) Friday welcomed a new White House entreaty to resume negotiations over the testimony of several senior administration officials before the Judiciary Committee on the firings of nine U.S. attorneys last year.

But, he argued, a federal judge should not grant the White House’s request to stay a ruling last week that would require White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten and former White House counsel Harriet Miers to testify about what role, if any, they played in the Justice Department firings.

"I am glad that {White House counsel Fred} Fielding has agreed to my suggestion of attempting to resolve this matter by negotiations, and we will, of course, set up a meeting with his staff for next week. I look forward to meeting with Mr. Fielding directly as well,” Conyers said in a written statement. “At the same time, given the lateness in the Congress, I do not believe a stay of Judge Bates' order is necessary or appropriate."

Fielding wrote Conyers Friday informing him of Bolten’s and Miers’ decision to appeal last week’s ruling and request a stay.

snip//

Negotiations with Democrats in Congress over the testimony of Miers and other top aides broke down more than a year ago when Democrats refused a White House offer to allow testimony only in private with no oath and no transcript.

Conyers and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) rejected that offer and issued subpoenas.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
onethatcares Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-08-08 06:13 PM
Response to Original message
1. how do you negotiate with these people? You don't,
what happens is, they take your best intentions, ram them up your ass, publicize it and walk away winning. It's been over a year and what did we get from mr conyers? mr reid? ms pelosi? Negotiations with rove are probably coming up next, but of course, it'll have to wait til after the elections, wouldn't want the voters getting thier panties in a wad now, would we?

The great experiment is over.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Epiphany4z Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-08-08 06:17 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. I am so
tired of this crap..they have played this game so long every time there is a small breakthrough in right direction..i just roll my eyes now...I just do not believe we will ever get anything from these criminals.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ichingcarpenter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-08-08 06:17 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. They were held in contempt in February..
Sorry, Conyers as this government said

They don't negotiate with terrorists and that includes themselves
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
billyoc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-08-08 06:56 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. Oh, negotiating is easy, you let them come in all together, in secret, not under oath,
with no transcripts. :grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onethatcares Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-08-08 06:22 PM
Response to Original message
4. does anyone remember how they negotiated with President Clinton?
Edited on Fri Aug-08-08 07:06 PM by onethatcares
and how he stonewalled the investigation, didn't talk to anyone without a lawyer present and without being under oath? :sarcasm: I forgot to add that, my bad.
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 Wed May 08th 2024, 06:54 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) 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