Really? Isn't answering such things valid under LAW, and isn't upholding the LAW part of his 'Constitutional duties'?The White House on Friday all but refused to turn over the documents House Republicans have subpoenaed on bankrupt solar firm Solyndra, firing off a letter saying the request would put an "unreasonable burden on the president's ability to meet his constitutional duties."
The feisty response appears to set up a clash between congressional investigators and the White House over the sprawling probe into Solyndra's finances and the administration's involvement in the decision to provide the struggling company a $528 million loan with taxpayer money.
Read more: White House Fires Back At 'Overbroad' Subpoena On Solyndra Documents | Fox News
We're on the road to impeachment. IMHO that izzzz.
I see a stonewall.
answering legitimate subpoenas is required. one can always move to quash a subpoena that overreaches or is illegal or improper.
you see nothing different than EVERY president does. you would have defended the last one to the nth degree for the same thing. how 'bout you wait for the court to act before you all shrieking meemies lose your minds, mmmmkay?
What, pray tell, is overreaching, illegal or improper about Congress' subpoena for documents relating to Solyndra? What is your rationale for this Administration to not release documents that show how that "deal" took place? Barack Obama made transparency a major campaign plank of his when he ran for office...so where is that transparency now? With all due respect, Jillian...this is pretty indefensible.