BREAKING: JUDICIARY COMMITTEE FILES CONTEMPT OF CONGRESS REPORT WITH HOUSE CLERK

[BradBlog]

Source: BRAD BLOG


BREAKING: JUDICIARY COMMITTEE FILES CONTEMPT OF CONGRESS REPORT WITH HOUSE CLERK
'For Refusal of WH Attorney Miers and Chief of Staff Bolten to Comply With Duly Issued Subpeonas'


Just in from the House Judiciary Committee...

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: November 5, 2007

***Update: House Judiciary Committee Files Contempt of Congress Report with House Clerk***

(Washington, DC)- Today, at approximately 2:45 p.m., the House Judiciary Committee filed its contempt of Congress report with the Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives. The full text is available online here.

Read more: http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5247

[knight_of_the_star]

1. Holy sweet Gods they did it!

Now to see what happens when the Sergeant at Arms goes to enforce it.

[D23MIURG23]

46. He doesn't. The DOJ has to enforce it.

Check the story.

:mad:

[knight_of_the_star]

48. Damnit

Thought for a second it would be inherent contempt, damn!

[tiptoe]

108. a 'test of the waters' at the DoJ --

probably "Inherent Contempt" to follow, if Justice reneges on its duties.

All is a prelude to impeachment...accumulation of the charges

All is 2008 election timing.

[niceypoo]

51. Somebody finally grew a pair...

...now lets see if this is all for show, or someone finally decided they have been used as a doormat long enough. If they keep pressing this I predict that congress' poll numbers will start to rise....thats what happens when you finally decide to give in to the 75% who oppose king halfwit.

[Skittles]

63. male body parts are not required for courage

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[jamesinca]

69. they meant a pair of breast!

[Yukari Yakumo]

81. Oppai Power!! {nt}

uguu

[file83]

92. So desu ne...

;)

[CoffeeCat]

73. Never underestimate the power of...

...the ovary!

[Occulus]

86. Breasts, balls, ovaries, vertebra, or neurons

We definitely need someone to grow a pair of something.

I don't much care what.

[Skittles]

94. we just need someone to DO THEIR FUCKING JOBS

they should not have to GROW ANYTHING

[gort]

114. How about Gonads?

that's covers both genders.

I wish that Congress will find the "gonads" to stand up to the Bush Regime and do the inherent contempt thingy.

[Quantess]

91. ....

[MsMagnificent]

88. Seeing that it's criminal rather than inherent contempt

it appears 'the pair' has been reduced to monorchidism,

and that one is still ascended. :argh:



Still, it's better than nothing.


Let's just hope Pelosi, Reid, Rahm et. al. don't force John Conyers to give a tearful, self-abasing apology to King George and Darth-Emperor Cheney.

On second thought -- I'd like to see them try... :rofl:

[Exultant Democracy]

125. oh no the idiom police are gonna get you.

[defendandprotect]

58. misplaced

[downindixie]

66. Pelosi-geeez!

No help from her.She is part of the problem.Stop thinking about the next election and do your duty to this country!

[Toots]

109. It has to be voted on by all members first and then it gets sent to the Just Us Dept.

The head of the Just Us Dept then makes a decision whether he will enforce the charge which IMO is a no-brainer. It will not be enforced during the remainder of this Administration

[jordi_fanclub]

2. It's about TIME to grow some BALLS! n/t

[Skittles]

95. see #63

please stop with the sexist crap

[ClintonTyree]

96. You're kidding, right?

People are actually that upset about a figure of speech? :eyes: There are far worse things to worry about in this world than using a benign figure of speech and labeling it "sexist".

[Skittles]

97. that figure of speech is f***ing insulting

can't you, as a so-called Democrat, think of another "expression" that doesn't imply male body parts are required for courage? What is so f***ing hard about that? And guess what - I can worry about more than one g.d. thing at a time.

[ClintonTyree]

98. So sorry....

that I insulted your delicate sensibilities. In the future I shall try to sufficiently neuter myself and my speech....and refrain from using such heinous words as "balls" or "huevos" that obviously hold the power to alter the course of human events. :sarcasm:

Give me a break. :eyes:

[Skittles]

99. it's not DELICATE

it's f***ing human DIGNITY - GIVE ME A BREAK. WHY do you feel the need to insult women by implying TESTICLES are required for courage. WHY???

[ClintonTyree]

102. Why must you use the term "fu*king" in every sentence?

Surely there are other more decent and descriptive words available to describe your feelings? :shrug: I suppose the irony in your rants is wasted though, isn't it? :eyes:

I'm through with this asinine argument. You WILL NOT censor my speech or thoughts so get off of your high horse and rejoin reality.

[Skittles]

103. I'm not insulting an entire gender in my cussing

YOU ARE

and that's IT - I am DONE

[SIMPLYB1980]

111. Someone say BALLS!!!

[King Coal]

124. NUTS!

[EnviroBat]

110. Baaaaaaallllllllssssss!

Big ones.

[dpbrown]

3. IMPEACH THE WHACKTARDS ALREADY!

How much more illegality do you need to see?

[fooj]

59. Not enough time...

Isn't that the biggest crock of shit you've ever heard?

[Bluzmann57]

4. Well, it sounds good anyway

We'll see if anything actually happens though. I hate being so skeptical, but given the track record of the current Congress...

[Counciltucky]

32. It's a start, at least.

Let's hope they follow through -- we need to hold these people accountable while we still can.

[quiet.american]

5. Huh? -- I thought there had to be some kind of vote on this! But - yea! n/t

[Lasher]

33. There does have to be a vote.

Committee files the recommendation they agreed upon, the full House votes on whether to approve it.

[quiet.american]

115. Thanks. n/t

[God23]

6. Wow....862 pages!

http://judiciary.house.gov/Media/PDFS/Contempt-Report071105.pdf

That'll take some time to read.

<snip>

On March 21, 2007, the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative
Law authorized Chairman Conyers to issue subpoenas
to J. Scott Jennings, Special Assistant to the President, Office of
Political Affairs; William Kelley, Deputy White House Counsel;
Harriet Miers, former White House Counsel; Karl Rove, Deputy
Chief of Staff and Senior Advisor to the President; Joshua Bolten,
White House Chief of Staff; and Fred Fielding, White House Counsel,
to obtain testimony and documents.17 Both before and after
March 21, letters were exchanged between the Committee and the
White House to seek to resolve voluntarily the Committee’s requests
for information from the White House, but those efforts
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:36 Nov 05, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\REPORTS\CONTEMPT\HJUDRPT.000 HJUD1 PsN: HJUDRPT
5
18 Letter from John Conyers, Jr., Chairman, H. Comm. on the Judiciary, and Linda Sa´nchez,
Chair, Subcomm. on Commercial and Admin. Law, to Fred Fielding, Counsel to the President
(Mar. 9, 2007); Letter from John Conyers, Jr., Chairman, H. Comm. on the Judiciary, and Linda
Sa´nchez, Chair, Subcomm. on Commercial and Admin. Law, to Fred Fielding, Counsel to the
President (Mar. 22, 2007); Letter from John Conyers, Jr., Chairman, H. Comm. on the Judiciary,
and Patrick Leahy, Chairman, S. Comm. on the Judiciary, to Fred Fielding, Counsel to the
President (Mar. 28, 2007); and Letter from John Conyers, Jr., Chairman, H. Comm. on the Judiciary,
and Linda Sa´nchez, Chair, Subcomm. on Commercial and Admin. Law, to Fred Fielding,
Counsel to the President (May 21, 2007). All of these letters are on file with the House Committee
on the Judiciary.
19 Letter from Fred Fielding, Counsel to the President, to John Conyers, Jr., Chairman, H.
Comm. on the Judiciary, and Patrick Leahy, Chairman, S. Comm. on the Judiciary (June 28,
2007) (on file with the H. Comm. on the Judiciary).
20 Letter from John Conyers, Jr., Chairman, H. Comm. on the Judiciary, and Patrick Leahy,
Chairman, S. Comm. on the Judiciary, to Fred Fielding, Counsel to the President (June 29,
2007) (on file with the H. Comm. on the Judiciary).
21 Letter from Fred Fielding, Counsel to the President, to John Conyers, Jr., Chairman, H.
Comm. on the Judiciary, and Patrick Leahy, Chairman, S. Comm. on the Judiciary (July 9,
2007) (on file with the H. Comm. on the Judiciary).
22 Letter from Fred Fielding, Counsel to the President, to George Manning, Attorney for Harriet
Miers (July 9, 2007), quoted in and enclosed with Letter from George Manning to John Conyers,
Jr., Chairman, H. Comm. on the Judiciary, and Lamar Smith, Ranking Member, H. Comm.
on the Judiciary (July 9, 2007) (on file with the H. Comm. on the Judiciary). Mr. Manning’s
July 9 letter also enclosed a June 28 letter from Mr. Fielding indicating that documents in Ms.
Miers’ possession should not be produced.
were not successful. Committee letters (some of which were sent by
Chairman Conyers and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman
Leahy) included letters of March 9, March 22, March 28, and May
21, 2007.18
On June 13, 2007, Chairman Conyers and Senate Judiciary Committee
Chairman Patrick Leahy issued subpoenas to Joshua
Bolten, White House Chief of Staff, or appropriate custodian, for
relevant White House documents. The subpoenas were returnable
on June 28, 2007. On June 13, the Chairmen also issued subpoenas
to two former White House staffers: White House Counsel Harriet
Miers was subpoenaed by Chairman Conyers for testimony and to
produce documents before the Subcommittee on July 12, 2007, and
White House Political Director Sara Taylor was subpoenaed by
Chairman Leahy for testimony and to produce documents before
the Senate Judiciary Committee on July 11, 2007.
On June 28, 2007, White House Counsel Fred Fielding wrote
that the White House would refuse to produce any documents pursuant
to the subpoena issued to Mr. Bolten based on executive
privilege.19 Chairman Conyers and Chairman Leahy requested that
the White House provide a privilege log to set forth the factual and
legal basis for any claims of privilege as to each document being
withheld, as well as a signed statement by the President asserting
any privilege by July 9, 2007.20 In a letter dated July 9, 2007, Mr.
Fielding declined.21

<snip>

[The Backlash Cometh]

26. Well, now we know what took so long.

[NBachers]

90. Go Linda Sanchez!

I knew I did the right thing sending contributions to Linda Sanchez, even though I'm not in her district. PLUS, she sent me one of her Christmas Cards!

[Lone_Star_Dem]

7. Don't get too excited just yet

The move does not mean the House will ever vote on the contempt citation, but it gives Democratic leaders the option to bring the resolution up if and when they decide to vote on it. Conyers planned to file the citation with the House clerk Monday at 2 p.m.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/conyers-sets-ultimatum-on-documents-testimony-2007-11-05.html

[lynnertic]

101. also they get to ask the new atty general nominee about it at confirmation hearings

he-he.

[AndyA]

8. It will be interesting to see what - if anything - comes of this.

Does anyone know what the next step is? Does the Sergeant At Arms automatically get dispatched now, to search the alleys and dank recesses of Washington for these two crooks?

By now, Harriet and Josh are likely set up in their new estates in Paraguay, just down the street from the Bush Estate.

[tekisui]

9. KKKarl's in there too.

[rateyes]

11. Right now, it's a "show horse" not a

"work horse" resolution. This isn't INHERENT contempt. That means, even if it's passed, that the House will send it to a prosecutor "owned" by the Bush administration. The Congress has the power to hold "inherent contempt" proceedings. But, they won't do that, because that requires political courage.

[ramapo]

14. Sadly, you are 100% correct

It has taken months to get to this meaningless show. I'd be surprised if it is voted upon and passed. And so what if it is?

Congress is a bunch of gutless wimps all working to protect the status quo.

[Lasher]

34. Pelosi will apologize on behalf of everyone who has ever considered themselves a Democrat

Senator Feinstein will offer Junior a Monica if he will only buy her breakfast again.

[sofa king]

71. I think that ignoring this resolution will set up inherent contempt.

I don't even need to look it up to know that the Bush Administration will ignore this resolution--the DC AG's office can pick it up whenever it wants, passed or not, but it won't.

That means that just about in the doldrums of July, 2008, Congress will be able to haul Bolten, Myers and Rove before a special hearing, and the Press will drop their 24-hour coverage of the latest flesh-eating shark infection to cover it.

About one in ten American voters will remember that Harriet Myers was once nominated for the Supreme Court, and those voters will say to themselves, "Goddamn, I was sitting on the fence about this next election, but now I know that the Republicans actually nominated a criminal to the Supreme Court. But Fred Thompson was so authoritative in The Hunt For Red October, so I'm sure he won't simply continue that criminal cabal for another four years."

[jhain]

107. way to burst my bubble

I was eally looking forward to the flesh-eating shark thing.
Damn.

[annabanana]

45. sigh, no.. that would be "Inherent Contempt"

(Which is what I would have preferred, since it doesn't require the Executive Branch for enforcement.)

[femrap]

10. K and R

this is great news...we have to act.

[Megahurtz]

12. We shall see...n/t

[Warpy]

13. It's about time they stopped dragging their overpaid feet

stuffed into those expensive Italian shoes. Heaven knows we pay them enough to get the scuff marks buffed out in the lobby.

Now if they'll only rediscover "inherent contempt," they might actually start to earn those paychecks.

[orleans]

15. YES! (it's about time!) can we arrest these assholes NOW?? n/t

[alcibiades_mystery]

16. Nothing will happen, as usual

Symbolic victory though! Let's hear it for all the symbolic victories!

[datadiva]

17. Oh Happy Day!

Been waiting too too long. Finally someone's taking some action. Drip, drip, drip. :bounce: :toast: :woohoo: :applause:

[rurallib]

18. This may get the troops out of Iraq

They'll be brought home to attack congress.

[sss1977]

19. thank you!

"Most likely, in about 2 days the Democrats will withdraw the contempt charges and apologize to Miers and Bolton."

Haha, I like how this was added to the post on bradblog. How disappointingly likely to be true.

[loudsue]

37. Boy, isn't that the truth? Apology will be forthcoming....

AAAAACCCCKKKKKK!

[man4allcats]

47. "Most likely, ... Democrats will withdraw the contempt charges..."

Yes, I agree it is sad but likely true. See the following at Raw Story:

snip...

In a Monday letter to White House Counsel Fred Fielding, Conyers wrote that he would be officially filing submitting the contempt report, a move which would allow the full House to later vote on the measure, but would stop the contempt process there if the White House would agree to a final compromise offer. *

“I have written to you on eight previous occasions attempting to reach agreement on this matter,” Conyers says in the letter. “As we submit the Committee’s contempt report to the full House, I am writing one more time to seek to resolve this issue on a cooperative basis.”

snip...

In order to prevent further action on the contempt measure, Conyers is requesting that the White House provide communications documents pertaining to the firings, including internal White House materials, and asking that White House staffers be allowed to conduct private interviews -- albeit not under oath -- with the House Judiciary Committee.

“I hope you will consider this offer in earnest and based upon the good faith with which it is delivered,” Conyers writes, going on to give Fielding a Nov. 9 deadline.

* All emphasis is mine. - ayd

- edited for spelling -

[OnyxCollie]

85. Conyers wants to conduct interviews not under oath.

Why bother? Does he believe they won't lie to him? Can they be charged with perjury if they are not sworn in?

[man4allcats]

93. I am not an attorney, but

I believe (others more knowledgeable please correct me if I'm wrong) that they can fabricate, without fear of perjury, any tall tale they like as long as they're not under oath.

[PhilipDC]

117. Re: I am not an attorney, but

It wouldn't be perjury, but they can be charged with lying to Congress even if they are not under oath.

[PufPuf23]

121. albeit not under oath

What is the point if not under oath?
This always floors me when I see this.
Government should be transparent and the truth not "truthiness" a requirement. Sheessh.

[shadowknows69]

20. a report? hopefully that's congress talk for a warrant for their arrest

[SharonRB]

21. OMG -- they finally did it!

When I see Conyers this weekend I think I'll plant a big, fat kiss on his cheek!!!!!!!

[EstimatedProphet]

22. Big deal

They still are all traitors for not filing the contempt charge soon enough. They waited too long. now Bush will get away with everything because it's all already over. Had they started by filing a contempt charge before they asked for the documents, there may have been a chance at getting something done.

[Independent_Liberal]

23. Excellent!

Thanks for posting this. And don't listen to the naysayers. This is the step in the right direction.

[truthisfreedom]

24. B-b-b-b-b-but... We're at WAR, ladies and gentlemen!!! WAR!!!

(even though it was an illegal invasion justified by doctored intelligence created by scaring the pants off weak-minded individuals at the cia, etc, etc...)

Ahem, I say again, WE ARE AT WAR! THIS WILL NOT STAND!

umm... a little help, karl?

[liberal N proud]

25. FINALLY!

Now if only they don't chicken out.
They need to see this thing comes to a quick and decisive end.

[McCamy Taylor]

27. Looks like Leahy emboldened Conyers

The only two people in Congress who get anything done.

[Judi Lynn]

100. Hey! Waxman!

[sasquatch]

28. What're the odds that the pink tutu's will back down?

3-1
:shrug:

[drm604]

29. Don't get too excited.

From the same Bradblog page:

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5247

UPDATE: The report filed is for criminal contempt, versus inherent contempt. The former relies on any contempt citation being picked up by the U.S. Attorney from D.C. The latter, is a rarely used option available to either house of Congress to hold their own hearings in the Capitol, where the Sergeant-at-Arms could be instructed to then jail those found guilty of such contempt. Unlike criminal contempt, inherent contempt would not rely on the DoJ's agreement to pursue the charges. Bush attorneys have already made clear that they would not allow attorneys in the Justice Dept. to do so.

Let's hope that this was just a formality and that they will now proceed to inherent contempt.

[AikidoSoul]

42. That makes sense. Give them

the option to respond properly first.

[pnorman]

54. I'll go with this (guarded) optimism.

n/t

pnorman

[bonito]

70. I'll K&R on that as well! n/t

[0007]

87. Dana Perino gives her two for a nickle and one for a dime BS

But White House Press Secretary Dana Perino told reporters that an effort to bring a contempt citation to a vote was "futile."

"I'm just amazed that the Democrats actually think they've accomplished so much on behalf of the American people that they can now waste time again on another diversion," she said. "I don't know if they'll actually have a vote on the House floor or not. If they do, I guess we'll just take it from there. But it's been very clear that this is a futile attempt on their part, because they know that it won't go anywhere."

[humbled_opinion]

30. Whoop Dee Dooo... there ny cynasism meter is pegged... n/t

[Sam Ervin jret]

31. Alleluia! Someone sees the light! Now can they turn it into a super nova large enough to find all

CRAP this administration has been hiding.B-) B-)

[RufusTFirefly]

35. I'm sure something will come of this ...

[BornagainDUer]

36. WOW!! This is different! It is criminal vs. inherent contempt.

the latter will allow the Congress to bypass the DOJ and put the fuckers away should the former (criminal contempt) not succeed. Congress can always then impose inherent contempt later.

If they do those found guilty will sing or swing!!

Any guesses on which?

:woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo:

[rockybelt]

123. Inherent

What we have here is inherent evil.:nuke:

[Patsy Stone]

38. WHEEEEEEEEEEE!

That's great news! K&R

[Stinky The Clown]

39. Will they actually arrest and jail these two sycophants?

[applegrove]

40. About time.

[Gregorian]

41. RIGHT ON!

Autocomplete! It looks like all I can say is RIGHT ON!

Get yer bench warrants! Red hot criminal contempt! Hurry. Hurry. Hurry. Sunday. Sunday. Sunday! :)

What the hell. Have this-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlPmrWqPHnQ

[D23MIURG23]

43. They went for "criminal contempt" which requires DOJ action

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5247

UPDATE: The report filed is for criminal contempt, versus inherent contempt. The former relies on any contempt citation being picked up by the U.S. Attorney from D.C. The latter, is a rarely used option available to either house of Congress to hold their own hearings in the Capitol, where the Sergeant-at-Arms could be instructed to then jail those found guilty of such contempt. Unlike criminal contempt, inherent contempt would not rely on the DoJ's agreement to pursue the charges. Bush attorneys have already made clear that they would not allow attorneys in the Justice Dept. to do so.

In other words don't get excited, this is more symbolic non-binding non-action.

[FreeStateDemocrat]

44. Distraction to compensate for AG sellout backlash.

Political theatre, just a show for entertainment value only, no substance.

[JFN1]

50. Totally

It's just more theater which will amount to NOTHING...

[kster]

56. -

:thumbsup:

[dicknbush]

128. DING DING DING!!!!! GIVE THAT MAN A CIGAR! This is BS and nothing will come of it!

BET ON IT!

[lovuian]

49. Its about time

before the Bush Attorney General is appointed Yes Conyers

[creeksneakers2]

52. The AG nominee shouldn't be allowed to slip away from this

issue before the vote.

[lovuian]

57. yes ask his sorry butt

where he stands and who he would appoint

Great point creeksneakers2

[creeksneakers2]

53. Great news! Thanks for posting this.

I'm wondering if Bush refuses to let the DOJ prosecute if any Democratic presidential candidates would promise to criminally prosecute once they take office. (assuming no pardon from Bush)

Inherent contempt is the least Democrats can do since they've ignored impeachment. It will be upsetting if Democrats fall below this low bar.

[Deny and Shred]

62. The pardon is coming if inherent contempt ever pursued

W has demonstrated he will use every club in the bag if necessary. After his Guiness-book signing statement record, perpetual use of National Security and executive privledge to keep secrets, is there any doubt he'd follow his father's pathetic use of pardons? I'm referring, of course, to Ollie, Casper and the gang who would have implicated 41 if Iran-Contra was allowed to run it's course pardon-free.

[sorrywrongemail]

77. cannot pardon inherent contempt

because it's not an offense "against the United States".

So impeachement, or inherent contempt is good by me :-)

[madrchsod]

55. much to do about something big

but nothing much will be done

[defendandprotect]

60. More time wasted . . . and not even CENSURE for this administration --- !!!!!!

[Gonnuts]

61. Gee, what timing ...

Just when you'd need an AG that would never issue said action we have Mukasey coming up for confirmation.

And people say there's no such thing as conspiracy.

[Divine Discontent]

64. I think it's a step in the right direction

so my hat off to them... these things take time, and I don't like the excuse 'there's not enough time to impeach' baloney. they have to work things out and get it all put together. funny, on page three where I flipped forward to, accidently, it starts out by continuing from the previous page, "president clinton, indicated that she testified four times on matters directly related to her white house duties", and it made me do a double take! I was like, "hillary?", then I went back to the end of page 2.

there's some chomp in this "bite", to see how long they hold onto the bone is yet to be seen.

I hope they leave more than a mark, I hope the dog takes the leg right off...

[nradisic]

65. Let's see what happens

I like the move, but let's see if they back it up....otherwise it will be totally pointless.

[calteacherguy]

67. How big a deal is this, really? Will it be noticed by the MSM? nt

[RoccoR5955]

68. About FREAKIN' TIME!!!!!

I hope they throw the book at them.
Bushco, Inc. deserves no less than investigation, impeachment, and imprisonment.
I will party in the streets when these bastards are behind bars, where they belong.

[DaveT]

72. I think everybody is looking at this back wards.

Inherent contempt has the advantage of not using a Bush appointee for enforcement. But, come on, folks. Bush would just station a platoon of Philadelphia lawyers, federal law enforcement agents and/or Blackwater goons around his people and the Sergeant of Arms would get laughed off the TV set if he tried to get past the palace guard.

We are dealing with hardball players and there is no clever way around the fact that Bush and Cheney just tough out every challenge, without making any serious effort to justify themselves.




I have to admit that I share the general skepticism about whether this Congress will do its duty, but procedurally, this is the right move.

What is at issue is the Separation of Powers. Bush says he does not have to respect a Congressional Subpoena. If the Congress passes a contempt citation and demands compliance, Bush will defy it.

The Constitutional remedy for this defiance is impeachment.

If it plays out this way there is nothing to prove -- the facts will speak for themselves. Bush says he does not have to answer to the Congress. The Congress says it demands answers. A quintessential political question within the framework of Constitutional Law.

If the House cannot muster 218 votes in favor of this proposition that it has the power to investigate Presidential activity, our entire system of Government is kaput.


Unfortunately, I think it is kaput. The spectacle of the Congress legislating against bad puns and rude comments about the most divisive and partisan president in the history of the Republic pretty much demonstrated that.



Assuming for the moment that anybody in the Congress does care about the rule of law, criminal contempt is the better procedural strategy.

But hope springs eternal -- and we need to crank up yet again to tell our Representatives to preserve the Constitution.

[drm604]

89. It's unlikely that the Sergeant at Arms would personally try to make an arrest.

My understanding is that he can order the Capitol Police to do so, or any other law enforcement agency elsewhere in the country if necessary.

[DaveT]

116. "order?"

So he just orders the Secret Service to arrest Karl Rove? I believe that makes my point even better.

This is not a question of the micro-tactics of who can best get the drop on who. This is an institutional conflict, and it will come down to an institutional resolution.

Will the House vote to enforce its right to investigate the Executive Branch? If it does not do so, the Separation of Powers is history. Literally.

[drm604]

120. I didn't say anything about using the Secret Service,

and I also have my doubts about how successful it would be, but you paint a picture of a single man trying to storm the palace. I sincerely doubt that it would happen that way.

[DaveT]

126. The Secret Service line was intended to be ironic

But the substance of the point is very important. Let's say the Sergeant at Arms orders the Washington Metro police to round up all the listed subpoena recipients. At that point, Bush would go on TV to say it is all illegal and unconstitutional, and he orders the Metro police to ignore the Sergeant at Arms. He also orders the secret service and the federal marshalls and whoever else carries a badge for the Federal Government top protect his people.

Same result, right?

[WheelWalker]

74. Someone catch me, please, before I fall into a swoon !!

[mb7588a]

75. Careful about the differences between...

criminal and inherent.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

76. Groovy!

baby!

[valerief]

78. I don't hold out much hope for this to develop into anything. The whores running the country

would never let it.

[CranialRectaLoopbak]

79. Much a-do about nothing

You guys still don't get it. You can't use lawful means to fight an unlawful regime. Even if Congress pretends like they are going to do something, the Repubic-hens will basically say, "make me", and the Dumbocrats will McCave.

Take Pelosi off the table and drown Feinstein's re-election bid.

[radhika]

80. Why not Inherent Contempt?

Seems by working within the Matrix of the DoJ they (Congress) can be sure nothing will come of this. Just a way to create the illusion of push-back. Now if it had been Inherent Contempt, maybe I'd be a little more positive.

[rodeodance]

82. click on IP Brad blog------good explanation

[FogerRox]

83. Criminal is cleaner, inherant has conflict of interest ala Bruce Fein

[drm604]

118. Here's Bruce Fein's "remedy"

Congress could invoke a previously recognized "inherent" contempt power to hold trials and detain individuals found contumacious. But once regular congressional practice has fallen into desuetude since 1934 for good reason: It combines the power to accuse with the power to adjudicate in violation of the Constitution's separation of powers.

The remedy for the president's absolute prosecutorial discretion is for Congress to pass a modified version of the old Independent Counsel Act. It created a special three-judge panel, selected by the chief justice of the United States and empowered to appoint independent counsels operating outside the president's control, for example, shielded from the president's removal power.

http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070724/COMMENTARY02/107240006

I don't think that we want to depend on a three judge panel selected by the current Chief Justice. There's also the difficulty of passing such an act with a veto proof majority.

[still_one]

84. White house has already said it won't go anywhere

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Conyers_to_file_contempt_report_says_1105.html


The question is, will the Democrats accelerate this, or apologize for issuing the subpeona?

[Massachusetts]

104. Now that wasn't so hard, was it?

[Pawel K]

112. Well they did have to write a document over 800 pages long. No wonder it took so long.

[Vinca]

105. The only person who can make a difference in Congress is

LARRY FLYNT! I'm watching and waiting.

[NavyDavy]

106. well can't please everyone all the time apparently.....if they would

have filed criminal contempt some would b***h about that....

I am happy that they are kicking sand in the bully booshs face....

[Pawel K]

113. Who do these contempt charges apply to? nt

[rockybelt]

119. IMMEDIATE

THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: ALL NINE REPUBS AND SCHUMER AND FEINSTEIN VOTED TO CONFIRM MUKASEY.
WE ARE FUCKED!

[redqueen]

122. They bent over backwards to accommodate the foot-dragging thugs.

Time's finally up.

Hallelujah.

[dicknbush]

127. BIG DEAL!!!

They won't really do anything and by the time they do Bush will be walking out of the White House with all his papers packed nicely away so that no one will see them for 100 years. I have no repect for any of these people since they find it OK to approve a man for Ag who has a hard time saying that torture is illegal and against the law. Whoop de Do. THEY WIL DO NOTHING AND BUSH WILL NOT RESPOND. I will believe they are truly doing something when I see marshalls walkin gup to the White house to rrest these people and Bush with them. Until then it is all smoke and mirrors as far as I am concerned. OH WHEN DO THEY VOTE TO GIVE BUSH BILLIONS FOR AN ILLEGAL WAR? Those Dems ar so Tuff aren't they! NOT@!