~> There was a note on the news the other day that her hubby had refused
~> to respond to a subpoena.  He's lucky I'm not the judge that issued it,
~> if I were I'd issue a bench warrant for his arrest, haul his sorry *ss into
~> my courtroom, in cuffs and leg restraints if necessary, cite him for
criminal
~> contempt of court and put him in the state pen for a year to think about it.
 
~> I'd do the same thing for anybody else that refused a subpoena I issued.
~> Don't much care who they are.  You just don't tell the courts to get bent.

There was no subpoena issued by any judge.  According to Time, there were
thirteen witnesses who were supposed to show up, and zero were there.  No
one on the committee showed up either, until one person came in 20 minutes
late.  It was the friend of the fired guy, and the one who is running the
investigation.

On the other hand, could you jog my memory here for a minute?  Twelve years
ago, Hillary Clinton's legal billing records were subpoenaed with an actual
that had the force of law behind it (as opposed to a legislative subpoena,
that is only enforceable by the threat of a contempt of legislature
action).  Were you expressing similar outrage in fidonet back then?  How
about the records that disappeared from storage?  How about the cashier's
check between the Clintons and the McDougals that turned up in a junked
car?  Were you burning up the keyboard with outrage back then?  If Palin or
anyone else were to try to stiff a criminal investigation, I would agree
with you as to what should be done.  But I am not so sure that YOU agree
with you all the time.

 
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5a